a whole, as senator hassan pointeded out, there are craft breweries in new hampshire, small businesses who can't get their businesses started because government is shut down. senator klobuchar pointed out that the cost to the economy, according to the president's own advisors is $10 billion a week. now, at a time when the stock market is going up and down, when we have people losing billions of dollars because of fluctuations in the stock market, $10 billion a week contributes to that uncertainty. and then, of course, senator van holland and senator merkley and virtually everybody here talked about the impact on ordinary americans from this government shutdown. well, we're going to hear from president trump in about five minutes, he's going to speak to the country. >> all of our senate coverage is available on-line at our website, c-span.org.

we'll leave this session and go live to today's session of the senate. lawmakers are expected to debate a bill that would provide military aid to israel and put new sanctions on syria. democrats pledged to knock any legislation on the floor that doesn't provide money to reopen the federal government. today is the 19th day of the government shutdown. live to the senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, the might of them that put their trust in you, save us from the fatal folly of relying upon our strength alone. help our lawmakers to remember that you are the only sure refuge,

and you desire to do for us more than we can ask or imagine. give our senators the courage to seek your truth and the humility to walk in the light you provide. may their labors contribute to america's strength and influence in our world, as you use them to lift aloft the light of freedom. as our legislators labor for your glory, may they know that they are part of your ultimate plan for our nation and world.

we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance stott united states of america. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there's a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 47, a bill to provide for the management of the natural resources at the united states -- for the united states and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, last night president trump delivered his first address to the nation from the oval office in the midst of this partial government shutdown, the president offered a reminder of just what's at stake. that is, the security of our nation's southern border. by now, on december -- on day 19 of senate democrats' latest experiment in absentee

negotiation, my colleagues are well versed in the facts on the ground. we know that border patrol agents are encountering historic levels of illicit substances like fenc fentanyl. last year we saw thousands of attempted border crossings by individuals with criminal records and literally hundreds more by known gang members. we understand that the status quo is not enough to keep our families and communities safe. fortunately, we know that the solution is on the table, solutions which the president has placed at the center of the national conversation since the earliest days of his administration or actually -- are actually imminently reasonable. one border patrol chief under president obama put it recently, if you look in the past, you

don't have to go too far back in history. bipartisan legislation passed where they built the wall or fence or physical barrier, whatever you want to call it. it's a wall. it works. that's the border patrol chief under president obama. he went on. it's not based on personal political ideology. it's based on historical data and facts that can be proven. i cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multilayer border security issue. so why are we not listening to the experts and the people who are doing this every day like that border patrol chief under president obama? the experts know what they're talking about. the facts back them up. according to c.b.p. in four border sectors where this administration has already constructed or improved physical

barriers in the last two years, listen to this, illicit traffic has fallen by 90%. 90%. of course, not too long ago, my colleagues across the aisle had a completely different position on this subject. before the political winds blew a different way, before this particular president was inaugurated, senate democrats did heed the advice of the men and women who protect our bord border. by very wide bipartisan margins and on multiple occasions, the senate has cleared literally billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers along the southern border. in 2006, then-senator obama said that the secure fence act would provide, quote, badly needed funding for better fences and better security. that's senator obama in 2006.

in 2009, the current democratic leader praised as major progress, quote, 630 miles of border fence, fence that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration. that's the now majority leader in 2009 -- now minority leader in 2009. during the last presidential election former senator clinton saw fit to tout numerous times she voted to, quote, build a barrier to try and prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. that's hillary clinton. numerous times, significant barrier, badly needed, that was where leading democrats stood. today, however, it seems there's a new party line. the use of physical barriers to preserve the integrity of a sovereign nation is now, according to the new speaker of the house, immoral. immoral. from badly needed to immoral and

little more than the span of a presidency. so, mr. president, talk about a pivot, talk about a pivot. my democratic friends wanted fencing and physical barriers in the recent past. their most prominent leaders actually brag about voting for physical barriers. the only thing that has changed between then and now is the occupant of the white house. steel fencing was fine when president obama was in the white house but is immoral when president trump occupies the office. all of a sudden, all of a sudden democrats have developed this new partisan allergy to the subject of border security. they're even prolonging a partial government shutdown just to avoid getting more of what they themselves have voted for in the past.

so, mr. president, this inconsistency doesn't stop withdraw -- drawing imaginary lines in the sand of border security democrats once supported and virtually identical measures she decided to oppose today. the inconsistency also extended to the conduct of the senate itself during this tantrum. so yesterday evening, democrats blocked the senate from proceeding to important foreign policy legislation. as i was saying, mr. president, yesterday evening the democrats blocked the senate from

proceeding to important foreign policy legislation. the bill which was blocked last night included measures of which they've been outspokenly supportive and even cosponsored. but then they decided that getting anything done at all this week would clash with their new political brand. so to be clear, the legislation i'm referring to would have addressed several serious challenges to u.s. interests in the middle east. it would have reaffirmed our commitment to the security of israel, our closest regional ally. it would have reauthorized defense cooperation with jordan, a critical partner. and it would have taken a vital step toward bringing the perpetrators and enablers of the assad regime's atrocities in syria to justice.

frankly, it would have delivered on promises to which my democratic colleagues appear to be firmly committed. in their own words, senate democrats have discussed, quote, the continuation of america's unshakable seven-decade commitment to israel's security and doing everything in our power to fight the b.d.s. movement. but alas, instead of proceeding to this legislation, senate democrats voted to block it. my friend, the democratic leader, chose to take this partial government shutdown that he is prolonging and add his very own senate shutdown on top of it. they want to shut down the senate as well. no progress, no bipartisan work, not even on urgent and pressing matters.

nothing that might take the spotlight off his unreasonable showdown with the president. back during the 2013 government shutdown, just as an example, mr. president, the senate kept right on chugging through the people's business. we passed five bills, 13 resolutions, appointed conferees on the farm bill. the budget resolution and confirmed 28 of president obama's nominees during the last government shutdown. so the senate was not shut down during the last government shutdown. this time the democrats want to hold everything hostage, everything? more inconsistency. senate democrats were for border security, including billions for physical barriers before they were against it. and they were for the senate working hard during government shutdowns on other business

before they were against it. well look, until our democratic colleagues agree to get back to work, until they agree to get back to work, the senate can't make much progress. rest assured, assad has not pressed the pause button on the syrian civil war simply because it doesn't suit the democratic leader's political strategy this week. israel's enemies haven't stopped either. and until democrats prioritize the public interest ahead of political spite, our border will not be secured and the federal government will remain partially closed. i cannot urge my democratic colleagues more strongly to get past this purely partisan spite.

rediscover their own past positions on border security and negotiate a fair solution with the president to secure our nation and reopen all of the federal government. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last night, president trump tried to convince congress and the american people that there is a crisis at our southern border. it was a little more than a rehash of spurious arguments and misleading statistics that the president has been using for weeks. president trump once again tried to claim there was a crisis at the border. the fact is migrant border

crossings have been declining for nearly two decades. the president inv.a.d -- inveighed against drugs coming over the border, but illegal ports of entry in trucks and on airplanes. the president and his allies have been claiming that nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists have been stopped from entering the u.s. they say that's a reason for the border wall. but nearly every single one of those apprehensions occurred at an airport, not on our southern border. in a recent report, the state department concluded -- this is donald trump's state department -- there is no credible evidence that terrorist groups were trying to enter the u.s. through the southern border. in a report on the president's strategy to combat terrorist travel sent to congress by president trump on december 21, the day the shutdown began, the

national security council appointed by president trump did not even mention a wall or barrier to stop terrorists from entering the country. so the president continues to fearmonger, and he makes up the facts. this is a president, you see -- this is a presidency that's in crisis. it has so many problems. it's the old trick, fearmonger, distort, try to scare people, and maybe they won't pay attention to the really -- real problems in this administration. in no way, however -- the president is not getting his way. his fearmongering just isn't working. in no way did the president's speech last night make a persuasive or even a new case for an exorbitantly expensive border wall, a wall that the president guaranteed would be paid by mexico. he says i ran on this. yeah, he ran on it, saying mexico would pay for it. at his rallies, he chanted who will pay for the wall?

and people screamed back, mexico. the president's speech did nothing, nothing to convince us here in congress, and i believe it did nothing, nothing to convince a skeptical public that this government shutdown is anything but a manufactured crisis of the president's own making. the president's speech, if anything, moved the american people even further away from his view that he should keep the government shut down until he gets his way. reports say that the president didn't want to give this speech. well, he was right. i don't think it helped his cause, and it probably hurt it some. it's time for the president and our republican colleagues to stop this fearmongering, to stop this diversion, away from the problems that the president really has, and end the

shutdown. the shutdown is hurting millions of americans. it's going to get worse, all because of president trump's temper tantrum. we should not, we should not treat hundreds of thousands of americans, millions of americans as leverage to try and get something by pounding the table. that's not how our government works. what's happening? hundreds of thousands of federal workers, innocent federal workers who do their jobs, who work hard, sometimes they get up monday morning with 100 fever, but they go to work because they know their job is important, but they have been furloughed because of what president trump has done. 400,000 continue to work without pay. t.s.a. agents, food safety inspectors, border agents. those hardworking, dedicated public servants are about to miss a paycheck.

last night, many of my colleagues, including senators warner and kaine and king and cardin and casey and van hollen and others, held the floor to give voice to these federal employees who live and work in their states. many of whom are living paycheck to paycheck. president trump's government shutdown, his choosing, he's the only one who did it, is forcing a personal crisis on those public servants and their families. how unfair, how mean-spirited is, how wrong. these families are owed a paycheck, but they're left to wonder how they're going to pay the mortgage or the rent and all of their other bills. they're wondering what will happen to the good credit they have worked so hard to maintain over the years. they are innocent victims of the trump shutdown, the shutdown he said he would cause 25 times, a shutdown he said he would be proud to own. president trump, are you proud

to own a shutdown that's hurting so many innocent people? did you realize that when you caused this? as government agencies remain shut down, american farmers and small businesses can't get the loans they desperately need. tourism suffers, as our national parks go neglected. some families can't get a mortgage to buy a new home. the american people are suffering needlessly because president trump selfishly refuses to retreat from an intransigent, indefensible, and increasingly unpopular position. the democratic house has passed legislation that received support from many of my republican colleagues to reopen the government. in no way does that legislation preclude us from having a debate and hashing out solutions on border security. we've done that before. we can continue to debate,

because indeed democrats, republicans, and the president all want stronger border security. we just sharply disagree about the best way of achieving it. why not open the government while we continue to hash out our differences? i've asked that of president trump. i said, give me one good reason why the shutdown should continue, as we debate our differences on border security, which we all want. he could not give a single reason. we know that he's leveraging mercilessly leveraging millions of americans who are caught in his irresponsible action and who are hurt by it. so let us open the government and continue to hash out our differences. that would be the responsible thing to do, and i believe republican senators, many of them, know that. i urge my friend, leader mcconnell, to act now.

convince the president to accept legislation to reopen the government and let's pass it here on the floor of the senate. the vast majority of the republican caucus has already supported it. what are we waiting for? now, on another matter, this morning it was reported that deputy attorney general rosenstein intends to step down from his post at the justice department if the nominee for attorney general, william barks is confirm -- william barr, is confirmed. it is a reminder of the interests and bias that surround every trump nominee to lead the justice department. acting attorney general whitaker forcefully advocated for defunding and imposing severe limits on the special counsel's investigation, calling it, quote, a mere witch hunt. he has troubling conflicts of interest, not to mention the fact that he appears to have

been involved in fraudulent business dealings before joining the justice department. the nominee to take his place, william barr, is just as fatally conflicted a nominee when it comes to the special counsel. last month we learned that mr. barr sent the justice department an unsolicited memo criticizing the special counsel's investigation. mr. rosenstein's potential departure only heightens the stakes for mr. barr's nomination. from all accounts, mr. rosenstein has been an impartial actor at the head of the special counsel's investigation. now president trump is trying to replace folks like mr. rosenstein with conflicted loyalists like matthew whitaker and william barr. the senate, starting with the judiciary committee, should subject mr. barr's views to the strictest of scrutiny next week and i still believe, after the revelations about mr. barr's unsolicited memo, president

trump ought to withdraw this nomination. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1, which the clerk will report. the clerk: mog motion to proceed to consideration of s. 1, a bill to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions and so forth and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i ask that the quorum call be disposed of. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i think it is important that we have -- just remind ourselves about what it takes to make a law here in washington, d.c. it obviously takes passage of a bill by the house of representatives, passage by the senate, and a presidential signature. obviously we're in the middle of a -- sort of a, i guess you could say, fight right now between the legislative branch which normally would be resolved by the two sides sitting down

and coming to some sort of compromise. that frankly is what's going to be necessary to resolve this current crisis that we're in, mr. president. but the bottom line is that the democrats here in the congress, they have a majority in the house, it will take 60 votes to do anything here in the senate, which means it will take somewhere on the order of ten senate democrats to put a piece of legislation on the president's desk. there has to be a negotiation. there have to be two sides at the table. and the democrats have made it very clear here in the senate and in the house that they have no interest in negotiating with the president. furthermore, they have determined that they're going to shut down all of the rest of the business that is being done here in the senate, simply because they do not want to provide funding for the border wall that has been requested by the president. and so that's the standoff that we are currently in the middle

of. but i would remind our colleagues that as recently as last month my friend, the democrat leader, has said that in order for us to proceed and vote on anything in either chamber, we need to have a piece of legislation that the president has said that he would agree to sign, which again suggests that the way out of this is for the democrats to come to the table and enter into a negotiation with the president about how to fund the border wall, how to deal with the issue of border security, and then to open up the government. that is the way that this ultimately gets resolved. and it seems to me at least, from my observation so far, that there has been no movement, zero movement -- zero movement -- on the part of the democrats when this comes to trying to resolve the current situation. and so i would simply say that i agree with what the democrat leader said as recently as december, and that is in order for either chamber, the house or the senate, to vote on a

compromise piece of legislation, it needs to be a piece of legislation that the president of the united states has said he would sign. each of these elements has to come together. and obviously each is very relevant in this conversation. you cannot have a law without a presidential signature. there are 535 members of congress. there's only one president of the united states. only one person who can sign a bill into law. and so obviously the president is a critical player in this conversation. of course, the democrats, as i said, have the majority in the house of representatives. it takes 60 votes to do anything in the senate. i think we have a majority of senators who would vote today to provide the funding that's necessary to secure our border, the funding that the president has requested. but it's going to take a number of democrats, perhaps as many as seven to ten democrats, in order for us to pass a bill in the senate. and so the democrats are very relevant in this conversation. they're not irrelevant. they have to be at the table. and normally a negotiation

starts with the two sides saying, this is where i am, this is where i am, and phaging figuring out -- and figuring out how do we reach that common ground and structure an agreement that could pass both the house and senate and receive a presidential signature. well, that's not what's happening right now. i think we all know that. i think it's very clear that the democrats are very dug in, have not moved a single inch off of their position from the time that this has -- this whole shutdown started. but i think there's a path forward. i'm hopeful that negotiations, discussions will continue later today at the white house will lead to us a conclusion, to an outcome and result that gets federal embryos back to work to make sure that the government continues to function and run but also addresses a critical and important priority for all of us as policymakers, and that is ensuring that we secure our borders in way to protect the american people. mr. president, i think it should go without saying that border security is a basic national security requirement.

countries have to secure their borders. they need to know who's coming into their country and be able to keep people who shouldn't be entering the country, like criminals and drug traffickers, out. making sure that our borders are secure is one of our most essential responsibilities as members of congress. it's a basic obligation, like making sure that our military is capable of defending our country. border security is always a national security imperative. it is particularly important right now because we have a -- not only a security but a humanitarian crisis at our border. over the past year, illegal border crossing apprehensions have shot up by more than 30%. an average of 60,000 individuals try to cross our southern border illegally each month. this represents a serious security concern. among those trying to cross our southern border are drug dealers, gang members, human

traffickers, and other criminals. but this flood of attempted border crossingings also represents a serious humanitarian concern. individuals attempting thedjourn think to come here are vulnerable to illness and abuse. one out of every three women attempting the journey to the united states is sexually assaulted. a staggering 70% of individuals become victims of violence along the way. and illness and other medical issues are a serious problem. 50 migrants a day are referred for medical care in customs and border protections reserve us could 4 it 300 -- rescues 4,300 people in crisis every day. there is a direct way to stem this. that is to promote legal immigration and discourage people from coming here illegally. how do we discourage people from attempting to come here illegally? i would argue that we enforce our immigration laws and prevent

individuals from illegally crossing our borders. i've mentioned the dangerous individuals who can sneak across our porous borders and the humanitarian crisis that we face. but of course there are even more dangers posed. like the illegal drugs that are pouring into the country. every week in this country, 300 americans die from heroin. 90% of the heroin supply, 90%, mr. president, flows across our southern border. in 2017, opioids were involved in the deaths of almost 50,000 americans. roughly half or more of those deaths involved fentanyl. a lot of that fentanyl is coming across our borders illegally. federal agents have seen a 115% increase in the amount of fentanyl seized between ports of entry. one key part of addressing the

opioid epidemic in our country is shutting down the flow of illegal drugs across our porous borders. mr. president, democrats used to understand the need for border security. in 2009, the democrat leader here in the senate said, and i quote, illegal immigration is wrong. plain and simple. until the american people are convinced that we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress in dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants who are here now and rationalizing our system of illegal immigration. that's plain and simple and unavoidable. end quote. that, mr. president, from the democrat leader here in the senate from 2009. in 2006, the democrat leader and the ramping member of the senate -- ranking member of the senate judiciary committee voted to authorize a fence. they were joined in their vote by then-senator biden, then-senator clinton and then-senator obama. 2013 every senate democrat

supported legislation requiring the completion of a 700-mile fence along our southern border. this legislation would have provided $46 billion for border security and $8 billion specifically for a physical barrier. nearly every senate democrat supported $25 billion in border security funding just last february. and i suspect that more than one democrat still understands that we desperately need to improve security at our borders. but the democrat leadership refuses to play ball. more than two weeks into the shutdown, they are still, still not willing to negotiate a solution that would secure our borders and reopen the government. democrat leaders are willing to ignore the security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border simply because they don't like this president because they're afraid to oppose the far left wing of their party. mr. president, we need to end this partial shutdown and we

need to reopen the government. but the only way for that to happen is for democrats to work with republicans and the president to provide adequate funding for border security. once they negotiate in good faith toward a serious agreement that the president will sign, the senate will immediately, immediately take it up so that we can end the shutdown and take needed steps to bolster security at our borders. mr. president, border security is not some issue that republicans have somehow dreamed up. securing our borders is a national security imperative and both parties have a responsibility to make sure that our nation's borders are protected. so, mr. president, i hope that democrats here in the senate will remember their obligation to our nation's citizens and work with the president to secure our borders and reopen our government. and i would end where i started and that is to say in order for that to happen, mr. president, there has to be an agreement, both sides have to come to the

table. every one of the -- the president, the house, the senate, democrats and republicans are all relevant in this conversation because it takes all to accomplish a legislative result that will reopen our government, get federal employees back to work and at the same time take important step, that are -- steps that are necessary to secure our border. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i just note parenthetically that virtually every republican and every democrat in this body have voted for the bills that would open the government. every single democrat in this body is willing if the republican leader would bring those bills back up, would vote for them and the government would open. so it's -- i hope the republican leader will allow the government

to open. there are a lot of people who need to go back to work and i'll speak about this later today, but i'm thinking when it's going to be 10 and 15 below zero in my home state one point this week, that we have government contractors who would like to get back to work. now, let me speak about a different matter. and this i want to speak about as an individual more than as a senator. my wife marcelle and i as catholics have shared the concern of many, whether catholics or not, with the continued revelation of often gross misconduct on the part of some in the clergy and in the

hierarchy of our church. we've seen this throughout the united states, including in our own state of vermont. i have rarely, rarely spoken about religious issues in my capacity as a senator because i feel one's religion is private, certainly not political. however, i have spoken out about my concern and my dismay with what we've heard and marcelle shares those concerns with me. i mention this because this past sunday at mass at holy trinity parish in the district of columbia, we heard a sermon preached by father benjamin holly, a member of the jesuits, when he finished his sermon,

i'll freely admit i wanted to stand up and applaud him. he spoke about what the church is finally doing in facing up to this. but then he spoke about how he was reacting and how one hopes we might react. but the reaction should be from the pope straight down to every member of the clergy and every member of the layty. except for some sermons preached by marcelle's brother, i don't remember being so touched or affected by a sermon. i had mott net father holly before but after mass i spoke with him. and i asked him if i could have his permission to put his sermon into the congressional record.

he agreed. so, mr. president, i ask consent that the homily by father benjamin holly of january 6, 2019, be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. leag mr. president, i -- mr. leahy: mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: from el paso to brownsville, texas, my state shares a 1,200-mile border with mexico. if you were daring enough to attempt to walk that entire stretch, you'd trek through deserts, across mountains, through cities, and probably end up getting a little wet in the rio grande river. you would meet folks who are proud of the strong bonds our country has with our southern

neighbor. many, of course, have relatives in both countries. you talk to sheriffs, police officers, border patrol agents, all who care deeply about protecting our communities. and undoubtedly you'd end up eating some good text next a-- tex-mex along the way. in my time in the senate i have had the opportunity to meet countless texans who live and work along the southern border and i seek their advice and counsel on what congress ought to do, what the federal government ought to do to protect them and their communities. what they tell me is texans in the nation rely on the billions of dollars of legitimate trade that comes across the ports of entry with mexico but with the growing volume of goods crossing our borders and the persistent staff shortages for the customs and border protection, they want to make sure there are no security gaps that can be exploited by criminals or slow

down the legal movement of goods. that's a concern i share, and i continue to advocate for additional improvements in our ports of entry to protect this vital life line for our economy as well as our security. but just as these communities care deeply about the economic benefits of our shared border, they care deeply, of course, about their own safety and security. they believe that both can peacefully coexist and so do i. during my visits, i've witnessed some of the horrific treatment that migrants receive at the hands of the criminals, including those that smuggle them. the truth is, these criminal organizations that move people and drugs and contraband across our border, they exploit our porous border and care nothing for human life. it's a commodity. it's the way they make money. they care nothing for the people

they hurt. so they ring another dollar out of -- wring another dollar out of someone else's misery on a daily basis and it's a high volume business too, incredibly lucrative. i've seen the stash houses with windows lined with continue foil -- tin foil inside a cesspool that makes you want to gagger lose what you had for lunch. this is where the human smugglers cram large groups of illegal immigrants in unimaginable conditions while awaiting their transit to the interior of the united states. i've seen their logbooks where they record their corrupt transactions, correlating real live human beings with their value in dollars and cents. i've talked to border patrol who have discovered tractor trailers full of people attempting to enter our country, some of whom never complete their journey because they die from exposure or are smothered to death in the

crammed quarters. and at brooks county where the check point of the border patrol is located about 50 miles north of the border, i've seen unmarked graves of the migrants who are trying to cross vast swaths of south texas in the august heat in order so bypass the border patrol check point but who were then left to die by the smugglers. their graves are marked only with identities like skull case or unknown female. border security is not immoral, mr. president, as speaker pelosi has shamefully claimed but refusing to act in the face of evil is immoral. it's clear there's a crisis as it is clear that it's our responsibility to restore safety and security and order. in my wildest dreams, i never would have imagined we would be

debating if we should secure our borders as we apparently are now. that's something we should all agree on. instead, we should be focused on how to secure our borders and how to do it in a smart, responsible way. in my experience and learning from the experts, they tell me it's no one-size-fits-all solution. can you imagine in a 1,200-mile border with just texas and mexico with the -- variety of topography and geography, that one size fits all does not work. what works best in the rio grande valley doesn't necessarily work in an urban environment like el paso. we need to customize solutions that meet the specific need rather than trying to dictate from here in washington thousands of miles away a

solution that solves nothing. we need to look at border security as a combination of three things. physical infrastructure. yes, that includes barriers, walls, fences, vehicle barriers in appropriate locations but it also includes technology, radar, ground sensors, drones, aerost aerostats. this is a layered approach that provides flexibility for the experts on the ground to determine what is best for each sector, what is best for each part of our immense border and implement the changes necessary to achieve desired results. as i said, in many areas the landscape location means physical barriers may not be needed, may not be practical. in earl areas tech -- in rural areas, technology, sensor technology or cameras may be sufficient, but we know we need additional boots on the ground,

too, because it's not enough to put a barrier in place or have a radar or ground sensor in place if you don't have the border patrol to show up and detain people that they discover trying to make their way illegally into the united states or bringing drugs into the united states. so some combination of these three elements i think is always going to be needed, no matter where you are talking about. i'm proud of the work we have done here in the senate, generally speaking, and i know that when we work together, we can do a lot of good, but logic and experience should tell us we shouldn't be the ones deciding how every inch of our southern border is secure. i don't claim to be an expert, although i have gone to school on the topic. i have spent a lot of time talking to those people who are experts and learning from them, and i believe we need to let those experts drive the decision-making process on the right combination of resources needed to achieve operational

control of the border. unfortunately, our democratic colleagues' refusal to invest in real border security has landed us in a partial government shutdown, resulting in 800,000 federal workers who on friday won't get a paycheck. that's unnecessary, and they are unfortunately collateral damage to a political game which we should not be playing. i know many of these 800,000 federal workers are already anxious about how they will make a car payment or how they'll pay their mortgage or their rent or how they'll put food on the table. it's completely unnecessary, this shutdown. i'm afraid this debate on border security, of course, is not really a debate about border security at all. it's a way for congressional democrats to take a stand against a president they oppose, while putting border communities at risk and sending the men and women who protect them to work without pay.

this battle has gone on too long, and i can only hope that speaker pelosi and minority leader schumer so some leadership rather than continue to take the low road. this shouldn't be about wanting a partisan fight. it should be about protecting our citizens and stemming the tide of illegal immigration, drugs, and contraband entering our country. if there was ever a time, now is the time for common sense to prevail and end this senseless shutdown. mr. president, on another matter, i want to share a few words about an american hero i had the pleasure to get to know, mr. richard arvin overton. richard's story began more than a century ago on may 11, 1906, in bastrop county, texas. throughout his young life, richard held a variety of jobs -- landscaping, picking

cotton, working at a furniture store, and building homes. in 1940, richard enlisted in the united states army and he began his military service at fort sam houston in san antonio. serving with the 1887th engineer aviation battalion, an all-black unit, one of his first stops was pearl harbor the day after what we now know is the west lock disaster. in an interview in 2016, richard recalled that day, seeing the water turn red from the blood of his brothers, saying i didn't look the same but i got out all right. this was only the first stop in richard's tour which later led him to the pacific theater. his service included stops in guam, palu, and iwo jima where he witnessed firsthand some of the darkest days in our country's modern history. when the war ended, richard returned to texas and built a

home on hamilton avenue. he originally reentered the furniture business and then began working for the state treasury department. at the sprite age of 85, richard overton decided to retire. in 2013, the 107-year-old richard overton made his first trip to washington, d.c., with an more than flight. he was able to witness the memorial built to honor his service and his comrades who died in battle, a sight that brought him to tears. while his military service alone deserves our praise, that's not the only thing that brought richard national attention. his comments about the keys to his longevity and his long life, in particular his daily routine made richard an internet sensation. his penchant for enjoying coffee with whiskey and 12 cigars a day won hearts and caused all of us to question the secret to his

long life. richard also enjoyed a bowl of ice cream every night, always butter peck an. he -- butter pecan. he called this the overton diet and welcomed anyone interested to give it a shot. richard used his newfound fame to continue life as he always had but with more fans eager to stop by and say hello while he was sitting on the front porch. he continued to live in the same house he built after the war, although the street name has now been changed to carry his name, richard overton avenue. i first met richard in 2013, and i remember the day my wife and i, sandy, met him at his home in austin. i was taken aback to learn he had just gotten through mowing his lawn that morning. 107 years old and still mowing his lawn. sadly, on december 27, 2018, the story of this american hero came to an end. at the ripe old age of 112

years, richard passed away, leaving a host of cousins and extended family members. yesterday, i introduced a resolution with my colleague, senator cruz, to honor this great man and his military service and his enduring legacy. our government's lost a true patriot. our state has lost a legend, and our community has lost a dear friend. mr. president, i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the new year begins. it brings with it new challenges, new opportunities, and new faces to the 116th congress. i want to welcome the nine freshman senators --or blackburn of tennessee, mike braun of indiana, senator cramer of north dakota, josh hawley of missouri, martha mcsally of arizona, mitt romney of utah, jacky rosen of nevada, rick scott of florida, and kyrsten sinema from

arizona. their talent, their hard work brought them all here. and now we have an expanded senate republican majority, a majority to build on the progress that we made in the 115th congress. albeit we're still short of the 60 votes needed to pass most pieces of legislation, we have a group of people committed to the values of our party and our country and working together to find solutions for the nation. mr. president, during the swearing in last week, as i was sworn in to the senate, my 96-year-old mother joined us. she attended, enjoyed it, and watches the opening every day for the pledge of allegiance and for the prayer from reverend black and looks to that as a sign of our nation moving forward. from the time i was a little boy, she would always say this

is the most important year of your life. she started when i was very young. i think her lesson remains today, for me and for all of us. this is the most important year of our lives, for ourselves, for our nation, for the world. she would say what you do this year makes a big difference for the future, so make sure you do it right. we're now at a point of divided government. democrats controlling the house, the republicans the senate, and we need to work together and do it right on behalf of the american people. i think we have some immediate tasks. one is to secure the southern border. the other is to fund the government. these goals aren't mutually exclusively. we can and we must do both. the key to breaking the current impasse is for both parties to work together. president trump, i believe, is absolutely right to insist on border wall funding. i think he's right to insist on it before agreeing to sign

spending legislation to end the shutdown. he spoke passionately and i thought convincingly about it last evening. if the southern border were a patient -- and i practiced medicine for 24 years in wyoming. if the southern border were a patient admitted to the hospital, it would be listed in critical condition. all americans want to help the immigration system that secures the border, that enforces the law, and that keeps families together. the problem, of course, is the rise in illegal entrance -- terrorists, drug smugglers, human traffickers, the mexican drug cartel, all exploiting our porous border with mexico. the customs and border protection commissioner has called the situation, quote, border security and humanitarian crisis. that's what we're dealing with, a border security and humanitarian crisis. so here are the numbers from the department of homeland security. currently, 16,000 border patrol agents and 800,000 military

troops guard the southern border. the national guard has been deployed there continuously since 2006. still, illegal border crossings increased dramatically from 2017 to 2018. in this past year, the year just ended, 396,000 people were stopped at the border, including 3,700 suspected terrorists, 800 gang members. of the border's 1,950 miles, a physical barrier today protects about 650 miles. border patrol areas with enhanced or expanded barriers have been successful. they have seen a 90% decrease in illegal traffic. that's why the president wants to proceed with additional barriers, physical barriers to protect the border. well, there is a huge improvement due to the wall. clearly walls work, barriers work.

so i ask why is nancy pelosi, the house speaker, prolonging the shutdown by denying critical funding? well, she has called the wall immoral. i would say what's immoral is refusing to provide for the safety and the security of the american people by providing border security. border security policy making has always been bipartisan, but not now, it seems. the pelosi plan to end the partial shutdown isn't serious policy. it's political posturing. as i say, partial government shutdown because 75% of the government continues to be funded. the speaker's proposal includes billions in wasteful spending while ignoring the crisis at the border. the president has promised to veto what she is proposing, but instead of negotiating, the speaker is basically play-acting. mr. president, what's needed is an agreement, an agreement between the president, the democratic leaders in the house and the senate that can pass the

house, secure at least 60 votes in the senate, and then be signed into law. as president trump said in a january 4 letter to congress, a nation that fails to control its borders cannot fulfill its basic obligations to its citizens -- physical safety, economic safety, essential public services, and the uniform protection of our laws. mr. president, we cannot afford to play politics with the border. i think that we should listen to the advice that my mother continues to give me that this is the most important year of your life. it's important for this body, for this institution, and for this nation. let's start 2019 and do it in the right way by passing commonsense legislation that does secure the border, that does reopen the government, and that protects the american people. let's work together to make this the most important year, the start of a better future for all americans. mr. president, i yield the floor

and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. murphy: i ask that it p dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you. i want to share with the body my very short new year's eve wish list. it is very short because one, two, three, four, five, and six are all the same. we need to open the government. we need to reopen the one-quarter of the federal government that is shut down today. we need to is that right acting like adults. we need to start doing the job that we were sent here to do because our nation's security sat stake. kids' health is at stake. families' economic security is at stake. hundreds of thousands of federal workers all across the country

are furloughed as we speak, including over 1,000 in connecticut. but that's not the extent of the damage. when you start having folks at airport security not be able to show up for their jobs because they have to work somewhere else in order to put food on the table, when you start creating questions about whether food stamps are going to go out or section 8 vamps -- section 8 vouchers are going to get paid, when you can't have the department of agriculture help our farmers, you're starting to affect the whole lot of people, you're starting to drag down the entire economy. so my hope, my wish is that we will reopen the federal government. the fact of the matter is, this happens every now and again. occasionally somebody makes a demand, something they can't get through the normal political process, they demand that they're going to shut down the federal government. every time i get through one of these, it is the party making

the demand that eventually relents because we tend to all agree that that's not the way, that's not the proper way in order to try to get what you want in the united states government. senator cruz and others shut down the government for two weeks because they wanted to repeal the affordable care act. eventually they relented. this time it is president trump who couldn't get congress to approve $5 billion for his wall in the budget, so he decided to shut down the government. this is not how we should conduct the debate about legitimate public policy issues, right? the future of the health care system was a legitimate public policy issue, as is the security of our borders. but we shouldn't be having the discussion amidst a government shutdown, trying to use our nation's security and all of these federal workers and the work that they do as hostages to try to achieve a political result. and of course we all were on the same page just a few weeks ago. this body voted unanimously to

open the federal government. and now senator mcconnell says that that piece of legislation that all of us voted for in december can't pass. well, what changed? what changed in each one of your states that causes so many members of this body to now say that they cannot vote for a continuing resolution that you all voted for back in december ? well, we know what's changed. the only thing that has changed is that the president has decided that he won't sign t but that's not how the constitution works. right? the constitution doesn't make the united states senate subservient to the senate. the united states constitution certainly doesn't make the president's party subservient to him. no one here has to follow the orders of president trump, especially when he is doing something that is bad pour the nation. we could bring up that same bill that reopens the government, at least temporarily, we could all vote the same way that we did

back in december, we could send that bill to the house of representatives and admit that the president shouldn't dictate our votes, just because his position changed doesn't mean that the senate republicans' position should change. let's reopen the government so that then we can have a discussion about the issue of immigration law and border security. because i'm more than willing to have t i didn't exactly tell the truth. i do have two other wishes beyond reopening the government, but they are exactlied to my primary -- but they're connected to my primary issue with. my other wish is that the president would stop making up things as he proceeds through this debate. the worst of his lies was the idea that there were 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that came across our southern border. that was a number proffered by the press secretary at the white house and repeated in various ways, shapes, appeared forms by the president's allies.

-- and forms by the president's allies. we now know there have not been 4,000 suspected terrorists that have come across the southern border. thrust been six since the beginning -- there have been six begins the beginning of this year. you know how many people who fit that description came across the northern border in the first six months of this year? 41. 41. so if you really care about the security of this country, if your primary reason for getting up every morning is to make sure that terrorists don't get into this country, then we should shall putting up a wall with canada, not a wall with mexico. the second fiction is that all of these drugs coming into the united states are crossing the u.s.-mexico border at places where there isn't a wall. that's not true either. the vast majority of illegal products that come into this country come through ports of entry. now, we should all talk about why that is and what we can do

to beef up protections, but putting up a wall along the treacherous portions of the rio grande are not going to stop smugglers who right now can find lots of other ways to get their goods into the united states. so i want to make sure that when we have this debate we are having a fact-based debate. and my second wish in this new year is that the president and his allies would just start telling the truth, would just start telling the truth, and the truth is that there is not a new security crisis at the southern border. right? illegal crossings have been coming down since 2000. the terrorists -- the people that are on the terrorist watch list that occasionally do try to come into this country, they predominantly trying to get in through canada, not through mexico. and so i want to talk about facts. here is my last -- my last wish, and again one, two, three, four, and five are reopen the

government. but if i had six and seven, it would be that the president start talking about the real facts and the other would be this. let's -- let's not get into this very dangerous conversation about trying to do an end-around on the political process with a national emergency. and i guess i'm talking to my republican colleagues here. i get it that i haven't often have some of the sharpest words for this president. but i hope that we can come together on the idea that declaring a national emergency because you can't get what you want through the political process is a really bad precedent to set. it is true there are a whole bunch of national emergencies that have been declared. but none of the circumstances of those national emergencies, none of the powers that were utilized in those national emergencies compare to what the president is reportedly considering.

if the president is really talking about declaring a national emergency on our border, despite the fact that there's no set of facts that suggests what's happening on our border is fundamentally different today than what was happening a year ago or ten years ago, if the president is really contemplating by executive order reprogramming billions of dollars that this congress set aside for military construction projects to a border wall, that is a pandora's box which once opened cannot be shut again. that is a genie escaping out of a bottle that will not be put back. i said in just last night that if president trump can use a national emergency declaration to build a border wall, what would stop a democratic president from declaring a

health care emergency and passing a -- and declaring a national emergency to create a single-payer health care system in this country? i wouldn't advise a democratic president do that, but i'm not sure what the precedent would be if president trump, having not been able to get congress and the american public to get behind a border wall with mexico that nobody really wants, declares a national emergency and building it anyway. what would then stop any future president from doing the same thing on a host of other policy areas? really, what would stop a president from declaring a health care national emergency, because he or she can't get their legislation passed through the united states senate, and reordering our insurance markets, our medicare, and our medicaid program to cure that national emergency? simply shifting money around from place to place.

i don't think that this is an avenue that the federal government should go down. because there will be a democratic president someday, and if you can just declare a national emergency and move billions of dollars around because you can't get your way in congress, that is a horse, once out of the barn, that's not coming back. so that's my wish list. open the government, open the government, open the government. pass the bills that we passed back in december. don't let the president dictate your votes. let your constituents dictate your votes. i hope the president and the white house start telling the truth about what's really happening with border security. and i hope this nonsense about declaring a national emergency goes away. and i hope it goes away in part because republicans in this body

recognize the really dangerous precedent that that sets for this country, and they recommend publicly and privately to the president that he shutter that idea. we could reopen the government today. if senator mcconnell came down here and decided to put a continuing resolution before this body, said that it's the right thing to do for the country, it would pass with flying colors. if senator mcconnell exercised that kind of leadership that he has shown in previous shutdowns it would pass with flying colors. we all know it 00. i'm sure there would be a handful of republicans that maybe just got elected with president trump's support who might not support it, but it would pass, just like it passed three weeks ago, and it would look r. likely pass the house of representatives by a veto-proof margin as well, once the signal was given by senate republicans that the adults needed to step up and reopen the government. so this whole crisis can be over tonight.

it can be over tonight if there is some leadership shown by senate republicans. and why spend all this time trying to control this body? why spend millions of dollars trying to run for office to become the majority party in the united states senate if you're not willing to step up at a moment of crisis and lead the country through it? it's still possible, and i hope, as my new year's wish, that itest goes don't know sooner -- that it gets done sooner rather than later. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. ernst: ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: ms. ernst: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. ms. ernst: i wish to vitiate the quorum. i ask that heidi steele, fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the pendency of the 116th congress.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: mr. president, i rise today to speak on u.s. national defense. in the last couple of years we have made tremendous progress in strengthening our military and have effectively realigned our global posture and strategy. under the new national defense strategy, the united states has rightfully recognized the return to great power competition where our priorities have shifted from low-intensity conflict to posturing against peer and near-peer adversaries. over the last 17 years of combat in the middle east, u.s. dominance and deterrence against great power competitors has diminished. meanwhile, nations like china and russia have undertaken extraordinary military

modernization efforts while engaging in unprecedented and destabilizing aggression. we have seen russian intrusions in cyberspace, the illegal annexation of crimea, information attacks on western democratic institutions and the spread of lies, half truths, and slander in order to sow division and chaos between the united states and our partners. these gray zone activities, which are actions below the level that would provoke an armed conflict have gone mainly unchecked by the united states, which has set a troubling precedent and only served to encourage further provocation. from china we see these gray zone techniques manifested in

theman reclamation of the south china sea, the first foreign installation, and the continuing theft of intellectual property and trade secrets in critical security areas. they have also greatly undermined our supply chain through the made in china 2025 initiative which seeks to ensure that the united states and others remain reliant on the chinese industrial base. above all, the u.s. is threatened by russia and china's advanceses in emerging technology. this includes hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, space capabilities, quantum computing, and directed energy. without significant resources and focus, we will lose our

technological superiority in these very areas and both u.s. national security and the global order will be in serious jeopardy. building off of our successes from the last two years congress and the executive branch must remain committed to investing in research development and rapid acquisition and the deployment of capabilities that provide for a deterrence in line with the threats of the 21st century. just as we rose to the challenge in the two world wars, the cold war and following the attacks on september 11, 2001, we must once again evaluate our current posture and chart a course that best protects our national security and our interests. while the national defense strategy correctly prioritizes a return to great power competition, we still have great

national security threats in the low intensity domain, particularly in the middle east and in north africa. the success of our missions in iraq, afghanistan, and syria are important, and in africa -- we can include africa. they can be seen in our ability to prevent extremist groups from projecting attacks into the u.s. homeland through the heroic and dedicated service of our men and women in uniform, we have put unyielding pressure on foreign terrorists, and in turn, we have prevented another massive attack like we saw on 9/11. while we have seen tremendous battlefield success against groups like the islamic state, counterterrorism and stability operations require a sustained commitment of presence and

resources in order to consolidate gains and promote good governance and the rule of law. in the absence of the latter ungovernerned spaces turn into breeding grounds for terror groups. that is why we are in iraq, that is why we are in afghanistan and that is why we should remain in syria. we must do that until our objectives are met. balancing our approach towards both low and high-intensity threats will require us to rely on our allies and our partners more than we have had to rely on them in the past decades as we have a limited supply of resources for our national defense. however, if we are able to leverage the resources of our

friends, we will assume less risk as we move to more resources towards countering great power threats and likewise as we seek to bolster our defense posture towards peer competitors, we will greatly benefit from increased contributions and commitments from our allies and our partners. that means insisting that our treaty allies contribute their fair share to the international security burden and also ensuring that our allies and partners are investing in weapons systems and military platforms that interoperate with ours while effectively deterring our common adversaries. we cannot and should not abandon those who share our values of democracy and freedom, but rather work with them to increase defense contributions and build necessary capabilities

and capacities. unlike russia and china, our network of allies and friends who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us in the defense and freedom of democratic values are a source of great strength as well as an integral part of promoting global security. mr. president, i would be remiss if i did not take this opportunity to once again acknowledge the most des mass transittal -- detrimental adversary of our national defense, and that is poor fiscal policy. as then-secretary mattis stated when he announced the national defense strategy, continuing resolutions and sequestration have hindered our security more than any foe. these wasteful applications of taxpayer dollars prevent long-term planning, stymie research and development, delay

critical procurement and delay necessary training and readiness investments. mr. president, what we do in this chamber has consequences that reverberate far beyond washington. when we fail to do our job, we put our war fighters at higher risk and cripple our strategic posture, ultimately endangering our national security. that is why i have come to the floor today to urge bipartisanship and collaboration amongst both houses of congress on defense spending policy. the political climate of today will assuredly prevent progress in some areas of congress' work, but i encourage my colleagues to set those differences aside when we consider policies and appropriations for our national defense. we have a lot of work ahead in order to protect our security

and interests, but i am confident that we can come together to solve these issues of critical importance. thank you very much, mr. president. i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: as our colleague from iowa just pointed out, these problems not only need to be solved, but they are solvable. at the core of debate we're having right now, it is obviously border security, everybody says they are for border security, but have a different view of what that means. i want to start by saying i fully support the president's call for a more secure border, and frankly i think physical

barriers are part of that. we have thought that for a long time. they work, people who now are opposed to them have generally often been for them. in fact, a generation ago, we began improving and expanding barriers in a few areas along the southern border, and in every instance, they have made a difference. in 1992, the u.s. government built a wall in the san diego sector of the border, the san diego sector of borders and protection. the number of people caught crossing that barrier, that border decreased by 95% when the barrier was erected. now, the border is not exactly like the bank. you don't have to have the level of security that nobody can ever get through at any time under any circumstances, but if you have a solution that solves 95% of the problem, that may be

about all we need to do in terms of solving the problem that way, but that barrier, that wall, that fence south of saberhagen did just exactly that. and so the next year we built a wall in el paso, texas, at that part of the border, and that was a decrease of 95% as well. 2000, we built a wall at the tucson, arizona, sector, and apprehensions there dropped 90%. so we have a 90% solution or a 95% solution, that's reasonable to the american people who think that the job of the federal government -- and they are right in this -- one of the jobs of the federal government is to secure its border. you wouldn't have to look very far in troubled parts of the world to find a story about lebanon and some other count to read that sentence thats the border is not -- this

government is not truly functional because they don't have control over their own borders. it is a reasonable expectation of government. 2000, as i said, we built a wall at tucson. you can call this whatever you want to. if you're offended by when i say wall or fence, you say whatever you want to say. it has -- it has the same impact. i have been to the border a number of times. i have walked along the barriers there. i have been on one side of the fence, two sides of a fence with a patrolled roadway in between, looked pretty effective to me and the numbers indicate it was pretty effective. when we in 2005 added a wall in in -- added a wall in the yuma part of the arizona sector, apprehensions went down another 95%.

so we have got president clinton, president bush, bush 43, bush 41, all were part of thinking barriers worked and the congress was, too. this was not an issue as to whether or not a wall works where a wall works until president trump as a candidate began to talk about building a wall. they make a big difference in the areas where we have tried them in the past. now, the president has often said in recent days that the wall doesn't necessarily work everywhere, and i fully agree with that. the wall -- you couldn't afford the wall everywhere, and if you did have the wall everywhere, you would have to monitor it with some remote monitoring device anyway because there is a lot of the border that there just aren't people there, there is not access there. it doesn't mean you can't monitor that, it doesn't mean you can't have that kind of a

wall erected. and we need to do that. in november, there were nearly 52,000 people that were caught trying to sneak across the border. that's not a very big problem unless you have ever lived in a community of, say, 52,000 people, and then you realize that's a lot of people. in one month alone, they were coming across the southwest border. according to the department of homeland security, nearly 17,000 criminals were apprehended trying to get into the country last year. that's about half of the population of the capital city of missouri. 17,000 people trying to get in with a criminal record just last year. we have seen a 50% increase in gang members being caught trying to come into the country illegally, and a 73% increase in the seizures of fentanyl. one of the things we do in the labor-health and human services area that i work in and appropriate for and work for

opioid -- appropriate opioid response is try to figure how we can get fentanyl out of this system. how can we get something out of the system that is deadly for a significant number of the people that turn to that as they get addicted to pain killers? well, if 73% of the fentanyl seizures, if they are up 73% over where they were the year before, something needs to be done. we clearly need to secure our borders. now, i -- i support the immigration system. i am a proponent of legal immigration. i think how we meet the work force needs of the country, how we deal with the fact that we have people who are here who aren't legal, who have otherwise not gotten in trouble in the country. about half of them came across the border. about half of them came in some other way and just decided this is a pretty doggone good place and i want to stay here, and i'm

afraid to go home because i might not get back, how do we deal with that? how do we deal with this in a way that we have -- that we meet our work force needs, that the skill needs of the country are met? and skill needs can be unskilled people that we don't have people willing to do some unskilled jobs and highly skilled people that we don't have enough people doing their jobs in an economy that's growing faster than the economy has grown in a long time. the economic numbers in some cases are better than they have been in 50 years, and in most cases are better than they have been in at least a decade. now, every part of the border doesn't need to be secured in the same way but the border needs to be secure. our friends on the other side in what has been a pretty impressive show of party unity have just decided that they want to reject the options of how we

secure the border. people who have voted to build and maintain almost 700 miles of border fencing have suddenly decided that another 50 miles or another two miles is immoral. now, talk about select imimmorality, that it's okay to have 700 miles of fence, but it's not okay to have 702 miles of fence, a very interesting place, it seems to me, to draw the line. our friends on the other side have rejected attempts to fix the way we deal with children who are brought across the border or come across on their own. there are 48,000 children right now that the u.s. government is doing their best to take care of, i hope, and want to insist that we do that who came across the border on their own.

another 2,600 or so came across the border with an adult. more often than not that adult was their parent but not always. we have 50,000 children who came across the border and no response to any ideas that the administration brings up, no positive response from the other side as to how to deal with that. they have rejected adding beds at detention centers for people who are caught crossing the border illegally. why would you do that? why would you not want to have additional space for people who are in custody for illegal behavior, i suppose because it just becomes so critically important that people just be released on their own recognizance to come back at a later time. some of our friends on the other side, in fact, are -- have

called for the complete abolition of the u.s. customs and immigration enforcement efforts. at a very time when these are some of the most stressed people working on the behalf of the country for the federal government, we have people on the other side saying we should just eliminate border enforcement. had a bill introduced in this chamber last year that every member of the minority supported. it was essentially when you read it closely -- and i'm not at all sure they all did because i don't believe this is the position they all had. when you read it closely, it was a clear, open borders bill. there was no way anybody was likely to be apprehended crossing the border except just told you know you are here legally, now come back sometime and we'll see if we can figure out what to do. we are for protecting people who are at -- who are uniquely at risk in the country that they come from. asylum is an important thing. no country in the history of the

world has been any more open than we have been to allow people to come here legally, to have people come here who legally seek asylum, but the truth is there is no asylum granted just because you're from a poor country or from a dangerous country. so most of the people that come saying they seek asylum don't get it. maybe that's why most of them don't show up in court because they know they'd rather be here than where they're from but their argument will never work in court for most of them, and that is clearly understood. we are going to have a lot better opportunity to solve the problems we need to solve regarding the border if people have confidence that the government has done a reasonable job of securing that border. i don't think anybody expects the border in a big country like

ours to be so impenetrable that nobody could ever get in under any circumstances. i think they do expect, when you've found the 90% or 95% solution that it appeared up until now to be affordable and widely supported, when you've found the 90% solution, people do expect that at the very least you'd apply the 90% standard to the responsibility of the government to secure its borders. so whether it's trying to figure out what we need in our workforce to have a continued growing and vibrant economy or trying to figure out what do we do about people who came here and decided to stay, whether they came here across the border or in some other way, but stayed beyond the time they were supposed to be here or got here without going through the normal process, those are going to be much easier to come to a conclusion on if people know

that the government has done its job to get the border under an acceptable and anticipated level of security from what we would expect to have from a country as strong and vibrant as ours. and particularly for people who were brought here and grew up here, this is an 80% issue in the congress and in the country. virtually nobody thinks kids who grew up here and didn't get in trouble, in significant trouble shouldn't be allowed to live in the country they grew up in, and frankly, we need them. we need young people entering the workforce. we need people who are in almost all cases highly motivated. i talked to a university president just this week that said these kids are the kids who over and over again set the standard. they are the kids who over and

over again prove why we want them to be in our country. these problems are much more solvable if we'll just deal with the one fundamental problem of controlling our borders, of having immigration laws that work. i hope, madam president, as you mentioned earlier today, that we can get to this conclusion and get to this conclusion quickly. this is obviously a place where we need to come together. not only does the government need to function, but this is just an issue we need to solve. and i guarantee you this issue, all of these related issues will be more easily solved if we secure the border, and no president has ever had the credibility that this president will have if he says to the american people, i have met my commitment. the border is secure. we're now continuing to work to be sure that the court systems work, that we have protected

those people who protect us on the border. there's great credibility here if the president is willing to get to a place that he can say that. and i think his efforts to secure the border are significant steps toward allowing us to solve the other problems that we need to solve and we need to solve sooner rather than later. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: could we vitiate the quorum call? i think there is an adjournment motion coming up. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate sta