time this has taken a turn, i think, for the worst where agencies go and they will have -- it would invoke this idea of ambiguous statute and courts will buy into it and then completely defer to how the agency reads the law. it's really the court's job to say what the law is. second doctrine is commonly called our aeur, robinson-- it was the precedent from the 1940's called seminal rock. this is is doctrine where they defer to the agency's rather than its own regulation. and it's contrary what is learned in cast, ambiguity is construed against the document unless you're a federal agency in court then you get the benefit of the doubt. >> the u.s. senate is meeting to to resume debate whether to bring up a bill dealing with

middle east policy. democrats are blocking that bill until senate republicans degree to bring up a funding bill. this is day 28 over border wall funding. now to live coverage. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, the light of understanding, the nobility of diction, and the faith of the brave, our hope is in your unfailing love and mercy. as trouble surrounds us and problems pile up high, remind our lawmakers of the words of

jesus of nazareth in matthew 12:25 -- every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. lord, give our lawmakers constancy and steadiness of purpose, that they may work for your glory. may they not be unfaithful in their service to you and country or procrastinate in confronting evil. have mercy upon us, o god, and this land we love.

we pray in your awesome name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., january 18, 2019. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john boozman, a senator from the state of arkansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed:chuck grassley, president pro tempore.

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: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 1, a about toil make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions and so forth and for other purposes.

mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. kaine: mr. president, i inquire -- are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are n the senator is recognized. mr. kaine: thank you. i rise today to discuss where we stand as a nation and as a senate on day 28 of the longest shutdown in the history of the united states government -- in the history of the united states government. following my comments, i will offer by u.c. to pull one of the house bills up, and i understand the senator from oklahoma will be here to respond to that. we were not scheduled to be in session today. we were supposed to adjourn yesterday and then reconvene on monday, january 28. but i objected to the adjournment because our government is closed, just as i did last weekend, and so we'll be in today and tomorrow, off sunday and monday in honor of martin luther king jr., and then returning on tuesday, january 22.

i offer a partial apology to my colleagues and to our professional senate staff for any inconvenience they experience because we will be in session during a time where there had been a scheduled recess. i have never objected to the normal weekly adjournment before last week, and i cannot imagine doing so under normal circumstances. but my apology is only partial because the inconvenience experienced by anyone in this chamber -- senate or professional staff -- pales in comparison to the pain that this shutdown inflicts upon workers who are not getting paid, citizens who are not being served, and a nation whose reputation is being damaged. we're made to look like a laughingstock by this needless shutdown. and the enemies of america around the world are enjoying this immensely, just as our allies are deeply worried about

us. despite what some believe and despite the impression that some may draw from recent history in the article i branch, i do not believe the shuttered of the government of the united states is a normal circumstance, and i, for one, will do anything i can to fight against the normalization of the status we find ourselves in today. that's why i'm here today. that's why i will be here tomorrow. that's why i'll be here all next week. if our government is closed, i will be here trying to open it. i'm only one senator, and i lack the power to compel anyone else to be here with me other than the pre-cider. i lack the -- the pre-cider. i lack the power to call up any legislative matter for a vote, save the two house bills which we have agreed may be called up pursuant to the u.c. rules. but i do have the power to talk

every day with my colleagues and the administration officials to encourage the reopening of our government, and i do have the power to stand on the floor and describe the circumstances of my constituents and all americans who are being needlessly heard. -- needlessly hurt. only a few will hear me as i describe their pain. but describe it i will, and the "congressional record" will record for all history their stories. if you want me to share your story in the days to come, as i take the floor, please reach out to my office at kaine.senate.gov where you will see a way to share your shutdown story and i will try to share as many of these as i can in the days to come. today before i offer the u.c., i want to elaborate upon a point i made briefly yesterday about the cardinal aisle -- cardinal i

will logic of the shutdown. and i want to share stories from meeting i had yesterday. the i will logic has at least three levels. president trump does not believe $1.3 billion for border security funding contained in a bipartisan appropriations bill is sufficient. he says i want more. and he's willing to shut down massive sections of the american government to get more. president trump is not only willing to do this, he says he is proud to do this, even for weeks and months, and he invited cameras into a meeting with congressional leaders and told america that he is the sole responsible party for it. the first level of aisle logic to the -- of i will logic to the shutdown is this, most citizens affected by the shutdown have absolutely nothing -- nothing -- to do with the debate over the

right appropriations level for border security. what does the debate about border security have to do with the food stamp program and those who work for it. what does it have to do with the national park service? what does it have to do with the environmental protection agency? with the chemical safety board? with the internal revenue service? with national forests? with mental health services or domestic violence programs funded through department of justice grants? with affordable housing programs administered by h.u.d.? hundreds of thousands of workers and millions much citizens who are served -- of citizens who are served by the affected agencies are being punished, loked out of their jobs, be deprived of their paychecks, deprived of their services because the president believes that if he punishes enough people, even those unconnected with the legitimate issue at hand, he will get what he wants.

this is tyrant behavior, not presidential behavior. the illogic of this form of punishment struck me most vividly yesterday when i moved to reopen these unaffected agencies and leader mcconnell objected to my u.c. request. mr. president, one of the agencies covered by my u.c. request was the executive office of the president of the united states. at the white house many of the president's own chosen staff are furloughed or they're work without pay during the shutdown. so i stood on the floor as a democrat to ask that the president's own staff be allowed to return to work to serve him, to serve the country, and to be paid, but the majority leader, having previously described his motivation as trying to support

the president, stood and objected to the motion that would have returned the president's own staff to work. you can't make this stuff up. the second level of illogic of this shutdown concerns the core of the policy dispute, the appropriations level for border security. the u.c. request that i will offer in a few minutes deals with that part of the dispute that's pending before the body. i will offer in a few minutes the u.c. on the house bill that would reopen for a short term the homeland security agencies that provide security while congress tries to find a bipartisan deal that can pass both houses and earth the president's signature -- and earn the president's signature, and senate republicans again in a few minutes, at the request of president trump, who does not yet want this to happen, will object to that request as well. mr. president, if the issue in

dispute is border security or, as president often says, quote, the safety and security of the american people -- he stays in speeches, he stays this tweets, that's the issue -- then why punish the very people who are providing that safety and security? how does it help promote safety and security to not pay the very border patrol agents charged with protecting the border? how does it promote safety and security to not pay f.b.i. agents, d.e.a. agents, federal prosecutors, a.t.f. agents, and u.s. marshals? how does it promote safety and security to not pay members of the coast guard, who help interdict drugs and also rescue americans endangered at sea? how does it promote safety and security to not pay t.s.a. agents who keep dangerous people

off planes or air traffic controllers who keep air traffic safely coordinated in american skies? the president has proudly taken paychecks away from the very professionals who we ask to guard the safety and security of the american public every day and in doing so he has made our citizens and our country less safe and less secure. the third level of illogic is a consequence of actions that were taken by congress and the president in the last week. and for this, i want to offer thanks to my colleagues. i was able through use of my adjournment objection last week to negotiate a successful vote on a bill guaranteeing back pay to all workers affected by this or any future shutdown. i appreciate the cooperation of all my senate colleagues, the majority leader, the minority leader, and others, and the house in this effort, and i

appreciate that president trump signed the bill in the last few days. but, mr. president, having guaranteed back pay, we're now faced with an unusual question about continuing this shutdown. now that we know that the federal treasury will stroke checks to all affected workers to make them whole, at least for the salary that they have lost, wouldn't we rather, wouldn't we rather have them at work serving their fellow americans rather than locked out of their offices and unable to serve them? what sense does it make to guarantee payment but prohibit them from doing the work for which they are paid? these workers want to go back to work because they want to serve their fellow citizens. and that brings me to the second part of my remarks before i offer the u.c. i had three meetings yesterday with large groups of virginians where i listened to them talk about the shutdown. two of the meetings were actually specifically designed to hear from federal employees

about the shutdown. one was an annual coffee that senator warner and i have for veterans to just celebrate their service to the country and as they were waiting in line and taking pictures, they were talking to us a lot about the shutdown. in these three instances, i heard an awful lot. just as i will share stories next week, let me sum -- summarize a few of the things i heard from those i interacted with yesterday. a mother of a newborn, a 6 month old, who works as an air traffic controller, who can't afford to pay her babysitter. she is working but getting no salary. she started to cry because she said i have to go to work and i can't pay a babysitter, so the only thing i can do is i'm not calling in sick, the only thing i can do is send my baby to my mother's who lives in another state. and she started to cry. my baby is 6 months old. i have never been away from my baby for more than eight hours.

i don't want to be away from my child. and how long is it going to go on? i may be away from my child for weeks. she teared up as she told us about this. the federal employee who said, quote, i have signed up to serve americans but didn't realize that i was being drafted into a political war that i had no interest in being part of, a war in which federal employees are used as hostages. a young married couple, both federal employees, working without pay, holding their newborn tiny baby in their arms and tearing up as they talked about their uncertainty over paying their mortgage and other bills. the furloughed federal employee whose wife is a disabled veteran with ptsd but is postponing her mental health appointments because of her inability to pay co-pays or pay for medications. the two federal employee couple whose 4 and 6-year-old children hearing in the background the news on tv and hearing their

parents' anxious discussions at night came up to them the day after christmas, eve holding their piggy banks and giving them to their parents and saying maybe you guys need these piggy banks now more than we do. the veteran who successfully created an entrepreneurial government contracting business who has hundreds of employees that are out of work because of the shutdown. all of these people express this, their love for public service, their desire to continue public service, and their personal pain at feeling disrespected just because they want to provide public service. a repeated concern expressed by so many of them about the backlog that's on their desk. they think they will be back at some point, but it's really interesting, sitting on my desk was this piece of work that i really wanted to get done, and how much more is going to be

there, and it will be hard to serve people and they will be mad because the backlog is so big. they are having anxiety about not being able to serve people well because the backlog will grow during these now four weeks of the shutdown. and then a deep concern expressed by so many. why would any young person want to go into public service? why would any young person with a heart for public service want to do that as a federal employee? mr. president, before i offer the u.c., i see my colleague from oklahoma is here. i just want to tell one last story. for some reason, of all the ones yesterday, this was the one that really just stuck with me. there were others that might have been more dire, but this one sort of stuck with me because i think it exemplifies a spirit that i see in so many of our federal workers. an employee of the national park service who has been with the park service for about ten years, his job is to physically maintain the space around the white house -- grounds keeping,

trash removal. anything, as he says, he can do to make those grounds around the white house look really fantastic. and he describes why he loves his job. and it wasn't sort of the tasks that he does. he said i want school children visiting washington, d.c. and i want international visitors visiting washington, d.c., when they come to the white house, to be able to look at this and see it and feel impressed with the united states of america. and it makes me feel proud when i see the reaction on people's faces as they are there and from the white house. that's how he described his work. he is furloughed and without pay, so he's home. there are news accounts coming about trash overflowing at national parks and things like that. that kind of causes him angst, obviously.

and he is angry about the situation. he didn't mince any words with me as he described it. but last sunday morning, he got a call and it was, hey, we need you to come shovel snow. we had snow last weekend in d.c. we had a lot of snow. ten inches of snow. you have got to come in and shovel snow. you're not being paid. i know you feel the disrespect of being furloughed, and we're not going to be able to pay you for shoveling snow, but can you come in and shovel snow on a sunday so that at least the walkways are clear in front of the white house? he said, boy, i really had something that i wanted to say on that call. i wanted to say no, but then i thought about this. what if somebody because of the snow, like a kid, falls and breaks their leg or there's an accident or something because the sidewalks aren't clear or there's ice that causes some problem. and he started to think about

the people that he cares about that he wants to be impressed by the white house because he wants them to be impressed by the country, and he said, well, i guess -- i guess i better go shovel the snow. i kid you not, we were having this conversation about 11:45 yesterday morning. some of you have seen that there is a weather report this weekend that's a little bit iffy in d.c. during the middle of his telling me his story, his phone rang. he looked at it, and he said, yeah, that's my boss. i'm not going to answer it. i know why he's calling. i said did you just time this as a stage effect because you knew you were meeting with me right now. did you tell him not to call at 10:30, call at 11:30 instead? he said no, i know what this call is about. they need me this weekend. even though i am being disrespected. even though i know what i want to say, i know i will say yes and that i will come in and make sure that this white house, this

capital, this country looks as beautiful as it can look for these school children and these visitors. i think we have to up our game, mr. president. all of us, i know we can do this. we owe it to our citizens. we owe it to our workers. we owe it to our nation's reputation. and so with that, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 6 s.j. h.j.res. 1. i further ask that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: on behalf of the majority leader, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. kaine: mr. president, i

yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today, along with my colleague senator carper, i am introducing the comprehensive national mercury monitoring act. this bill would ensure that we have accurate, detailed information about the extent of mercury pollution in the united

states. mr. president, the issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. in 2013, the united states was the first country to join and sign the minemata convention on mercury, a global agreement to reduce mercury pollution. the minemata convention has since been signed by more than 125 countries, demonstrating the widespread concern that mercury poses a global threat to human health. at present, however, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical lengthages between mercury emissions and environmental

response and human health. successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require a comprehensive long-term solution. it requires much more information. a system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury, a much more toxic pollutant. mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. it is estimated that approximately 200,000 children born in our country have been exposed to levels of mercury in

the womb that are high enough to impair their neurological development. mercury exposure has gone down as u.s. mercury emissions have declined, and over the last decade coal-fired power plants in the u.s. have reduced their mercury emissions by nearly 90%. but emission levels remain far too high, given how potent a neurotoxin mercury is. a comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard our fisheries, and track the effect of emissions reductions. this tracking is important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries, including a substantial amount

of mercury emissions from china. mercury can be transported around the globe, meaning emissions and releases can affect human health and environment, even in remote locations. this network is -- is particularly important after the environmental protection agency's recent proposal on the mercury and air toxic standard. last month the e.p.a. released a proposal that determined it is no longer, quote, appropriate and necessary, end quote, to regulate mercury and toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired plants. mr. president, i just do not understand why e.p.a. would send that signal.

while the e.p.a. has not proposed to change the current emissions standards on mercury and the toxic air pollutants in this regulation, the e.p.a.'s action has put the standards in legal jeopardy and could block future efforts to strengthen the standard that is so important to protecting human health and our environment. by accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policymakers, the e.p.a.,

scientists, physicians, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in mercury pollution in the united states. we must have more comprehensive information and data. otherwise we risk making misguided policy decisions. specifically, our legislation would direct the e.p.a., in conjunction with the fish and wildlife service, the u.s. geological survey, the national park service, the national oceanic and atmospheric association, and other appropriate federal agencies to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water

and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and at the rest treal organisms across the nation. second, it would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of this monitoring program. third, our bill would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the internet and is comprised of data that are compatible with similar international efforts. the bill would also require a report to congress every two years on the program, including

trends and an assessment of the reduction in mercury rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects, and that report would be required every four years. and, finally, mr. president, the bill authorizes $95 million over three years to carry out the act. mr. president, i'm pleased to report that this legislation, this bipartisan bill, has earned the endorsement of the american lung association, the biodiversity research institute, the environmental health strategy center, the league of conservation voters, and the national -- natural resources defense council. a comprehensive, robust national

monitoring network for mercury would provide the data needed to help make the decisions to protect the people, particularly pregnant women and babies and children, and the environment of maine and the entire united states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i'm here today to talk about the ongoing partial government shutdown. the crisis along the southern border and how we can resolve this matter in a responsible way. we're now on day 28 of the government shutdown. and i'm more discouraged now than i have been during this entire impasse. we're better than this.

we're stuck. 800,000 workers have missed a paycheck, and there is no end in sight. nasa workers in cleveland, t.s.a. employees at our airports across ohio, coast guard officers on lake erie, they have all contacted me, as have others. but the harm being done to these families and these workers isn't the only thing that's happening with the shutdown. i have been through five of these shutdowns since i worked in the white house for the first president bush. i remember in 1990 when we had a weekend shutdown and everybody thought that was dramatic. here we are with the longest shutdown in our history. i don't like government shutdowns. i don't think they're good for taxpayers. we always end up paying more as taxpayers, every shutdown. i don't think anybody likes them, at least not anybody outside the beltway. some in both parties seem to

like to use shutdowns, but they're not good for families who are affected, they're not good for the economy. they cost the taxpayers more. on the economy, we now have a report from the council of economic advisors who tell us this week that the shutdown is going to reduce quarterly economic growth by .13% for every week it lasts. in other words, every week the shutdown continues, the economy is hurt more. we've got a great economy right now. thanks to the tax cuts and the regulatory relief and other things that this congress has done, we've got these record levels of employment. more people employed than ever in our history. we have historically low unemployment. we're bringing people out of the shadows back into work, off the sidelines. there is a lot of positive out there. but this is taking us the wrong way. it's partly the impact on federal employees because their purchasing power is less. we're told that of the

$312 billion for fiscal year 2019 that hasn't been appropriated by this congress -- and that's what the shutdown is. it's about 25% of government is not being funded -- that's hundreds of millions of dollars each workday that's not going out to federal employees, so part of the economic impact is people have less spending power, but part of it is contractors. a lot of the small businesses who are not getting paid, and so it has an impact on the economy in that way. and, again, what happens in the end is that everybody gets paid back, but in the meantime, services are disrupted, it's really an inefficient way to run government, and taxpayers end up spending more, not less. so i'm not big on shutdowns, having lived through five of them. but i have got to say i have never been more frustrated than with this shutdown. and i'm frustrateed for a very simple reason -- the solution is

right before us. the reasons that we're in this shutdown is because both sides are unwilling to sit down and talk. that makes this shutdown particularly stupid, and the issue before us is what to do with regard to border security. where in fact there's a lot of agreement. border security is one where we don't have fundamental r disagreements as we might on, let's say, tax cuts or health care policy. this is about whether we should be securing our southern border, and i think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when pressed will say, yeah, of course we should. when we look at the specifics, we're just not that far apart. so that's what's most frustrating to me about this one is that we can bring people together and achieve a result here. i'm going to talk a little bit today about what that might mean. i have been working with some colleagues, including the presiding officer, on trying to

figure out a way forward. we haven't been successful yet. but there are plenty of folks who want to get to yes in this chamber, and we've got to figure out a way to provide a forum to do that to make it happen. i'm not here on the floor to assign blame, to point fingers. there are plenty of people doing that, and that's easy to do because there's lots of blame to go around. but i am here to talk about how to find that common ground. of course we have to do more to secure our southern border. i consider it a crisis. some of my colleagues say it's not a crisis. some say it is a crisis. forget the words. we have a problem on the southern border. here's some of the data. during october and november of last year, customs and border protection agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally. this is nearly double the number from the same months in 2017.

the most recent data we have, october and november, just a couple months ago, double the number of people apprehended between the ports of entry as we had the year before. and the big increase is families and kids. this is a very tough yiewcial according to the -- issue. according to the department of homeland security there has been a 5 % increase in the -- 51% in the number of families and the 25% increase in the number of unaccompanied children. there's been a 2,000% increase in asylum claims over the last five years. a 2,000% increase in asylum claims in the last five years. the largest growth is is coming from guatamala, el salvador and honduras. while nine out of ten claims are ultimately rejected by the immigration courts, the applicants have long since been released into the interior of the united states. that's a problem.

we should all be working on that. how do we address this problem? there have been constructive ideas on both sides of the aisle as to how to deal with that, but it's a real problem. in fiscal year 2018, customs and border protection referred nearly 50,000 unaccompanied minors, almost all of whom came across our southern border to seek asylum to the department of health and human services for care. i've done a lot of work on the permanent subcommittee on investigations and found out about some of the care these kids have gotten and some of the trauma these kids have gone through. h.h.s. is currently housing more than 11,000 of these children. many have experienced violence and serious trauma on their journey to the united states and need significant help. furthermore, the drug enforcement agency has reported, and i quote, the southwest border remains the primary entry point for heroin into the united states. end quote. there is no disagreement about that. i'm told that 90% of the heroin

that we're experiencing in our communities here comes across the southern border. fentanyl comes primarily from china. we've made some progress there because it comes primarily through the post office from china. we passed legislation to deal with that. fentanyl is the most powerful drug causing most of the overdoses in ohio and around the country. guess what? more and more of that fentanyl is coming across the southern border. last year seizures of fentanyl, a synthetic heroin that is causing all these deaths and overdoses, increased by 135% last year compared to 2017. part of what's happening is it comes from china to mexico and from mexico into the united states, we're told by law enforcement. and then over the last year we've seen the scientists in mexico, evil scientists in mexico cook up in the super labs crystal meth, methamphetamine

methamphetamines, pure crystal meth coming into our communities. just in the last couple weeks i've been at three meetings where i bring together the people on the drug abuse task forces of different parts of our state and i've talked a lot about the opioid crisis where i spent a lot of time and effort. what they tell me is we're making progress on opioids finally. thank god, the first time really in seven years. guess what the new scourge is? crystal meth, more pure than ever, more powerful than ever. so that's coming from where? it's coming from mexico. 135% increase. we've talked about from fentanyl. we've also seen a 38% increase in methamphetamine trafficking across the southern border just from 2017 to 2018. so this drug issue is a big deal as well. we need to do more. by the way, my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle agree with that. they'd like to see more funding immediately for better screening at ports of entry for example because most of these drugs come in through cars and trucks across our border. we've been paying attention to this china issue with fentanyl, what's happening on our southern border continues. with very little interdiction on our part. i met with a customs and border protection commissioner last month in my office. i asked him, how many of these drugs are you intercepting, and he had to acknowledge we don't know, of course, but very few. very few. they need better equipment. they need better technology. they need more people. so i don't think these numbers are sustainable. the number of families, the number of children coming, the number of asylum claims, the number of drugs coming across our border not sustainable for our border patrol, judicial system, education and health

systems, for our communities. and because of all these problems, we need a broad solution at the border. experts tell us that our solutions should include more physical barriers, which the president talks about a lot, but also more border control agents, more it technology, more surveillance, more drones, more cameras, more screening in our ports of entry, more technology to stop this illegal flow of drugs. there was a time when all this wasn't all that controversial. in 2006 congress enacted on a bipartisan basis legislation called the secure fence act. you probably heard about it. it authorized 700 miles of additional fencing or physical barriers along the border. then-senator barack obama voted for the secure fence act. then-senator hirkt voted for -- hirkt voted for the -- hillary clinton voted for the secure fence act and senator schumer

voted for this bill. with overwhelming bipartisan approval. as recently as 2013 all of the senate democrats and two independents voted for a broader immigration reform plan that called for no fewer than 700 miles of border fencing. that measure ultimately failed in the house but let me repeat every single democratic in the senate at the time voted for that bill. the lead sponsor, senator chuck schumer, the minority leader. so asking for additional barriers and fencing along the border is part of a strategy to make it more secure shouldn't be that controversial. is it the only answer? no, it's not. having said all that, when you remove the partisan politics and the political symbolism, i continue to believe we're not that far apart. if you look at the january 6 letter that the trump administration sent to the congress saying please fund these priorities, you'll see that the response to what's happening along our border that

they're proposing is not that far from where we are here in the congress. yes, it asks for more barriers. i would think from hearing, frankly, from both sides, from the administration and from the democrats in congress that it would be a wall across 2,000 miles of the border. it's not. that's not the proposal. the proposal is -- and i'm reading from it -- 234 miles of new barriers and fencing. not 2,000 miles. 234 miles of additional barriers of some kind. as you know, the president has now made clear he's prepared to construct these barriers not as a cement wall but as a fence, what he calls a steel barrier. the white house also made clear in their submission that these barriers would be constructed in a manner consistent with the existing language in the senate

committee-passed bipartisan homeland security appropriations bill. that means the definition of the border barrier that republicans and democrats have long voted for would be the definition used for the construction of these new barriers. so it's $5.7 billion in funding for the construction of additional physical barriers along the southern border consistent with what the experts say we ought to use both in terms of the type of barrier and where the barrier ought to be. again, based on the 2006 law, more than 500 miles of fencing have already been built in california, in arizona, and in new mexico. and based on the data, the actual data, they are making a difference. if you talk to folks in those communities and you talk to customs and border protection, they like having those barriers. at a minimum, it slows people down and keeps vehicles from going across some of that desert landscape. so this is part of a broader strategy. it's primarily used now in california, arizona, and new

mexico. the 2006 law resulted in 105 miles of fencing in arizona, 211 in arizona, 166 miles of fencing in a sector that spans new mexico and texas, though most of this is in new mexico. and in texas, in total there is less than 100 miles of fencing. now this is where the priority is now for the border patrol, is texas. why? because texas is 1,200 miles of the 2,000 mile border and yet they only have 100 miles of barriers. so the new fencing that the administration has requested, as we understand it, is particularly necessary in the most populated parts of the rio grande valley, on the texas-mexico border. by the way, that's where 40% of the crossings occur. so you would think it makes sense to have more barriers there. again, it's not all about barriers. it has to be an all-of-the-above

strategy. the $5.7 billion in barriers, about $4 billion more than the bipartisan senate homeland security appropriations bill, is what they are proposing. so it's about $4 billion more, $4.1 billion, i think to be exact than what's in the bill agreed to on a bipartisan basis. in december democrats proposed $1.3 billion for the same purpose, which is actually a reduction in the amount they initially proposed in november, the month before, of $1.6 billion. but, folks, there's a way to find common ground here, especially if you include with this 234 miles of additional barriers to be determined by the experts as to what kind of barrier and where it goes. if you include with that other immigration policies that many on the other side of the aisle strongly support. and some of us do too. like dealing with daca.

this has been talked about and has become a political football. let's resolve it. these are young people h who came here as children through no fault of their own. their family brought them here as kids. they were minors. they're not responsible for breaking immigration laws, and now they're young people. some of them are working, some are in school, some in the military. they're looking for some certainty. i think congress can provide that as part of an overall package here, i think it makes sense to include something on damn. by the way, a lot -- something n daca. a lot of democrats agree with that. the president has also asked, in addition to looking at daca, that in the context of overall immigration reform, that we would look at this issue of temporary protected status or

t.p.s. this is something that many democrats feel very strongly about. t.p.s. allows the government to provide protection for individuals who come from particularly troubled-stricken countries. there are ten countries on that list and the secretary of homeland security has the analysts to provide harbor of those individuals from those countries sometimes because of a natural disaster, sometimes because of war, sometimes because of violence in those countries. they have to present themselves to ports of entry, begin the application process and go through a legal process to apply. some of these temporary visas that these individuals under t.p.s. currently have are expiring. and again, there are a lot of senators particularly on the other side of the aisle who feel strongly about this. senator kaine has been a champion for these individuals for tens of thousands of them in his state of virginia. senators would like to see immediate relief there. i think that could be part of a mix here. the president has also requested

$675 million to help stop drug smell gelg at ports of entry -- smul gelg at ports of entry, $800 million for human -- humanitarian needs. the homeland security bills include funding for those purposes but the president requiring additional funds to help with the influx, more families, more unaccompanied children. he also requested money for immigration judges and support staff so we can reduce the nearly 800,000 backlog of pending immigration indications. a lot of republicans and democrats have talked about the need for this. this backlog is part of our problem because people are typically in the communities and many of them don't show up for their court cases. part of the problem is the backlog, the amount of time it takes -- months.

that can be reduced. and finally the president has requested an additional $631 million for counter-n.r.a. cot tykes and weapons technology. again, this is one that i feel strongly about. i know a lot of my colleagues do. senator schumer has talked eloquently about it this the past. they need better screening at ports of entry to try to stop some of the drugs from coming in. i believe these are reasonable requests. where there's disagreement, let's have a debate and come to a compromise. but we have to have a real adult conversation for that to occur. the irony for me is that for those of us who support a stronger presence on the southern border, this shutdown is hurting our efforts to secure the border and to make our immigration system work better. first u.s. border patrol agents and customs and border patrol agent officers are continuing to work without pay. we want to increase the march roll of those brave

officers along the border. hard to increase morale when they're working without pay. more than 40,000 immigration hearings have been canceled. think about that. 40,000 immigration hearings have already been canceled, contributing to this backlog that already totals 800,000 cases. e-verify, the government system used to verify the immigration status of workers to determine whether they are illegal or not, to allow employers to reject people who are not legally in this country -- that e-verify system, which is incredibly important because ultimately those jobs are the magnet, right, that's what pulling people across the border more than anything else. that system is shut down because the government is shut down. that part of government. meaning employers across the united states are unable to effectively know who is legal or not. that doesn't help us with regard to the border. for all these reasons, we need

to come together and negotiate a solution. we're not that far apart. last week out of frustration that no progress was being made, my colleague squarery moran of kansas and i introduced a resolution that would establish a $25 billion trust fund over the next five years to enhance border security across the border. all the things we've talked about. it would also codify protections for the daca population we talked about. again, very important to so many in this chamber, particularly on the other side of the aisle. in my view, this is a fair and reasonable solution for all sides, and i believe it could get the necessary votes, if it were brought to the floor. but others have better ideas, i am eight sure. let's hear them. let's have a negotiation on all of these issues. but let's get to a resolution. it's been reported in the media that i have been working with senator graham, senator collins, senator alexander, senator

murkowski, senator gardner and others, along with senator coons, senator kaine, senator cardin, senator manchin and others. this has been in the press. i am not reporting anything today that is not already known. it has been said that we are trying to figure out a way forward, and we are. democrats have insisted that is there can't be a negotiation until the government shutdown is ended. so a bunch of us have said, well, what if we do this -- one, let's get a commitment from democrats that they will seriously negotiate based on the president's request. i think it is a reasonable request. having received that commitment, then let's have a short-term cessation here of the shutdown, maybe for a few weeks, maybe for a couple weeks, to give us the space and the time to be able to

work out an agreement. there is a substantial number of members from our side and the other side who have agreed to sign a letter along those lines. i'm hopeful that can provide at least one opportunity to move forward. it's the only one i see right now. but if there's a better idea, i'm eager to hear it, and i know my completion are, too. and -- and i know my colleagues are, too. and more importantly, the people i represent are, those who are directly impacted and those who are watching, saying, why can't washington get its act together? this makes no sense. yes, we should provide additional security to our southern border. why can't we agree to that? we're not that far apart. why can't we end the government shutdown in the process and allow the normal operations to go back into play so that families, government workers are not put in this position where

working paycheck to paycheck, they don't have a paycheck, and where taxpayers can get the services they've paid for and not end up paying after the fact more money, which is what typically happens in these shutdowns? by the way, i do hope that we can stop using government shutdowns altogether. i don't like them, as i said. and last week i introduced legislation along with eight of my republican colleagues that's called the end government shutdowns act. it's pretty straightforward. i've introduced it every single congress since i was elected in 2010, what it says is if you get to the end of the process and the appropriations bill is not funded by congress and our fiscal year end is september 30, so we've been living since then on these continuing resolutions, but if you end up with not getting the appropriations bill done, or if you get to the end of a continuing resolution and there is no resolution, you have this impasse, instead of having

the government shut down, what you do is you just continue the spending from the previous year. then after 120 days you reduce it by one percent. then after another 90 day, you reduce it by another one percent. why? to give congress the incentive to get their act together and to actually fund the government appropriately, to pass these appropriations bills, which should provide not just funding but reforms to government programs. that's the idea. we should every year looking at all the government, saying, what's working? what's not working? what are we going to fund more, what are we going to fund less? that's what we want to incentivize by the end government shutdowns act. i would hope that members on both sides of the aisle could support this and that looking forward we would not have government shutdowns, we would be in this mess today if that legislation were law. -- we wouldn't be in this mess today if that legislation were

law. the bottom line is we have the opportunity in front of us to reach a fair agreement. both sides are going to have to move some. the president is going to have to negotiate, and he says he will. the speaker of the house is going to have to move some. according to news reports, speaker pelosi flat out told the president she would not support one dollar for any new barriers. even if the government reopened and everything that she asked for was granted. that's not serious. that's not the way to have a successful negotiation. especially when democrats, as i laid out earlier, have long supported more barriers and fencing along the southern border. so let's act in good faith. let's move forward to at that responsible resolution -- to a responsible resolution. that means, yeah, we reopen government. but we also secure the southern border. we're not that far apart. we just need to have the will to get it done.

madam president, i yield back. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11:00 a.m. saturday, january 19. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. i ask that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1 with senator kaine or his designee controlling two hours and that upon use or yielding back of that time, the senate adjourn until 1:00 p.m. on tuesday, january 22. further, that on tuesday, january 22, following the prayer

and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. finally, that l fog leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. portman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. i

inquire -- are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are n the senator is recognized. mr. kaine: thank you. i rise today to discuss where we i rise today to discuss where we mr. president, i rise today to discuss where we stand as a nation and as the senate on day 28 of the longest shutout in history of the united states government. following my comments i will offer by uc to pull one of the house built up and i understand senator from oklahoma will respond to that. we were not w scheduled to be in session today. we were supposed r to adjourn yesterday and then reconvene monday january 28.ur but i objected to the adjournment because our government is closed just as it did last weekend. we will be in today and tomorrow, off sunday and monday and honor martin luther king, jr. and then returning on tuesday january 22. i offer a partial apology to my colleagues and to our