mr. mcconnell: i move that the senate disagree to the house amendment, agree to the request of the house for conference, and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. and i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to disagree in the house amendment, agree to the request from the house for a conference, and authorize the chair to appoint conferees in relation to s. 1790, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the department of energy to prescribe military personnel strength for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call be waived and that the cloture vote occur at a time to

be determined by the two leaders. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, this week our friend and colleague, the senior senator from tennessee, will mark a major milestone in his state's history. as of tomorrow, lamar alexander will have served as tennessee's governor or u.s. senator for 24 years, eight months and 15 days. more combined years in offices than any other tennessean. of course, senator alexander also remains the only tennessee governor ever popularly elected to the united states senate. the only tennessee republican to be undefeated in six statewide primary elections, and his 2008 general election vote total of 1,579,477 votes is still the largest ever recorded by a

tennessee statewide candidate. so, mr. president, i ask consent that a statement from the tennessee secretary of state, trey hargan, who has calculated each of these political accomplishments, appear in the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: but as impressive a as these statistics are, all of lamar alexander's colleagues know that political record-setting is not what makes him tick. here's something he likes to say about serving in the senate. it's hard to get here. it's hard to stay here. so while you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something. well, he certainly has lived out his own advice. during senator alexander's very first term, he get to 70 senators to support his bipartisan america competes act to help our country stay competitive with the rest of the world. he even persuaded a democrat and

republican leaders to join forces as the principal sponsors. when it was enacted in 2007, everyone knew who the chief engineer had been. as senator dan inouye said at the time, i wish to commend my colleague, senator alexander, for his broad and very intricate history of bipartisanship. if all of us in this body followed this process in all major legislation, this would be an historic session. i thank the senator from tennessee very much. that was senator dan inouye from hawaii. then in 2012, after being elected three times by his peers as chairman of the republican conference, lamar did something that is not often done around here. he gave up that power and his future ambitions for elected senate leadership in order to, quote, spend more time working to achieve results on the issues i care the most about. since then, not coincidentally,

there have been a steady stream of important new laws dealing with those very issues. time after time, lamar has taken the lead, often as the principal sponsor or chief engineer. he's worked behind the scenes. he's collaborated across the aisle. -- to get things done. he hadn't often stepped into the spotlight himself, but he has almost always been the key driving force. as chairman of the senate help committee, he worked with senator patty murray to fix no child left behind. president obama called it a christmas miracle. and "the wall street journal" said it was the greatest devolution of power to states in a quarter century. the nation's governors and the national education association recognized lamar with awards.

so, mr. president, we're dealing with a rare public servant who can literally win plaudits from "the wall street journal" editorial board and the nation's largest teachers union at the same time. in 2013, senator alexander was one of a group of senators who revamped federal student loans with a new market-based interest rate to save hundreds of millions of dollars for students attending college. in 2016, he and senator murray sponsored the 21st century cures bill, a landmark legislation i was proud to be involved with and view as the most significant law of that

entire congress. in 2018 againith senator murray he authored the landmark opioid crisis response act. president trump called it the single largest bill to combat a drug crisis in the history of our country. last year working with senator hatch, he was the chief engineer of a once-in-a-generation legislation to ensure america's songwriters were paid fair market value for their work. and for the past five years, as chairman of the energy and water development appropriations subcommittee, he's worked with ranking member feinstein to deliver record funding for our national laboratories, funding to keep america number one in supercomputing and six years of full funding for inland waterway infrastructure. so this is quite a distinguished record, and this is far from all

of it. i've heard that senator alexander explains to tennesseans, they can think of congress like a split-screen television show. on one side are the dramatic public fights. the partisan showdowns. and on the other side he explains is you'd see huge bipartisan majorities, woulding diligently on issues that directly affect the daily lives of millions of americans. well, that side of the screen is where you'll find senator alexander. and, in fact, he is a star placement -- player. he has announced that he won't seek a fourth term in 2020, but while the end ofis time here may be in sight, i'm confident of catalog of his hard work is nowhere near complete just yet. as chairman of help, he and senator murray have reported the lower health care costs act to

the full senate. they're working together to reauthorize and update the higher education act. and he and senator feinstein have produced an appropriations bill passed by the appropriations committee that would provide a fifth year of record funding for national laboratories, a sixth year of full funding for our inland waterway infrastructure, and the resources to keep america number one in supercomputing. and there's almost certainly more to come over the next year and a half. so, mr. president, lamar's service reminds us that there are many ways to be a transformational leader in this body. as a young man, i was an intern for senator john sherman cooper from kentucky. he was never an elected leader but was always regarded by his colleagues as a leader because of his willingness to do what he thought ought to be done. senator cooper once said to me, i not only represent kentucky, i

represent the nation, and there are times you follow and times when you lead. in fact, madam president, two of the three senate office buildings are named for senators who were never elected the leader of their party's caucus. lamar alexander is just that kind of leader. so we're proud to celebrate this milestone, as senator alexander notches more combined years as senator and governor than anyone else from his state. but even more, we recognize the example the senator has set for all the rest of us. it's just likes he says -- it's hard to get here, hard to stay here, and while you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something. congratulations, my friend. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee t. mrs. blackburn: thank you,

mr. president. it is such an honor to be here to follow leader mcconnell and talk about the achievements of our state's senior senator and recognize his wonderful work, not only in d.c. but also in tennessee. and i want to touch on just a few of those highlights and the importance to our state, as we have for many years -- for me, being a state senator, involved in our community, coming to serve in congress and now serving in the senate with our senior senator, it is something that is a wonderful experience. and the majority leader just mentioned that our senior senator will retire at the end of next year, and, of course, we're all going to miss seeing him around capitol hill.

senator alexander has really distinguished himself as a man who's committed to tennessee tradition and to helping tennessee find prominence on the global stage. now, anyone who has ever entered senator alexander's office know that he is a music lover. but what they may not know is that he is also both a classically trained pianist and a pretty good gospel and country pianist. he has even performed on the stage of the grand ole opry. and rumor has it that he really rocked the house the night that he was there. his love of music and of tennessee's musicians has caused him to work tirelessly in these

efforts. in the house, as i started a songwriter's caucus, he did likewise in the senate, bringing the issues that confront our nation's performers into the u.s. senate, finding solutions, and as the leader mentioned, passing and being instrumental in the crafting -- not only just the passing -- of the music modernization act. he was recently honored just this week by the nashville songwriters association international who gave him the white hat award. this is an honor that he and i share, and it is important to note that the white hat award has only been given 15 times in the 52 years of that organization's history. as governor, then-governor, now

senator alexander, opened the state's doors to the automobile industry, recruiting saturn, g.m., nissan, auto parts producers, and that solidified tennessee's place in the global economy. as senator, he has focused on improving tennessee from the inside out, giving priority to practical concerns. he led the charge on health care, education, and as the leader mentioned, the opioid crisis. he has supported teachers, stood up for working moms, and enacted tax policies that kt more money in the wall wallets of tennesseans. mr. president, today i rise to honor a leader, friend, and i have to say the team captain for our annual croquet cup baseball

game. they were the winners. they are the holders of the croquet cup. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, i would ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president and thank you for the recognition. i ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to two of my fellows, benjamin riley and miranda hernandez for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to urge this body to protect the constitution, to defend the separation of powers and to prevent an unauthorized unconstitutional war with iran. the constitution is clear. under our article 1 powers, the constitution spells out the congress shall have the authority to declare war.

the founders debated which branch of government should be given the solemn power to wage war, entering into battle had been the personal prerogative of kings, and kings had shown that they would bankrupt their countries and risk lives because of self-serving power-seeking feuds. therefore, our constitution's founders placed the decision to go to war with the people's representatives. they wanted any decision to wage war to reflect the will of the people. they deliberately rejected giving this most consequential decision only to the president. yet, despite the clarity of the constitution, president trump insists without any equivocation that he does not need congressional approval to engage in military hostilities against iran. and now instead of working with the united states congress, he

is publicly deferring to the royal family of the kingdom of the saudi arabia. our president said that we are waiting for saudi arabia to say, and i quote here, under what terms we would proceed, end quote. when discussing retaliation for the attack on saudi oil processing facility, our president has praised the saudis as good customers who, quote, pay cash. president trump explained further, and i quote, the fact is that the saudis are going to have a lot of involvement in this if we decide to do something. they'll be very much involved, and that includes payment, and they understand that fully. end quote. does this congress think that the patriotic men and women of our military are mercenaries at the service of the kingdom of saudi arabia? i reject that idea completely.

when a president is threatening a military attack because of a forng king's oil interests, it is well past time for congress to assert its constitutional authority. congress needs to make it clear the president cannot begin a war with iran without coming here first, coming here to the congress. in june we voted on a bipartisan amendment to the national defense authorization act that prohibited any war with iran unless authorized by congress. getting a vote on the udall udall-kaine-paul amendment was historic, and a bipartisan majority of senators voted to support our amendment that day. the house of representatives have sent, have sent us its ndaa which includes a bipartisan

provision prohibiting war against iran without congressional approval. the ndaa is now going to a senate-house conference committee. the conference committee must adopt our amendment that prohibits unauthorized war against iran. since our vote in june, tensions with iran have not subsided. they have only increased. the threat of miscalculatio and unauthorized war has only gotten more serious. this week the president on twitter is threatening that the united states military is, quote, locked and loaded on behalf of the saudi kingdom. iran's behavior in the region is highly problematic, but saudi arabia's oil interests do not determine whether the united states goes to war. congress determines that. congress, and congress only. based on our national interest.

rather than threats of war, the right move is active diplomacy to lower tensions in the region. we are at this point in the middle east because of the trump administration's failed policies. its unilateral withdrawal from the iran nuclear agreement, its maximum pressure policy, its abandonment of diplomacy. these policies are only causing more chaos in the region and doing nothing to advance u.s. interest. when the president unilaterally withdrew from the iran agreement in may 2018 against the advice of his military and intelligence chiefs, he promised he would get us a better deal. the deal we had in place secured for the u.s. and the world an iran that would not develop nuclear weapons. it was a deal that had strict

verification requirements and a deal his advisors and outside independent groups said iran was complying with. it has now been 16 months since the president tore up that deal and said he could get us a better one. well, the president's supposed deal-making prowess has only produced increased tensions, bringing us to the brink of war. in june we were ten minutes away from an attack that likely would have cost iranian lives. even after that aborted strike, the president threatened iran with, quote, obliteration like you've never seen before. end of the president's quote. now we are, quote, locked and loaded. well, it's a positive development that john bolton is no longer whispering in the president's ear urging regime change in iran. this mercurial president could get us into a war before we know

it. but these are my own views about the president's foreign policy. i understand that others in this body do not share them, including others who voted to support this amendment previously. i want to underscore this is not about what you think of the president. this is about defending the separation of powers as outlined in the constitution, and this is about standing up for the will of the american people. the american people do not want another endless war in the middle east while our military is the most capable on earth, no conflict with iran would be easy. iran has twice the population of iraq and is four times the size. even so-called targeted strikes could escalate into a much wider war.

but make no mistake, our amendment retains the president's authority to defend against any attack upon us. while the chief complaint from opponents of the amendment was that it tied the president's hands from attack, this is a false argument. the amendment expressly reserves the presi powers to defend the nation. the department of defense's rules of engagement remain in place. the president's full authority as commander in chief to repel an attack and defend the nation remains intact. if there are still concerns, we can continue to consult experts and refine language in conference. that's part of the regular order. but the defense bill must prohibit an unauthorized war with iran. madam president, for too long congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to decide

matters of war and peace. we have hidden from the hard votes. we have allowed the executive to fill the vacuum. we in this body need to step up to the plate and assume our constitutional responsibilities. this is not about partisan politics. this is not about tying the hands of the president in defense of our country. this vote is not even about whether you think we should or should not go to war against iran. even if you think military action on behalf of the downed drone or saudi oil is justified, the place to debate and make that decision is here on this floor, in this congress. it is not the decision of one man in the white house. so i'm making this call to our conferees. affirm the constitution. affirm our sworn responsibility to uphold the constitution. and affirm that our men and

women in uniform will not be sent off to risk their lives in war unless the people's representatives make that somber decision. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, members of the united states senate and house of representatives face many votes on many subjects. most of them, you vote on and forget very quickly. there are some that you'll never forget. and one that i cast, or at least two votes that i cast here

18 years ago are on that list in terms of my senate service. it was 18 years ago and just shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001 where 3,000 innocent americans lost their lives, and president george w. bush came to congress and asked for authority under our constitution to wage a war. in fact, to wage two wars. he wanted authority from the united states senate and congress to invade aircraft and to in -- to invade iraq and afghanistan. there was a long debate about why it would be necessary to start a war with those two nations. in the case of iraq the argument was made that saddam hussein their leader had weapons of mass destruction which was dangerous to the region and ultimately to the united states. he was a tyrant and everyone knew it but those threats were

the ones that led many to cohanclude the invasion of iraq was necessary. i disagreed. we cast that vote here on the floor of the united states senate, and 23 of us voted no, one republican and 22 democrats. it turns out after we invaded iraq and took a close look, there were no weapons of mass destruction. the real basis for the war did not est. 18 years later, having lost almost 5,000 american lives and spent trillions of dollars, 18 years later we are still in iraq. i don't know how this will ever end or when our troops will finally be able to come home. the situation in that country, hussein is gone for sure, but the situation in that country is certainly not dramatically better than what it was when we invaded. we couldn't guarantee tomorrow what's going to happen there, whether it will be stable or friendly to the united states,

after all that we've invested and all that we've lost in that invasion. at the same time we were debating a war in afghanistan. the administration said we know that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are in afghanistan. what is our message to those who would turn around and attack the united states and kill so many innocent people? so i saw afghanistan different than iraq, and i voted for the military effort that was undertaken to go after the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, the al qaeda organization. it took us years to find osama bin laden, responsible for master minding that deadly day in ourry and to finally bring him to justice. but the fact of the matter is 18 years later we are still in afghanistan today. it's hard to explain. thousands of american lives have

been lost there. millions, billions, maybe even trillions of dollars have been spent. and most people agree that the day after we leave, whenever it is, the country will revert to what it was before we walked in. 18 years of sacrifice. 18 years of suffering and even death for americans, america's patriotic soldiers. it's a reminder about these wars that seem like such a good idea, so necessary, the right way to respond. and here we sit with two of the longest wars in the history of the united states. and now the question is, are we preparing for another war. i hate to say those words, but i have to be honest. what this president has done in our relationship with iran has brought us to the moment where we have to ask that question. is the president preparing to ask us to go to war against iran? the first thing he did, one of

the first things he did was to disparage the iran nuclear agreement, an agreement entered into under president obama to stop the development of nuclear weapons in iran. i thought it was a good agreement. i supported it, and still do. i'm not making any excuses for iran. they're engaged in conduct around the world which is inspiring terrorism and threatening our allies and friends. i'm making no excuses for that. but to make certain that iran did not have nuclear weapons in the future was the right thing to do. we entered into this agreement under president obama. china, russia, european nations and others joined us, and we sent international inspectors into that country. they reported back to us regularly that there was no evidence of the development of nuclear weapons, and every door was open to them. we had surveillance on the ground in a country that has been largely secretive and isolated. i thought that was the right

thing to do, and i still do. president trump disagreed, and the united states withdrew from the iran nuclear agreement. since then, there's been an escalation of tension between our two nations, between iran and the united states. some of it is clearly a reaction by the iranians to sanctions which we've imposed which have caused great problems within iran and their oil supply. they've answered in kind by threatening oil tankers from other countries. it's the cieched escalation which -- the kind of escalation which you would expect two countries leading up to a confrontation to engage in. now the question is will we in fact go to war? and if we're prepared to, will this president, donald trump, follow the constitution of the united states? the votes i talked about 18 years ago gave to the united states, the members, the people of the united states through their elected representatives a decision-making part of the

process. their members of congress voted. the question is whether president trump will follow his constitutional responsibility in coming to congress for the authority to engage in a war in iran. i i certainly don't believe a vote i too 1 years ago before many of the members of the senate were even here as authorized him or any president to invade iran. that was never even considered when we were in that debate. now the question is, will he come forward and give the american people a voice in this process in zig whether we're going to war. i for one look at this with great skepticism and even negativity. a war is so much easier to get to than it is to get out of. we've proven that over and over again. and politicians who make the speeches and rationalize these wars are usually not the ones who face combat and death on the battlefield. that's turned over to our young

women and men in uniform who bravely fight for the causes that we identify as politicians. so i would sincerely hope when senator udall is brought to the floor here to open a conversation and a discussion is really to heart by the american people and more importantly by the white house. yes, as nor udall has reminded us, any president, this president needs the constitutional authority to bring this nation into a war. and without that authority, he cannot, should not move forward. they point to the recent attacks on saudi arabia and their oil fields. of course they were terrible, whether they came from houthi rebels in yemen or whether they came from iran itself, terrible. but the fact is the united states has not signed an agreement saying we're prepared to defend saudi arabia, whoever attacks them. we want to have a good alliance with them. it's difficult with the current leadership but we haven't

entered into a mutual defense pact by any means. we're not required when saudi arabia is attacked to muster our american troops in their defense. we should take care and be thoughtful and not escalate this situation. mr. president, senator udall's amendment regarding iran is a raightforward and timely reafter fir participation of what is already -- reaffirmation which is in article one, section 8 of the united states constitution. only the united states congress can declare war. i'm pleased to join him and others in this legislative effort to reaffirm that no war without -- with iran without the consent of congress is authorized. i hope the defense authorization conferees will keep in in mind -- keep this in mind n. has rubber stamped too many of the president's worst instincts. we must not do so again and march into another war in the middle east. two wars still going, still costing american lives even to

this day are way too many. a third war at this point is unthinkable. i yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm here on the floor today to talk about a problem that's far too common here in washington, and that is the federal government shutdowns. they don't make any sense. and if we don't do something in 12 days, congress once again will face an unnecessary and costly government shutdown. we've got to avoid that. i've been through five different shutdowns since my time working in the george h. w. bush white house back in 1990. three shutdowns just over the last five years. none of them worked. i don't know anyone who likes them now because we find out

that when you shut down government, taxpayers actually pay more, not less. it might seem like if you shut down government, that's good for taxpayers but it's actually bad for taxpayers. they foot the bill for backpay for federal workers for the days those workers weren't allowed to go to work. and they pay for other things, too, that they wouldn't have to pay for if congress did its job, got its spending bills done and didn't shut down the government. delayed projects, late payment fees, lost productivity, deferred maintenance. it all adds up. shutdowns also disrupt government services of course. and by the way, it's not just core government programs and services at the time. that continues. so even now, here we are nine months since the last shutdown. you have the agencies and departments saying, well, we'd like to be able to process your tux return or -- tax return or we'd like to process your 5013c which is a charity return to

give you nonprofit status. you can get contributions that are deductible. but because of the shutdown we're still backed up. so they're delayed and late. that hurts everybody. the federal contractors of course are hurt and a lot of those are constituents are private sector individuals. federal employees themselves of course get hurt, especially those who are considered essential. therefore, they have to go to work even though they're not getting paid. and for a lot of people, wheth it's a t.s.a. personnel at the airports or our border patrol at the border are doing their best to protect us and yet they're told they can't get paid so they can't make their car payment. their mortgage payment, their rent. and it puts them in a tough situation. but again, it also hurts taxpayers and families and communities all across the country. no shutdown was more frustrating for me than the one we had most recently. it was the longest shutdown ever. it was 35 days this past winter in december. we all heard firsthand from our

constituents during that month how they were affected by the shutdown. i heard from nasa engineers in cleveland, ohio. we have the nasa glen research center. but i also heard from t.s.a. employees every time i flew and i would ask them, how you doing? and they would tell me and it was tough. missed paychecks, mortgage payments i talked about, medical bills in some cases were piling up. morale was down. families were hurting. even after the government reopened and backpay was sent to the furloughed workers, a lot of that damage had already been done. but what we've learned is it wasn't just federal workers and their families who felt the effects of the shutdown. the economy as a whole suffered, too. the congressional budget office has done some estimates of this. they estimated after the shutdown that it had reduced economic growth by a combined $11 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2019. not only that, but c.b.o., the congressional budget office, a

nonpartisan group here that looks at these issues later projected that the rate of economic growth would have been .4% higher in the first quarter of 2019 than it was if not for the government shutdown. .4%. sounds like a small number but that's a big deal. that means economic growth in the first quarter of this year would have been 3.5%, not 3.1%. that's a big deal. that's billions of dollars in lost growth, not just because people weren't working who should have been working but because there was lost productivity in our economy. billions of dollars in lost growth just because we couldn't figure out how to keep the lights on here in washington, d.c. all of this is indicative not just of a lost of purchasing power for federal employees but also a serious ripple effect of federal contractor, small businesses, and others who serve the federal government. shutdowns have another effect. each time our government fails

to fund itself, the public's faith in our institutions including of course in this body, the senate, the house, the presidency falls even further. not just here but around the world. it just seems crazy, the federal government can't stay open? people don't get that. and i understand why they don't get it. now with the threat of another shutdown looming just a few weeks away, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. the reason that our permanent subcommittee on investigations looked at this issue over the past nine months was to learn the lessons, to get the actual numbers to determine what the real impact was of the shutdown. this week the permanent subcommittee which i chair released a bipartisan report signed by me and ranking member tom carper. the result of which is what we're reporting today. we learned that the total cost of the three government shutdowns that have occurred in the last five years alone have

combined for a total of 54 days of partial or full government closure. during those three periods of shutdown, the price tag for the american taxpayer was $4 billion. so these are the three shutdowns that happened in the last five years, taxpayers had to eat $4 billion. so three shutdowns, $4 billion. now, we also learned that a lot of that number comes from the loss of productivity, furloughed federal workers who are prohibited from going to work during the shutdown were owed $3.7 billion in backpay which they got even though they weren't working because they couldn't work. but compounding tha w at least another $338 million in other costs including extra administti costs, loss revenue, late fees on interest payment, and other costs. on top of everything else, the workers who aren't able to come

to work represented a combined lost productivity of about 57,000 years of lost productivity. think about that. almost 57,000 years of productivity loss. again, this is from folks who are federal employees but weren't allowed work because the government was shut down and later they get paid back. by the way, these figures, the $4 billion in costs to the taxpayers and the 56,938 years in lost productivity, those are relatively low numbers. it's actually higher than that. you know why? because although we got figures from 26 different agencies and departments and we sent this questionnaire around over nine months we did this research to all the agencies and departments, a bunch of them comprising less than half but close to half of the workforce refused to respond to us. why? because they said they didn't know how many of the workers were furloughed. they didn't know how many of their workers were essential

employees. they didn't know what the lost productivity was. that's equally disturbing. it included the department of defense, department of agriculture, the department of just, commerce department and e.p.a. they wouldn't give us complete information about employee furloughs and backpay because they said they just didn't have the information. so the cost is even higher than indicated here. we don't know how much higher but we know it's at least this high. we're sending letters to the agencies who were unable to provide the complete financial information related to employee furloughs and backpay to find out why and to ask them how they plan to address those issues going forward. our permanent subcommittee on investigations is not done with its work because in the process we uncovered another problem which is agencies not even knowing the basic information about their workforce and what happens during a shutdown. our report also documents examples of how the shutdown negatively affected the federal government's ability to conduct important operations on a wide range of issues. i encourage people to take a

look at the report. while we shut government down over fighting about border security, remember that was the issue at the time, whether we're going to have a wall or not and what kind of funds were going to go to border security, the department of homeland security had to delay important facility maintenance which had a serious impact on law enforcement officer operations and safety, including at the border. the lack of these critical maintenance and repair services actually made it more risky, even endangered the lives of some law enforcement officers, made it harder to defend the border. so the shutdown certainly didn't work in that regard. meanwhile the department of justice was forced to cancel about 60,000 immigration hearings for nondetained aliens scheduled for the 35 days of shutdown. during the 35 days you couldn't have the immigration hearings. 66 -- 60,000 immigration hearings were canceled. we already had a big backlog of these hearings as some of you have heard about to the point it often takes a couple of years to

have your case heard by an immigration judge. now it's even worse. again, we still haven't resolved that issue. that's kind of a problem that's compounded so that today you have so many of these hearings that are outstanding. a lot of my constituents back in ohio were affected too. let me give you an example. we have a poor neighborhood in cleveland, ohio. a guy wanted to start a deli there which was a great idea. it's kind of a food desert. this deli was ready to go, ready to be put in operation but they couldn't get the approval by the u.s. department of agriculture to use the machines to accept the food stamp benefits so they had a really hard time launching. they couldn't make much money because a lot of people in that area were stamp recipients and the usda couldn't certify the machine to have it work because of the shutdown. that was was really frustrating for me. at the piketon, ohio uranium enrichment plant, a lot weren't sure if their health care

payments would be paid. at a vineyard in lorain, ohio, lorain county is a place where there's more wine being grown. it's exciting. a vineyard submitted six label requests to the alcohol, tobacco and trade has to approve these labels. the owners of the vineyard were left in limbo flew the entire shutdown as they awaited for approval. they lost sales because in that business it's about the new thing. you want to have your new product out there so that was frustrating to me, too. these are small business owners, entrepreneurs taking a chance, trying something exiting. it's been a growth business in our state. but they couldn't get approval. the national transportation safety board stopped an investigation of a plane crash in ohio that took the lives of two individuals in january because of the government shutdown. so it doesn't just affect the

border or t.s.a. or others i've talked about. it affects a lot of our constituents. ohioans applying for border protection programs had their applications suspended during the shutdown and faced long delays in getting their applications approved once the government reopened because of the backlog. home loans across the state were unable to be processed because employees are still working overtime as the caseloads have doubled. even last week i talked about this nonprofit couldn't get its 302(c)status because of the backlog, the i.r.s. said, even though it happened nine months ago. there are only a few examples here i've been able to get you, but again i would encourage to you look at the report. go on our website for the permanent subcommittee on investigations and take a look at it. there are so many issues and

vulnerabilities that happen in all of our states. it is clear we need to find a way to keep this from happening again. part of the problem we face here is this constant threat of shutdowns has become part of a norm. people are already talking about it three days from nowment are we going to shut down or not? for the past two decades, the government has routinely operated on temporary funding because we don't get our spending bills done. congress is supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills, which comprises all the agencies and department and last year we did a pretty good job of getting close to the 12. but you have to go back to 1997 to find a year when we completed all 12 of the spending bills. so we don't complete a spending bill, have it signed off by the house and senate and signed into you law by the president. we do these continuing resolutions. continue the spending from the previous year. they're all short-term.

so there's discussion right now of in 12 days having a continuing resolution. that's a lot better than a shutdown, but it's into the we should be doing. -- but it's not what we should be doing because at the end of that c.r., we'll have another impasse likely. that's when you get another threat of a shutdown. much better is to pass the actual appropriations bills. since 1997 we've had a total of 117 continuing resolutions to fund government. used to be very rare. now it's not just common, it's the norm. so moving forward, i hope one thing we can all agree is we should do the appropriations process. have the individual bills, have the debate. we're going to have differences. that's fine. at the end of the day, have a vote on the floor. today we tried to go to the so-called minibus, a group of four different appropriations bills. it shouldn't be that hard. we should be able to get these things done. i hope that we can agree that no national -- that no matter what,

we should -- this is a bipartisan report coming out of our subcommittee. our report says that the congress should enact an automatic continuing resolution to prevent the government from shutting down permanently. if you don't get your spending bills done, you simply have a continuing resolution that's automatic. during the shutdown during january, i once again introduced our legislation called the end government shutdowns act, legislation that now has 33 cosponsors here in the senate. that's about a third of the senate. it is legislation that has most republicans, almost two-thirds of the republicans. in the past it's been bipartisan. this year it has not been. my hope it will back -- my hope is it will become that. i've introduced this legislation every year since 2010.

my hope is that we'll never have to publish this kind of a report again that talks about how many days we had shut down, what the cost was to taxpayers -- $4 billion in this case over the past five years alone. the 57,000 years of lost work productivity. we shouldn't have to have those kinds of reports. but we do need to put legislation on the floor, have a vote on it to stop it. our legislation says you continue the spending from the previous year if you can't come to an agreement and then after 120 days you reduce the spending by one percent across the board. why? to give the appropriations committees, the people that write these spending bills, the incentive to get to work because none of them, republican or democrat, like the across-the-board 1% spending cut. they don't want the funding to be reduced. then every 90 days it reduces it another 1%, again to give them the incentive to get their work

done. there is other lislation out there, one of which passed the homeland security, government affairs committee about a month and a half ago. it has some other elements to it that during a shutdown we'd be restrained from doing certain things on the floor. couldn't travel -- the government couldn't travel, including the executive branch. i think some of those bells and whistles put on it were not great policy, but i think it's so important that we end government shutdowns, we've got to find a way to come together to get this done. i think we're at the point now where if democrats won't support the 1% cut, which is what they're saying, despite supporting it previously, some of them, and in house that's a bipartisan -- and in the house that's a bipartisan bill, then let's look at just an auto c.r., just automatically avoiding the shutdowns and continuing the spending from the previous year. the point is we need to find a way to keep the lights on, not to have the shutdowns.

would end to stop missing our deadlines. we need to stop putting our taxpayers in a bad situation where do you a shutdown at enormous cost to them. you need to put our federal employees in a better position where they're not being furloughed and they're not being told, you got to go to work but we're not going to pay you. that's not fair either. so let's pass legislation to provide for a continuation of government spending, and let's do all we can to try to get our spending bills done to avoid getting in that situation. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will not allow us to fall back into this 12 days from now, and i hope instead we will redouble our efforts to pass spending bills on time into the future and immediately look at legislation that says, let's end government shutdowns forever to avoid this problem going forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i would also ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this evening to talk about health care, and i won't have long remarks, but i do want to highlight a report that was just issued last week. the report is by the census bureau. i'm holding -- you are not able to read it from a distance, but the report is entitled health surance coverage in the united states, 2018, by the united states census bureau. it's dated september of 2019. and on wage two of the report -- and this is a fairly lengthy report. it goes on for about 29 pages, 29 or 30 pages. but on page two, it says, and

i'm quoting -- an the general comparison here is health care in the united states, health care coverage, uninsurance numbers, those without insurance in 2017 versus 2018. here's what it says on page two of the report under the word highlights, and i'm quoting. in 2018, 8.5% of people or 27.5 million did not have health insurance at any point during the year. the uninsured rate and the number of uninsured increased from 2017, 7.9% or 25.6 million. unquote. and then it refers to a figure and a table. so basically what is outlined here is a drop in the number of americans covered, or looking at a