No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2019

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General.

Today, I want to make clear that I will be opposed to this nomination for several reasons. I am just going to outline some of my key concerns that really haven't been addressed much over the last few weeks.

I am specifically concerned about his view that the President of the United States is effectively royalty, in his book, and he seems to believe that the President is unaccountable to the laws of our Nation or to the normal constraints imposed by the Congress. Today, I am going to focus on what I consider to be Mr. Barr's dangerous views on surveillance and his contempt for surveillance laws and the Fourth Amendment.

It is my view this is not a partisan issue. There has been, for some years, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate that has battled to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans, but Mr. Barr's views, after I have laid them out today, ought to frighten every Member of this Senate. What Mr. Barr has said is that whether the Congress supports broader or narrower surveillance authorities and regardless of whether Congress votes for more checks and balances and oversight, it really doesn't matter. He has made the judgment, based on the proposition which he has stated very clearly, that the President can essentially do what he wants.

This nominee, in my view, poses a unique threat to the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment. His long-held views, which presumably he would put in practice if confirmed, threaten the very notion that Congress or the courts have any say in who in America gets spied on. If he is confirmed as Attorney General, he could take us back--and not just 12 years to an era of warrantless wiretapping. As Mr. Barr himself has made clear, he would be taking us back 40 years, to an era before the Church Committee, when neither Congress nor the courts had any role at all in checking or overseeing an abusive, out-of-control government.

Before the reforms of the 1970s, as has now been well documented, the government committed one horrific abuse after another. It spied on hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. It spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It spied on activists. It spied on Congress. When these abuses finally came to light, Congress acted by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court to issue warrants against spies and terrorists.

Unfortunately, as we now know, the government violated the law when it implemented its warrantless wiretapping program in 2001. The program included warrantless collection of the content of private communications, including through warrantless targeting of phone numbers and email addresses of people in our country. The program also included the bulk collection of phone and email records of enormous numbers of innocent, law-abiding Americans. All of this occurred in secret, without warrants or any judicial oversight at all, and almost no one--no one in the Congress, nor even most members of the Intelligence Committee--knew anything about it.

The secrecy didn't even end when the bulk phone and email record programs were moved under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, kept this abusive program and the secret legal interpretations behind it from the American people, even lying about it in public testimony.

How did these abusive and illegal programs get their start? With secret determinations made at the Department of Justice that the law didn't matter and that the President can do what he wants.

That brings us to Mr. Barr. His dangerous views on Executive power have long been consistent--consistent--throughout his career, from his writings at the Department of Justice in the late 1980s to the present, but in October of 2003, he laid out in public testimony his position that, in Mr. Barr's view, the President is not accountable to surveillance laws and that the President enjoys huge loopholes in the Fourth Amendment.

October of 2003 was shortly after Congress had passed the PATRIOT Act, legislation that many in Congress have come to view as granting too much authority with too little oversight, but from Mr. Barr's perspective, the PATRIOT Act was too limiting and too constraining, and that wasn't even the most troubling part of his testimony. Right up front, he asked himself the question of whether the law was adequate to fight terrorism. Here is what he said. He said he wasn't worried about the law, and this is a direct quote: ``The critical legal powers are granted directly by the Constitution itself, not by Congressional enactments.'' In other words, Mr. Barr's view of surveillance is that the laws passed by Congress do not matter. If the President wants to violate them, it is Mr. Barr's position that he can just go out and say he has constitutional authority and do it.

Here is a direct quote from Mr. Barr's testimony. Talking about laws going back to the 1970s, he said: ``Numerous statutes were passed, such as [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], that purported to supplant Presidential discretion with Congressionally crafted schemes whereby judges become the arbiter of national security decisions.''

I am going to unpack that sentence for a minute. From Mr. Barr's perspective, decades of laws passed by the U.S. Congress are nothing but schemes--schemes. He is talking about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a fundamental framework of checks and balances that Congress has relied on

for four decades to ensure congressional and judicial oversight of surveillance. He is talking about every modification of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, from the PATRIOT Act to what is called section 702, reauthorized last year, to the USA Freedom Act, which was intended to stop the collection of millions of innocent Americans' phone records. Whatever you think of these statutes, they are how Congress determines the extent of the government's surveillance powers and exercises its responsibility to protect the rights of Americans. Mr. Barr notwithstanding, these duly enacted laws of Congress are not mere schemes.

Worse still, it is Mr. Barr's contention that all of these laws only purport to have any effect. The President, says Mr. Barr, has the discretion to ignore them. By definition, if you are saying that the President can just ignore the laws, in effect, that is a position that is in favor of tyranny. This is as dangerous a position as I have heard in congressional testimony. It is very similar to the language that was concocted in the Department of Justice to justify warrantless wiretapping--and these are the views coming from the man who might be Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Barr is correct that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives judges some say in when the government can spy on Americans. It is a secret system, one that greatly advantages the government and almost always precludes challenges from those who are spied on. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been abused through secret interpretations of law, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does involve judges considering the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans, and that is what Mr. Barr objects to.

Based on his own testimony, it is clear to me that Mr. Barr has fundamental problems with the Fourth Amendment or at least its application to anything the President might unilaterally decide involves national security. He believes that if the government determines there is a threat, there is no need to ask a judge for a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is a probable cause warrant. That is what the Constitution says. Mr. Barr, however, has found two very big loopholes in the Fourth Amendment.

First, he insists that if the government decides a foreigner in the United States is ``apparently acting as a terrorist,'' then he or she is not one of the ``people,'' and the government can just throw out the Fourth Amendment.

Second, Mr. Barr argues that so long as the government says there is a threat, a warrantless search is not unreasonable, and the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply.

At the core of Mr. Barr's philosophy is that no one--not Congress and certainly not judges--has any business assessing the government's assertion about threats.

Here is another quote from Mr. Barr: These are ``assessments judges are not competent to make or responsible for making under the Constitution.''

For 40 years, judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court have been making these determinations, but, from Mr. Barr's perspective, the courts are not competent to decide who gets spied on; only the President gets that power.

Some might ask whether Mr. Barr has had a change of heart, particularly since Congress has passed additional surveillance authority in the year since his testimony. I hope we see in the days ahead where he stands, whether he now believes that spying on Americans and people in the United States has to be consistent with the laws passed by Congress, but his 2003 testimony suggests that even new, sweeping, bipartisan laws that have passed wouldn't satisfy him.

A little over a decade ago, Congress created section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That allows for warrantless spying on foreigners overseas. I have said our country faces real threats from foreigners overseas, so I stipulate that is something that is important to the safety of the law-abiding people whom we all represent. I have had serious concerns about the number of innocent Americans whose communications are being swept up under section 702 collection, but at least the targets of the surveillance are overseas.

Mr. Barr would go further in his testimony, calling for the warrantless targeting of people inside the United States. According to Mr. Barr, there are individuals right here in the United States who have no Fourth Amendment rights. This is an important issue today, and it will become more important in the days ahead.

I have already stipulated that I think there are serious threats to our country overseas. What troubles me is, as telecommunication systems around the world become more globally interconnected, more and more innocent Americans are going to get swept up in these searches. To me, when you are talking--as Mr. Barr seems to be doing--that there are individuals in our country who have no Fourth Amendment rights, that is why I think all Senators should be troubled about these positions he has long espoused.

There is also the matter of collecting business records, sensitive information about Americans that are in possession of a third party. Here, we are talking about your purchases, who you are communicating with, where you are located at any time of the day.

Mr. Barr believes that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to any records held by a company or other third party, no matter how sensitive that information is. This view has actually been rejected recently by the U.S. Supreme Court. What Mr. Barr has been saying is actually out of sync even with the current thinking of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court most recently held that the Fourth Amendment does apply to the government's collection of location data from wireless carriers.

Apparently, yesterday Mr. Barr said he had not read that Supreme Court decision. Colleagues. I think that ought to be really troubling to the Members of this body. We are talking about location data. Location data can be a personal safety and national security nightmare.

We saw what happened just last week. In 2018, the wireless companies all made promises to me that they wouldn't make available precise location data to hedge funds, bail bondsmen--all kinds of bottom feeders just looking to make a buck. What happened was, in 2018, those wireless companies said they wouldn't make that data available any longer to these location trackers and bail bondsmen and the like, and then last week, a bounty hunter got 300 bucks and found out those 2018 promises to me meant nothing. So last week, the wireless companies promised again that they wouldn't make location data available to all of these financially interested parties. I appreciate their saying it, but I will tell you, I will believe it when I see it, because we got a promise in 2018 that they would be serious about protecting location data, and we saw last week that they weren't.

We have the Supreme Court now making it clear that the Fourth Amendment applies to the government's collection of location data from wireless carriers, but the person who is up for nomination, Mr. Barr, has not been willing to or doesn't find it important enough to even read the Supreme Court decision on this case.

The government's collection of business records is authorized by section 215 of FISA, which was part of the PATRIOT Act. There are serious concerns about 215. It was abused for years to carry out a secret program that swept up the phone records of millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans. Even after the USA FREEDOM Act, which was intended to end bulk collection, it has been used to collect hundreds of millions of phone records. All the government needs to collect these records is to show the FISA Court that the records are relevant to an investigation. There is no requirement for a probable cause warrant.

This important law sunsets this year, so the Congress will have a debate about whether these authorities are too broad, whether there is a need for more checks and balances. I see my colleague from Texas, who also serves on the Intelligence Committee. We are going to have a debate on it. That is the way it ought to be.

Today, we are talking about what I consider to be dangerous views espoused by Mr. Barr. What Mr. Barr believes is that the government shouldn't have any court oversight at all when it comes to collecting the records on Americans. He thinks the government should just unilaterally issue a subpoena and collect those records and that there would be no oversight whatever. The foundation of Mr. Barr's beliefs when it comes to surveillance is that the President can do whatever he wants if he believes national security is at stake.

I am going to close by simply talking for an additional minute or two about what it will mean if Mr. Barr is confirmed as Donald Trump's Attorney General.

Right now, the President is openly considering a declaration that he, Donald Trump, has emergency powers to override the will of the Congress, and he is doing this while relying on a baseless assertion that there is a national security crisis.

Until he was fact-checked, he was making very far-fetched claims about terrorists coming over the border. He also regularly calls journalists ``enemies of the people'' and calls for investigations of his political enemies.

I would oppose the nomination of anyone with William Barr's views on Executive power regardless of who was President, but the kinds of threats I am talking about are too serious to ignore.

Donald Trump has openly said and said specifically how much he would enjoy unchecked surveillance power. During the 2016 campaign, when the Russians were hacking his opponents, the President of the United States, our current President, said: ``honestly, I wish I had that power. I'd love to have that power.''

If Donald Trump decides that national security is at stake and William Barr is the Attorney General, it would be Mr. Barr who might give him that power--power he could use with no oversight from the courts and without regard to what Mr. Barr has dismissed as ``the schemes''--our laws--of Congress.

In case anyone thinks Mr. Barr would himself serve as a check on the President, he has also written that that is not the Attorney General's job. Just last year, he wrote that all Executive power rests in one and only one person--the President--and that the President doesn't have to convince his Attorney General that his orders are legal.

Let me be clear. The issues I have raised with respect to Mr. Barr's views on surveillance are not kind of conjecture or possible theories. What I have been talking about this afternoon are the views outlined in Mr. Barr's own testimony. I hope every Member of this body will take the time to read Mr. Barr's testimony and consider what is at stake.

There are Members in both political parties in this Chamber who have long been concerned about the expansive surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the possible abuse of that law. Those concerns are, in my view, small potatoes compared to what Mr. Barr has proposed, which is that the law need not constrain the President whatsoever. For example, some Members of this body have expressed concern about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants in connection with the Russia investigation and whether all relevant information has been provided to the FISA Court. Consider a world in which the government doesn't need a warrant and doesn't have to justify its surveillance to any court. Consider the possibility of abuse in that world. That is the world Mr. Barr has testified he wants.

I also would appeal to my colleagues with whom I have had some pretty vigorous debates over the years about surveillance and who may have no concerns about the current framework of our laws. We can have our disagreements about how to write the law. Here in the Senate, we do agree that the laws passed by the Congress mean something. They are binding, and they are not, as Mr. Barr has stated, ``schemes'' that the President can just ignore whenever he feels like it.

This nominee has been more than clear about where he stands. He believes that the President alone decides when there is a threat and that when he does, he doesn't have to worry about Congress, judges, or the laws, or the Constitution. In my view, that is a prescription for trouble, a prescription for more abuses--abuses that Congress may or may not even be told about. But we have been warned. We have been warned by Mr. Barr's testimony.

I also would like to note that I have concerns about Mr. Barr that relate to classified matters, and I am currently seeking declassification of those matters and hope that this will be resolved prior to any votes on the nominee.

I see colleagues are waiting.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I got off the phone with Jasmine Tool, who is an Oregonian living with an inoperable brain tumor. As the shutdown lingers on, I want to share her story because she has been bearing the unthinkable consequences of her illness.

I am going to start today by asking: How can a country as rich and good and strong as the United States of America let Jasmine Tool suffer this way?

She is a 34-year-old mother of two young children. She lives in Lake County, a rural community in south central Oregon. She is a public servant, an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She has been living with an inoperable brain tumor. The cancer has caused related debilitating conditions. She is in and out of hospital emergency rooms. Her digestive system is impaired. With the invaluable care provided by a home health worker, she takes in liquids and nutritional infusions through tubing that is plugged into her abdomen.

Because she lives in a rural area, her treatment can require long- distance travel. That is hard to deal with when you are suffering from the flu. Just imagine how hard it is with a brain tumor, a broken digestive tract, and feeding tubes attached to your body that prevent you from eating or drinking normally.

She is confronting this health challenge with remarkable bravery, and I don't believe there is a single Member of the U.S. Senate who would wish Jasmine's struggle on their very worst enemy.

Then comes the government shutdown.

Jasmine was due to travel to Nevada this month for treatment related to her tumor, but last week, as she was prepared to go, she was informed that her health insurance had lapsed. Initially, she thought it might be--we all know with insurance--kind of a recent hiccup or recent problem, something that could be corrected quickly.

This week, she learned that it lapsed in October--October, months ago--and her insurance company told her that only her employer could fix it.

Jasmine's employer is shut down. Nobody is answering the phones. Right now, Jasmine Tool is suffering--this mother of two--and is unable to determine what caused the lapse in her coverage or what can be done to get it fixed.

The most immediate threat is this: Jasmine was told that her home health assistant cannot continue to help her if she doesn't have insurance. That means that within days this 30-year-old mom will not be able to get the infusions she needs to stay alive.

Now, if that isn't enough, Jasmine has been failed by the government on multiple occasions. Shortly after she went on medical leave in early 2017, she began the process of applying for disability--disability retirement. She worked with the appropriate human resources official to prepare the paperwork to send to the Office of Personnel Management. She thought, as anybody would, that the process was underway and she would hear back soon about the results of her application.

She just learned recently that the official who prepared the documents retired without sending them in. For a year and a half, while Jasmine fought cancer and was just hoping to get some positive news, her disability paperwork sat in an unused office--just sat there collecting dust.

She had to travel to that office against her doctor's orders to finalize the paperwork once more and prevent a loss of benefits. But the Office of Personnel Management--that is shut down too. Jasmine hasn't been able to learn where her benefits stand.

It is too cruel already that thousands and thousands of American workers are going without paychecks. This shutdown is making victims of those who do public service. But consider what it is doing to this young mother of two, a woman who is currently fighting for her life right now.

Because of this shutdown, she can't figure out how to restore her health insurance. She can't get the status of her disability application. She could be cut off--I just talked to her--from her nutritional supplements in a matter of days. That means Jasmine could starve. That is what she just told me.

So I have been talking to people who have suffered from health challenges

for a long time--director of the Grey Panthers about 7 years at home. I listened to Jasmine and I just said: How can it be that there is no outbreak of conscience here--no outbreak of conscience here in this Senate? How can a country as rich and powerful as ours fail Jasmine in such a shameful way?

Our country is going to spend $3.5 trillion on healthcare--$3.5 trillion on healthcare--this year. It is not a lack of money that is causing this nightmare for Jasmine Tool in rural Oregon.

With the government reopened, things would be different. Things would be very different for Jasmine. There would be somebody on the other end of the phone line to tell Jasmine what happened to her insurance, and because of the professionalism of those in these positions, I think they could tell her how to renew that insurance. There would be somebody to tell her what is happening with her disability application. Jasmine could bring back her home health aide and get the infusions she needs to survive.

So I am asking the Senate, how can this be allowed to continue? How can this be allowed to continue? The Senate passed a bipartisan government funding bill by voice vote just 2 weeks ago in the previous Congress.

I see Senator Collins. She has a longstanding interest in these healthcare issues. Senator Sasse also, I know from our conversations, has a heart and cares about people.

The House passed this legislation. The pathway out of this shutdown is right in front of us if the majority leader would decide when to bring up the legislation again, and we could do it tonight. Jasmine Tool could get the lifesaving healthcare that she needs, based on our conversation, by week's end, so she will not starve.

Otherwise, unless the majority leader calls it up, it seems to me the White House has no plan to end this shutdown. So I just think it has to end right here--right here in the U.S. Senate, where all of us say: This cannot go on any longer.

I just spoke to a young mom in rural Oregon who is in a fight for her life, a fight for her survival.

Colleagues who are here, I am sure Jasmine is not the only such case in America. Jasmine Tool--my guess is, there are plenty of others in communities across the country. Jasmine Tool does not have the luxury of time.

I am going to go back to my office. My staff here, my staff folks in Oregon--we are just going to be pulling out all the stops now because it really is a matter of hours to get Jasmine the help she needs. We do it recognizing that there is only one immediate solution: The shutdown must end, and it must end now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the significance of today, January 11, the 21st day of the partial government shutdown.

Today, we tie for the longest shutdown in the history of the U.S. Government. Tomorrow, we will set a record for the longest shutdown.

Today is the first paycheck day where 800,000-plus Federal employees will not be paid. In fact, some have already started to get their paychecks because even when there is no pay, the process of producing the check and the stub continues. So people get paychecks, but there is a zero on the line, which is sort of like pouring salt in the wound or adding insult to injury. It is one thing not to be paid, but it is another thing to be working and then get the stub and have there be a zero there. People have already reported--some of our air traffic controllers and TSA professionals and others--that they are starting to receive those checks.

January 11 is also a time when--I know what it is like in my family. My wife and I kind of load up on both the charitable contributions and buying gifts for our family in December, and then that credit card bill in January is the biggest one we pay all year. Families are receiving those.

January tends to be among the coldest months of the year, and heating bills are the highest. We are going to have a cold snap and maybe a snowstorm in Washington this weekend, and those bills will be high.

January 11 is a time when a lot of families sit around kitchen tables and write tuition checks for the spring semester for their kids.

It is precisely the worst time to have a shutdown of this kind that affects more than 800,000 people and jeopardizes their livelihood.

I stand on the floor today to repeat what I said Tuesday night when many of us stood here and said it is really time to end this shutdown. The House wants to end it. An increasing number of Senators want to end it by passing bills that are right here in the Senate, available for consideration, to reopen the government and to engage with the President in a meaningful, short-term, and prompt dialogue about border security and immigration reform.

I wanted to share some of the stories that are flooding into my office. I will be back on the floor later because at 11 o'clock, Senator Warner and I will

meet with Federal employees at a community center in Alexandria, and I will be bringing more stories back to the floor before we adjourn at 1 o'clock today.

Before I share stories, I do want to express appreciation to the majority leader, to the Republicans, and to the Democrats who joined together with us yesterday to pass an important bill, S. 24. It is not as good as getting a paycheck, but it is a bill to tell those who have lost paychecks or are losing paychecks during this time that when we reopen, they will be paid.

We have done that in the past. Once we reopened, we figured out a way to do that. But I felt it was important that on the day people are not being paid, for them to at least get the signal from Congress, some certainty, something that they might be able to show to a landlord or to a bank saying: I am going to get paid.

The Senate majority leader and minority leader worked at the end of the day to make sure that a UC to pass S. 24 was successful. It was, and at about 5 o'clock last night, we sent that bill to the House. My understanding is the House is taking up the bill this morning. I also applaud Senator McConnell for reaching out to the White House and speaking directly with the President about the bill. The President indicated he would sign it when the bill gets to him.

Again, it is not as good as a paycheck, but it adds a little something on a tough day to tell people that they can rest assured that when we figure this out, they will be made whole. I do want to express my appreciation to all for working on that yesterday, but, again, that is not a cessation of the pain.

I am going to read stories from Federal employees, but I do want to acknowledge that this is not about just 800,000 employees; it also affects millions of Americans.

I told a story on the floor Tuesday night about just coincidentally two Saturdays ago going to four different units of the National Park System under the Department of the Interior and the National Forest System under the Department of Agriculture and being turned away by a gate closed and a sign saying: We are shut down.

That I was turned away was of no moment, but I was interested to watch other families pull up in their vehicles on a Saturday, spending time with their kids. Time with the family is precious. You often don't get a lot of it. Sometimes driving with kids a long way to get to a national park or something--they are squabbling in the back seat, and you are really hoping to get there. Watching families pull up and looking at their faces as they saw that what they hoped to do that day they couldn't do because it was closed--that made an impression on me.

People were trying to visit the museums here in Washington, and they couldn't.

Citizens who are falling into hunger, who want to apply for food stamps--95 percent of the workforce that processes food stamp applications has been furloughed during this time.

Air traffic controllers are working because they are essential, but it has to make you a little cranky to get a paycheck with a zero on it. I can't imagine a Federal employee I would less like to be cranky than an air traffic controller. I mean, this is very important stuff. You don't want an air traffic controller sitting in that tower thinking about anything other than air safety.

If 5 percent of their brain is sort of mad at this shutdown and 20 percent of their brain is focused on ``How am I going to pay the bills?''--air traffic controllers have shared that they need security clearances to do their jobs. Do you know that if your credit is impaired and you start to get hits on your credit report, that could endanger your security clearance? In some circumstances, it could lead to your security clearance being taken away. If you are under a court order to pay alimony or child support, and you can't, regardless of whether you have a good reason, and there is a court order forcing you to, that could lead to your losing your security clearance.

You don't want an air traffic controller in the tower worrying about anything other than the safety of the passengers. If they are mad at the government for shutting down, and they are anxious about not getting a paycheck, and they are wondering about how long it will go on and what the consequences might be, that is not something that makes me feel comfortable.

This is an issue about Federal workers, certainly, but it is also an issue about the effect on Americans who need all kinds of services.

Like every office here, my office has been flooded with expressions of concern. They are saying: Senator, why can't you do something? What is going on? How long is this going to go on? And I don't have a good answer for them.

Let me read some stories. I read seven or eight Tuesday night. These are stories that have come in since Tuesday.

Shane from Alexandria wrote:

I am a veteran and furloughed government employee working

for the Peace Corps. My wife is a disabled veteran, and we

live paycheck to paycheck. I lost my job during the housing

crisis, and we lost our home and then relocated to the DC

area for work. We have worked hard to build our lives back up

and again own a home. Now, that is all in jeopardy again! If

I don't get paid, we can't pay the mortgage, and we will lose

our home. I relocated my family from Florida for a secure job

here and to provide financial stability to my family. Now,

because of a dysfunctional government, I may have to find new

work again, but it may not be in time to save our home.

Please, Please, Please, do what you can to open the

government back up.

Terry from Fairfax wrote:

I am writing you, along with my two other elected

officials, seeking your help in bringing this government

shutdown to an immediate end. Today is day 19--

This was sent to us on Wednesday--

and counting, with no end in sight. The information put out

by the media saying the number of those affected by this

(partial) government shutdown is 800,000; I submit to you it

is much higher than that--especially in the Commonwealth of

Virginia.

Currently, I work for the Department of Homeland Security,

the Transportation Security Administration at Washington

Dulles International Airport. I have the compliance

department at Washington Dulles, enforcing the Code of

Federal Regulations, and have 15 people working for me. We

make sure the nation's transportation system at Washington

Dulles is secure and safe and are exempt from furlough.

Of the 15 people that work for me, most all live paycheck

to paycheck. As you can imagine, with the outlook of no

paycheck coming this Saturday, the morale is starting to go

down and Maslow's hierarchy of needs--

I hope I am saying that right--

is kicking in--that of self-preservation. Their focus is

switching from their work--keeping things secure and safe--to

their family and how they are going to provide for them

(survive).

As for me, I served honorably in the United States Coast

Guard and retired after 26 years. I started working at

Washington Dulles when TSA first stood up and have been here

over 16 years. I am 63 years old. My Coast Guard retired

paycheck is my financial security, something to fall back on,

something I can plan on . . . up until now. I just learned

yesterday there won't be a retired paycheck for Coast Guard

retirees because of the shutdown. The financial security we

worked for is no longer there. This is a breach of trust

between the U.S. Government and every Coast Guard retiree,

and it's wrong!

I have proudly served the American People for more than 42

years, and I have been through every government shutdown

since 1976. This particular one is getting old in a hurry, it

may be the worst, and it needs to stop. For my people at

work, my family at home, and my fellow Coast Guard retirees,

we need your help in ending this shutdown.

Garrett, a Virginian working as a contractor at NASA:

I am a contractor for NASA, I am shut down, and I am not

very happy. This is having a negative financial effect on my

life. I am ok today, but soon in the very next few days when

I have exhausted my vacation, then take leave without pay,

then have to pay for overpriced health insurance; then I will

be in a big pinch. As a contractor we are not guaranteed to

be re-reimbursed for our leave. The last shutdown I lost a

paycheck I never got back, that was like a 2% pay cut. I

won't be able to take sick leave or vacation this year.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, and I am relying on you to make it

happen. We all are. Just think of all the good government

employees that will be forced to leave the government because

it is such a negative place to work.

Just a comment, government employees are being forced to leave the government.

Today in Fairfax, the Fairfax public school system is having a hiring fair just for Federal employees. They need substitute teachers, they need bus drivers, and they need cafeteria workers. So they are doing the hiring fair to try

to play upon the unhappiness of Federal employees who are out for the shutdown and don't think they are going to come back to work.

Phil from Chesterfield:

Through no fault of my own I am not being paid [my] bi-

weekly salary . . . tomorrow. This will cause a significant

strain on my family, my church contributions, my shared

health care cost, my retirement contributions. Having a

college age student attend Virginia Commonwealth University,

with winter semester fees for tuition and room and board

totaling [thousands in] out of pocket expenses is extremely

frustrating. I really cannot [go a long time] without a

salary.

Long term policy disagreements (among both parties of our

elected Senators) using federal government employees'

salaries as a token to rally off is not Democracy. This is

not fair to You . . . or a career professional like myself

who works for the United States Government.

I ask you . . . to consider a CR which would fund our

government through a short-term solution until you and your

bi-partisan colleagues can fix a long-term problem. . . .

Nonetheless, my family and I are out of funding Now! I ask

that you publicly announce [what you will do] and help lead

the bi-partisan CHANGE TO HELP Virginians.

A family from Loudoun County--one, a 20-year government employee:

I am scared not knowing when he will get paid. Our 2 young

children should be signing up for spring sports this week,

but we are cutting optional spending. We are eating out of

the pantry instead of going to the grocery store. Real people

are hurting, working and not being paid. It is 800,000 but

the broader fear and economic impact is tremendous.

Opel from Hampton:

My name is Opel and my husband Kenny is an inspector with

the FDA. As you know, he has been unable to go to work for

the past few weeks. I am writing to you to keep our story and

our situation at the forefront of your agenda. Please

continue to push for our Congressional leaders to get the

government open. It is very difficult to try to explain to

our 9 year old son why Daddy isn't going to work, why Mom and

Dad are having trouble paying our bills. This shutdown is

wrong and I feel that it's also wrong for federal employees

to not be able to go to work because a person some people

elected President wants an extreme form of ``security.''

Please Sir, reopen the government. Many people's lives are at

stake.

Daniel from Arlington:

I am a furloughed employee in the Department of Commerce.

My income has stopped. I have become aware that I will soon

be responsible to make payments for my family's healthcare,

my life insurance, and other benefits that are normal

paycheck deductions. So now I have no income, plus unbudgeted

expenses.

I have hard decisions now with regard to paying my rent,

paying for my family's healthcare, and paying for care for my

elderly parents. I have applied for unemployment assistance.

I am trying to find work to survive throughout the shutdown.

I have 5 years of federal service, and I have experienced

furloughs before. Until now, I have not needed to take

resources away from the unemployment system. Until now, I

haven't had to compete in the job market to take a position

away from someone who has no job at all.

I have personally shut down; I am using as little gasoline

as I can, I am only shopping for necessities. I'm cutting

back in every money-saving way I can. This is a disheartening

way to just try to survive.

PLEASE support legislation that will return furloughed

Federal employees to paid work status.

A final story, Joie from Warrenton:

My husband is a highly experienced Ph.D. Economist with the

SEC. I am a disabled (thanks to cancer) Episcopal priest. We

are in free fall not knowing if my husband will have his job

again, and our health insurance we need for my [cancer]. We

need every penny he earns and no job could replace his

compensation. We spent most of our savings paying off my $40K

in cancer and cancer related bills last year. Still, we live

MODESTLY in a 1700 sq foot old farmhouse with no central air/

heat, drive one 13 year old car and . . . [another old] used

Subaru. It's early Thursday morning 1/10 and I'm having a

panic attack wondering if I will lose my dogs if we get

evicted in case this runs a few months and we run out of

savings to pay our mortgage. We have no family support or

back up and a son with anxiety and ADHD issues for which we

spend thousands out of pocket because mental health services

for youth are either unavailable or do not accept insurance.

Please continue to pressure . . . [all your colleagues] to

bring opening the government to a vote. WORKING AMERICANS

need protection!

This is just a sample of the letters we have received. When I come back from the session Senator Warner and I are doing in Alexandria, I will bring back more stories. I know that other offices are receiving these same kinds of inquiries. Even with a guarantee of backpay, for so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or who have modest savings, the timing of even missing one paycheck is very, very critical.

The House has already taken action by a strong majority to reopen government. By my count, just based on what folks have said in this Chamber, there are at least 52 members of this Chamber who have already gone on record and said we should take up the House bill and vote to reopen government. My hope is that when people listen to stories like this about lost paychecks and the effect on families and when people in this body understand the magnitude of tomorrow's recordbreaking day, when we establish the longest shutdown in the history of the country, as our colleagues are back in their home States over the weekend chatting with folks, that number of Senators--52--who want to take up these bills and vote on them will increase and we can end this suffering that is so unnecessary.

I will say this. I definitely get that there is an important controversy that needs resolution--talking about border security, talking about immigration reform. We have been talking about these issues since I got here. Regardless of your position on how we should solve them, I think everybody in the body knows--with no immigration reform done since 1986 and border security funding a perennial topic-- that there is an important issue to resolving this: How much should we spend for border security? What is the right way to spend the money? What is the right place to get the money? Can it be done by executive fiat, or must it be done via congressional appropriations? What are the immigration reforms that we need, having not done an immigration reform bill since 1986?

When the President says these are important issues, he is not wrong. He is right. But as for the idea that even with an issue of importance on the table that we need to grapple with, people who are unconnected to that issue have to be victims, have to suffer as we are trying to resolve that issue, I just don't get it. As for some of those who are suffering, it is kind of even counter to the national emergency or crisis that the President is talking about.

For example, the Coast Guard--as was indicated by one of my stories, from Terry--is one of the Agencies, because it is under the Department of Commerce, I believe, that is shuttered. They are not a DOD Agency. So they are not funded. There are 42,000, I believe, Coast Guard employees. Most are essential and are working without pay, but some are furloughed. If there is a crisis at the border--and as the President described that crisis, a significant portion of the crisis is illegal drugs coming across the border, and we need folks to interdict illegal drugs--why would we shutter the Coast Guard? The Coast Guard has many missions, but one of their important missions--and they work very well on this, in tandem with other Agencies in this country and in other countries--is the interdiction of illegal drugs. How does it make sense, if there is a crisis at the border dealing with drug importation, for the Coast Guard to be shuttered?

So the President's statement that this is an issue that needs a resolution is correct, but punishing people who are unconnected to the issue or even punishing some of the very people whom we need to solve the issue is just the wrong approach. That is why I believe the right approach is the approach taken by the House--bringing up bills that were bipartisan bills, that were worked on and voted on either by Senate committees or on the Senate floor, and saying: Let's just do these. Let's reach an agreement for the nonaffected Agencies, the nonimmigration-related agencies, but between now and September 30 reopen government. And let's provide short-term funding, a month or 3- weeks of funding for the immigration and homeland security Agencies, and let's just make the whole next chunk of time in this body a discussion, a resolution, and a compromise that will enable us to meet some of what the President wants and some of what we want--and that is possible.

I think sometimes the word that goes out from a shutdown or the word that goes out from some of the news stories, as well, is this: There is not going to be a compromise that is possible. The sides are dug in. We can't find an accord.

I just want to remind the body--and the President knows this--that it was

just last February when 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans worked and introduced a bill that coupled borders security with protection for Dreamers. The President now is asking for $5.7 billion, essentially, in border security. The bill we had in February was $25 billion, over 10 years--$25 billion--which was exactly to the penny what the President had asked for. It was $25 billion, borders done right. We wanted to exercise traditional congressional oversight in the then-two Republican House Congress over how the money would be spent, but the amount the President asked for wasn't the problem. It wasn't a problem at all--$25 billion in exchange for something else that the President had asked for.

He had said: We shouldn't protect Dreamers by Executive order; it should be done by Congress. There should be a statutory congressional fix.

He is right about that. That is a better thing--to fix it via statute, rather than to rely on an Executive action that can change with the whim of each new Executive. He is right about that.

We basically went to him with a proposal, 16 of us, and introduced the bill: $25 billion, Mr. President, that is what you asked for; protection for Dreamers, Mr. President, that is what you asked for.

The response from the White House was not to say: ``I don't like that deal; let me give you a counter,'' or ``Could you add to it?''

Within less than 24 hours, the White House put out a press release attacking those who put the bill together--even the Republicans--as proponents of open borders who wanted to end immigration enforcement as we know it. It was a press release from the DHS that read like it was somebody's campaign literature rather than the response that you would expect from a White House or a Cabinet-level official.

But what that offer showed is that there is great willingness in this body to invest in border security. In fact, even after the President poured cold water on it, we put that bill on the floor for a vote. Forty-six out of 49 Democrats voted for it. Forty-six out of 49 Democrats voted for $25 billion in border security, just like more than 50 Democrats in 2013--and I was part of this, as well--voted for more than $40 billion in border security.

So for folks at the White House wondering whether in a 3-week or monthlong intense discussion we could find a path forward on border security and immigration reform, the evidence is out there that, yes, we can. We can find that path forward, but we ought to open up government and let those unconnected with the dispute at least go back to work, at least go back to work and start getting paid. Then, in this body--which is a great deliberative body, with 100 people who are very savvy and smart and who could find a deal moving forward--we could find an answer to this that would enable the President to say he got significant investments in borders, and it would also enable those of us who have promoted commonsense immigration reforms to feel like there was something in there as well.

With that, I am going to yield the floor. I am going to meet with Federal employees and then return to share some of their stories. My ask is a simple one: We need to reopen government. We need to lift the burden of this anxiety over people.

The last thing I will say is, if this backpay bill passes and the President signs it--and we are going pay people, we are going to guarantee their pay--why wouldn't we want them to be serving? If they are going to be paid, wouldn't we want to have them serving Americans rather than not serving Americans during this time?

With that I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today marks the 21st day of the government shutdown, an unnecessary and shameful government shutdown. We are now tied with the longest shutdown in American history.

A few weeks ago, the President of the United States, President Trump, said he would be ``proud'' to shut down the government if he didn't get his way. This is nothing to be proud of, and the harmful impacts of the shutdown are growing by the day, growing on people throughout this country who are being denied important government services, impacting every American.

We just heard the other day from the Food and Drug Administration that they are no longer going to carry out some of their food safety inspections, putting at risk the American food supply for every American. We heard from the EPA that they are going to be suspending their monitoring of some toxic pollutants, also having a growing harmful impact every day on the country and putting the health of American citizens at risk. So that is nothing to be proud of, nor should any of us be proud of the fact that today marks the first full pay period in this shutdown where Federal employees are going to get no pay. These are civil servants who go to work, when they are allowed to, for the good of our country in all sorts of Agencies, providing fundamental services.

Today--I know you can't read this document from there--they are getting pay stubs, and on the pay stubs in the place where their normal pay period salary should be, there are zeros--zeros.

I just arrived on the Senate floor from a meeting that Senator Cardin, my fellow partner representing the State of Maryland, held in Howard County, MD. We met with 16 Federal employees, most of whom have been locked out of work and all of whom are not getting any paychecks. We wanted to bring them together to hear about the impact this shutdown was having on their lives and on their families.

The first thing they wanted to talk about was that they wanted to get back to work to do the business of the American people. When they are out of work, so many Americans who rely on their efforts are denied the benefit of their work. So they emphasized the fact that their No. 1 priority was to get back to work on behalf of the American people.

We also wanted to hear from them directly about what the impact was on them as individuals and their families because they are now getting a big zero on their pay stubs.

One of the people we heard from was Freda McDonald. She works at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration. She has a chronic medical condition that requires her to get treatments every week. She said she has pretty good insurance to cover most of her health condition, but the insurance doesn't cover the cost of her medication fully, and she needs to get that on a weekly basis. Then, on a weekly basis, the copays amount to hundreds of dollars. So she is going to be squeezed right away on getting access to the medication to treat her medical condition because she got a pay stub with a big zero on it.

We heard from Kerri Woodridge. He works at the Office of Personnel Management. A lot of Americans don't know what that Agency does, but they are the Agency that has to oversee Federal employees throughout the system. If they are not at work, the whole system begins to break down. The first thing he emphasized was the total waste of dollars to the American taxpayer in keeping them out of work because that just creates even more inefficiencies throughout the entire Federal Government when the Office of Personnel Management can't be on the job. He also talked about the fact that he is not going to be able to make his mortgage payments.

There are a lot of Federal employees--thousands and thousands of Federal employees, GS-2s and GS-3s, who are literally one payment from not being able to make their bills. Now their pay is not coming in, but I can tell you their bills are still coming in. Their mortgage payments are coming in, their rent payments are coming in, their medical bills are coming in--all of those bills are coming in, even though their paycheck is not.

Mr. Woodridge talked about the fact that with the upcoming mortgage payment, he didn't think he would be able to make it. He has electric bills. He spoke very passionately about his children because he has a son who has some special needs, and in order to make sure his son can perform well at school, the family has hired a tutor for that child, and he doesn't think he is going to be able to make the payments to the tutor in the coming weeks. He said: Well, the Agency said you should get a lawyer to protect you from the creditors who are coming after you when you can't pay your bills. Mr. Woodridge had a pretty simple question: If I can't afford to pay my bills, how can I afford to hire a lawyer to protect me from the people who are demanding I pay my bills on time?

Eric Bryant, another Federal employee there, an Air Force vet, is someone who served his country in uniform

before serving his country in a civilian capacity for our Federal Government. Thirty percent of our Federal employees are veterans. They served their country in the military, and now they are serving their country in a different way as civil servants in the Federal Government. He said that he had called the electric company to let them know that because he wasn't getting paid, he wasn't sure if he would be able to pay his electric bill on time. Could they take it easy on him? The electric company said: We want our money. Sorry, go find the money to pay the bill on time.

I don't know if they threatened to turn the lights off or not, but people aren't going to be able to pay their mortgages or rents or electric bills or other bills.

There was another Federal employee who took a moment out of work. He is actually not furloughed. He is working because he is part of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and he has been deemed essential for the public safety. But he came there to let us know that when his colleagues, many of them in the analytics part of Federal law enforcement--the folks who collect DNA, the folks who are tracking suspects, people who are tracking fugitives--when that whole part of Federal law enforcement is furloughed and can't do their job, that puts those who are on the job and in the line of duty at greater risk. He said that it puts their lives at greater risk.

Of course, to the extent that we are compromising and weakening Federal law enforcement in general, we are also putting the public at greater and unnecessary risk every day.

We heard similar accounts from other Federal employees who were there. We also heard from a small Federal contractor. I am sure that all of us are hearing not just from Federal employees but so many small businesses that provide services to the Federal Government in places around the country, and in many cases, they are in danger of going belly-up.

In order to deal with the shutdown and the fact that they may not get paid as a small business by the Federal Government for their services, they also are laying off their employees. Many of these are low-wage employees or median-wage employees. Think about contractors who provide food services to different government agencies or janitorial services. Those employees are also living paycheck to paycheck. They have been told not to come into work. We heard from one that is a nonprofit called Senior Service America that actually helps put seniors to work in jobs around the country. Just a few days ago, this particular Federal contractor in Maryland furloughed--laid off--176 of their employees. These aren't Federal employees being laid off.

In addition to that, these are Federal contractor employees who work for small businesses that contract with the Federal Government. The negative impacts of this are mushrooming by the day, harming families, harming communities, and harming all of the others that also require the economic activity from either Federal employees or small business contractors who help at their restaurants, and that is on top of what I talked about earlier, which is the negative impact of the denial of important services and health protections for the entire American public.

A lot of the concerns expressed this morning by Federal employees also include the long-term impact. If you don't make a mortgage payment on time, that is going to hurt your credit rating. In some cases, for Federal employees who work for National Security Agencies, their ability to keep their security clearance is tied to their credit rating. When you start having your credit rating downgraded, it is going to mean, No. 1, you don't get credit, can't pay your bills, and it also means, in some cases, that you risk your entire livelihood, at least in those Federal Government jobs that require good credit ratings.

None of this is anything that the President of the United States or anybody should be proud of. I do want to say a word with respect to the contract employees. Yesterday, Senator Cardin, Senator Smith, Senator Brown, Senator Kaine, and many Senators--about 30 Senators--wrote to the Office of Management and Budget, wrote to the Trump administration, and asked them to use their contract authority to hold harmless those Federal service contract employees who are being locked out of work through no fault of their own.

I was pleased that just yesterday in this body, on a unanimous basis or by unanimous consent, we passed legislation that would ensure that Federal employees were made whole at the end of the day because they should not be the ones who are punished for a shutdown they had nothing to do with.

Senator Cardin and I and others proposed legislation to ensure that innocent Federal employees should not be the victims of a political fight they had nothing to do with. I am hopeful that later today, the House of Representatives will pass that legislation and the President will sign it. That, of course, would remove a big cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the head of Federal employees who are either working without pay or furloughed and locked out without pay.

It, of course, doesn't deal with the fact that while Federal employees are denied a paycheck, they are not going to be able to make their payments on time on mortgages and rent, and they will have a snowballing, harmful effect from loss of credit rating. There is other legislation that has been introduced by Senator Schatz and I and others to make sure that Federal employees aren't hurt because of their credit impact or by people collecting bills, just as we protect servicemen and women who are deployed overseas to make sure people can't come after them when they are not here and not able to pay their bills. I hope we will pass that legislation.

All of this just goes to show that while Federal employees and the small business service contractors and a growing number of communities that depend on that economic livelihood are being hit by the day, the big losers are also, of course, the American people, both because of the lack of health protections and services and because, at the end of the day, taxpayers want to make sure they are getting services for their tax dollars.

What are we accomplishing with a government shutdown? I must say that when the President of the United States says he can ``relate'' to what is happening, it is pretty clear he can't, right?

I don't know if my colleagues saw the Coast Guard statement the other day on how you are supposed to help make do during the government shutdown. Here is a recommendation that they provide. This is step 4 to supplement your income. They suggest that finding supplemental income during your furlough period might be challenging, but here are a few ideas for adding income:

Have a garage sale--clean out your attic, basement and

closets at the same time.

Sell unwanted larger ticket items through the newspaper or

online.

Give me a break. When the President of the United States says he can relate, I want to see the President of the United States hold a garage sale. This is somebody who goes from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago and back to the White House. He can't relate to these fellow Americans, Federal civil servants who, when they miss a paycheck, can't pay their mortgage.

This is why, just yesterday, Senator Cardin and I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to act immediately on two bills that came over from the House to reopen the government because, yes, this is the shutdown that President Trump said that he would be proud to have if he didn't get his way. He is certainly the initiator; he is certainly the protagonist of the shutdown. But every day that goes by when this Senate doesn't do what it can that is within its power to end the shutdown, the Senate is an accomplice in President Trump's shutdown. If we have it within our power to do our job as a separate branch of government, then we should do it. It is not an excuse not to act because the President doesn't like what we propose. Under article I of the Constitution, we are a separate, independent, and coequal branch of government.

Last Thursday, as their very first order of business, the House of Representatives passed two bills. The first bill was H.J. Res. 1. I have a copy of it right here in my hand. What this bill does is reopen the Department of Homeland Security at current funding levels through February 8, to give us all an opportunity to debate the best

and most effective way to provide border security in our country. The dispute here is not about whether we need border security; of course, we need secure borders. We don't want open borders. We need secure borders.

The question is, What is the most effective and smart way to accomplish that? The Presiding Officer is an expert on this. I respect the input he has provided to this body and others. We need a multilayered approach. But the purpose of H.J. Res. 1 was to say: OK, we have some differences over the best way to do that, but let's not shut down the Department of Homeland Security while we debate that. Let's keep it open at least until February 8 at current funding levels and work that out. That is what the House sent to the Senate.

Guess what. With respect to the Department of Homeland Security, it is identical--word for word--to what this Senate passed just before Christmas. We passed it on a voice vote--a big, overwhelming bipartisan vote. That vote was to keep the Department of Homeland Security and other Departments open until February 8.

What is the justification for not having a vote in the Senate on the same thing that we passed by voice vote just a few weeks ago? The answer we get is: Well, the President of the United States doesn't agree with it.

Well, that is too bad. We are a separate branch of government. If the President wants to veto that, let him veto it. Then it comes back here. Under the Constitution, we would have a veto override vote. But we shouldn't be contracting out our responsibilities under the Constitution to the President. Yet the Republican leader, the majority leader, objected to letting us vote again on the same measure that we voted on just before Christmas.

Senator Cardin then offered the other unanimous consent request yesterday. That was to pass legislation to open up the other eight of the nine Federal Departments that are closed--Departments that have nothing to do with Homeland Security, nothing to do with border security.

This legislation was also passed by the House of Representatives on its opening day a week ago Thursday. Here is the kicker. The House didn't take the numbers that the House of Representatives was proposing in the appropriations bills for these Departments; it took the funding levels the Senate had proposed on a bipartisan basis, and the Senate did that on a bipartisan basis in two ways.

First of all, the full Senate voted overwhelmingly--certainly, by a veto-proof margin--to fund eight of those Federal Departments through the remainder of this fiscal year--so through September 30--at levels we agreed to, first, on the Senate Appropriations Committee and then by an overwhelming vote on the Senate floor. The other measures in the bill the House passed were measures the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly supported.

The House said to the Senate: We are going to send you a bunch of bills to open up the government at levels the Senate has already agreed to, in a bipartisan way, one way or another.

Yet the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, on behalf of the caucus, said: No, we are not going to allow a vote to reopen eight of those nine Departments because the President doesn't want it, because the President wants to hold all of those Departments that have nothing to do with homeland security hostage until he gets his wall--a 2,000- mile-long wall.

The irony, of course--and the Presiding Officer knows this--is that the President's own budget for this year was $1.6 billion. That was the President's budget for this year.

I am happy to sit down--and I know all of our colleagues are--to work out the best way to provide border security. As part of an overall approach, we had barriers along parts of our border long before President Trump was in office, but we don't want to be wasting taxpayer dollars. As I said, even the President's budget for this year was not requesting what the President says he now needs.

Let's be straight with the American people. It is not just $5.7 billion--or whatever it is--to build a wall. You are talking about a 2,000-mile-long wall, so you are talking about $30 billion. What the President wants to do is to come back every year and shut down the government until he gets his next installment on a 2,000-mile-long wall that the experts tell us is not the smartest way to provide border security and is certainly not the most cost-effective way.

Let us remember that the President said this was something Mexico was going to have to pay for, not the American taxpayer. I saw him on TV yesterday, when he was down at the border and was trying to explain away that campaign promise: Oh, I didn't really mean Mexico was going to pay for it directly; it was going to be indirectly.

That is just not happening. We know Mexico is not paying for this wall like the President said. That is why, as its first order of business, it is important for the Senate to pass the legislation that is before us that we have already supported on a bipartisan basis. Literally, we have the keys today, if we want to, to pass the bills that would reopen the government and send them to the President. If he doesn't want to sign them, at least we will have done our work as the Senate. We would then face the question of overriding the President's veto to reopen the government.

This is where we are now. As I said, as each day goes by, we have Americans who are being denied more and more services. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, I have spoken to a lot of small businesses that rely on the Small Business Administration for their small loans in order to get up and running, and I have spoken to a lot of folks in farm country who really rely on farm service credit and farm center services. They are being squeezed very badly.

This is impacting people throughout the country as 80 percent of Federal employees actually live and work outside of the national capital area, and 80 percent of them are folks like the folks along the border. There are TSA officials who are all over the country at airports, and all of them are being asked to go to work every day without pay. They are getting zeros on their pay stubs like the other hundreds of thousands of Federal employees.

It seems to me this is the time for us to act. That is why I have joined with so many of my colleagues to say to the Republican leader, to the majority leader: Let's do our job under the Constitution. Yes, we know what the President's position is, but what is our position? Why are we unwilling to vote on two bills that are before us that reflect the position this Senate has taken on a bipartisan basis already? How can we justify to our constituents and to the people around the country that we are unwilling to take a vote on measures that we know have overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate because we want to somehow reinforce the President in his own political fight?

I am very hopeful that as the days go by, the Republican leader will decide to make sure this body--the U.S. Senate--does its job as a separate branch of government and will take up the bills that will reopen the Federal Government, put people back to work for the American people, make sure Federal employees who are working get paid and that those who have been furloughed will have a chance to go back to work on behalf of the American people.

We have it within our power to do it today. We have it within our power to do it any day now. I hope we will do our part to end this shameful shutdown. By tomorrow, it will be the longest shutdown in American history. The President of the United States may say he is proud of it, but I hope not a single Senator in this body--Republican or Democratic--will be proud to be here on the day in history when we will have broken the record for the longest government shutdown. In my view, that is a dereliction of duty, and it is certainly a dereliction of duty for us not to do our part and use the power we have to take a vote on the bills that are at the desk in the U.S. Senate to reopen the government for the American people.

I see my friend, the Senator from Maine, is now on the floor. I thank him for his leadership in this battle.

Let's do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I first want to make a single declarative sentence:

There is no one in this body who is for open borders.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this debate that has been framed, particularly by this administration, is that you are either for the wall or for open borders. That is not true. In 2013, two-thirds of us voted for a very strong border security provision as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed this body--as I say, by two-thirds. It was never taken up in the House. Had it been taken up in the House, it likely would have passed; the President would have signed it; and a lot of these issues would have been behind us.

All of us--everyone here on both sides of the aisle--support border security. What we support is cost-effective, sensible border security, not border security that really doesn't fit the nature of the problem we face and that so far, anyway, is undefined in terms of location, design, cost, and all of the other characteristics of any major construction project that is submitted to this Congress for its approval.

Again, one of the problems with this whole discussion is what does the President mean when he says ``wall''? Is it 30 feet high? Is it 20 feet high? Is it steel? Is it concrete? This has evolved over time. The biggest question is where and how long. Is he talking about a wall that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Southern California, to the Pacific Ocean? That is about 2,000 miles. Is that what he is talking about? If so, we should know that. Then we can debate it as it relates to other potential options for securing the border along that distance.

It also should be noted that there already is a wall, by anybody's definition, along portions of that border. I have seen it. I have been to McAllen, TX, where the President was yesterday, and I have seen the wall--a wall. Yet the questions are, How big is it? Where is it going to go? How is it going to be designed and paid for?

One of the reasons the wall is really not the right solution for the current problems of immigration starts with the fact that about 50 percent of the illegal immigrants--of the undocumented immigrants--in this country today are here on overstayed legal visas. A wall has nothing to do with these people. These are people who came in through airports and all other ports of entry all over the country into the United States, and 50 percent are here on overstayed visas. The wall has zero effect on that issue.

The other principal issue we are facing at the wall--and this has also been confused in the news coverage of the caravans and in the fear that has been spread--is that the vast majority of the people who come to the border today are not looking to sneak across; they are looking for a port of entry at which to give themselves up as asylum seekers. They are not illegal immigrants; they are availing themselves of American law. Once they get to this country, with their having credible fears of prosecution or of persecution or of danger in their home countries, they have a right to have it be determined whether they are legitimate asylum seekers.

That is who we are dealing with. That is who all of those people are. When you see the pictures of the caravans, they are not headed for a blank place in the Arizona desert. They want to go. They want to be captured. They want to be taken into custody. Then they can have their asylum claims adjudicated. The wall has nothing to do with them. The wall is a response to a problem that is decades old but that has grossly, drastically diminished over the last 10 or 15 years. For the problem of people literally sneaking across the border--entering the country illegally--all of the data is that the number is down. It is down about 85 percent from the number of people who entered the country illegally in 2007, over the past 10 or 11 years.

By the way, all of the data can be found in a fascinating document that was produced in September of 2017, about a year ago, by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security. I can't remember the exact title, but it is something like the ``Status of Illegal Immigration at the Southern Border.'' It is a long report that is full of graphs. I like graphs, but I don't need to hold them up because all of the graphs have a downward slope in terms of illegal entries, of the people who get away, of the number of people who come in who are recidivists, who have been here before. They are all down. So to argue that we are somehow in a crisis today, when all of the indicators are moving in the right direction, is really hard to reconcile with the reality.

The issue I am trying to illustrate is that the wall is the wrong solution to the current problem. It may have been a rational solution in 1985 or even in 2005 or in 2006, when the Congress passed a major fence law and did increase border security substantially, but we are dealing with a different set of problems today that the wall--a wall-- whatever it is--doesn't address.

I said at the beginning that nobody here is against border security and that there may be places where a wall is part of that. Yet one of the secondary problems we have is, we have never been told what this thing--the wall--is. How long will it be? How big will it be? How much will it cost? Is it going to be on private land or Federal land? We don't have a plan for what it is that is actually being proposed that the government is being held hostage over.

We don't know what the President wants. To say ``I want a wall'' doesn't tell you much. Is it 2,000 miles long or 100 miles long? Is it 20 feet high, is it a fence, is it a 30-foot high concrete wall or something with steel slats, which seems to be the design of the day?

We don't really know what it is. If the mayor of Bangor, ME, went to the city council and said ``I want to build a new school, but I am not going to tell you how many students are going to be in it; I am not going to tell you where we are going to build it, and I am not going to tell you what it is going to cost; just give me a blank check to build that school,'' the city counsel of Bangor would laugh Her Honor out of the hall. It wouldn't even think about doing something like that. No city in America would do something like that. Yet that is what we are being asked to do here today.

We are essentially being asked for a blank check--well, it is a check for $5.7 billion, but that is a downpayment. The real estimate is for what they think the President wants, which is more in the $20- to $25- billion amount.

That gets me to my final point before I talk about the impact of this in Maine. Let's say that we could settle this, this week. We could negotiate with the White House--which is not easy to do because their position changes day to day--and say: OK, it is going to be 100 miles of wall; this will be the size; this will be the design; this is the agreed-upon cost. Let's say we could do that. If we do that in the context of the government being shut down, we are inviting this to happen again.

Next year, we will just have more budgets. We have a debt ceiling debate coming that is very important for the future of the country, for the economics of the country, for the soundness of our economy. We have budgets coming next September. If this works, if this shutdown that has been initiated by the President works as a tactic to get a portion of his wall, he will do it next time. That is why the age-old principle is, you don't negotiate with hostage-takers. Why? Because if you do, the next time, they will do it again. Then this will become a normal and routine tactic between this President and, perhaps, future Presidents and the Congress that puts us in a position of being totally--where we have to choose between a government shutdown and the pet project of whatever and whoever that President is. That is a very dangerous path for us as a deliberative body, particularly as a coequal branch of the U.S. Government.

I have talked in sort of global terms, but this is hurting Main Street America. We have heard today and we have heard on the news and we hear all the time about the effects on the furloughed Federal workers, which are very real. Today is the day that they don't get their check. Here is the problem: You can shut down and stop people's checks from coming, but you can't stop their bills from coming--their mortgage payment, their childcare payment, their automobile insurance, their homeowners insurance, their heating bill, their medication, their food. All of that has to be paid for.

We can say: Well, we know they will make adjustments. That is a pretty

hard path to put people on. That is a heartless path. These people are being used as pawns, as hostages, in a policy debate that has nothing to do with them.

One of the easiest solutions would be for us to pass the six bills that the House has passed and that we passed, which funds 90 percent of the government. Why should the Department of Agriculture be caught in the crossfire of a debate over a wall in Texas? Why should park rangers be caught in that? Why should the Coast Guard be caught in that?

This is having a real effect. Aside from those Federal workers, of whom there are about 1,000 in Maine on furlough right now, there are all the contractors that serve these government Agencies. We passed a bill last night that is going to ensure that the furloughed Federal employees will eventually be paid. That doesn't say anything about what they are going to have to do about penalties on late mortgages and those kinds of things that they can't pay now. But there is no help for the contractors that are going to lose total income during this period, and some of them will be threatened with going out of business.

It is not just the 800,000 workers nationwide; it is thousands and thousands--tens of thousands--of people who depend on those Agencies for the work that they do, that they provide to the Federal Government.

Let's talk about effects in hometown, Main Street America--in places all over Maine. In Portland, for example--I will chuckle because it sounds like ``Oh, this is no big deal''--one of our most growing industries in Maine is beer. We have over 1,000 people employed in the craft brewing industry. It has been a growth industry. Yet many of the brewers are being stymied because they can't ship their beer across State lines without approval of their labels from the Food and Drug Administration. That is held up.

We have a merger or an expansion of a brewery in Southern Maine that is held up because they can't get their permission from the tax and trade bureau, from the ATF. These are the kinds of things--the services that should be provided--that aren't occurring. The Portland Press Herald reported on the breweries.

The Portland Press Herald also reported on a developer who has a project to develop a real estate project in Maine and can't get an SBA loan. The SBA is shut down. That is going to hold up the project and could even cause the deal to fall through.

The Bangor Daily News reports that a family is stuck in the middle; they have moved out of their house, anticipating a closing on a new house with an Agriculture Department loan guarantee that is now stuck, stranded. There is no action, nobody to answer the phone. They are living out of boxes. They are caught in the middle.

These aren't Federal employees. These are good Maine people who relied upon the daily activities of the Federal Government occurring, which ought to be just simple common sense. Yet they are caught without a place to live.

The Ellsworth American newspaper in Ellsworth, ME, an award-winning weekly newspaper, reports about a smokehouse that does smoked salmon. They were getting ready to reopen and hire people. They got people on staff, and, all of a sudden, they are dead-stopped because the Food and Drug Administration can't act to approve their licenses.

You can say: OK, this little smokehouse can survive. The family will find a place to live, but if you multiply these examples by thousands and millions, you are talking about a really substantial effect on real people's lives, and there is no excuse for it.

If this were over some major life-or-death policy issue, it would be somewhat understandable, but this is an eminently negotiable problem. It is not a crisis but a problem. I don't argue that it is not a problem and that the southern border doesn't need to be secure--again, that is where I started--but the question is, How do you do it right? How do you do it in a way that makes sense to the American taxpayer?

There may be places where we need a wall, but the wall is $200 million a mile. There may be ways to do it for a fraction of that and provide equal security. There also are ways--for example, with better screening devices at the ports of entry--to deal with drugs.

By the way, all of the data from the DEA, the current administration's Drug Enforcement Agency, is that the principal source of drugs coming across the southern border is at ports of entry, hidden in cars, hidden in trucks, not over, through, and around some place in the middle of the desert. That is where the drugs are coming through. That is where we ought to be concentrating. That is where we ought to be putting the technology--more dogs, more technology that can detect this type of thing, not building a wall that doesn't address the current problem. It is a solution, but it is going after the wrong problem.

These are real-life impacts. It doesn't need to be this way. If this were a project being proposed by the military--a new BOQ at Fort Benning--it would come to this Congress. It would go to the authorization committee. The plans would go to the Appropriations Committee. We would review it, question the sponsors, determine if it were an appropriate expenditure of public funds, and either approve it or deny it or suggest some alteration. This wall has never gone through that process. We are basically abdicating to the administration a major decision, particularly about public expenditure, without meeting our responsibilities.

One really simple way to get out of this would be for us to vote by two-thirds to pass the budget that we voted on 98 to 2 several weeks ago. It has $1.6 billion in it for border security, by the way. We could pass that and then sit down and talk with the administration about just what it is that they want and what is reasonable and how do we do it in a sensible way, and then we can get this thing done.

What worries me is the posture that the Senate is in today is adding a provision that isn't in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the President can veto a bill. What we are saying here, now, through our inability or unwillingness to bring a bill to the floor is that the President can stop a bill simply by saying he doesn't like it. That is not what the Constitution says. It doesn't say that the President has the right to stop a bill he doesn't like. It says that he has to veto it. If he is going to veto it, fine. Then we can discuss it, debate it, and determine whether that is an appropriate veto. But by avoiding the responsibility of considering this legislation, we are essentially handing the President a massive power that I don't believe Presidents should have.

This is an important issue. It is one that should be considered. It is one that should be debated. I would like to see the administration given the opportunity to make its case for the specifics, not the case generally about criminals or drugs--many of those claims have been refuted--but a specific case: Here is what we want to do; here is the effect of it; here is what it will cost; and here is why this is the best solution, as opposed to other solutions, like a fence or more Border Patrol agents or more technology or drones or sensors or whatever. We are not being given that opportunity.

I am perfectly willing to debate that in good faith. I don't dismiss out of hand that a wall may make sense in certain areas, but I am not prepared to give this administration a blank check for some construction project when I don't know what it is they want to build.

I am also very reluctant to concede anything in the context of a hostage situation where the U.S. Government is being held hostage because of a project that the President wants to build. If we do this, this will become the go-to tactic for this administration and probably for future administrations. We will have established a precedent that will haunt this institution for years to come. That is one of the reasons I think it is just imperative that we not cave in to this kind of attempted intimidation and express our good-faith willingness to look at, work on, and try to establish the right role for all parts of border security, not put all of our chips in one area that I believe will be both ineffective--not cost-effective--and damaging to our other efforts to actually secure the border and protect the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, more than 100,000 people and families will join together in the March for Life in Washington that is going to take place tomorrow. They will brave the cold--there is supposed to be sleet and bad weather--for one simple reason, to give voice to the voiceless, the unborn, our most vulnerable among us but are still deserving of the right to life.

Jeremiah 1:5 says:

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

Before you were born I sanctified you.

To everyone who comes to the March for Life, know that we hear you, and we are standing with you, just as we have in the past.

This is not a new topic, not for me to speak on either. Twenty-five years ago, I came down to tell a story. At that time, I was in the House. This has been going on for a long period of time. I came down here to tell the story of Hannah Rosa Rodriguez. This is a quote from 1992:

Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception regarding abortion and the issue of women and their right to protect their bodies. It is not that right that I object to but the right that is given them to kill an unborn fetus--an unborn child.

I want to share with you a story that my colleague Chris Smith told me some time ago on this floor. That was 1992.

Ana Rosa Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. This is another group of people we haven't talked about very much on the floor. At birth, she was a healthy 3-pound baby girl, except for her injury; she was missing an arm. Ana survived a botched abortion.

Her mother attempted to get an abortion in her 32nd week of pregnancy when she was perfectly healthy--8 weeks past what New York State law legally allows. In the unsuccessful abortion attempt, the baby's right arm was ripped off. However, they failed to kill Ana Rosa. She lived. Pro-life supporters agree that nightmare situations like the Rodriguez case are probably not common, but abortion-related deaths and serious injuries occur more frequently than most people are aware.

It is amazing that we can pay so much attention to issues such as human rights abroad and can allow the violent destruction of over 26 million children here at home. We are fortunate that Ana was not one of those children. She survived.

That was 1992, but today we still don't have Federal protections for the babies who survive the brutal abortion process. I am working with Senator Sasse, who is leading the effort this year to reintroduce the Born Alive Abortion Survivor Act, which would ensure that a baby who survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child naturally born premature at the same age, without prescribing any particular form of treatment. That is just morally right, and I don't see how anyone could vote against something like that. We will find out.

Just a few years later, in 1997, I was on the floor of this body, the U.S. Senate, with my good friend former Senator Rick Santorum, to try to pass the partial birth abortion ban and end the horrific practice of late-term abortions. I remember how active Senator Rick Santorum was at that time, a real leader in the pro-life cause. I spoke then, 1997, on the floor:

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time. I think he made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor of this body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is dealing with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with perceptions.

I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over and over. There is a lot of redundancy on this floor, but there are some things that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of those with you.

I am going to do something that is a little unusual because I am going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented in this body. In fact, I have done it many, many times. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia does it quite often.

I was talking about Bob Byrd. We remember Bob Byrd. He is deceased now, but this was 1997, and he read Scriptures every day on the floor of this Senate.

So I would like to read a couple of Scriptures, just for those who care. Anyone who does not, just don't listen.

First of all, I have used this a number of times. Jeremiah 1:35 says: ``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.'' The 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you use, makes it very clear when life begins. Life begins at conception.

Then I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy 30:19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.''

Last, I am also concerned that something that is as dramatic and as significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that maybe there are Senators out there who are not really into this issue, and they might want to vote the party line or they might want to say, well, maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they just really are not knowledgeable on the subject. So I will read Proverbs 24:11-12:

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't

stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim

responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God,

who knows all hearts, knows yours, and He knows you knew.

That is pretty specific.

Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is going to veto it anyway.

That was actually in 1997. The President, if you remember, at that time, I advised the chairman, was Bill Clinton.

But I suggest to you that the President may not veto it, and if he does veto it, maybe some people will come over who were not here a year ago on this side of the aisle.

See, this was 1997. It was pretty close back then. It could have gone either way.

One individual at the time was Ron Fitzsimmons, who just last year insisted that the number of partial birth abortions were a relative handful now admits: ``I lied through my teeth.'' He was lying. So if the President is predicating his decision to veto this ban on the basis of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there is every reason to believe he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that we are talking now not just about a procedure but a culture.

I have a very good friend by the name of Charles Colson. We all remember Chuck Colson. He is the guy who started the Campus Crusade for Christ. He gave these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton Prize for a contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it all together, not isolating one procedure or one issue. He said:

Courts [like to] strike down even perfunctory prayers, and

we are surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire,

look more like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject

the very idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best

and their brightest loot and betray.

Celebrities mock the traditional family, even revile it as

a form of slavery, and we are appalled at the tragedy of

broken homes and millions of unwed mothers. The media

celebrate sex without responsibility, and we are horrified by

plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking of innocent lives

in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized by the disregard

for life in blood-soaked streets.

I think that puts into context what we are now approaching--that it is not just a normal type of abortion.

I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual Members of this body. Keep in mind that this is 1997. His name is Patrick Moynihan--a very good man. He is from New York. Not many people know that he actually lived in his early years as my neighbor in Tulsa, OK. Again, at that time, nobody knew it until I mentioned it.

He was a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said: ``And now we have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide; it is infanticide, and one would be too many.''

That is Patrick Moynihan. He is thought of and respected as one of the great liberal scholars of this body.

This is where we get the numbers game. I heard it said on the floor many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or that maybe talking about those who are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal number, but in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and, yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all kinds of documentation that it is being done in the ninth month and during the normal birth process. They say only 200--only 200 lives are taken.

I agree with Patrick Moynihan. I am totally in a different philosophy than he is, but one is too many.

I am from Oklahoma, and some of you remember that we lost 168 lives in the Murrah Federal Office Building bombing. This was the largest domestic terrorist attack in American history. Did anybody say that is only 168 lives that were lost in Oklahoma City? No, the entire Nation came with compassion and mourned with us.

One life--I agree with Senator Moynihan--is too many.

One other issue that has not been discussed in this debate this year--keep in mind that is 1997--is that of pain. Rather than go into it--I do not think anyone refutes the fact that a small baby, if that baby is certainly past the second trimester, feels pain every bit as much as anybody who is in here, as any Member of the U.S. Senate would feel pain.

There was a study conducted in London, and I have the results here, but I think everyone understands that this is something that is very real--that these babies do feel pain.

My junior Senator gave an excellent speech on the floor, and he talked about all of these issues in a different way, but he is doing it currently, and we are talking about now quite a number of years ago.

I have a picture of a good friend of mine with me. His name is Jase-- James Edward Rapert.

Back when people our age were having babies--I am talking about myself now. Kay and I have been married 59 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. We know a little bit about this. Back at that time when they were having babies, they wouldn't even let you in the hospital, let alone the delivery room.

When my daughter Molly called up and said, ``Daddy, the time is here; could you come over,'' I went over to the hospital, and she said: Would you like to come into the delivery room?

I said: Yes, I would.

I saw for the first time what many of you in this room have seen and many of the women have experienced firsthand. I was there when this little guy was born. It is hard to describe to some of the men here who have not been through that experience of seeing this wonderful life begin, and I can remember when, in that room where the delivery took place, it occurred to me that when baby Jase, my grandson, was born, that is the moment when they could have used this procedure inflicting all of the pain you have heard described so many times: going into the cranium with the scissors, opening the scissors, sucking the brains out, and the skull collapses.

That is pain, and there are individuals who want to keep a procedure like this legal. If you did that to a dog, they would picket in front of your office. Somehow, we have developed a culture that puts a greater value on the lives of critters than human life. I watched baby Jase being born. I suggest to those of you who are concerned about choice that this is really the choice. It is either that choice or this choice, and these choices we are facing today.

This is something on which I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania. I was talking at that time about Rick Santorum.

We should not be having to talk about it. To think that 100 years from

now they may look back and talk about that barbaric society that killed their own young, and here we are just trying to save a few lives from a very painful death. Nonetheless, that is the issue we are faced with today.

I gave that speech in 1997 and again in 1998 and year after year until we won the battle and finally ended the practice of partial-birth abortion in 2003--a ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. There is still much more that needs to be done to end abortion on demand culture.

President Trump gets this. He was the first sitting President to speak at March for Life, and his administration has made real progress to advance the pro-life agenda. He has reinstated the Mexico City policy. We remember what that was. It was the one that bans taxpayer money from funding abortions abroad and directed the Justice Department to formally investigate Planned Parenthood.

President Trump also directed the Department of Health and Human Services to expand religious and conscience exemptions to protect individuals' religious liberty.

I am working in Congress to end the practice of abortion on demand that strips opportunity away from unborn babies and deprives them of the right to life.

This week I have joined my colleagues in introducing five commonsense bills--this is taking place right now, as we speak--in addition to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act, by Senator Sasse, which I mentioned earlier in this presentation. The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, working with Senator Wicker, would establish a governmentwide statutory prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage-- simple enough. I am pleased that Majority Leader McConnell has set up a procedural vote for this bill today.

There is the Life at Conception Act, which Senator Paul has, which would recognize that life begins at conception.

The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, led by Senator Blackburn--one of our brand-new freshman Senators--would prohibit title X family planning funds. Those are taxpayer funds now being used to subsidize abortions.

You might be wondering how that is different from the one just talked about. Here is how. Every year, Planned Parenthood receives nearly $60 million from the American taxpayer through title X family planning program. The program is intended to assist low-income women with family planning services. Unfortunately, this money is being used to subsidize massive organizations that engage in abortion activities, such as Planned Parenthood, and we need to stop that.

The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act, led by Senator Ernst, would prohibit all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

I also cosponsored the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, led by Senator Rubio, which would prohibit individuals from taking minors across State lines where they have lax laws just to have an abortion, stopping their States from having the jurisdiction.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am cosponsoring Senator Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions from being performed on unborn babies after 20 weeks, when we know they can feel pain. Only five countries allow abortions after 20 weeks, including the United States and North Korea, and that is unacceptable.

I wish to acknowledge a very important day. Religious Freedom Day is today. It is clear that our Founding Fathers recognized and enshrined the importance of religious liberty--one of our most precious and foundational religious freedoms, which allowed them to live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible.

I have long been a strong advocate of the basic human right to freely worship, and I am glad we can take a moment today to recognize that.

Anyway, all from speeches from 1992 and 1997--it is as true today as it was then. We are ready to start saving lives instead of taking the most vulnerable little lives, and we are ready now.

With that, I yield the floor.