January 17, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 10 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S288-S292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE 
                     ACT OF 2019--Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 109, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 109, a bill to 
     prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit 
     taxpayer funded abortions.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S288, January 17, 2019, second column, the following 
appears: CLOTURE MOTION We, the undersigned Senators, in 
accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules 
of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the 
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit 
taxpayer funded abortion. The online Record has been corrected to 
read: CLOTURE MOTION We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance 
with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer 
funded abortions.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

         Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, James M. 
           Inhofe, John Barrasso, David Perdue, John Kennedy, John 
           Thune, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, Cindy Hyde-Smith, 
           Pat Roberts, John Boozman, James Lankford, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded 
abortions, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Burr
     Crapo
     Graham
     Paul
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays 
are 47.
  Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Democratic leader.


                Unanimous Consent Request--H.J. Res. 30

  Mr. SCHUMER. We spent the past few days debating the resolution of 
disapproval of the Treasury Department's plan to relax sanctions on 
Russia. We have made clear that Treasury's plan is insufficient and 
lets Putin and his cronies off the hook. We have made clear that 
Putin's malign activities around the globe have not abated. We have 
made clear that there is no reason to relieve sanctions on one of our 
chief adversaries when there has been no reconciliation and in exchange 
for nothing.
  Earlier this week, 10 brave Republicans joined us on the motion to 
proceed and again on cloture, but it was not enough for passage. So 
many other Republicans who have campaigned that Democrats are not tough 
enough on Putin, when they had a chance to be tough on Putin, ran for 
the exits. I just want to let my colleagues know that the House was 
different and in this case far more courageous.
  The House passed the same resolution of disapproval 362 to 53. 
Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 ratio--more than 2 to 1--voted to not 
allow the loosening of sanctions on Deripaska's Rusal, as 136 of them 
joined with the unanimous--unanimous--support of House Democrats to 
pass the resolution.
  So two votes--two small votes--stand in the way of passage here in 
the Senate. Let the overwhelming bipartisan House vote be a message to 
my Republican friends in the Senate. We should pass this resolution. We 
should not let Putin get his way simply because Donald Trump has always 
wanted him to--too often.
  So I am going to shortly reconsider the resolution before it expires 
tonight at midnight. I strongly urge my friend the leader not to block 
the request and give Republican Senators a chance to change their minds 
on this incredibly important motion.

[[Page S289]]

  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.J. Res. 30; that the joint 
resolution be considered read for a third time and the Senate vote on 
passage with a 60-vote affirmative threshold, with no intervening 
action or debate; and that if the joint resolution fails to achieve 60 
votes for passage, it be returned to the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 21

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 5, H.R. 21, 
making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019. I 
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the preceding 
motion, but before I do, I would like to yield my time to my colleague 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Senator Kaine is yielding to me to talk about the Interior 
Department in the bill. Let me just thank him for his vigilance. When 
we have 800,000 Federal employees across this country and their 
families hurting, he has been vigilant with this. I know that in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia he and Senator Warner are very concerned, as 
are Senator Heinrich and myself about what is happening in New Mexico. 
I want to speak a little bit about the Interior Department bill, where 
I am the ranking Democrat.
  I rise today to call on this body to take action and immediately end 
the shutdown that is causing tragic consequences in the lives of 
Americans. We are on day 27 of the shutdown, the longest in our 
Nation's history.
  Every day my constituents in New Mexico are asking me what are we 
doing to end this senseless shutdown. So I am here on the Senate floor 
demanding that we open the government, demanding that we do our jobs as 
a coequal branch of government, demanding that we pass bipartisan 
appropriations bills.
  I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I know how critical the Interior bill 
is, particularly to my home State of New Mexico and to States across 
the West and across the country. The Interior bill funds basic services 
like healthcare and public safety for 2 million American Indians and 
Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
  This bill keeps our air and water clean through the work of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. This bill protects and preserves 
national parks and other treasured public lands and helps to support 
small businesses that depend on them. The Agencies in this bill fund 
science, wildlife protection, energy development, and arts and cultural 
programs in every State, and they employ tens of thousands of 
Americans. There is no reason why they should be shuttered. They are 
simply too important.
  This shutdown is particularly devastating for Indian Country. Every 
day the President continues to treat Tribal programs like hostages for 
political gain. By his action he endangers families across Indian 
Country. Multiple health clinics that serve urban Indians have closed 
their doors, forced to turn hundreds of patients away. Tribal court 
programs are in jeopardy. Food distribution and social service programs 
are on the chopping block. Law enforcement services are stretched to 
the breaking point. Thousands of Tribal members are furloughed--all to 
devastating effect.
  Indian Country is paying the price for every day that the President's 
reckless shutdown continues. These are people's lives and livelihoods 
on the line. Our government is completely failing to uphold its trust 
and treaty obligations to Native Americans, and all for what? A wildly 
expensive and ineffective wall that this Nation doesn't want and a 
vanity project for a President who is not putting the best interests of 
this country first. It doesn't make any sense.
  We need to pass the Interior appropriations bill so we can reopen the 
entire National Park System, along with other public lands, and do so 
safely. Already, we have heard about the tragic impacts of the shutdown 
on our parks, including thousand-year-old Joshua trees cut down in 
California, and fossils that have been looted at Carlsbad Caverns in my 
home State of New Mexico. We can't let this kind of damage happen to 
our most treasured places, and we must ensure that small businesses 
that depend on our public lands--from fishing guides to gas stations 
and hotels--are able to thrive and keep our economy strong.
  Across the board, this shutdown is hurting businesses, contractors, 
and Federal workers. Even the President's own Council of Economic 
Advisers has released figures doubling the expected impacts to the 
economy. Think about that. The President's own aides admit this 
shutdown is worse than they anticipated. This is totally unacceptable, 
but it is not too late to change the situation.
  We can end this shutdown today. All it takes is for enough of my 
Republican colleagues and friends to find the courage to join us to 
pass these appropriations bills and to send a message to the White 
House that we need to reopen the government. I want to say to them, 
let's join together to make sure that Tribal health clinics are open 
and Tribal law enforcement officers are on patrol.
  Let's work side by side to reopen the entire National Park System and 
other public lands and ensure that there are enough staff members on 
the ground to protect our Nation's most cherished national and cultural 
resources. Let's pass these bipartisan appropriations bills without 
delay.
  I don't understand how this Chamber can stand by and watch the 
devastating effects of this shutdown on our Nation. In New Mexico 
alone, we estimate that there are at least 10,800 Federal workers who 
are working without pay or are furloughed outright. Nationwide, there 
are an estimated 800,000 Federal workers and as many as 2 million 
Federal contractors who may be affected. We are talking about millions 
of people's paychecks being held hostage for a border wall that the 
American public doesn't support.
  Yesterday I stood on this floor and talked about the impacts this 
shutdown is having on the Ornelas family of Carlsbad, NM. They are 
depending on a paycheck from the Department of Interior to help keep 
their family afloat as they deal with a disabled son who had two brain 
surgeries. The Ornelas family was already dealing with one of the worst 
crises a family can go through, and now they have to worry about how to 
pay for basic necessities. They are just one example of the lives at 
stake.
  It is not just Federal workers and Federal contractors. Every single 
American relies on the Federal Government for essential public safety 
and security. The Food and Drug Administration shut down--contaminated 
food can kill thousands. TSA agents and FAA air traffic controllers we 
rely on to keep air traffic safe are unpaid. In a massive irony, 
President Trump's shutdown means the Department of Homeland Security is 
unpaid. There are an estimated 2,000 New Mexicans we rely on for border 
security, international trade, and immigration work who are unpaid. 
This really truly is madness. For their sake and for the sake of all 
Americans who are affected by this tragic situation, we need to end 
this shutdown now. The consequences of inaction are too great.
  Once again, let me thank Senator Kaine for his passion on this issue, 
for his vigilance in terms of bringing this issue, and fighting with 
all of us on the floor.
  I yield to Senator Kaine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. I will briefly conclude my comments recognizing my 
colleague from Indiana is also on the floor.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his words. He spoke about the

[[Page S290]]

motion I just made. I will be on the floor tomorrow and Saturday and 
next week--Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--to share stories that have 
been shared with me and are being shared with me every day by 
Virginians affected and the Agencies the Senator from New Mexico 
discussed and others.
  Just to clarify, the motion that I made earlier was to pass a House 
bill that is pending before us. It is an appropriation for the 
remainder of the fiscal year for the following Departments and 
Agencies: Department of Interior; Environmental Protection Agency; 
Forest Service; Department of Treasury, including the IRS; Judiciary; 
Executive Office of the President--we are trying to fund the Executive 
Office of the President; the District of Columbia; Department of 
Agriculture, including the Food Stamp Program; the Food and Drug 
Administration; Department of Transportation; Department of Housing and 
Urban Development; Department of Commerce; Department of Justice, 
including the FBI; science-related Agencies, including NASA; the 
Department of State and several related and independent Agencies.
  That was the motion that I made that was objected to by the majority 
leader.
  Three items quickly. There are three levels of surreal illogic to the 
position we are in. The first is, we are having a legitimate debate 
between Congress and the President on border security and immigration 
reform. That is a very legitimate debate, in which there are 
intellectually respectable differences of opinion. If we are having a 
debate about that, why would we punish the workers who are charged with 
administering the Food Stamp Program? Why punish workers in the 
National Forest and National Parks? Why punish the citizens who need 
those services? The first level of illogic to the position we are in is 
we are punishing both workers and the citizens who need services 
completely unconnected with the border and immigration reform issue.
  Surreal illogic No. 2. If we are having a debate about safety and 
security on the border, why would we demand Customs and Border Patrol 
folks work without pay? Those who are affected and who are part of the 
Agencies dealing with the dispute are, by all accounts, the frontline 
people who are dealing with this--immigration judges, Custom and Border 
Patrol folks, ICE agents, DEA agents, the Coast Guard, which interdicts 
drugs, FBI, U.S. marshals, BATF agents--why would we make their lives 
harder when they are the safety and security professionals who are 
charged with dealing with the issue we are trying to figure out?
  The final level of surreal illogic, as I yield to my colleague from 
Indiana, is this. I want to thank all my colleagues because a week ago, 
by unanimous consent, we passed a backpay bill that the President 
signed yesterday. Now we have guaranteed that the Federal Treasury will 
write a check for the paychecks for all of these workers. It is 
actually probably going to be more because to close and restart 
actually costs a little bit more. We agreed to pay backpay in this and 
any future shutdown to these workers.
  So if we are going to pay them anyway, why wouldn't we want them to 
be serving Americans instead of being furloughed? If we are going to 
pay them anyway--if the Federal Treasury is going to write that check--
wouldn't it be better if they are in their offices answering phones, 
processing food stamp applications, and serving their fellow Americans 
than locked out of their offices?
  We bar Federal workers from striking because of the need for 
continuous government operations, but we are locking them out of their 
offices while we have agreed to give them full payment for the work 
they would have been doing had we not locked them out. That is not 
fiscally smart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                             March for Life

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that is very 
important to my constituents in my State of Indiana. It is also an 
issue that is very close to my heart--the sanctity of life.
  Tomorrow we know thousands of pro-life advocates from around the 
country, including many Hoosiers, will convene in Washington for the 
March for Life. This is the world's largest annual pro-life 
demonstration.
  You may not be able to tell this by watching today's television or 
movies, but there is bipartisan agreement among most Americans that we 
must protect human life. This is no old-fashioned point of view. In 
fact, a recent survey of millennials showed that 70 percent supported 
limits such as parental notification, blocking abortions at 5 months of 
pregnancy, and ending government funding for abortion.
  In Indiana, concerned citizens from all corners of the State are 
fighting tirelessly to protect pro-life principles. These are the 
unsung heroes of the pro-life movement--those who have dedicated their 
lives to saving innocent children. These and other Hoosiers, of course, 
elected me to represent their interests in the Senate, but they also 
elected me to represent their values. I have been proud to work on 
legislation that reflects those values.
  Already in this new Congress, I have joined dozens of my Senate 
colleagues on a letter to President Trump asking for a public 
commitment to only support pro-life legislative and administrative 
policies. To be clear, this President has indeed been supportive of 
pro-life policies, but House Democrats have already indicated they 
intend to move forward with pro-abortion legislation this Congress. We 
would like the President to let the House know that he is going to veto 
any kind of legislation that doesn't respect the sanctity of life.
  I have also joined several of my colleagues this week to sponsor the 
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2019, which we just voted on. 
This bill would have established a governmentwide statutory prohibition 
on taxpayer subsidies for abortion or abortion coverage. Federal 
taxpayer dollars should absolutely not be used to fund abortion.
  I am incredibly disappointed that my colleagues didn't join me in 
voting to pass this important legislation today. I will continue 
looking for ways to advance this needed reform.
  I am also a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act, which ensures that a baby who survives an abortion will receive 
the same treatment as any child naturally born premature at the very 
same age. We must do all we can to protect innocent life.
  Before being elected to the Senate, I sat on the board of directors 
of the Hannah House in Bloomington, IN. This is a maternity home that 
offers women loving support during their pregnancy. I also spent 2 
years as a smalltown attorney in Southern Indiana. During that time, I 
offered free legal services to parents who wanted to adopt. I am 
passionate about helping children find loving forever homes and helping 
caring adults become parents. I have come to appreciate firsthand, 
through my own life experiences, the importance of advocating for those 
who cannot advocate for themselves.
  We are divided on so many issues today, but protecting the lives of 
unborn children should not be one of those issues. I will continue 
working on legislation that advances pro-life values, and I am hopeful 
we can soon turn these actions into law.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             March For Life

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, this week, folks from all over the 
country--all ages, all backgrounds, and all walks of life--are coming 
together to celebrate and highlight one of the single most important 
priorities of this Nation, and that is protecting the unborn.
  In fact, tomorrow, nearly 100,000 of these folks will march right 
here in Washington, DC, at the March for Life rally. In fact, I will be 
speaking at that rally tomorrow.
  As American citizens, I believe in our founding principle that all 
men and all women are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. Every human life must be valued. Every human life must be 
protected from conception until

[[Page S291]]

death. We must stand to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and 
that includes the unborn.
  I am grateful that under President Trump's leadership and the 
Republican-led U.S. Senate, we have delivered some of the strongest 
pro-life results in history. In fact, in the last Congress, this 
Republican-led Senate confirmed 85 conservative judges. That includes a 
record-setting 30 circuit court judges. We also confirmed 53 district 
court judges and two new Supreme Court Justices.
  I remember when I left the private sector to come to public service 
that when the Senate put a judge on the bench, that meant these were 
lifetime appointments. We can pass laws here. Laws can be changed in 
the current Congress. Laws can be changed in a future Congress. But 
these judges are lifetime appointments.
  Despite the great progress we have made over the last couple of 
years, there is plenty of work to be done. In fact, just this week, I 
was grateful and thankful to see 48 of my Senate colleagues join me in 
sending a letter to President Trump urging him to stop any 
legislation--any legislation--that is coming out of the House that 
would erode pro-life protections.
  The good news is, this is a battle we are winning, and this is a 
battle we must absolutely win.
  Thank you.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, a couple of days ago I came to the floor 
to talk about the partial government shutdown, how it is impacting 
different parts of my State--the Great State of Alaska--and, in 
particular, how it is impacting the men and women in the U.S. Coast 
Guard.
  I think we all recognize as we are trying to work through this 
partial government shutdown that a lot of Federal workers are being 
impacted, but let me talk about the Coast Guard because I think it is a 
little different than almost any other group of Federal workers.
  On Tuesday, these brave men and women did not receive a paycheck. 
They didn't receive a paycheck, and they are the only branch of the 
U.S. military right now, out there around the world and around the 
globe, risking their lives for the American people, who are not getting 
paid. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--we love them all. They are 
working hard. They are getting paid. The men and women of the Coast 
Guard are not getting paid. That is wrong. That is particularly wrong. 
They can't leave the Coast Guard. They would get court-martialed. They 
are working hard, saving lives in my State, certainly--in Alaska--all 
the time, and they are not getting paid when the other services are 
getting paid.
  So what did we do? A number of us, Democrats and Republicans--almost 
one-quarter of the Members of the U.S. Senate--cosponsored a bill that 
says: Let's pay the Coast Guard. Let's pay the Coast Guard right now so 
they are treated fairly, like the other men and women serving in our 
military.
  That was a good start. I was optimistic then. It has been a bit of a 
roller coaster ride, but, to be honest, I couldn't imagine that this 
bill wouldn't sail through. We are not going to be able to fix 
everything right now, but this is one we can start working on, on these 
individual issues, and there is a lot of talk of doing it.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to raise this with the President and 
his administration and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and we 
continued to press this issue all week with the OMB Director, the Chief 
of Staff of the White House, and the President himself, and he said 
this week that he was going to support the bill. That is important. Now 
you have the executive branch, the President of the United States, and 
he will sign it. He said it. I was in a meeting with him yesterday, and 
he said he is 100 percent supportive of this bill. It is bipartisan. 
There are actually more Democrats than Republicans on the bill right 
now.
  What we did, trying to move this quickly, is we said: All right, the 
President is going to sign it. We have a quarter of the Senate. It is a 
bipartisan bill. Let's move it.
  We moved to hotline it. What does that mean? To try to get this bill 
to be moved through unanimous consent through the Senate, a hotline 
means you are going to try to move it real fast and everybody is going 
to vote on it. That started today. By noon, every Republican Member of 
the U.S. Senate said: Good to go--cleared, hot. Let's pay the men and 
women of the Coast Guard.
  I had the opportunity to talk to a local public radio program in 
Kodiak, the largest Coast Guard station in the country. I had the 
opportunity to say to my fellow Alaskans that I am pretty optimistic. 
We have moved. We have a lot of cosponsors--25 percent of the Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans--and the President of the United States. 
Bingo, Republicans have said we are good to go on it. I have certainly 
started working with some of my Democratic colleagues who are also 
optimistic. Why would we block this? Why would we block this? Remember, 
they are the only men and women in the U.S. military not getting paid 
right now, and we have a solution.
  So I come to the floor, and I hate to admit it because 2 hours ago I 
was pretty optimistic, but I am getting word that my colleagues--the 
Democrats and the minority leader--are now saying: Maybe we are just 
going to block this. I am not sure why. Nobody has come down here to 
say why. We are running the hotline on the Democratic side. So maybe 
that is just a rumor. I hope it is just a rumor. Why would you block 
it? Come on, my colleagues on the other side. Why would you block it? 
We are not going to fix everything tonight, but we could fix this 
tonight.
  Let me talk a little bit about my State. Some of you have probably 
seen the ``Deadliest Catch'' and those kind of shows about Alaska. Look 
at the men and women who are out there keeping our fishermen--American 
fishermen--safe. On average, every month in the State of Alaska the 
Coast Guard saves 22 lives--in 1 month, on average, in one State--and 
it assists 53 people, reports and investigates 25 maritime casualties, 
conducts close to 20 security boardings and over 20 security patrols. 
If you are in trouble on the high seas in Alaska, which is a bad place 
to be, the seas are never too rough or the skies never too dismal for 
the Coast Guard to come out and rescue you. We have seen it time and 
again, but it is not just in Alaska. It is all over the country, and it 
is all over the world.

  I talked to the Commandant of the Coast Guard just yesterday. I said: 
Mr. Commandant, Admiral, I think we are close. The President is good to 
go. I think most of the Senators are good to go. The bill has 25 
cosponsors.
  He reminded me that he has men and women in the Coast Guard deployed 
in the Persian Gulf doing anti-piracy operations alongside U.S. Marines 
and U.S. Navy personnel--right now, in the Persian Gulf, Marines, Coast 
Guard, and Navy--and guess who is not getting paid. Does anyone think 
that should be a tolerated situation? The answer is no. The answer is 
no.
  Again, I hope this is a rumor, and that the hotline is happening 
right now on the Democratic side. We have cleared it--good to go. Every 
Republican has signed off on this. I hope that this is just a rumor--
that tonight the Democrats will clear this and we will get it to the 
House. The Coast Guard said they can start cutting checks again within 
24 hours. The President will sign this. So there should be no reason 
not to do this.
  The partial government shutdown is negatively impacting Federal 
workers. The President's request, in my view, for border security is 
imminently reasonable. I hope the Speaker will view it that way. A lot 
of her members are. We are all working for this. We are all working for 
a solution. Senator Johnson put out a bill that I joined as a cosponsor 
that would immediately pay all workers who are currently working 
without pay. This would expand the idea of what we are doing with the 
Coast Guard bill. I think it is a good idea. That is a start, but the 
Coast Guard bill right now has momentum. It has momentum.
  We could get this done in 24 hours. It is not a complete solution, 
but we have the White House, and it should be the Senate and, 
hopefully, the House getting ready to find a solution for at least for 
some of the men and women in the Federal workforce.
  But as I like to emphasize, they are not just any Federal workers. 
All of

[[Page S292]]

them are important--there is no doubt--but when you are the only 
members of the military not getting paid for risking your lives for 
your country and we can fix it here tonight in the Senate, that is what 
we should be doing.
  I certainly hope this bill isn't being blocked unreasonably. As I 
mentioned, it is not a complete solution, but it is the start of a 
solution. For the life of me, I can't understand why this bill would be 
blocked.
  More importantly, the men and women of the Coast Guard will not 
understand why this bill is being blocked. Communities that support and 
depend on the Coast Guard--like Kodiak, AK--will not understand why 
this bill is being blocked. These young men and women, who love their 
country and have chosen to serve and protect us, are not going to 
understand why this bill is being blocked tonight.
  I don't want to use the word plead, but I am asking my colleagues on 
the Democratic side to do the right thing and pass this bill tonight. 
Every single American who is aware of this situation knows that it is 
inequitable when the other members of the military--who are out there 
risking their lives just like the men and women of the Coast Guard--are 
getting paid and the men and women of the Coast Guard aren't.
  We are on the verge of a solution. Passing this bill will take care 
of at least one issue that we are all trying to resolve. Again, I urge 
my Democratic colleagues--because all of my Republican colleagues have 
already passed this bill in the hotline. I urge my colleagues to take 
up this bill, do the right thing, and support the men and women of the 
Coast Guard, who are not being treated equal to their brothers and 
sisters in the other branches of the military.
  Until then, I am going to continue to fight for this. I am going to 
continue to raise the issue. We have made a lot of progress, including 
getting the White House and the President on board and getting all of 
our Members here on the Republican side of the Senate on board. I am 
hopeful, with more advocacy and more reasoning with my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, that we will also get there, move this to 
the House quickly, and get the men and women of the Coast Guard the 
paychecks they are needing.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________