John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Senate Resolution that is at the desk, expressing the sense of the Senate that efforts to create a one-size-fits-all government-run healthcare system referred to as ``Medicare for All'' should be rejected. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Fleming to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development. The Assistant Secretary serves as the Administrator of the Economic Development Administration, the EDA. It is the only Federal Agency focused exclusively on economic development. It works directly with communities in regions to help them build capacity for economic development based on local business conditions as well as needs. As a physician, entrepreneur, businessman, military veteran, and four-term Member of Congress, Dr. Fleming is incredibly well qualified to lead the EDA. Dr. Fleming has launched several companies, which today employ over 500 people in Louisiana. Dr. Fleming's nomination has drawn praise from numerous political, educational, and economic development leaders in his home State of Louisiana. Don Pierson, the Secretary of Louisiana Economic Development, wrote: Dr. Fleming has been instrumental in the development and execution of projects, which have taken root in Northwest Louisiana and spread across the United States. He goes on to say: His experience in public policy, business and his military background serve as the right attributes for leading economic development efforts. The Environment and Public Works Committee reported Dr. Fleming's nomination favorably to the Senate with a substantial bipartisan majority, and we have done it twice, first on October 1, 2018, during the 115th Congress, and then next on February 5 of this year, after he was renominated this Congress. Under normal circumstances, Dr. Fleming would have been confirmed and in office last fall. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked his nomination ever since it was first placed on the Senate Executive Calendar more than 155 days ago. Now, we had to file cloture and go through repeated delays on a well-qualified nominee who was twice reported by a substantial majority of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Dr. Fleming's treatment by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is similar to the obstruction of John Ryder, whom we finally confirmed last week to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He had waited an unconscionable 388 days for a vote on the Senate floor. In a column last Friday, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel noted that 388 days is ``100 days longer than it takes a new human being to come into the world.'' She continued: Even at the last, Democrats were stringing out the process, refusing unanimous consent to a floor vote, requiring Republicans to file for cloture, which entails more delay. Then she points out that ``after all that, [Mr. Ryder] was confirmed--by a voice vote with no audible dissent.'' Let's not delay any longer. Let's stop this spectacle of obstructing well-qualified nominees solely for obstruction's sake. I urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of the nomination of John Fleming to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and Administrator of the EDA. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to answer those specific questions, and I would point to an op-ed that I wrote for the New York Times last year. Perhaps the Senator from New York doesn't read his hometown newspaper, but there is an editorial in the New York Times of December 18: ``Cut Carbon Through Innovation, Not Regulation.'' It is a plan. Cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. The question is, Do we believe the climate is changing? Do humans have an impact? The answer is yes to both. As a matter of fact, I wrote: [The] climate is changing, and we, collectively, have a responsibility to do something about it. It is right here in the New York Times from December 18. Second, the United States and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuels, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come. We need to also rely on innovation, not new taxes, not punishing global agreements. That is the ultimate solution. I will point out that this is something that I had written and submitted and published long before the so-called Green New Deal was ever introduced into Congress either in the House or in the Senate. I go on to say: People across the world are rejecting the idea that carbon taxes and raising the cost of energy is the answer to lowering emissions. Because we know, as I go on: In France, the government just suspended a planned fuel tax increase after some of its citizens took to the streets in protest. It was every story on the news. And in the United States, the results of [the] November elections showed that these plans and other government interventions are just as unpopular. Voters in Washington State rejected the creation of an expensive tax on carbon emissions. In Colorado, a ballot measure to severely restrict drilling was defeated. And in Arizona, voters rejected a mandate to make the state's utilities much more dependent on renewable energy by 2030-- regardless of the cost to consumers. I would point out that all three of those States elected liberal Democrats to Congress on election night. In further answer to that question, I would point to USA TODAY, March 4, 2019. Today is the 6th, so we are talking Monday. Today is Wednesday. This is this week's paper, front page: To a warming planet's rescue: Carbon Capture. To the rescue of a warming planet. In the race against climate change, scientists are looking for ways to pull CO2 out of the Earth's atmosphere and store it away. And what they point to is bipartisan legislation passed by this body, passed by the House, and signed into law by President Trump focusing on carbon capture and sequestration. It talks about a program called 45Q. That is the FUTURE Act. One of the cosponsors from the other side of the aisle is on the floor right now. His name is mentioned, my name is mentioned in finding the solution. There are Republican solutions and ideas that are focused on innovation, not regulation, not taxation, focused on freedom and the innovation that we have had. So I just come to tell you, Mr. President, that there are solutions, and the Republicans will continue to offer them. We had a hearing most recently just last week on something called the USE IT Act--again, to capture carbon and to sequester it. We have been working on new-age nuclear power, working with leaders around the world. We passed that, and it was signed into law--an innovation bill for nuclear power, new- age nuclear power that will be in small reactors, safer reactors, cheaper to use, no carbon whatsoever. So there are absolute solutions, and Republicans are going to continue to come to the floor, but we are not going to support something that would bankrupt the country, something that would raise the cost of energy for families, something that would drive people to the point of having to spend money they don't have, having our country borrow money we don't have, all at a time when you say, what is the cause? There are suggestions and numbers that have been raised. I haven't heard any numbers from the other side of the aisle. So I come to the floor to tell you that Republicans have continued to offer solutions, and I have been offering some of these solutions for 10 years. It took us a while to get these into law, but they are working. They are working and have been identified as working. Even President Obama's former Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz, who came and testified to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said there are two things that would make a big difference. One is the new-age nuclear work that we are doing, and the other is carbon capture and sequestration. Those are large-scale products that work. I see other colleagues on the floor. Do I have the floor right now?

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, as long as I continue to have the floor, I would like to point out that we have a booming economy in this country. In just over a year, tax relief has helped create 3 million new jobs. Manufacturing jobs have increased for 10 straight months. There is the fact that we have more jobs available than there are people looking for jobs. We have a booming economy. I want to do nothing that is going to harm these people all across the country who are working to have an opportunity in such a strong, healthy, growing economy. This Green New Deal--this Big Government takeover of the economy--it is masked as an environmental proposal. To me, it is radical. The president of the Laborers' International Union of North America calls it a ``bad deal.'' Take a look at America. We are leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide because of the technological and innovative techniques we have had. We know from what we hear about the Green New Deal that it is prohibitively expensive, with predictions of up to $93 trillion. The entire net worth of the United States--of all the homes and all the families and everything--is only $112 trillion, and this alone would cost $93 trillion. You can go by how much it is going to cost each individual family. It is completely unaffordable. It is not something that is workable. But it is so far outside the America mainstream even if it were affordable. So what we have seen here is the Democrats take another hard left turn. Under this Green New Deal, in just 10 years, the Nation's energy system would undergo a Washington makeover. The Green New Deal would end the use of energy resources that currently provide power for three out of five homes and businesses in the United States. Think about the harm that would cause the economy. This Green New Deal mandates the use of expensive power sources that can't keep the lights on. Wind and solar are important. We need more renewable energy in this country. But right now, wind and solar provide less than 8 percent of our electricity. Should we increase the use of renewables? Absolutely. But eliminating affordable coal and natural gas would be a costly mistake--and not only that, it is impossible to do. The electric grid can't handle it. Last month, there was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled ``The Green New Deal's Impossible Electric Grid,'' written by Robert Blohm of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. He writes that if the electric grid relies solely on renewable energy sources, ``the grid itself may collapse.'' That is not all we lose if the grid collapses. Our transportation system is in the crosshairs. The Green New Deal seeks to transform how Americans travel. It calls for an extensive and expensive national, high-speed rail system to replace air travel. The State of California attempted to build a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It turns out the price was too high even for California. The Governor, Gavin Newsom, just recently canceled the line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Why? He said because of the massive cost. But it is all part of the Green New Deal. The question is, If California can't afford to build high-speed rail between two major cities, how can we afford to build a system that crisscrosses the country? We can't. The Green New Deal doesn't stop at energy and travel; it extends to every building in the country. Homeowners are going to be forced to retrofit their houses, and businesses would have to do the same. This is what massive government overreach looks like. The rest of the world is going to continue to pollute even if the country were to adopt something as extreme as the Green New Deal. It would cancel all of the gains we have made in the United States by the fact that our emissions continue to go down. In 2017, we produced just 13 percent of global emissions here in the United States--just 13 percent. China and India together--33 percent. And they are rising over there. Without dramatic changes from India and China, global emissions are going to continue to climb. So even if all the Green New Deal's costly mandates went into effect, with the punishment to our country and our economy, there would still be no real effect on the Earth's temperature. So, look, it is no surprise that the Democrats are trying to duck this big green bomb. Senate Democrats may even decide to vote present to avoid voting for their own extreme proposal that a dozen of them have either signed on to or cosponsored, including just about every Democratic Senator who is running for President. They have all signed on. They are all cosponsoring it. This green dream is unreachable, but there is a proven way to reduce our emissions, which is why I talk about what we are wanting to do in a positive way with nuclear energy, with carbon capture, things that have gathered the attention of the New York Times and were on the front page of USA TODAY on Monday. So we are going to continue to work with the FUTURE Act and with the USE IT Act. The committee is going to continue to work in a bipartisan way because Republicans are committed to finding solutions through innovation, not taxation, not regulation--solutions that do not hurt our strong and healthy, growing economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order. Mr. MARKEY--where he got that bogus number of $93 trillion? That is a completely made-up number by the Koch brothers.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is time to vote on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. For the past year, Andrew Wheeler has served as the Senate-confirmed Deputy Administrator of the EPA, and for the past 7 months, he has served as the Acting Administrator. He has done an admirable job in charge of the EPA. Under his leadership, the EPA has put forward commonsense proposals to roll back punishing regulations and still protect America's air and water. He is committed to protecting both human health and the environment. Andrew Wheeler's qualifications are without question. He has spent decades working in environmental policy at the EPA itself, here on Capitol Hill, and as a consultant to environmental and energy clients. President Trump picked the right person to lead the Environmental Protection Agency when he nominated Andrew Wheeler. It is time for the Senate to confirm him to this important post. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the Senate is today considering the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is the job of the EPA to protect both the environment and human health. This critically important Agency needs Senate-confirmed leadership in place. President Trump picked the right person to lead this Agency when he nominated Andrew Wheeler. Since April of last year, he has served as the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and since July of last year, he has served as the Acting Administrator of the Agency. I believe Andrew Wheeler has done an outstanding job in leading the EPA over the past 7 months. During the last administration, the EPA issued punishing regulations that would hurt the economy and raise costs on families. Under Acting Administrator Wheeler's leadership, the EPA has taken a different approach. The Agency is now putting forward proposals that both protect our environment and allow the country's economy to flourish. Acting Administrator Wheeler has led efforts to issue commonsense regulatory proposals. These include the affordable clean energy rule and revising the definition of the waters of the United States. Both of these proposals show Mr. Wheeler is serious about clean air and clean water while they also show he understands there is an important role for States and local communities to play. It can't be a top-down, Washington-knows-best approach. Acting Administrator Wheeler has played a critical role in implementing updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act and has taken steps to limit people's exposure to dangerous and toxic chemicals. These updates are the result of major bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2016. Andrew Wheeler is working to limit lead exposure as well. Last December, he helped to unveil the Trump administration's multiagency effort to reduce the number of children exposed to lead in drinking water, in consumer products, and in paint. During his tenure, the EPA has also worked to provide greater regulatory certainty to States, to Tribes, to communities, and to the industries it regulates. Mr. Wheeler is well qualified for the position of EPA Administrator. He has spent decades--actually, over 25 years--working in environmental policy. He has served as a career employee at the EPA as an environmental protection specialist. This experience makes him uniquely qualified to serve as the head of the Agency. After that time, he spent over a decade here on Capitol Hill. When he left the EPA, he came here to work on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He served as the staff director of the Senate Environment and Public Works' Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee for 6 years. Then he spent another 6 years working as the Republican staff director and chief counsel for the full committee under Chairman Jim Inhofe. After his time on the Hill, he also worked as a consultant for a variety of energy and environmental clients. He is very well qualified, and that is a big reason his nomination has received broad support. There are 63 agricultural and forestry groups that wrote a letter in support of Mr. Wheeler's nomination to be the Administrator: ``It is hard to imagine a more qualified individual for the role of EPA administrator, and we respectfully request that the committee move to confirm his nomination so that he may be considered by the full Senate,'' they say, ``at the earliest date possible.'' Mr. Wheeler has received praise from the United Mine Workers of America. Cecil Roberts, the union's international president, said the following about Mr. Wheeler: ``[H]e will be a reasonable voice within the agency, and will recognize the impact on both the workers and mining communities that are directly affected as EPA develops future emissions regulations.'' His experience and commitment to sound environmental policies has received recognition from the Democrats as well. Senator Carper, who is with me on the floor and was the ranking member of our committee at one point, said of Mr. Wheeler when he was nominated for the Deputy Administrator's role: ``I think having worked in the agency, he actually cares about the environment; the air we breathe; the water we drink; the planet on which we live.'' I agree. It is time to end the needless delays by the Senate Democrats. Andrew Wheeler's nomination to serve as the Deputy Administrator was delayed for months and had to be reported out of the EPW Committee twice before he was confirmed. Now the Senate Democrats are calling to delay the process again. These delays only slow down the Agency from meeting its objectives of helping communities and protecting the environment. The EPA needs a Senate-confirmed Administrator in office. The EPA Administrator plays a central role in developing and implementing programs that are focused on meeting the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment. Andrew Wheeler is well qualified to lead this Agency and to serve in the President's Cabinet. He is the right person to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I strongly encourage every Senator to support the nomination.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon will sign a joint resolution of the Wyoming Legislature recognizing December 10, 2019, as Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day. On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory passed the first law in U.S. history granting women the right to vote and hold public office. This right became so important to the people of Wyoming that, when the State sought statehood, it refused to enter the Union if this right was not protected. In 2015, I came to the floor to speak in honor of the 125th anniversary of Wyoming statehood. I shared with the Senate the challenge Wyoming faced from Congress in its quest to become a member of the Union. I believe it is timely to share that story again. The debate in Congress was contentious, with the arguments centering on one of our most proud accomplishments: a decision made long before Wyoming became a State. On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory was the first in the United States to grant women the right to vote. Efforts to attain statehood finally came to fruition 20 years later. It was incumbent on our delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Joseph M. Carey, to convince his colleagues to support the statehood bill. On March 26, 1890, the day of the statehood bill debate, Joseph Carey spoke passionately about Wyoming. His words still hold true today. He said that Wyoming was rich in agricultural possibilities. He explained Wyoming was one of nature's great storehouses of minerals. Joseph Carey also talked about grazing development, educational leadership, widespread railway construction, the model Constitution, and the unique opportunities for women. Yet opponents to our statehood did not support women having the right to vote. On the same day as Joseph Carey's impassioned speech, Representative William Oates of Alabama argued against our admittance to the Union. He said, ``Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say that in my judgment the franchise has been too liberally extended. Should we ever reach universal suffrage this Government will become practically a pure democracy and then the days of its existence are numbered.'' The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Wyoming's statehood bill with a vote of 139 to 127. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on June 27, 1890. Wyoming officially became the 44th State on July 10, 1890, and became the first state to allow women the right to vote and hold public office. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 1 of the Sixty-Fifth Legislature of the State of Wyoming recognizing December 10, 2019, as Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Indo-Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program''. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Indo-Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program''. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Managing Pain During the Opioid Crisis.''

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, section 7003 of the legislation before us today, as modified by the Rubio amendment No. 182, addresses units in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, which Congress established through bipartisan legislation in 1982. Congress most recently updated maps as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the end of last year through the enactment of Public Law 115-358. I yield to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, Republicans have kept our commitment the past 2 years to get Americans back to work. We provided much needed tax relief and regulatory relief for people all across the country. We reined in Washington, we unleashed job creators, and now we are producing more jobs than can be filled. So America is back in business. The economy is booming. Economic growth has accelerated. In just 2 years, we have created 5 million jobs in this country--3 million jobs since we passed tax relief last year--and 600,000 of these new jobs are in manufacturing. Last month alone, we added a phenomenal 300,000 new jobs. Here is more welcomed news. Americans are seeing bigger paychecks. Wages are up 3 percent--the highest jump in over a decade. Our unemployment rate is at a 50-year low. Clearly, our country is headed in the right direction. Pro-growth Republican policies have improved Americans' lives. Democrats, on the other hand, want to take us in the opposite direction. Just last week, Democrats released their Green New Deal. It is a Big Government takeover of the economy, masked as an environmental policy. The proposal isn't green, and it is not new. It is not a green deal. It is a raw deal. If implemented, this plan would put millions of people out of work and it would cost our Nation tens of trillions of dollars. The plan, to me, is really less about addressing climate change and more about putting government in control of every facet of our lives. Even if it were affordable--and it is not--the proposal is so far outside America's mainstream that it is scary. The proposal reads like an absurd socialist manifesto. They call for a ``national mobilization'' to ``transform every sector of our economy and society'' and to do it by the year 2030. In just 10 years, Washington would create a command-and-control economy to eliminate choice in how we live. Washington would tell us how to travel, what our houses should look like, and what food is on our grocery store shelves. That is just a starting point. The plan includes a laundry list of government giveaways: guaranteed housing, college, food, healthcare, and a job. Even people who refuse to work, according to the one press, would be guaranteed a paycheck. In its lunacy, the Green New Deal embodies Democrats' hard-left turn. Under the plan, the Nation's energy system would undergo a Big Government takeover. Through heavy-handed mandates, we would all be forced to meet all our power needs from costly zero-carbon and renewable sources--all of it. The Green New Deal eliminates energy sources that currently provide power to roughly three out of every five homes in America and to businesses as well. It mandates the use of expensive energy sources that realistically can't meet our country's needs. It would mean the end of the internal combustion engine in cars, in boats, and in planes. The plan would force every driver in America to purchase an electric vehicle or rely on public transportation. It would also mean the end of both airplanes and ships. American-made goods could no longer be exported around the world. There would be no way to send them. Americans living on islands, from Puerto Rico to Hawaii, would be stranded, and it would put a stop to Americans taking vacations abroad. An extensive and expensive national high-speed rail system would have to replace air travel. That is what they are calling for--an expensive and extensive national high-speed rail system to replace air travel. The State of California is currently attempting to build just one of these rail lines at a cost of $89 million for every planned mile of track--so $89 million for every planned mile of track. So what happened today? What happened just a few hours ago in California? California Governor Gavin Newsom said he is ending the State's effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. That is what the Green New Deal says they are going to do. Yet the Governor today says they are going to discontinue the plans. Newsom said in his state of the State address today that it ``would cost too much and take too long.'' Well, that looks like the entire Democrats' Green New Deal. He says it ``would cost too much and take too long'' to build the line long championed by his predecessor, Jerry Brown. The latest estimates pin the cost at $77 billion and completion in 2033. That is where we are today. There is another victim of the Green New Deal. It is ice cream. Livestock would be banned. Say goodbye to dairy, beef, and family farms and ranches. American favorites like cheeseburgers and milkshakes would become a thing of the past. Millions of American workers will lose their jobs. Living this ``green dream'' is actually a nightmare. Just the energy portion of this plan alone would cost at least $5.7 trillion, and it is feasibly impossible. The government handouts, healthcare, and other giveaways will cost tens of trillions more. This Green Deal will bankrupt the country. The guaranteed-job program alone would cost an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. Taxes will have to go through the roof, as will energy prices. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This green scheme would undermine our entire way of life. The plan would impose a burdensome mandate on homeowners. Every building nationwide will have to be overhauled--every one. Home heating and electric costs will surge. One estimate said that the average energy bill would rise by as much as $3,800 per year per home. In reality, the only thing green about the Green New Deal is the cash it will cost American families. This is simply a Washington power play posing as a clean energy plan. These are some of the same socialist goals we have seen from the far left that they have been pushing for decades. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Venezuela to the former Soviet Union. The path to cleaner energy lies in supporting private innovation, not government regulation. American energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have steadily fallen in recent years. The United States is currently on pace to reduce them by 17 percent below 2005 levels, and we are going to do it by the year 2025. So we have been doing it in the United States. We have been lowering emissions. We are leading the world in lowering our carbon emissions over the past decade. A Washington takeover of the energy sector is going to interfere with that progress. Congress should support affordable baseline energy solutions that will actually reduce emissions and grow our economy. Cutting-edge technologies--including nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization--hold enormous promise. Nuclear power currently provides about 60 percent of America's emission-free energy. Some supporters of the Green New Deal have even talked about banning nuclear power. Republicans support a commonsense approach to addressing climate change. We are interested in solutions, not socialism. We need to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and we can do it without raising costs on the American public. The Democrats' plan is a hard left turn that will drive our economy off a cliff. It is the first big step on that dark path to socialism. Simply put, the green deal is a raw deal for the American public. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about human health from my perspective as an orthopedic surgeon. Today, I am here to talk about a different crisis that is facing our Nation. Earlier today, 24 of my colleagues joined me in introducing a bill to combat chronic wasting disease in cervid populations across this country. Chronic wasting disease is a terrible degenerative brain disease. It affects captive and wild deer, elk, moose, and caribou in at least 26 States and several Canadian Provinces. It is highly contagious and always fatal. In my home State of Wyoming, chronic wasting disease was first detected back in 1985. Since then, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has partnered with scientists, State wildlife managers, and Federal Agencies to understand how the disease spreads. Many other state agencies have forged similar partnerships to study the same things. Over the last 34 years, their work has shown that the disease is spread by prions, but how these prions actually infect animals remains a mystery. The disease can be transmitted through nose-to-nose contact, through animal waste, or through carcasses of infected animals. Some studies have suggested that prions can remain in affected soil for up to 16 years. Well, there is a lot we still don't know about the disease, including the risk to humans. Chronic wasting disease is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There are a number of diseases I studied in medical school from a human standpoint that now seem to be affecting animals as well. There have been no reported cases of this chronic wasting disease in humans as of this time, but the Centers for Disease Control takes the risk of human infection quite seriously. The CDC developed a list of things people can do to reduce their own risk of consuming meat from an infected animal. Across the country, many people rely on meat they harvest from deer, moose, and elk to feed their families. For them hunting is not a recreational activity but an important part of their way of life. Hunting also contributes tens of billions of dollars in economic activity each year. Those dollars fund important wildlife research and habitat conservation and contribute nearly 10,000 jobs in Wyoming alone. Dollars derived from the sales of tags or hunting licenses and hunting equipment are used by State wildlife agencies to carry out important monitoring, management, and conservation work. If this disease persists and we cannot instill confidence in the public that the risk can be controlled, hunting will decrease. Fewer licenses sold means less money for our wildlife agencies, which means less research. So we need to act now. Chronic wasting disease threatens the iconic deer, elk, and moose herds that roam our State. It is a threat to our western heritage, but it is not just a western problem. Chronic wasting disease has found its way to Alabama, New York, and Pennsylvania. After finding the disease late last year, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency now requires hunters to check in their deer at physical locations to check for infection. The Muley Fanatic Foundation in Wyoming, which does fantastic work, told me there is no bigger threat to our big game populations than the spread of chronic wasting disease. The bill is being introduced today. Senator Jones from Alabama is on the floor and is going to speak next. The bill we have introduced today requires the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the U.S. Geological Survey to work with the National Academies of Science to answer some important questions about chronic wasting disease. They will review gaps in current scientific knowledge about transmission. They will review where Federal and State best management practices can better align, and they will review the areas at greatest risk for new infections. State wildlife managers need answers to these questions so they can coordinate prevention and control efforts among their States and so they can target their research to fill in any gaps in current knowledge. Chronic wasting disease is not a new threat, but it is one that has fundamentally changed our efforts to manage and conserve wildlife. Unchecked, this disease can truly be catastrophic for wildlife and for local economies. Across our Nation, whole industries are built around wildlife, tourism, wildlife watching, and deer and elk farming. I believe this bill and this research can make a real difference. So I am glad that so many of my colleagues agree and have cosponsored this legislation.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about human health from my perspective as an orthopedic surgeon. Today, I am here to talk about a different crisis that is facing our Nation. Earlier today, 24 of my colleagues joined me in introducing a bill to combat chronic wasting disease in cervid populations across this country. Chronic wasting disease is a terrible degenerative brain disease. It affects captive and wild deer, elk, moose, and caribou in at least 26 States and several Canadian Provinces. It is highly contagious and always fatal. In my home State of Wyoming, chronic wasting disease was first detected back in 1985. Since then, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has partnered with scientists, State wildlife managers, and Federal Agencies to understand how the disease spreads. Many other state agencies have forged similar partnerships to study the same things. Over the last 34 years, their work has shown that the disease is spread by prions, but how these prions actually infect animals remains a mystery. The disease can be transmitted through nose-to-nose contact, through animal waste, or through carcasses of infected animals. Some studies have suggested that prions can remain in affected soil for up to 16 years. Well, there is a lot we still don't know about the disease, including the risk to humans. Chronic wasting disease is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, like bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There are a number of diseases I studied in medical school from a human standpoint that now seem to be affecting animals as well. There have been no reported cases of this chronic wasting disease in humans as of this time, but the Centers for Disease Control takes the risk of human infection quite seriously. The CDC developed a list of things people can do to reduce their own risk of consuming meat from an infected animal. Across the country, many people rely on meat they harvest from deer, moose, and elk to feed their families. For them hunting is not a recreational activity but an important part of their way of life. Hunting also contributes tens of billions of dollars in economic activity each year. Those dollars fund important wildlife research and habitat conservation and contribute nearly 10,000 jobs in Wyoming alone. Dollars derived from the sales of tags or hunting licenses and hunting equipment are used by State wildlife agencies to carry out important monitoring, management, and conservation work. If this disease persists and we cannot instill confidence in the public that the risk can be controlled, hunting will decrease. Fewer licenses sold means less money for our wildlife agencies, which means less research. So we need to act now. Chronic wasting disease threatens the iconic deer, elk, and moose herds that roam our State. It is a threat to our western heritage, but it is not just a western problem. Chronic wasting disease has found its way to Alabama, New York, and Pennsylvania. After finding the disease late last year, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency now requires hunters to check in their deer at physical locations to check for infection. The Muley Fanatic Foundation in Wyoming, which does fantastic work, told me there is no bigger threat to our big game populations than the spread of chronic wasting disease. The bill is being introduced today. Senator Jones from Alabama is on the floor and is going to speak next. The bill we have introduced today requires the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the U.S. Geological Survey to work with the National Academies of Science to answer some important questions about chronic wasting disease. They will review gaps in current scientific knowledge about transmission. They will review where Federal and State best management practices can better align, and they will review the areas at greatest risk for new infections. State wildlife managers need answers to these questions so they can coordinate prevention and control efforts among their States and so they can target their research to fill in any gaps in current knowledge. Chronic wasting disease is not a new threat, but it is one that has fundamentally changed our efforts to manage and conserve wildlife. Unchecked, this disease can truly be catastrophic for wildlife and for local economies. Across our Nation, whole industries are built around wildlife, tourism, wildlife watching, and deer and elk farming. I believe this bill and this research can make a real difference. So I am glad that so many of my colleagues agree and have cosponsored this legislation.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, last night we heard from the President of the United States in his State of the Union Address. What I heard and what I know, living in Wyoming and traveling across my State and across the country--is that the state of the union is strong. It is strong, and we are strong militarily, economically, and politically. It is so fascinating to see this growth that we have in our economy. I remember just a few years ago when the new normal for economic growth was stuck below 2 percent. People said: That is where we are going to be. Well, as a result of tax cuts and regulatory relief, we have had an incredible amount of economic growth over the last couple of years. Really, the economy is sizzling, firing on all cylinders, fueled by the tax cuts that are allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and wages going up because there are so many jobs being created. Talking about the good news for the American people, I just noted that there were 3 million new jobs added since Republicans passed tax reform a year ago. That is 3 million new jobs across the country. Somebody might say: Well, maybe it is slowing down. It is actually the opposite. This past month, there were 304,000 new jobs. The experts, who thought they had a handle on the economy, said: Well, maybe there are 160,000 new jobs. There were 304,000, not just 160,000, as it was estimated. There have been 3 million new jobs since we passed tax reform for the American people. The other thing that is so interesting with the numbers is the increase in manufacturing jobs. I remember President Obama saying that you would need a magic wand to bring back manufacturing jobs to the country. Well, the number of manufacturing jobs that were brought back to the country or that were created in the country last year was the largest growth in over 20 years. Now, what about wages? Wages are up significantly, compared to a year ago. People are noting not only an increase in their salaries but also an increase in their take-home pay because the amount of taxes taken out are going down as well. So you have higher salaries, lower taxes, and the amount of money that people are able to keep is going up as well. More people are working today than at any time in our history as a nation. There are 157 million American workers, and workers are in the driver's seat. There are more jobs available than there are people to fill those jobs. I am so happy with what President Trump has done with regulations to try to eliminate these burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming regulations that made it harder to create jobs, harder to keep jobs going, and harder to keep people in their jobs. I was most pleased to see the President's focus and discussion on energy. Energy is called the master resource. It is called the master resource for a reason. It fuels our economy, it fuels our military, and it fuels our Nation. We now have, through innovation and investment, enough energy resources that we have now become a net exporter of energy. People around the country and around the world look to us as a source of energy--crude oil, natural gas, and liquefied natural gas. There are opportunities for people around the country--coal from my home State of Wyoming. We are a net energy exporter, and it is because of the President's focus on allowing us to use the resources that we have been so blessed with in this great country. As for this talk about 3 million new jobs, in Wyoming alone there have been 8,000 more jobs created since we passed tax reform. The Wall Street Journal editorial board's headline this past Friday, February 1, was this: ``Sorry for the Good News.'' It said: ``This is what happens when the political class takes its boot off of the neck of private business, as the GOP Congress and Trump administration did for two years.'' That is why we have all this good news. Taxes are lower. Regulations are much more reasonable. They are not the kind of troublesome regulations that choked our economy. I think now it is time to refocus, as the President talked about--a time for greatness in America, to refocus our attention on economic expansion. When I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they have taken a hard left turn, way off to the liberal side, to the radical side of things, proposing socialist programs that increase taxes, that increase government spending, and that apply burdensome new regulations. That would put a tremendous brake on the economy and the economic growth we have seen. These hard-left policies will kill job creation and cripple the economy. Americans want more freedom, more opportunities, more economic prosperity, and better paying jobs. That is what this is all about. That is what we heard last night in the State of the Union. That is why the state of our Union is strong, with a strong, healthy, and growing economy. It is time--and I agreed with President Trump last night--to unite, time to work together and keep the country moving forward with commonsense policies that improve Americans' everyday lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, today U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the electric car industry. The cost to these taxpayers is billions of dollars, and the subsidies have lasted now for nearly 30 years. In 2008, Washington added a tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles. The market was very small at that time, and it was worth encouraging that market, but today the electric market for vehicles is well established. The auto industry no longer needs these pricey subsidies for electric vehicles, and I believe it is time to pull the plug on subsidies for electric vehicles. Leading manufacturers, including General Motors, Ford, and Volkswagen, have announced plans to massively increase investment in the electric vehicle market. Global automakers are promoting electric car luxury brands, such as Bentley, Aston Martin, Maserati, Porsche, and Cadillac, but with these new electric vehicles coming to the market, the subsidy program is going to continue to run at an enormous cost to American taxpayers. Congress first passed legislation to provide subsidies for electric car buyers back in 1992. The purpose was to temporarily support a promising, environmentally friendly market. For decades now, Washington expanded this program of tax credits. At the same time, many States enacted similar subsidies. Between 2011 and 2017, electric car buyers received more than $4 billion in Federal credits alone, costing taxpayers up to $7,500 for each vehicle. This program disproportionately subsidizes wealthy buyers because nearly 80 percent of the tax credits go to households earning at least $100,000 a year. Well, these car buyers don't need a taxpayer subsidy. The program has served its purpose, and I say that because today a million electric vehicles travel our highways. The global demand for electric vehicles is rising as well. Now nearly every automaker is entering the market. In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that sales of light-duty electric vehicles will reach 4 million vehicles by 2025. So here is exhibit A. This past weekend was Super Bowl weekend. They had so many commercials, and it cost about $5 million to run an ad during the Super Bowl. Well, the automaker Audi ran a commercial saying that by 2025 one-third of their cars--one out of every three cars--will be an electric vehicle. So I use that as exhibit A to say this market is firmly established. As a matter of fact, this market is positioned for expansion--which means so will the cost of subsidies. I believe it is time to take taxpayers off the hook. I have introduced legislation, the Fairness for Every Driver Act, and it is to end the electric vehicle subsidy program. My legislation has three key goals; first is to the save taxpayers billions of dollars through the subsidy program; second is to help maintain our aging roads and bridges; and the third is to reduce wasteful Washington spending. According to the Manhattan Institute, ending this subsidy will save taxpayers an estimated $20 billion dollars--$20 billion. The electric car market can thrive without Washington subsidies. We see it is thriving. It is growing. Nearly every State now provides its own subsidies and added incentives. California even mandates the percentage of cars that must be zero emission. This category is almost exclusively electric vehicles. In 2017, Californians purchased 95,000 electric vehicles. Now, residents in my home State of Wyoming, where distances are long and recharging stations are few, purchased only 51. Hard-working Wyoming taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize wealthy California luxury car buyers. Ending the electric car subsidies isn't just about saving taxpayers dollars, it is about our shared responsibility to maintain our highway system. The highway trust fund is depleted. The highway trust fund pays for road and bridge projects. Its main source of funding is the Federal gas tax. Drivers of gas- and diesel-powered vehicles pay this tax every time they pull up and fill up at the pump. Electric car drivers never pay these fees. Although a Tesla puts as much strain on the highways as a Ford Focus, the Tesla driver pays next to nothing to fix the roads. Without congressional action, the highway trust fund will be exhausted by 2021. This legislation ensures all drivers pay their fair share to improve America's roads. It establishes an annual highway user fee for these alternative fuel vehicles. Comparable to the gas tax, this user fee will result in billions of dollars over the next decade to fund needed road projects. All drivers use the roads. All drivers should contribute to maintaining them. Electric cars are here to stay. The market is poised for growth, with or without the subsidies. Congress should pull the plug on this program. It is time to end this subsidy. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars, and it is time to level the playing field for all drivers when it comes to repairing our roads and bridges. It is time to pass the Fairness for Every Driver Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 3 p.m. occur now.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I associate myself with the remarks that we just heard from the distinguished Senator from Missouri, who made some wonderful points about how important the bill that we are discussing on the floor continues to be. I appreciate his remarks and his leadership in this body. Government Funding Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a different topic, which is that the government has reopened for 3 weeks. It is welcome news that President Trump has signed the stopgap funding measure and has fully paid furloughed Federal workers. There was an important workforce story that, I believe, was lost over the last couple of weeks during the shutdown--the story about the great news of the American economy. I certainly feel it at home. I know the Presiding Officer does in Utah, as do others, as we head home and see the ``help wanted'' signs that are up and the people who are looking to hire more people. This economy continues to fire on all cylinders. It is fueled, certainly, in part by what Republicans have been able to accomplish due to our policy, which is a pro-job policy of tax cuts and regulatory relief. Since the tax cut law that was signed a year ago, this economy has created 2.6 million American jobs in the last year. There is additional good news. I hear it in Wyoming, I heard it last weekend, and I expect to hear it this weekend. Americans are seeing that there is actually more money in their paychecks. There is more money for a couple of reasons. One is that wages are up, and the other is that taxes are down. Last month, there was a 3.2-percent year-over-year increase in average hourly wages. It matched October as the biggest increase since 2009. This wage increase was even stronger for production workers and non-managers, who saw an additional increase in year-over-year growth. The economy is working well. It is producing more jobs. For 9 straight months now, there have been more available jobs in this country than individuals looking for work. Last week, we saw jobless claims drop to the lowest level since November of 1969--1969, the year we put a man on the Moon and the year of Woodstock. That was 50 years ago. It was the lowest since then. That is half a century. Now that this partial shutdown is over, I believe we need to refocus our attention on continuing to grow the economy, continuing to increase wages, and continuing to create more high-paying jobs for American workers. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to want to put the brakes on the economy. They are proposing higher taxes and expansive new regulations. We still have our work cut out for us. This excellent economic news underscores the need for us to work together to resolve our differences on important government funding legislation. Let's keep in mind that 70 percent of the government is already funded all the way through the end of the fiscal year. Congress still has the job to do of funding the remaining 25 percent, and we need to do that by the middle of February--by February 15. By signing the 3-week continuing resolution, the President has given Congress the opportunity to come together to secure the southern border and to fund the government. During the shutdown standoff, Democrats repeatedly called for the President to reopen the government. They asked for 3 weeks so they could seriously negotiate, they say, on border security. Well, we now have a 3-week agreement, but time is going to tell whether Democrats are serious about solving this border security crisis and protecting the American people. A full-year spending deal has to include significant funding for a comprehensive border security package. We need more personnel, we need more technology, and we need more physical barriers. Security barriers are not the sole solution, but they are an essential part of the solution. That is why the last four Presidents built 650 miles of physical barriers along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi, voted for all this construction. In fact, the Speaker's home State of California has a physical barrier on the border with Tijuana, Mexico. Like his four predecessors, President Trump has listened to the security experts. Those four were President Obama, President Clinton, President George W. Bush, and President George Herbert Walker Bush. Four Presidents prior to President Trump listened to the experts. The experts today say we need 200 more miles of physical barriers strategically located where illegal traffic is surging. Despite the experts' support, Democrats have abruptly changed their position on barriers--changed completely--and they have denied the President the funding he has requested. Given that Democrats had supported 650 miles of the physical barriers we currently have, why are they opposing the next 200 miles, strategically placed where illegal traffic is surging? To me, it seems personal, and it seems aimed at President Trump. The American people expect us to solve problems not as Democrats and Republicans but as elected representatives of the people. The priority is to move full-year Homeland Security Department spending legislation through Congress that provides wall funding. Today, House-Senate negotiators are working to produce a compromise package that can pass with the other six bills and get it done by February 15. This conference committee--a committee of the two Houses-- will be meeting later today. Conferees may also add other provisions, including immigration reforms. Already, the President has offered to extend protections for the Dreamers, who were brought here as children, and immigrants whose temporary visas are expiring. So the President has offered an opportunity and a solution. These modest proposals are an immigration policy bandaid. Yet they could be the start of broader bipartisan immigration talks. From a policy perspective, I believe we are not that far apart. Americans agree that border security is important and that our immigration system does need reform. The country's safety and security must always come first. In my opinion, the President is open to reasonable changes to his plan. I believe he has been very willing to compromise. As long as Democrats define victory as blocking President Trump, however, on his key priority, everyone loses, and that includes Federal workers, the American people, and immigrants. The American people expect us to work together to resolve our differences. This isn't a winner-take-all political game. It never should be. Members of both parties must be flexible. Once Congress passes a full-year spending bill, we can move on to other priorities facing us as a nation. President Trump has incredible determination to build physical barriers where Border Patrol tells us they are most needed, and the President is right when he says walls work. Democrats supported construction before President Trump took office; they should support it now. The President has presented a path to compromise. Now Democrats should follow suit. All we need to succeed is cooperation. The best position on this negotiation highway is the middle lane. It is time to move to the middle and move forward on border security. By working together, we can produce a winning solution for America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I have up here a quote from the Washington Post from January 20, 2019. The words say: ``to refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no favors to sidelined Federal workers and contractors''--to refuse even to talk. This is a Washington Post editorial message to the Democrats. The Post says that the Democrats should welcome the President's weekend offer and return to the negotiating table to end this partial government shutdown, which is now in its fifth week. I agree. It is time to end this stalemate. It is time to talk, and it is time to vote. The title of the editorial was ``Make a deal. Save the dreamers''-- make a deal. Divided government is often messy business. It is also serious business. It is what the American people have voted for and what we have seen more often than not in this country. Politically, there really are no winners and losers in this arena. What I worry about is the American people. Nobody wins in terms of a shutdown. The Senate will vote tomorrow on commonsense, compromise legislation to secure the border, reopen the government, as well as to address what I believe are key immigration issues for the country. We do have a national security and a humanitarian crisis at our southern border. President Trump has, again, requested $5.7 billion. That is one one-thousandth of the Federal spending. He has requested the money for a steel barrier system. The southern border is almost 2,000 miles. The physical barrier already protects about 650 miles. The President wants to build more security barriers because we know they are a proven solution. In addition, the President is proposing to grant provisional status-- a 3-year reprieve--for the 700,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals illegal immigrants, known as DACA. This 3-year reprieve will also help 300,000 temporary protected status immigrants. When people say TPS, that is what it stands for--immigrants with temporary protected status. Right now, they have protected status, but that is expiring. These are individuals who have suffered devastation in their lives due to the challenges previously faced in Haiti, as well as individuals from Central America. So we are talking about over 1 million people for whom the President is proposing changes that would impact them and their lives. These DACA and TPS measures are an immigration policy bandaid. They are not the solution to everything. They deal with an immediate problem for a limited period of time. Once the government reopens, the President then plans, as he said, to hold weekly, bipartisan meetings aimed at broader immigration reform. Border security policy has always been bipartisan. For decades, Presidents and congressional leaders from both parties have supported security barriers to protect the American people. In 2006, Senate Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama at the time and Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joe Biden and Senator Chuck Schumer--all of them--voted to construct a physical barrier on the southern barrier. In 2005, then-Senator Obama said this: ``We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.'' Then, when Senator Obama became President Obama, he actually described the border situation as a crisis, but he failed to fix it. President Trump resolved to fix the decades-old problem. That is when Democratic leaders suddenly changed their tune. They withdrew support for securing the border and dug in their heels, prolonging the partial government shutdown. Even President Obama's last Border Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, supports President Trump's efforts. President Trump did not keep him in the job, but Mark Morgan has said--and he was on television the other day--that building the wall is key to solving the security crisis and that Trump--President Trump--should ``stay the course.'' Still, Democrats refuse to negotiate with this President, so we can't reopen the affected Federal Agencies and pay the 800,000 furloughed Federal workers. President Trump has the truth on his side. Here is the Homeland Security Department's assessment of the border situation: Each month, 60,000 illegal immigrants reach the border. Drug smuggling spiked in 2018, with a 38-percent increase in methamphetamine, a 22-percent increase in heroin, and a 73-percent increase in fentanyl. We also saw a surge in arrests of dangerous criminals, including 17,000 adults with criminal records and 6,000 MS-13 and other gang members. In 2018, 60,000 unaccompanied children and 161,000 families reached the border--a dramatic increase from 2017. Many were victimized along their journey. The Border Patrol areas that do have enhanced or expanded physical barriers have seen a dramatic decrease in illegal traffic. That is why the President has requested additional funds to construct more barriers. The areas he has pointed to are the 10 locations where the Border Patrol has said: These are the spots where we really need the help. All Americans want a healthy immigration system that enforces the law and keeps families together. The President has put a reasonable, bipartisan compromise on the table to end this partial shutdown and to pay furloughed Federal workers. President Trump is ready to sign this legislation. The Senate will vote on it tomorrow. The House Democrats hold the keys to reopening the government. I believe Democrats should stop playing politics and meet President Trump in the middle. That is what President has done with his good-faith effort. I say: Let's vote to secure the border and vote to reopen the government. Tribute to Alfred Redman, Sr. Madam President, now I would like to turn to a different topic that would be at an appropriate location in the Record. It is something that I think the Presiding Officer, as the former chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, would find interesting. That is because I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible individual, a great man, the legendary Indian High School boys' basketball coach, Alfred Redman. Saturday night, in Ethete, WY, the long-time coach was surrounded by school officials, by players, and by fans, who gathered for a ceremony renaming the school's gymnasium in his honor. Redman's incredible coaching record as he coached the Chiefs was 426 wins and 118 losses in 26 seasons. Under his leadership, the Chiefs consistently made State tournament appearances, winning six State championship titles, and finishing second six additional times. Coach Redman was tough. He conditioned his players through grueling practices. This was his formula for success: Work the players hard and make the games easier to win. His toughness paid off. He put Wyoming Indian basketball on the map, both at the State and the national levels. Over the seasons, from 1983 to 1986, Redman's Chiefs set the State bar with a recordbreaking 50 straight victories. That record still stands today. It is no surprise that Redman is both a Wyoming and a national coaches Hall of Fame inductee. Wyoming owes a great debt of gratitude to Coach Redman--a giant in State basketball history. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the National Institutes of Health, which is the Nation's medical research Agency in Bethesda, MD, needed to secure its campus. The NIH's grounds were always open to the public before that. Anybody could walk or drive through the 300-acre campus and could do it freely, but in its facing heightened threats, officials planned to restrict public access and to build a wall. It was completed in 2005. The wall, with the black metal perimeter fence with guarded checkpoints, became the centerpiece of NIH's new perimeter security system. Signs were posted that said ``No Trespassing.'' On its website, NIH states that the purpose of this border barrier is ``to ensure the safety of our patients, employees, guests and facilities.'' NIH wasn't alone in building a barrier after the attacks in 2001. Across the street, the National Naval Medical Center, now known as Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, also walled off its 243- acre campus. These walls have worked. Both NIH and Walter Reed remain safe and secure. Now we need to deal with a security crisis at our southern border. President Trump has requested $5.7 billion--it is about one one- thousandth of the Federal spending. The President wants to build more physical barriers--a proven border security solution. Thirty percent of the border already has a secure barrier. Congressional leaders from both parties have supported a border wall in the past. In 2006, Senate Democrats, including then-Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Chuck Schumer voted to construct a physical barrier on our southern border. But Democrat leaders now refuse to back the President's border security effort, prolonging the partial government shutdown that is going on today. Meanwhile, the Democrats and media fact-checkers are out in force to attack President Trump. They insist there is no border crisis. The facts are that this January 10 Investor's Business Daily editorial says: ``Yes, There Is A Crisis At The Border--The Numbers Show It.'' First, in terms of how the numbers show it is that illegal crossings are climbing, last year, Border Patrol stopped more than one-half million people trying to enter the country illegally--more than 100,000 in October and November alone this past year. That is a huge increase from the same 2 months in 2017. Second, apprehensions don't account for all illegal crossers. The Homeland Security Department estimates that about 20 percent of our crossers enter, which means about 104,000 illegal immigrants entered in 2018 alone. Third, the U.S. illegal immigrant population right now is massive. Currently, over 12 million illegal immigrants reside here, comparable to the entire population of countries like Chile, the Netherlands, and Syria. Fourth, illegal crime levels are higher than expected. The Center for Immigration Studies has found that noncitizens accounted for more than 20 percent of Federal convictions, although they represent only 8.4 percent of the population. Fifth, Presidents Reagan through Obama have acknowledged the crisis. In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama said: ``We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.'' In 2014, President Obama described the border situation as a crisis, but he failed to fix it. Even President Obama's last Border Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan, supports President Trump. He was actually on television just today. Trump didn't keep him in the job, but Morgan says that building the wall is key to solving the security crisis, and the President should, as he says, ``stay the course.'' Still, Democrats refuse to negotiate with this President, so we can't reopen those Federal Agencies that have been closed for more than 3 weeks. Here is the Homeland Security Department's latest assessment of the southern border situation. They say that each month, 60,000 illegal immigrants reach the border. Drug smuggling spiked in 2018, with a 38- percent increase in methamphetamine, a 22-percent increase in heroin, and a 73-percent increase in fentanyl. We also saw a huge surge in arrests of dangerous criminals, including 17,000 adults with criminal records and 6,000 MS-13 and other gang members. In 2018, 60,000 unaccompanied children and 161,000 families reached the border--a dramatic increase from 2017. Many were victimized on their journey. Border Patrol areas that have enhanced or expanded physical barriers have actually seen a dramatic decrease in illegal traffic. That is why the President has requested additional funds to construct more barriers. The facts are the facts. We have a national security and humanitarian crisis at the southern border. The problem is the rise in illegal entries. We need to solve it. Walls work. The question is this: Do U.S. citizens living in at-risk border communities deserve the same protection as NIH patients and the staff in Bethesda, MD? All Americans want a healthy immigration system that enforces the law and keeps families together. Democrats shouldn't be playing politics with border security. It is time to work together to secure the border, reopen the government, and protect the American people. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

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