Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today is day 34 of the longest shutdown of government in United States history. We must end this shutdown. We must reopen government right away. Today, I want to talk about legislation that would provide some assistance to the Federal workers who are suffering from this unnecessary shutdown, the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act of 2019. Tomorrow, 800,000 Federal workers who work hard and just want to serve their Nation will not receive a paycheck. They have not received a paycheck since December 28th, 2018. However, more than 400,000 hold positions so essential to our Nation that they must go to work regardless of their pay status. Thus shutdown hurts these workers. I have talked about the personal stories of Virginians who serve our Nation in the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Forest Service. This shutdown means families that have jobs cannot pay their mortgages or rent. They cannot buy food to feed their families. They cannot afford to refill prescriptions critical to the health of their children. This shutdown threatens Federal workers with financial ruin. Again, we must reopen the government immediately. We have passed legislation to provide retroactive pay to these workers when the shutdown ends, but we do not know when that will happen. So today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues to introduce the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act. This legislation would allow federal employees who are in desperate financial straits directly because of this shutdown to borrow from what is, for many, their largest financial asset, their retirement account. This legislation would allow Federal workers in the Thrift Savings Plan to access their savings without immediate penalty to meet the financial hardships caused by the government shutdown. It would allow them to pay for basic necessities during the shutdown and allow them to replenish their savings after the shutdown ends. I do not know how much longer 800,000 families will have to wait to be made whole after this manufactured crisis. And I do not advocate irresponsibly borrowing from retirement savings. But I believe we must act to help the people who make our federal government function in this time of need they are in through no fault of their own. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, for Democrats, antipathy to the President is not the issue. The issue is antipathy to shutting down the government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the effects of the Federal Government shutdown. I have given a number of floor speeches about the effects of the shutdown on Federal employees and their families. I heard the Presiding Officer give a similar speech about the effects on the Coast Guard in Kodiak, AK, the other day. I have also talked about the effect of the shutdown on American citizens who depend upon the services of Agencies that have been shuttered or dramatically reduced in capacity. Today I want to talk about something different. I want to talk about the effect of the shutdown on American businesses, especially small businesses. Over the past month, I have had numerous conversations with business owners who tell me how this shutdown has hurt them, and, no surprise, economic analysts have indicated that the shutdown is having a massive effect on the U.S. economy. S&P, for example, has concluded that the shutdown will cost the United States more than $6 billion by week's end, a little bit over 1 month in. President Trump's chief economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said that a zero-percent growth rate is possible because of the shutdown. His quote in an article dated January 23: If [the shutdown] extended for a whole quarter and given the fact that the first quarter tends to be low because of residual seasonality, then you could end up with a number close to zero in the first quarter. We are now more than 1 month into the shutdown, and this economic effect is very real. I just returned this morning from a discussion with businesses in Loudoun County, VA, which is sort of in the western outer suburbs of Washington, and here is what these businesses told me: A conference hotel in Loudoun whose bookings in the first quarter are down 50 percent from the same quarter last year, and because they had such a strong year last year, they said they were projecting for increases this year, so their bookings are down 70 percent from what they had projected for the first quarter of 2019. When they lose revenue because of lost bookings, that affects their ability to hire people. It also affects their purchase of supplies from area suppliers. They say they have a HIVA practice--Hire Virginia--and what did they call the other one--a SUVA practice, Supplies from Virginia. They try to buy all of their supplies and hire all of their people from Virginia, and so the reduced bookings are having a direct effect on other businesses and individuals as well. A local chamber of commerce, with 1,200 members who are suffering in a variety of ways, but the chamber president pointed out to me that 300 members are nonprofits--nonprofits which are seeing reduced contributions because of the shutdown and people having less income but also increased demands for services. Local restaurants whose revenues are down 20 to 30 percent--that reduction in revenue, which is fewer people coming in or people coming in and spending less, affects hiring and it affects their payments to local suppliers, thus having a second-order effect on other businesses. Restaurants are reporting that they are seeing a big uptick in Federal employees applying for part-time work at their restaurants, which they have a hard time providing because their revenues are down and fewer customers are coming in. Many government contracting firms in Northern Virginia--often started and operated by veterans--whose employees are furloughed or working fewer hours, thereby affecting the profitability of their businesses, most said they are trying to continue to pay their employees even though they are not working, even though they are not bringing in revenue, which is affecting profitability and eventually the viability of the very businesses themselves. The contractors are talking about how they are starting to lose employees in a tight labor market to other businesses that are not dependent upon government contracts. Loudoun is the third most popular tourism destination in Virginia out of 134 cities and counties. I did not know that until I was informed of it by a proud operator of the Loudoun Tourism Department today, but they are seeing dramatically reduced attendance at any tourism site, from restaurants to hotels and bars, to museums and all kinds of other historic sites in Loudoun. Here is one that was interesting, and it dovetails with a discourse, a speech given by the Presiding Officer on the floor a few days ago--a local microbrewery. A local microbrewery said, first, sales are down due to people losing salaries, and sales being down affects their employment, but they are also unable to launch new product lines. New product lines require an approval by a Department of the Federal Government to approve that a new product line is offered. There are 7,000 microbreweries in the United States, and they all need approval from this Federal Agency, the TTB, when they want to offer a new product line. The owner of Old Ox Brewery told me: We set it up months in advance. This was going to be the March release. Normally, it would take about 2 weeks from an application. This Agency is really pretty prompt. They get back with you quickly, and they tend to approve quickly, but he said: I have two problems with the Agency right now. They are shuttered so they can't approve the product lines I have developed and I wanted to brew for March. I can't brew them now if I can't sell them. That means products I promised not only in-house at our brewery but to grocery stores and restaurants that I promised, I can't brew. He said: I know this Agency, when they finally come back with a reopening, with 7,000 breweries just like mine having filed with them, the backlog is going to mean they are not going to be able to respond in 2 weeks. It is going to take them significantly longer. If I might read a letter--this is not from the Old Ox Brewery, where I was this morning, but another brewery in Alexandria, VA: Dear Senator Kaine, Here is a summary of the negative effects the government shutdown is having on our small business in Alexandria, VA. The Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) has stopped reviewing recipes and labels. . . . It affects our entire operation, and damages our revenue stream, which relies on new beers in the market. It also hurts our employees, some of whom are paid on commission from the sale of our beer. Upstream in our supply chain, it negatively affects our farmers who provide our grain, as well as our hop growers and malt suppliers. It also hurts our other suppliers, such as our label printers and box manufacturers. Downstream, it hurts our distributors and retailers because they don't have our new beers to sell [and ultimately affects customers]. We have a pending Small Business Administration loan for our new bottling equipment. The SBA has closed and we cannot close on this loan until the shutdown is over. The brewery I was at this morning--the Old Ox Brewery--was a little bit ahead of Port City in the process. They got a loan to renovate a new facility in Middleburg, VA, which they have purchased and renovated, but they can't get it open until the TTB comes out and does the inspection of the brewery equipment. He said: I invested, and I am paying, but I am not able to bring in any revenue, and I have no idea when I am going to be able to bring in revenue. Traditionally opening a new facility requires a TTB approval first, and you then go to the State to get permission to open the facility. He said: Am I looking at 90 days? Am I looking at 4 months of paying for this facility without being able to bring in any revenue for it? This same challenge as was indicated in the letter from Port City affects not only breweries but wineries. Loudoun County has a lot of farm wineries. One owner of a local winery came. This is a small operation. They started the winery so they could preserve the family farm and not have to sell it to developers. A lot of our small family farms get turned into subdivisions unless the family who operates the farm can find a productive way to make a small acreage profitable. In 2002, this family, who had been in farming for generations, decided: We don't want to sell for a subdivision. The way we will try to be profitable is to operate a farm winery. The same Agency, the TTB, is charged with approving their product and also labels. They have done their grape harvest, and they booked time at the local bottling plant in March to take all of the wine and put it in bottles with labels affixed, but they can't get the labels approved. They have all their product, and they have booked time at a facility that starts in a very few weeks, but there would be no reason to use the bottling facility to put wine in bottles with no labels on them. They couldn't sell it. The Agency that is required to approve labels is shuttered. They don't know what they are going to do. A 10-person, small family business--maybe this spoke to me because I grew up in a house with a small business where, in a good year, there would be eight employees, and in a bad year, there would be five, plus three teenage boys and my mother. So this business was a lot like my own family's experience in size. They distribute janitorial supplies to customers, such as the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian operations are closed. They also distribute janitorial supplies to WMATA, their largest customer. WMATA is open. WMATA's Federal revenues are still coming in, but WMATA also relies on the farebox revenue. WMATA is down $400,000 a day because, with Federal employees furloughed, huge numbers of people who normally ride the Metro Monday to Friday aren't. That $400,000-a-day hit on WMATA has not yet affected this business-- he was careful to point that out--but with the Smithsonian shut and WMATA affected, he is worried about when he will see his 10-person business affected. There is deep concern by area businesses in this part of Loudoun, which is very close to Dulles, about the effect of the shutdown on TSA workers and air traffic controllers, as would be the case in Alaska, where air travel is critical. It would probably be air or snowmobile for many people living in Alaska. In Virginia, air travel is critical. Anything that affects commercial air poses huge jeopardy on people's access and on the local economy. This one was interesting--a local consignment shop. I was like, well, how are you affected by the shutdown? It is a consignment shop that is fairly notable and has won awards for being one of the best small businesses in the county. They talk about how their business is dramatically affected by the shutdown. They see it every day. More Federal employees are bringing in personal items to try to submit to consignment because to make do, they need to sell personal items they might not otherwise want to. Also, there are fewer people coming in to buy the items that are available in the consignment shop because there is less discretionary income. This shop has reduced its own employees' hours by 20 percent. A local small business development center--this is kind of a community center, like an incubator for small business. It is funded through SBA. It serves 300 startup businesses a year. They are unable to operate. They have some local funds. They can see clear to March, but they don't know whether they can stay open thereafter due to no Federal funding. These small business centers operate around the country. One of the things they do is help businesses like Port City get small business loans. They can't do that now because there are no business loans being made. A Federal contractor who is currently unaffected because their contracts are with DOD Agencies had an expansion plan to go out and work with other Agencies that are shuttered by the shutdown; thus they cannot move forward on the expansion plan. Finally, county government officials who were at the meeting have now had to provide emergency funding for local food banks and for free public transportation for affected Federal employees and other emergency services as well. That wasn't what they thought they would need to be doing with the budget they had planned for. The fiscal year began July 1. They hadn't put it into the budget, but they are having to cobble together ways to serve the Federal employees and their families who are affected. There are so many other stories like this that I heard around Virginia. One that stuck with me in particular was a local dentist commenting that so many patients are canceling appointments because of their concerns about inability to pay copays or buy medications. Hopefully, these are postponements and not cancellations. Obviously, it is not good for people's health and not good for the small business this dentist operates. We do have a solution to this that the Senate will take up tomorrow. I am heartened by the fact that we will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote on a solution. I think we should vote to open government until February 8. That is not a lot of time. From tomorrow, it will be 15 days. Then we should engage immediately in an effort to consider, debate, amend, and vote upon the proposal the President introduced through the majority leader yesterday. I listened to the majority leader's comments before I spoke, and he said a deal was on the table. As I saw Republicans--for example, my colleague from Oklahoma--describe the deal on Sunday during one of the television shows--he said: It is the President's opening proposal. It is meant to inspire constructive dialogue. In that sense, I agree. It is a proposal to inspire constructive dialogue. The four elements of the President's proposal--border security, the temporary protected status program, the DACA Program, asylum processes, and the bases for receiving asylum--are very legitimate discussions on which I believe we can find a bipartisan compromise. We will have a vote on that proposal tomorrow, but it will not be a proposal that is about compromise--it will be an up-or-down vote. Do you accept the President's proposal without the opportunity to hear its justification, without the opportunity to offer an amendment? Take it or leave it. Under those circumstances, it is very hard to say that is a constructive debate or dialogue; however, we have the opportunity to do that. I believe that if we vote to open government through February 8--15 days--the Senate should, in this humble Senator's view, put that bill in committee next week. There should be an administration explanation of the pieces of the bill, with the members of the relevant committees being able to ask questions. For example, on the TPS proposal, you propose to restore TPS for 4 of the 10 affected countries but not the other 6. Why is that? Is there some reason for that, or can we explore it? I think those questions need to be asked, and they need to be answered. There may be a reason there. There may be a better approach there. Then the committee should be able to move--again, in my opinion; I am not on either of the relevant committees, Appropriations or Judiciary, but with Republican majorities and Republican chairs, I believe this could be done--move to a markup of the bill a few days or 2 days after the explanatory discussion. The bill could then be on the floor the following week, before February 8, where we could do the same thing and have the opportunity to try to make the bill as strong as it can be, as bipartisan as it can be because it would need to be to have a realistic chance of passing in the House. I do agree with the majority leader--there is now a proposal on the table. It is a proposal that is worthy of discussion. I have some ideas about ways to make it better, and I bet virtually every Member-- Republican and Democratic--in the Chamber would have ideas as well. But if we are going to take it seriously, let's take the time to take it seriously. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on one of the votes we will take tomorrow, which would reopen government for 15 days while we engage earnestly with the President's proposal. I deeply believe that if we undertake that kind of focused effort without being pulled away because of the needs of constituents affected by the shutdown, we can be focused and find an answer. The last thing I will say before I yield the floor is this. Some would say: Why don't you negotiate while the shutdown is in place? If there was a hurricane in Virginia Beach, everybody in this Chamber would understand that I wasn't here; I was in Virginia Beach dealing with people who were hurting. This is a hurricane. When it affects the livelihood of so many Virginians who are hurting deeply, I am out every day with people who are hurting. In the middle of a hurricane, no one would fault me for being in Virginia Beach or a Florida Senator from being in Florida trying to comfort people who are hurting. Nobody would say: Why aren't you back here having around-the-clock negotiations on something? For this Senator, the top priority I have every day is trying to be out with people who are hurting and trying to provide them with answers and some assurance that we can move forward. If we can get government open for 15 days, we can be here around the clock, and we can find a solution to this. I am confident we can. I ask my colleagues to join me in that when we have that vote. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Madam 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, and for other purposes. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Thank you.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 6, H.J. Res. 1, making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security. I further ask that the joint resolution 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.

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the continuing effects of the shutdown of part of the government on American workers and the American public. I want to begin by discussing the effect of the shutdown on the Coast Guard. Following that, I will talk about a visit that I actually just made to a restaurant at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenues that was opened for the purposes of offering free food to Federal employees and their families during the shutdown. Finally, I will address the proposal offered by the President on Saturday to reach an agreement on border security and immigration issues. To begin with, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. military with a proud history. There are 42,000 active members of the Coast Guard. There are 7,500 reservists, 8,500 civilian employees, and nearly 50,000 Coast Guard retirees. All are affected by the shutdown, most working without pay, and others, particularly civilians, are furloughed without pay. In addition, the shutdown jeopardizes payments to the 50,000 Coast Guard retirees. Virginia has a significant Coast Guard presence, especially in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia. Virginians perform all of the missions that the Coast Guard is entrusted to perform--search and rescues, drug interdictions, military missions, and law enforcement. The Coast Guard Honor Guard, which covers funerals and ceremonial occasions all over the world, is based in Virginia, and so is the unit that provides IT support for Coast Guard functions, including cutters that are currently at sea, like the USS Bertholf, which deployed out of Alameda, CA, on Sunday. As the Presiding Officer knows--sometimes it is a little bit confusing not just to the public but even to the military--the Coast Guard is unique in the shutdown because they are a branch of the military, but they are budgeted through the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense. DOD was funded by the work that this Senate, the House, and the President did through appropriations bills that were signed earlier in the year. So every other branch of the military is currently funded; the DHS, however, is not funded. So the Coast Guard is the one military branch that is not being paid. This is creating some enormous--enormous--issues that my Coast Guard members in Virginia have been sharing with me. Just one, for example, is the USS Bertholf, which is the Coast Guard cutter that deployed Sunday out of Alameda, CA, on a military mission as part of PACOM in the Western Pacific. So the traditional going-away event, where everyone in the Coast Guard is deploying for multiple months, and their families are there, and they are saying good-bye to their families--but for the families who live in and around Alameda, it is not necessarily cheap. They are going to have to keep paying bills--rent and other things--while their Coasties, as they call themselves, are deployed. Yet they are not being paid. Even though this cutter will be involved in missions together with Navy ships where sailors are being paid, the Coasties are not being paid. You can imagine--and this has been described by my Coast Guard members in Virginia--that there are some sizable equity issues in this. The Coast Guard likes to recruit among those who want to volunteer to serve their country, and they have said that they have been able to recruit even-steven with the Marines and the Navy and the Army and the Air Force. They can recruit even-steven. They offer a lot of similar opportunities to serve and similar abilities to advance in rank, so they feel that in recruiting for IT professionals or others, they can do their very best. However, something like this really affects their ability to recruit. As is well known, in a shutdown, the DOD is likely to be funded. All of the other branches of the military will be funded, but the Coast Guard will not be. It affects recruitment significantly, and it affects retention. I have heard a number of stories from Coast Guard members in Virginia. Just this morning, someone who is a young coast guarder in their first 2 years said this; this is a direct quote: I skip dinners now so I can buy food for my dogs. I have dogs. I care about my dogs. To buy dog food is important for them, and so I will do breakfast and lunch, but I skip dinners now to buy food for my dogs. I had two Coast Guard members tell me about challenges with paying rent--one in the private sector and two, interesting enough, are living on military bases. Let me describe each. Northern Virginia is not a cheap place to live. There is a Coast Guard member in Northern Virginia, and when the shutdown started and he was not being paid, he went to his landlord and said: Landlord, can you give me an extension? I am serving my country in the Coast Guard. The landlord, a regional firm that has many apartments, came back and said, in an effort that kind of sounded friendly: Listen, we will let you pay half of the month's rent on the 15th and half at the end instead of one big rent check a month. We will do that, but you have to agree to rewrite your lease to allow us to evict you after 15 days rather than after 30 days. He said: Look, I am a young guy. I don't know that much, but I have a grandfather in the real estate business. I showed him this proposal, and he said ``Hold on a second. It would probably be better if you keep your current lease and try to even borrow money from family than to sign an amendment of your lease allowing you to be evicted after 15 days.'' I think the Presiding Officer and I would say: What kind of landlord would do this? What kind of landlord would take somebody serving their country and try to accelerate the ability to evict them because of the shutdown? That is, in fact, happening, and it is not a small landlord either. That one surprised me, but I will say there was another one that surprised me more. Two of the Coast Guard members I had visited with in Northern Virginia live on military bases. One lives in Quantico in military housing, and one lives in Fort Belvoir, the Army base in Fairfax County, in military housing. So you would think that this landlord would be a more understanding landlord than maybe a private sector landlord, but when the shutdown happened, in each instance, they went to their landlord and said: Hey, we are being shut down. We are not being paid. The response was: What do you mean you are not being paid? The Marines are being paid. The Army is being paid. You are living on a military base, and everybody is being paid. What do you mean you are not being paid? You have to pay your rent. The military, which is in charge of military housing on these bases, was not aware that because the Coast Guard comes up through DHS, they are not being paid. So they are having trouble with their landlords, even though their landlords are part of the military and should understand this. That same challenge is affecting one of the servicemembers whose child is in a child development center on the base at Quantico. Not being able to pay--you would think that a military child development center might understand, but, in fact, that is not the case. Other Coast Guard members have told me about an additional challenge. The Coast Guard relies on civilians, just as all of our other military branches rely on civilians, and the civilians are hit very hard by the furlough. At one facility in Virginia, civilians are in charge of maintaining more than 40 buildings that are old and need some TLC. Boilers that need work in January and other physical infrastructure that has needs-- that work is done by private contractors who are furloughed, so that work, which is critical to their being able to operate the installations, is hard to get done. The IT functions of the Coast Guard take advantage of the civilian expertise of people in Northern Virginia too. One Coast Guard member described a job offer they extended to somebody to come work for the Coast Guard. They made the job offer just a day or two before the shutdown happened, so now they can't hire the individual. They are trying to convince the individual: Please, hang on; don't take another job. IT jobs are plentiful in Northern Virginia, but don't take another job. Wait for us. Well, wait for how long? I don't know for how long. They are worried that they are going to lose a critical employee. One of the Coast Guard individuals I talked to basically put it this way: ``It is embarrassing. It is psychologically embarrassing. We signed up to help others, not beg for charity at food banks or restaurants for Federal employees''--and just talked about how hard it is. In a way, we should all be willing to ask for help. We all need help in our lives. But somebody who has signed up and their goal is to help others--they were just being candid in saying that it is really hard to go ask others for help, for food. When the Coast Guard can't do missions or when they can't do some of the other functions they are supposed to do--the Honor Guard can't go to funerals at Arlington or other occasions--then those jobs fall heavier on the other services. So they talk about not just the degradation of their own work but the fact that others have to pull extra weight for them. Here is what a Coast Guard employee said to me: I am paid as an officer to motivate and to lead. That is what officers do, we try to motivate and to lead. I shouldn't have to stand before a group of Coasties and offer a class on how to file unemployment insurance. Yet that is something that he is now being told that he has to do. So many of the Coast Guard members mention what other Federal employees say--almost a cliche line that I am hearing from everybody: I guess I will figure it out for myself, but I worry about my shipmates. I guess I will figure it out for myself, but I worry about someone else. So many of the Federal employees are struck. Finally, a general question: Why would anyone sign up if they knew they would be treated this way? Some of the Coast Guard members authorized me to use their names and let me tell a few of their stories with their first names attached before I move into talking about my visit to the pop-up restaurant just seven blocks from here. Katherine from Fairfax County: I am directly affected by this senseless government shutdown. I retired from the U.S. Coast Guard in 2006. Since the U.S. Coast Guard is an organization of the Department of Homeland Security, all U.S. Coast Guard personnel (active duty, civilian employees, reservists, and retirees) are being inflicted with undue financial hardship and stress. Today, I went to my local [credit union] branch office to enroll in a 0% APR Government Shutdown Assistance Program. Admittedly, I was embarrassed and saddened to have to take this action to maintain some sense of personal financial health and security. My heart goes out to my brothers and sisters of the [U.S. Coast Guard] that are currently on active duty, working without pay, and supporting a family. This is our reality today. Lisa from Ashburn: My husband works for the Coast Guard and is required to work without pay. We suffered a house flood during Hurricane Matthew that wiped out our savings and have a daughter in college. Not sure how we can manage if we miss more than one paycheck, as we also assist my mother, who has had a stroke. Praying that this is over sooner than later. Sue from Loudoun County: My Coast Guard son and his family live in Kodiak, Alaska, and are not getting paid. Senator Murkowski gave a speech about Kodiak and the Coast Guard presence in Kodiak on the floor on Saturday. Risking his life as a rescue pilot with no pay is unpatriotic as well as dangerous for the country. These men and women work for us, to protect our country. They should be paid and not told to have a yard sale to make due. Mary from Williamsburg: My husband has worked tirelessly as a member of the all- volunteer Coast Guard Auxiliary. He teaches Safe Boating classes and has used his boat as a vessel to assist in search and rescue in Sector Hampton Roads. Now with the shutdown, he cannot do any of the boat safety activities to help the Coast Guard keep our waters safe. It is ridiculous to shut down the federal government--but it is dangerous to have curbed the lifesaving activities of the Coast Guard and their invaluable volunteer auxiliarists! He cannot volunteer. He cannot volunteer because of the shutdown. Trinity from Suffolk: My father works on the US Coast Guard base in Portsmouth, VA. Even though my father hasn't gotten a paycheck, Hampton University still wants the payments for my tuition. Just because his paychecks have stopped doesn't mean our bills have. Gary from Chesapeake: My son is a Chief in the Coast Guard. For the past 19 years, he went to sea to protect our coastline, enforce our laws, and rescue those in need. Over the years he missed countless holidays, birthdays, and anniversaries with family and friends. Now, there's no respect for his sacrifices and service. Finally, Samantha from Herndon: My husband is a civilian employee of the Coast Guard. We are having to pull money from savings and significantly change our spending habits just to make sure we can make it through the month. We worry about paying our mortgage and keeping the heat and lights on. A wall will not help border security, and everyday working people are paying the price for a pointless standoff over it. These are just a few of the stories I have heard from Guard members. There are many, many more. I want to talk about a visit that I just paid, and I would encourage everyone in Congress to do this--in the Senate. We are here this week. There is a pop-up restaurant at Seventh and Pennsylvania--just seven blocks from here--that was opened by an organization called Chefs for Feds. Chefs for Feds is an organization started by Jose Andres to deal with emergencies. They went to Puerto Rico and served millions of meals to people affected by hurricanes there. They have done similar work in California to deal with the communities affected by wildfires and in Indonesia to deal with communities affected by earthquakes and tsunamis. This is an NGO that focuses on helping people in the midst of disasters. Now they have opened a restaurant at Seventh and Pennsylvania. This is the first manmade disaster in which they are trying to figure out a way to help. The restaurant opened last Tuesday. Any Federal employee or family member can come. Six to eight thousand people have come every day. It is open from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Today, they expanded services. They have also opened, broadly, a coat closet, a food bank, a place where moms can go to get diapers, which aren't cheap, feminine products, which aren't cheap, and basic pharmaceutical things that aren't cheap. So it is a combination of a restaurant and sort of a broader social services ministry. Chefs for Feds is an interesting group. They have other nonprofits that are involved--DC Diaper Bank, Martha's Table, which is an effective, faith-based ministry to hungry and homeless people. I showed up there at about 11:45. It is cold today. I showed up to go thank people and work as a volunteer. There was a line like you see in pictures of the Depression of hundreds of people waiting outside. The restaurant is actually kind of short. You go in, get in a line, and you are offered a sandwich or soup and some fruit and maybe an iced tea and utensils. People are coming in and eating quickly and leaving. You can take a sandwich for a colleague at work or for somebody at home if you need that. It looked like one of those photos you might see from the Depression. The volunteers are chefs and restaurant workers around Virginia who have their own issues and challenges to deal with, but they are there helping. Many of the volunteers are furloughed Federal employees. If you are being locked out of your job, you still want to help others, and so probably the biggest group of the volunteers were furloughed Federal employees. I met a Federal employee from Richmond who was furloughed and drove up just to volunteer today to help others, who lives not far from where I live. There were other volunteers who are just concerned citizens-- not Federal employees, but they heard about it and came. I met one of the volunteers, a kind of supervisor of the kitchen. His name is Tim, and so that was easy for me to remember. He was here from Ventura, CA. He knew nothing about this group until his house burned down in California, and they came to his community to offer meals. With his whole house destroyed, he started to volunteer to help others. When he heard about the shutdown, even as he is still dealing with his own issues in California after the wildfire, he came to help run the kitchen operation. Today, they not only expanded to the clothes closet and diaper distribution; they also announced a whole series of other restaurants and similar pop-up operations they are going to do all over the United States. They have looked where there is a high density of Federal employees, and they announced 15 to 20 other locations around the country where they are now going to start serving. It was something to see this long line of Federal employees waiting out in the cold to get into that restaurant. Just the length of the line made a real impression on me. It was emotional. It was interesting that so many were law enforcement in uniform--Park Service, people from the FBI and other Agencies, clearly law enforcement in uniform--waiting in the cold to come in and get a sandwich. There were parents with their children, young children. Being furloughed, it is hard to afford childcare, so if you are going to come down to get food, what do you do with your 3-year- old? Well, they had their children in their arms. As I said, it looked like something from the Depression, but we are not in a depression. Our economy is strong right now. Our stock market is up right now. It is one thing to see that kind of a line when we are in a depression, but when we are being told that the economy is great, to see that kind of line made a huge impression upon me--so unnecessary. I thank Jose Andres and the chefs. I thank the volunteers. I thank Martha's Table. I thank others who are responding. They pointed out to me--they said: Look, this one is different from all the other ones we have done because it is the only disaster that is manmade and unnecessary. Jose looked at me and said: Shut us down by reopening government. You guys reopen and then shut us down. We don't want to be open at Seventh and Pennsylvania. We want to send the volunteers home and have the government reopen. The President said he was proud to shut down the government. I defy any thinking and feeling person in this country to go to Seventh and Pennsylvania between 11 and 6 and look at that line in the middle of January and say they are proud. I have a lot of words that I might attach to it. I don't think anybody could look at that--I don't think anybody going and talking to people or working the line like I did-- just the faces. The faces of people as they came to the line--all were grateful. All were grateful that others were there to provide some help, but many were embarrassed, certainly for their country and sometimes personally--again, like my Coast Guarder who said: I signed up to help people. I don't like asking for help. I don't like asking for charity. There are people who are there that--yes, they are grateful, but they are embarrassed and some are angry at how they are being treated, and who can blame them for that? As I conclude, there is a way out. There is a way out, and I think the way out has two steps: First, reopen government ASAP, and second, treat the President's proposal from Saturday seriously. I do believe the President's proposal--and we have talked about this--I do believe it is a proposal that deserves to be treated seriously. The proposal he has made, if it were offered for a vote now, with no opportunity to study it and improve it, I probably would vote against it, but it is a proposal that deserves to be treated seriously because it deals with four issues. It deals with the right investment in border security; that is an important issue. It deals with how to deal with Dreamers; that is an important issue. It deals with how to deal with the TPS program; that is an important issue. There is a fourth issue in the proposal that the President didn't speak about Saturday--the standards and processes for applying and potentially receiving asylum in the United States. He didn't mention that during the speech. It is in the proposal. It is an important issue. What does it mean to take the President's proposal seriously? Even if I have some points of difference on each of the four elements, I would not disagree with the assertion that each of the elements is very important. We should be dealing with them. What does it mean to take the President's proposal seriously? If he means it seriously, then he should want us to address it seriously. I understand that the bill is 1,200 pages. I understand that it might be introduced today. I haven't seen it. I don't think it has been introduced yet. Maybe it has and I was down serving lunch and haven't had a chance to read it. But 1,200 pages is a big bill, and these are big and important topics. What would be the way we would engage, Democrats and Republicans, with this proposal to show the President we are taking it seriously? We would put it in a committee--the Judiciary or Appropriations Committee. The Parliamentarians would determine where it would go based upon how it is drafted, but it would likely be one of those two committees. The relevant committee obviously has a Republican chair in a Republican majority body; that is fine. There is a Republican majority on the committee; that is fine. But you would put it in the committee, and the first thing you would do is you would ask the administration to come up and explain each point. They put a proposal on the table. OK, $5.7 billion--how do you want to spend it? What does your TPS proposal mean? What does your Dreamer proposal mean? How do you propose to change the asylum laws? The administration would explain their proposal and answer questions about it. Then promptly--especially with a Republican committee chair with some power over timing--promptly, the committee could take up the matter and have a normal committee process, with members able to make amendments. I am not on either of the relevant committees, so this is easy for me to say, but if a Democrat had an idea about, here is a way to improve it, there is no chance that idea is getting passed without some Republican votes because the Democrats are in the minority. But a Democrat and a Republican should be able to offer ideas for how the proposal should be improved, and that can be done promptly. With a Republican majority, the chances of the President's proposal-- hopefully with some improvements--being reported out to the floor is very high. If it is reported out to the floor, we could have a similar process here, with Members being able to make amendments. Again, no amendment is going to be accepted from a Democrat without some Republicans saying it is a good idea. No amendment would be accepted without a majority or a supermajority of this body saying: That is a good idea; that improves the proposal. That would be how we would show President Trump that we take the proposal seriously. I have heard--and I know it is not yet completely decided, though-- that there is an effort that we want to have a vote on it this week. We don't want to have a committee process. We don't want to have amendments. We just want to have a vote on it this week. That would suggest that the proposal was not offered in seriousness and the Senate was not being serious about addressing it. I think the Senate, on this proposal, should just be the Senate, and we should count on committees, which are helmed by Republicans, to try to promptly move this through a process where they all get to put their thumbprints on it and make it better. Let me address quickly, as I conclude, the elements of the proposal. How much to spend on border security? For this Senator, the dollar amount that the President proposed does not trouble me as long as it is used right. I have voted for proposals to try to advance to the White House that had more than $5.7 billion of border security. Our 2013 bill had $40-plus billion over 10 years. The bill we voted on in February had $25 billion over 10 years. The dollar amount is not the challenge for this Senator. The challenge is that I want to make sure we use it the right way. When every Member of Congress who represents the border--all nine-- say that just using the money to build a big wall is a bad idea, that should tell us something. When our border professionals say there are higher priorities than using all the money to build a wall, that should tell us something. But if the administration goes to the committee and presents their case, and they have border professionals saying, ``Here are the ways to spend it, and physical barriers are really important in this place or that place,'' they would really help us. I am very open to that. I just don't want to waste the money, but the dollar amount is less important to me than the way money should be spent. That is the kind of thing we can negotiate and find an accord on. Dreamers. The President terminated protection for about 1.7 million Dreamers two Septembers ago. He then challenged us to find a congressional resolution. His proposal is to restore protections to about 700,000 Dreamers for a period of 3 years. Well, I am curious--700,000. Why not the full 1.7 million whose protections you pulled. Three years--why not four? But these are issues we could debate. These are issues where amendments could be offered, and we could find--again, I believe--a compromise. The President is terminating TPS programs for about 400,000 people from 10 countries. He is proposing, actually, to restore about 300,000 of the individuals with rights under the Temporary Protected Status Program. I want to know: Why not all 400,000? What is it about some countries that you want to restore the protections you took away but you don't want to restore protections to the other countries? Maybe there is a reason. Maybe there is a good reason. But maybe there isn't a good reason, and we ought to have that discussion and offer Democrats and Republicans the ability to take some sandpaper to it and try to make it better. Finally, asylum. This was the issue that the President did not speak about in his speech, but apparently the bill, which I haven't seen, has dramatic changes to the processes for applying for asylum and possibly the standards for getting asylum. That is an important issue. We want to make sure that we do it right. There are international legal ramifications, and there are also ramifications in terms of this ``Statue of Liberty'' Nation. We want to make sure we get it right, but is there an openness to having discussions about asylum procedures? Of course there is. So I would say that when President Trump put a proposal on the table on Saturday that dealt with border security funding, TPS, Dreamers, and asylum, each of those issues are issues on which we ought to be having a discussion, and we ought to be able to find some accord. Frankly, if we can't find a pretty significant bipartisan accord here, the chances of there being one in the House is slim. So we ought to take the time to find it here. We ought to take the time to do that and do it promptly without people being needlessly hurt. That is why I return to my original request. I hope we will take a step that will shut down the pop-up restaurant at 7th and Pennsylvania, as the chefs asked me to do today. Let's reopen government and shut down the restaurant that has popped up to serve those 6,000 to 8,000 people a day who are being punished unnecessarily. I thank the patience of the Chair and those in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, in the last 2 days, I have stood on this floor and asked that the American Government reopen. On Thursday, I asked unanimous consent to proceed to the bipartisan House bill funding most shuttered government Agencies through the end of this fiscal year. The majority leader objected to my request. Yesterday, I asked unanimous consent to proceed to the bipartisan House bill funding Homeland Security Agencies through February 8. The junior Senator from Oklahoma, on behalf of the majority leader, objected to my request. So today marks the 29th day of the government shutdown--29 days of fiscal pain and mental anxiety and national humiliation; 29 days of families worried about mortgage payments, canceling medical appointments, losing their place at a favored daycare that they can no longer afford to pay for; 29 days of being required to travel to work without being paid and without even receiving money to put gas in your car to get to work; 29 days of being unable to add your newborn child to your Federal health insurance policy; 29 days of being turned away from services like food stamps or National Parks or affordable housing programs or domestic violence services; 29 days of chemical spills not being investigated or food products not being inspected; 29 days of our veterans who serve as Federal employees or Federal contractors suffering as political pawns in an unnecessary stunt; 29 days of seeing the country you love cease to be an example to others. If a foreign adversary--if a foreign adversary--through an active attack or cyber attack disabled major portions of the American Government pushing 800,000 Federal employees to the brink of financial disaster and blocking millions of Americans from accessing government services critical to their lives--if a foreign adversary did that, make no mistake, we would consider it an act of war. If a foreign adversary figured out a way to block border guards, U.S. marshals, Coast Guard members, DEA agents, ATF agents, FBI agents, TSA agents, and air traffic controllers from being paid to intentionally hurt those whom we charge with protecting our safety and security, we would consider it an attack on our country. If a foreign adversary took these steps to embarrass and humiliate us, to bring much of the Nation to a halt, to divide us against one another, we would consider it an attack on our country. But these acts are not being conducted by a foreign adversary. They are being intentionally waged against American workers and American citizens by the President of the United States. He advertised in December that he would shut down the government and gladly own the responsibility for it. He has claimed pride--pride--in what he has done and suggested that he might keep government shut down for weeks or months. It is this President who is waging this attack against broad swaths of the American public. I think you are aware of this: I have long criticized the tendency of Congress to allow Presidents of either party to wage war without requiring congressional approval. I criticized President Obama for unilateral military action in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and I have criticized President Trump for unilateral military action in Syria and Yemen. But I have reserved my toughest criticisms in this matter for Congress. How can we be silent when a President chooses to initiate war, sending our troops into harm's way, without a congressional vote? How can we be silent when the President takes such an action without a congressional vote? Today, I am critical of this Senate--a body I love, with 99 other colleagues I love. I am critical of this Senate for allowing this President to wage this attack against American workers and citizens without being willing to hold a vote about it. Just a few weeks ago, this body was very willing to vote for funding the very Agencies that are shuttered today. Democratic and Republican Members decided that such a vote was in the interest of their country, their own States, and their own constituents. But following the vote, the President expressed his disappointment in the vote, so the vast majority of colleagues in the majority, with notable exceptions, obviously have changed their position from December and are now unwilling to vote. The House bills that are pending at the desk would reopen government, and I find it truly outrageous that the majority is not yet willing to hold a vote on those bills. Just as Congress abdicates its clear responsibility constitutionally by refusing to hold a vote on the initiation of war, I believe that the Senate is now abdicating its clear responsibility to appropriate funds for government by refusing to even entertain a vote on the bipartisan spending bills that are before us. Let's be clear about this. If we were to proceed to those bills, every Member in this Chamber would be required to vote either for or against government funding in the previously agreed amounts. We all would be held accountable for either voting for funding or against funding. It is this accountability--or, rather, the fear of being held accountable--for a vote that is blocking consideration of these bills. The majority--again, with notable exceptions, including the Presiding Officer and another Senator who will be here today--are afraid to vote. If they vote for funding, as they did a month ago, they are worried that they will make the President angry. But if they vote against funding, they are worried that their own constituents will be angry. The fear of voting and being held accountable even extends to the floor session--the unusual floor session--that we are holding right now. At the end of the day on Thursday, I made good on my promise to object to adjourning the Senate while the government was closed. Of course, my objection, which I had lodged earlier in the week and on which I acted on Thursday, can be overcome. My objection to the recess that we were supposed to have can be overcome by a simple majority of the body. But, just as occurred last week, the majority was afraid to challenge my objection because it would have meant that they would have had to vote on whether to adjourn. This shutdown--this attack on American workers and citizens--can end if the Senate is just willing to vote on the pending bills. But the fear of being held accountable, the fear of political consequence, is so great that the majority strategy currently is to avoid any vote whatsoever. What is the fear of voting compared to the fear of losing your home? What is the fear of voting compared to the fear of not having health insurance? What is the fear of voting compared to the pain of letting your trusted babysitter go or the humiliation of your children coming to you with their piggy banks to help you overcome your family's financial distress? Can it be that one works so hard to come to this respected place, taking an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but then lets fear of accountability and political consequence become the overriding factor in one's decisions? That politics would motivate us all is no surprise but that it would so dominate the action--or, rather, inaction--of this body when the government of our Nation is closed is shocking to me. I am not young and I am not naive, but I never would have imagined in coming to this body that the Senate in the Article I branch of this democracy would take the position that we can't vote on any matter unless we know the President agrees. I hope my colleagues will raise their voices and demand a vote on the pending bipartisan House bills. If we vote and the bills fail, we will have to go back to the drawing board, but I think we all know what will happen if we vote on those bills. If we vote on the House bills, the House bills will pass. The majority currently is withholding a vote, aware that if the vote happens, the bills will pass. So on day 29, as the Senate seeks to avoid a vote and avoid accountability, my constituents--and all of our constituents--continue to suffer. Heidi from Vienna wrote me: My husband and I are both veterans and current federal employees without pay. They are both veterans and both Federal employees without pay. [W]e are at a breaking point. We haven't paid our mortgage, and our pediatrician donates medication to our children. After a life of dedicated public service in support of my country, I never expected to find myself in this position. It's a breach of trust. Sarah from Ashburn: My husband and I are both federal law enforcement and have been working without pay during the shutdown. We have three young children and continue to not only have bills to pay, but childcare expenses to pay so we can continue to work without pay. We haven't had to borrow money yet, but soon we will have to take a good look at what our options are. We have cut back on all expenses, no eating out, no purchasing anything other than food and gas, no registering for spring sports or after school programs, no buying Girl Scout cookies or anything else extra. We don't want to get our margin of cash so low that we will have to use credit. We have been trying very hard to get out of debt--and credit is a last resort for us. We will be dipping into our emergency fund soon. I have worked for the federal government for 21 years, and I am very frustrated. John from Fairfax Station: My son is one of hundreds of thousands of federal contractor employees who have been essentially furloughed from their consulting jobs and forced to use 2019 Annual Leave (exhausted last week) and pay for lapsed health insurance because the federal agency that he works for has been closed by the Government Shutdown. If the Shutdown is not ended soon, my son's firm will have to start laying off staff to offset millions of dollars in losses due to the federal work stoppage. This is the unpublicized nightmare of the shutdown . . . . hundreds of thousands of federal contractors may lose their jobs because Trump is holding federal workers (and their contractors) hostage for his ineffective wall. Theresa from Middletown: I have been a public servant for 30+ years and you are using me and my family as pawns in a game no one can win. . . . I've dedicated my life to serving the American people and this is how you treat me? I've had to go from giving food to the local pantries to wondering when I will be the one visiting these same pantries. My child is stressed because he doesn't know when he may be hungry, when we may be homeless, or when we will have to start selling things off--he literally has unopened Christmas gifts he won't open because he's afraid we'll need to return them to buy food. All for a . . . wall! That wall won't clothe, house or feed my family. God help us all! Elizabeth from Pound, which is in Appalachia, VA: Mr. President, I write to you as the wife of a Federal Corrections Officer at USP Lee. I urge you to help find a solution for the numerous people, like my family, who are getting ready to have our worlds crumble. On this Saturday, my family will not receive the paycheck my husband has earned for the past weeks. The stress that this is causing myself and my husband is compounding. We do not know how we are going to pay our bills, much less feed our children. He cannot even attempt to get a temporary job in the meantime because he is still having to go to his . . . job. My family's lives are being used as pawns in a political war. We are a typical working family in a rural area who live paycheck to paycheck. We pay our bills and taxes and have good credit and all of this is being jeopardized at no fault of our own. I cannot imagine going to my daughter's dance teacher and saying please continue to provide her with classes and we will pay you eventually, or the power company and saying please keep our lights and heat on and we will pay you eventually, etc. We do not know when that will be but ``eventually''. . . . SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO FIX THIS! Jacquelyn from Manassas: I am an FAA 35 years of service federal excepted and essential employee. This is an interesting one. December 23, 2018, would have been my reporting date to a new facility closer to my elderly mother to assist in her home care. I have broken my lease at my current residence and obtained an apartment at the new station [near my mom], which I can't move to until after this ``Shutdown.'' The ``Shutdown'' has placed my career and life in limbo. My 81 year old Mother is anticipating my aid in her health and medical care. The financial burden of my Mother not receiving the biweekly allotment I provide has caused undue stress on her and myself. The urgency of my moving closer to her is time critical [for both her health and my finances]. Carolanne from Fairfax: We are stationed in Australia-- Her husband is a Federal employee, stationed overseas-- far from family and friends, with limited employment options for myself as the spouse. And now we find ourselves without a paycheck. And still liable for paying our mortgage on our home in Fairfax City. And liable for paying all medical expenses out of pocket, including my son's surgery two weeks before Christmas . . . . It's not a game. Gracie from Woodbridge: I am writing you now asking for your help. I've been a loyal Federal government employee for . . . 16 years, receiving \1/3\-\1/4\ of what I could make in the private sector with little or no thanks from anyone. My husband, a veteran, was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer in June 2015 at the age of 35 and has been receiving treatment since, which is adding to our debt. We have two young children who each require the basics, of course, and who are involved in sports, something we want to encourage. We have a mortgage payment, car payments, other debt, and student loan debt, which we will likely still be paying when our children go to college. And we have not been able to save for their college because we're still paying mine off. . . . All this adds salt to the wound of also being a furloughed employee. I know I am not alone but we are being held hostage for political purposes. So I'm not receiving any pay right now and the Department of Education is somehow calculating that I should be able to pay $600/a month [for my loans]. I do not like asking for help. I was raised to be very independent and pull myself up from my bootstraps. Sara from Fredericksburg: I am a mother of 2 and a wife to an FBI employee. We are now approaching the end of week 4 of the shutdown and there is no end in sight. By the end of this month our accounts will be almost empty. We have had to have the hard conversation with our children about the lack of funds and making cuts in order to pay our bills and cost of medication. My son has asthma and a blood pressure disorder, which both can be life threatening. He is on medication to treat his conditions, but if the government doesn't open and our sole provider does not receive his pay, how are we supposed to fulfill our responsibilities as parents in keeping our kids safe and healthy? Finally, Christopher from Leesburg shared this on my Facebook page: I'm a federal employee who used the last of his discretionary funds today to attend my grandfather's funeral, my second funeral in a month, and repair our vehicle so that we could make it home to our kids from hours away. Now I'm preparing to file for unemployment, my wife is going to have to try to get a job despite her severe and crippling anxiety, and we've had to return some of the Christmas presents [that we bought] for ourselves, our four-year-old son, and our six- year-old daughter. Now we have to figure out what to do next because our car is still in need of major repair, we need to buy food for our daughter's lunchbox for kindergarten each day, and afford family meals and gas. We've always lived paycheck to paycheck because of the high cost of living in northern Virginia and we don't have the option to take out loans because we incurred so much debt moving to the area and dealing with my wife's medical bills. . . . I gave up military service to join the civil service and have been so disheartened to see the lack of respect for federal employees. This is just a sample, and I know every Senator in this body is receiving these. Per capita, I may receive more because I represent Virginia, but only 20 percent of our Federal employees are in the DC- Maryland-Virginia area, and 80 percent are all over the country. These stories are common. We are getting them in the dozens and scores every day. I return to a request, and I am speaking to the choir as I address this Presider because I know we largely share the views that I have expressed. We stand for office. We work hard to get here. We are elected, and it is a privilege to be here. The thing we are supposed to do in being here is to be willing to vote yes or no and be held accountable for our votes. The fact that these bills that would end the pain that I have just read to you about are sitting right there on the desk and could be voted on immediately if the majority agreed but that maneuvers are being used to block the vote from happening is, in some ways, the most discouraging aspect of this. With confidence, I am aware that if the bills were called and voted on, we would vote for them, and government could reopen immediately. I would encourage my colleagues to abate and end the pain that I have just described and hold that vote. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss where we stand as a nation and as a Senate on day 28 of the longest shutdown in the history of the United States. Following my comments, I will offer by UC to pull one of the House bills up, and I understand the Senator from Oklahoma will be here to respond to that. We were not scheduled to be in session today. We were supposed to adjourn yesterday and then reconvene on Monday, January 28, but I objected to the adjournment, just as I did last weekend, because our government is closed. So we will be in today and tomorrow, off Sunday and Monday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., and then return on Tuesday, January 22. I offer a partial apology to my colleagues and to our professional Senate staff for any inconvenience they experience because we will be in session during a time when there had been a scheduled recess. I have never objected to the normal weekly adjournment before last week, and I cannot imagine doing so under normal circumstances. But my apology is only partial because the inconvenience experienced by anyone in this Chamber--Senate or professional staff--pales in comparison to the pain that this shutdown inflicts upon workers who are not getting paid, citizens who are not being served, and a nation whose reputation is being damaged. We are made to look like a laughing stock by this needless shutdown, and the enemies of America around the world are enjoying this immensely, just as our allies are deeply worried about us. Despite what some believe and despite the impression that some may draw from recent history in the article I branch, I do not believe the shuttering of the government of the United States is a normal circumstance, and I, for one, will do anything I can to fight against the normalization of the status we find ourselves in today. That is why I am here today. That is why I will be here tomorrow. That is why I will be here all next week. If our government is closed, I will be here trying to open it. I am only one Senator, and I lack the power to compel anyone else to be here with me other than the Presiding Officer. I lack the power to force a floor vote to reopen government. I lack the power to call up any legislative matter for a vote, save the two House bills that we have agreed may be called up pursuant to the UC rules. I do have the power to talk every day with my colleagues and the administration officials to encourage the reopening of our government, and I do have the power to stand on the floor and describe the circumstances of my constituents and all Americans who are being needlessly hurt. Only a few will hear me as I describe their pain, but describe it I will, and the Congressional Record will record for all history their stories. If you want me to share your story in the days to come as I take the floor, please reach out to my office at kaine.senate.gov, where you will see a way to share your shutdown story, and I will try to share as many of these as I can in the days to come. Today, before I offer the UC on the homeland security short-term bill, I want to do two things. I want first to elaborate on a point I made briefly yesterday about the cardinal illogic of this shutdown, and, second, I want to share stories just from meetings that I had yesterday with affected Federal employees and veterans. The cardinal illogic of this shutdown has at least three levels. The cause of the shutdown is clear. President Trump does not believe $1.3 billion for border security funding contained in a bipartisan appropriation bill is sufficient. He says ``I want more,'' and he is willing to shut down massive sections of the American government to get more. President Trump is not only willing to do this; he says that he is proud to do this, even for weeks and months, and he invited cameras into a meeting with congressional leaders and told America that he is the sole responsible party for it. The first level of illogic to the shutdown is this: Most of the employees and citizens affected by the shutdown have absolutely nothing--nothing--to do with the debate over the right appropriations level for border security. What does the debate about border security have to do with the food stamp program and those who work for it? What does it have to do with the National Park Service? What does it have to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, with the Internal Revenue Service, with the chemical safety board, with national forests, with mental health services, domestic violence programs funded through Department of Justice grants, or with affordable housing programs administered by HUD? Hundreds of thousands of workers and millions of citizens who are served by the affected Agencies are being punished-- locked out of their jobs, deprived of paychecks, turned away from services because the President believes that if he punishes enough people, even those unconnected with the legitimate issue at hand, he will get what he wants. This is tyrant behavior, not Presidential behavior. The illogic of this form of punishment struck me most vividly yesterday, when I moved to reopen these affected Agencies and Leader McConnell objected to my UC request. One of the Agencies covered by my UC request was the Executive Office of the President of the United States. At the White House, many of the President's own chosen staff are furloughed or they are working without pay during the shutdown, so I stood on the floor as a Democrat to ask that the President's own staff be allowed to return to work to serve him, to serve the country, and to be paid. The majority leader, having previously described his motivation as trying to support the President, stood and objected to the motion that would have returned the President's own staff to work. You can't make this stuff up. The second level of illogic of this shutdown concerns the core of the policy dispute: the appropriations level for border security. The UC request that I will offer in a few minutes deals with that part of the dispute that is pending before the body. I will offer in a few minutes the UC on the House bill that would reopen for a short term the Homeland Security Agencies that provide security while Congress tries to find a bipartisan deal that can pass both Houses and earn the President's signature, and Senate Republicans, again, in a few minutes--at the request of President Trump, who does not yet want this to happen--will object to that request as well. If the issue in dispute is border security or, as President Trump often says, ``the safety and security of the American people''--he says that in speeches; he says in tweets that is the issue--then why punish the very people who are providing that safety and security? How does it help promote safety and security to not pay the very Border Patrol agents charged with protecting the border? How does it promote safety and security to not pay FBI agents, DEA agents, Federal prosecutors, ATF agents, and U.S. marshals? How does it promote safety and security to not pay members of the Coast Guard, who help interdict drugs and also rescue Americans endangered at sea? How does it promote safety and security to not pay TSA agents, who keep dangerous people off planes, or air traffic controllers, who keep air traffic safety safely coordinated in American skies? The President has proudly taken paychecks away from the very professionals whom we ask to guard the safety and security of the American public every day, and in doing so, he has made our citizens and our country less safe and less secure. The third level of illogic is a consequence of actions that were taken by Congress and the President in the last week. For this, I want to offer thanks to my colleagues. I was able, through use of my adjournment objection last week, to negotiate a successful vote on a bill guaranteeing backpay to all workers affected by this or any future shutdown. I appreciate the cooperation of all my Senate colleagues--the majority leader, the minority leader and others and the House--in this effort and appreciate that President Trump signed the bill in the last few days. Having guaranteed backpay, we are now faced with an unusual question about continuing the shutdown. Now that we know the Federal Treasury will stroke checks to all affected workers to make them whole at least for the salary they have lost, wouldn't we rather have them at work serving their fellow Americans rather than locked out of their offices and unable to serve them? What sense does it make to guarantee payment or prohibit them from doing the work for which they are paid? These workers want to go back to work because they want to serve their fellow citizens. That brings me to the second part of my remarks before I offer the UC. I had three meetings yesterday with large groups of Virginians where I listened to them talk about the shutdown. Two of the meetings were actually specifically designed to hear from Federal employees about the shutdown. One was an annual coffee that Senator Warner and I have for veterans to celebrate their service to the country, and as they were waiting in line and taking pictures, they were talking to us a lot about the shutdown. In these three instances, I heard an awful lot. Just as I will share stories next week, let me now summarize a few of the things I heard from those I interacted with yesterday and tell you about them. The mother of a newborn, 6 months old, who works as an air traffic controller and can't afford to pay her babysitter, is working but getting no salary. She started to cry because, she said: I have to go to work and can't pay a babysitter. So the only thing I can do is--I am not calling in sick. The only thing I can do is send my baby to my mother who lives in another State. She started to cry. My baby is 6 months old. I have never been away from my baby for more than 8 hours. I don't want to be away from my child. How long is it going to go on? I may be away from my child for weeks. She teared up as she told us about this. There was a Federal employee who said: ``I signed up to serve Americans but didn't realize that I was being drafted into a political war I had no interest in being part of,'' a war in which Federal employees are used as hostages. There was a young married couple, both Federal employees, working without pay, holding their newborn, a tiny baby in their arms, and tearing up as they talked about their uncertainty over paying their mortgage and other bills. There was a furloughed Federal employee whose wife is a disabled veteran with PTSD but is postponing her mental health appointments because of her inability to pay copays or pay for medications. The two Federal-employee couple whose 4- and 6-year-old children, hearing in the background the news on TV and hearing their parents' anxious discussions at night, came up to them the day after Christmas, each holding their piggy banks and giving them to their parents, saying: Maybe you guys need these piggy banks now more than we do. There was a veteran who has successfully created an entrepreneurial government contracting business and has hundreds of employees who are out of work because of the shutdown. All of these people express this: their love for public service, their desire to continue public service, and their personal pain at feeling disrespected just because they want to provide public service. A repeated concern expressed by so many of them about the backlog that is on their desks--they think they will be back at some point, but it was really interesting: Sitting on my desk was this piece of work that I really wanted to get done and how much more is going to be there? It will be hard to serve people, and they will be mad because the backlog is so big. They are having anxiety about not being able to serve people well because the backlog will grow during the 4 weeks of the shutdown. Then, a deep concern shared by so many: Why would any young person want to go into public service? Why would any young person, with a heart for public service, want to do that as a Federal employee? Before I offer the UC--I see my colleague from Oklahoma is here--I want to tell one last story that, for some reason, of all the ones yesterday, this is the one that stuck with me. There were others that might have been more dire, but this one stuck with me because I think it exemplifies a spirit I see in so many of our Federal workers. There was an employee of the National Park Service who has been with the park service for about 10 years, and his job is to physically maintain the space around the White House: groundskeeping, trash removal, anything, as he says, he can do to make those grounds around the White House look really fantastic. He described why he loves his job, and it wasn't sort of the tasks that he does. He said: I want schoolchildren visiting Washington, DC, and I want international visitors visiting Washington, DC, when they come to the White House, to be able to look at this and see it and feel impressed with the United States of America. It makes me feel proud when I see the reaction on people's faces as they are there in front of the White House. That is how he described his work. He is furloughed and without pay, so he is home. There are news accounts about trash overflowing at national parks and things like that, and that kind of causes him angst, obviously. He is angry about the situation. He didn't mince any words with me as he described it. Last Sunday morning he got a call. It was: Hey, we need you to come shovel snow. We had snow last weekend in DC. We had a lot of snow, 10 inches of snow. You have to come in and shovel snow. You are not being paid. I know you feel the disrespect of being furloughed, and we are not going to be able to pay you for shoveling snow, but can you come in and shovel snow on Sunday so that at least the walkways are clear in front of the White House? He said: Boy, I really had something I wanted to say on that call. I wanted to say no, but then I thought about this: What if somebody because of the snow, like a kid, falls and breaks their leg or there is an accident or something because the sidewalks aren't clear or there is ice that causes some problem? He started to think about the people he cares about that he wants to be impressed by the White House because he wants them to be impressed by the country, and he said: Well, I guess I better go shovel the snow. I kid you not. We were having this conversation about 11:45 yesterday morning, and some of you had seen there is a weather report this weekend that is a little bit iffy in DC. During the middle of his telling me his story, his phone rang, and he looked at it and said: Yeah, that is my boss. I am not going to answer it. I know why he is calling. I said: Did you just time this for a stage effect because you knew you were meeting with me right now? Did you tell him not to call at 10:30 but to call at 11:30? He said: No, I know what the call is about. They need me this weekend, even though I am being disrespected, even though I am not being paid, no matter what I want to say, I know what I am going to say. I am going to say: Yes, I will come in and make sure this White House, this Capitol, this country looks as beautiful as it can look for these schoolchildren and these visitors. I think we have to up our game, all of us. I know we can do this. We owe it to our citizens. We owe it to our workers. We owe it to our Nation's reputation. Unanimous Consent Request--H.J. Res. 1 With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 6, H.J. Res. 1, making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security; I further ask that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE

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.

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 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.

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. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I regret it is necessary to re-introduce legislation that prevents a President from withdrawing the United States from NATO. Recent reports confirm that President Trump has repeatedly proposed doing so over the past year. In addition to concern over U.S. national security, this threat to withdraw also raises important constitutional issues. What is the role of Congress in treaties--not just entering into them, but also leaving them? Particularly with a treaty obligation that is as central to U.S. security as NATO--as repeatedly affirmed by Congress--no president should or can be allowed to unilaterally withdraw without the advice and consent of the Senate. Our allies with whom we have fought alongside since World War II and earlier in some cases, are questioning our allegiance for the first time in the history of the modern international order. President Trump has called our European allies ``foes'' while aligning himself with a brutal authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, over the professional assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. Last year, at the NATO summit in Brussels, the President insulted our allies and threatened to leave the alliance if defense spending was not ramped up. The President has also questioned the U.S. commitment to NATO's mutual defense provision and we still do not know what he discussed with President Putin at their meeting in Helsinki. As such, we are forced to ask what options we have to preserve U.S. membership in the primary tool of peace and stability for the last 70 years, NATO. In response to the only invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, more than 1,100 servicemembers from our NATO allies have given their lives fighting alongside the United States. This is a sacrifice that should not be cast aside by our President who continues to depict the alliance as a protection racket and ``obsolete.'' While we must continue to press every country to increase defense spending to meet the agreed-upon goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, the President should not disparage our allies and threaten NATO withdrawal. Unfortunately, without action from Congress, he might just do so. For this reason, we must firmly state opposition, use our constitutional powers of advice and consent and of the purse to block any withdrawal and preemptively authorize legal proceedings to challenge any decision to terminate U.S. membership. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Gardner, Reed, Graham, Coons, Rubio, Blumenthal, and Collins, is a bipartisan message to the President and the necessary tool needed to block this President, or any President, from unilaterally terminating the NATO treaty. It is the position of the Senate, supported by this Resolution, and previous resolutions, including the original vote of 82-13 in 1949 to give the Senate's advice and consent to join NATO, that the United States through its elected officials is unequivocally opposed to the U.S. withdrawing from NATO. I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the safety of the American people is prioritized through our continued membership in NATO. Lastly, supporting this bill would fittingly honor the late Senator John McCain, one of the fiercest advocates for NATO, who co-sponsored this bill last year--one of the last bills he co- sponsored. I strongly encourage my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representative to support this legislation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I regret it is necessary to re-introduce legislation that prevents a President from withdrawing the United States from NATO. Recent reports confirm that President Trump has repeatedly proposed doing so over the past year. In addition to concern over U.S. national security, this threat to withdraw also raises important constitutional issues. What is the role of Congress in treaties--not just entering into them, but also leaving them? Particularly with a treaty obligation that is as central to U.S. security as NATO--as repeatedly affirmed by Congress--no president should or can be allowed to unilaterally withdraw without the advice and consent of the Senate. Our allies with whom we have fought alongside since World War II and earlier in some cases, are questioning our allegiance for the first time in the history of the modern international order. President Trump has called our European allies ``foes'' while aligning himself with a brutal authoritarian, Vladimir Putin, over the professional assessment of the U.S. intelligence community. Last year, at the NATO summit in Brussels, the President insulted our allies and threatened to leave the alliance if defense spending was not ramped up. The President has also questioned the U.S. commitment to NATO's mutual defense provision and we still do not know what he discussed with President Putin at their meeting in Helsinki. As such, we are forced to ask what options we have to preserve U.S. membership in the primary tool of peace and stability for the last 70 years, NATO. In response to the only invocation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, more than 1,100 servicemembers from our NATO allies have given their lives fighting alongside the United States. This is a sacrifice that should not be cast aside by our President who continues to depict the alliance as a protection racket and ``obsolete.'' While we must continue to press every country to increase defense spending to meet the agreed-upon goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024, the President should not disparage our allies and threaten NATO withdrawal. Unfortunately, without action from Congress, he might just do so. For this reason, we must firmly state opposition, use our constitutional powers of advice and consent and of the purse to block any withdrawal and preemptively authorize legal proceedings to challenge any decision to terminate U.S. membership. The legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Gardner, Reed, Graham, Coons, Rubio, Blumenthal, and Collins, is a bipartisan message to the President and the necessary tool needed to block this President, or any President, from unilaterally terminating the NATO treaty. It is the position of the Senate, supported by this Resolution, and previous resolutions, including the original vote of 82-13 in 1949 to give the Senate's advice and consent to join NATO, that the United States through its elected officials is unequivocally opposed to the U.S. withdrawing from NATO. I am proud to have bipartisan support for this bill to ensure that the safety of the American people is prioritized through our continued membership in NATO. Lastly, supporting this bill would fittingly honor the late Senator John McCain, one of the fiercest advocates for NATO, who co-sponsored this bill last year--one of the last bills he co- sponsored. I strongly encourage my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representative to support this legislation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I stand to tell the story of a great Virginian named Vidisha. This is a picture of Vidisha and her son Ayan, who came to a Federal employee roundtable that I did last Friday morning. I have told stories on the floor about Virginians who are affected personally--worrying about missing mortgage payments, having to reschedule medical appointments, having to draw money out of an IRA and pay a tax penalty because of the shutdown. But I thought it was interesting that Vidisha came in and talked just a little bit about her own anxiety and the anxiety of everybody she works with. But what she really wanted to talk about was how the shutdown hurts the American public. She works for probably the smallest Agency in the Federal Government, the Chemical Safety Board, with 40 employees and a budget of $11 million or $12 million. This is a small Agency, and they have one job: Investigate chemical spills--not to find fault, not to help a lawyer, but investigate chemical spills so that they can determine what went wrong, to prevent future chemical spills that are going to hurt Americans. Because of the shutdown, she and her colleagues--those 40-- are not doing that job. President Trump tweeted last weekend that the reason he is forcing the shutdown is he promised to protect the safety and security of the American public. He is hurting the safety and security of the American public. Vidisha said that during the shutdown there has been a major chemical spill in Houston, TX. Normally, the investigators would be on it immediately to do the investigation, to give recommendations, and to reduce the risk of a spill at that facility or any other. But because of the shutdown, Vidisha and her staff are not investigating. How does this protect the safety and security of the American public--by leaving a major chemical spill with potentially life-threatening consequences uninvestigated and unresponded to? This President's claim that he is helping the safety and security of the American people is a flat-out lie. You are hurting the security of the American people when you disable people like Vidisha and her colleagues from investigating chemical spills, from interdicting drugs if you are a Coast Guard, ATF, or DEA agent, or from doing law enforcement investigations if you are an FBI agent. The President is hurting the security of this country. It is time to reopen government and put the security of Americans first. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to follow my colleague from Washington and talk about the effects of the shutdown. If I am really fast on a given day, I kind of have a mind-meld with her. I kind of have a little bit of a mind-meld now because I want to talk about the effects on America's national security. I was on the floor last week talking about the effects on Federal employees, so many of whom live in Virginia. I had a roundtable on Friday in Alexandria, where they came out and talked about having to reschedule medical appointments, worrying about missing their mortgage payments, and withdrawing monies from their IRA and having to pay a penalty to do it to cover their bills. These Federal employees all share how passionate they are about serving the public. That is all they want to do. They shared the hardships that are visited upon them and their families by not getting a paycheck. I heard another, different story today that is not about a Federal employee but a dentist in Alexandria who shared with our office how many of her patients are canceling their appointments. People don't have copays--people are worried about whether they will have copays, so they are canceling and postponing. So now it is not just the Federal employees, but it is also this small business woman who runs a medical practice who is seeing the effect of it. I want to talk about something different tonight. I want to talk about national security. I want to do that because the President tweeted something interesting on Saturday. He said his whole motive for the shutdown was because ``I promised safety and security for the American people.'' That was the quote--``I promised safety and security for the American people.'' I want to take the floor to say that this shutdown is actually hurting the safety and security of the American people, and I want to go over this in some detail. Of the 450,000 Federal employees who are working without pay, more than 150,000 of them are in charge of keeping America safe. So, arguably, the most punished group of Federal employees in this shutdown are those charged with keeping us safe. I say to the Presiding Officer, you are a veteran. You served in the military. A third of Federal employees are veterans. So it is not just people whose current job is keeping America safe, but one-third of Federal employees are veterans. Veterans are very affected by this. Just to kind of run through some examples, of the 450,000 Americans working without pay--and we had representation from a number of these Agencies before us at the roundtable last week--41,000 of those working without pay now deep into the third week are Federal law enforcement and correctional officers, 2,600 are ATF agents, nearly 17,000 are Bureau of Prisons correctional officers, more than 13,000 are FBI agents, 3,600 are marshals, and 4,400 are DEA agents. I had an experience last year that was very vivid to me. I visited a Federal prison in Petersburg, VA, and I had a chance to really eyeball the challenges our prison guards deal with. The staffing ratios are such that one guard--especially on an evening shift--is responsible for a wing of the prison where there may be 100 to 150 inmates. It is a very tough situation from a security standpoint because if there were to be a problem in one of the rooms and if a guard went into the room and there were 25 people in the room--and that was not uncommon--while tending to a problem, others could overpower that one guard. And on the entire wing, there is just one. This is a very, very difficult job, and the notion that these correctional officers are now deep into week 3 and that they are not being paid is just shocking. I have a letter sitting on my desk from Federal prison guards at a Federal prison facility in southwest Virginia imploring us to reopen the government because their job is so difficult that it just compounds when they are not being paid. When the President gave his speech last week, he talked a lot about how the challenges at the border are largely challenges with drugs and the interdiction of drugs. If that is your worry, Mr. President, why would you not be paying ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshals, and FBI agents? If that is your worry--the safety and security of the American people--why are these people the ones you want to punish? You make us less safe by doing so. All of these people are hard-working public safety professionals, but they are human. When they are on the job, they are focused on keeping us safe, but they are human. There are going to be issues rattling around in their brains, just like all of us have issues rattling around in our brains during the day. Do you really want our DEA agents, the AFT, and the U.S. Marshals having about 10 percent of their mind mad that they are not getting paid and the other 20 percent of their mind worried about making the mortgage payment or rescheduling the kids' orthodontist appointment? It would be unrealistic to expect these people to wall that off completely even when they are at work. Why are we subjecting them to this, which makes us less safe? Fourteen thousand of those who are working without pay are air traffic controllers. Many of them are not just working, but because of other job shortages in the profession, they are working tremendous amounts of overtime. If you were to ask me ``Who would be a public safety professional you would most like not to be mad, most like not to be distracted, most like not to be diverted and thinking about something else?'' it would have to be an air traffic controller. The last thing I would want is for somebody who flies a lot--and so many Americans do--to think that their air traffic controllers are sitting in the tower--last Friday, I came back, and I tendered about 100 pay stubs from air traffic controllers, most of which had zeroes on them. They had just gotten these pay stubs. One was for one penny, and one was for $41.75. You get that in the mail as a hard-working professional. You are in the tower trying to do your job, and that is going to be working on you, thinking about what that means for the tuition check that gets written in the middle of January for your kid who is going to school for the spring semester, or the Visa bill that is the biggest one in the year because Christmas purchases are on it, or the heating bill that is the biggest one of the year because this is the coldest time of the year. I don't want air traffic controllers' minds filled with anxiety and anger because they got a pay stub that said ``one penny'' on it. Eighty-eight percent of DHS security employees are furloughed. That is 54,000 Customs and Border Protection agents, 42,000 Coast Guard employees who interdict drugs, DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. If the issue is security at the border, what possibly would be the reason why we wouldn't take up the bill that is at the Senate desk to fund that function at least through February 8 so we could find a legitimate compromise on border security and immigration reform? If the President is really worried, as he said, about the safety and security of the American people, why would you punish the very people who are at the frontlines providing that safety and security on our border? The FDA is having to recall furloughed employees to ensure public health because of the prolonged state of the shutdown in its third week. It has forced the FDA to suspend a large portion of food safety inspections. Again, with flus and viruses and all kinds of challenges and recalls of lettuce or recalls of other unhealthy foods, this is an important part of keeping America safe and secure. What possibly can be gained first from furloughing and sending them home or then bringing them back and not paying them? The Transportation Security Administration. There was news about this today: Because of the pain of having to work without pay, there has been a spike in people calling in ill. That is leading to longer lines at Dulles, longer lines at Hartsfield in Atlanta, and longer lines at the Miami International Airport, and that is likely to continue. We all know the hassle of any line at the TSA. We don't like it, but we also want the TSA to do their job and stop people from getting on the planes if they have weapons or some other issue. There was a story about somebody being able to get through a TSA line carrying a weapon that could be attributed to the staffing shortages and the challenges we are putting them under. Again, if this President wants to care about the safety and security of American personnel, why punish TSA agents? Today, there was an announcement that TSA will reallocate screening officers on a national basis to meet staffing shortages that cannot be addressed locally. So now not only will Federal workers be unpaid--not only will they be unpaid--but they will be forced to relocate to do work to cover staffing shortages elsewhere. My colleague from Virginia is here, and I want to cede the time to him, but the Presiding Officer understands the point I make. The first job of any of us in public life, at whatever level, is to protect the safety and security of the American people. There is absolutely no reason, if that is our goal, to take so many dedicated public safety professionals and mess up their lives so badly by not paying them and putting them in a situation where they have to call in sick and they have to worry about medical appointments for their kids. That is not conducive to American security and safety. We should reopen government and get these folks back to work. Now that the Senate has passed the backpay bill, I would also point out, we will pay these people. Wouldn't we rather pay them to serve citizens rather than pay them and lock them out? We do not allow Federal workers to strike, but there should be an equivalent. We should not lock them out. We are now locking them out, even though we will still strike a backpay check to them. Wouldn't we rather they be providing safety and security services to their fellow citizens? With that, I appreciate the opportunity to address the issue, and I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the significance of today, January 11, the 21st day of the partial government shutdown. Today, we tie for the longest shutdown in the history of the U.S. Government. Tomorrow, we will set a record for the longest shutdown. Today is the first paycheck day where 800,000-plus Federal employees will not be paid. In fact, some have already started to get their paychecks because even when there is no pay, the process of producing the check and the stub continues. So people get paychecks, but there is a zero on the line, which is sort of like pouring salt in the wound or adding insult to injury. It is one thing not to be paid, but it is another thing to be working and then get the stub and have there be a zero there. People have already reported--some of our air traffic controllers and TSA professionals and others--that they are starting to receive those checks. January 11 is also a time when--I know what it is like in my family. My wife and I kind of load up on both the charitable contributions and buying gifts for our family in December, and then that credit card bill in January is the biggest one we pay all year. Families are receiving those. January tends to be among the coldest months of the year, and heating bills are the highest. We are going to have a cold snap and maybe a snowstorm in Washington this weekend, and those bills will be high. January 11 is a time when a lot of families sit around kitchen tables and write tuition checks for the spring semester for their kids. It is precisely the worst time to have a shutdown of this kind that affects more than 800,000 people and jeopardizes their livelihood. I stand on the floor today to repeat what I said Tuesday night when many of us stood here and said it is really time to end this shutdown. The House wants to end it. An increasing number of Senators want to end it by passing bills that are right here in the Senate, available for consideration, to reopen the government and to engage with the President in a meaningful, short-term, and prompt dialogue about border security and immigration reform. I wanted to share some of the stories that are flooding into my office. I will be back on the floor later because at 11 o'clock, Senator Warner and I will meet with Federal employees at a community center in Alexandria, and I will be bringing more stories back to the floor before we adjourn at 1 o'clock today. Before I share stories, I do want to express appreciation to the majority leader, to the Republicans, and to the Democrats who joined together with us yesterday to pass an important bill, S. 24. It is not as good as getting a paycheck, but it is a bill to tell those who have lost paychecks or are losing paychecks during this time that when we reopen, they will be paid. We have done that in the past. Once we reopened, we figured out a way to do that. But I felt it was important that on the day people are not being paid, for them to at least get the signal from Congress, some certainty, something that they might be able to show to a landlord or to a bank saying: I am going to get paid. The Senate majority leader and minority leader worked at the end of the day to make sure that a UC to pass S. 24 was successful. It was, and at about 5 o'clock last night, we sent that bill to the House. My understanding is the House is taking up the bill this morning. I also applaud Senator McConnell for reaching out to the White House and speaking directly with the President about the bill. The President indicated he would sign it when the bill gets to him. Again, it is not as good as a paycheck, but it adds a little something on a tough day to tell people that they can rest assured that when we figure this out, they will be made whole. I do want to express my appreciation to all for working on that yesterday, but, again, that is not a cessation of the pain. I am going to read stories from Federal employees, but I do want to acknowledge that this is not about just 800,000 employees; it also affects millions of Americans. I told a story on the floor Tuesday night about just coincidentally two Saturdays ago going to four different units of the National Park System under the Department of the Interior and the National Forest System under the Department of Agriculture and being turned away by a gate closed and a sign saying: We are shut down. That I was turned away was of no moment, but I was interested to watch other families pull up in their vehicles on a Saturday, spending time with their kids. Time with the family is precious. You often don't get a lot of it. Sometimes driving with kids a long way to get to a national park or something--they are squabbling in the back seat, and you are really hoping to get there. Watching families pull up and looking at their faces as they saw that what they hoped to do that day they couldn't do because it was closed--that made an impression on me. People were trying to visit the museums here in Washington, and they couldn't. Citizens who are falling into hunger, who want to apply for food stamps--95 percent of the workforce that processes food stamp applications has been furloughed during this time. Air traffic controllers are working because they are essential, but it has to make you a little cranky to get a paycheck with a zero on it. I can't imagine a Federal employee I would less like to be cranky than an air traffic controller. I mean, this is very important stuff. You don't want an air traffic controller sitting in that tower thinking about anything other than air safety. If 5 percent of their brain is sort of mad at this shutdown and 20 percent of their brain is focused on ``How am I going to pay the bills?''--air traffic controllers have shared that they need security clearances to do their jobs. Do you know that if your credit is impaired and you start to get hits on your credit report, that could endanger your security clearance? In some circumstances, it could lead to your security clearance being taken away. If you are under a court order to pay alimony or child support, and you can't, regardless of whether you have a good reason, and there is a court order forcing you to, that could lead to your losing your security clearance. You don't want an air traffic controller in the tower worrying about anything other than the safety of the passengers. If they are mad at the government for shutting down, and they are anxious about not getting a paycheck, and they are wondering about how long it will go on and what the consequences might be, that is not something that makes me feel comfortable. This is an issue about Federal workers, certainly, but it is also an issue about the effect on Americans who need all kinds of services. Like every office here, my office has been flooded with expressions of concern. They are saying: Senator, why can't you do something? What is going on? How long is this going to go on? And I don't have a good answer for them. Let me read some stories. I read seven or eight Tuesday night. These are stories that have come in since Tuesday. Shane from Alexandria wrote: I am a veteran and furloughed government employee working for the Peace Corps. My wife is a disabled veteran, and we live paycheck to paycheck. I lost my job during the housing crisis, and we lost our home and then relocated to the DC area for work. We have worked hard to build our lives back up and again own a home. Now, that is all in jeopardy again! If I don't get paid, we can't pay the mortgage, and we will lose our home. I relocated my family from Florida for a secure job here and to provide financial stability to my family. Now, because of a dysfunctional government, I may have to find new work again, but it may not be in time to save our home. Please, Please, Please, do what you can to open the government back up. Terry from Fairfax wrote: I am writing you, along with my two other elected officials, seeking your help in bringing this government shutdown to an immediate end. Today is day 19-- This was sent to us on Wednesday-- and counting, with no end in sight. The information put out by the media saying the number of those affected by this (partial) government shutdown is 800,000; I submit to you it is much higher than that--especially in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Currently, I work for the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration at Washington Dulles International Airport. I have the compliance department at Washington Dulles, enforcing the Code of Federal Regulations, and have 15 people working for me. We make sure the nation's transportation system at Washington Dulles is secure and safe and are exempt from furlough. Of the 15 people that work for me, most all live paycheck to paycheck. As you can imagine, with the outlook of no paycheck coming this Saturday, the morale is starting to go down and Maslow's hierarchy of needs-- I hope I am saying that right-- is kicking in--that of self-preservation. Their focus is switching from their work--keeping things secure and safe--to their family and how they are going to provide for them (survive). As for me, I served honorably in the United States Coast Guard and retired after 26 years. I started working at Washington Dulles when TSA first stood up and have been here over 16 years. I am 63 years old. My Coast Guard retired paycheck is my financial security, something to fall back on, something I can plan on . . . up until now. I just learned yesterday there won't be a retired paycheck for Coast Guard retirees because of the shutdown. The financial security we worked for is no longer there. This is a breach of trust between the U.S. Government and every Coast Guard retiree, and it's wrong! I have proudly served the American People for more than 42 years, and I have been through every government shutdown since 1976. This particular one is getting old in a hurry, it may be the worst, and it needs to stop. For my people at work, my family at home, and my fellow Coast Guard retirees, we need your help in ending this shutdown. Garrett, a Virginian working as a contractor at NASA: I am a contractor for NASA, I am shut down, and I am not very happy. This is having a negative financial effect on my life. I am ok today, but soon in the very next few days when I have exhausted my vacation, then take leave without pay, then have to pay for overpriced health insurance; then I will be in a big pinch. As a contractor we are not guaranteed to be re-reimbursed for our leave. The last shutdown I lost a paycheck I never got back, that was like a 2% pay cut. I won't be able to take sick leave or vacation this year. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, and I am relying on you to make it happen. We all are. Just think of all the good government employees that will be forced to leave the government because it is such a negative place to work. Just a comment, government employees are being forced to leave the government. Today in Fairfax, the Fairfax public school system is having a hiring fair just for Federal employees. They need substitute teachers, they need bus drivers, and they need cafeteria workers. So they are doing the hiring fair to try to play upon the unhappiness of Federal employees who are out for the shutdown and don't think they are going to come back to work. Phil from Chesterfield: Through no fault of my own I am not being paid [my] bi- weekly salary . . . tomorrow. This will cause a significant strain on my family, my church contributions, my shared health care cost, my retirement contributions. Having a college age student attend Virginia Commonwealth University, with winter semester fees for tuition and room and board totaling [thousands in] out of pocket expenses is extremely frustrating. I really cannot [go a long time] without a salary. Long term policy disagreements (among both parties of our elected Senators) using federal government employees' salaries as a token to rally off is not Democracy. This is not fair to You . . . or a career professional like myself who works for the United States Government. I ask you . . . to consider a CR which would fund our government through a short-term solution until you and your bi-partisan colleagues can fix a long-term problem. . . . Nonetheless, my family and I are out of funding Now! I ask that you publicly announce [what you will do] and help lead the bi-partisan CHANGE TO HELP Virginians. A family from Loudoun County--one, a 20-year government employee: I am scared not knowing when he will get paid. Our 2 young children should be signing up for spring sports this week, but we are cutting optional spending. We are eating out of the pantry instead of going to the grocery store. Real people are hurting, working and not being paid. It is 800,000 but the broader fear and economic impact is tremendous. Opel from Hampton: My name is Opel and my husband Kenny is an inspector with the FDA. As you know, he has been unable to go to work for the past few weeks. I am writing to you to keep our story and our situation at the forefront of your agenda. Please continue to push for our Congressional leaders to get the government open. It is very difficult to try to explain to our 9 year old son why Daddy isn't going to work, why Mom and Dad are having trouble paying our bills. This shutdown is wrong and I feel that it's also wrong for federal employees to not be able to go to work because a person some people elected President wants an extreme form of ``security.'' Please Sir, reopen the government. Many people's lives are at stake. Daniel from Arlington: I am a furloughed employee in the Department of Commerce. My income has stopped. I have become aware that I will soon be responsible to make payments for my family's healthcare, my life insurance, and other benefits that are normal paycheck deductions. So now I have no income, plus unbudgeted expenses. I have hard decisions now with regard to paying my rent, paying for my family's healthcare, and paying for care for my elderly parents. I have applied for unemployment assistance. I am trying to find work to survive throughout the shutdown. I have 5 years of federal service, and I have experienced furloughs before. Until now, I have not needed to take resources away from the unemployment system. Until now, I haven't had to compete in the job market to take a position away from someone who has no job at all. I have personally shut down; I am using as little gasoline as I can, I am only shopping for necessities. I'm cutting back in every money-saving way I can. This is a disheartening way to just try to survive. PLEASE support legislation that will return furloughed Federal employees to paid work status. A final story, Joie from Warrenton: My husband is a highly experienced Ph.D. Economist with the SEC. I am a disabled (thanks to cancer) Episcopal priest. We are in free fall not knowing if my husband will have his job again, and our health insurance we need for my [cancer]. We need every penny he earns and no job could replace his compensation. We spent most of our savings paying off my $40K in cancer and cancer related bills last year. Still, we live MODESTLY in a 1700 sq foot old farmhouse with no central air/ heat, drive one 13 year old car and . . . [another old] used Subaru. It's early Thursday morning 1/10 and I'm having a panic attack wondering if I will lose my dogs if we get evicted in case this runs a few months and we run out of savings to pay our mortgage. We have no family support or back up and a son with anxiety and ADHD issues for which we spend thousands out of pocket because mental health services for youth are either unavailable or do not accept insurance. Please continue to pressure . . . [all your colleagues] to bring opening the government to a vote. WORKING AMERICANS need protection! This is just a sample of the letters we have received. When I come back from the session Senator Warner and I are doing in Alexandria, I will bring back more stories. I know that other offices are receiving these same kinds of inquiries. Even with a guarantee of backpay, for so many people who live paycheck to paycheck or who have modest savings, the timing of even missing one paycheck is very, very critical. The House has already taken action by a strong majority to reopen government. By my count, just based on what folks have said in this Chamber, there are at least 52 members of this Chamber who have already gone on record and said we should take up the House bill and vote to reopen government. My hope is that when people listen to stories like this about lost paychecks and the effect on families and when people in this body understand the magnitude of tomorrow's recordbreaking day, when we establish the longest shutdown in the history of the country, as our colleagues are back in their home States over the weekend chatting with folks, that number of Senators--52--who want to take up these bills and vote on them will increase and we can end this suffering that is so unnecessary. I will say this. I definitely get that there is an important controversy that needs resolution--talking about border security, talking about immigration reform. We have been talking about these issues since I got here. Regardless of your position on how we should solve them, I think everybody in the body knows--with no immigration reform done since 1986 and border security funding a perennial topic-- that there is an important issue to resolving this: How much should we spend for border security? What is the right way to spend the money? What is the right place to get the money? Can it be done by executive fiat, or must it be done via congressional appropriations? What are the immigration reforms that we need, having not done an immigration reform bill since 1986? When the President says these are important issues, he is not wrong. He is right. But as for the idea that even with an issue of importance on the table that we need to grapple with, people who are unconnected to that issue have to be victims, have to suffer as we are trying to resolve that issue, I just don't get it. As for some of those who are suffering, it is kind of even counter to the national emergency or crisis that the President is talking about. For example, the Coast Guard--as was indicated by one of my stories, from Terry--is one of the Agencies, because it is under the Department of Commerce, I believe, that is shuttered. They are not a DOD Agency. So they are not funded. There are 42,000, I believe, Coast Guard employees. Most are essential and are working without pay, but some are furloughed. If there is a crisis at the border--and as the President described that crisis, a significant portion of the crisis is illegal drugs coming across the border, and we need folks to interdict illegal drugs--why would we shutter the Coast Guard? The Coast Guard has many missions, but one of their important missions--and they work very well on this, in tandem with other Agencies in this country and in other countries--is the interdiction of illegal drugs. How does it make sense, if there is a crisis at the border dealing with drug importation, for the Coast Guard to be shuttered? So the President's statement that this is an issue that needs a resolution is correct, but punishing people who are unconnected to the issue or even punishing some of the very people whom we need to solve the issue is just the wrong approach. That is why I believe the right approach is the approach taken by the House--bringing up bills that were bipartisan bills, that were worked on and voted on either by Senate committees or on the Senate floor, and saying: Let's just do these. Let's reach an agreement for the nonaffected Agencies, the nonimmigration-related agencies, but between now and September 30 reopen government. And let's provide short-term funding, a month or 3- weeks of funding for the immigration and homeland security Agencies, and let's just make the whole next chunk of time in this body a discussion, a resolution, and a compromise that will enable us to meet some of what the President wants and some of what we want--and that is possible. I think sometimes the word that goes out from a shutdown or the word that goes out from some of the news stories, as well, is this: There is not going to be a compromise that is possible. The sides are dug in. We can't find an accord. I just want to remind the body--and the President knows this--that it was just last February when 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans worked and introduced a bill that coupled borders security with protection for Dreamers. The President now is asking for $5.7 billion, essentially, in border security. The bill we had in February was $25 billion, over 10 years--$25 billion--which was exactly to the penny what the President had asked for. It was $25 billion, borders done right. We wanted to exercise traditional congressional oversight in the then-two Republican House Congress over how the money would be spent, but the amount the President asked for wasn't the problem. It wasn't a problem at all--$25 billion in exchange for something else that the President had asked for. He had said: We shouldn't protect Dreamers by Executive order; it should be done by Congress. There should be a statutory congressional fix. He is right about that. That is a better thing--to fix it via statute, rather than to rely on an Executive action that can change with the whim of each new Executive. He is right about that. We basically went to him with a proposal, 16 of us, and introduced the bill: $25 billion, Mr. President, that is what you asked for; protection for Dreamers, Mr. President, that is what you asked for. The response from the White House was not to say: ``I don't like that deal; let me give you a counter,'' or ``Could you add to it?'' Within less than 24 hours, the White House put out a press release attacking those who put the bill together--even the Republicans--as proponents of open borders who wanted to end immigration enforcement as we know it. It was a press release from the DHS that read like it was somebody's campaign literature rather than the response that you would expect from a White House or a Cabinet-level official. But what that offer showed is that there is great willingness in this body to invest in border security. In fact, even after the President poured cold water on it, we put that bill on the floor for a vote. Forty-six out of 49 Democrats voted for it. Forty-six out of 49 Democrats voted for $25 billion in border security, just like more than 50 Democrats in 2013--and I was part of this, as well--voted for more than $40 billion in border security. So for folks at the White House wondering whether in a 3-week or monthlong intense discussion we could find a path forward on border security and immigration reform, the evidence is out there that, yes, we can. We can find that path forward, but we ought to open up government and let those unconnected with the dispute at least go back to work, at least go back to work and start getting paid. Then, in this body--which is a great deliberative body, with 100 people who are very savvy and smart and who could find a deal moving forward--we could find an answer to this that would enable the President to say he got significant investments in borders, and it would also enable those of us who have promoted commonsense immigration reforms to feel like there was something in there as well. With that, I am going to yield the floor. I am going to meet with Federal employees and then return to share some of their stories. My ask is a simple one: We need to reopen government. We need to lift the burden of this anxiety over people. The last thing I will say is, if this backpay bill passes and the President signs it--and we are going pay people, we are going to guarantee their pay--why wouldn't we want them to be serving? If they are going to be paid, wouldn't we want to have them serving Americans rather than not serving Americans during this time? With that I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I would just like to take the floor to sort of continue comments that I began at 10 o'clock this morning. I left at 10:30 to accompany my Virginia colleague, Senator Warner, to a roundtable with Federal employees at a community center in Alexandria, and I just want to share some of their stories. What Agencies did these employees work for? There was quite a variety--Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency, FAA, air traffic control, various groups within the Agriculture Department, Chemical Safety Board, Department of Labor, and immigration officials. So they were from many different parts of the government affected by the shutdown. How did they describe the effect of the shutdown on them? These were almost all employees who were furloughed and their spouses and children, in some instances. A couple of them were not furloughed, but they were deemed essential and were working without pay. How did they describe the choices they are having to make? ``I paid this month's mortgage payment, but I am not sure I can pay the next.'' ``I am a diabetic, and I have to decide which of the medications I can afford this month.'' ``My kid is in college. I am not sure I can make the entire tuition payment for the spring semester.'' ``I have had to take money out of my IRA to cover my bills and pay a penalty for doing that. I am being penalized because the shutdown of government leaves me no other choice than to dip into retirement savings that are part of my IRA.'' ``I have had to borrow money from family and friends.'' ``I have had to reduce the money that I pay to help my mother rent her apartment.'' ``I tried to put my 7-week-old daughter on the Federal health insurance plan that I get because I work at the Department of Justice, but because I am furloughed and the HR department is furloughed, when I tried to put her on the Federal health plan, I wasn't able to do that, and when she needed medication--thankfully, for nothing life- threatening--I was not able to get that covered by insurance. I finally worked for a while and was able to find a workaround for it.'' So families described all kinds of ways that they are trying to cope and all kinds of effects that this is having on them. I was struck by a common theme: I work for the government because I love serving people. I love serving the American people. That is why I chose to do what I did. That is why I moved from somewhere else to come here. That is how I met my wife or my husband, and we are jointly committed to public service. Many of them described: This was sitting on my desk the day that I left, and I am so anxious that it is still there and undone. For one of the individuals who works with the FAA, his job includes certifying helicopter pilots who fly to support the American military mission in Iraq. He said: I had a big sheaf of those sitting on my desk when I left the office. These are people who support our military mission, and they are not getting certified, and they are not getting authorized to do the work as long as I am furloughed. Another man talked about his passion for the food stamp program. He worked with the Ag Department, and he is involved in one portion of the SNAP program that is certifying new grocery stores to take SNAP benefits. He indicated that in his unit, which is all furloughed-- because 95 percent of workers supporting the SNAP program are furloughed--there have now been 2,500 grocery stores that have been applying just in this short window around the country to be able to accept SNAP benefits. Often there are food deserts where it is hard for people who have SNAP benefits to find stores in their neighborhood that will accept SNAP. There are 2,500 applications stacked up just in the 3 weeks of the shutdown. He talked about his anxiety: I have got to get back to work to process these so more places are more accessible to those people who have food needs. That passion for serving the public is what is driving them. One woman indicated she had a great job in Colorado but was able to get an internship with DHS. So she moved her family from Colorado to Woodbridge, VA, for an internship, and that internship then turned into full-time work at DHS, and she said how proud she is to be working at Homeland Security and how challenging it is to have no pay. The employees talked about the psychological damage of being deemed inessential. Who is essential and who is inessential? Why is it that 95 percent of the people who work on the SNAP program are inessential? Is it that we don't think hungry families matter? Those who are applying for SNAP benefits when they fall into a situation where they need food--that is not essential? Why is that not essential? A lot of the discussion around the table was that, as painful as it is to be deemed essential and have to work with no pay, being told that you are nonessential is kind of even more of a ``dis'' to you. So this was a powerful group for testimony. I just want to conclude. I know Senator Warner is a slower driver than me. So I got here before he did. He will be the last to close this out. Just the last thing, I got handed pay statements. I brought back--I don't know--maybe 100 of these, and I am sure not going to read them all, but it is interesting. Robert, for the pay period January 5, 2019, which is the pay period when the check comes in today: net pay, zero. Jadyne, same pay period: net pay, zero. Jared, same pay period: net pay, zero. I saw this one. I really liked this one. Bryan, same period: net pay, 1 cent--1 cent. These are mostly from air traffic controllers. In my speech earlier this morning on the floor I said: Is there any group of Federal employees that you would less want to be angry at work than air traffic controllers? If you think about it--and somebody shared this with me--if you are there in the tower working on air traffic control, you want 100 percent of your mind to be on keeping everybody safe. What if 5 percent of your mind is on ``I just got this pay stub, and it is giving me 1 cent, and I have been working and working overtime''--if that is on 5 percent of your mind and another 15 to 20 percent of your mind is, ``How am I going to pay the mortgage payment? How am I going to pay the babysitter?'' One mother told me: Because I am furloughed, I am not paying the babysitter, and now I am not paying the babysitter for 2 weeks and that is affecting her. But I am saying: Please don't take another client. You have been my regular babysitter for a long time. I am not paying you this week, I am not paying you next week, and I am not paying you as long as there is a shutdown because I am at home, but please don't go find other work because I want to go back to work and I want to hire you again. But what babysitter can take that gig--week after week after week not being paid on the hope that this person might come back to work? But for some reason, of all of the indignities, these things really, really stick in folks craws, because it is not as if, when there is a shutdown, they don't get a paycheck or stub. In some ways, that might be better than working full time and finding this paper on your desk or in your email or at your house--$41.75 or one penny. So Madam President, I know I am preaching to the choir in this group here, but I just hope as people are back home this weekend and they hear similar stories, they will realize that immigration reform and border security are really important, and we have work to do to find some accommodation that both Congress and the President can accept, but there is no reason to keep government shut down and sending out paychecks for 1 cent and inflicting all these various harms on folks while we figure that out. I would just pray that we stop this shutdown and reopen government. With that, I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, just briefly, I also want to extend my gratitude to the majority leader for working with us on this matter. I alerted both caucuses yesterday that I planned to object to adjourning for the weekend on the grounds that tomorrow more than 800,000 Federal employees will stop getting paychecks. This has already started, according to the words of my colleague from Maryland. Also, on Saturday the shutdown will achieve the dubious distinction of being the longest shutdown in the history of the United States. So yesterday I alerted both caucuses that my plan was to object to an adjournment. I filed that objection. The majority leader then engaged in discussion, together with the minority leader and others, about whether there is something we can do to send a message to these people, many of whom are under very dire circumstances. They have written me, too, about postponing medical procedures and not buying medication for their kids. Is there something we can do that can send them some message of comfort that they will receive their paychecks, if not tomorrow, but they will be made whole? Over the course of the afternoon, as we have talked about it, we thought the best message we could send--and I am glad we are able to send it by voice vote unanimously from this body--is that they will be paid. When we reopen, they will be paid. That is not the same comfort as getting the paycheck. It is not the same comfort as knowing when the shutdown will be over and when they can go back to try to keep serving American citizens, but having the certainty that it will be paid is something that we can do for these people. I appreciate the majority leader's working with us on the S. 24 bill that Senator Cardin is the sponsor of and I am a cosponsor of. It does good work in this regard, and I think we can send some people a little bit of a signal on what will be a tough day tomorrow. We can send them a little bit of a signal that we are going to be there, and they can count on the paycheck. With that, I thank my colleagues for working together on this. I yield floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Risch be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, tonight following this vote, Senator Shaheen and I have organized a group of more than 15 Democrats who will take the floor to talk about the effect of the government shutdown in each of our States. We will talk about the effect on workers, on families, and on citizens needing services. I don't want to repeat what I will say in about an hour, but I want to address the issue of the vote that is now coming before us. The vote is a vote to proceed to a number of issues that are important to the security of other nations. I am the cosponsor of one of bills that is before us--a U.S.-Israel security assistance bill--and strongly, strongly support it, but as passionate as I have been for the security of the nation of Israel, I am every bit as passionate about the security of the United States, and I think the first business of this Senate should be to reopen the Government of the United States. I think to take any other action or to focus on any other issue when we have bipartisan bills pending in the Senate that have been supported by our Republican colleagues that would reopen government--to skip by those bills and push them aside for another 18 days or longer--makes absolutely no sense. So I will be opposing the motion that is on the floor this evening because the first business of this body should be to reopen government. I think of the question that Abraham Lincoln raised at Gettysburg. He talked about this Nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal and the question about whether any nation dedicated to that proposition can long endure. I don't think President Lincoln, the founder of the modern Republican Party, would have supported a government shutdown for a year, for a week, for a day, or for a minute. This issue that is on the table before us is about the endurance of the United States Government and giving people confidence in us that we support the government's operation. We should not take up other items until we take up the bipartisan proposal before this body and make sure that the government of the United States is funded and that people are protected. I yield the floor.