Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Smith, for organizing this discussion on the Senate floor today to bring attention to the plight of the Federal contract employees who were locked out of their jobs for 35 days and, therefore, didn't get paychecks for 35 days, even though the bills kept coming in. I hope that we will avoid another government shutdown in the coming weeks. We should also use this time to make sure that we repair some of the damage that was caused by the unnecessary and really shameful record- long 35-day government shutdown. It should never have happened. It caused disruption throughout the country. Small businesses, in many cases, were unable to get loans. We know that we had 800,000 Federal employees who didn't get paychecks and that Federal service contract employees went without work in many of our Agencies. I was pleased that this body, on a bipartisan basis, adopted a measure to make sure that Federal employees receive backpay. I was pleased to work with Senator Cardin, Senator Smith, and others on the Republican side to get that done. That was really important. We provided Federal employees with the certainty that, at the end of the shutdown, they would all receive backpay, but we have not done anything similar for Federal contract employees, and we need to do that. Senator Smith and I and others have introduced legislation that we hope we can incorporate into whatever agreement we reach to reopen the government that addresses the plight of these Federal service contract employees. I just want to bring to the attention of our colleagues one of those individuals. Her name is Lila Johnson. Ms. Johnson was my guest last night at the State of the Union Address. I invited her here to draw attention to the plight that she and others find themselves in. She is 71 years old. She lives in Hagerstown, MD. She commutes about 2 hours a day to the Department of Agriculture, where for 21 years she has provided janitorial services to help keep the Department of Agriculture up and running and clean. She is, right now, the primary breadwinner for two of her grandchildren, who depend on her and the support she receives from her job to make sure they can put food on the table and pay for medical expenses and pay for housing. When the government shut down for 35 days, Ms. Johnson didn't get a paycheck. She is not a highly paid employee like most of these Federal service contractors whom we are talking about. We are talking about people who are living, really, paycheck to paycheck--people who provide janitorial services and cafeteria services. We are talking about security guards and some construction workers around the country. We are talking about lower wage and middle-wage employees who work for companies that contract with the Federal Government to provide services. So Ms. Johnson is really scrambling now to pay the bills and to keep her financial head above water. That is why I was pleased that she could join us last evening. I had hoped that, maybe, the President would have said something about service contract employees. Many of us wrote a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, asking the OMB to use its contract authority to try to make these Federal service contract employees whole because we believed that it had some power to make contract adjustments to fix some of this problem. We don't know exactly what the extent of the OMB's authority is, and we don't know if it will use it in the administration even if it has it. That is why it is really important that we move forward and act on this legislation. I think we all agree that it is not fair to punish people who have had nothing to do with the political dysfunction in this body and in Washington. Ms. Johnson has had nothing to do with the dispute that we have had in this body and the dispute with the President. For goodness' sake, she works for the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with how we most effectively provide border security. The Department of Agriculture is one of the eight or nine Departments that was held hostage for a dispute that had nothing to do with the Department of Agriculture's mission. That is why people like Lila Johnson have been caught up in something they had nothing to do with. It seems to me that the right thing for us to do is to make sure the people who are sort of caught in the political crossfire are not the ones who, at the end of the day, are punished. I hope we will do the right thing on a bipartisan basis. We have introduced a piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has Democratic and Republican Senators. The same is true for a similar piece of legislation in the House. So I am very hopeful that we will use the opportunity of the agreement to reopen the government. Hopefully, we will get there, and we will keep it open. I hope we will use that opportunity to address this injustice and to right this wrong. Again, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today with a sense of great disappointment, disappointment in what my colleague, the senior Senator from Florida and the Republican leader have done with the bill that was before us. Because they have taken a bill that had broad--maybe unanimous--bipartisan support and tried to turn it into a political weapon. As a result, they are doing a great disservice to the American people and to all of us who value the tradition of strong bipartisan support for our friend and ally, Israel. I also opposed Senator McConnell's amendment to S.1 because it contains language that could require the perpetual presence of American forces in Afghanistan and Syria. I am a cosponsor of the original bill S.2497 entitled the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018. It is a bill to codify the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel, that was forged under President Obama and which provides Israel with $38 billion in security assistance over the next 10 years. This includes $33 billion in foreign military financing funds to Israel and $5 billion in missile defense assistance for the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and the Arrow-3. That is a lot of money when you consider the many priorities we have here at home and abroad. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global foreign military financing, the security assistance we provide to all of our partners and allies around the world, goes to Israel. In my view, it is an important investment, it is an important investment to support our friend and democratic ally Israel from the many threats it faces in a very dangerous neighborhood--threats from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many others. We need to make sure Israel maintains a strong military edge to defend itself, and that is why you have strong bipartisan support for that original bill. But then the Republican leader took a bill with broad bipartisan support for Israel and added a provision designed to retaliate against American citizens who express their disagreement with certain policies of the government of Israel by participating in certain boycott activities. Specifically, the Senator from Florida added a provision that encourages States throughout the country to pass laws to punish American citizens who choose to protest the settlement policies of the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu by either boycotting products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank or by not otherwise engaging in commerce with such settlements. Now--and I want to make this clear--while I disagree with some of the policies adopted by the Netanyahu government in Israel, I do not--I do not in any way support a boycott as a method of expressing those disagreements. But--let me be equally clear on this point--I will fiercely defend the constitutional right of any American citizen to express his or her views in such a peaceful way if they so choose. Just as I would support the right of every American to engage in other political boycotts to peacefully express their political views without fear of being punished by their government. The Senator from Florida wants to use the power of the State to punish American citizens who disagree with him on this issue. It is right here in the bill. Let me read some of the relevant parts. A state may adopt and enforce measures . . . to restrict contracting by the state for goods and services with--any entity that . . . knowingly engages in . . . boycott activity . . . intended to limit commercial relations with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories for purposes of imposing policy positions on, the Government of Israel. So how does this new provision encourage States to retaliate against American citizens? It encourages States to pass laws to deny their citizens the right to bid on any State contracts unless those citizens sign an oath stating that they do not or will not engage in any boycott of Israel, including any boycott relating the sale or purchase of goods or services from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Think about that. Let's say you are an American citizen living in my State of Maryland. Let's say you own a computer consulting business and you happen to disagree with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's policy of expanding settlements on the West Bank near the city of Bethlehem, and you want to express your opposition to that policy, and let's say you choose to protest that policy by deciding that you will not provide your services to businesses located in those settlements on the West Bank. If you did that, you would be prohibited by State law from bidding on a contract to provide computer consulting services to a Maryland State agency. Think about that. You may run the best computer consulting business in the State of Maryland, but if you don't sign an oath renouncing your right to engage in a boycott, you cannot win any contract with the State. In other words, even if you are the best, most qualified bidder, you would be disqualified from winning that State contract because of your peaceful political activity having nothing to do with your ability to fulfill the contract. Does that sound unconstitutional? Of course, it is unconstitutional. And, guess what? That is what two Federal courts have already concluded about State laws that already do what Senator Rubio's bill is proposing. I am going to review those decisions in a moment, but before I do, let me respond to the really flimsy defense the senior Senator from Florida and others have offered to try to justify this effort to punish free expression. Here is what Senator Rubio tweeted out: ``Opposition to our bill isn't about free speech. Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But state and local governments should be FREE to end contracts with companies that do.'' This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It turns the First Amendment on its head. It is like saying to our fellow Americans, you are free to peacefully express yourselves however you want, but the government is then free to use the power of the State to punish you for doing so. You are free to express your political opinions, but, if we don't like what you say, the State is free to pass laws to prevent you from doing any business with the State. That is State-sponsored discrimination against disfavored political expression. I would remind my colleagues that the First Amendment is not designed to protect government from its citizens; it is designed to protect citizens, who may engage in unpopular speech, from retaliation by the government. What if a State passed a law to penalize gun control advocates who boycotted stores that sold semiautomatic weapons? What if a State retaliated against anti-abortion activists who boycotted health clinics that provide abortion services? So SenatorRubio's proposal is a textbook example of why we need the First Amendment. I have heard others defend this measure by saying: ``It is simply a law to boycott the boycotters.'' A cute slogan but, again, a stunning ignorance of the First Amendment. Yes, any of us, as individuals, can always decide to boycott those whose boycotts we disagree with. Each of us is free to boycott those businesses who choose to boycott Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but that is not what this bill does. This bill calls upon States to use the power of the State, the power of the government to punish peaceful political actions we don't like. Again, that is patently unconstitutional. That is the conclusion reached by two Federal courts that struck down the kind of State laws that SenatorRubio seeks to promote. In Kansas, a Federal judge blocked the enforcement of a State law requiring any state contractor to submit a written certification that they are ``not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.'' In the Kansas case, a woman who had served as a public school math teacher for 9 years was barred from participating in a Sate-sponsored teacher training program because she refused to sign a certification that she wasn't participating in a boycott of Israel. The court found that the antiboycott certification requirement was designed to suppress political speech and was ``plainly unconstitutional.'' In his opinion, the judge wrote, ``[T]he Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.'' In Arizona, a Federal court blocked a State law requiring contractors to certify that they will not boycott Israel, finding again that the law violates the right of free speech. In this case, an attorney contracted with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals. Because of his political views, the attorney refused to purchase goods from businesses supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Because he would not submit a written certification that he wasn't boycotting Israel, he was barred from contracting with the State to provide legal services. In this case, the court held, ``A restriction of one's ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in a boycott. The type of collective action targeted by the [law] specifically implicates the rights of assembly and association that Americans and Arizonans use `to bring about political, social, and economic change'.'' There are a number of other challenges to laws requiring government contractors to certify they are not boycotting Israel or Israeli settlements, on the grounds that they violate an American's fundamental right to free speech. In Texas, there are two pending First Amendment challenges to a law requiring State contractors to certify they will not boycott Israel or its settlements. In the first Texas lawsuit, four individuals were required to choose between signing a certification that they are not participating in a peaceful boycott or losing income and other professional opportunities. These individuals include a freelance writer who lost two service contracts from the University of Houston; a reporter who was forced to sign the certification against his conscience in order to keep his job; a Ph.D. candidate at Rice University, who was forced to forfeit payment for judging at a debate tournament; and a student at Texas State University, who has had to forego opportunities to judge high school debate tournaments. In the second lawsuit, a Texas speech pathologist, who had worked with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students for 9 years, was fired because she refused to sign an addendum to her contract renewal saying she would not boycott Israel or Israeli settlements. In my home State of Maryland, a software engineer is challenging an executive order requiring contractors to certify in writing that they are not boycotting Israel or its settlements. In that case, the individual was barred from bidding on government software program contracts because he would not sign such a certification. These laws are patently unconstitutional. Now, I will speak briefly to a recent court decision in Arkansas, in which the judge ruled in favor of a law prohibiting the State from contracting with or investing in individuals or firms that boycott Israel or its settlements. This decision is destined for dustbin of history. I am not sure any Senator wants to be associated with its holding. It concludes that a boycott ``is not speech, inherently expressive activity, or subject to constitutional protection.'' The banner right here on page 9 on the opinion reads: ``A Boycott Is Neither Speech Nor Inherently Expressive Conduct.'' In other words, States can pass laws banning or penalizing boycotts that they don't like. Years ago, as a college student, I was active in the movement to divest from companies that did business with the apartheid regime of South Africa. Under the Arkansas court decision, a State could pass a law that could ban that conduct or at least penalize me if I did business as a sole proprietor and sought State contracts. There is no doubt that the Arkansas decision will be overturned. That is because the Supreme Court explicitly held in the case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott for political purposes. The judge in the Arkansas case attempts to narrow that NAACP holding in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the First Amendment protections. I urge my colleagues to read all three decisions from the Federal district courts in Kansas, Arizona, and Arkansas. Now, as I said earlier, I do not support the boycott of Israel as a means of pressing the Netanyahu government to change some of its policies, but here is what I predict: I predict that the boycott movement will continue to grow for a number of reasons. At the top of that list is the fact that the Trump administration's actions and inaction are adding oxygen to the boycott movement. To start, the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of trying to prevent the expansion of Israeli settlements in new parts of the West Bank. There has been a big jump in the number of tenders and settlement plans since President Trump took office. In fact, our Ambassador there, Ambassador Freidman, has been a vocal cheerleader for additional settlements in new areas. In doing so, the Trump administration has abandoned what had been a long-held bipartisan position of the U.S. Government. Here are a few statements from Presidents of both parties over the past 40 years. President Ronald Reagan, in 1982, said, ``Settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.'' President George H.W. Bush, in 1990, said, ``The foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem.'' President Bill Clinton, in 2001, said, ``The settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.'' President George W. Bush spoke out against new settlements. In 2002, he said, ``Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries.'' Finally, President Obama, in 2009, said, ``The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.'' The provision before us today directly contradicts this long stated U.S. policy by drawing no distinction between someone boycotting businesses located in the State of Israel and someone boycotting businesses located in settlements in the territories. In other words, this provision and the State laws it promotes supports the same penalty for those who boycott commerce with a business in Tel Aviv as it does those who boycott commerce with businesses in the settlements, including outposts that may be illegal even under Israeli law. This provision that was before us erases an important distinction in American policy that has been endorsed by Presidents of both parties. One of the reasons for discouraging settlements and outposts in new areas is to preserve the option for a two-state solution, an option that has previously been supported by Presidents of both parties, as well as pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, J Street, and others. It is a demographic reality that, in order to ensure a Jewish State that is democratic and provides equal rights to all its citizens, there must be a two-state solution. Now, such a solution should come about through a negotiated settlement between the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. We all know that dysfunction and obstruction on the Palestinian side has been one obstacle to reaching an agreement, but that does not justify changing the status quo on the ground by adding settlements in new areas that will make a two-state solution impossible. Second, the Trump administration, under the guidance of the President's designated Middle East senior adviser, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has embarked on undisguised effort to crush the Palestinians by revoking all U.S. humanitarian assistance. Here we are, authorizing $38 billion for U.S. military support for Israel, something I strongly support and am a cosponsor of, while at the same time the Trump administration has eliminated--eliminated-- humanitarian and other assistance to help the Palestinian people, many of whom are living in horrible conditions. The Trump administration has eliminated assistance that helps provide medical care, clean water and food to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Palestinian children and families. Much of this assistance is provided by organizations like Catholic Relief Services and the Lutheran World Federation. President Trump has also eliminated $25 million in U.S. support to a network of six hospitals in East Jerusalem, support the Congress explicitly protected under the Taylor Force Act. In doing this, he gutted funding for the main hospital providing cancer treatment for patients in the West Bank and Gaza and kidney dialysis for children. These hospitals include Lutheran Augusta Victoria Hospital, the Anglican St. John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital, and the Catholic St. Joseph Hospital, American-founded institutions that fall under our American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. The Trump administration has eliminated support for those programs. The effort to crush the Palestinians into submitting to a one-sided agreement will never work. President Trump and Jared Kushner apparently think this is just another real estate deal where you turn off the water and electricity to force your tenants out. Instead, these actions by the Trump administration will add fuel to the boycott movement because many people will see no other vehicle for expressing their views. Finally, to the Senator from Florida and others, nothing, will motivate Americans to exercise their rights more that efforts to suppress them. Trying to suppress free speech, even unpopular speech, even conduct that we don't support here and I don't support, that will only add momentum. I will end where I started. It is a really shameful and disappointing day when the sponsors of this legislation took a bill demonstrating strong bipartisan support for Israel, to our friends and allies that share our commitment to democracy, and share other values we hold dear, that Senators took that bill and used it to attack the constitutional rights of American citizens who may want to peacefully demonstrate their opposition to some of the Netanyahu government's policies--not in the way you would choose, not in the way I would choose--but in a way they have a right to do as American citizens. So in making these changes to the bill, the sponsors are sabotaging what was a bipartisan bill to support our friend and ally Israel and in the process strengthening the very boycott movement that we seek to oppose. That hurts Israel. That hurts the United States. This is a really sad day in the U.S. Senate, when we took something that we all agreed on and decided to use it to attack the constitutional rights of American citizens to express opinions we may disagree with. Furthermore, I oppose Senator McConnell's amendment to S. 1, which calls for ``the Administration to certify that conditions have been met for the enduring defeat of al Qaeda and ISIS before initiating any significant withdrawal of United States forces from Syria and Afghanistan.'' I strongly believe we have to finish the job and destroy and al Qaeda and ISIS, but Senator McConnell leaves undefined what an ``enduring defeat'' means in this context. Does he mean an enduring defeat of the ideology of ISIS and al-Qaeda, which may never be achieved? Does he mean the removal of every single fighter from the battlefield, which the administration might also never be able to certify? By leaving this standard so nebulous, Senator McConnell has seemingly endorsed an indefinite presence of U.S. troops in both countries, bolstering the positions of the most hawkish members of President Trump's Cabinet, National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Though I do not support an indefinite U.S. presence in Syria, I also oppose President Trump's abrupt decision for an immediate withdrawal from Syria. This rash decision puts at risk our mission to defeat ISIS and endangers the future of our Syrian Kurdish allies, who have been the tip of the spear in that fight. Ilham Ahmed, the cochair of the Syrian Democratic Council, underscored this point in a meeting I convened with a bipartisan group of Senators last week. That is why I introduced a bipartisan amendment with Senator Toomey, which calls for a clear, publicly articulated strategy that will guide the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria. Critically, our amendment also makes clear that the United States must protect the Syrian Democratic Forces from attacks by Turkey, which is more focused on destroying the Syrian Kurds than defeating ISIS. Finally, this legislation does not acknowledge the obvious: We have a reckless President who undermines our security daily. We have a President who conducts foreign policy by tweet and champions the views of brutal dictators, like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, above that of his own top intelligence officials. We have a President who has compromised American credibility; allies and adversaries alike cannot trust if his grand pronouncements will translate into action or if they will just as quickly be reversed. More than any President before him, President Trump has shirked America's founding principles and our values as a nation. Until Republicans in the Congress acknowledge that obvious point, our ability to preserve American leadership abroad will be greatly compromised. For all of these reasons, I voted against S. 1.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today with a sense of great disappointment--disappointment in what my colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, and the Republican leader have done with the bill before us today. They have taken a bill that had broad bipartisan support--maybe unanimous bipartisan support--and tried to turn it into a political weapon. In the process, they are doing a great disservice to the American people and to all of us who value the tradition of strong, bipartisan support for our friend and ally Israel. I am a cosponsor of the original bill, S. 2497, entitled the ``United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018.'' It is a bill to codify the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Israel. It was forged under President Obama and provides Israel with $38 billion in security assistance over the next 10 years. This includes $33 billion in foreign military financing funds to Israel and $5 billion in missile defense assistance for the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3. That is a lot of money when you consider the many priorities we have here at home and abroad. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global foreign military financing--the security assistance we provide to all of our partners and allies around the world--goes to Israel. In my view, that is an important investment. It is an important investment to support our friend and our democratic ally Israel from the many threats it faces in a very dangerous neighborhood--threats from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many others. We need to make sure Israel maintains a strong military edge to defend itself, and that is why there was strong bipartisan support for that original bill. But then the Republican leader took a bill with broad bipartisan support for Israel and added a provision designed to retaliate against American citizens who express their disagreement with certain policies of the Government of Israel by participating in certain boycott activities. Specifically, the Senator from Florida added a provision that encourages States throughout the country to pass laws to punish American citizens who choose to protest the settlement policies of the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu by either boycotting products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank or by not otherwise engaging in commerce with such settlements. I want to make this clear. While I disagree with some of the policies adopted by the Netanyahu government in Israel, I do not--I do not--in any way support a boycott as a method of expressing those disagreements. Let me be equally clear. I will fiercely defend the constitutional right of any American citizen to express his or her views in such a peaceful way if they so choose, just as I would support the right of every American to engage in other political boycotts to peacefully express their political views without fear of being punished by their government. The Senator from Florida and apparently the Republican leader want to use the power of the State to punish American citizens who disagree with them on this issue. It is right here in the bill. Let me read some of the relevant parts of the bill that is before us today: A State may adopt and enforce measures . . . to restrict contracting by the State for goods and services with any entity that . . . knowingly engages in . . . boycott activity . . . intended to limit commercial relations with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or Israeli-controlled territories for purposes of imposing policy positions on the Government of Israel. How does this new provision encourage States to retaliate against American citizens? It is pretty clear from that language. It encourages States to pass laws to deny citizens the right to bid on any State contract unless--unless--those citizens sign an oath stating that they do not or will not engage in any boycott of Israel, including any boycott related to the sale or purchase of goods or services from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Think about that. Let's say you are an American citizen living in my State of Maryland. Let's say you own a computer consulting business, and you happen to disagree with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's government policy of expanding settlements on the West Bank near the city of Bethlehem, and you want to express your opposition to that policy. Let's say you choose to protest that policy by deciding that you will not provide your services to businesses located in those settlements on the West Bank. If you did that, you would be prohibited by these State laws from bidding on a contract to provide computer consulting services to a Maryland State agency. Think about that. You may run the best computer consulting business in the State of Maryland, but if you don't sign an oath renouncing your right to engage in a boycott, you cannot win any contract with the State. In other words, even if you were the best, most qualified bidder, you would be disqualified from winning that State contract because of your peaceful political activity, having nothing to do with your ability to fulfill the contract. Does that sound unconstitutional? Yes, it is blatantly unconstitutional. And guess what. That is what two Federal courts have already concluded about State laws that already do what Senator Rubio's bill is proposing. I am going to review those decisions in a moment, but before I do, let me respond to the very flimsy defense the senior Senator from Florida and others have offered to try to justify this effort to punish free expression. Here is what Senator Rubio tweeted: ``Opposition to our bill isn't about FREE speech. Companies are FREE to boycott Israel. But local & state governments should be FREE to end contracts with companies that do.'' This reflects a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment. It turns the First Amendment on its head. It is like saying to our fellow Americans: You are free to peacefully express yourselves however you want, but the government is then free to use the power of the State to punish you for doing so. You are free to express your political opinions, but if we don't like what you say, the State is free to pass laws to prevent you from doing any business with the State. That is State-sponsored discrimination against disfavored political expression. I would remind my colleagues that the First Amendment is not designed to protect the government from its citizens; it is designed to protect citizens who may engage in unpopular speech from retaliation by the government. What if a State passed a law to penalize gun control advocates who boycotted stores that sold semiautomatic weapons? What if a State retaliated against anti-abortion activists who boycotted health clinics that provided abortion services? We would all agree that is blatantly unconstitutional. Senator Rubio's proposal and the proposal advanced by the Republican leader is a textbook example of why we have a First Amendment. I have heard others defend this measure by saying: ``It is simply a law to boycott the boycotters.'' That is a cute slogan but, again, shows a stunning ignorance of the First Amendment. Yes, any of us as individuals can always decide to boycott those whose boycotts we disagree with. Each of us as individuals is free to boycott those businesses that choose to boycott Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but that is not what this bill does. This bill calls upon States to use the power of the State, to use the power of government to punish peaceful political actions that we don't like. Again, that is patently unconstitutional. That is the conclusion reached by two Federal courts that struck down the kinds of State laws Senator Rubio and others seek to promote. In Kansas, a Federal judge blocked the enforcement of a State law requiring any State contractor to submit a written certification that they are ``not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel.'' In the Kansas case, a woman who served as a public school math teacher for 9 years was barred from participating in a State-sponsored teacher training program because she refused to sign a certification that she wasn't participating in a boycott of Israel. The court found that the anti-boycott certification requirement was designed to suppress political speech and was, according to the court, ``plainly unconstitutional.'' In his opinion, the judge wrote: ``The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott like the one punished by the Kansas law.'' That is what the Federal district court judge stated. In Arizona, a Federal court blocked a State law requiring contractors to certify that they will not boycott Israel, finding, again, that the law violates the right of free speech. In this case, an attorney contracted with the Arizona State government to provide legal services to help individuals in prison. Because of his political views, the attorney refused to purchase goods from businesses supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Because he would not submit to a written certification that he wasn't boycotting Israel, he was barred from contracting with the State to provide legal services. In this Arizona case, the court held that ``a restriction on one's ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in a boycott. The type of collective action targeted by the [law] specifically implicates the rights of assembly and association that Americans and Arizonans use `to bring about political, social, and economic change.' '' There are a number of other challenges to laws requiring government contractors to certify they are not boycotting Israel or Israeli settlements on the grounds that they violate American's fundamental right to free speech--a right that Americans have even when their speech is not supported by a majority of us. That is the whole purpose of the First Amendment. In Texas, there are two pending First Amendment challenges to a law requiring State contractors to certify they will not boycott Israel or its settlements. In the first Texas lawsuit, four individuals were required to choose between signing a certification that they are not participating in a peaceful boycott or losing income and other professional opportunities. These individuals include a freelance writer who lost two service contracts from the University of Houston; a reporter who was forced to sign the certification against his conscience in order to keep his job; and a Ph.D. candidate at Rice University who was forced to forfeit payment for judging at a debate tournament. It caused a student at Texas State University to forgo opportunities to judge high school debate tournaments. In the second lawsuit, a Texas speech pathologist who had worked with developmentally disabled autistic and speech impaired elementary school opportunities for 9 years was fired because she refused to sign an addendum to her contract renewal saying she would not boycott Israel or Israeli settlements. In my home State of Maryland, a software engineer is challenging an executive order requiring contractors to certify in writing that they are not boycotting Israel or its settlements. In that case, the individual was barred from bidding on government software program contracts because he would not sign such a certification. These laws are blatantly unconstitutional. Let me speak briefly to a recent court decision in Arkansas in which a Federal district court judge ruled in favor of a State law prohibiting Arkansas from contracting with or investing in individuals or firms that boycott Israel or its settlements. This district court decision is destined for the dustbin of history. I am not sure any Senator on either side of the aisle wants to be associated with its holding. It concludes that a boycott ``is not speech, inherently expressive activity, or subject to constitutional protection.'' The banner right there on page 9 of the judge's opinion reads: ``A Boycott is Neither Speech Nor Inherently Expressive Conduct.'' In other words, according to that district judge, States can pass laws banning or penalizing boycotts they don't like. Years ago--and it was many years ago--as a college student, I was active in the movement to get companies to divest from South Africa and boycotting companies that did business with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Under the Arkansas court decision, a State could pass a law that would ban that conduct or would at least penalize me if I wanted to do business with the State as a sole proprietor and sought State contracts. There is no doubt that the Arkansas decision will be overturned. The Supreme Court explicitly held in the case of the NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware that the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott for political purposes. The judge in the Arkansas case attempts to narrow that NAACP holding in a way that is clearly inconsistent with First Amendment protections. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read all three Federal district court decisions from Kansas, Arizona, and Arkansas. As I said earlier, I do not support the boycott of Israel as a means of pressing the Netanyahu government to change some of its policies. There are much better ways. We have to try to encourage our friend and ally to change some of the policies they disagree with. Here is what I predict: I predict that the boycott movement will continue to grow for a number of reasons. At the top of that list is the fact that the Trump administration's actions, and inactions, are adding oxygen to the boycott movement. To start, the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of trying to prevent the expansion of Israeli settlements in new parts of the West Bank. There has been a big jump in the number of tenders and settlement plans since President Trump took office. In fact, our Ambassador there, Ambassador Freidman, has been a vocal cheerleader for additional settlements in new areas on the West Bank. In doing so, the Trump administration has abandoned what has been a long-held bipartisan position of the U.S. Government. Here are a few statements from Presidents of both parties over the last 40 years: President Ronald Reagan, in 1982, said that ``settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated.'' President H.W. Bush, in 1990, said: ``The foreign policy of the United States says we do not believe there should be new settlements in the West Bank or in East Jerusalem.'' President Clinton, in 2001, said that ``the settlement enterprise and building bypass roads in the heart of what they already know will one day be part of a Palestinian state is inconsistent with the Oslo commitment that both sides negotiate a compromise.'' President George W. Bush, in 2002, said: ``Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop, and the occupation must end through withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries.'' Finally, President Obama, in 2009, said: ``The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.'' So there you have a continuous line of bipartisan Presidents, Republicans and Democrats, expressing U.S. policy on the issue of settlements. The provision before us today in this bill directly contradicts this long-stated U.S. policy by drawing no distinction between someone boycotting businesses located in the State of Israel and someone boycotting businesses located in settlements in the territories. In other words, the provision before us--and the State laws it promotes--supports the same penalty for those who boycott commerce with a business in Tel Aviv as it does those who boycott commerce with businesses in the settlements, including outposts that may be illegal even under Israeli law. This provision before us erases an important distinction in American policy that has been endorsed by Presidents of both parties. One of the reasons for discouraging settlements and outposts in new areas is to preserve the option of a two-state solution--an option that has previously been supported by Presidents of both parties, as well as pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC, J Street, and others. It is a demographic reality that in order to ensure a Jewish state that is democratic and provides equal rights to all its citizens, there must be a two-state solution. Such a solution should come about through a negotiated settlement between the parties--between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We all know that dysfunction and obstruction on the Palestinian side has been one obstacle to reaching an agreement, but that does not justify changing the status quo on the ground by adding settlements in new areas that will make a two-state solution impossible. Second, the Trump administration, under the guidance of the President's designated Middle East Senior Adviser, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, has embarked on an undisguised effort to crush the Palestinians by revoking all U.S. humanitarian assistance. Here we are, authorizing $38 billion for U.S. military support for Israel--something I strongly support and am a cosponsor of--but at the same time, the Trump administration has eliminated humanitarian and other assistance to help the Palestinian people, many of whom are living in horrible conditions. The Trump administration has eliminated assistance that helps provide medical care, clean water, and food to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Palestinian children and families. Much of this assistance is provided by organizations like Catholic Relief Services and the Lutheran World Federation. President Trump has also eliminated $25 million in U.S. support to a network of six hospitals in East Jerusalem, support the Congress explicitly protected under the Taylor Force Act. In doing this, he gutted funding for the main hospitals providing cancer treatment for patients in the West Bank and Gaza and kidney dialysis for children. These hospitals include Lutheran Augusta Victoria Hospital, the Anglican St. John of Jerusalem Eye Hospital, and the Catholic St. Joseph Hospital--American-founded institutions that fall under our American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program. The Trump administration has eliminated support for those programs, but the effort to crush the Palestinians into submitting to a one-sided agreement will never work. President Trump and Jared Kushner apparently think this is just another real estate deal where you turn off the water and electricity to force your tenants out. Instead, these actions by the Trump administration will only add fuel to the boycott movement because many people will see no other vehicle for expressing their views. Finally, to the senior Senator from Virginia and others supporting this provision, nothing--nothing--will motivate Americans to exercise their rights more than efforts to suppress them. Trying to suppress free speech--even unpopular speech, even conduct we don't support here and I don't support--will only add momentum. I will end where I started. It is a really shameful and disappointing day when the sponsors of this legislation took a bill demonstrating strong bipartisan support for Israel, for our friends and allies who share our commitment to democracy and share other values we hold dear-- some Senators took that bill and used it as an attack on the constitutional rights of American citizens who may want to peacefully demonstrate their opposition to some of the Netanyahu government's policies, not in the way the Presiding Officer would choose, not in the way I would choose, but in a way they have a right to do as American citizens. In making these changes to the bill, the sponsors are sabotaging what was a bipartisan bill to support our friend and ally Israel and, in the process, strengthening the very boycott movement we seek to oppose. That hurts Israel, that hurts the United States, and it is a really sad day in the U.S. Senate when we take something that we have all agreed on and decide to use it to attack the constitutional rights of American citizens with whom we may disagree. I am sorry it has come to this point. I hope my colleagues will think about this as we move forward in this debate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and partner from Maryland for all of his work in ending the shutdown. I thank him, as well as our friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for bringing us together in a bipartisan way to find a solution to end this shutdown as soon as possible. That is why I support the bipartisan amendment that will be filed this afternoon to open the government for 3 weeks. I should stress that this is not my preferred solution. I would like to take up the bill that is at the desk that would open eight of the nine Federal Departments right away and give us time to deal with the Department of Homeland Security. Yet the proposal before us is our best option at this point in time for resolving this shutdown. What will 3 weeks accomplish? It is a fair question. First of all, it will allow Federal Government employees--all of them--to get back to work for the American people and help resume vital services. No. 2, it will make sure that all of them get paid--those who are working without pay and those who have been locked out. That is important because all of us know that tomorrow marks the second full pay period of when they will get big fat zeros on their paychecks even as their bills keep coming through the door. It will do something else that is very important. It will give the Senate and the House a little breathing room to work together on a bipartisan basis to address a number of priorities--priorities to make sure we provide adequate border security, which can include additional resources. We can spend some time addressing immigration issues, including those that were just mentioned by the Senator from South Carolina. I believe this time and space is absolutely needed to allow us to work together in a bipartisan way. While 3 weeks may not sound like a lot of time, in part, it will help focus our attention on getting the job done, and we will all be held accountable in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House for getting our work done in that period. I thank our colleagues for showing this good faith in trying to find a solution to doing it. Take 3 weeks. Open the government. Let's have those very important discussions. Let's do it in a sober and serious way. If we do so, I am confident that we can find a permanent result that will help us get out of this crisis. I thank the Senator. I yield back my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, on December 11 of last year, at a meeting at the White House, President Trump said he would be ``proud''--``proud''--to shut down the government of the United States if he didn't get things 100 percent his way. Then, 11 days later, on December 22, President Trump shut down the government. We are now 32 days into the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, and I say to President Trump: That is nothing to be proud of. The damage is growing by the day in every part of our country and across different sectors of our economy. It is estimated that the partial government shutdown is now costing the economy $6 billion every week. Eight hundred thousand Federal employees are going without pay, and this coming Friday will mark the second full pay period in which they get pay stubs with a big fat goose egg on them. Hundreds of thousands of those Federal employees are working every day without pay, and hundreds of thousands of them have been locked out of work and want to get back to doing the business of the American people but are prohibited from doing so because of the government shutdown. So as a result of their inability to go to work, there are tens of millions of our fellow Americans who are losing access to vital government services. There is nothing to be proud of in shutting out a whole sector of service contract employees and small businesses that provide support services to the Federal Government. I am going to go into a little more detail in a moment, but small businesses around this country that depend on the Small Business Administration for loans or because they do business with the Federal Government are getting absolutely clobbered. That is nothing to be proud of. It is not anything to be proud of that so many Federal employees are not able to make their rent or mortgage payments or the monthly tuition installment payments for their children's college education or for other provisions they want to provide for their family. Now, sadly, this Senate is complicit in the shutdown. Let me actually rephrase that. The majority in the Senate is complicit in the shutdown because we have not been allowed a vote on two bills that are on the Senate calendar that we could vote on today and would reopen the government. I have one of those bills right here. I have brought it to the floor in the past. It is a bill that would open eight of the nine Federal Departments that have nothing to do with the Homeland Security Department or border security or a wall--eight of the nine of them. This bill is sitting on the Senate calendar. We could vote on it today, and yet the majority leader refuses to bring it up for a vote. The great irony is that this bill that is on the Senate calendar contains provisions that have already been supported in the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. A big part of this bill includes about four Federal Departments where we voted by 92 to 6 on the funding levels for the whole fiscal year until the end of September. In other cases, what is in this bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a vote of 31 to 0 and another on a vote of 30 to 1. So why aren't we bringing up these bills? Now, the majority leader had said previously he wasn't going to bring up any bills in the Senate unless they were supported by President Trump and by the Democrats. Do you know what? That is an abdication of the responsibility of this Senate as a separate and coequal branch of government. Since when do we say to this President or any President: We are not going to consider a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate unless you tell us ahead of time that you are good with it? That is not doing our job. That is not fulfilling our constitutional responsibility. We have an obligation to do our duty as a separate branch of government and vote, especially when it is on a piece of legislation the Senate has already voted on and already supported overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis and that would reopen the government. So instead of doing our job, we are going to contract out our responsibilities to the President of the United States, but apparently it is going to get worse because now, as I understand it, the majority leader has changed his position and now he will allow a vote on something in the Senate Chamber. But guess what it is. It is on the President's proposal. So now not only are we going to essentially say that we will not vote on something the President doesn't like, but now the one thing the majority leader says we will vote on is what the President wants--what the President wants. Well, do you know what? I am OK having to vote on the President's proposal, but if we are going to vote on that, my goodness, we should also vote on the bill that is already on the Senate calendar and that has already received strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. So I do have a question for the majority leader. If we are going to be voting on President Trump's most recent proposal, are we also going to be able to have a vote on the bill that was already on the Senate calendar, that has already been supported by a bipartisan majority, and that would reopen the government right away? That is my question. Let's vote, and let's just see what happens, but let's vote on not just what the President of the United States wants. Since when does the President dictate what we do here in the Senate? That is a question for every Member. So I am for voting, but I am not for doing what appears to be about to happen, which is just to say that we are going to vote on what the President wants and, again, contracting out our responsibilities to the White House. What we are seeing every day, as I said, is the growing damage from this shutdown. I mentioned that small businesses are really feeling the pain. There is a story in the Wall Street Journal, headline: ``Small Businesses' $2 Billion Problem: Government Shutdown Leaves Loans in Limbo.'' This is happening all over the country. What you are seeing is that businesses and startups and the engines of our economy are not able to access loans through the Small Business Administration. In fact, Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics estimates the shutdown has delayed the $2 billion in SBA lending. Jill Emerson, the CEO of an electrical components company in Tennessee, just heard that her lender shut down their $3 million line of credit. ``Our frustration is unbelievable,'' she said. This is the CEO of an electrical components company in Tennessee. ``To keep us alive, I am borrowing from business associates who have worked with us for years.'' We are hearing other small businesses that are just starved for lack of capital, others where the small business owners are personally guaranteeing loans. For the most part, there are many who are just not getting the capital they need to open up their businesses, to sustain their businesses, and as a result, they are laying off workers. That is a growing consequence of this shutdown. Many times, I have shared on this floor some of the stories of Federal employees who work in Maryland and the fact that they want, first and foremost, to get back to work. Everywhere I go, even before people mention the fact that they are missing their paychecks, they tell me they want to get back to do the work for the American people. Then they do share terrible stories about how the lack of pay is impacting them more and more, day by day. Beyond the stories you will hear from Federal employees who work in my State of Maryland or Senator Kaine's State of Virginia--and I want to thank Senator Kaine for all of his efforts to reopen the government and, of course, Federal employees in the District of Columbia--the reality is, 80 percent of Federal employees live outside of this region. They live all over the country. We are talking about the Coast Guard, Coast Guard officials. We are talking being TSA officials. We are talking about Homeland Security officials. We are talking about people in Federal Agencies who are scattered across this country. A former marine who is now an EPA employee in Kansas is the primary breadwinner for her family and two children. Here is what she had to say the other day: ``To have to go to your landlord and say, `I don't know how I'm going to pay you,' I have never had to do that.'' The President said people would ``make adjustments.'' The President said he could ``relate.'' It is easy for the President to say. He is sort of jetting from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, to Trump Tower. Those words are hollow to the millions of Americans who are actually really hurting. Here is what this Federal worker in Kansas said: We're trying to cut the grocery bill just down to the necessities, I mean we don't live extravagantly so it's hard to cut out any bills. Her children notice, she said. She said: My son wants to sell art to pay our bills. Right now, we have Federal employees all over the country who are trying to take on odd jobs to make ends meet. Sometimes that takes startup costs, which, of course, they don't have because they don't have any income coming in the door. One story from Cadillac, MI, goes as follows: Debra-Ann Brabazon, a furloughed Forest Service worker, said she is paying $100 to get fingerprinted and get background-checked so she could get certified as a substitute teacher. She was down to eating one meal a day. She didn't have the $100 to pay to get the fingerprinting and background check to get an odd job in order to bring in some income while she wasn't getting her Federal paycheck. She said she leapt to volunteer in exchange for grocery money and that ``I was a nanny in college. I am falling back on everything I learned about how to survive.'' As we can see, as each day goes by, the pain grows--the pain grows on small businesses, the pain grows on families. The Trump shutdown is also hurting our national security and creating growing harm to our national security by the day. The FBI Agents Association put out a report today on the impacts they are seeing. One agent said: I have been working on a long term MS-13 investigation for over three years. We have indicted 23 MS-13 gang members. . . . Since the shutdown, I have not had a Spanish speaker in the Division. We have several Spanish speaking informants. We are only able to communicate using a three way call with a linguist in another division. The government shutdown is hurting the FBI's efforts to go after MS- 13 gangs. I often hear President Trump talking about the need to crack down on MS-13, and when it comes to MS-13, he is absolutely right. Long before the President even started talking about MS-13, many of us in this body and in the House of Representatives have been working to crack down on MS-13 gang violence. The President just discovered MS-13 when he decided to run for President, but many of us had been working on that issue for a long time. Yet now the government shutdown is undermining that effort. Here is what another national security official says: Not being able to pay Confidential Human Sources risks losing them and the information they provide FOREVER. It is not a switch that we can turn on or off. Here is another FBI official indicating that the shutdown has shut off funds they used for critical informants to track down criminals, but apparently that doesn't matter to President Trump. That effort is just another casualty of the shutdown he brought about. We are also seeing impacts on cyber security. WIRED magazine reported last week: ``As the Government Shutdown Drags On, Security Risks Intensify.'' The article notes that the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency at the Department of Homeland Security is operating with a skeleton crew, risking government websites and systems. Many government websites have had their HTTPS encryption certificates expire during the shutdown, exposing them to potential snooping or even impersonator sites. And with most IT staff staying home, it seems unlikely that software patches and upgrades are being installed at their regular clip, potentially leaving them exposed to malware they'd otherwise be protected against. In other words, since President Trump has sent all these employees home without pay, they are not able to ensure that government computers are not kept up to date with the software they need to protect them against cyber attacks. The shutdown is leaving a lot of the U.S. Government's computer systems more vulnerable. When that happens, it makes all of us more vulnerable. In addition, the private sector that relies, in many ways, on a public-private partnership with cyber security resources from the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, says they are not able to access that information at this point in time. Those are just some of the more recent impacts that harm our national security. Interestingly, what we are seeing is that not everyone is hurting. It turns out, if you have friends in the Trump administration, you may able to get some relief. I think many of us were interested last week when the mortgage industry was able to persuade the administration to bring back some employees from the IRS back to work. Here is what the mortgage industry said: Could you make these guys essential, meaning some of the folks then wanted to bring back at the IRS. Do you know what? In response to the mortgage industry, the White House brought more people back. According to the report, the shutdown was stalling an IRS process to confirm borrowers' incomes before they could grant home loans, and that of course is a problem for the mortgage industry in making those loans. So the Mortgage Bankers Association reached out to the Department of the Treasury, and suddenly the Department of the Treasury said: Oh, that is an essential function. The mortgage industry wants it. We are going to bring back folks to process that information. The story quotes the chief executive of the Bankers Association, saying: I would like to take some credit. Our direct request got quite rapid results. I am glad people are getting their income checked through IRS validations so they can get their mortgages. The way to do this isn't to respond piecemeal to some powerful special interests. We shouldn't be playing favorites in this shutdown, and that is what we are seeing from this administration. The way to deal with it is obvious: open up the government so we can resume these functions. In the U.S. Senate, the fastest and best way to open up the government is to have a vote--to have a vote on the bill that is on the Senate calendar that has already received broad bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. I want to talk a minute about Homeland Security. The Trump administration's request for this portion of border security funding was $1.6 billion. That is what is in their budget. You can look at their budget online. They requested $1.6 billion. I serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee provided that request--provided that request for strengthening barriers. We did say you can't use that money to build that sort of new, huge wall the President used to talk about, but we provided $1.6 billion. That was going to work out fine in the long run. Then, of course, in December, the President said: Oh, I need this $5.7 billion for a big wall. I think all of us who follow these issues closely know that even before President Trump was elected, we had 700 miles of barriers and fencing along certain strategic parts of the border, and we have provided funds to reenforce and strengthen some of those barriers. So this is a totally manufactured issue by the President of the United States in terms of all of a sudden demanding more funds than the President himself in his budget requested. So we should have a serious conversation on border security and immigration issues, and we can have it now, but what we cannot do is continue to allow the country to be held hostage through this government shutdown. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it was the President of the United States who said on December 11 of last year, he would be ``proud'' to shut down the government if he didn't get things his way. Well, that is just not how things work, especially not how things work in an era of divided government. So I appeal to my colleagues, my Senate Republican colleagues to work with us to find a way out. Obviously, the fastest way out is to vote on the bills that already have bipartisan support. We should have the conversation, but what I do find to be a very sad reflection on this body, is if we move forward and have a vote only on the proposal the President of the United States wants and not also a vote on the bill that previously had bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate because that would send an awful message. It would send the message that the majority party has allowed an independent and coequal branch of government to be totally hijacked by the President of the United States, as opposed to doing our job as a separate branch of government under article I. If we are going to take the position that this Senate, with 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, is only going to vote on a proposal from the President of the United States, then we simply have become a vehicle--an agent for the President. That would be a great shame on this body. If we are going to have a vote on that bill--and I am fine to have a vote on that bill. We should have votes. In the light of day, we should have transparency and accountability, but what would be outrageous is to say: OK. We are only going to vote on the bill the President of the United States wants and not on another measure that has already received broad bipartisan support. That would be a dereliction of duty in the U.S. Senate as a separate and coequal branch of government. Let's end this shutdown. We have it in our power to vote now. Let's do our job. The President can do what he wants, but let's do our job under the Constitution and let's do it and be held accountable by the American public. Let's not use procedural devices to only allow votes on what the President wants and not votes on bills we voted on before. I am hoping this Senate will do its job and do its duty and hold that vote to reopen government and not just on the President's proposal but on the other proposals as well. In the meantime, we should continue to have serious conversations about the most effective and cost-effective way to provide border security and how we can deal with other immigration issues, but nobody should send the signal that shutting down the government is a good way to do business. I would hope that neither Republican nor Democratic Senators would want to send a signal to the Executive that they are going to be rewarded for shutting down the government--now 32 days long, a real shame for the country, and something nobody should be proud of. No matter what the President of the United States says, this is nothing for anybody to be proud of. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the issue here is that, under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate really does need to do its job as a separate and coequal branch of government. Last week, Senator Cardin and I were right where we are today--here on the floor of the Senate, asking consent that the Senate immediately take up and vote on the two House bills that are on the Senate calendar as we speak and pass them and send them to the President to reopen the government. Last week, the majority leader blocked a vote on that. He blocked consent to take up those bills to reopen the government. Since last week, much has changed, and much has stayed the same. Here is what has changed. The impact and harm of the shutdown is growing by the day. It is metastasizing around the country. Here are some headlines: ``The cascade of shutdown problems grows each week.'' Another headline: ``This is ridiculous: Small-business owners can't get loans as shutdown enters Day 20.'' That was day 20. We are now on day 25. ``FBI operations damaged as shutdown continues.'' ``FBI Agents Group Says Shutdown Affects Law Enforcement.'' They point out it is putting those on the job at greater risk because those are who are furloughed who support them can't give them the backup they need. The FDA continues to not do its routine food inspections, and American veterans--and veterans make up 30 percent of the Federal workforce--are being disproportionately hurt by the shutdown. We just heard it reported that the White House economists are doubling their estimate of the harm being done to our economy each week. It is already in the billions of dollars, and they are saying it looks as though it will be twice that much as this thing grows exponentially. Services have been shut down for the American people. There were 800,000 Federal employees, as of last Friday, who received pay stubs like the one I am holding in my hand. This is one that was for an air traffic controller. Starting last Friday, 800,000 Federal employees did not get paychecks. Hundreds of thousands of them are on the job, working, and hundreds of thousands of them have been locked out of work. What they tell us is they just want to get back to work and do their jobs for the American people. If you look at this pay stub, at the net pay, it reads ``zero''--a big, fat goose egg. I can tell you these Federal employees are getting bills. They are getting their mortgage and rent bills. They don't say zero. They stay the same. So here you have 800,000 Federal employees who are unable to make do-- missing mortgage payments, missing rent payments, missing their monthly installments on community college payments. On top of that, you have all of these small businesses that do work for the Federal Government that are beginning to go belly-up, and their employees are being told not to go in to work. Since Senator Cardin and I were here on the floor just last week, things have gotten much worse around the country, but here is what has stayed the same--that we have it in our power today to take up two House bills to open the government. I was listening to the majority leader say: Well, you know, the President says he is not going to sign them. Yet we are a separate branch of government. We are the article I branch of government. I am holding in my hand, right here, the bill that Senator Cardin asked us to vote on today. I think the public needs to know what is in it because what is in it has already been supported on a bipartisan basis by this U.S. Senate. It has provisions to open about five Departments of the U.S. Government that have nothing to do with Homeland Security. We passed that by a vote of 92 to 6. The President says that he doesn't want to sign it. He can veto it. With 92 to 6, it is a veto override--big time. Also contained in here are bills that passed the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to nothing and 30 to 1. That is what is in here--bipartisan bills. So the question for this body, as a separate branch of government, is this: Why in the world are we not going to allow a vote to reopen the government on provisions that we have already agreed to on an overwhelming bipartisan basis--in fact, with a veto-proof margin? The President can say that he is not going to sign it. That is his business. That is the executive branch. For goodness' sake, let's do our job here in the U.S. Senate, because every day that goes by with this growing harm, the Senate is more and more complicit, and we are an accomplice to the shutdown. I know President Trump likes to talk about the fact that he has done things that no other President has done before in the history of the United States. This time, he is right. He has the longest shutdown of any President in the United States. He said he would be proud to shut down the government if he didn't get his way. I know that no Senator here--Republican or Democratic--is proud to shut down the government, certainly, for the longest period in history. So let's do the right thing. Let's do our job. Let's not just say the President is the only one who can handle this. We can handle it. 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. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his steadfast efforts to bring this shameful shutdown to an end. He and I have met with Federal employees all over the State of Maryland to bring their stories here to the floor of the Senate. While they are under incredible hardship and incredible duress, the first thing they tell us at every meeting is that they want to get back to work for the American people, to do their job for the American people. These are civil servants; these are public servants; and they want to get back to helping the country. To my friend and partner and colleague, Senator Cardin, I thank him for all of his efforts in this shameful episode of our history. President Trump often falsely boasts that he has accomplished what no other President in American history has been able to do. This time, he has succeeded. This time, he has succeeded in closing down the Federal Government for a longer period than any other President in United States history--24 days and counting. President Trump said just a few weeks ago that he would be proud-- proud to shut down the government if he didn't get his way. But President Trump should know that reaching this historic milestone is nothing to be proud of. It is unnecessary, and it is shameful. Every day that goes by, we see mounting harm around the country both in terms of members of the public who are denied important services and denied important health protections and, of course, Federal employees and Federal contractors who are either going without pay--all of the Federal employees who are going without pay, and Federal contractors have been laid off in many cases. Every day that this shameful shutdown goes on, our colleagues on the Republican side and the Republican leader have to own up to their share of the responsibility. Every day that goes on where we do not have a chance to vote on the two House bills that are on the Senate calendar, which we could take up this afternoon--every day that we do not vote on those bills, which have had bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate, the Senate is an accomplice in the shutdown, and those who prevent us from turning the keys to reopen the government are complicit in the harm that is increasing every day around the country. On Friday, 800,000 Federal employees began to get pay stubs that showed zero pay. I have one in my hand from somebody who is an air traffic controller. If you look at the area that says net pay, it has a big goose egg--zero. Among these 800,000 Federal employees, of course, are hundreds of thousands of people--like the folks at TSA, like the folks along the border--who are working every day, but in the mail or in their electronic pay stub they get zero for their pay. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands more who are being furloughed, who want to get out and do their work for the American people, and they are being locked out of their jobs. I have been talking with many of my constituents over the last several weeks, and I have shared many of their stories here on the floor of the Senate. They talk passionately and personally about how they want to get back to work and also about how they worry about their ability to provide for their families. I met with Edward last week. He works at the Census Bureau. He is the only person in his family to have gone to college. He is very proud to be a civil servant and wants to do his job. He owns a home, and his mortgage payments are coming due every month, like those of millions of Americans. While those mortgage payments are coming in, his paycheck is not. He told me he is very worried that he will soon miss a payment. It is important to understand that the harm from this shutdown is not just felt in the Washington metropolitan area. Of course, Americans around the country are losing access to services, and it is a fact that 80 percent of the people who work for the Federal Government live outside the Washington metropolitan area. TSA officials at airports throughout the country are just one example. It is also important to recognize that about 30 percent of the Federal workforce are people who previously served our country in uniform. They were in the military. That means that as a result of this shutdown, 250,000 Americans--in fact, a little more than that--who served our country in the military are also suffering and going without pay. One of those veterans is somebody I spoke to last week, an Air Force veteran who works at the Office of Personnel Management. He told me he was worried that he wasn't going to be able to pay his electric bill on time. He told me he had contacted the electric company and said: Look, I am not going to be able to pay you this month because I am not going to get a check. Can you just hold off? Can you defer my bill? They told him: Sorry, that really isn't our responsibility. It really is our responsibility here in the U.S. Senate--and, of course, the President of the United States, who said that he was proud to shut down the government. I would like the President to visit Maryland and look at that Air Force vet who now works as a civil servant and tell that Air Force vet that he is proud to be shutting down the government. There are other veterans around the country. As I said, the harm from this is not confined to the Washington metropolitan area. Toby Hauck served our country in the Air Force and continues to serve as an air traffic controller in Illinois. His son and daughter-in-law are about to deploy overseas, and Toby and his wife are going to care for their 2\1/2\-year-old daughter--their granddaughter-- during this deployment. Toby says that the continued lack of pay adds stress to their already hectic jobs. This is something I have heard from other veterans, air traffic controllers, and others going without pay throughout the State of Maryland. In fact, we know from a lot of the Federal employees who work in law enforcement that the impact on their jobs is hurting our national security. Just reading from an article in the Washington Post, ``Shutdown threatens national security, FBI agents group warns,'' it goes on to say: ``A group representing FBI agents warned Thursday that the partial government shutdown is threatening national security as thousands of federal law enforcement professionals, working without pay, grow anxious that personal financial hardships may jeopardize their security clearances and as furloughs of their support staffs slow investigations.'' I spoke to a Federal law enforcement officer just last week. He made exactly the point made by others in this article, which is that his entire support team has been furloughed. These are the folks who track down DNA analysis; these are the people who do the investigations. When they are furloughed and when they are not on the job, it puts their colleagues who are on the job--in the FBI or other Federal law enforcement missions--at greater risk, and it puts the public at risk to the extent that those FBI agents are not able to fully do their job. The harm is spreading. We know that a lot of Federal contractors, including a lot of small business folks who do work with the Federal Government, have had to lay off people. I know that because, in my State of Maryland, a small outfit that contracts with the Federal Government to help seniors find work just had to lay off 173 employees last week. Senior Service America is the name of the organization. They do great work, but they just had to send pink slips to 173 people saying: At least for now, you are out of work, and you are out of a paycheck. Again, this is something we are seeing and witnessing around the country. A business in Denver, CO--Sky Blue Builders--had to stop work on several Federal contractor jobs for Federal construction projects they were doing. The GSA--General Services Administration--put their projects on hold, and a 50-person company had to lay off 8 carpenters and a superintendent because of the shutdown. They will need to lay off more in the days ahead if the shutdown continues. Every day that goes on, we see a mushrooming effect in terms of the damage and harm being done throughout the country. A lot of the folks who work for these small business Federal Government contractors are already getting low-wage paychecks; now, they are out of income altogether. One of those workers is Lila Johnson. She is a janitor at the Department of Agriculture. She works for a company, and that company contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide janitorial services. Lila is 71 years old. She has bills coming due for her rent, her credit card, and her car. Here is how she has described the impact of the shutdown: I don't have enough from my retirement and my Social Security to make ends meet. Everything is piling up on me, and I don't know how I'm going to have the money to pay these bills. I don't know how many of my colleagues saw President Trump the other day. He sort of waved off reporters when they asked him a question about the harm being done as a result of the shutdown. The President said he can relate to these people who are just one paycheck away from not being able to make a mortgage or not being able to make a medical copayment. He said: I can relate. I'm sure the people that are on the receiving end will make adjustments. They always do. Give me a break. The President clearly doesn't realize that 40 percent of our fellow Americans cannot pull together even $400 for an emergency. They do live paycheck to paycheck. When you have grown up with a background of privilege, as the President has, you really have not experienced that kind of hardship. Between Trump Tower, the White House, and Mar-a-Lago, it is pretty clear the President doesn't have a clue about what our fellow Americans are experiencing in this shutdown. Because all of these Federal employees are unable to do their jobs-- in many cases, for the country--and because the small business contractors are not able to do theirs, every day you are seeing the growing, harmful impact of the shutdown in terms of denial of important services and protections for the American people. We know now the FDA is no longer conducting their routine food safety inspections. We know the EPA has halted inspections of major polluters, including chemical factories. We know 1,000 affordable housing contracts have expired because of the shutdown, which can delay critical repairs and place families at risk of eviction. We have seen trash and waste piling up at our national parks. Despite the efforts of the administration to hide a lot of these impacts, the result has been a disaster. At Joshua Tree National Park, we saw motorists cut down several of the iconic Joshua trees so they could drive in areas of the park where vehicles are banned, and vandals have sprayed graffiti in the park. That is just one example among many. Why is this happening? It is because the President says, if he doesn't get his way entirely, he is going to be ``proud''--that is his word, not mine--to shut down the government. I can tell you what it is not about. It is not about the need for strong border security. We need secure borders. I think Senators on both sides of the aisle know that over the years, we have worked on a bipartisan basis to do that. We certainly can continue to work on a bipartisan basis to do it going forward. I know Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize that wasting taxpayer dollars on a 2,000-mile-long wall is not the answer. For goodness' sake, the President's own Acting Chief of Staff--a former colleague of mine in the House of Representatives--Mick Mulvaney said a couple of years ago that it was childlike to believe that building that 2,000-mile wall was going to actually provide the kind of security we need. We need a multilayered approach. Yes, there are areas along the border where we need barriers, fences, walls. Call them what you want. They are already there. They were there before President Trump was ever elected President. What was the President's budget request this year for this part of the Homeland Security budget? What was his request in the official document he sent for this fiscal year? He asked for $1.6 billion. That is what the Senate Appropriations Committee voted for on a bipartisan basis, $1.6 billion. It was only in December, when all of a sudden you have the rightwing talk show hosts going 24/7, spinning the President up, that all of a sudden, oh, boy, I guess I didn't really mean what I asked for; I need something else. Then, to justify the $5.7 billion, he did this national address the other night. What was the very first example he gave for why we needed this border wall? The very first example he gave was to interdict and stop the flow of drugs across the southern border. That was the first item he mentioned in the speech. He focused on it. By focusing on that, he demonstrated the argument against spending all this money on a 2,000-mile border wall. As everybody knows, including his Department of Homeland Security, to the extent we have drugs coming across the southern border--and this is a big issue--they are actually coming through the legal points of entry, so building a wall on all sides of the legal points of entry will not do a thing. We all know that on a bipartisan basis, we have looked for new technologies and new investments to better detect drugs that are flowing through those legal ports of entry. My goodness, we can certainly talk about further steps that can be taken, but the leadoff point in the President's speech showed his ignorance about the overall issue on how we need effective border security. We should not be spending what will ultimately be $30 billion on a 2,000-mile wall the President said Mexico was going to pay for. Make no mistake. We are talking about $30 billion because the President may ask for one amount this year. It started at $1.6 billion. That was his official request. Then, in December, it was $5.7 billion. Now he is going to threaten to shut down the government every year if he doesn't get his $30 billion, which Mexico was going to pay for. I know he is doing all sorts of dances, saying that is not quite what I meant, but that is what he told the country. Since we are talking about border security, let's talk about some of the men and women who, right now, today, as we gather here, are defending that border, providing border protection. I will tell you what, the folks at Customs and Border Protection have had enough. The Customs and Border Protection officers are suing the United States. They are suing the President because of this shutdown and demanding that they get paid for the work they are doing. I know the President likes to talk about the good work a lot of those men and women do at Customs and Border Protection, and they do, do good work. They are now suing the President of the United States and the U.S. Government because they are out there providing border security, and they are now getting big goose eggs, big zeros for net pay for the work they are doing. I know Members of this body are not ``proud'' of this shutdown, as the President of the United States is. He said he was proud. He hasn't said otherwise, although he started pointing fingers now at everybody else. He said he was going to take responsibility; that he would be proud to if he didn't get his way. Every day that goes by in this Senate that we don't take action, which is within our power to take, this Senate becomes an accomplice in President Trump's government shutdown. That is why, together with my colleagues, we are going to continue to press the Senate and the Senate Republican leader to take up the two House bills that are on the Senate calendar, which are the keys to reopening the government. The House of Representatives, on their very first day of the new Congress, said their priority is reopening the government, and they did. They passed those two bills. I have had them on the floor before. I am going to show them again because they are still on the calendar. They haven't disappeared. They are still right there. One is H.J. Res. 1. It is a very simple bill. It is a bill that would reopen the Department of Homeland Security through February 8. It is identical, with respect to the Department of Homeland Security, as to what this Senate did by a voice vote before Christmas-- identical. It says: Let's reopen the Department of Homeland Security at current funding levels while we discuss the best and most effective way to provide border security. That bill was on the Senate calendar. Last week, standing right here, I asked for unanimous consent to take it up and vote on it right away. The Senate Republican leader denied that request. Just last week, standing right over there, Senator Cardin brought up the other bill that is on the Senate calendar that was passed by the House to reopen eight of the nine Departments of the U.S. Government that are closed and have nothing to do with Homeland Security or the wall--nothing to do with it. That bill is right here, H.R. 21. Senator Cardin asked for the Senate to vote on it. Again, it was blocked by the Republican leader on behalf of the caucus. As many of us have discussed, the great irony is, these are pieces of legislation that have bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. As I said, the bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security through February 8 while we work on the best and most effective way to provide border security is something we passed by voice vote. Republican colleagues thought it was a good idea about 5 weeks ago. I don't know why it is not a good idea to do the same thing today. The other bill, which contains the funding levels through the remainder of this fiscal year for the other eight of the nine Federal Departments that are currently closed, also had broad bipartisan support. One of the parts of that bill dealing with the Department of Agriculture, the Treasury Department, the Interior Department, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development passed this Senate by a vote of 92 to 6. The House of Representatives said: Do you know what? We like the funding levels the House put together, but let's send the Senate a bill that was already supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate, 92 to 6. This bill, H.R. 21, contains those Senate funding levels voted on 92 to 6 to reopen all those Departments. This bill also includes measures that were overwhelmingly passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. One measure was adopted in the Senate Appropriations Committee by a vote of 31 to 0--Republicans and Democrats voting for it. That is in the bill the House sent over. The other bills relating to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice passed the Senate Appropriations Committee vote 30 to 1. In this package the House sent us, you have bills that passed the Senate Appropriations Committee by 30 to 0, 30 to 1, and the floor of the U.S. Senate by a vote of 92 to 6. It is a very simple question: Why is it that the Republican leader refuses to allow this body to vote on measures that have already had overwhelming support in this body and would reopen the government today? The answer we get is, well, you know what, the President of the United States says he will not support it. Do you know what? We are an independent branch of government. We are a coequal branch of government, although these days I begin to wonder if we relegated ourselves to the very bottom of the totem pole here. There is no excuse not to vote. Ninety-two to six? That is a veto- proof majority. Let the President veto it. It has to come back here? Ninety-two to six. I will tell you, the fact the others passed 30 to 0 and 30 to 1 in the Senate Appropriations Committee--that is a pretty good indicator of their strong, bipartisan support. So let's not go hide out. Let's not go hide out. Let's do our job in the Senate, and if the President wants to veto it, let him do it. That is how the system works. But nobody here should be hiding from accountability to their constituents because the Republican leader refuses to hold a vote today on what the Senate supported overwhelmingly in weeks past. I do want to thank my colleagues for a measure that we passed last week, passed it on Thursday or Friday. The Senate passed a provision that was introduced by Senator Cardin and me and many other Senators and that had some bipartisan support and cosponsorship and strong bipartisanship here on the floor. We said that Federal employees should not, at the end of the day, be the ones who have to bear the entire burden of this shutdown they had nothing to do with. So we passed legislation to make sure that when this shutdown is over, Federal employees will be made whole in terms of their pay. That then passed the House, and it is on the way to the President. It was on the way to the President before the weekend. The Republican Senate leader said that the President said he was going to sign it. Of course, that is what the President said about the bill that passed the U.S. Senate before Christmas to provide stopgap funding, so we will see. I hope that is the case because Federal employees, at the end of the day, should not be the ones who are penalized and never made whole. But it doesn't address the problem before us right now, which is that while those Federal employees--hundreds of thousands of them--are not working, they are not there to provide important services for the American people, and the harm done from the denial of those services is growing every day. And of course it doesn't help those hundreds of thousands of Federal employees--in fact, 800,000 Federal employees--who are not getting paid now but have their bills coming through the door every day. That creates great harm because when they can't pay the bills, their creditors come after them. Even though, whenever this shutdown ends, whenever it may be, they may get back pay, it is going to be very hard for them to get back their credit rating. It is going to be very hard to undo the damage that is being done to them by their inability to pay their bills because of our inability to vote on two House measures that the Senate has already supported on a bipartisan basis. So it doesn't solve that very, very real problem, which is growing every day. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are hearing more and more from their constituents--hearing from their Federal employees who are going without pay, hearing from small business contractors who have had their contracts cut and are at risk of going belly-up, from those small contract employees who live paycheck to paycheck--and from the American people who are being denied services on a growing basis. So let's open the government. Let's vote on these two bills that would accomplish that. We could do it tonight. Do it right now, as soon as the Republican leader comes in. I can assure you that my colleagues and I will continue to ask consent to bring up those bills. We are going to continue to move to bring up those bills because they are the one thing before the Senate right now that we could vote on that would at least demonstrate that we in the Senate are doing our job. It is the President's job to decide whether he thinks it is a good idea, and if he thinks it is a bad idea, he can veto it, and then it comes back to us. Let's do our job here. Let's not contract to the President of the United States our constitutional responsibilities. That is not how it is supposed to work. And we need to do our job. Let's end the shutdown. Let's reopen the government. We can have a conversation on the most effective way to provide border security, but for goodness' sake, let's release the hostages here. Let's release eight of the nine Federal Departments that have nothing to do with homeland security or the wall. Let's release the 800,000 Federal employees who are not getting paid. Let's release all of the small businesses that do contract work for the Federal Government, many of which are at risk of going belly-up. Let's release the Federal contract employees who are now being told not to come to work because the contract is not in effect during the shutdown. Let's release all those hostages who have nothing to do with the political dispute here. Nobody should be proud of this shutdown, and so I say to the President of the United States: Let's not take pride in being the President of the United States who is now overseeing the longest shutdown in American history. That is not a first that any President should be proud of, and it is not something this Senate should be complicit in. Let's reopen the government. Let's vote on the House bills. I yield my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today marks the 21st day of the government shutdown, an unnecessary and shameful government shutdown. We are now tied with the longest shutdown in American history. A few weeks ago, the President of the United States, President Trump, said he would be ``proud'' to shut down the government if he didn't get his way. This is nothing to be proud of, and the harmful impacts of the shutdown are growing by the day, growing on people throughout this country who are being denied important government services, impacting every American. We just heard the other day from the Food and Drug Administration that they are no longer going to carry out some of their food safety inspections, putting at risk the American food supply for every American. We heard from the EPA that they are going to be suspending their monitoring of some toxic pollutants, also having a growing harmful impact every day on the country and putting the health of American citizens at risk. So that is nothing to be proud of, nor should any of us be proud of the fact that today marks the first full pay period in this shutdown where Federal employees are going to get no pay. These are civil servants who go to work, when they are allowed to, for the good of our country in all sorts of Agencies, providing fundamental services. Today--I know you can't read this document from there--they are getting pay stubs, and on the pay stubs in the place where their normal pay period salary should be, there are zeros--zeros. I just arrived on the Senate floor from a meeting that Senator Cardin, my fellow partner representing the State of Maryland, held in Howard County, MD. We met with 16 Federal employees, most of whom have been locked out of work and all of whom are not getting any paychecks. We wanted to bring them together to hear about the impact this shutdown was having on their lives and on their families. The first thing they wanted to talk about was that they wanted to get back to work to do the business of the American people. When they are out of work, so many Americans who rely on their efforts are denied the benefit of their work. So they emphasized the fact that their No. 1 priority was to get back to work on behalf of the American people. We also wanted to hear from them directly about what the impact was on them as individuals and their families because they are now getting a big zero on their pay stubs. One of the people we heard from was Freda McDonald. She works at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Administration. She has a chronic medical condition that requires her to get treatments every week. She said she has pretty good insurance to cover most of her health condition, but the insurance doesn't cover the cost of her medication fully, and she needs to get that on a weekly basis. Then, on a weekly basis, the copays amount to hundreds of dollars. So she is going to be squeezed right away on getting access to the medication to treat her medical condition because she got a pay stub with a big zero on it. We heard from Kerri Woodridge. He works at the Office of Personnel Management. A lot of Americans don't know what that Agency does, but they are the Agency that has to oversee Federal employees throughout the system. If they are not at work, the whole system begins to break down. The first thing he emphasized was the total waste of dollars to the American taxpayer in keeping them out of work because that just creates even more inefficiencies throughout the entire Federal Government when the Office of Personnel Management can't be on the job. He also talked about the fact that he is not going to be able to make his mortgage payments. There are a lot of Federal employees--thousands and thousands of Federal employees, GS-2s and GS-3s, who are literally one payment from not being able to make their bills. Now their pay is not coming in, but I can tell you their bills are still coming in. Their mortgage payments are coming in, their rent payments are coming in, their medical bills are coming in--all of those bills are coming in, even though their paycheck is not. Mr. Woodridge talked about the fact that with the upcoming mortgage payment, he didn't think he would be able to make it. He has electric bills. He spoke very passionately about his children because he has a son who has some special needs, and in order to make sure his son can perform well at school, the family has hired a tutor for that child, and he doesn't think he is going to be able to make the payments to the tutor in the coming weeks. He said: Well, the Agency said you should get a lawyer to protect you from the creditors who are coming after you when you can't pay your bills. Mr. Woodridge had a pretty simple question: If I can't afford to pay my bills, how can I afford to hire a lawyer to protect me from the people who are demanding I pay my bills on time? Eric Bryant, another Federal employee there, an Air Force vet, is someone who served his country in uniform before serving his country in a civilian capacity for our Federal Government. Thirty percent of our Federal employees are veterans. They served their country in the military, and now they are serving their country in a different way as civil servants in the Federal Government. He said that he had called the electric company to let them know that because he wasn't getting paid, he wasn't sure if he would be able to pay his electric bill on time. Could they take it easy on him? The electric company said: We want our money. Sorry, go find the money to pay the bill on time. I don't know if they threatened to turn the lights off or not, but people aren't going to be able to pay their mortgages or rents or electric bills or other bills. There was another Federal employee who took a moment out of work. He is actually not furloughed. He is working because he is part of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and he has been deemed essential for the public safety. But he came there to let us know that when his colleagues, many of them in the analytics part of Federal law enforcement--the folks who collect DNA, the folks who are tracking suspects, people who are tracking fugitives--when that whole part of Federal law enforcement is furloughed and can't do their job, that puts those who are on the job and in the line of duty at greater risk. He said that it puts their lives at greater risk. Of course, to the extent that we are compromising and weakening Federal law enforcement in general, we are also putting the public at greater and unnecessary risk every day. We heard similar accounts from other Federal employees who were there. We also heard from a small Federal contractor. I am sure that all of us are hearing not just from Federal employees but so many small businesses that provide services to the Federal Government in places around the country, and in many cases, they are in danger of going belly-up. In order to deal with the shutdown and the fact that they may not get paid as a small business by the Federal Government for their services, they also are laying off their employees. Many of these are low-wage employees or median-wage employees. Think about contractors who provide food services to different government agencies or janitorial services. Those employees are also living paycheck to paycheck. They have been told not to come into work. We heard from one that is a nonprofit called Senior Service America that actually helps put seniors to work in jobs around the country. Just a few days ago, this particular Federal contractor in Maryland furloughed--laid off--176 of their employees. These aren't Federal employees being laid off. In addition to that, these are Federal contractor employees who work for small businesses that contract with the Federal Government. The negative impacts of this are mushrooming by the day, harming families, harming communities, and harming all of the others that also require the economic activity from either Federal employees or small business contractors who help at their restaurants, and that is on top of what I talked about earlier, which is the negative impact of the denial of important services and health protections for the entire American public. A lot of the concerns expressed this morning by Federal employees also include the long-term impact. If you don't make a mortgage payment on time, that is going to hurt your credit rating. In some cases, for Federal employees who work for National Security Agencies, their ability to keep their security clearance is tied to their credit rating. When you start having your credit rating downgraded, it is going to mean, No. 1, you don't get credit, can't pay your bills, and it also means, in some cases, that you risk your entire livelihood, at least in those Federal Government jobs that require good credit ratings. None of this is anything that the President of the United States or anybody should be proud of. I do want to say a word with respect to the contract employees. Yesterday, Senator Cardin, Senator Smith, Senator Brown, Senator Kaine, and many Senators--about 30 Senators--wrote to the Office of Management and Budget, wrote to the Trump administration, and asked them to use their contract authority to hold harmless those Federal service contract employees who are being locked out of work through no fault of their own. I was pleased that just yesterday in this body, on a unanimous basis or by unanimous consent, we passed legislation that would ensure that Federal employees were made whole at the end of the day because they should not be the ones who are punished for a shutdown they had nothing to do with. Senator Cardin and I and others proposed legislation to ensure that innocent Federal employees should not be the victims of a political fight they had nothing to do with. I am hopeful that later today, the House of Representatives will pass that legislation and the President will sign it. That, of course, would remove a big cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the head of Federal employees who are either working without pay or furloughed and locked out without pay. It, of course, doesn't deal with the fact that while Federal employees are denied a paycheck, they are not going to be able to make their payments on time on mortgages and rent, and they will have a snowballing, harmful effect from loss of credit rating. There is other legislation that has been introduced by Senator Schatz and I and others to make sure that Federal employees aren't hurt because of their credit impact or by people collecting bills, just as we protect servicemen and women who are deployed overseas to make sure people can't come after them when they are not here and not able to pay their bills. I hope we will pass that legislation. All of this just goes to show that while Federal employees and the small business service contractors and a growing number of communities that depend on that economic livelihood are being hit by the day, the big losers are also, of course, the American people, both because of the lack of health protections and services and because, at the end of the day, taxpayers want to make sure they are getting services for their tax dollars. What are we accomplishing with a government shutdown? I must say that when the President of the United States says he can ``relate'' to what is happening, it is pretty clear he can't, right? I don't know if my colleagues saw the Coast Guard statement the other day on how you are supposed to help make do during the government shutdown. Here is a recommendation that they provide. This is step 4 to supplement your income. They suggest that finding supplemental income during your furlough period might be challenging, but here are a few ideas for adding income: Have a garage sale--clean out your attic, basement and closets at the same time. Sell unwanted larger ticket items through the newspaper or online. Give me a break. When the President of the United States says he can relate, I want to see the President of the United States hold a garage sale. This is somebody who goes from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago and back to the White House. He can't relate to these fellow Americans, Federal civil servants who, when they miss a paycheck, can't pay their mortgage. This is why, just yesterday, Senator Cardin and I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to act immediately on two bills that came over from the House to reopen the government because, yes, this is the shutdown that President Trump said that he would be proud to have if he didn't get his way. He is certainly the initiator; he is certainly the protagonist of the shutdown. But every day that goes by when this Senate doesn't do what it can that is within its power to end the shutdown, the Senate is an accomplice in President Trump's shutdown. If we have it within our power to do our job as a separate branch of government, then we should do it. It is not an excuse not to act because the President doesn't like what we propose. Under article I of the Constitution, we are a separate, independent, and coequal branch of government. Last Thursday, as their very first order of business, the House of Representatives passed two bills. The first bill was H.J. Res. 1. I have a copy of it right here in my hand. What this bill does is reopen the Department of Homeland Security at current funding levels through February 8, to give us all an opportunity to debate the best and most effective way to provide border security in our country. The dispute here is not about whether we need border security; of course, we need secure borders. We don't want open borders. We need secure borders. The question is, What is the most effective and smart way to accomplish that? The Presiding Officer is an expert on this. I respect the input he has provided to this body and others. We need a multilayered approach. But the purpose of H.J. Res. 1 was to say: OK, we have some differences over the best way to do that, but let's not shut down the Department of Homeland Security while we debate that. Let's keep it open at least until February 8 at current funding levels and work that out. That is what the House sent to the Senate. Guess what. With respect to the Department of Homeland Security, it is identical--word for word--to what this Senate passed just before Christmas. We passed it on a voice vote--a big, overwhelming bipartisan vote. That vote was to keep the Department of Homeland Security and other Departments open until February 8. What is the justification for not having a vote in the Senate on the same thing that we passed by voice vote just a few weeks ago? The answer we get is: Well, the President of the United States doesn't agree with it. Well, that is too bad. We are a separate branch of government. If the President wants to veto that, let him veto it. Then it comes back here. Under the Constitution, we would have a veto override vote. But we shouldn't be contracting out our responsibilities under the Constitution to the President. Yet the Republican leader, the majority leader, objected to letting us vote again on the same measure that we voted on just before Christmas. Senator Cardin then offered the other unanimous consent request yesterday. That was to pass legislation to open up the other eight of the nine Federal Departments that are closed--Departments that have nothing to do with Homeland Security, nothing to do with border security. This legislation was also passed by the House of Representatives on its opening day a week ago Thursday. Here is the kicker. The House didn't take the numbers that the House of Representatives was proposing in the appropriations bills for these Departments; it took the funding levels the Senate had proposed on a bipartisan basis, and the Senate did that on a bipartisan basis in two ways. First of all, the full Senate voted overwhelmingly--certainly, by a veto-proof margin--to fund eight of those Federal Departments through the remainder of this fiscal year--so through September 30--at levels we agreed to, first, on the Senate Appropriations Committee and then by an overwhelming vote on the Senate floor. The other measures in the bill the House passed were measures the Senate Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, overwhelmingly supported. The House said to the Senate: We are going to send you a bunch of bills to open up the government at levels the Senate has already agreed to, in a bipartisan way, one way or another. Yet the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, on behalf of the caucus, said: No, we are not going to allow a vote to reopen eight of those nine Departments because the President doesn't want it, because the President wants to hold all of those Departments that have nothing to do with homeland security hostage until he gets his wall--a 2,000- mile-long wall. The irony, of course--and the Presiding Officer knows this--is that the President's own budget for this year was $1.6 billion. That was the President's budget for this year. I am happy to sit down--and I know all of our colleagues are--to work out the best way to provide border security. As part of an overall approach, we had barriers along parts of our border long before President Trump was in office, but we don't want to be wasting taxpayer dollars. As I said, even the President's budget for this year was not requesting what the President says he now needs. Let's be straight with the American people. It is not just $5.7 billion--or whatever it is--to build a wall. You are talking about a 2,000-mile-long wall, so you are talking about $30 billion. What the President wants to do is to come back every year and shut down the government until he gets his next installment on a 2,000-mile-long wall that the experts tell us is not the smartest way to provide border security and is certainly not the most cost-effective way. Let us remember that the President said this was something Mexico was going to have to pay for, not the American taxpayer. I saw him on TV yesterday, when he was down at the border and was trying to explain away that campaign promise: Oh, I didn't really mean Mexico was going to pay for it directly; it was going to be indirectly. That is just not happening. We know Mexico is not paying for this wall like the President said. That is why, as its first order of business, it is important for the Senate to pass the legislation that is before us that we have already supported on a bipartisan basis. Literally, we have the keys today, if we want to, to pass the bills that would reopen the government and send them to the President. If he doesn't want to sign them, at least we will have done our work as the Senate. We would then face the question of overriding the President's veto to reopen the government. This is where we are now. As I said, as each day goes by, we have Americans who are being denied more and more services. In addition to the ones I have already mentioned, I have spoken to a lot of small businesses that rely on the Small Business Administration for their small loans in order to get up and running, and I have spoken to a lot of folks in farm country who really rely on farm service credit and farm center services. They are being squeezed very badly. This is impacting people throughout the country as 80 percent of Federal employees actually live and work outside of the national capital area, and 80 percent of them are folks like the folks along the border. There are TSA officials who are all over the country at airports, and all of them are being asked to go to work every day without pay. They are getting zeros on their pay stubs like the other hundreds of thousands of Federal employees. It seems to me this is the time for us to act. That is why I have joined with so many of my colleagues to say to the Republican leader, to the majority leader: Let's do our job under the Constitution. Yes, we know what the President's position is, but what is our position? Why are we unwilling to vote on two bills that are before us that reflect the position this Senate has taken on a bipartisan basis already? How can we justify to our constituents and to the people around the country that we are unwilling to take a vote on measures that we know have overwhelming support in the U.S. Senate because we want to somehow reinforce the President in his own political fight? I am very hopeful that as the days go by, the Republican leader will decide to make sure this body--the U.S. Senate--does its job as a separate branch of government and will take up the bills that will reopen the Federal Government, put people back to work for the American people, make sure Federal employees who are working get paid and that those who have been furloughed will have a chance to go back to work on behalf of the American people. We have it within our power to do it today. We have it within our power to do it any day now. I hope we will do our part to end this shameful shutdown. By tomorrow, it will be the longest shutdown in American history. The President of the United States may say he is proud of it, but I hope not a single Senator in this body--Republican or Democratic--will be proud to be here on the day in history when we will have broken the record for the longest government shutdown. In my view, that is a dereliction of duty, and it is certainly a dereliction of duty for us not to do our part and use the power we have to take a vote on the bills that are at the desk in the U.S. Senate to reopen the government for the American people. I see my friend, the Senator from Maine, is now on the floor. I thank him for his leadership in this battle. Let's do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I think we all know the Constitution of the United States, under article I, says the Senate and the House of the United States are separate and coequal branches of government with the executive branch. We are now seeing more and more Americans hurt every day by the government shutdown, Americans losing access to services. We just saw that the Food and Drug Administration has stopped routine food safety inspections of seafood. We just saw that the EPA has halted one of the Federal Government's most important health activities--the inspection of Federal factories, powerplants, oil refineries, water treatment plants. Eight hundred thousand Federal employees are not getting paid. Hundreds of thousands of them are going to work every day, including at our border, protecting our border, not getting paid. Hundreds of thousands more have been locked out of work. There is a Maryland mom who just had to go on the internet to set up a GoFundMe account to help pay her son's college tuition because they are on a monthly installment plan. I talked to the head of a community college in Maryland just the other day. I went to see her, asked how things are. The first thing she told me, her phone had been ringing off the hook all morning because the parents of students of the community college weren't going to be able to make their monthly installment payments. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees are one paycheck away from not being able to pay their mortgage or their rent, and tomorrow hundreds of thousands of them are not going to get a paycheck. So to the majority leader, I will just say, we should not be contracting out our constitutional responsibilities to any President-- certainly not a President who said he is proud to shut down the Government of the United States. There is nothing to be proud of in denying important services and leaving 800,000 people without a paycheck. I don't think any of us should be proud of that, and we shouldn't be contracting out our responsibilities to the President of the United States. We should vote on these measures we have already voted for. Senator Cardin just asked us to vote on this at the Senate desk. It has been supported in various ways by a bipartisan majority right here in the U.S. Senate. I have in my hand H.J. Res. 1. This is also on the Senate calendar. It is identical, with respect to the Department of Homeland Security, to the measure this Senate passed just a few weeks ago. Let's reopen the Department of Homeland Security at current funding levels until February 8. In fact, if I recall, that was the majority leader's legislation. We passed it overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote. The House, 1 week ago, as their first order of business, passed this bill and the bill Senator Cardin asked us to vote on. This bill to open the Department of Homeland Security, as we negotiate the issue of border security--and there is no dispute over whether we need border security. Of course we need secure borders. The issue is over the most effective and smart way to accomplish that. So now this bill is right back in our possession. It is on the calendar. The question is, Why are our colleagues on the Republican side refusing to allow a vote on the very bill they proposed in this body just a few weeks ago, and how can you justify to the American people that you are not going to vote on something you yourself proposed as the first order of business in the U.S. Senate, when people are losing those services, losing public safety protections, and 800,000 Federal employees are not being paid?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam 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. VAN HOLLEN. We are clearly not shut down. We are all here. I would say to the majority leader, if you go to a lot of Federal Agencies right now, no one is there. They are shut down. They can't do the work of the American people, which is why the FDA is no longer doing important food inspections on seafood. It is why the EPA is not able to inspect major polluters to protect the public health. We are open. All we are saying is, we want our first order of business to be to also open the eight of nine Federal Departments that have nothing to do with a wall or border security. The EPA's work has nothing to do with a wall. The work the FDA does on food inspection has nothing to do with a wall. So pass the measures that have already been agreed to in the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis. Open those eight of nine Departments at funding levels the Senate supported to the end of the fiscal year. Then, with the Department of Homeland Security, do exactly what the majority leader proposed right here and which we supported just a few weeks ago so we can work with the President. I mean, he walked out the other day, but we would like to work with the President to resolve that. What we are saying is, we are open, and we want to focus on the urgent business of reopening the rest of the Federal Government, both to provide the American people with the services they paid for and to make sure Federal employees don't go without paychecks. I will tell you, your phones will all be ringing off the hook tomorrow when Federal employees begin to miss that first paycheck. I will tell you, GS-2s, GS-3s in the Federal Government, they are one paycheck away from not being able to pay their bills. On top of that, you have small businesses all over the country--I have heard from my Republican colleagues, small businesses that contract with the Federal Government, they are being squeezed. One in the State of Maryland, nonprofit small business, laid off 173 people just yesterday. The Federal contractors' employees? They are not coming to work. They are shut out, and they are not getting paid. So this is having an increasingly harmful effect every day on people throughout the country, and we have it in our power today to vote on bills we have already voted for in the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis to reopen. We should not be accomplices to the shutdown the President said he would be proud of. We should say today, we are proud to cast our first vote, as the House did, to reopen the Federal Government and get people back to work.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we are now in day 18 of an unnecessary and shameful government shutdown. I am proud to be joined on the floor by my colleague and partner, the senior Senator from Maryland, Ben Cardin, Senator Tim Kaine and Senator Warner from Virginia, and many of my colleagues, to say loud and clear that the first order of business in this Senate should be to reopen the Federal Government because every day that goes by, more and more Americans are losing access to important government services, 800,000 hard-working Federal employees are going without pay and facing mounting monthly bills, 400,000-plus are working without pay to help protect our country, and over 300,000 are forcibly furloughed. Small businesses that do contract work for the government are getting clobbered, as are the employees who work for them. We have it within our power to vote tonight to end this shutdown by voting on the two bills that passed the House of Representatives last Thursday. They made it their first order of business, and so should we. I have copies of those bills. I have a copy of H.J. Res. 1 right here in my hand. It would reopen the Homeland Security Department at current levels until February 8, allowing us an opportunity to discuss with the President the best and most effective approach to border security. It is identical to what this Senate passed on a bipartisan basis just before Christmas. The second bill that passed the House--and I have that right here at my desk as well--would reopen the other eight Departments of the Federal Government for the remainder of the fiscal year and, importantly, at levels that were supported in this Senate on a bipartisan basis either through votes on this Senate floor or in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Both of these bills--H.J. Res. 1 and H.R. 21--are on the Senate calendar. We could bring them up, and we could vote tonight to end the government shutdown. Then we could have a discussion with the President on the best way to secure our borders. Let's stop holding the entire Nation and 800,000 hard-working Federal employees hostage in a disagreement they have nothing to do with. President Trump did say that he was going to be proud to shut down the government, and he did it. Every day that goes by in this Senate without a vote on the House bills to reopen the government makes this Senate more and more complicit in the shutdown. No Senator--no Senator--should be contracting out their constitutional responsibilities and their votes to the President of the United States. Let's not be an accomplice to this shutdown. Let's bring up the vote, bring up the bill, vote on it now--no business-as-usual tonight--and let's, first of all, do the people's business and reopen the government. Let's do it now. I am proud to now give time to Senator Cardin, my friend, the senior Senator from Maryland.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, for bringing us together this evening on the floor of the Senate to talk about the urgent need to end the government shutdown because of the mounting toll it is taking on the American public and on Federal employees who are going without paychecks at this very moment. This is a shutdown that President Trump said he would be ``proud'' to put in place, but I think, if he begins to look around and see the consequences, he has to ask himself what he means by being proud. Just yesterday, I had a roundtable discussion with many Federal workers in my State of Maryland. I wish President Trump had been there at the roundtable to hear what these public servants had to say. Maybe if he had listened, he would know that a government shutdown is nothing anybody should be proud of. I want to share some of the stories my constituents shared with me yesterday, and I hope President Trump is listening to all of us here this evening. Tyra was one of the people who came yesterday. She works for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. She has to keep reporting to work every day, but she is not getting a paycheck. Tyra talked about the challenges of juggling the cost of medicine, food, and gas for her daily commute to a job where she is not getting paid right now. She told me yesterday: ``I am trying to figure out how to get my child lunch.'' That is what the shutdown means for Tyra. I heard the President say the other day: ``I can relate, and I am sure that the people that are on the receiving end will make adjustments. They always do.'' That is the President of the United States saying he can relate to these hard-working Federal employees who are now going without a paycheck. Someone needs to tell the President that in the United States of America, 40 percent of our fellow citizens lack the $400 in their bank account that would be needed for an emergency. So when you are talking about skipping a pay period, you are talking about thousands of families who are not going to be able to make ends meet. Mr. Trump can hang out at Trump Tower, and he can fly down to Mar-a-Lago, but it is pretty clear that one thing he cannot do is relate to the people who are going without a paycheck right now but who have bills they have to pay. Another individual who joined us yesterday was Trish. Trish is an aerospace engineer at NASA. Trish is trying to buy a home, but the shutdown is throwing a wrench in those plans because her mortgage company, not surprisingly, says that they need current pay stubs from her in order to close on her purchase. What can she tell them? She doesn't have any current pay stubs coming in, so she may not be able to get that mortgage. Mary works at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC. She told us about the important work CFTC does to safeguard the financial system against financial wrongdoing and fraud. She explained that because of this shutdown, the CFTC cannot pursue legal cases against bad actors who were defrauding American consumers and that they have had to ask the courts to suspend those cases. So I guess the shutdown is good for those who are trying to take advantage of our fellow citizens through various financial schemes. It certainly is not fair to those who are working hard and playing by the rules and who want to do the public's business, like our Federal employees. Mary said that because of the shutdown, she has had to make some difficult decisions in her own household. Mary's mother was recently widowed, and the shutdown is hurting her ability to help her mother make do during this tough time. Before I had this forum with a number of Federal employees who have been shut out of work, I visited Prince George's Community College in Maryland. It is a great community college. The president of that community college is Dr. Dukes. As I was going to meet Dr. Dukes, I met a mom on the elevator. The mom had been there to talk about her daughter who is enrolled there. It turned out that her mother is a Federal employee who has been shut out of the Department of Commerce. Then I talked to Dr. Dukes, and the president of this great community college told me that she has been getting phone calls all week from parents who have students enrolled at Prince George's Community College who are on a monthly installment payment plan, and they are calling the president of this community college and saying: What are we going to be able to do? We are not going to be able to make our next payment on our child's community college tuition bill. Just today, I got a number of letters from air traffic controllers in Maryland. They, like thousands of other Federal employees, are working every day right now, but they are not getting paid for it. Tension is mounting, frustration is mounting for the air traffic controllers, a lot of Federal law enforcement officers, and the people at the border, our border security. So, Mr. President, you don't know how to relate to these fellow Americans who are struggling because of your shutdown. In the Senate, our failure to take up the bills that have already passed the House and are sitting right here in the Senate to reopen the Federal Government is making this Senate complicit in this Trump shutdown. Every day that goes by where we don't make our first order of business ending the shutdown makes the Senate an accomplice in the Trump shutdown. The House made it its first order of business to say: Let's reopen government. They passed two bills. Both bills have overwhelming support for their components here in the Senate. I have the first bill they passed right here in my hand. H.J. Res. 1 says to open the Department of Homeland Security at current funding levels through February 8 while we negotiate the best way to provide border security. This is on the Senate calendar. We can vote on this tonight. Of course, the irony here is that this Senate, just before the Christmas break, voted on exactly this measure. We voted on a bipartisan basis to open the Homeland Security Department at current levels through February 8 while we negotiate. We have already done it. So why are we not taking up this bill this evening? The other bill that passed the Senate I have right here in my hand. It is also on the Senate calendar. This bill that passed the House on their opening day would open eight of the nine Departments that are closed. The first bill would open the Department of Homeland Security, while we negotiate, until February 8. The other bill opens eight of the nine other Federal Departments that have been closed. Here is the kicker: The House did not adopt the House appropriations levels. The House looked at what the Senate had passed on a bipartisan basis either here on the Senate floor or in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and they took the Senate funding levels to open those eight Departments through the entire fiscal year, through September 30. Mr. President, we all have a very simple question: Why is the majority leader and why are our Republican colleagues not bringing up those House bills that are sitting right here in the Senate? We have already supported those bills on a bipartisan basis. We can pass these bills to reopen the government tonight, and there is no excuse for not doing it. I am going to close by sharing the comments of one of the other individuals who joined me yesterday at that gathering. His name is Otis Johnson. He works here at the National Gallery of Art. His message to President Trump: ``Mr. President, if you really can relate to how the Federal employee is feeling, you need to go ahead and open the government back up so our people who want to work can get back to work and handle America's business.'' I wish President Trump was listening to Otis and all the other hard- working Federal employees I met with yesterday. If he talked to them, he would hear their stories, and he would know they are suffering, as are the American people who every day are losing access to important services. I want to again thank my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, and my other colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, before the 115th Congress draws to a close, I want to recognize and thank Alise Orloff, who retired on July 1, 2017, after serving more than 36 years as a U.S. Capitol tour guide. Alise is a proud Marylander and lifelong resident of Silver Spring. An alumna of Northwood High School, she graduated cum laude from the University of Maryland College Park in 1981 with a bachelor of science in education. While at UMCP, she was inducted into the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society in recognition of her academic excellence, integrity, and service to the community and into Kappa Delta Pi, the international honor society in education. Between her junior and senior years in college, in 1980, Alise worked as a seasonal Capitol guide and was invited to return for the summer of 1981. Although Alise received several job offers in teaching, she relished the opportunity she had at the Capitol to learn something new every day and to make a difference in the lives of visitors. On December 19, 1981, she became a full-time Capitol guide, first with the U.S. Capitol Guide Service and then, after the opening of the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, with the Architect of the Capitol. Capitol guides are Congress's frontline representatives to the visiting public. To a great extent, our visiting constituents' opinions of us are formed by their experiences on tours. Alise is a patriotic American who loves the Capitol Building and treasured the privilege and honor of working in it to educate people about our government. As a professional educator, she enjoyed researching and learning about Congress, art, architecture, history, and the legislative process. She could give an accurate and diplomatic answer to any visitor's question. In doing so, she hoped that we might be more unified as a country, love our country, and appreciate each other's differences. At the end of a tour, she found it gratifying when Capitol visitors would say, ``Thank you. I learned something new.'' Her colleagues especially appreciated the graciousness and poise she maintained while providing first-class constituent service. She was a role model to her peers. Alise's 36 years as a guide began during the 96th Congress and concluded during the 115th, spanning many historic events within the Capitol and seven Presidencies, from Jimmy Carter's to Donald Trump's. In addition to leading public and special tours, she worked at Presidential inaugurations, Congressional Gold Medal Ceremonies, Joint Sessions of Congress, statue and bust dedications, and lying-in-state ceremonies, including those of Senators Claude Pepper and Daniel K. Inouye. Having been at work on September 11, 2001, she was especially touched by the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony honoring the fallen heroes of that day. Much of her extended family was lost in the Holocaust, which made working at the Holocaust Days of Remembrance ceremonies especially meaningful for her. Another special moment included Speaker Tip O'Neill asking her, ``Are you a baseball fan?'' when she went to his office to give a tour to the Boston Red Sox. Likewise, the day she gave a tour to the team of NASA astronauts who brought Dr. Shannon Lucid back to earth was one she will never forget. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude and appreciation to Alise Orloff, who inspired and educated visitors to the U.S. Capitol for more than 36 years. We wish her well in her new role as scholarship coordinator for the University of Maryland College Park Chapter of the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland and the body and now urge the House of Representatives to take this up immediately. This has now passed the U.S. Senate, and they now have an opportunity to pass this over in the House, and I would urge them to do it this evening or as soon as possible so that we can provide certainty and confidence to hard-working Federal employees. Again, we want to avoid a shutdown, but we need to provide an insurance policy in the event that it does shut down.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his leadership on this issue, among many others, and start by agreeing with him that, first and foremost, we should avoid a government shutdown. That is exactly what this Senate did on a bipartisan basis just a few days ago. We passed an agreement. None of us loved it, but we all recognized that it was a better alternative than shutting down the government. That, of course, went over to the House, and we know what happened to it there. I hope we will continue to work together to avoid a government shutdown. The proposal that Senator Cardin and I are putting forward is very simple. Federal employees should not be punished by the shutdown. They have nothing to do with the dysfunction that would cause a government shutdown, and they should not be the ones who have to bear the burden and the penalty of something totally beyond their control--a government shutdown. That is what this is about. As Senator Cardin indicated, often after shutdowns are over, the Congress and the White House do the right thing, and we provide retroactive compensation to Federal employees, but it is not guaranteed. It always could be changed. It might not happen. What we are trying to do is to make sure that as Federal employees watch the spectacle here on Capitol Hill and they are thinking about joining their families for Christmas or other things over the holidays, they don't have to have the uncertainty, if there is a government shutdown, about whether or not they are going to get a paycheck to pay all of the bills that will stack up over that period of time. Let's provide confidence and certainty upfront that Federal employees don't have to pay the penalty for dysfunction in Washington. That is what this bill does. I want to stress that if we go into a shutdown, Federal employees-- both those who are still working during the shutdown, as well as those who are furloughed--go without paychecks. They have bills to pay. They have mortgages. They have rent. They have all sort of costs that will pile up. No matter what, they will bear a burden from the dysfunction in a government shutdown, along with many other people in the country who will see a disruption of Federal Government operations. They will still bear an unfair burden. I also want to thank our Republican colleagues for agreeing with this in a unanimous consent request. What we are doing today is to say to people, to hard-working Federal employees: Rest assured that after that difficult period goes by, if there is a shutdown, you will be assured and you will have the certainty that you are going to be able to get your pay and make those payments to make sure that you don't fall further behind. It is the least we can do at this moment. Let's hope we don't have to use this provision that we are passing in the Senate today, but it is an important insurance policy, an important security blanket as the hours tick by and we are not sure whether or not we will have an agreement by midnight this evening. I want to thank our colleagues, and I want to yield back to the senior Senator from Maryland for the purposes of making the motion.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I wish to recognize an excellent former member of my staff, Ian Jannetta, who is leaving Capitol Hill after 8 years of service. Having worked for his home State Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, on the Joint Economic Committee, as part of my team in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and finally with Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota, Ian has many friends on Capitol Hill and will be missed. During his time in my office, Ian never hesitated to roll up his sleeves and get the job done. He worked tirelessly on issues ranging from providing equal rights for all people, protecting our environment and the Chesapeake Bay, to building an economy that works for all Americans. His strong communications skills, coupled with his kindness, calm presence, and sense of humor, served my team and the people of Maryland well for over 4 years. As Ian tackles his next project at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, he continues his commitment to public service, a proud tradition set by his mother Heather and his father David, who both started their careers in the U.S. Air Force and continued their service in State government. I know he will make a tremendous impact. I join his many colleagues, friends, and family to wish him well, and I look forward to hearing about the extraordinary work he does next.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I am proud that the Senate has passed the FIRST STEP Act. As a cosponsor of this bill, I am heartened that Republicans and Democrats came together to address an issue that affects millions of Americans and their families. Although one of my colleagues across the aisle has said that we have an ``under-incarceration'' problem, that is simply not the case. The United States represents only 4.4 percent of the world's population, but we hold approximately 22 percent of the world's prisoners. Over the past decade, Americans and Congress have taken a long hard look at who we incarcerate and why. This review has made us realize that too many elements of our criminal justice system are based on prejudice and have inflicted unnecessary harm in communities across the country. We should strive to ensure that ``liberty and justice for all'' is not just a phrase we say, but a promise we keep to all Americans. The FIRST STEP Act allows prisoner rehabilitation so that they can return home ready to contribute to their communities. Education and job training opportunities provide individuals with a real second chance. The bill incorporates important provisions that allows for the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, which removed the sentencing disparity between the crack-powder and cocaine. We were able to include provisions that prohibit the use of solitary confinement of juvenile offenders, prohibit the shackling of pregnant and postpartum women, and ensure that prisoners are placed in prisons closer to home. The bill also offers low and minimal-risk offenders the possibility of supervised release, home confinement, or release to halfway homes. The three amendments offered to the bill by Senators Cotton and Kennedy do not protect victims, are redundant, and are so broad as to subvert the bill's purpose. The first amendment requires mandatory notification to crime victims of an offender's impending release. However, current law and agency policies already allows victims to choose if they want to receive these updates. Mandated reporting harms victims who do not want to receive this information. That is why this amendment is opposed by organizations such as the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and the Fairness, Dignity & Respect for Crime Victims & Survivors Project. The second amendment will require wardens to notify victims of early release and review victim statements prior to determining if an offender is eligible for pre-release custody or supervised release. Again, this amendment diminishes the rights our current laws give victims by allowing them determine if they want to receive this information. Victims already have the right to submit statements of opposition or support prior to parole or early release. Additionally, prison wardens should not be burdened with calculating risk assessment. The bill establishes an independent review committee that will recommend and assess the best evidence-based tools to ensure that risk assessments are bias-free and objective. Lastly, the expanded ``crime of violence'' definitions offered are vague, redundant, and would exclude the very population the bill is designed to help. On its face, the final amendment seems to be common sense but the language is so vague that one analysis claims that only low-level drug offenders and white-collar criminals would be eligible for earned credit. The amendment has a catchall to prevent anyone who has been convicted of any offense that involved substantial risk of physical force against a person or their property from receiving pre- release. The U.S. Sentencing Commission estimates that this amendment would exclude 30,000 prisoners from participating in the program. I believe that the goal of criminal justice reform is rehabilitation and reducing recidivism and restricting incentives would defeat that purpose. The bill has been carefully crafted to only include low-risk offenders. The FIRST STEP Act is by no means perfect. For example, the bill does not include provisions to address the flaws in the money bail system or the discrimination in housing or employment that many offenders face upon release, nor does it prohibit the use of private prisons or address discriminatory loopholes in our Tax Code that make it harder for released offenders to finance their education. But the bill's name is clear: This is the first step and not the last in our commitment to reform our criminal justice system.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the United States must fundamentally reshape our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Whether it is the catastrophic war in Yemen or the brutal murder of a U.S. resident, Saudi leaders believe they can behave recklessly and criminally without any consequences. We simply cannot continue business as usual with the Kingdom, specifically with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. President Trump has enabled Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman's most egregious behavior. After our intelligence community assessed that the Crown Prince was implicated in the murder of U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi, Trump responded, ``it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event--maybe he did and maybe he didn't!'' Once again, the President has chosen to trust the word of a brutal autocrat above that of his own intelligence community. Once again, Trump has cast aside our Nation's values. Even more tragically, the devastating and brutal war in Yemen rages on, pitting the reckless Crown Prince against the Houthis. The Crown Prince's actions have driven the Houthis even farther into the hands of their Iranian backers and, inadvertently, strengthened Tehran's position. The result is the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. More than 8 million Yemenis are on the brink of starvation. The worst cholera outbreak in modern history has afflicted over 1 million people, including over 600,000 children. Millions more are displaced from their homes. As the years wear on, and with no end in sight, the cycle of desperation, destruction, and death continues unabated. Though the administration recently suspended aerial refueling for the Saudi-led coalition, it claims that munitions sales and targeting assistance provide leverage in the conflict; yet President Trump seems unable and indeed unwilling to use this leverage to place meaningful restraints on the Saudi attacks in Yemen. So we must ask ourselves these questions: Why is the United States complicit in this endless war? Why is the President providing cover for the Saudi Crown Prince, at all costs? Finally, what must we do to reset this relationship? I believe there are two clear, near-term actions we must take to answer these questions and reshape our relationship with Saudi Arabia. We took our first step today. In an historic moment, the U.S. Senate voted to suspend military support for the Saudi-led operations in Yemen. The administration should heed this clear signal and end all military support, including supplies of U.S. spare parts and technical support. We must refocus our efforts to help broker an end to the conflict. Second, the United States must send a clear message to Saudi Arabia or any other autocratic regime: We do not tolerate the slaughter of political dissidents. We must hold accountable all those responsible for murder of Jamal Khashoggi. That means we must impose sanctions on the Crown Prince himself. The Senate's vote today sends a clear message to Saudi Arabia and President Trump: We will hold you accountable, we will not trade away our Nation's values, and we will not abdicate our responsibility in decisions of peace and war. S.J. Res. 54 reins in the President's largely unencumbered war-making powers and ends unconditional U.S. military support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen without an authorization from Congress. For these reasons, I was proud to vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the tremendous service of Stephen ``Ski'' Sucharski, who joined our staff as a Brookings Fellow this year. Ski's expertise in defense, veterans, and homeland security issues was invaluable, helping to ensure we met the needs of constituents throughout our great State of Maryland. Ski came to our office with a wealth of policy knowledge from his civilian work at the Department of Defense and his many years serving our country in the U.S. Army. Ski's years of service enhanced our office in many ways, perhaps most notably in veterans affairs. I am particularly grateful to Ski for his dedication to improving services for veterans in our State and across our Nation. Ski's generosity, willingness to pitch in wherever needed, and sense of humor made him a great colleague and terrific staffer in my office. We owe him a debt of gratitude, and we will miss him greatly. My whole staff and I wish him well as he embarks on his next journey in service to our country.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the resolution sponsored by Senators Tester and Wyden to overturn the Treasury Department rule. We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they are sick and tired of the hundreds of millions of dollars of special interest money going into our elections. They are especially sick and tired of all of the secret dark money going into our elections. What do I mean by that? I mean when wealthy individuals can contribute to organizations and the American public has no idea who those individuals are, while those organizations go on to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try to influence the votes of our fellow Americans. We have all seen those commercials that come on TV that say they are sponsored by the Committee for a Better America, the Committee to Support Mom and Apple Pie, and the public wants to know and has a right to know who is spending all of that money to try to influence their votes. The vehicle of choice for these shadowy, dark money organizations has been organizing their entities under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. We will soon--probably in January but early on--we will see a bill coming over to the Senate from the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives because their No. 1 priority is electoral reform, including getting rid of secret money, making sure the public has that right to know who is bankrolling these entities. What the Treasury Department did took us in the opposite direction. Currently, 501(c)(4) organizations have to report to the IRS the information about their donors, but currently the IRS keeps that information confidential. It does not share it with the public. We should share it with the public, and that is what the DISCLOSE Act that the House will pass will do. What this Treasury rule does is it takes us in the opposite direction. It says to those 501(c)(4)s that they no longer even have to provide that information to the Treasury Department on a confidential basis. So it heads in the wrong direction. It is especially outrageous because it will take away one of the key tools the Treasury Department has to prevent foreign money from being spent in our elections, because right now that information is made available to the Department of the Treasury. If you are a 501(c)(4), you have to confidentially report who is giving you money and how much. Now the Treasury Department says: We don't want that information. We don't want to see anything. We don't want to know if foreign governments are putting money into 501(c)(4)s. We don't want to know if the primary purpose of these funds is for electing or defeating candidates as opposed to social welfare--which is the requirement for a 501(c)(4) organization under our law. I think a lot of people are wondering why it is that this administration--and now maybe the Senate--wants to actually cover up for those who want to spend their money secretly to try to elect or defeat candidates. One thing we know is that across the board, whether they are Republicans or Democrats or Independents, Americans believe-- and I agree with them--that they have a right to know who is spending all of that money to try to influence their vote. So let's pass this resolution to overturn the Treasury rule in defense of secret money, when we need more transparency and more accountability. I yield the floor.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed a second continuing resolution for fiscal year 2019, providing short-term funding for many Federal Government agencies that have not yet received full year funding. Several outstanding issues need to be resolved in order to complete the final seven appropriations bills, and I am hopeful that the hard work of the Appropriations Committee will not be in vain by resorting to a year-long continuing resolution for the remaining bills. Congress must act in order to fully fund essential transportation and housing programs, environmental protection efforts, the Appalachian Regional Commission, NASA programs, the Census, FEMA relief programs, and to prevent President Trump from freezing the pay of over 2 million Federal civil servants, by enacting the 1.9 percent cost of living increase for Federal workers that the Senate passed on a broad bipartisan basis. While I am glad this short-term continuing resolution will provide for an extension to keep the flood insurance program from unnecessarily lapsing, I want to see Congress enact a long-term reauthorization. This year's flooding of Ellicott City shows that we need a long-term solution. That is why I am an original cosponsor of the SAFE act, which provides for a 5-year extension for the program, in addition to important program enhancement as well as the Federal Flood Risk Management Act that ensures that federally owned or funded buildings, housing, and infrastructure, be made more weather-resistant and resilient so that we can protect our communities and our investment of Federal tax dollars. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues over the next 2 weeks to complete the committee's fiscal year 2019 work.