[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S82-S84]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, there are a number of outstanding matters 
before the Senate that must be addressed by January 19. We must pass an 
extension of government funding. We must reach a deal to lift the 
spending caps to spare devastating cuts to our military support and 
funding for urgent domestic priorities. We must extend the Children's 
Health Insurance Program and community health centers and the 702 FISA 
Court program. We must pass disaster aid, and we must resolve the 
future of the Dreamers.
  Some of these issues, particularly CHIP and FISA, could have been 
dealt with by the majority a long time ago. There are bipartisan 
majorities that would have voted to extend those programs, but the 
majority leader chose not to put them on the floor because they were 
busy pursuing a partisan ``favor the wealthy'' tax bill.
  Some of these issues still require further compromise. It is no 
secret that we haven't come to final agreement on the spending caps. 
Both Democrats and Republicans want our troops to have the resources 
they need to do the tough job we ask of them. At the same time, we 
Democrats want to make sure that we are making the right kinds of 
investments in the middle class. The whole campaign was about the 
middle class, and now we are going to abandon them because there are 
such needs for defense. The two are not mutually exclusive. We don't 
believe they are, and our Republican colleagues have sort of lost their 
grip on saying: Well, we can't increase the deficit, after a $1.5 
trillion tax cut mainly for the wealthy and powerful corporations.
  So we are fighting hard to make sure we are making the right kinds of 
investments in the middle class. That is why we are pushing hard to 
raise the spending caps on the domestic side, so we can do more in the 
fight against the opioid crisis, so we can do more to help our brave 
veterans get quality healthcare, and so we honor the promise made to 
over a million pensioners who contributed to and earned every penny of 
their pensions. These are all very important issues. Ask a mom or dad 
whose kid is addicted to opioids whether that can wait. Ask a pensioner 
who is so nervous that he or she will not get enough dollars to retire 
on and feed themselves. Ask a veteran who has been waiting in line for 
healthcare because the Veterans' Administration is not fully funded for 
the healthcare needs of our veterans. They all think those are just as 
important--not more, not less than funding defense. We will stand firm 
and strong that both are important. The only argument our colleagues 
seem to have against this is that it increases the deficit and, as I 
said, they lost all claim to that one with the tax bill.
  Now, teamsters, carpenters, and miners have worked their entire lives 
under the expectation that they could retire with a sense of dignity 
afforded by a modest pension. These are the ones our colleagues seem to 
be just adamantly opposed to. Let them go home to their miners, to 
their teamsters, to their food workers and tell them: You don't deserve 
a pension even though you paid in every month.
  We can't just shrug our shoulders and do nothing. We ought to fix it.
  My friend, the majority leader, thinks defense is important, but the 
other is not. We Democrats believe both are important, and we must and 
should do both together. Surely, the deficit, again, can't be the 
problem after adding over $1.5 trillion in red ink. So let's make 
investments we know are essential in our military and in our middle 
class.
  We will also have to make sure the disaster package treats all our 
States and territories fairly; that California and Puerto Rico and the 
Mountain West and the U.S. Virgin Islands get the aid they need, just 
like Texas and Louisiana and Florida.
  We have to reach agreement on a new healthcare package that admits 
the new reality of our healthcare system. The Republicans repealed the 
individual mandate in their tax bill, an act that will raise premiums 
and lower coverage. The old healthcare compromise legislation was 
crafted before the Republican tax bill. Patty Murray has said, under 
new circumstances, we need a new proposal. We cannot just enact the 
previous Alexander-Murray bill because of the change our Republican 
colleagues made to the healthcare system.
  Then, of course, there is the DACA issue. That is going to require 
further compromise. There are many Republicans in this Chamber who want 
to enshrine DACA protections into law--as every Democrat does--just as 
there are many Democrats who would pass additional border security 
measures into law--smart, reasonable, and practical border measures. A 
deal on this issue can be reached if both parties are committed to 
good-faith negotiations.
  The problem thus far has been President Trump's insistence on a 
completely ineffective and absurdly expensive wall as part of any deal 
on DACA.
  In fact, we learned this morning, in a stunning New York Times 
article by Ron Nixon, that the Trump administration is proposing to cut 
back from smart border security measures to pay for a border wall. I 
ask unanimous consent that the article by Mr. Nixon in the New York 
Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  According to the Times, which reviewed internal budget guidance from 
the OMB, the Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border 
surveillance, cut or delay funding for radar technology, patrol boats, 
and, maybe more crucially, Customs officers, all to ask taxpayers to 
pay for the wall--funding to upgrade surveillance aircraft, extremely 
effective at stopping illegal crossing at the border, particularly 
drugs, denied; funding to hire new Customs officers, denied; funding 
for video surveillance with infrared cameras in areas with high 
incidents of border crossings, cut to ``offset the

[[Page S83]]

costs of Presidential priorities.'' What an absurd proposition.
  Security experts have testified for decades that effective border 
security includes a variety of technologies and resources, drones, 
infrared sensors, Customs and Border Patrol agents, and officers. In 
some places, secure fence is appropriate. We agree with that. These 
were all ideas included in comprehensive immigration reform. That the 
Trump administration would cannibalize funding for these smart border 
security measures to pay for a wall that will not work makes no sense.
  He said he campaigned on it. Oh, no, Mr. President. You campaigned on 
a wall that Mexico would pay for. We are waiting, but, again, to take 
away the things that are needed to protect the border for a symbolic 
and ineffective political gesture is wrong. There is nothing to this 
than politics. President Trump is fighting for an empty symbol rather 
than smart policy that will actually produce better security at our 
borders. We Democrats are willing, able, and eager to work with our 
Republican colleagues and the administration on smart, effective border 
solutions.
  As I have said, there may be a few defined places where a secure 
fence makes sense, but a medieval wall that you can't see through 
across the length of the southern border will not make us any safer. 
Walls can be scaled over. Walls can be tunneled under. There are, as I 
have been told, many tunnels under the wall in San Diego, some of which 
have not been detected.
  There is also the issue of eminent domain. The Federal Government 
would have to conscript hundreds of square miles of land from American 
citizens to build a wall. The administration still hasn't produced 
plans for where to put it, and, of course, President Trump promised, 
once again, that Mexico would pay for it, not taxpayers. If you can 
read anything into the election, it was for that. The polling data 
shows the majority of Americans don't believe the wall is the right 
thing to do.
  It is not responsible to insist that American taxpayers pay for an 
absurdly expensive and ineffective border wall or else the government 
shuts down. If the President goes down that path and insists on the 
wall or shuts down the government, which he said back in September, 
make no mistake about it, a government shutdown will fall entirely on 
his shoulders.
  If President Trump can find a way to get Mexico to pay for the wall, 
while American taxpayers pay for things that really make a difference 
to secure the border, he should reveal that to the American people. 
Until that time, Democrats will work with our Republican colleagues on 
smart border security, effective border security, just as we fight to 
protect the Dreamers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 8, 2018]

    To Pay for Wall; Trump Would Cut Proven Border Security Measures

                             (By Ron Nixon)

       The Trump administration would cut or delay funding for 
     border surveillance, radar technology, patrol boats and 
     customs agents in its upcoming spending plan to curb illegal 
     immigration--all proven security measures that officials and 
     experts have said are more effective than building a wall 
     along the Mexican border.
       President Trump has made the border wall a focus of his 
     campaign against illegal immigration to stop drugs, 
     terrorists and gangs like MS-13 from coming into the United 
     States. Under spending plans submitted last week to Congress, 
     the wall would cost $18 billion over the next 10 years, and 
     be erected along nearly 900 miles of the southern border.
       The wall also has become a bargaining chip in negotiations 
     with Congress as lawmakers seek to prevent nearly 800,000 
     young undocumented immigrants from being deported.
       But security experts said the president's focus on a border 
     wall ignores the constantly evolving nature of terrorism, 
     immigration and drug trafficking.
       ``People that are dealing with this issue know that a 
     third-century solution to a 21st-century problem is not going 
     to fix this long-term,'' said Representative Will Hurd, 
     Republican of Texas and a former C.I.A. officer. Mr. Hurd, 
     whose district includes more than 800 miles of border 
     territory with Mexico, has pushed for more funding for 
     sensors and other border security technologies.
       Homeland Security officials have long and frequently 
     described border security as a holistic system, made up not 
     just of walls and fencing but also patrol routes, lighting, 
     cameras, sensors and personnel.
       David Bier, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, said 
     a border wall would do little to stop the drug trade. Most of 
     the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines smuggled into the 
     United States come through legal ports of entry rather than 
     areas that would be stopped by a wall, according to the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration.
       Nor would a wall stop illegal immigration, other experts 
     said. Data from the Department of Homeland Security and 
     research groups like the New York-based Center for Migration 
     Studies show that most undocumented immigrants now simply 
     overstay legally obtained short-term visas--and did not sneak 
     across the border.
       ``So unless the wall is 35,000 feet high, it's not going to 
     do much to stop those overstaying these visas,'' said Robert 
     Warren, a fellow at the Center for Migration Studies who has 
     worked on immigration issues for Republican and Democratic 
     presidents.
       Additionally, Mr. Warren said, many people who have been 
     stopped by the Border Patrol in recent years are seeking 
     asylum --including some who simply walk up to agents and 
     surrender.
       Mr. Trump's budget request for a wall represents more than 
     half of the $33 billion spending blueprint for border 
     security over the next decade. It either eliminates critical 
     funding for border security programs or shifts money from 
     them, threatening to leave gaping holes. A Government 
     Accountability Office study released last February found that 
     Customs and Border Protection has not shown how much fencing 
     and walls bolster border security.
       An internal budget guidance document for the 2019 fiscal 
     year shows that the White House Office of Management and 
     Budget asked officials at the Homeland Security Department to 
     reduce or delay funding requests for additional border 
     security technology and equipment. Instead, the document 
     instructed, Homeland Security should dramatically increase 
     funding for a wall on the Mexico border.
       Homeland Security officials said the plans are subject to 
     change. Still, the document underscores the priority that a 
     border wall remains for Mr. Trump, who promised its 
     construction during his presidential campaign. It also 
     instructed the department to seek $1.6 billion in the 
     upcoming fiscal year to build 74 miles of a border wall--
     about $700 million more than Homeland Security officials felt 
     they needed to build that.
       Parts of the document were viewed by The New York Times; 
     the rest of it was based on reports by the Democratic staff 
     of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
       The cuts include money for a remote video surveillance 
     system in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, an area known 
     for high numbers of border crossings and drug smuggling. The 
     system is composed of infrared cameras mounted on poles, 
     towers and buildings, allowing Border Patrol agents to track 
     attempted smuggling and border crossings.
       In the internal document, the White House budget office 
     called the surveillance system important but said its funding 
     requests were lowered ``to offset the costs of presidential 
     priorities not funded in the D.H.S. request.''
       Customs and Border Protection faces several cuts.
       Its $7.9 million request for technology upgrades to its P-3 
     surveillance aircraft--which operates thousands of miles 
     beyond American borders to track narcotics being shipped from 
     Colombia, Peru and other drug producing countries--was 
     denied. In 2016, the latest data available, the P-3 aircrews 
     contributed to 145 drug seizures, helping American and 
     foreign authorities capture a combined 34,108 pounds of 
     marijuana and 193,197 pounds of cocaine.
       The internal document also suggested delaying a request to 
     buy 15 new Coastal Interceptor boats to catch drug smugglers. 
     The agency had sought nearly $15 million to replace its aging 
     fleet to keep up with drug smugglers' smaller, faster boats.
       It also would cut nearly 200 of the 500 canine units that 
     customs officials say play a key role in programs to prevent 
     terrorism and drug smuggling. The dogs' handlers would then 
     be reassigned to ports on the southwest border to help with 
     staffing shortages.
       ``The lack of funding and the elimination of the canine 
     teams is shortsighted and poses a serious threat to border 
     security,'' said Tony Reardon, the president of the National 
     Treasury Employees Union, which represents customs officers. 
     ``If you are going to focus on border security, you can't do 
     that without talking about the men and women who man these 
     ports of entry.''
       Perhaps most significantly, the proposed budget would not 
     fund the hiring of new customs officers--the agents who 
     denied 200,000 people from entering the United States at 
     ports of entry in fiscal 2017 and who stopped 600,000 pounds 
     of drugs, including cocaine, heroin, meth and fentanyl. 
     Customs officers also intercepted nearly $70 million in 
     illicit currency, much of it headed back across the border to 
     fill the coffers of Mexican drug cartels.
       Experts said the absence of hiring funds could potentially 
     have the most impact on border security; the agents form a 
     crucial line of defense against smugglers and terrorist 
     threats. An internal Customs and Border Protection review 
     showed that the agency's ranks were about 3,700 officers 
     below required levels, according to the National Treasury 
     Employees Union.
       By comparison, Mr. Trump has called for hiring 5,000 
     additional Border Patrol agents

[[Page S84]]

     and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
       ``A wall is the single most expensive thing you can do in 
     terms of trying to secure the border, and not necessarily the 
     most effective on its own,'' said Doris Meissner, who was the 
     top immigration official during the Clinton administration. 
     ``If you want to be strategic about it, you want to invest in 
     technologies and programs that can stop threats well before 
     they can actually get to the border.''
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________