[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.
____________________