[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 203 (Saturday, December 22, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8022-S8025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, at midnight last night, roughly 25
percent of the government shut down because of one person and one
person alone: President Trump. We arrived at this moment because
President Trump has been on a destructive 2-week temper tantrum,
demanding the American taxpayer pony up for an expensive and
ineffective border wall that the President promised Mexico would pay
for.
Make no mistake. The Trump shutdown is not about border security. All
of the proposals we have made contain over $1 billion in new border
security money, the same amount allocated last year by both parties and
even the President agreed to. The Trump administration has barely even
spent any of the border security money from last year. So the Trump
shutdown isn't over border security; it is because President Trump is
demanding billions of dollars for an expensive, ineffective wall the
majority of Americans don't support.
Let me remind you, the President called for a shutdown no less than
25 times. He has wanted one for months. In our meeting in the Oval
Office, President Trump said he would be ``proud'' to shut the
government down. Imagine saying he would be proud to shut the
government down.
Even Rush Limbaugh, one of the biggest supporters of the President,
said it was a Trump shutdown; that he caused it. He said--this is
Limbaugh speaking: ``The President wants you to know it's money [for
the wall] or nothing, and if it's nothing, he shuts it down.''
Just 2 days ago, the Senate unanimously agreed to a proposal by
Leader McConnell to keep the government open through February. It
wasn't exactly what Democrats wanted--we thought it should be longer--
but we agreed because we wanted to keep the government open, and all
indications were that the President would sign the bill, but President
Trump--beholden to the far, far right, unwilling to shoulder even the
slightest critique from Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham--changed his
mind on the bipartisan Senate bill, passed unanimously by all
Republicans and all Democrats in this Chamber, and he sent his House
allies off to tilt at windmills.
Everyone knew yesterday, long before the House vote, that the
President's wall lacked 60 votes in the Senate. It has proven to lack
even 50 votes. It will never pass the Senate--not today, not next week,
not next year.
So President Trump, if you want to open the government, you must
abandon the wall, plain and simple. The Senate is not interested in
swindling American taxpayers for an unnecessary, ineffective, and
wasteful policy. What we do support, Democrats and Republicans, is
real, effective border security--but not a wall. The wall is President
Trump's bone to the hard-right people. It is no way to spend $5
billion, for a political bone.
I have heard the President and his allies in the media say Democrats
don't support border security. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Democrats have always been for smart and effective ways to secure our
border. We are pushing for technology, like drones and sensors and
inspection equipment. Every single proposal we made to the President
included $1.3 billion for border security. The Trump shutdown provides
zero dollars for border security, but I have never supported a border
wall, and I challenge anyone on the hard right to find a time that I--
or any expert--has supported a wall like what the President has
proposed.
So where do we go from here? Well, three proposals are on the table,
two by Democrats--Leader Pelosi and I--one by Leader McConnell, each of
which would reopen the government and provide $1.3 billion in border
security. We are also open to discussing any proposals with the
President as long as they don't include funding for the wall, but in
order for an agreement to be reached, all four congressional leaders
must sign off and the President must endorse it and say he will sign
it. Leader McConnell must agree. Speaker Ryan must agree. They cannot
duck responsibility. Leader McConnell still controls this Chamber.
Speaker Ryan controls what reaches the floor of the House. They are
essential to this process. Leader McConnell can't duck out of it. He
knows that. Of course, Leader Pelosi and I must agree. Most
importantly, the President must publicly support and say he will sign
an agreement before it gets a vote in either Chamber. We don't want to
go through what we went through a few days ago.
Both Leader McConnell and I have agreed on that qualification for a
specific reason. Repeatedly, the President
[[Page S8023]]
has privately agreed to a deal with congressional leaders, only to
reverse himself when criticized by the far right. We can't have another
situation when the President signals support at first but then reverses
himself, which is precisely what caused this shutdown in the first
place.
If Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and I agree on a
solution, and the President says he will sign it, we can end the Trump
shutdown immediately.
Discussions continue among the members of our staffs. The Republican
Leader and I will update the Senate on the status of those talks once
progress has been made.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Today, 9 of our 15 Federal Departments and several dozen
Agencies have shuttered their doors. By doing that, they denied vital
services to millions of American citizens.
Since midnight last night, just a few days before Christmas, more
than 800,000 dedicated public servants and their families have been
told not to expect their next paycheck for the foreseeable future.
There is one reason and one reason only that our Federal Government
has shut down today and countless Americans are living with
uncertainty. That reason is President Donald J. Trump. The President is
holding the Federal Government hostage for $5 billion of from the
American taxpayer for his unnecessary, ineffective, and expensive wall
on the southern border--a wall he repeatedly promised--gave his word to
the American taxpayers--that Mexico would pay for. Now he wants
American taxpayers to dig in their pockets and pay for it.
The President's irresponsible behavior is astounding. His job, like
ours, is to keep the Federal Government operating for the hundreds of
millions of Americans who depend on government services every day, from
our national parks, to housing services for the elderly, the disabled,
our veterans, and for assistance for our Nation's farmers. In fact, 2
days ago, the President signed the farm bill into law and praised his
efforts. Today, he precipitated a shutdown that shuttered the doors to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's field offices--the same offices
farmers rely on to understand this new law.
But the worst part of all is that this was completely avoidable. We
provided the President with several options to avoid this result. It is
a case where he cannot take yes for an answer. We offered to pass six
full-year appropriations bills and a continuing resolution for Homeland
or a continuing resolution for all the remaining bills. Either of these
options would have kept the government open. They would have provided
more than $1 billion for border security--the very thing the President
says he needs and cares most about. Plus, signing them instead of
having a needless shutdown would save taxpayers millions of dollars.
After both of these offers were rejected, the Senate passed by voice
vote a 7-week continuing resolution. This would have given us more time
to negotiate and avert this catastrophe. Democrats and Republicans came
together to pass it. The President had agreed to sign it. We finally
had a path forward. Then FOX News and the rightwing media started
criticizing it. The President's ego won out over his duties to the
country. His ego was so bruised, he reversed course and went back on
what he had agreed to.
Here we are exactly where the President wanted us to be--in the
middle of a Trump shutdown. For anyone doubting where responsibility
lies, let's recall that the President has publicly called for a
government shutdown no fewer than 25 times over the past year. Just
last week, he declared he would be proud to shut down the government
unless we capitulated to his demand. Proud? I have been here with every
President, Republican and Democratic, since President Gerald Ford. It
is one of the most reckless statements I have ever heard uttered by a
President of the United States. And now he has made good on his threat.
His pride has won out, and the Trump shutdown has begun. How long is it
going to last? Who knows? Yesterday, the President promised it would
last a long time, and then he promised us it would be a short shutdown.
Even in this, his behavior is erratic.
How did we get here? Is there a legitimate crisis precipitating this
shutdown? Is the President playing games with the lives and livelihoods
of American citizens to solve some immediate problem that threatens our
Nation? No. Of course not. In caving to the most extreme sliver of his
base, President Trump is throwing what many of us have described as a
childish tantrum because he wants money to fulfill a cynical promise he
made repeatedly on the campaign trail--more of a symbolic prize than
any sensible policy solution.
This wasteful wall--a wall he promised Mexico would pay for, not the
American taxpayers--this wasteful wall that he now wants to bill to the
American taxpayers would do more to preserve the President's ego than
it would to protect the American people. But I believe it is the
natural result of the President's years-long demonization and
vilification of immigrants, years during which the President rallied
his base with falsehoods and fantasies where vulnerable women and
children are portrayed as hordes of gang members and terrorists
invading our country. The sad reality, as Republicans and Democrats
know, is that many of these people coming to our country are fleeing
desperate situations in their home countries, and they are looking for
sanctuary. They are not coming here to perpetuate violence; they are
running from it.
Let me be clear. There is no crisis that requires us to build a 30-
foot wall between us and our neighbors to the south. The President's
hateful rhetoric about a crisis on our southern border does not reflect
reality.
At the end of 2017, arrests of people attempting to enter the United
States illegally dropped to historic lows. Between 2000 and 2018,
border apprehensions fell sharply from 1.6 million in fiscal year 2000
to approximately 400,000 in fiscal year 2018. That is a 75-percent
drop. Not only do the facts on the ground not warrant spending billions
of American taxpayer dollars on a ``big beautiful wall,'' as the
President likes to call it, that is not who we are as a nation. We are
a country founded by immigrants, just as my maternal grandparents came
to Vermont from Italy, my paternal great-great-grandparents came to
Vermont from Ireland, and my wife's parents came to Vermont from the
Province of Quebec in Canada. We need to look at the immigrant founding
of our country. Then, if we want to wall ourselves off from our
neighbors, it will not only be an expensive waste of Americans'
taxpayer dollars, but it will be immoral, ineffective, and an affront
to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
To build a wall, the President wants to seize land from ranchers and
farmers in Texas and in other border States--seize lands that have been
in their families for generations. He would need to construct walls
through wildlife refuges and nature preserves, basically destroying
them. Ironically, we would end up walling ourselves off from the Rio
Grande in the process, essentially ceding the river to Mexico.
After all of that and after billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, what
would it accomplish? Would it stop people from fleeing violence in
their home countries and seeking sanctuary? No. Would it stop drug
smugglers and human traffickers from engaging in illegal activity?
Definitely no. As so many have said, show me a 30-foot wall, and I will
show you a 31-foot ladder or a tunnel.
To address these complex issues, we need real solutions, not bumper
sticker slogans, not angry tweets. Everyone agrees we need to keep our
borders safe and secure, but it has to be with smart border security,
with border security that works, with new technologies that have proven
to have worked on the border and at our ports of entry, technologies
with new air and marine assets and additional personnel who are needed.
A 30-foot wall is symbolic and unneeded. Even if we needed to build
it, what is the rush? Over the past 2 years, Congress has provided
nearly $1.7 billion to build or to replace fencing on
[[Page S8024]]
the southern border. Yet the administration has hardly spent any of
that money, and the projects it has undertaken have been handled in
such a way that they have ballooned in cost. We have given the
administration $1.7 billion, and it is now demanding more. How much of
the $1.7 billion did it spend? It spent 6 percent. Six percent of these
funds have been spent. We have recently learned that one project in the
Rio Grande Valley that was supposed to cost $445 million will now cost
American taxpayers nearly $787 million. That is a 77-percent cost
overrun with a pricetag of $31.5 million for each and every mile.
We have seen that you cannot trust the administration to be
responsible with the money we have already provided, let alone trust it
to spend responsibly the additional money the President is demanding.
Once and for all, let's put an end to this nonsense, and we have an
easy way to do it.
We could finish six of the seven appropriations bills right now while
we continue to debate these other issues. These bills are the product
of bipartisan compromise as the Republicans and Democrats have come
together. They provide billions of dollars in new resources to address
critical needs for the American people. They protect U.S. national
security. These six bills that we have already agreed on--Republicans
and Democrats--would provide much needed funding to help combat our
Nation's opioid epidemic and critical investments in infrastructure.
They would help us to rebuild our Nation's crumbling roads, bridges,
and highways. They would provide resources to protect the environment
and help ensure that the water we drink and the air we breathe is safe
and clean for this generation, for our children, and for the following
generation. They would also support key allies and national security
programs to enable the United States to be a global leader--a role that
is being increasingly challenged by China and Russia.
So I have to ask; is the President really going to hold the American
people hostage over a wall that he, time and again, has promised Mexico
will pay for? Is he really going to force hundreds of thousands of
Federal employees, including the very Agency he depends upon to carry
out his immigration enforcement policy, to work without pay over the
Christmas holiday? Is he really going to tell millions of Americans,
including his most ardent supporters, that he could care less whether
they are cut off from critical government services purely in the
service of his own vanity?
The President has, apparently, decided that fighting a symbolic fight
for a shiny object is more important than keeping our government
running for the American people. It is the height of irresponsibility.
As negotiations with Chairman Shelby and Leader McConnell continue in
good faith, I am here this weekend to continue to talk with Members of
both parties, but we are all coming to the same conclusion. We can
agree easily, Republicans and Democrats, but we can only succeed if the
President decides to do what we have done, which is to put the country
first. The President of the United States owes that to the American
people. He owes reality, not rhetoric.
I don't see another Member seeking recognition.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial in yesterday's New York
Times about Secretary Mattis be placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 20, 2018]
Jim Mattis Was Right--Who Will Protect America Now?
(By the Editorial Board)
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board,
its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the
newsroom and the Op-Ed section.
Jim Mattis is stepping down as defense secretary, a day
after President Trump overruled him and other top national
security advisers by ordering the rapid withdrawal of all
2,000 American ground troops from Syria. Mr. Mattis, a
retired four-star general, said in his letter of resignation
that his views on a number of foreign policy and defense
matters were fundamentally at odds with those of the
president.
Mr. Mattis did not specifically mention the president's
seemingly impulsive decision on Syria, but he and other top
aides were clearly caught by surprise. With Mr. Mattis's
departure, the last of the original group of grounded
professionals who have, with at least partial success,
restrained Mr. Trump on foreign and defense policy are now
gone.
It was less than three months ago that John Bolton, the
national security adviser, spelled out a broader mission for
the American troops in Syria.
At the time, it sounded like an authoritative statement of
official policy. Only, as is so often the case with Donald
Trump's chaotic presidency, it apparently wasn't.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump summarily overruled Mr. Bolton and
the rest of his national security team with his abrupt and
dangerous troop withdrawal decision. The move, detached from
any broader strategic context or any public rationale, sowed
new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle
East, its willingness to be a global leader and Mr. Trump's
role as commander in chief.
It appears to have been the final straw for Mr. Mattis, who
has walked a tightrope for the past two years between his
training and his conscience, and the whims of his president.
He kept his concerns mainly to himself, while slow-walking a
number of Mr. Trump's demands, like banning transgender
troops and seeking a full-dress military parade down
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the
Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a tweet that Mr.
Mattis's departure was ``scary.'' He called him ``an island
of stability amidst the chaos of the Trump administration.''
Soldiers have a duty to follow their leader and carry out
lawful orders. But success depends on trusting that the
leader knows what he's doing and where he's going.
Sending conflicting orders to soldiers on the battlefield,
as Mr. Trump and his administration are doing, not only
hampers morale and undermines allied forces like the Syrian
Kurds, it could also risk getting American soldiers killed or
wounded for objectives their commanders had already
abandoned.
Even some of Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters were
alarmed. ``It is a major blunder,'' a Republican senator,
Marco Rubio of Florida, wrote on Twitter. ``If it isn't
reversed it will haunt this administration & America for
years to come.''
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who
generally supports Mr. Trump, said he and others in the
national security establishment were ``blindsided'' by the
announcement. He called for congressional hearings on the
decision.
This isn't the first time the president and his
administration have sent mixed messages. During the 2016
campaign, Mr. Trump promised to withdraw troops from Syria
and has been looking for a way do it ever since. In April, he
gave the Pentagon more time to complete the mission, which
since the Obama era has been strictly focused on finishing
off the Islamic State. Then Mr. Bolton arrived on the job and
declared that ``we're not going to leave as long as Iranian
troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian
proxies and militias.''
As late as Monday, James Jeffrey, the State Department's
Syria envoy, told the Atlantic Council that the United States
would stay in Syria until ISIS was defeated, Iranian
influence was curbed and there was a political solution to
the Syrian civil war.
But on Wednesday, Mr. Trump undercut his advisers, and
American interests, by reversing course and declaring in a
tweet, ``We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for
being there during the Trump Presidency.''
There was no attempt to use the leverage of an American
withdrawal to achieve any specific political or military
goal.
Mr. Trump's assertion that the Islamic State is defeated is
absurd. ``We have won against ISIS,'' he boasted in a video.
The ability of the terrorists to strike has been
significantly degraded and much of the territory they claimed
for their so-called caliphate has been liberated. But the
group still retains a pocket of land on the Syria-Iraq border
and has roughly 20,000 to 30,000 fighters, according to
military researchers. As Mr. Jeffrey said Monday, ``The job
is not yet done.''
No one wants American troops deployed in a war zone longer
than necessary. But there is no indication that Mr. Trump has
thought through the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal,
including allowing ISIS forces to regroup and create another
crisis that would draw the United States back into the
region.
An American withdrawal would also be a gift to Vladimir
Putin, the Russian leader, who has been working hard to
supplant American influence in the region and who, on
Thursday, enthusiastically welcomed the decision, saying,
``Donald's right.'' Another beneficiary is Iran, which has
also expanded its regional footprint. It would certainly make
it harder for the Trump administration to implement its
policy of ratcheting up what it calls ``maximum pressure'' on
Iran.
Among the biggest losers are likely to be the Kurdish
troops that the United States has equipped and relied on to
fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Turkey's
president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, considers many of the Kurds
to be terrorists bent on destroying his country. In recent
days he has vowed to launch a new offensive against them in
the Syrian border region. Mr. Trump discussed his withdrawal
decision in a telephone call with Mr. Erdogan on Friday.
[[Page S8025]]
The American withdrawal worries Israel, anxious about
Iran's robust military presence in Syria, and Jordan, which
bears a considerable burden from Syrian refugees who fled the
fighting across the border. While Israel withheld criticism
of Mr. Trump's decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said his government would escalate the fight against Iranian-
aligned forces in Syria once the Americans leave.
Decisions of such consequence normally are thoroughly
vetted by a president's national security advisers. But
congressional lawmakers said there were no signs that any
process was followed, and a senior White House official,
refusing to discuss internal deliberations, said Wednesday,
``The issue here is the president made a decision.''
Judging from the timing and tone of Mr. Mattis' letter of
resignation, the president made that decision alone.
Tribute to James Mattis
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, like so many Republicans and Democrats, I
was stunned to hear that Secretary Mattis was going to be leaving.
I understand his reasons. He has said he always felt a duty to uphold
the interests and security of the United States and to uphold our
agreements with other countries for the security of democracy. The
President has disagreed with him on that. He feels otherwise. So
Secretary Mattis feels the President should be entitled to have
somebody who takes differing views.
Unfortunately, General Mattis's views are those that are the result
of decades of service to this country as a marine in combat, as a
marine commander, as a four-star general, and as one who has the strong
respect of Republicans and Democrats alike. Certainly, he has the
strong respect of those who have served in the military and who know
what it means to actually stand up for this country, not just in
rhetoric but by putting their lives on the line on the battlefield.
I will always admire General Mattis. I applaud his service to the
United States of America, and I know he is a man who can leave with his
head held high.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________