[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 5 (Thursday, January 10, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S111-S112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BORDER SECURITY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, all week I have been outlining the 
humanitarian and security crisis at our Nation's southern border. I 
have discussed the threats from the inflow of drugs and criminal 
aliens; I have shared career border security experts' strong support 
for physical barriers; and I have cited the empirical data that 
actually backs them up. But on day 20 of this partial government 
shutdown--a shutdown that has been prolonged by my Democratic 
colleagues' refusal to even come to the table--I thought I might try 
something different this morning, so I brought a visual aid.
  The chart right here behind me sums up my Democratic colleagues' past 
and present positions on border security.
  Over here on the left, you have a border fence made out of steel 
bollard at the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, AZ. Construction on this 
upgraded steel slat barrier began back in 2011 at the direction, mind 
you, of President Obama's Department of Homeland Security--this fence 
over here, under President Obama, at the direction of his Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Just 5 years prior, Senator Obama joined with then-Senator Hillary 
Clinton, the current Democratic leader, and several other Democrats and 
voted to authorize 700 miles--700 miles--of physical barriers under the 
Secure Fence Act of 2006.
  On the right of this chart, we have an example of a barrier like 
those the new Speaker of the House has recently described as immoral. I 
would defy my colleagues to tell me what the difference is. They are 
exactly identical. So we went from the Obama administration, when 
everybody was supporting a wall that looked just like this, to the 
Trump administration, where now it is immoral. It is the kind of 
barrier that all of a sudden the Democrats are so opposed to that they 
would rather prolong the partial government shutdown than agree to an 
additional investment of approximately one-tenth--one-tenth--of 1 
percent of Federal spending.
  They are identical walls, exactly alike. When President Obama was 
there, they were for it. When President Trump is there, they are not. 
As I said, it is basically the same photograph twice.
  I do that to underscore the point that the Trump administration is 
requesting funding for the same kinds of physical barriers that the 
Obama administration was actually proud to build and

[[Page S112]]

bragged about: fencing with spaced slats that allowed visibility, made 
with reinforced steel.
  They are the same kinds of barriers that Customs and Border 
Protection experts have told us actually produce real results. You 
could call them walls; you could call them fences; you could call them 
steel slats, but what they really are is effective. That is what they 
are. Call them what you will, but they are effective.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, after the outdated 
fencing in Nogales was replaced by this particular steel slat 
structure, the Border Patrol reported a significant drop in violent 
encounters with illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol is not on either 
side of this debate. They are just giving us the facts--just the facts.
  During the 2 years leading up to the 2011 construction, 376 assaults 
on Border Patrol agents were recorded in the Nogales station. In the 2 
years after--after--the bollard fence went up, the number of assaults 
fell to 71. That is 376 down to 71. That is a decline of 81 percent 
after the wall or fence or steel slats--whatever you choose to call it.
  We have seen big success in other sectors as well. The Trump 
administration reports that in four border sectors where physical 
barriers were recently built or upgraded, illegal traffic dropped by--
listen to this--90 percent--90 percent.
  It is a fact that physical barriers are effective, as Democratic 
Senators used to understand perfectly well when there was a different 
occupant in the White House and, indeed, used to say publicly. They 
used to say that they are an essential ingredient in a balanced 
strategy for securing our border.
  That was then, and this is now.
  So why the tale of two completely Democratic Parties? Why does the 
Speaker of the House feel compelled to denounce as ``immoral'' the very 
kind of structures that her own party leaders recently praised as 
essential? Why do my Democratic colleagues and why does the Democratic 
leader feel the need to prolong this partial shutdown to avoid getting 
more of the same investments he used to vote for? What is the reason 
for this bizarre about-face?
  Well, even these very Democrats are finding it difficult to invent a 
good excuse. On Tuesday, the distinguished House majority leader, Mr. 
Hoyer, was asked by reporters how there is any real daylight between 
border security construction projects that Democrats have supported in 
the past and the ones they are now trying to block. Here is what 
majority leader Hoyer said to those reporters. This is an honest man. 
``I don't have an answer that I think is a really good answer.'' ``I 
don't have an answer that I think is a really good answer.'' That is 
the majority leader of the House of Representatives. Well, the reason 
is because there isn't a good answer. There is no credible answer to 
this massive flip-flop.
  We all know what the real reason is. My Democratic colleagues are 
operating purely on political spite directed at the President of the 
United States. Why else would they rather have a partial government 
shutdown drag on for nearly 3 weeks than get more of what they used to 
vote for and brag about? Why else would they plug their ears and refuse 
to listen to the experts out on the ground who do this kind of work, 
like President Obama's own former Border Patrol Chief? Here is what he 
says: ``I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not 
support the wall as part of a multi-layered border security issue.''
  Remember, the proposal we are talking about today would represent 
one-tenth of 1 percent of Federal spending for this year--one one-
thousandth.
  With a straight face, Democrats are trying to convince the country 
that the Federal Government simply cannot reopen, that they simply 
cannot negotiate with the President because the sky would come crashing 
down if we invest one one-thousandth of Federal spending in proven 
border security solutions--proven border security solutions, by the 
way, that their own party used to support and that President Obama's 
Border Patrol Chief and other security experts continue to support.
  Let's call it what it is--a flip-flop that is not based on principle 
or on evidence but solely on the fact that President Trump is the 
occupant of the White House.
  So Republicans support the President's commonsense request. The 
experts on the ground who actually risk their own safety to secure our 
Nation support it. Even the 2006 versions of President Obama, Secretary 
Clinton, and the Democratic leader would have supported it, but today's 
Democrats now say that the same fencing and barriers that were A-OK 
when President Obama was in the White House are now ``immoral''--
``immoral''--because President Trump is the one making the requests.
  This is not how you make serious policy. Partisan tantrums are no way 
to govern. My Democratic colleagues need to get serious about their 
responsibilities, seek treatment for their brand-new partisan allergy, 
seek some treatment for their brand-new party allergy to border 
security, sit down with the President, and negotiate a solution that 
works for everyone. That is the only way to move the country forward.

                          ____________________