[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 7 (Monday, January 14, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S165-S166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, although three-quarters of the
government is funded and fully operational, important Federal functions
continue to be unduly affected, and hundreds of thousands of Federal
workers have now missed paychecks.
By now, everyone in America understands the basic faultlines of this
disagreement. The Speaker of the House has decided that opposing
President Trump comes before the security of our borders.
The President has asked for a reasonable new investment, $5.7
billion--about one-tenth of 1 percent of Federal spending--for the same
kinds of border security that prominent Democrats actually used to brag
about supporting, for the very same kind of reinforced steel fencing
that the Obama administration bragged about building, and for precisely
the kinds of barriers that the men and women of law enforcement there
on the ground insist are vital for their mission.
It is for precisely the same kind of physical border security in
which a number of my Democratic colleagues here in the Senate were
perfectly happy to vote to invest billions of dollars just as recently
as last Congress. The 2017 funding measure that passed the Senate with
47 Democratic votes included upgraded border fencing; that was in 2017,
just this past Congress--last year. And 40 Democrats voted for the
bipartisan spending deal that was cleared just this past March. It
included more than $1.5 billion for border barriers. Then, of course,
the Appropriations subcommittee and full committee approved another
$1.6 billion for border security in a bipartisan vote just this last
June, and 10 of 15 committee Democrats voted to report the final
package to the full Senate. Those are billions of dollars for physical
border security, winning Democratic votes just last year.
Well, that was before we had a new Speaker of the House. That was
before Speaker Pelosi and her far-left base decided that the politics
of obstruction would come before commonsense policymaking.
Here is how serious the Speaker is about ending the impasse and
getting the government reopened: She now proudly boasts that she would
allow exactly $1--$1--for border barriers.
There was bipartisan support in the Congress for billions of dollars
of physical barriers at the border before Representative Pelosi was
Speaker. Now congressional Democrats support just $1--$1--for border
barriers since she became Speaker. You have to ask yourself, what is
the reason?
Earlier this month, Speaker Pelosi declared that the concept of any
physical wall on our southern barrier was ``an immorality''--an
immorality.
``A wall is an immorality.'' That is what Speaker Pelosi said. Look,
that is not a serious statement. It would be laugh-out-loud material if
hundreds of thousands of Federal workers weren't going without pay
because the Speaker has decided this absurdity is now her party's
official position.
Immoral? Was it immoral for Democrats to vote for the Secure Fence
Act in 2006? Was it immoral for President Obama's administration to
proudly build the same kinds of steel slat barriers that President
Trump now wants more of? Is Speaker Pelosi calling sitting Democrats
immoral because they voted to invest billions in border security over
the past few years alone?
I would like to see how this new philosophical opposition to the
existence of walls plays out in practice. Shouldn't the Speaker
introduce a bill to destroy the walls and fencing that already exist if
they are immoral?
Or maybe this actually isn't a new, principled stand by Democrats.
Maybe this is all one big political game--no negotiations, no
collaboration. It is political game playing.
Consider the latest tactic by my Democratic colleagues. They have
said that the President just needs to drop his request and agree to the
Democrats' plan to reopen the government, and then--and then--they will
talk about border security--except they couldn't even keep up that act
either.
When President Trump and Speaker Pelosi met last week, the President
[[Page S166]]
put the question to her directly: If the government were reopened,
would Democrats, after 30 days, then compromise and agree to more
border security?
No, no, said Speaker Pelosi. They would not.
So here we are, day 24, because the Speaker of the House has decided
that enforcing our own laws is now immoral, because she has decided it
is better to prolong this partial shutdown than invest $1 in something
that both parties agreed was a good idea until about 5 minutes ago--
funding that Obama administration border experts continue to argue is a
good idea, an essential idea.
Here in the Senate, I am sorry to say, my Democratic colleagues seem
to have just fallen in line. Based on their actions, my colleagues
across the aisle seem to agree that it is better for Federal workers to
keep going without pay than to invest one one-thousandth of Federal
spending in the same kinds of border security that they themselves have
voted repeatedly to fund in just the past 2 years.
I have a hard time believing that every last one of my Senate
Democratic colleagues really stands with Speaker Pelosi on this. It is
hard to believe. It is hard to believe that Senate Democrats now agree
their own recent votes on border security were actually immoral, that
it would be better to keep the government shut down than to invest one
one-thousand of Federal spending in fencing that the Obama
administration bragged about building.
It is particularly hard for me to believe that my distinguished
colleagues from Maryland and Virginia, who are understandably very
concerned with the circumstances of the Federal workforce, would rather
echo Speaker Pelosi's fringe position--rather echo Speaker Pelosi's
fringe position--than work with the White House to find a real
compromise and reopen the government.
What is happening here is that Federal workers are paying for this
far-left ideological crusade. Lots of American families are facing
great uncertainty because Senate Democrats apparently agree that the
same kinds of reasonable investments they happily supported last year
and the year before have now become completely immoral this year simply
because Speaker Pelosi suddenly now says that they are wrong.
That isn't really what has happened. That isn't what has happened.
Enforcing our laws has not become unethical overnight. The physical
barriers at the border that Democrats used to support in past
Congresses and in the Obama administration have not somehow become
radical rightwing positions.
Walls and fences still work. Border security still matters. American
families still deserve safety. Reality is still reality. When Democrats
are ready to reaccept these realities, they can negotiate seriously
with the White House and bring an end to this impasse.
____________________