[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 22, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S317-S318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           GOVERNMENT FUNDING

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, here is what happened this weekend with 
respect to the continuing disagreement over funding the government. Two 
things happened over the weekend.
  On Saturday, the Senate was in session, and Members of both parties 
came to the floor to speak about the urgent need for a bipartisan 
compromise to reopen the Federal Government for the sake of Federal 
workers who need certainty, and for the sake of the American people who 
need their Nation's government fully online.
  Also on Saturday, President Trump rolled out a bold, comprehensive 
offer to do just that. It would break through this stalemate and would 
reopen government swiftly and deliver on a number of other policy 
priorities that are seen as important on both sides of the aisle.
  That is where we are on day 32 of this partial government shutdown. 
That is where we are as this new week begins. We have heard Members of 
Congress on all sides demanding a resolution to the impasse and a plan 
to quickly restore full funding to the Federal Government. We now have 
a plan from the President that would do exactly that, and quickly, 
while incorporating both the bipartisan work of the Appropriations 
Committee and bipartisan proposals on current immigration issues.
  The opportunity to end all of this is staring us right in the face. 
That is why we will vote on this legislation on the Senate floor this 
week. All that needs to happen is for our Democratic friends to agree 
that it is time to put the country ahead of politics, take ``yes'' for 
an answer, and vote to put this standoff behind us.
  To be clear, the proposal outlined by President Trump that we will 
consider in the Senate is the only proposal before us that can be 
signed by the President and immediately reopen the government.
  First and foremost, it is the only proposal that would reopen the 
government fully and immediately. But it is not merely a continuing 
resolution. It wouldn't kick the can down the road. Instead, it would 
fulfill Congress's responsibilities--without footnotes, without 
caveats, without hitting the snooze button. This measure would wrap up 
last year's historic progress on appropriations. It would pass all 
seven remaining regular-order funding bills and deliver supplemental 
funding for disaster recovery.
  Importantly, it is also the only proposal that would deliver a 
comprehensive investment in our Nation's border

[[Page S318]]

security. To be clear, that is comprehensive by the standards of Border 
Patrol experts themselves--the men and women actually on the ground.
  The bill would provide funding for each of the CBP's top 10 priority 
investments for border security, including a substantial investment in 
enhanced surveillance technologies, funding for the recruitment and 
training of 750 new Border Patrol agents, and $5.7 billion for the 
construction of the physical barrier along the highest priority areas 
of the southern border.
  In addition to these measures--similar to the ones that earned strong 
bipartisan support in the past--the legislation would take significant 
steps to modify certain areas of immigration policy. For example, it 
would grant 3-year lawful status for certain currently enrolled DACA 
recipients and individuals under TPS. These are areas where 
congressional Democrats have expressed vocal interest. Now they are 
included in a comprehensive proposal to open the government, fulfill 
our promise to the Federal employees, and address the humanitarian and 
security crisis at our southern border.
  It is a proposal that the President will support. As I have stated 
consistently over the past month, that fact will earn it consideration 
in the Senate. A fully reopened Federal Government. Certainty and 
stability for Federal employees once again. The bipartisan 
appropriations legislation this body worked out together. The full 
investment in border security that the experts on the ground say they 
need. Changes to our immigration policies that are similar to the ones 
Democrats themselves have been fighting for in the past.
  To reject this proposal, Democrats would have to prioritize political 
combat with the President ahead of Federal workers, ahead of DACA 
recipients, ahead of border security, and ahead of stable and 
predictable funding. Is that really a price Democrats want to pay to 
prolong this episode, which they say they want to be over and done 
with?
  Is their plan truly to send Federal workers, DACA recipients, Customs 
and Border Patrol, and all Americans under the bus just to extend this 
run of political theater so they can look like champions of the so-
called resistance? That is what some leading Democrats tried to assert 
right out of the gate, before they had even studied the President's new 
proposal. Speaker Pelosi came out right away and tried to rally her 
troops. She immediately described the President's proposals as 
``unacceptable.'' That is not exactly surprising, considering that just 
a few weeks ago, the Speaker went out on a limb and declared that 
physical border security is on its face ``an immorality.''
  Not every Democrat seems to see it that way. And how could they? One 
Democrat from the State of Washington admitted that ``the wall is not 
in itself a bad idea . . . it's been done.''
  Another from Illinois asserted: ``If we have a partial wall, if we 
have fencing, if we have technology used to keep our border safe, all 
of that is fine.''
  One of the Speaker's fellow Members of the California delegation 
said: ``We will support border security . . . all of its elements, 
including fences.''
  This is just a small sampling of House Democrats' actual views about 
the merits of border security.
  These quotations don't even begin to touch all of the Democrats' 
demands that we reopen the government right away and their past calls 
to bring more certainty to individuals affected by DACA and TPS.
  On one side of the scale, we have all of my Democratic colleagues' 
declarations that we must reopen the rest of the Federal Government and 
get Federal workers their paychecks. We have their statements and past 
votes that show they believe securing our border with some physical 
barriers is a good thing. And we have their stated desire to help out a 
number of individuals with a more certain immigration status. That is 
one side of the scale. All that is on the other side is the far-left 
political animus for the current occupant of the White House.
  It seems to me it is about time to get serious. Even the Washington 
Post's editorial board, which is no fan of the President's and does not 
support every piece of this compromise proposal, had this to say about 
Democrats' outright refusal to negotiate. This is the Washington Post:

       To refuse even to talk until the government reopens does no 
     favors to sidelined federal workers and contractors. . . . A 
     measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now is the 
     ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off the 
     inevitable attacks from purists, if it means rescuing the 
     lives of thousands of deserving people living among us.

  The Washington Post.
  If even the Post believes my friends the Democratic leaders' total 
refusal to negotiate has grown very stale, you have to believe many of 
their own Members must be starting to feel the same way.
  The President has made a comprehensive and bipartisan offer that 
would accomplish everything Democrats have said needs to be 
accomplished right now, immediately. It is a strong proposal. It is the 
only thing on the table, and later this week, we will vote on it.

                          ____________________