[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S402-S404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Supplemental Funding

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, the Sun may be shining outside, but 
today is a gloomy day here in the U.S. Senate.
  Last night, Members of the other side of the aisle met to decide 
whether they were going to side with the American people or obey the 
wishes of former President Trump and his friend Vladimir Putin.
  While I was not party to that meeting, the reports that came out of 
it were disturbing, to say the least. After months of good-faith 
negotiations, after months of giving Republicans many of the things 
they asked for, Leader McConnell and the Republican conference are 
ready to kill the national security supplemental package, even with the 
border provisions they so fervently demanded.
  Those reports are disturbing because this is a good bill, a 
bipartisan bill that will address the problems at the border directly, 
expeditiously, seriously.
  And don't take my word for it, just ask the conservative editorial 
page of the Wall Street Journal that called this ``a border bill worth 
passing'' or the president of the National Border Patrol Council--who 
rarely sides with Democrats--who called this bill ``far better than the 
status quo'' or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called this package 
``a commonsense measure'' and warned that ``Congress cannot afford to 
ignore these problems any longer.''
  So last night's reports coming from the Republican conference meeting 
are alarming because they represent a dramatic transformation in 
Republican thought. In October, Republicans objected to President 
Biden's national security supplemental request, telling the world they 
could not consider it without, in Leader McConnell's words, ``something 
credible on the border.'' He said his conference would give ``this 
supplemental request a serious look and probably recommend some changes 
as well.'' That was October 22, 2023.
  Since then, Senators on both sides of the aisle have conducted 
intense, good-faith negotiations to try and find a way forward on the 
border. We thought we were close in December, but some on the other 
side did not want to be ``jammed'' by the Christmas holiday so we gave 
them more time.
  Senator Graham reasoned that a delay was necessary and thought that 
President Biden ``should get involved in border/immigration 
negotiations.'' Well, President Biden did get involved, and he gave 
Senator Graham more time that he asked for. And yet again yesterday, he 
asked for more time once again.
  In December, Senator Fischer accused Democrats of not wanting to 
address border security, saying that ``my democratic colleagues support 
[border] security for Taiwan, they support [border] security for 
Ukraine, and they support [border] security for Israel. But what they 
won't support is basic border security for the United States of 
America. We are told that our own border security is not related to the 
national security supplemental? That's absurd.''
  That is what she said. ``That's absurd'' not to have border security 
in the bill, in December. Well, yesterday, she said she would refuse to 
even debate a bill that addressed our national security and border 
security--not even a debate.
  The entire process has been quite a roller coaster. And it is not 
just my Senate colleagues who keep moving the goalposts. In November, 
Speaker Johnson said that ``with our appropriations bills for Ukraine 
funding, for example, we're going to marry that with border security. 
These two things are going to be handled together because we believe 
it's a top priority.''
  But when former President Trump said he didn't want Republicans to 
solve the border problem, that he wanted it as a campaign issue, 
Speaker Johnson did a 180-degree about-face and obediently and 
obeisantly changed his tune.
  Now, I understand politics. I understand electoral strategy. But for 
more than a year, Members on the other side of the aisle have been 
wailing that the border was an emergency situation; that the country 
was in urgent crisis.
  As the senior Senator from Wyoming said, ``This crisis requires 
swift, serious, and substantive action,'' or like the senior Senator 
from Texas said, ``This current crisis cries out for a solution'' and 
``nobody believes the status quo is acceptable.''
  How about the words of Speaker Johnson just 1 month ago. Just 1 month 
ago, he said that the time to act on the border is yesterday.

  This morning, Republicans are singing a new tune. Suddenly, this 
crisis is not so urgent. Suddenly, we need to take even more time 
before we address this crisis. One hard-right Republican Member of the 
House even ridiculously suggested that we wait until after November. 
This morning, a member of the Republican leadership who had recently 
called for swift action now says that action must wait until after the 
next election.
  Give me a break.
  Today, this is the new Republican line on the border: It is an 
emergency, but it can wait 12 months or until the end of time.
  What utter bunk.
  A cynic might suggest that this request for more time was a political 
ploy. But maybe we should take the Republicans at their word. Maybe we 
should take them at their word when they say: There is absolutely no 
reason to agree to policies that will further enable Joe Biden. Or when 
they say: Let me tell you, I am not willing to do too damn much right 
now to help a Democrat.
  That is why this is a gloomy day. That is why the Republican Party is 
being thrown into disrepute by many of its own members back in their 
States.
  Some Republicans will claim they have not had enough time to read the 
bill. Some Republicans will claim that they want an amendment process. 
Some will claim that they want guarantees their amendments will be 
accepted. Some Republicans will claim we need more time for debate and 
consideration. My guess is, they will ultimately want 10 to 12 months.
  Finally, some Republicans will claim that we should separate--new 
tune--separate border solutions from funding for Ukraine.
  I would like to address each of those claims right here, right now. 
For those who claim they have not had enough time to read the bill, on 
January 25, 10 Republican Senators wrote me a letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S403]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2024.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer: On January 18, 2023, you 
     stated on the Senate floor that ``we need to do something to 
     fix the situation at the border.'' We agree. The crisis at 
     our nation's southern border is unprecedented. It's the worst 
     it's ever been in our country's history.
       You also said that ``it is my goal for the Senate to move 
     forward to the national security supplemental as soon as 
     possible.'' We anticipate that legislation to address the 
     crisis at our southern border will be in that supplemental.
       It is crucial that we ensure border legislation is passed 
     correctly, not just quickly. We must fully understand what is 
     in the bill, how the Biden administration will implement the 
     bill, and how it will impact our states and local 
     communities. Therefore, we request the following:
       Seventy-two hours to elapse between the text of the full 
     national security supplemental bill being made public and the 
     first vote on the legislation in the Senate. This will allow 
     Senators to review the legislation fully.
       Cabinet Secretaries and other administration officials 
     charged with the bill's implementation be made available to 
     answer questions in an all-Senators meeting. This will allow 
     all Senators to ask questions and learn how this will impact 
     their state.
       We believe this legislative effort can lead to a secure, 
     safe, and operational border. For that to happen, however, we 
     must have the opportunity to ensure the legislation does just 
     that.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Ricketts,
     Bill Cassidy, M.D.,
     John Barrasso,
     Tom Cotton,
     Joni K. Ernst,
     Markwayne Mullin,
     James E. Risch,
     Lindsey O. Graham,
     Dan Sullivan,
     Roger F. Wicker,
       U.S. Senators.

  Mr. SCHUMER. In that letter Senators Ricketts, Barrasso, Cassidy, 
Cotton, Ernst, Graham, Mullin, Sullivan, Risch, and Wicker asked one 
thing of me before the first vote on legislation. They asked for 72 
hours to read the bill. We met that request. The bill was posted at 
6:45 p.m. Sunday, February 4. If they want until 6:45 tomorrow evening, 
that is fine with me. Actually, I will even offer to delay that vote 
until sometime on Thursday to give even more time for Senators to make 
up their minds.
  But I suspect they won't accept even that offer because they really 
don't want more time. They are just using it as an excuse. In fact, it 
will surprise no one that some of the signers of that letter actually 
did not wait 72 hours before they rejected the bill. Senator Cotton 
declared his opposition after 16 hours and 48 minutes, less than 25 
percent of the requested time. Senator Risch took a little longer--an 
additional 15 minutes--to read the bill before announcing his 
opposition. Clearly, this wasn't about having 72 hours. That is OK. I 
can recognize when Senators grandstand. But this--this--is no time for 
grandstanding. This is a time for serious people to work together to 
solve serious problems.
  Mr. President, Senators are elected to vote, not to be afraid, run 
away, make excuses, when it comes to voting on the tough issues. 
Senators are elected to debate and deliberate, not just to say no when 
a former President instructs them to. We were sent here to make laws, 
not just to make speeches.
  If my colleagues want more time, fine--fine. All they have to do is 
vote yes tomorrow. That will mean the Senate will have up to 30 hours 
of debate before we lay down the motion to proceed. Again, I want to be 
clear. The vote tomorrow is not about the substance of the bill. No one 
is being asked to take a position on the supplemental tomorrow. The 
only thing a ``yes'' vote would allow is for the Senate simply to begin 
to consider, discuss, and debate the vitally important issues before us 
now. And we will have plenty of time to do so because we will stay here 
in session as long as it takes.
  That brings me to the Republican's second claim. They want an 
amendment process. Well, during my time as majority leader, I presided 
over more amendment votes than the Senate held in all 4 years of the 
Trump administration. I would like to remind my colleagues about Senate 
procedure. If you want a chance to amend a bill, it turns out you 
actually need to get on the bill first. Voting no says no amendments. 
Further, once we are on the bill, you still possess the power to kill 
the entire bill if the amendment process is not to your liking. You can 
hold out for your amendments. You can hold out if you want to reread 
the bill again and again. And you can hold out if your amendments fail.
  But our Republican colleagues--we know this--really don't want any of 
those things. And when they won't, they forfeit their ability to 
address the border situation at all. When they vote no, they forfeit 
their ability to address the border situation at all.
  So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on the 
bill so we can discuss amendments, timing, and any other issues. The 
issues in Ukraine, in Israel, humanitarian aid, the South Pacific, and 
the border are urgent. So many of my colleagues have said they are 
urgent. Well, let's vote. It is urgent. We spent months talking and 
debating. It is time to vote. Make no mistake about it. A ``no'' vote 
says: I never want to move forward on the border, not with amendments, 
not without amendments, not now, not later. We must move forward. We 
cannot wait any longer. We have waited long enough.
  Now, for my Republican colleagues who say that we need more time to 
debate and consider the bill and ``I don't want to be jammed,'' I have 
a question. In September, you told us we cannot provide support to the 
people in Ukraine without addressing the border crisis. In December, 
you told us that leaving for Christmas break was more important than 
solving the border crisis. Now, in February, you are telling us you 
need more time. So the question I would like answered and that the 
American people want an answer to is this: What date would work, my 
Republican friends? If you don't want to solve the border crisis and 
fight Putin today or tomorrow, when do you want it? Would Saturday the 
24th of February be a good day for you, the day that marks the second 
anniversary of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, so it can have symbolic 
value? And since that falls on a weekend, maybe we could vote on Monday 
the 26. Just let me know. We can schedule it. We have other options. 
You just have to tell us what day would work.
  We can change the schedule, but we are voting to move to proceed 
Wednesday night or if you want the extra day, Thursday. Would you be 
willing to address those tough issues in March, in April, in June, in 
July?
  Mr. President, I suppose I won't get a response because it seems the 
only date Republicans seem to care about is November 5, election day. 
We all know what is going on here. Donald Trump would rather keep the 
chaos at the border so he can exploit it on the campaign trail instead 
of letting the Senate do the right thing and fix it. He would rather 
let Ukraine suffer on the battlefield instead of being tough on Putin. 
And instead of standing up to Donald Trump, Senate Republicans are 
ready to kill our best chance at fixing the border and ready to vote 
down this aid package for Ukraine in order to put what they think is 
their party's political interest above the interest of the country.
  It is my hope, but not my expectation, that my friends across the 
aisle will resist the former President's exhortations and do what is 
right. That is why the Senate will move forward with our vote tomorrow. 
If Senators vote yes, we have options--more time to debate, an 
opportunity to consider amendments. If Senators vote no, those Senators 
should have to explain why they are ready to let the border emergency--
which they so decried--why would they let it continue? We have had 4 
months--4 months--of dithering and delay. Tomorrow, the American people 
will find out whether Senators seek border security and oppose Russian 
expansionism or whether they stand with former President Trump in 
support of the chaos and Vladimir Putin.
  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. THUNE. 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.
  The Republican whip.

[[Page S404]]