[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]]