Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, this afternoon Senate Democrats will have the opportunity to vote to reopen the government when the Senate takes up the President's compromise proposal. I hope they are as serious about ending the shutdown as they have claimed to be.

Unfortunately, they haven't looked too serious over the past month. Democratic leaders have spent a lot of time talking about ending the partial shutdown, but they have absolutely refused to engage in any genuine negotiations to reopen the government. Democrats don't seem to understand that when there is a disagreement, both sides have to give a little in order to get things resolved. If we are going to get the government reopened, then both Democrats and the President are going to have to compromise.

The President understands this. He has repeatedly made it clear that he is willing to negotiate. On Saturday, he put forward a genuine compromise--legislation that addresses his border security priorities and some of Democrats' most important immigration priorities.

Unfortunately, Democrats' reaction was less than promising. The Speaker of the House labeled the compromise a ``nonstarter'' before she had even seen it. But, of course, she offered no replacement.

President Trump offered a proposal that he believed would address some of the Democrats' concerns. If Democrats didn't like that proposal, then they could have offered an alternative--one that addressed their concerns and attempted to address some of the President's concerns. But so far, the only Democratic proposals have involved the President agreeing to all of the Democrats' demands in exchange for vague promises to address the security and humanitarian crisis at the border at some unspecified date in the future.

The Democratic leaders of the House and Senate may be persisting in their refusal to negotiate, but there are signs that rank-and-file Democrats are

starting to get restless. More than one Democratic Member of Congress has noted, in the words of one House freshman, ``[A]m I willing to talk about more fencing and more drones and more technology and radar and border agents? Absolutely.''

Even the House majority leader sounded as though he was ready to break with Speaker Pelosi's obstruction, stating that Democrats are ``for border security'' and that ``physical barriers are part of the solution.'' That is from the House majority leader.

I hope that spirit of compromise continues to grow. In a couple of hours, Senate Democrats will have the chance to vote on the President's proposal. The bill before us would immediately--immediately--reopen the government. It would provide paychecks and backpay to Federal workers. It would provide needed disaster recovery funding. It would deliver all seven of the remaining 2019 appropriations bills, the product of bipartisan work in the House and in the Senate. It would tackle the security and humanitarian crisis at our border and address Democratic immigration priorities.

In fact, this bill contains a version of immigration legislation originally sponsored by the Democratic leader, the Democratic whip, and the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, among others.

The bill before us today is a genuine compromise. I hope at least some of my Democratic colleagues will see their way to supporting it because it is the only legislation we will be voting on today that can be signed into law, end the shutdown, reopen the government, make sure that Federal workers are getting paid, and address our crisis at the border.

Democrats' refusal to engage in serious negotiations has already cost Federal workers a paycheck and limited government services for literally tens of thousands of Americans. It is time for Democrats to stop putting their antipathy for the President above the needs of the American people. I hope we do that this afternoon. The time has come to make a deal, and we need Democrats at the table.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.'' The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Lieutenant Commander Zachary Cress of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--Commissioned Officer Corps, who has served as a fellow on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee for the past year.

I want to thank Lieutenant Commander Cress for his hard work from which the committee greatly benefited. His expertise as a ship driver and manager of our Nation's marine resources has meaningfully informed the committee's efforts. He has worked on several pieces of legislation that have become law, including the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act of 2018. His contributions have enabled NOAA to carry out its missions more effectively.

Again, I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Lieutenant Commander Cress for all of the fine work he has done and for his continued service to our nation. I wish him success in the years to come.

Mr. President, to quote the great Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.''

It is the 26th day of the shutdown, and for the 26th day in a row, Democrats are refusing to seriously engage with the President to get the government reopened. Democrats have spent a lot of time talking about their desire to get the hundreds of thousands of furloughed Federal workers back to work, but their actions contradict their words.

The only way for the government to reopen is for both sides to come to the table and compromise. The Democrats are absolutely refusing to consider any concession. Their position is, my way or the highway. Unfortunately, that is not the way things work in the real world. When you have two groups with diametrically opposed positions, both sides have to give a little if they are ever going to get anything done.

The White House has a strongly held position on this issue, but it has also made it clear that it is willing to be flexible and to negotiate with Democrats. The Democrats don't share that willingness, and their refusal to negotiate is victimizing the very workers they claim they want to protect.

Senate Democrats' latest attempt to distract from Democrats' refusal to negotiate is to push for votes on House-passed legislation on reopening the government, but as Democrats know very well, these votes would be meaningless because this is not legislation the President is going to sign.

Indeed, before Christmas, the Democratic leader in the Senate stated: ``The President must publicly support and say he will sign an agreement before it gets a vote in either Chamber''; that from the Democratic leader as recently as just a few weeks ago.

Well, there is no point in spending time taking up a bill that hasn't received agreement from all parties. We know that, and the Democrats know that as well, but apparently they are willing to flip-flop on this issue if they think it will suit their political purposes. Kind of like how they were for a border fence before they were against it. That is right.

In 2006, the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for legislation to authorize a border fence. They were joined in that vote by then-Senator Biden, then-Senator Clinton, and then-Senator Obama. In 2013, every Senate Democrat--every Senate Democrat--supported legislation requiring the completion of a 700-mile fence along our southern border. In 2009, the Democratic leader praised border fencing as a border security accomplishment.

So what has changed? The need to secure our borders hasn't changed. The effectiveness of barriers hasn't changed. That has been well documented.

The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, was asked about the Democrats' flip-flop, whether there is any real difference between what they supported previously and what they are opposing now. Here is what he said: ``I don't have an answer that I think is a really good answer.''

Well, that is an honest reply. Democrats don't have a good answer because there is no real difference between what they supported a few years ago and what they are opposing now. Democrats have flip-flopped on the issue because they are afraid to oppose the radical far-left wing of their party and because they are committed to obstructing this President no matter what.

If Democrats weren't hurting anybody, their refusal to play ball wouldn't be a problem, but every single day that they refuse to engage in serious negotiations is a day that families aren't getting paid, national priorities aren't getting funded, and important border security is being postponed.

That is where we are. I urge my colleagues to rethink their obstruction and to work with the President to get the government reopened and Federal workers back to work and funding for that critical and important priority of ensuring that we have a secure southern border.

March for Life

Mr. President, this Friday, as they do every year, individuals from every corner of the United States will come to Washington, DC, to participate in the national March for Life.

As usual, South Dakotans will be among them. Tens of thousands of individuals will march from the National Mall to the Supreme Court to bear witness to a simple truth; that unborn babies are human beings and that they deserve to be protected.

It can be easy sometimes for human beings to turn their backs on injustice. Maybe because we don't want to get involved, we are reluctant to speak out.

It is particularly easy to turn our backs in the case of abortion because the injustice of abortion is hidden. It happens out of the public view behind closed doors, but we must not forget that every day in the United States, unborn babies are being killed.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which compiles data on the number of U.S. abortions, reports that there were more than 638,000 legal abortions in 2015--638,000. That is roughly equivalent to three-quarters of the population of South Dakota. That is an incredible number of lives lost, an incredible amount of joy lost, an incredible amount of love lost, and it is all too easy to forget because we don't see it happening. We can't forget. We can't forget injustice. We can't let fear or discomfort stop us from speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Fortunately, there are tens of thousands of men and women and young people around this country who are committed to speaking up for the unborn and who travel to Washington, DC, every year to remind us of the truth about abortion, to remind us that abortion is the destruction of an innocent human life, that every abortion kills an innocent human being with her own DNA and her own, distinct identity.

I can think of few greater things than to defend the defenseless, to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, and I am grateful for all those who will march through the streets of Washington, DC, on Friday to speak up for the innocent unborn. I thank them for reminding us of this great injustice, and I join them in praying that one day every child will be safe from abortion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, Democrats continue to talk about the need to fully reopen the government, and I cannot agree with them more. It is time to end this partial shutdown and get the government fully operating again. But there is a problem. Democrats may talk a lot about the need to reopen the government, but they are not willing to do the work that would be required to actually get the government open.

In a divided government, negotiation and compromise are essential. If you want to get something done in a divided government, you have to compromise. But that doesn't seem to be something the Democrats understand. For Democrats, it is ``my way or the highway.'' They won't give an inch. They want their way, and they want their way only. All of us would like to get our proposals passed exactly as we want them, with no changes, but we all know that is unrealistic. If you want to get something done, you usually have to compromise.

The White House has a strongly held position but has also made it very clear that it is willing to be flexible and negotiate with Democrats, but the Democrats refuse to play ball, and they continue to hold parts of the Federal Government hostage.

We just heard our colleague from New York, the Democratic leader, suggest that it should be Republican leader Senator McConnell's job to solve this problem, but the fact is--and we all know this--the negotiation in this circumstance has to be between the President of the United States and the Democrats in the Senate and the House who have refused to budge on that position.

The Republican leader has made it very clear that as soon as the President is willing to sign something and the Democrats here are willing to produce enough votes to give us the 60 votes that are necessary to pass it in the Senate and the House, he will move a bill through the Senate that we can get to the President and end this shutdown, get the government open again, and fund border security, which is an important priority for our country and for our national security interests.

That is a position which, until recently, was also held by the Democrats. As recently as December, the Democratic leader indicated that to solve this budget stalemate, this impasse we seem to be having, we needed to have the support of the leaders in both the House and the Senate and the President before either Chamber should vote on legislation. He suggested that the President needed to come out publicly in support of it--in other words, to indicate he would sign any legislation that might move.

So that is where we are. It is not a function of the Republican leader's. The Republican leader is prepared to produce the votes that are necessary to pass legislation to reopen the government. It is entirely dependent upon the President of the United States, who must sign that bill into law, and the Democrats here in the Senate, who have to produce the requisite number of Democrats to get the 60 votes that are required to pass it in the Senate. That is where we are.

Frankly, right now, there isn't a negotiation going on. The Democrats' refusal to negotiate is victimizing the very workers they want to protect. The Federal workers who are struggling right now are struggling precisely because Democrats are refusing to work with this President, and that has a lot more to do with politics than it has to do with the issue itself.

Democrats need to negotiate with the White House to reopen the government, but they should also want to work with the White House on border security solutions. Border security is a national security imperative. No country can be secure if dangerous individuals can creep across its borders unchecked and unobserved, and Democrats used to understand this.

In 2006, the Democratic leader and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for legislation to authorize a border fence. They were joined in their vote by then-Senator Biden, then-Senator Clinton, and then-Senator Obama.

In 2013, every Senate Democrat--every Senate Democrat--supported legislation requiring the completion of a 700-mile fence along our southern border. This legislation would have provided $46 billion for border security and $8 billion specifically for a physical barrier.

As recently as last year, nearly every Senate Democrat supported $25 billion in border security.

My point is that the Democrats in the Senate have in the past recognized the importance, No. 1, of securing the border and, No. 2, how important a physical barrier is as a part of the solution to securing our border--not entirely dependent upon a border wall but certainly a part of that solution, to include technological solutions, manpower, additional personnel, cameras, censors, all the modern technology that we have, but in certain places recognizing that the fence works. The fence has worked. There is already 700 miles of fence on the southern border.

I would point out that in 2009, the Senate Democratic leader said in a speech that ``any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible.'' That was in 2009 from the Senate Democratic leader. He went on to discuss, interestingly enough, progress that had been made on border security between 2005 and 2009, including ``construction of 630 miles of border fence that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.'' That from the Democratic leader in 2009, again crediting the construction of 630 miles of border fence that creates a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border. In other words, in 2009, the Democratic leader not only didn't oppose border fences, he praised them.

The fact is, our border is not secure. Tens of thousands of individuals try to cross our southern border illegally each month. Illegal drugs flow into this country through ports of entry and other unsecured areas of the border. Federal agents have seen a 115-percent increase in the amount of fentanyl seized between ports of entry, and 90 percent of the heroin supply in this country flows across our southern border. There is human trafficking, weapons trafficking, and more.

We need better border security, including more barriers, technology, and personnel along our southern border. We don't know who is coming into our country and why. We need to ensure that we keep criminals, traffickers, terrorists, and dangerous goods out of this country.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer was asked about the Democrats' flip-flop on border security and whether there is any real difference between what they supported in the past and what they are opposing now. He said: ``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.'' Well, Madam President, at least that is honest. Democrats don't have a good answer because there is no real difference between what they have supported in the past and what they are opposing right now.

Before Christmas, I came to the floor to talk about the divided government we would be dealing with in 2019 and 2020. I noted that divided government doesn't have to spell the doom of productivity. In fact, over the past 30-plus years, some of our greatest legislative achievements have been the product of divided government. But I also noted that in order for us to be productive in the 116th Congress, Democrats would have to decide to work with us. So far, they have decided not to.

In addition to refusing to negotiate on border security, Senate Democrats have also blocked the Senate from considering legislation to support Israel's security, strengthen our relationship with our Jordanian allies, and hold accountable individuals who participate in the atrocities of the Assad regime in Syria.

Despite our divided government, we can still accomplish important things for the American people, but it is going to require an about- face from Democrats, who have so far made the 116th Congress about partisanship and their hostility to this President.

It is time for Democrats to stop talking about reopening the government and to take steps that would actually do so by committing to real negotiations with the White House. Then and

only then can we get past this impasse, get the government open and functioning, and address what is a critical and important national security imperative for our country, and that is ensuring that our southern border is secure.

It is not about Republicans in the Senate. It is about the President of the United States, for whom this is a huge priority, something he is passionate about doing and a commitment he made to the American people. And it is about the Democrats here in the Senate--and in the House but here in the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to pass anything--sitting down across the table from the President in good faith and dealing with what usually happens in circumstances like this, and that is to negotiate an agreement for both sides, give a little bit, have a little give-and-take.

As I mentioned, the President has been very flexible and very open to sitting down with Democrats. In the discussions I have been a part of, he has demonstrated his willingness to compromise. But I have yet to see a single step by the Democrats here in the Senate or in the House, in their leadership, a single move, a single inch of movement in the direction of trying to solve this problem. Instead, they seem bent on turning it into a political issue. That is not good for the American people. It is certainly not good for those employees who are struggling out there because they are not being paid and certainly not good for the crisis we face at our southern border and the security threat that poses for the American people.

I hope we will do better. We can do better, but it is going to require negotiation. It is going to require a willingness to sit down at the table in good faith and to get discussions going about how we solve this important problem.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Madam President, yesterday President Trump and Republican leaders once again tried to sit down with Democrats to break the impasse over border security funding and fully reopen the government. Yet, again, Democrats proved unwilling to offer any serious solution or agree to work with the President in any way.

When the President asked Speaker Pelosi yesterday if she would be willing to commit to funding the border wall if the government was reopened, she said no--no.

Democrats are saying that we need to end this partial shutdown and reopen the Federal Government. I completely agree with that, but it is Democrats who are standing in the way of that happening. Instead of seriously trying to resolve this shutdown, they are holding show votes in the House and trying to score political points.

The administration made an offer on Sunday. Yet 4 days later, Democrats have yet to respond. If they really want to reopen the government, they will sit down and negotiate in good faith with the President to arrive at a solution that both parties can support and that the President will sign.

I have to ask: When did securing our borders become immoral?

It used to be that Members of both parties recognized that border security was a basic obligation of our government and that we had a duty to ensure that our borders were protected and that dangerous individuals or goods were not entering our country, but apparently-- apparently--Democrats don't agree with that anymore.

According to Speaker Pelosi, building barriers to protect our border is ``immoral.'' That is right--``immoral.'' According to the Speaker of the House, protecting our border with barriers to prevent illegal entry is ``immoral.''

Contrary to what Democrats would like people to believe, border security isn't an issue dreamed up by hard-hearted Republicans to oppress various groups of people. Border security is a national security imperative--something that both parties recognized, until recently. No country can be secure if dangerous individuals can creep across its borders unchecked and unobserved.

Democrats talk about border barriers as if they are meant to prevent anyone from entering our country. That is just false. America is a land of immigrants, and we will always welcome new faces to America with open arms. In fact, I, like many others in this Chamber, am the grandson of immigrants who came through Ellis Island. My grandparents obviously came and settled in South Dakota, but we have to make sure that individuals who are coming to this country are coming here legally and that we know who they are and why they are coming. We do that by enforcing our laws and by securing our borders--with physical barriers, Border Patrol agents, and technology--so that individuals can't cross our borders illegally and undetected.

Leaving our borders open to any criminal, drug dealer, or human trafficker who wants to sneak across isn't compassion. It is an abdication of our responsibility.

Right now, we are facing a security and humanitarian crisis along our border. Tens of thousands of individuals try to cross our southern border illegally each month. That is a serious security problem. It is also a humanitarian problem. Individuals attempting the journey to come here illegally are vulnerable to exploitation, to illness, and to abuse. One out of every three women attempting the journey to the United States is sexually assaulted. A staggering 70 percent of individuals become victims of violence along their way. Illness and other medical issues are a serious problem. By failing to discourage illegal immigration, we are perpetuating this humanitarian crisis.

The inadequate state of our border security--both around barriers and through our ports of entry--also allows other problems to flourish, like the flow of illegal drugs pouring into the country. Every week in this country, 300 Americans die from heroin. Ninety percent of the heroin supply--90 percent--flows across our southern border.

Democrats will say it doesn't come across, that it comes through ports of entry. A lot of it does come through ports of entry--that is part of our borders--and the President in his proposal has advanced measures that would also deal with those drugs coming through our ports of entry. But the fact of the matter is, we have to secure our border, and that requires a whole range of measures as a part of that solution.

Democrats didn't always think that securing our borders was immoral. In fact, in 2006, the Democratic leader and the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for legislation to authorize a border fence. They were joined in their vote by then-Senator Biden, then- Senator Clinton, and then-Senator Obama. In 2013, every Senate Democrat, bar none, supported legislation requiring the completion of a 700-mile fence along our southern border. This legislation would have

provided $46 billion for border security and $8 billion specifically for a physical barrier.

As recently as last February, nearly every Senate Democrat--46 out of 49--supported $25 billion for border security--just last February.

In 2009, the Senate Democratic leader said in a speech: ``Any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain operational control of our borders as soon as possible.''

Let me repeat that. In 2009, the Democratic leader said: ``Any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain control of our borders as soon as possible.''

Then he went on to discuss progress that had been made on our border security between 2005 and 2009, including ``construction of 630 miles of border fence that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.''

That is right. In 2009, the Democratic leader not only didn't oppose border fences; he was praising them for their effectiveness.

So what has changed? The need to secure our borders certainly hasn't changed. Everybody says: Is it a crisis or isn't it a crisis? I would say that having 300 people a day dying from heroin in this country is a crisis, particularly given the fact that 90 percent of that heroin is coming across our southern border. That strikes me as a crisis.

The President has changed, and that, more than anything else, is the thing that has changed the minds of a lot of Democrats in the Senate because we used to have a President Democrats like; now we have one they don't like and, in many cases, they are openly hostile to.

For Democrats opposing this President and catering to the far-left, anti-border-security wing of their party seem to be more important than addressing the security and humanitarian crisis we are facing at our border.

I venture to say that deep down, a lot of Democrats still realize we need to secure our borders. I think many realize how important the physical structure--some sort of barrier--is in making sure that the border is secure. Certainly, those who protect our border would tell you that, and certainly those who have observed what has happened over the past 20 or 30 years--a border fence has been built in certain areas of our southern border--would tell you that has been very effective.

I think it is important for us to listen to the experts and allow the opinions of the experts to shape the policies we put in place. I think what the experts have been telling us is that, yes, we need a comprehensive solution, one that includes a physical barrier, one that includes technology, one that includes manpower--all of which this President, his team, have been willing to negotiate but none of which the Democrats in the Senate or the House have been willing to sit down at the table and be a partner in working out.

With their partial shutdown now into its 20th day, I hope they will soon end this political theater and fulfill their obligations to keep Americans safe.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''