Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.J. Res. 31 be considered read a second time and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the joint resolution, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the joint resolution, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time for me to request a conference with the House on H.J. Res. 31.

I move to insist upon the Senate amendment, request a conference with the House, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint conferees with respect to H.J. Res. 31.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 31, submitted earlier today.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today through Monday, January 28.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, January 28; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1 on January 8 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1 be agreed to, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, upon reconsideration.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 31 and do so as a further mark of respect for the late Harris Wofford, Jr., former Senator for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 1.

Mr. President, later today--on day 34 of this partial government shutdown--the Senate will be voting on a proposal to finally end it. We will be voting on the one plan--the only one on the table-- that would reopen the shuttered portions of the Federal Government. It is a pragmatic compromise that could end this impasse right away.

The choice is absolutely clear, and the Nation is watching. Members can vote to immediately reopen the entire government with a compromise package that the President will actually sign, or they can hold out for the Democratic leader's dead-end proposal that stands no chance of earning the President's signature and ending the partial shutdown.

The President's compromise would accomplish three things. First, it ends the shutdown and resumes pay for Federal workers right away. Second, it strikes a bipartisan compromise on the issue of immigration and border security with ideas from both sides. Third, it provides stable, full-year funding for the Federal Government, not another short-term bandaid.

First, ending the shutdown. We have heard from Federal workers whose lives are in disarray. We have heard about the family hardships caused by the Democrats' unwillingness to sit down and negotiate with the President. We have heard from those who have endured over a month without pay. We have heard from the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and other Federal employees. Every American deserves a fully operational government. Taxpayers aren't getting special tax refunds for these weeks when services and Agencies have been diminished or are unavailable.

The President has been at the negotiating table, ready to talk and to fix it. Democrats have made the opposite political calculation, and our Nation is paying the price.

The way forward is simple. We all know the ground rules. We need a compromise that can pass both Chambers and earn the Presidential signature. That is the way you make a law in this country. The first proposal we will vote on today is the only legislation that exists with any chance of checking those boxes--getting the President's signature and making a law.

On immigration and border security, this legislation provides the resources the men and women who risk their own safety to defend our border tell us are necessary. In the past year, we have watched as apprehensions of family units at the borders have risen--more young people brought into danger.

They have seen more interdiction of illicit substances like heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl and higher rates of attempted crossings by gang members and criminals.

The need for more security on our border is not a partisan invention. It is a fact. It is a reality most Senate Democrats readily admit.

One Senate Democrat said: ``I'm willing to support more border security.''

Another said: ``Certainly, you need barriers. And we support barriers.''

Not to be outdone, a third said: ``I'm a huge advocate of border security.''

If they agree with the need, they should agree with this modest proposal. It would fund new enforcement and surveillance technologies, recruiting and training hundreds of new Border Patrol agents, and it would direct about one one-thousandth of Federal discretionary spending for physical barriers along the highest priority sections of the border--barriers like the ones that the current Democratic leader joined then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton in supporting back in 2006; like the barriers constructed by President Obama's own administration; like the barriers in which many of my Democratic colleagues happily voted to invest billions of dollars during the last Congress.

These commonsense physical barriers were a bipartisan point of agreement until about 5 minutes ago, but the President went even further to win Democrats' support. For example, his proposal also provides for a 3-year legal status for certain individuals currently covered by DACA and TPS.

That is what this law provides: the border security we need, plus actual statutory authorization for DACA recipients, written into law, for the first time--not the unilateral hand-waving of the Obama administration.

Finally, this bill would complete the full-year appropriations that both parties worked very hard on last year. The last thing we need is another temporary measure. Last year's appropriations process left stable, bipartisan funding measures on the 1-yard line. We don't need to punt from the 1-yard line and set up another crisis just like this a couple of weeks from now. We need to finish our work and run these seven full-year bipartisan funding bills into the end zone--into the end zone--and finish last year's work.

Let me conclude by simply stating what will be on display in this Chamber today. The American people will see plainly which Senators want to make a law and clean up this mess and which Senators are content to continue making political points and nothing else.

Making law versus making points, that is a choice. Any one of my Democratic colleagues who rejects the compromise offer but votes for the Democratic leader's partisan showmanship will be saying the following: They will be saying that political fights with the President matter more--more--than Federal workers and their families, border security, DACA and TPS recipients, as well as government funding.

Let me say that again. If my Democratic colleagues reverse their voting records on border security, if they decide that spending one one-thousandth of Federal spending on Obama-style steel barriers has become totally impermissible just because President Trump is in the White House, then, they will be saying that political games outrank Federal workers, the Coast Guard, DACA recipients, TPS recipients, and all their constituents, as far as this Democratic Party is concerned.

Deep down, my friends across the aisle know this is not a reasonable reaction to a President of the other party. They know the Speaker of the House is unreasonable on these subjects, with her own Members and her own House majority leader openly contradicting her on national television, and that Senate Democrats are not obligated to go down with her ship.

They know that denying the President one-tenth of 1 percent for spending on needed border security is not worth hurting this many people. It is obvious what the Senate needs to do.

Today, we will decide whether we turn a new corner and begin putting the last month behind us or whether we will all continue to show up for work, stuck in exactly the same situation.

Only one bill does all the bipartisan things I discussed. Only one bill has any chance whatsoever of becoming law. So we ought to vote for it.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I withdraw my motion to proceed to S. 1.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 5.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 6.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls be waived.

Madam President, I move to proceed to S. 1.

Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the plan put forward by President Trump to reopen the closed portions of the Federal Government right away, increase security on our southern border, deliver disaster recovery funding, and address some outstanding immigration issues.

By way of reminder, this is a compromise measure that was carefully designed to include the kinds of ideas Democrats have been eager to support, including very recently. First and foremost, the legislation would end this partial shutdown and bring all parts of the Federal Government back online for the American people. Normal operations would resume. Federal workers would receive backpay and continue to be paid. This could happen quickly.

The bill also takes a compromise approach to the underlying disagreement that brought us to this point. It would fully fund the border security priorities identified by the men and women actually working on the ground: investments in surveillance and security technologies, in recruiting and training new Border Patrol agents, and, yes, additional funding for physical barriers like the walls and fences which Democratic Senators used to boast about voting for and which President Obama's administration bragged about building.

Of course, the reality of a divided government is that negotiations do not leave either side with their perfect plan. So the President went out of his way to include additional items that have been priority areas for Democrats. For example, the proposal would grant 3-year lawful status for certain currently enrolled DACA recipients and individuals under TPS. Finally, the White House proposal also includes all seven of our regular order appropriations bills, the product of bipartisan work in this body and in the House throughout last year.

So the President's compromise offer should command serious consideration in both Houses of Congress. On day 33 of this partial government shutdown, we have before us a bill to immediately reopen the Federal Government, deliver all remaining full-year appropriations measures, support disaster recovery efforts, fully fund comprehensive border security priorities, and address some outstanding immigration issues. It is hard to think of a good reason to oppose this, but my Democratic friends are trying to come up with something--anything--to justify prolonging the stalemate. I have a great deal of respect for my friends across the aisle, but honestly this is getting downright silly--downright silly.

Yesterday the Democratic leader announced that he was denouncing President Trump's proposal because ``there were no serious negotiations with any Democrat.'' It would appear my friend is offended that he wasn't consulted while this compromise was under construction. So let's stop and think about that for a minute.

For days--weeks now--the American people have seen the Democratic leader and the Speaker of the House make a public strategy out of refusing to negotiate. That has been their position; that we will not negotiate.

They have said it publicly. They have announced they are not interested in a negotiated solution to this impasse, not interested in meeting the President halfway on immigration policy or anything else, happy to keep the government closed unless and until everyone agrees to move forward in their preferred manner with no concessions and nothing for border security.

Now, that has been the Democrats' public stance. Our friends across the aisle have said repeatedly that they have no intention to negotiate out of the stalemate. The Speaker of the House joked that she would allow $1--$1--for physical barriers like wall fencing. That is why they have turned away from multiple opportunities to negotiate at the White House in recent weeks.

So my friend across the aisle is attempting quite the two-step here. First, the Democratic leader repeatedly said he wasn't interested in any talks at this point, but then when President Trump puts forward a proposal to move us forward, my colleague complains he wasn't consulted.

Well, the President and the American people are picking up on the strangeness of the Democratic leader's strategy of refusing to even negotiate. Here is one headline from a newspaper editorial that echoes this growing national sentiment. Here is what he said: ``Trump made an offer--it's time for Democrats to start negotiating.''

This is from the Washington Post--the Washington Post:

[T]o refuse even to talk until the government reopens does

no favors to sidelined federal workers.

[A] measure of statesmanship for a member of Congress now

is the ability to accept some disappointments, and shrug off

the inevitable attacks from the purists.

There are signs that Democratic Members in both Chambers are starting to come to the same conclusion, starting to reject their leaders' refusal to even negotiate.

Here is what a few of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have said in the last few days:

I personally don't think a border wall is in and of itself

immoral.

Here is another:

Everybody is for border security. . . . There are places a

wall makes sense.

Here are a few of our Democratic colleagues over in the House:

If we don't compromise, the American people are the ones

who get hurt.

Another said:

If I had the opportunity to vote for some sort of deal, I

would.

Another said:

There is common ground. . . . We do have to figure out how

to secure our borders.

Even Speaker Pelosi's own House majority leader broke completely with her extreme position in a television interview just yesterday. When asked if he would personally be open to wall funding, Congressman Hoyer replied:

Look, I think physical barriers are part of the solution.

That is the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

When the news anchor pressed him on Speaker Pelosi's statement that a wall is immoral, Majority Leader Hoyer replied:

It depends on what a wall is used for, whether it's moral

or immoral. If it is protecting people, it is moral. That is

not the issue.

He went on:

We want to make sure that people who come into the United

States are authorized to do so. . . . We are for border

security and I think we can get there.

So more and more Democrats seem to be coming to the same collusion as the rest of us. It is time to make a deal--time to make a deal.

Fortunately, a deal is on the table. It is a deal for everyone who would rather reopen the government, invest in border security, and secure more certainty for DACA recipients than sacrifice all that for the sake of this radical new position that physical barriers, like walls or fencing, are inherently immoral. So the President has produced a fair compromise that pairs full-year government funding with immigration policy priorities from both sides.

Enough political spite--enough. Enough showboating for ``the Resistance.'' Enough refusing to join in talks and then complaining you weren't consulted. Our Federal workforce and the American people deserve a whole lot better than this.

I can't believe the bulk of our Democratic colleagues really see opposing the President as more important--more important--to their constituents than restoring full government function, paying our Federal employees, securing the border, and more certainty for the DACA population.

When we vote on the President's plan tomorrow, we will see what each Senator decides to prioritize.

Covington Catholic High School

Madam President, on one final and totally different matter, I need to say a few words about something that took place this past weekend.

Last week, Kentuckians of all ages traveled to our Nation's Capital to exercise our fundamental American rights to peacefully assemble and petition the government.

Unfortunately for the students of Covington Catholic High School, their participation has resulted in threats on their lives.

Far-left activists and members of the national and State media isolated a very few seconds of video footage from any shred of context, and many decided it was time to attack and denigrate these young people.

Because of what some highly partisan observers thought--thought--they saw in a few seconds of confusing video, these kids, their school, and their families were met with a deluge--a virtual deluge--of partisan vitriol and hatred from people who never met them and had no idea what had taken place. Some prominent figures even used this pile-on to propose curtailing the First Amendment for groups with whom they disagree, even targeting the students' hats.

How quickly some seem to forget why the Framers insisted on these protections in the first place.

In a matter of hours, these students were tried, convicted, and sentenced by the media, where accuracy is irrelevant and the presumption of innocence does not exist. To their credit, some apologized for their commentary upon learning more, but by that point too much damage had already been done.

Because of the startling death threats against these students and their families, Covington Catholic--which, by the way, is in Kentucky-- was closed yesterday. The school's administration is working closely with law enforcement, but it is unclear when any sense of normalcy might return.

This time, it is families in my home State who are paying the price for exercising their freedoms. Sadly, this kind of fact-free rush to judgment is becoming an all-too-often occurrence.

If we can learn anything from this weekend, here is what I hope it is: When the rush for headlines takes precedence over the facts, mistakes are made, and our rights as Americans are put at risk. This trend is particularly troubling when young people are involved.

Signing Authority

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senior Senator from Alaska be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions today.

I object.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment to mark the first anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marshall County High School, which took place 1 year ago today in Benton, KY.

Bailey Holt and Preston Cope, both 15, began that morning just like any other. Their parents and friends described Bailey and Preston as bright kids with promising futures ahead, but this peaceful community was shattered when a fellow student opened fire, taking Bailey and Preston's lives, and leaving nearly 20 additional students wounded.

Their families were left to grieve, and for the past year, the community has done its best to provide comfort and put the pieces back together.

This evening, the Marshall County community will join together once again to remember the victims and to continue the healing. As they do, my prayers and those of all their fellow Kentuckians will be with them.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, January 24; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the time until 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

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

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.