Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, January 16; 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 S.J. Res. 2, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to S.J. Res. 2 occur at 12:30 p.m., tomorrow, and if cloture is not invoked, S.J. Res. 2 be returned to the calendar.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. President, although three-quarters of the government is funded and fully operational, important Federal functions continue to be unduly affected, and hundreds of thousands of Federal workers have now missed paychecks.

By now, everyone in America understands the basic faultlines of this disagreement. The Speaker of the House has decided that opposing President Trump comes before the security of our borders.

The President has asked for a reasonable new investment, $5.7 billion--about one-tenth of 1 percent of Federal spending--for the same kinds of border security that prominent Democrats actually used to brag about supporting, for the very same kind of reinforced steel fencing that the Obama administration bragged about building, and for precisely the kinds of barriers that the men and women of law enforcement there on the ground insist are vital for their mission.

It is for precisely the same kind of physical border security in which a number of my Democratic colleagues here in the Senate were perfectly happy to vote to invest billions of dollars just as recently as last Congress. The 2017 funding measure that passed the Senate with 47 Democratic votes included upgraded border fencing; that was in 2017, just this past Congress--last year. And 40 Democrats voted for the bipartisan spending deal that was cleared just this past March. It included more than $1.5 billion for border barriers. Then, of course, the Appropriations subcommittee and full committee approved another $1.6 billion for border security in a bipartisan vote just this last June, and 10 of 15 committee Democrats voted to report the final package to the full Senate. Those are billions of dollars for physical border security, winning Democratic votes just last year.

Well, that was before we had a new Speaker of the House. That was before Speaker Pelosi and her far-left base decided that the politics of obstruction would come before commonsense policymaking.

Here is how serious the Speaker is about ending the impasse and getting the government reopened: She now proudly boasts that she would allow exactly $1--$1--for border barriers.

There was bipartisan support in the Congress for billions of dollars of physical barriers at the border before Representative Pelosi was Speaker. Now congressional Democrats support just $1--$1--for border barriers since she became Speaker. You have to ask yourself, what is the reason?

Earlier this month, Speaker Pelosi declared that the concept of any physical wall on our southern barrier was ``an immorality''--an immorality.

``A wall is an immorality.'' That is what Speaker Pelosi said. Look, that is not a serious statement. It would be laugh-out-loud material if hundreds of thousands of Federal workers weren't going without pay because the Speaker has decided this absurdity is now her party's official position.

Immoral? Was it immoral for Democrats to vote for the Secure Fence Act in 2006? Was it immoral for President Obama's administration to proudly build the same kinds of steel slat barriers that President Trump now wants more of? Is Speaker Pelosi calling sitting Democrats immoral because they voted to invest billions in border security over the past few years alone?

I would like to see how this new philosophical opposition to the existence of walls plays out in practice. Shouldn't the Speaker introduce a bill to destroy the walls and fencing that already exist if they are immoral?

Or maybe this actually isn't a new, principled stand by Democrats. Maybe this is all one big political game--no negotiations, no collaboration. It is political game playing.

Consider the latest tactic by my Democratic colleagues. They have said that the President just needs to drop his request and agree to the Democrats' plan to reopen the government, and then--and then--they will talk about border security--except they couldn't even keep up that act either.

When President Trump and Speaker Pelosi met last week, the President

put the question to her directly: If the government were reopened, would Democrats, after 30 days, then compromise and agree to more border security?

No, no, said Speaker Pelosi. They would not.

So here we are, day 24, because the Speaker of the House has decided that enforcing our own laws is now immoral, because she has decided it is better to prolong this partial shutdown than invest $1 in something that both parties agreed was a good idea until about 5 minutes ago-- funding that Obama administration border experts continue to argue is a good idea, an essential idea.

Here in the Senate, I am sorry to say, my Democratic colleagues seem to have just fallen in line. Based on their actions, my colleagues across the aisle seem to agree that it is better for Federal workers to keep going without pay than to invest one one-thousandth of Federal spending in the same kinds of border security that they themselves have voted repeatedly to fund in just the past 2 years.

I have a hard time believing that every last one of my Senate Democratic colleagues really stands with Speaker Pelosi on this. It is hard to believe. It is hard to believe that Senate Democrats now agree their own recent votes on border security were actually immoral, that it would be better to keep the government shut down than to invest one one-thousand of Federal spending in fencing that the Obama administration bragged about building.

It is particularly hard for me to believe that my distinguished colleagues from Maryland and Virginia, who are understandably very concerned with the circumstances of the Federal workforce, would rather echo Speaker Pelosi's fringe position--rather echo Speaker Pelosi's fringe position--than work with the White House to find a real compromise and reopen the government.

What is happening here is that Federal workers are paying for this far-left ideological crusade. Lots of American families are facing great uncertainty because Senate Democrats apparently agree that the same kinds of reasonable investments they happily supported last year and the year before have now become completely immoral this year simply because Speaker Pelosi suddenly now says that they are wrong.

That isn't really what has happened. That isn't what has happened. Enforcing our laws has not become unethical overnight. The physical barriers at the border that Democrats used to support in past Congresses and in the Obama administration have not somehow become radical rightwing positions.

Walls and fences still work. Border security still matters. American families still deserve safety. Reality is still reality. When Democrats are ready to reaccept these realities, they can negotiate seriously with the White House and bring an end to this impasse.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, when Paducah Police Chief Brandon Barnhill announced last October that he would be retiring at the end of the year, we knew he would leave large shoes to fill. During his 20 years with the department, including the last 5 it at the helm, Brandon helped develop a statewide reputation for excellence. Now, as Brandon retires to pursue new opportunities, I would like to take a moment to thank him for his service to the city of Paducah and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Brandon graduated from Murray State University and earned a master's degree from Andrew Jackson University. It was at the Murray Police Department that Brandon began his noble vocation in law enforcement. He spent 3 years there before joining Paducah's police force in 1998.

Every day, Brandon wore the badge with pride. Out of love for his community, he faced down danger with integrity and professionalism. Our Commonwealth is blessed with an abundance of brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to protect their fellow citizens, and Brandon fulfilled his duty with distinction.

It didn't take long for his potential to be recognized in Paducah. Promoted to detective the year after joining the department, Brandon continued to earn the respect of his colleagues both in Paducah and throughout the State. When the previous police chief announced his retirement in 2013, Brandon became the best choice to lead his colleagues to preserve the peace.

Brandon's leadership has helped place the Paducah Police Department among the most respected law enforcement organizations in Kentucky. One of his major initiatives was to strengthen the partnerships between the department and the local community. Brandon recently said he was particularly proud of the ``Chief's Community Forum,'' a way to receive feedback on the perception of policing in the city. Throughout his service, Brandon became an example of integrity and credibility in law enforcement, and the Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police named him the Chief of the Year in 2016.

In recent years, I have had the privilege to work with Brandon to bring increased Federal law enforcement resources to Paducah in support of the work already being done there to combat the substance abuse epidemic. In 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation both committed to open new offices in Paducah and to dedicate assets to a partnership with State and local law enforcement. Brandon and the men and women of the Paducah Police Department were, of course, integral to this effort to keep our communities safe.

At his retirement celebration, Brandon was greeted with an outpouring of support and gratitude from the community he had spent two decades serving. I would like to take this opportunity to add my voice to those congratulating him for his remarkable success in Paducah. With his wife Renee and their children, Natalie and Reese, I wish him all the best in his next adventure. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking Chief Brandon Barnhill for his leadership at the Paducah Police Department.

Mr. President, after 16 years of service to the people of Taylor County, KY, Judge-Executive Eddie Rogers is beginning his retirement. My friend leaves behind a legacy of passion for the men and women he represented, and I would like to take a moment to acknowledge Eddie's career in public service and to thank him for his commitment to Taylor County.

Eddie first entered the county's top job in 1999, and he worked closely with the members of the fiscal court to address the challenges facing the area. He made some difficult choices, but as he looked back on his career, Eddie said he always did what he thought was best to help attract new jobs to Taylor County and provide new opportunity for Kentuckians.

Serving in office a second time beginning in 2006, Eddie's leadership secured several major accomplishments for the county that will continue to be enjoyed for years to come. During Eddie's tenure, he oversaw the opening of the Taylor County Judicial Center and the construction of a new fire department. The county also built a new animal shelter, and in the near future, a technology center will open as a result of Eddie's work. These buildings will stand as lasting landmarks to Eddie's service and his success in Taylor County.

At his final fiscal court meeting as judge-executive, the county's other elected officials thanked Eddie for his leadership, his collaborative nature, and his record of achievement. They also noted his work with the Kentucky Association of Counties, helping other communities across the Commonwealth. In addition to his tireless work for Taylor County, Eddie's colleagues also thanked him for his personal friendship. I can echo those sentiments and say I have enjoyed working with Eddie on a broad range of projects for the community and our home State. Joined by members of his family, Eddie adjourned his last meeting with the appreciation of many throughout Taylor County.

At the end of his 16 years of dedication, Eddie has a lot to be proud of, and I would like to thank him for his hard work. With his children, Michele, Wynn, and Natalie, and his grandchildren, Dalton and Laine, I hope he will enjoy a well-earned retirement. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Eddie for his years of service to Kentucky.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 266 has been received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask for its first reading.

I ask for a second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 17, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent 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 when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, January 15; 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 the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Madam President, I understand there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

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

Madam President, all week I have been outlining the humanitarian and security crisis at our Nation's southern border. I have discussed the threats from the inflow of drugs and criminal aliens; I have shared career border security experts' strong support for physical barriers; and I have cited the empirical data that actually backs them up. But on day 20 of this partial government shutdown--a shutdown that has been prolonged by my Democratic colleagues' refusal to even come to the table--I thought I might try something different this morning, so I brought a visual aid.

The chart right here behind me sums up my Democratic colleagues' past and present positions on border security.

Over here on the left, you have a border fence made out of steel bollard at the U.S.-Mexico border in Nogales, AZ. Construction on this upgraded steel slat barrier began back in 2011 at the direction, mind you, of President Obama's Department of Homeland Security--this fence over here, under President Obama, at the direction of his Department of Homeland Security.

Just 5 years prior, Senator Obama joined with then-Senator Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic leader, and several other Democrats and voted to authorize 700 miles--700 miles--of physical barriers under the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

On the right of this chart, we have an example of a barrier like those the new Speaker of the House has recently described as immoral. I would defy my colleagues to tell me what the difference is. They are exactly identical. So we went from the Obama administration, when everybody was supporting a wall that looked just like this, to the Trump administration, where now it is immoral. It is the kind of barrier that all of a sudden the Democrats are so opposed to that they would rather prolong the partial government shutdown than agree to an additional investment of approximately one-tenth--one-tenth--of 1 percent of Federal spending.

They are identical walls, exactly alike. When President Obama was there, they were for it. When President Trump is there, they are not. As I said, it is basically the same photograph twice.

I do that to underscore the point that the Trump administration is requesting funding for the same kinds of physical barriers that the Obama administration was actually proud to build and

bragged about: fencing with spaced slats that allowed visibility, made with reinforced steel.

They are the same kinds of barriers that Customs and Border Protection experts have told us actually produce real results. You could call them walls; you could call them fences; you could call them steel slats, but what they really are is effective. That is what they are. Call them what you will, but they are effective.

According to the Government Accountability Office, after the outdated fencing in Nogales was replaced by this particular steel slat structure, the Border Patrol reported a significant drop in violent encounters with illegal immigrants. The Border Patrol is not on either side of this debate. They are just giving us the facts--just the facts.

During the 2 years leading up to the 2011 construction, 376 assaults on Border Patrol agents were recorded in the Nogales station. In the 2 years after--after--the bollard fence went up, the number of assaults fell to 71. That is 376 down to 71. That is a decline of 81 percent after the wall or fence or steel slats--whatever you choose to call it.

We have seen big success in other sectors as well. The Trump administration reports that in four border sectors where physical barriers were recently built or upgraded, illegal traffic dropped by-- listen to this--90 percent--90 percent.

It is a fact that physical barriers are effective, as Democratic Senators used to understand perfectly well when there was a different occupant in the White House and, indeed, used to say publicly. They used to say that they are an essential ingredient in a balanced strategy for securing our border.

That was then, and this is now.

So why the tale of two completely Democratic Parties? Why does the Speaker of the House feel compelled to denounce as ``immoral'' the very kind of structures that her own party leaders recently praised as essential? Why do my Democratic colleagues and why does the Democratic leader feel the need to prolong this partial shutdown to avoid getting more of the same investments he used to vote for? What is the reason for this bizarre about-face?

Well, even these very Democrats are finding it difficult to invent a good excuse. On Tuesday, the distinguished House majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, was asked by reporters how there is any real daylight between border security construction projects that Democrats have supported in the past and the ones they are now trying to block. Here is what majority leader Hoyer said to those reporters. This is an honest man. ``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.'' That is the majority leader of the House of Representatives. Well, the reason is because there isn't a good answer. There is no credible answer to this massive flip-flop.

We all know what the real reason is. My Democratic colleagues are operating purely on political spite directed at the President of the United States. Why else would they rather have a partial government shutdown drag on for nearly 3 weeks than get more of what they used to vote for and brag about? Why else would they plug their ears and refuse to listen to the experts out on the ground who do this kind of work, like President Obama's own former Border Patrol Chief? Here is what he says: ``I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would not support the wall as part of a multi-layered border security issue.''

Remember, the proposal we are talking about today would represent one-tenth of 1 percent of Federal spending for this year--one one- thousandth.

With a straight face, Democrats are trying to convince the country that the Federal Government simply cannot reopen, that they simply cannot negotiate with the President because the sky would come crashing down if we invest one one-thousandth of Federal spending in proven border security solutions--proven border security solutions, by the way, that their own party used to support and that President Obama's Border Patrol Chief and other security experts continue to support.

Let's call it what it is--a flip-flop that is not based on principle or on evidence but solely on the fact that President Trump is the occupant of the White House.

So Republicans support the President's commonsense request. The experts on the ground who actually risk their own safety to secure our Nation support it. Even the 2006 versions of President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and the Democratic leader would have supported it, but today's Democrats now say that the same fencing and barriers that were A-OK when President Obama was in the White House are now ``immoral''-- ``immoral''--because President Trump is the one making the requests.

This is not how you make serious policy. Partisan tantrums are no way to govern. My Democratic colleagues need to get serious about their responsibilities, seek treatment for their brand-new partisan allergy, seek some treatment for their brand-new party allergy to border security, sit down with the President, and negotiate a solution that works for everyone. That is the only way to move the country forward.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, there is a lot of important business the Senate could be tackling. We have typically done that during these government shutdowns. The last thing we need to do right now is to trade pointless--absolutely pointless-- show votes back and forth across the aisle.

Just a few days ago, very recently--not years ago--before the latest shifts in political winds, my good friend the Democratic leader completely agreed with me on this. In fact, he and I made an explicit commitment to several of our Members on this very point. We announced it here on the floor. We agreed that we wouldn't waste the Senate's time on show votes related to government funding until a global agreement was reached that could pass the House, pass the Senate, and which the President could sign.

Here is how the Democratic leader himself stated his position, and remember, this was very recently: In order for an agreement to be reached, all four congressional leaders must sign off and the President must endorse it and say he will sign it. That is how you make a law. Most importantly, the President must publicly support and say he will sign our agreement before it gets a vote in either Chamber--before it gets a vote in either Chamber.

That was my good friend the Democratic leader just recently. I intend to keep my word, and I intend to hold him to his.

Yesterday, the White House made clear that the President opposes piecemeal appropriations that neglect border security and would veto them, so obviously that isn't going to become law. This proposal flunks the Democratic leader's own test of a few days ago.

Look, the political stunts are not going to get us anywhere. Senate Democrats should stop blocking the Senate from taking up other urgent matters, like the pending bills concerning Israel and the Syrian civil war. In previous government shutdowns, the Senate has done business. The Senate hasn't been shut down. That is what we ought to be doing and actually at the same time negotiate with the President on border security because nothing else is going to get a solution. Therefore, I object.

Madam President, colleagues on the Democratic side of

the aisle apparently pledged to oppose proceeding to other important bills--we have experienced that at least to this point--during the government shutdown even though there is no precedent for that.

All but four yesterday voted against the motion to proceed to S. 1, and I am assuming they will vote against it again this afternoon. S. 1--the bill they are preventing us from going to--has wide bipartisan support and is a critical step in supporting our allies in the Middle East and securing peace in Syria.

I have talked to many Americans who are intensely interested in the Israel issues. They don't understand why this important legislation would be stymied over a dispute over something entirely different.

Through the Chair, I ask Senator Cardin if this blockade against business on the floor is absolute.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Maryland--I will repeat the question in a minute, but the answer to his question to me is, because this will not produce a result. It has been perfectly clear that the only way to produce this result is for the President, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader to agree, because we need votes from Democrats both in the Senate and the House in order to pass a measure that the President will sign.

My question of the Senator from Maryland was, is this blockade against business on the floor absolute?

As I said, Madam President, repeatedly, it will not solve the problem because the President has made it clear he won't sign it.

Let me try one more time. Does the Senator, through the Chair--

Can we have order in the Senate?

Does the Senator intend to vote against proceeding to other measures during the government shutdown?

Madam President, I think since the Senator from Maryland is unwilling to answer my question, the assumption should be-- and I say this to the broad pro-Israel community in America that we all interact with on issues related to the U.S.-Israel relationship--the Senator is saying he might well vote to proceed to something else but not vote to proceed to these important Israel bills and this important Syria bill.

I want to make sure everybody understands where we are. The Senator is refusing to answer the question as to whether or not this blockade against Senate business applies to everything or just to these pro- Israel bills. So I think the refusal to answer provides the answer for our colleagues, and I assume we can anticipate the Democrats will try to get votes on other matters during the government shutdown but just not the Israel issue and the Syria issue.

Madam President, through the Chair, I have a question of Senator Van Hollen. He is going to propound a consent agreement, I assume.

I object.

I will not prolong this because I know a lot of my Democratic colleagues on the floor may want to speak, but there are two shutdowns going on here. The first one related to the government can only be solved with a Presidential signature, supportive of the Speaker of the House and supportive of at least 10 of our Democratic colleagues--or 7 on the other side. In other words, there has to be a deal, an agreement.

There is a second shutdown going on that, as far as my research can discover, is rather unprecedented. The Senate itself is being shut down because of the refusal of our colleagues on the other side to do business in the Senate during this period. There is no precedent for that. There is no reason for that. We are all here.

The bill they are refusing to let us get on relates to Israel, our great friend Israel, and addresses the atrocities that have been occurring in Syria.

I am having a hard time understanding why the Senate should be shut down as well as the government. We are all here. In fact, attendance looks pretty good, and I don't know why we can't process bills that the vast majority of us support.

I had hoped to pass all of these bills at the end of last session. We had some last-minute objections--and I will say on our side--and so we were unable to do it, but the vast majority of the Members of the Senate do want to process these bills.

So I would hope, no matter how you view the government shutdown, that there is no real significant reason to shut down the Senate.

I yield the floor.