Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, I had an opportunity to talk to President Trump a few moments ago and wanted to indicate to our colleagues that he will sign the bill that we have been discussing here to guarantee that government workers who have been displaced as a result of the shutdown will ultimately be compensated. So I want to ease their anxiety about that particular possibility.

With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 24.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I further ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 15, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 16, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Friday, January 11; 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 Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 16 and do so as a further mark of respect to the late John Culver, former Senator from the State of Iowa.

Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, January 10; 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, notwithstanding the

provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to S. 1 occur at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Merkley.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for 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, last night, President Trump delivered his first address to the Nation from the Oval Office. In the midst of this partial government shutdown, the President offered a reminder of just what is at stake; that is, the security of our Nation's southern border.

By now, on day 19 of Senate Democrats' latest experiment in ``absentee negotiation,'' my colleagues are well-versed in the facts on the ground.

We know Border Patrol agents are encountering historic levels of illicit substances like fentanyl and heroin at our border. We know that last year saw thousands of attempted border crossings by individuals with criminal records and literally hundreds more by known gang members. We understand the status quo is not enough to keep our families and communities safe.

Fortunately, we know the solutions on the table--solutions which the President has placed at the center of the national conversation since the earliest days of his administration--are actually eminently reasonable.

As one former Border Patrol Chief's under President Obama put it just recently, ``If you look in the past, you don't have to go too far back into history . . . bipartisan legislation passed where they built the wall, or fence, or physical barrier, or whatever you want to call it. It's a wall. It works.''

That is what the Border Patrol Chief under President Obama said.

He went on to say:

It is not based on personal political ideology. That's

based on historical data and facts that could be proven. . .

. I cannot think of a legitimate argument why anyone would

not support the wall as part of the multi-layered border

security issue.

So why are we not listening to the experts and the people who are doing this every day, like that Border Patrol Chief under President Obama?

The experts know what they are talking about. The facts back them up. According to CBP, in four border sectors where this administration has already constructed or improved physical barriers in the last 2 years-- listen to this--illicit traffic has fallen by 90 percent--90 percent.

Of course, not too long ago, my colleagues across the aisle had a completely different position on this subject. Before the political winds blew a different way, before this particular President was inaugurated, Senate Democrats did heed the advice of the men and women who protect our border.

By very wide bipartisan margins, and on multiple occasions, the Senate has cleared literally billions of dollars in funding for physical barriers along the southern border.

In 2006, then-Senator Obama said the Secure Fence Act would provide ``badly needed funding for better fences and better security.'' That is what then-Senator Obama said in 2006.

In 2009, the current Democratic leader praised as major progress ``630 miles of border fence''--fence--``that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration.'' That is what the then-majority leader said in 2009, who is now the minority leader.

During the last Presidential election, former Senator Clinton saw fit to tout the ``numerous times'' she voted to ``build a barrier to try and prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.'' That is what Hillary Clinton said. ``Numerous times,'' ``significant barrier,''

``badly needed,'' that was where leading Democrats stood.

Today, however, it seems there is a new party line. The use of physical barriers to preserve the integrity of a sovereign Nation is now, according to the new Speaker of the House, ``immoral''-- ``immoral.'' They went from ``badly needed'' to ``immoral'' in little more than the span of a Presidency. Talk about a pivot. Talk about a pivot.

My Democratic friends wanted fencing and physical barriers in the recent past. Their most prominent leaders actually bragged about voting for physical barriers. The only thing that has changed between then and now is the occupant of the White House.

Steel fencing was fine, even salutary, when President Obama was in the White House, but it is ``immoral'' when President Trump occupies the office.

All of a sudden--all of a sudden--Democrats have developed this new partisan allergy to the subject of border security. They are even prolonging a partial government shutdown just to avoid getting more of what they themselves have voted for in the past.

This inconsistency doesn't stop with drawing imaginary lines in the sand between the border security the Democrats once supported and the virtually identical measures they have decided to oppose today. The inconsistency also extends to the conduct of the Senate itself during this tantrum.

Mr. President, yesterday evening, Democrats blocked the Senate from proceeding to important foreign policy legislation. This bill, which was blocked last night, included measures of which they have been outspokenly supportive and even cosponsored, but then they decided that getting anything done at all this week would clash with their new political brand.

To be clear, the legislation I am referring to would have addressed several serious challenges to U.S. interests in the Middle East. It would have reaffirmed our commitment to the security of Israel, our closest regional ally. It would have reauthorized defense cooperation with Jordan, a critical partner, and it would have taken a vital step toward bringing the perpetrators and the enablers of the Assad regime atrocities in Syria to justice. Frankly, it would have delivered on promises to which my Democratic colleagues appeared to be firmly committed.

In their own words, Senate Democrats have discussed ``the continuation of America's unshakeable, seven-decade commitment to Israel's security'' and doing ``everything in our power to fight the BDS movement,'' but, alas, instead of proceeding to this legislation, Senate Democrats voted to block it.

My friend the Democratic leader chose to take this partial government shutdown that he is prolonging and add his very own Senate shutdown on top of it. They want to shut down the Senate as well--no progress, no bipartisan work, not even on urgent and pressing matters, nothing that might take the spotlight off his unreasonable showdown with the President.

Just as an example, during the 2013 government shutdown, the Senate kept right on chugging through the people's business. We passed 5 bills, 13 resolutions, appointed conferees on the farm bill, the budget resolution, and confirmed 28 of President Obama's nominees. The Senate was not shut down during the last government shutdown. This time, the Democrats want to hold everything hostage--everything?

Here is more inconsistency. Senate Democrats were for border security, including billions for physical barriers, before they were against it, and they were for the Senate working hard during government shutdowns on other business before they were against it.

Until our Democratic colleagues agree to get back to work--until they agree to get back to work--the Senate can't make much progress. Rest assured, Assad has not pressed the pause button on the Syrian civil war simply because it doesn't suit the Democratic leader's political strategy this week, Israel's enemies haven't stopped either, and until Democrats prioritize the public interest ahead of political spite, our border will not be secured, and the Federal Government will remain partially closed.

I cannot urge my Democratic colleagues more strongly to get past this purely partisan spite, rediscover their own past positions on border security, and negotiate a fair solution with the President to secure our Nation and reopen all of the Federal Government.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 12, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.