Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S77-S78]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BORDER SECURITY
Mr. McCONNELL. 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,''
[[Page S78]]
``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.
____________________
