January 14, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 7 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
GOVERNMENT FUNDING; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 7
(Senate - January 14, 2019)
Text available as:
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 S165-S166] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] GOVERNMENT FUNDING Mr. McCONNELL. 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 [[Page S166]] 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. ____________________