BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we have a short time left before appropriations expire on Friday. Yesterday, we made some progress.
Thankfully, President Trump appears to have backed down from his position for billions in direct appropriations for a border wall. For the past several weeks, the President's insistence on $5 billion for a wall has been the biggest obstacle to keeping the government open past Friday.
The President's spokesperson has claimed that the administration can build the full wall from reprogrammed funds given to other areas of the government. Let me be very clear. Without our assent, the administration cannot reprogram funds proposed by Congress for the full wall. To do so would violate Congress's article I powers. They cannot do it on their own, and the House and Senate will not approve a wall from reprogrammed funds or anything else. It will not happen.
We Democrats have opposed massive appropriations for a border wall for five reasons. It is not effective compared to other border security measures. Expert after expert has said that. There is no plan to build it. The President asked for $5 billion, but there are no plans of where the wall would be, how much it would cost, what each part would be made of. There is no plan to deal with eminent domain. There are lots of people on the Texas border and on other borders who don't want to give up their land. They have said they will fight it in court. It will take years. We have not heard a peep out of the administration on how to deal with that. Above all, the President promised that Mexico would pay for it, not the American taxpayer. Was it a campaign issue? Yes. Yet, throughout, the President said Mexico would pay for it. He never campaigned on having Americans pay for a massive border wall, ineffective as it would be.
The Democrats have been perfectly clear. We want smart, effective border security, but that is not a wall. The President and, just this morning, the Republican leader have suggested repeatedly that Democrats are against all border security. Of course, we are not. Every expert has looked at that and said it is a total lie. Frankly, the reason our colleagues, the President, Leader McConnell, and others do it is that they have no defense of the wall. Instead of defending the wall, they say the Democrats are not for border security. Nothing could be further from the truth, as shown by what we have supported in the past and today.
This morning, the President also tweeted that Mexico could somehow pay for the wall through a new trade deal. This is a huge turnaround for a President who once insisted: Mark my words. Mexico will pay for the wall 100 percent. Of course, there have been multiple fact checks to show a new NAFTA could not possibly fund the wall directly or indirectly. There is nothing in the new agreement that stipulates Mexico must devote any resources to the United States, and any savings from a trade deal, if there are any savings, don't go to the Treasury; they go to American businesses and American taxpayers. Ultimately, the President would have to tax the American people to fund his wall. Mexico ain't footing the bill.
All that said, it is good news that the President has retreated from his demand that Congress fund the wall. Now, we Democrats in the Senate and in the House have made two reasonable offers that, I believe, would glide through the House and Senate: No. 1, pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a 1-year CR for DHS or, No. 2, pass a 1-year CR for all seven remaining appropriations bills.
Leader McConnell proposed a short-term CR just a few minutes ago. We would have preferred one of our two options, but I am glad the leader thinks the government should not shut down over the President's demand for a wall, and the Democrats will support this CR. The President and the House should follow that lead because shutting down the government over Christmas is a terrible idea--one of the worst to come down the pike in a very long time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT