Disapproving the President's Proposal to Take An Action Relating to the Application of Certain Sanctions with Respect to the Russian

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, one dollar--one dollar--that is the amount that the Speaker of the House said she would be willing to invest in physical barriers at our southern border--one dollar. Talk about serious, good-faith negotiations. Talk about taking borders seriously.

The men and women on the ground have been unambiguous about the crisis they are facing: the entry of criminal aliens and gang members into our country, the drugs that go on to infect our communities, the ongoing humanitarian crises that are fueled by our government's mixed signals and our inability to enforce our own laws.

According to Speaker Pelosi, these urgent issues are worth about 33 cents each--33 cents. As we all know, that is because the Speaker has recently defined a brandnew dogma for the Democratic Party: Actually enforcing our immigration laws with the help of physical barriers is ``an immorality''--an immorality.

That is quite the indictment of her fellow Democrats' past positions. Recent years have seen Democrats vote for billions--billions--of dollars in physical walls and fencing. Recent years have seen a Democratic administration build the same steel barriers--the very same steel barriers--that this President now wants to expand.

But these days, it seems that Democrats are happy to take their cues from the gentlelady from San Francisco and her extreme, fringe position that walls have now become immoral. Really?

Yesterday, President Trump issued yet another bipartisan invitation for Members of Congress to meet at the White House and actually negotiate. Yet, again, only Republicans came to the table.

For the American people, who deserve both a functioning government as well as a secure border, that really is not a promising sign. For Federal workers who are now stretching every dollar until Democrats lose interest in dead-end political games, the Speaker's $1 punchline is not very entertaining.

So for everyone's sake, I hope our Democratic colleagues will reverse course and work seriously with this White House to reach an agreement that can become law and fulfill our promises to our country.

In the meantime, as the White House made clear just yesterday, cherry-picking continuing resolutions that fail to address the border crisis will not receive the President's signature. They are not going to.

The only way out of this impasse is a bipartisan agreement, and as the Democratic leader and I have both stated here on the floor, only an all-corners bipartisan agreement will receive a vote here in the Senate. S.J. Res. 2

Mr. President, on another matter, before the Senate today is a resolution from the Democratic leader that would overrule career civil servants at the Treasury Department and fire from the hip on one of the top foreign policy concerns of the United States.

This is the pending business, despite the fact that the Democratic leader had previously proclaimed he would not let the Senate address any business--any--during this partial government shutdown. Apparently there is an exception to that.

Remember, that was the reason the Democratic leader gave for leading a Democratic filibuster of a bipartisan package that would have reaffirmed our commitment to defend our allies in Israel, stand alongside Jordan, and unlock justice for the victims of Assad's rogue regime.

On one day, they insist we shouldn't do any business; on another, it is time to bring up an unrelated resolution of their own. At the end of the last Congress, they said they would support bipartisan legislation to shore up our allies in the Middle East and deliver justice for victims of unspeakable violence in Syria. Now they are filibustering the bill and have voted against it three times--three times against this potential bill that benefits our allies Israel and Jordan and deals with the victims of cruelty in Syria.

These twists and turns are pretty hard to follow, confusing, until you remember the one key to our Democratic colleagues' thinking these days--political spite for the President comes first, ahead of everything else.

You see, the administration isn't opposed to these bipartisan, urgent bills to back Israel, Jordan, and the Syrian people. President Trump, we expect, would sign these bills. We might actually make a law, which is what people sent us here to do, presumably.

Naturally, the Democratic leader isn't interested. Democrats in Congress don't think working with the President to accomplish things suits their political brand these days.

The Democratic leader's new resolution, which he has been happy to prioritize ahead of Israel and the Syrian people, offers him a chance to make a political splash. It overrules the careful actions of career civil servants at Treasury and blows up a nuanced decision the current law actually requires. Current law actually requires what they do.

Supporting Israel? It is not too interesting to my friends across the aisle, but picking a political fight with the President, boy, they are up for that one every day.

This is the key to understanding this unusual moment. This is the central principle. Democrats have made a marketing decision to obstruct President Trump at all costs, even if it hurts substantive priorities they used to support. That is why we are in day 26 of this partial government shutdown, with Democrats refusing to even show up and negotiate on funds for border security, which they used to brag about supporting. That is why Senate Democrats have decided that aid for Israel and help for the people of Syria are not worthy of this body's time but are happy to spend more time trying to blow up a highly technical Treasury Department decision that current law actually requires.

Let me say that again. They are happy to spend floor time trying to blow up a highly technical Treasury Department decision that current law actually requires. Political obstruction is their top priority. Everything else follows from that.

Nomination of William Barr

Mr. President, on a final matter, even in the midst of this political climate, the President's nominee for Attorney General delivered an impressive performance during the first day of his hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Senators were reminded exactly why he won bipartisan admiration for this body in 1991 and was confirmed as President Bush 41's Attorney General with no opposition--none.

Now, as Mr. Barr himself acknowledged in his testimony yesterday, times have changed, but the core principles that our Nation's Attorney General must uphold haven't changed. As the nominee testified yesterday, ``the American people have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law--not politics--holds sway . . . the Department of Justice must be such a place.''

Those are the words of the right man for this job. His testimony made clear what he sees as key priorities for the Department of Justice: building on past progress in preventing violent crime, enforcing and improving our Nation's immigration laws, and protecting the integrity of our electoral system.

He stated definitively where his loyalties lie: with ``the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be.''

Experience, integrity, and total commitment--the President has made an outstanding choice. The Judiciary Committee continues its hearings today. I look forward to their continuing review of this nomination and, then, to its being reported here to the floor. The American people deserve the very best.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source