Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Last week, I met with Coast Guard Commandant Schultz, and I told him to press Secretary Nielsen, who could press the President to stop holding innocent Federal employees hostage in wall negotiations.

Last month, as we all know, the Senate voted unanimously to keep the government open into February so all Federal employees would get paid and the President and Congress could separately negotiate border security.

Today, the Senate will again have a chance to vote on the same measure that we passed unanimously in December. I expect that those who care about getting our Coast Guard paid will support passing H.J. Res. 31, a continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security, and H.R. 648, which are the conference bills for FSGG, Interior, Environment, Agriculture, T-HUD, SFOPS, and CJS.

Res. 648 and H.J. Res. 31 en bloc; that the measure be considered read a third time and passed en bloc; and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no action or debate? That will pay all Federal employees who deserve to be paid.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator would yield, it is mutual.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. If the gentleman will yield, we don't do that in Brooklyn.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. I would remind him, whether it is squirrel, jackrabbit, or armadillo, that we are the article I branch of government, and because President Trump says no, we have veto override power, and we could get the workers paid even if he will not sign it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, once again, I would simply remind my dear friend from Mississippi that we could do a whole lot more good by funding and opening up the government for everyone. President Trump has claimed 25 times he wants to shut down the government for his wall, and he has gotten this Chamber to reverse itself when it had originally passed funding for the whole government. We could do a lot more good if my amendment to the proposal by my friend from Louisiana were adopted. That is how it is.

1.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, in a moment, the Senate will proceed to two amendments: one on the President's proposal and one on a 2-week continuing resolution that opens up the government, with disaster assistance.

Let me be clear: The two votes are not alike. The President's proposal makes radical changes to our asylum laws and demands that American taxpayers fund a border wall in exchange for reopening the government. The second vote demands nothing--no partisan demands, no ransom. It reopens the government for 2 weeks and provides long overdue disaster aid, and then it leaves room for us to debate how to best secure our border.

My Republican friends can fall in line behind the President if they choose, but it does not have the support of the House or the Senate. Contrary to what the Republican leader says, that there is only one bill that will become law, that is not so. His bill will not pass the Senate and will not pass the House. It is not the only way for us to make a law.

After the first vote fails, Republicans will have a chance to vote with us to reopen their government. The second vote determines whether you want to reopen the government or not. The second vote determines whether you are willing to reopen the government without taking hostages, without hurting 800,000 workers, and without hurting America but open the government with no conditions. We can send that bill to the President's desk. It has already passed the House.

The President may choose to veto it, just as we may choose to override that veto. My dear friend from Louisiana missed that point. If we act with 67 votes, even if the President doesn't like it, it can pass.

We all know it was the President who threw us into this turmoil when he changed his mind and opposed a bill to reopen the government without conditions--just like the one we offered in December and the House wouldn't go forward with, even though the Senate voted for it unanimously.

Our bill should not be controversial. Our amendment is nearly the same bill Republicans all voted for a month ago. It shows that the one cause of this shutdown is the one person who bragged he wanted it-- President Donald Trump.

Last month, the Senate unanimously passed the short-term bill to keep the government open. It was Leader McConnell's idea. Everyone thought the President would support it, but President Trump buckled to the most extreme voices in his party and reversed his position at the eleventh hour. That is how the government shutdown began, sadly and unfortunately. Since then, we tried to negotiate with the administration to no avail. When the President's deputies made offers, the President almost immediately retracted them. The President even rejected an idea by Senator Graham, one of his staunchest allies in the Senate, to reopen government temporarily while we debate border security.

Now the President is back with a ``straw man'' proposal, as the Senator from Oklahoma called it, that makes the same demand he has been making all along: $5.7 billion taxpayer dollars for a border wall he promised Mexico would pay for, and it adds a new radical change to our asylum laws. What the President calls concessions to Democrats are the protections for DACA and TPS recipients that the President himself rescinded and have been subsequently protected by the court.

Calling this a reasonable compromise is laughable. It is a starkly partisan proposal that perfectly encapsulates the President's hostage- taking of the American government. This is what the President could be saying in this bill: Give me everything I want in exchange for reopening the government. A vote for the President's plan is very simply an endorsement of government by extortion. Enough is enough.

I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with me. They understand that holding our government workers hostage for a policy goal is no way to govern. I know they feel that way. I urge them to vote yes on the second vote.

Supporting our amendment doesn't mean you don't support stronger border security. To the contrary, it starts funding that effort once again. Voting for this amendment means you agree with the vast majority of the American people that the government should open without precondition. Voting for this amendment means you recognize that holding millions of Americans hostage is not a way to run our government. Voting for this amendment means that you believe members of the Coast Guard, the TSA, the DHS, and the FBI should be paid for their work protecting our country. Voting for this amendment means you support our air traffic controllers, food inspectors, and the men and women who work at our national parks. And yes, voting for this amendment means that you support border security. It means you support a way out of this shutdown where we can sit down and rationally hash out our differences. If we can't do that, if we can't agree today that the way to solve disagreements over policy is through debate and consideration in Congress where it belongs, then we are staring down a very long and very dark tunnel.

Our system of government was designed to allow space for disagreements, even vociferous ones, but when one side--in this case, the President--uses the basic functioning of our government as leverage to extract policy concessions, our entire system of government breaks down. It is a recipe for gridlock, dysfunction, and paralysis, not only now but on into the future.

I believe there are men and women of good faith on both sides of the aisle who want to see this senselessness come to an end today. Let the Senate come together now. Let the Senate rise to the occasion as it has done so often in the past. Vote yes on the second amendment. Open the people's government.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source