tv U.S. Senate U.S. Senate CSPAN January 20, 2018 5:59pm-7:37pm EST
through an open amendment process. but i want everybody to know that we had a couple of situations where democrats were allowed to offer amendments, but that wasn't -- but that was in something called vote a m the -- called vote-a-rama. i know most of us hate vote a rama. why? because it is a farce. it is like worse of student council. everybody is doing stuff to position themselves back home. none of the things that we vote on in the vote a rama process have any force of law or are going to be enacted. there is nothing meaningful that happens in vote-a-rama. other than that, not one single solitaire democratic amendment was considered on the united states senate floor. no democratic senator had their amendment considered on the senate floor except inside of the process called vote-a-rama,
which we all know is a farce. and so we haven't had bipartisanship, and i was so encouraged when the majority leader earlier this year -- first week of the year, i think, right before convening, said he wants to do things on the basis of 60 votes, which is the way the senate has always worked. and the i know he considers himself and institutional i. and i understand that they felt an comparative to try to repeal the affordable care act and do their tax cuts via the reconciliation process, which is a 51-vote threshold. but he a nnounced, we're going to do bipartisan stuff in year. but what we have is an erratic administration that changes its position every hour, so it is difficult to get to 60. they lack the clarity, they lack the capacity, and it appears they lack the desire to govern in a bipartisan fashion. so i just want to be really
clear. democrats are ready and eager to talk. we are here to find a way forward, but that does require presidential leadership. i don't understand why we couldn't have a one-day c.r., a two-day c.r., a five-day c.r. i don't understand why we can't negotiate with the government open. why can't -- when bill nelson comes down to the floor and says, why don't we buy ourselves another 24 hours so civilian d.o.d. employees can get paid, to people who work for the federal government can get paid, so many of the people who work in the united states congress, in security, elsewhere, and pawrg. all of these -- parking. all of these civil servants will not get paid and they will all be shut down monday morning because no one will allow a
proposal to get a vote. if you don't want to do a 24-hour c.r., vote against it. but at least allow us to keep the government open and keep these negotiations open. now is the time for congress to conduct itself as the article 1 branch, as a separate coequal branch of government. and i understand the publics. we -- politics. we had eight years of president obama and democrats were eager to understand the president's position so we could calibrate and coordinate. we didn't always do the same thing. you have to keep an open ear to what a president of your party desires to do. but when a president of your party is totally unclear or changes his mind every 12 hours, then you have to make a judgment that you're going to exercise your constitutional obligation and get the job done with his participation or over his objections and that's what we
>> good afternoon. this morning the presidents has spoken to leader mcconnell, to speaker ryan, to leader mccarthy. he also received updates from secretary nielsen about the impact of payments, salary not going to our border agents. he also spoke with secretary mattis who gave an update, about 90,000 national guardsmen and 20,000 army reservists who have had their training canceled because of the government shutdown. additionally -- additional costs that they've had to incur including they have to pick up their own pay and travel costs. we stand here ready to sign the bill that the house passed last
night, anxious to keep the government open -- or, i should say, to reopen the government. the white house position, though, remains the same; that we will not negotiate the status of 690,000 unlawful immigrants while hundreds of millions of tax-paying americans, including hundreds of thousands of our troops in uniform and border agents protecting our country, are held hostage by senate democrats. we continue to remain anxious to reach a deal on daca, and we look forward to resuming those negotiations as soon as the senate democrats reopen the government. the reality though that is difficult for, i think, many americans to understand is if, if you put forward a bill that continues funding the government, reauthorizes health insurance for nine million children, provides a relief of
taxes that democrats and republicans on a bipartisan basis, the rationale for shutting down the government over a bill that republicans and democrats agree with on the basis of saying we will not, we will not negotiate, we will not reach a resolution to open the government until there's a solution on a tangential issue that remains plenty of time to be solved, i think a lot of americans have a hard time understanding how you make the argument of why we're not going to pay our men and women in uniform, our agents serving on the border in order to try to resolve an issue that we also want to resolve related to unlawful residents. we look forward, i think, that the senate majority leader is going to offer, as you know has already offered, a continuing resolution that goes to three weeks instead of the original four weeks. we look forward to that vote. we hope that senate democrats will yield and accept that the
position is unreasonable and reopen the government to make sure that our men and women in uniform continue to get paid. director of omb mick mull vain is here to address the status of the update, and then we'll take a few questions with. >> good morning. good afternoon. a couple different things. walk through some of the -- how a lapse in appropriations, a shutdown works. keep in mind the technical term, the legal term is actually a lapse in appropriations. so when you saw the notices go out today, they referenced a lapse. that is the formal name for the shutdown. this morning, early this morning federal workers not notices from their various agencies as to whether they were exempt or furloughed employees. they sort of fell into three categories. either you were exempt and you were to come to work either today or monday depending on your ordinary work schedule, you were absolutely furloughed in which case you were not to come
to work, or actually there's another group of people who would show up for a few hours on monday or today in order to shut down or prepare for the lapse. so those notices went out today. i mentioned yesterday that this shutdown, this lapse would look different than it did in 2013. we're already seeing evidence of that, and i want to walk you folks through a couple ways it's already different. in 2013 most of the epa shut down immediately during the, during the lapse. epa this year, consistent with omb guidance and direction from the president, is using its unonly gated balances, what we call those carry-forward funds. most of the agency will remain open unlike several years ago. mine safety inspection, the number of inspectors that will be on the job for mine safety inspections will increase from 25% of the total in 2013 to 50%. here again, part of the
administration's intentional plan to use unobligated funds that are already at agency, something the previous administration did not emphasize. cybersecurity, agencies will insure that staff working on the maintenance and safeguarding of i.t. systems will continue to work during the lapse and that systems will continue to get their critical updates. national parks, you may have already noticed that the parks, national monuments, private concessions that serve them are open. as i mentioned yesterday, won't be picking up the trash or cleaning the bathrooms. number five, trade negotiations. during the last shutdown, i think the obama administration canceled a few very high-level trade negotiations. by contrast, this year the ustr will use its funding flexibilities -- we talked, again, about that, the ability to use carry-forward funds, transfer of funds from one account to another -- in order to continue round six of the and a nafta negotiations later this week. finally, the merchant marine
academy was closed during the 2013 shutdown, will stay open. there's another important example that doesn't compare apples to apples to 2013, but it is sort of evidence of how we're managing this differently than the democrats did during the 2013 shutdown. after working closely with the white house, with omb to review the exceptions allowed in the law for agencies to continue to operate if their work is necessary to protect life and safety, the cdc has announced this morning they will continue immediate response work and surveillance to protect americans from seasonal influenza. so we'll have continued updates on that either later today or tomorrow as to the how this shutdown, how the lapse, if it continues, is managed. with that, i think we'll take a couple questions. gentleman in the back. >> yes, sir. wondering how concerned you are that when we look at social media, twitter hashtags trending that trump shutdown seems to be far surpassing democrat shutdown or gop shutdown. how concerned are you that the
onus by the public seems to be on the president? >> my favorite is still the schumer shutdown. so it's got that nice little ring to it, doesn't it? yes, sir. >> speaking of senator schumer, he left the meeting yesterday with the president thinking he had arrived at the broad outlines of a deal, and senator schumer said the president relented under pressure from the far right. what's your account of that meeting? i know you weren't in that room -- >> yeah, i was in that meeting. i did talk to the chief about it this morning, and i'll give you an example of how mr. schumer is mischaracterizing the discussions. one of the things that, according to the chief, that mr. schumer told the president was that i will give you all of the money that you want for your wall. and the president said, oh, that's great. i need $20 billion to build the whole wall. and mr. schumer said, oh, no, no, no, only 13.6. that -- 1.6, that's all you asked for last year, which i happened to write.
that is not all of the money for the wall, nor was it ever intended to be all the money for the wall. but chuck schumer actually had the gall to look at the president and say i'm giving you everything you asked for the wall, and then when pressed, admitted he wasn't doing it. that's the type of negotiation that mr. schumer has been engaged in with the president. you have to ask yourself at what point does it even become profitable to continue to work with somebody like that. so mr. schumer's going to have to up his game and be a little bit more honest with the president of the united states if we're going to see progress on that front. yes, ma'am. >> how long will this shutdown last? >> i -- you'd have to ask congress. again, the democrats in the senate could end this shutdown today. >> [inaudible] days, weeks? >> we plan mostly a today at a time. you sort of look, there's different sort of things on the horizon that come up, for example, we have a pay period on friday that would be one sort of goalpost. but we'll manage this day by day. the funds that i've mentioned, some agencies are sitting on quite a bit of carry-forward
funds, they could go out longer without being impacted. some have none, so they'd be impacted immediately. there's no real individual answer to that. >> [inaudible] is the president still going to go to davos if monday morning the government is shut down? >> no, my understanding is that the president will not be going to florida now, and we're taking davos both from the president's perspective and the cabinet perspective on a day by day basis. >> obviously, democrats -- [inaudible] you'll talk about it after you get through the shutdown. there's been talk among democrats of -- [inaudible] there's been talks from the president about trust issues. so if democrats do agree on this short-term c.r. and to address immigration later, why should democrats think they should trust this president on that? >> halle, i would say again step back for a second where we were in asking congress to address this with -- [inaudible] providing the congress what we asked for in october as far as principles and then refining that again. and i know there's been some
questions saying that there's, i think senator schumer today said there's lack of clarity as to what the white house is asking for. i don't think there's lack of clarity. here's the principles we sent up in september. seven pages sent up to congress saying here are the things we're asking for in the four broad categories. over the course of the negotiations and conversations, it needs to be refined. so we sent back several weeks ago a three-page document that pulled some of the items off the table, particularly for interior enforcement. and then there were meetings here at the white house with with leadership, republicans and democrats that many of you covered and was shown to the national audience. in that conversation at the end, there was agreement that there would be four principles leading the negotiations. kevin mccarthy, senator durbin, senator cornyn, steny hoyer. that is the process that we have put in place, and it continues to focus on those four principles. what i would similarly add to director mulvaney's comments is that i would look at it as progress, the fact that
democrats are now willing to accept funding for border security and physical barriers. that is a step forward as well, there are some areas where we are given some ground which is they want a broader definition of that daca population. to me, that is progress. all the more reason to, if we're making progress, why are we shutting down the government? why are we shutting it down? we were making progress. we're anxious to resume those conversations. but we're not going to be held hostage and let our troops be held hostage over this. when they reopen the government, we'll continue discussions. >> mark, can i ask you a discussion? this is the one-year anniversary of the president being sworn into office. how does this white house feel to have a shutdown one year after the president was sworn in? >> well, jim, i think it's disappointing that congress has chosen to shut down the government and particularly senate democrats at the one-year anniversary finish. >> is it a reflection at all of leadership coming out of the white house? >> i think it's a reflection of, candidly, the position many of the democrats find themselves in.
there are many democrat act visits who have pushed their leadership to say we want something to shut down the government. meaning they look back and say the largest tax cut in history, the regulatory rollback, they look at what's happened with $7 trillion added to the stock market, a new supreme court justice confirmed, those are things that we look at as tremendous progress, but i know that they're captive by a small base in their party x they're saying we demand a shutdown. i do think they're related. they look at the accomplishments of the last year, and their reaction is because we can't beat them, we're going to shut down the government. >> [inaudible] director mulvaney, just for the benefit of the public, can you go over -- and i have another substantive question on the politics -- but on entitlement patients, social security, medicare, just for the public -- >> [inaudible] >> regardless how long this lasts, what happens and what are the implications? >> yeah. the technical answer is that if the source of funds is not
appropriated, mandatory would be the largest component of that, then the funds will continue to flow. the practical application of that general rule is that social security checks will go out. >> and any other entitlements covered by that? >> again, if it's not -- generally speaking, the answer is yes. >> okay. and you either worked for or you were a member of congress at times when you thought it was a matter of principle when you had political leverage to withhold votes on behalf of a principle you thought was important. >> yeah. >> ideological. do you have any sympathy for democrats who believe they are doing that now under these circumstances because they believe, as a matter of principle -- and it might be politics but, mark, you know this and, mick, you know this. back when you were doing that, you were accused of being the small base responding to activist pressure to do something that -- >> i and suppose -- [inaudible conversations] i might have a lot more sympathy if i hadn't been accused of being an arsonist. but keep in mind this is
different in that in 2013 we were being asked to vote something that, vote for something that we did not like. the funding bill that was put before us in 2013 included funding for obamacare. we objected to that and for that reason refused to vote for that funding bill. we have a funding bill today sitting in the senate that senators do not oppose. they support all individual pieces of it. we've talk about schip, we've talked about the delay in the cadillac tax, the medical device tax, talked about the fact that they're genre okay with -- generally okay with crs. we were asked to vote for something in 2013 that we did not approve of. that is not the circumstance here. here they are simply taking advantage of the situation to insert not only a new topic, but mark may have mentioned this earlier, they've now introduced even another topic. i think you heard mr. schumer earlier today, now they want to talk about bailing out union pension funds. that's a new $60 billion topic
that has been interjected into the conversation today. so clearly, things are out of control on the senate side. >> do you really believe democrats are not negotiating in good faith and, therefore, this can't be resolved? >> i -- you can't, you can't -- i don't think it's ever fair to get into somebody else's mental statement. i don't want to speak to someone else's good faith. i'm just saying it's extraordinarily difficult to negotiate with people who won't vote for something they like in order to raise a non-financial, non-fiscal issue as part of a spending bill. we've got time for one more. yes, sir. >> mr. trump was critical of president obama's handling of the shutdown. he said you have to get everybody in a room, you have to be a leader. president has to lead. why isn't he following his own advice? >> i guess i would say that is what he is doing. if you look back to last week and the meeting that he had to discuss daca, he brought together 20 different members from both the house and senate, in bipartisan fashion. he's continued to remain on the phone. he helped to encourage the bill
that got passed in the house on thursday. it was his influence that helped make sure it passed to keep the government open. and following up on major's question just to, i think, reinforce what mick said, i think what's hard for us to understand in other times when there's been, i think, an argument over principle, there is nothing in this bill democrats say they object to. yet it's like a 2-year-old temper tantrum to say i'm going to take my toys and go home because i'm upset about something else. it has nothing to do with this bill. senate democrats are basically conducting a 2-year-old temper tantrum in front of the american people. matt? >> what's the shortest cr the white house would be willing to accept? you said there would be a three week cr offered in the senate. some democrats have said they'd vote for something that -- [inaudible] what's the minimum this white house would take. >> >> matt, i'm not going to negotiate that in the national press or what we would or wouldn't take hypothetically. i think the reality is that there's a bill the that pass thed the house the president said he would sign.
we have now agreed to reduce that to three weeks. we think that is a concession op our part. leader mcconnell has offered that. i hope that democrats come to their senses and support keeping government open. >> mark, i know yesterday -- >> last one -- [inaudible] >> members of the administration were saying that they felt pretty confident that we'd be able to avoid a shutdown by, hopefully, end of today. y'all have been up on capitol hill meeting with lawmakers. based on those conversations, where are you at now? >> well, i was confident that we would avoid a shutdown because, again, everything in this bill are programs that i think democrats have advocate for. so i was wrong. i'm not going to get back to the job of handicapping what i think the chances are today. as i said, i'm just hopeful that democrats recognize the harm they're doing to our border patrol agents, our troops serving overseas and the reality of inveepses they're placing on millions and millions of americans. >> keep in mind, when we handicap a bill, the likelihood
of passage is can we get a bill together that people and will support because what's in the bill is acceptable to them. and that's one of the reasons that marc and i shared the opinion that this was going to pass. again, because it was acceptable to the democrats. once folks of either party started inserting completely new and unrelated topics into the negotiation, it's impossible to predict. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you, thank you, thank you. >> thank you, marc. [inaudible conversations]
>> i'm joined by many of the members of our democratic caucus and leadership of the house democratic caucus. democrats worked tirelessly to avoid this shutdown. not a single democrat wanted to see critical federal programs shutter their doors or put our economyer at risk. this is not how we ran government when democrats were in charge. but republicans struggled in september to keep government doors opened, tweeted that, andi quote, democrats are holding our military hostage in this shutdown. just the latest in the string of comments where he accuses democrats like me for not caring
about our military. and it's the latest example of him failing to show leadership to take responsibility for leading this nation. does he even know that there are service members who are in harm's way right now watching him looking for their commander in chief to show leadership rather than to try to reflect -- deflect blame? or that his own pentagon says that there are short-term funding plans, that the short-term fund plans he seems intent on pushing is actually harmful to not just the military but to our national security. i spent my entire adult life looking out for the well-being, the training, the equipping of the troops for whom i was responsible. sadly, this is something the current occupant of the oval office does not seem to care to do. and i will not be lectured about what our military needs by a
five deferment draft dodger. i have a message for cadet bone spurs. if you cared about our military you'd stop bathe kim jong un into a war that could put 85,000 troops and millions of civilians in danger. last night after the lights had been turned out in the white house and the president had gone to his private quarters, i voted to better train and equip our troops to stop wasting the taxpayers' dollars with yet another c.r. i voted to make sure that our military men and women who are standing in the line on the d.m.z., who are in iraq and afghanistan, across africa and asia, get the help, the support, and the equipment that they need. if the president truly cared about them, then he would stop
hiding behind his twitter account, stop blaming everyone else. and he can it -- tell his partya party that controls the house, the white house, and the senate, to do their job, to govern, to stop allowing the most extreme wing of your party to the prevent us from passing a long-term funding solution that the military itself, your own leaders that you nominated and appointed, is asking for. at the very least, you could ask your party to guarantee military pay and death benefits for service members and their families so that the troops down range aren't putting their lives at risk overseas while also worrying about whether they're going to be able to feed their families or if our government will take care of those families if god forbid, they must make that last measure of devotion for our nation.
i am so disappointed that my republican colleagues refuse to allow us a vote for our troops last night. and i encourage them to please reconsider that vote. let's get to a full budget. let's move on. we can compromise. we can do this together. so many of the options on the table are bipartisan. in fact, a majority of them are republican offered. our troops know how to work together. they stand shoulder to shoulder when protecting and defending this country. we surely in these chambers can do the same. so let's stop blaming each other and let's get to work. i will be here as i was today and tomorrow and the day after until we get this done. our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? officer the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i united states is one day into a government shutdown that senate democrats have forced on our country. let's take a look at where we are. last night a bipartisan majority of senators, republicans and democrats, voted to avoid this. a bipartisan majority voted to advance a noncontroversial bill that already passed the house and which the president had already said he'd signing. of course, like any compromise this funding bill cannot be all things to all people, but this bipartisan bill does what we need to do right now.
it ends this pointless, pointless, irresponsible shutdown, funds the government for our troops, our veterans, and millions of vulnerable americans and extends health coverage for millions of children in low-income families. none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can point to a single thing in the bill that they oppose, not one thing. that's why a bipartisan majority voted for it last night. it would have passed smoothly and been sent for the president's signature. except -- except that the democratic leader took the extraordinary step of filibustering this bipartisan bill and initiating his own government shutdown. why? well, because he explains the president would not give him everything he wants on the issue
of illegal immigration in one afternoon in the oval office. that's it. that's it. leaders from both parties have spent months negotiating long-term fixes for immigration policy, government spending, and other important priorities. senators on both sides want a bipartisan solution to daca and other immigration issues. senators on both sides want long-term funding for our troops. bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on these matters have been under way for months -- months. here's the difference between the democratic leader and the rest of us tonight. the difference -- he wants to keep the government shut down for hundreds of millions of americans until we finish negotiating on the subject of illegal immigration. he wants to keep the government
shut down until we finish a negotiation on the subject of illegal immigration. shutting down the government over illegal immigration. look, those discussion on the immigration issue continue. we don't have to shut down funding for our veterans, military families, opioid centers or anyone else who relies on the federal government over the issue of illegal immigration. the occupant of the chair is one of the people involved in that very subject. there's a lot of interest around here on both sides of the aisle in deal with it. but it is not an emergency. all of these other issues, which are affected by the government shutdown, are emergencies, particularly the children's health issue. look, the american people know what's going on here. they've got this figured out.
a survey this week these a majority of americans say funding the government is more important than passing legislation on daca. legislation, by the way, that doesn't really exist and which the democratic leader cannot present to us. we hear a lot of talk about it but we haven't seen it. fewer than half of democrats in this poll i'm talking about -- fewer than half of democrats say that dealing with daca is more urgent than keeping the government open. these numbers came in before americans picked up their newspapers this morning. when they did, they read from the associated press exactly -- exactly -- who is responsible for this chaos. from the a.p., democrats blocked a four-week stopgap extension in a late-night vote caution the
fourth government shutdown in a quarter of a century. you might say they pinned the dale on the donkey. -- they pinned the tail on the done couple of "the new york times," not exactly a bastion of right-wing sentiment, put the blame exactly where it belongs. senate democrats blocked passage of a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open. mr. president, senate republicans remain ready and eager to end this totally manufactured crisis. it is not a crisis. it's a manufactured crisis. vietnamed to avoid it -- we voted to avoid it entirely in our bipartisan vote last night. we're ready to vote again.
all we need is nor the democratic leader to withdraw his filibuster and let a bipartisan majority vote to pass this bill and reopen -- reopen -- the united states government. earlier today i asked for consent to move up a vet on this bipartisan -- to move up a vote on this bipartisan solution and end the craziness today. democrats objected. that won't work forever. if they continue to object, we cannot proceed to a cloture vote until 1:00 a.m. on monday. but i as sure you we will have a cloture vote at 1:00 a.m. on monday unless there is a desire to have it sooner p. in the meantime, shutdowns have consequences. the democratic leader may be playing for politics points but the rest us understand that the readiness of our armed forces, health coverage for poor children and survivor benefits for the family's family members of fallen service members are
the fartherrist thing from a game. playing with all of those lives over the issue of illegal immigration. congress has a lot of work to do. we need to provide for our war fighters, secure the border, resolve the daca issue,-and-continue work on health care, and attend to many other key priorities. i want to move forward on all of these issues. and we can when the democratic leader's filibuster comes to an end. because these talks are only being delayed, not advanced, but delayed by the democrats' filibuster and the democratic shutdown it has created. so i want to assure the american people we'll be right back at this tomorrow. i say again to the american people, we'll be right back at this tomorrow. and for as long as it takes.
we'll keep at this until democrats end their extraordinary filibuster of government funding and children's health care and allow a bipartisan majority of senators to reopen the federal government for all americans and to get congress back on track. the democratic leader may put his personal/political priorities ahead of everything else no matter the cost, but republicans stand with the american people. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, my shall it might surprise some people here that while what we are dealing with here are is important, we're not the center of the universe. all across this country, as i was reminded of this morning, calling home and speaking to
friends and family and my wife, my children, life goes on. most americans i think are aware that there's an issue going on here in washington, d.c., with regards to funding the government, but i doubt very few of them are sitting in front of the cnn countdown clock -- or now i guess we're into the ticker because we're into the countdown. it's the reality that life goes on. so because people aren't following this every single day and aren't checking their phones on a 15-minute basis to see how this is going to be fixed, i think that lost people are confused. maybe some people have the perception that this is all about a disagreement regular the budget and/or a disagreement solely is about an issue that is of critical importance and we need to deal right away.
and that's just not accurate. i'll get to that in aempt mo. but it's still hard for me to understand thousand happens. when i explain to people where we are and how we got here, it just doesn't make sense to a lot of people. but i want to beginning by something the bible says that there's nothing new under the sun. it is one of the things that came into my mind early this morning. i had occasion a few weeks ago around the new year to spend some time with my family at the wonderful national park facilities which i hope are open today in philadelphia. and in the halls where our constitution, the very document that designed our system of government, that each of us appeals to, that each of us has sworn allegiance to, was debated. that debate was a contentious one. it began on the 23rd of may and ended on the 17th of september of 1737. it was contentious from the start. the new york delegation only stayed a few days. and the delegation from rhode island straight out boycotted
it. what's ironic is that one of the most contentious issues in that constitutional convention was the creation of the very senate, the creation of this body was a heated discussion. we don't know a lot about the details of that discussion because they had closed the windows, even though it was hot. they didn't go around talking about t there wan -- there wang 24-hour news -- there wasn't 2 24-horrisonous cycles. we know in the end, this constitution has helped create here and exceptional system of government. it was approved by 39 of the 55 delegates. they were people that voted against the constitution. the one thing that was clear was that none of them got everything they wanted. now, at that time, by the end of that convention -- in fact on the 17th, monday, september 17, 1787, was the last dave that convention. one of the delegates was someone
named benjamin franklin. he had -- he is biologically well-known. he wanted to give a short speech to that convention before signing it. it was -- he was actually too weak to do it. so he had someone else give the speech. it beginnings with a line that says "i conthat's there are several parts of this constitution which i do not at present approve." he goes ton say, i agree to this constitution with all of its faults. i doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better constitution. for when you aacceptable a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests and their selfish views, from such an assembly can a perfect production be expected." so right from the very beginning
in the history of this nation, we have acknowledged that in order to make progress, it is virtually impossible for everybody in that process to get everything they want. our yob is notify things afford and i don't want to move everything. maybe franklin was wrong he is not perfect though many tend to believe that we are the only people right. that the stage of his life he had learned to understand that he was not the holder of all wisdom, that he had changed his mind on the one hand issues when he came monk upon new information. he also understood when he brought a group of people together and asked them to come to agreement, unless they are clones of one another or unless they all qom from the samier thought process, they're going to have disagreements. but in order to reach a conclusion, someone is going to have to get something they need even though no one is going to get everything they want. that was from the beginning of our founding. it was hard then. imagine now in the 21 rs sent --
21st century with 50 states and several territories, extraordinary diversity in terms of geography, opinion, background, and all of it covered by 24-hour news which covers politics like entertainment and twitter feeds. imagine if they had twitter and 24-hour news during the constitutional convention. a, we would know a lot more about what they are saying to and about each other and, b, we may not have a constitution because of exacerbating those tensions. i'm not saying we shouldn't have twitter or 24 hours news. i'm saying it was difficult. imagine today with these additional factors of diversity and the way politics is discussed and practiced. i say that because there's a
growing temptation in american publics that comes from the -- politics that comes from the face of both parties. but the goal is to achieve total victory. total victory is what you want to achieve in a sporting event. you want to win and beat your opponent by as many points as possible. but in a constitutional republic, it is nearly impossible, especially in a country like america. it's impossible. it's impossible for a president, for any party, for a faction to get 100% of what they want all the time. instinct live despite the fact that they don't work here every day and glued in front of the television watching politics, most americans understand that. they do because they know it is a reality of life and they know it instinctively because that's the way the system was designed. that's the way self-government is supposed to function.
that's hard. self-government has never been easy. it's only gotten harder. when you explain what happened, here are the facts. we had a government funding deadline. meaning if by midnight this morning we had not passed a bill to authorize more spending, we have this sort of mini shut down or -- shutdown or partial shutdown of the government. there is a provision that was put in law by president obama that gave status to young people who were brought into this country illegally by their parents through no fault of their p own and -- their own and that provision expires on march 5. we have a bill before the senate that funds the government, that keeps it open for four weeks initially. i think now we're down -- the proposal before the senate is to end on the niepth, so about -- ninth, so about three weeks, and
there is nothing in the bill that the democrats are against. but they voted against that bill last night and they are not letting us vote on the other bill today right now and independent tend to vote against it when we do vote on it monday morning because they want to see their demands met on something that doesn't expire for 43 days. so this shnot about whether you're -- this is not whether you're for or against doing something about daca. it's not. it's not like the government funding expired last night and daca expired last night. this is the government funding expired last night, daca expires in 43 days. when you explain that to people, why would -- how does that work? why does that make sense? why would they do this? so in fairness, i listened to the argument of my democratic colleagues and one of the consideration they make is that they don't trust the republican party on the issue of daca, but more pornl they -- importantly them don't trust the president
to deal with it. they need to do something and use government funding as the leverage to force it to happen. let me say at the outset that it is a legitimate tool in the toolbox of a legislator on a matter of deep principle to not vote on an important bill in order to get leverage for what you want. if there is something you are deeply principled about and we need to do, it is a legitimate tool to say, i know you really need to do this and i really need to do that and so i'm not going to let thank you do what you need to do unless you let me do what i need to do. and i think that's the argument they are making now. as pointed out to you earlier, it is not the same. this is a spending deal -- in fact, the bill they voted against would expire even before the march 5 deadline of daca. for instance, we would have to have another government funding
vote before march 5. it is not really a leverage argument. in order for the self-government to work, as i have described already, we have to be judicious and careful about how we use the tools. you have to reserve it for key moments. the first is international implications. we talk a lot about russian interference. the goal about russian interference above all else was to create conflict around american politic -- politics. so putin can say their democracy not a real democracy and their leaders are corrupt and elections are rigged. that's what he wanted to drive. there are nations like china that under our very nose are rapidly working to change the world in our time. while we spend all of these days arguing with each other about
the outrage of the day, china is like working underneath us and all around us to rebuild the world in their image and to their advantage and at our detriment. one of the things they tell other countries is that americans as a country are in decline. they are in total decline, abandoning the world and more importantly they can't govern thesms. we are -- themselves. we are doing their job for them when we create these kinds of controversies. that shouldn't mean we shouldn't have debates. that doesn't mean we shouldn't use leverage to achieve our goals. but it does impact the way the world views us. people watch this stuff all over the world and they don't understand, as some of us do, that it all works out. some places believe that we are crumbling, riptd apart -- ripped apart at the seams.
it encourages nations to do things sometimes through miscalculations. that is the first reason you want to be careful. the second reason you want to be judicious about using these tools is because it poisons the process. i would say that the abuse of these prerogatives of this over the last decade has done tremendous damage to the senate and affected our ability to solve problems. i say that as someone and say that republicans have done this. republicans used loanch in situations where -- used leverage in situations. and activists insist that democrats use the same tool. they did it in the minority and now they need to do it when they are in the minority. we have to be careful because we all have matters of deep principle. i have matters of deep principle that haven't been addressed yet.
i have a matter of deep principle, and as much as i believe we need to do something about daca, i have a principle that i believe is more urgent and requires attention right away. the people of florida, the people of puerto rico, the people of texas have a desperate need for disaster relief. 40% of the island of puerto rico has no electricity. this is a u.s. territory with american citizens living in third-world conditions. in the state of florida our citrus growers are in a dangerous situation. you still have people living in hotel rooms and motel rooms in florida because their homes were destroyed. that is a real need that doesn't have a deadline. they needed it yesterday and we still haven't addressed it. and so i suppose if i wanted to use this tool, and some maybe encourage me to do that, i could say i'm not funding for the
government until we get disaster relief. the problem is all 99 other senators have a principled position as well. all we do is take hostages every day on every opportunity we get. well, you get the picture, and it's starting to happen more and more. and, by the way, i say all of this to you understanding if we passed a long-term funding bill. let's say the bill before us funded government through october, and i voted for that, and disaster relief hadn't happened yet, there would be no guarantee to get disaster leaf so we have to be judicious about how to use it. i decided not to do it because i think it hearse the -- hurts the people. there are people in puerto rico who were hit by a hurricane and can't go to work on monday.
there are getter services in florida. -- there are federal services in florida and people are going to call offices on monday even if i have essential staff there, there may not be an employee at a federal agency to pick up the phone and intervening on their behalf. it happens all the time. common things that we face, calls that we get is if someone has a loved one or relative visiting somewhere around the world and killed in an accident and they want to bring their body home to be buried and we have to deal with the paperwork at the embassy, we're not going to be there on monday to do it because the people we need to call may not be there to answer the call. in the end, you don't cut off your nose to spite your face and in this case you don't shut down government to hurt people in other places. this is not about leverage.
it's not. i say this with honest respect. the democratic leader is someone who understands legislation and understands politics. i do not believe this is about leverage. he has to know this because this is no different than in december. we passed a short-term spending deal in december and democratic members voted for that the at time and the daca issue was unresolved at the time. by the way we had a chance to deal with disaster relief in december too. they sent a disaster relief bill from the house to the senate and the democratic leader chose not to take it up, i believe, because he wanted to hole -- hold it over for this debate. the more things pending, the more leverage you have. we were going to put additional things on that house bill and send it back. suffice it to say it is
unresolved. here's what i think this is about in many ways, and i'm here to cite some examples of why i think it is easy to prove. in december, as i said before we got ready to leave before the end of the year, there were a lot of activists involving the daca issue that were really pounding on the democrats to shut down the government unless daca was handled. to their credit, a number of democratic senators didn't do so. they voted not to shut down government and the end result was they unleashed a furious assault in terms of pressure and protests and sleep-ins and all kinds of things. this really started back in october. let's go to october 2, 2017. this is an article that talks about -- i'll just quote from it. i underlined the key provision. democrats seeking an immigration deal are facing resistance from
imgrant activists who are demanding more extensive legislation to protect illegal immigrants from deportation. it says despite democratic leaders declared commitment to help dreamers, they are catching sustained flak from immigration -- flack from immigration activists. this talks about the minority leader in the house pelosi. she said that activists south down her speech and called her a liar. if you haven't seen a video, she did a press conference in, i believe, san francisco, and as she was there doing this press conference with dreamers, these other dream act visit people showed up and screamed at her. for those of us on this side of the aisle we view her as one of the more liberal members of congress and someone i identified as a support of the dream act. then you have people saying, well, the dream act is not
enough. you have to cover other people. they are under a lot of pressure. here's a quote from an immigrant's right advocate an daca rerecipient. recipient. he say i think senator schumer crumbles under pressure just so he can deliver something. let's go to december 19. it begins by saying dozens of immigration activists ral lied outside senator schumer's office on tuesday. in spanish and english speakers at the rallies demanded the senate minority leader asked his fellow democrats to refrain from supporting any legislation until a clean dream act is passed. a clean dream act means the dream act, nothing else, no border security. by the way, any legislation. don't vote for anything until that happens. this is the pressure they were under. the article goes on to say as congress negotiates the budget
protesters called for schumer to help shut down the government if a dream act isn't passed by the end of the year, chanting if we don't get it, shut it down. those are the quotes of the -- this is in december. so this article was december 19. this must have been december 18. and the chant outside his office in manhattan was if we don't get it, shut it down. so calls for shutdown began as far back as december. not 43 days before the deadline, but 60 or 70 days before the deadline. so finally the spokeswoman for the minority leader put out a statement to, i believe the protesters but i guess the press who was assembled. she said we want to make sure nothing passes until we have the dream act in there. they're already telegraphing this from december. this is not something that happened in the last two days or three days. this is ongoing and sustained pressure.
we have more. on december 21 there is an article in "the washington post," the headline in private meeting schumer aeupbgly confronted by hispanic caucus members as prospects for daca deal slip again. i'll read it. it says disagreements among democrats over how to keep fighting to enact legal protection for immigrant dreamers broiled over in the office of senate minority leader charles e. schumer on thursday as he met with members of the congressional hispanic caucus in what several participants described as a tense and heated exchange. with just a few minutes notice they showed up in the lobby of schumer's suite across from the senate floor in hopes of pressing him to persuade more senators to vote against the g.o.p. spending plan set to be approved in the coming hours. the latest short-term spending plan was set for approval as democrats backed off a pledge for undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children. their decision angered immigration activists.
several people who attended the meeting granted an the senator fromty said the -- an the senatorononimity. said some unloaded on schumer. in response schumer raised his voice telling gutierrez not to disrespect fellow democrats. gutierrez yelled back don't raise your voice. a few other democrats made pointed comments towards schumer. later in the day gutierrez tweeted the fight continues in january. i think we're all on the same page. pressure. incredible pressure being mounted the whole time. probably one more thing i'll cite here. this is from the new yorker, january 18. many democratic activists are demanding schumer and other elected democrats vote against the g.o.p. spending bill even at the risk of a government shutdown. on a wednesday, three protesters
from the dream action coalition were arrested while demonstrating outside schumer's office in new york city. some democratic activists and strategists are arguing the party should take its stand now while the stench of trump's you know what, alleged comments are still hanging in the air. so this is all about political pressure. that's the leverage point. that's why this is happening. and it's untenable. the position they've established is untenable. most people in america wouldn't agree with this. if you're being honest with yourself, i challenge anyone go into any diner in your state or call ten people that are just kind of, you know, follow politics a little bit but not activists or whatever, and just ask him, ask him, do you think it is right to shut down the government over an issue that we have until march 5 to fix. ask them that. call people and ask them, do you think it is a smart thing to do to close the federal government
over an issue that we have another 43 days to address? you know what the answer is going to be. you do. that's why the position they've adopted is untenable. but that tells you the amount of political pressure they're under to do this. this is all motivated by that. this is all motivated by incredible amount of pressure brought to bear on my democratic colleagues and particularly on the democratic leader by activists. and brings us to this point. by the way, i would also argue that this strategy in addition to being driven by that is counterproductive. yesterday there was supposed to be a meeting with the white house and congressional leaders from both parties to keep working on daca. the democrats didn't show up probably because they were too busy dealing with the shutdown. so this isn't making arriving at a deal for daca easier. it's making it harder. on this this argument that they don't trust, if we don't do
this, can't trust the president is going to do this, i don't think that is true. i think there's a balance of leverage here that exists that almost guarantees can happen if we want something to happen. let's begin with this fact. the president of the united states, he campaigned on a very specific promise. we know what that promise was. he was going to build a wall and secure the border. the president knows he needs 60 votes in the senate. the president knows, he knows that he isn't going to get that promise fulfilled. the president is not going to get a border wall. we're not going to get increased security unless we have, do something about daca. they're well aware of that at the white house. i think they have said that openly. what is important to remember as well is that there isn't going to be a deal on daca unless you have a deal on the wall. that's the way our system works. and i say that to you as someone that supports a wall and supports dealing with daca. but as i've already talked about
earlier, in this system of government it is not a zero sum game. it cannot be i get the wall and you get nothing. and it cannot be you get daca and even more and you get the wall. it's not going to work. right now we have a lot of wasting of time going on entertaining ridiculous fantasies about what can be achieved here. a bill that creates permanent status under daca but would allow some future congress to stopl funding the wall isn't going to pass. the president's not going to sign that. think about it. you have a wall, it takes ten years to build, and you have daca that's permanent, next year they don't fund it, daca stays, the wall is not there. they're not going to sign that. a bill that creates a path to citizenship under daca but then also allows the recipients of that citizenship to use it to bring in their parents who brought them into the country illegally, that's not going -- the president is not going it sign that. that's just reality. and i say this to you as someone that has tremendous sympathy for the young people who were brought here as minors, yes, in
violation of the law but through no fault of their own. they didn't commit a crime and now they find themselves with no legal immigration status. it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to allow their status to expire without a replacement. there are practical reasons why it would be a mistake. we spent years in taxpayer money educating them. we would be hurting their employers. these people are working somewhere now. overnight they can't work there anymore. they might even own a business. you would be hurting the people working for them. maybe they are married tpo a u.s. citizen. you would be hurting a u.s. citizen who is their spouse. they have children who are u.s. citizens and these children would lose their parents. these are practical reasons why we shouldn't let it expire. there are more reasons why we shouldn't let it expire too. it's immoral to have laws that punishes anyone for mistake their parents make. you were two years old when you came to honduras, you don't speak spanish, don't know
anybody there and they are going to send you there. it didn't feel right. it is my belief if daca expires and we allow young adults who have spent the majority of their lives among us are forced to leave this country, i think it would be a dark stain on our history. i think future generations will look back at that and say that was a terrible thing those people did back then. and i think, we have more support for what i just said in the republican party than we've ever had in the seven years that i have been here. but i have to be fair, and i want to be frank. it is also a mistake to overreach on the other side of this argument. it is fair to argue that we should deal with daca because it's the moral and compassionate thing to do. it is fair to argue that dealing with daca is in our national interest. but it is a big mistake to demand a right that does not exist. there is no right to illegally immigrate to any country on the planet. no one has a right to daca. but dealing with daca is the
right thing to do. and i think it's also overreaching to insist that not only must daca recipients be accommodated but we also have to being a accommodate their parents. and maybe because i personally know so many people under these circumstances, i am personally open to figuring out something that allows their parents to stay, especially the children who are minors. but i understand it's not a majority position in my party. and i have to be honest with you, i believe that if we take the position around here that we are not accepting any deal unless it takes care of both the daca recipient and the parent, if that's the hard position we adopt and people aren't willing to move off of it, i think there may be no deal at all. and that means that neither the recipients of daca nor the parents will have anything. by the way, i also think it's overreach to oppose a border wall because you find it
symbolically offensive. first america has a right and more importantly a responsibility to protect its borders and enforce its laws. second, there's not going to be a daca deal of any kind without a wall. period. donald trump is not going to sign, cannot sign and will not sign a bill that doesn't have real enforcement. that's a fact. that has to happen. so what is the way forward? right now the government is shut down. you don't really know this until monday but on monday people will start to notice. daca expires six weeks from monday. on monday if we haven't done anything the government will be shut down and we have 43 days to go until daca. i think we should fund the government on a short-term basis. maybe it's february 9. then spend the next three weeks working on an agreement on defense, disaster reef and agreement on -- disaster relief and daca. for democrats who worry they don't have hrefrpbl, you have plenty of leverage without shutting down the government. for example, there are two republicans who oppose short-term spending in general.
then you have several republican members who oppose any longer term spending without defense spending increases. in essence, this worry that you have that they're going to fund the government for six months and walk away from daca, there's at least five republicans that are going to vote no on that, three because of defense -- several because of defense and two because of short-term spending. you add to that, there are at least three other republican members, myself being one of them, who will have a lot of trouble voting for a long-term spending plan that doesn't include disaster relief. that alone gives you leverage to ensure that not only do those issues need to be dealt with but all three of them would have to be dealt with in order for there to be any long-term deal that forecloses the leverage you want. you have another piece of leverage. the president needs to fulfill his campaign promise which americans supported at the ballot box. build the wall. and he knows he can't do that without the daca deal. so really both sides have leverage. but as long as the government is shut down, we're wasting
valuable time. monday could have been a day that people met and hashed out key details of the daca thing. instead monday will probably be all about the shutdown and maybe tuesday and maybe wednesday. we are wasting time we do not have. finally, as for daca, what is the way forward on that? you know, a lot of bills or ideas going around, not actually bills, but ideas. here's what i would say to you. the baseline in the core of any agreement is one that basically codifies daca, in essence deals with the president's decision to suspend the executive order on it and funds in a way that can guarantee continue funding the president's immigration enforcement plan. that's the core. you codify daca and you do something to ensure that the wall is going to be built and they can't come back and cancel the funding. then the senate can go into an open amendment process and debate any additional matters you want to put in there. for example, maybe there's a deal that instead of codifying daca alone, actually creates a
pathway to citizenship under daca. but it eliminates all future applicants. not just daca applicants. future applicants from being able to sponsor parents. i'm not saying it will past but that might be a debate that happens. even if you can't reach 60 votes on any of these amendments people are offering, even if all those amendments fail, in the end you are at least left with a bill that secures our border and gives certainty, permanent certainty to close to 700,000 people who currently are registered under daca. that means that like benjamin franklin said after he agreed to the constitution in 1787, we may all be left with a law in which none of us got everything we wanted. but everyone got something that they needed. the daca recipients would have the certainty of knowing that they can stay in america legally for the rest of their lives. and perhaps future congresses and future presidents may build upon that. and the president would have
achieved a signature campaign promise and achieved something republicans and many democrats have been promising to do but failed to deliver for over 15 years, and that's to secure the border and build a wall. there is a way forward on all of these things. if we rem -- if we remember how our system works, we can start making it happen. but i think it will require us to accept what it takes to make progress in a constitutional republic, and we can't even begin to do it until we end the shutdown. and that's what i hope we'll do sooner rather than later. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. we are in the midst of the trump shutdown, aptly named for him because he is the one -- perhaps the only one in america -- who
thinks it's a good shutdown. in fact, his head of office of management and budget, mick mulvaney, gloated that it was, quote, kind of cool that he was the one who got to shut down the government. kind of cool, he said on friday in a radio interview. as i speak tonight, all americans know, there is no such thing as a good shutdown. all of us in this body strongly believe that we must end this shutdown. we mark the first year anniversary of the trump presidency with the trump shutdown and his now infamously saying on may 2 that our country
needs a good shutdown. but this shutdown has damaging, even potentially devastating, effects on millions of america americans, our troops, whose pay will be delayed, our families who rely on the children's health insurance program and who will soon be without funding, community health center patients whose source of health care will be closed, government workers who keep our nation running every day, the disaster relief victims in puerto rico who will be denied relief, along with their fellow americans -- they are americans -- in texas and florida. this shutdown is not a good shutdown, and it is not kind of cool. and i beg to differ with the
majority leader, who has just come to the floor, in saying that democrats agree with everything that is in the measure that came to us from the house because, as damaging as a shutdown is, so satining resolution -- so is a continuing resolution corrosive and destructive to good government. we've been through three continuing resolution, each a month -- in as many months, now a fourth in the fourth month is proposed. that is no way to run a government, whether it is three weeks or four weeks. the at the end of that so-called continuing resolution, a short-term temporary patch -- we will be in the same place as we are today. but the good news is that we have bipartisan consensus, not only that we must end the shu
shutdown but also on each of those issues that is necessary to reach consensus on a longe longer-term full fiscal year package. that is also why a continuing resolution and the measure that came to us from the house is completely inadequate because it continues to fund those programs at the same level as the previous year, 2017, and the pentagon, the secretary of defense, our military leaders have told us unequivocally and clearly that those levels are inadequate to our national defense. i hope there's bipartisan consensus among us on the armed services committee and in the chamber as a whole that we need a strong national defense. both military and nonmilitary
funding. and there needs to be an increase in that funding, which the bill presented last night did not provide. so far from agreeing with every provision in that four-week extension, it is inadequate, it would be irresponsible and reprehensible for this body to go along with it. and that's why four of our republican colleagues joined us in opposing it. we're all here tonight ready to vote, but we're waiting on one man -- president trump. to finally be the leader that we expect and demand the president to be. the leader that donald trump himself in 2013 said that president obama should be in ending or stopping the shutdown
then. he said that, in effect, the buck would stop with president obama, just as now it does with president trump. in president obama's case his party did not control the two branches and houses of the congress. the republicans control the house, they control the senate, and they control the white house. they are in charge. they are responsible. and they are dysfunctional. they are in disaray. and in division. there have been weeks, indeed months, of difficult negotiations, and i am not here to blame my republican colleagues. i think they have worked, many of them, in good faith, and that's the reason that we have arrived at bipartisan agreements
on the need for increases in defense spending, both military and nonmilitary; on the need for the children's health insurance program to be reauthorized along with community health centers, needs of veterans and pensions and disaster relief to aid the victims of the recent hurricanes irma and maria. and why we need also to prevent the mass, draconian deportation of 800,000 young people brought here at instan -- brought here s and children through no fault of their own. those bipartisan agreements on each of those issues can be turned into a package that can unite both sides of the aisle -- maybe not everyone, but a majority here and a majority in the house of representatives -- if they are simply put to a vote. we are here to vote on the
substance. give us that opportunity to vote on a package that embodies those bipartisan agreements. and the president must either lead or get out of the way. now, these difficult negotiations have to be contrasted with the talks that took place just yesterday between the president and the minority leader, senator schumer. and in a kind of microcosm, that day epitomizes the kind of lack of leadership that has led us to this point. the president and the minority leader emerged from that
conversation at midday with a conceptual frame, an agreement virtually on a constructive set of principles, including the path to citizenship for the dreamers. to the consternation of some of our side, the minority leader put on the table, in effect, full funding for the wall, the wall that my colleague senator rubio has just discussed, as a condition for such an agreement. now, this wall was supposed to be funded by the mexicans. it is, in my view, excessively costly, a waste of money. border security is absolutely necessary, but it can be done more effectively and less expensively, with surveillance,
drones, censors, more patrol officers, better training. there is a set of fencing system improvements that we can agree on, but if donald trump wants that wall and it's a condition for literally the survival of 800,000 young people, the minority leader was willing to put it on the table. that flexibility and willingness to compromise epitomizes the approach that we have offered to take and must be taken to reach an agreement. and within hours literally, the president backed away from that
virtual agreement, maybe backed away, in fact, is inaccurate. he was pulled away by his far-right extremist staff and supporters. we may never know all of the names that spoke to him, but the fact is the agreement fell apart. the shutdown is almost entirely the making of one man, who happens to be president of the united states and who today marks his one-year anniversary, a year characterized by chaos and conflict, disaray, and dysfunction -- disaray, and dysfunction, personal invective and partisan controversy. he has reversed himself so many
times that the majority leader himself expressed frustration just a day or so ago because we have no idea what he wants to emerge from these bodies on any of these issues. and the majority leader characterized negotiating with him as trying to deal with jell-o. i think it is equally like a ping pong ball. it ricochets back and forth depending on who has last talked to him and what his mood is and what his last tweet may have been. so, just as many times before, the president is likely to put the extreme right-wing members of his party before all else -- before children and their health, before dreamers and their potential deportation,
before funding for our troops -- and one party is in charge of the senate and the house and the white house. and it owns this shutdown. but, more important than pointing fingers and assigning blame is reaching an end and reaching agreement on what is necessary to end this shutdown. and more important than who is hurt politically in this body or in the house or in the white house, it is who is hurt in the country by the failure of this government to function. so we have work to do. we're here tonight. i will be here tonight, tomorrow. we have engaged in some very constructive conversations and
discussions across the aisle. i think there's goodwill on both sides because ultimately we have in our hearts and minds this great nation. if the president is not able to take yes for an answer, he needs to accept what we provide and resolve that the great dealmaker has to be a deal acceptor. he has repeatedly shown himself to be an erratic, unreliable, unpredictable, and capricious negotiator. and there are a number of ways to resolve this shutdown that are within reach with the right kind of leadership on both sides. i went today to the march on washington, the women's march
here in washington. i was impressed with the excitement and energy and the dedication of many of the young people who are there. far from the cynicism and partisanship that maybe we find all too rampant in this body, their idealism seems boundless. it is inspiring and exciting. their -- their dedication to equal rights and equality and women's health care and engaging in the political process. believing that one person, one of them, one of us, can make a difference. if we are impressed by the resolve and determination of those young people, as i was, we should fulfill those high
expectations which they and all america have for us, restoring trust in our institutions is a service recan help perform -- we can help perform by ending this shutdown, coming to an agreement and making sure that we do what is truly in the public interest. and looking into their eyes, i was reminded also of the dreamers. they are known as dreamers because they believe in that same american dream and many of the individuals on the mall this morning in washington, d.c., at the women's march were, in fact, dreamers. not a majority, but many were there because they believe in america, the only country they
have ever known, their community, their schools, their families are intricate parts of this nation. they are americans except for the papers and documents that they lack. i know that my republican colleagues want to give them a path to citizenship. it's not so much give but afford them the opportunity for a path to citizenship because they have so much to give back to this country. they've lived here all their lives. they played by the rules. they are future doctors and engineers and nurses, business owners and entrepreneurs. we can fulfill the american dream for them and for us if we give them that path to
citizenship. great nation fulfills its promises. america is the greatest nation in the history of the world. we need to keep our promise. we need to keep our promise in this body to the american people, the oath we have taken to uphold the law and the constitution and to do what is right. we should do what's right for the dreamers and the american dream and for our military who need support, children who need health insurance, families that need health facilities, veterans who need programs that they've earned and deserve, fellow americans who need disaster relief. every one of them should be done now, not three weeks from now, not four weeks from now.
mr. rubio: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1:00 p.m. sunday, january 21, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 195. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the
with that, the senate has adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow and we will return now to book tv. >> the way my editor didn't pan when pressed. you look at the editing and sometimes it was quite good. sometimes it was political and sometimes it was literary and ascetic and an improvement. he screened all the films he wanted to see and he made edits or suggestions what needed to be done before they were released to the public. he read as i said as he got on in the 1930s and began to murder his own officials he read up on despotism, he read quite a lot of russian history, imperial russian history, roman history