参议院的两党边境协议周二濒临崩溃，因为许多共和党人表示他们将阻止定于本周晚些时候进行的程序性投票——这对花了几个月时间微调该法案的谈判者来说是一个令人沮丧的损失。
“我不敢相信会发生这种事。该法案的主要谈判代表之一、参议员克里斯·墨菲(Chris Murphy)周二在参议院发言时说。
墨菲和其他参议员花了几个月的时间来谈判1182.8亿美元的两党国家安全补充方案》的文章，其文本于周日晚间发布。截至周一晚上，谈判伙伴詹姆斯·兰克福德(James Lankford)承认，在周三的程序性投票中，该协议在参议院没有获得推进该协议的票数，处于崩溃的边缘。
“刚才到底发生了什么?”康涅狄格州民主党人墨菲在会上说。
多数党领袖查克·舒默在周二的发言中表示，他愿意推迟投票，但对投票是否会产生影响持怀疑态度。少数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔直截了当地表示该法案不会有任何进展。
在周一晚上持续近90分钟的闭门会议上，共和党人就370页的国家安全补充法案的优点进行了辩论，并讨论了是否需要提供必要的60票才能在周三的关键程序性投票中对该法案进行审议。
参议院共和党会议的很大一部分反对这项法案，因为他们反对其中的政策。至少有19个国家发表了同样的声明。
但许多参议院共和党人人，包括那些在即将到来的测试投票中可能需要获得60票才能继续进行的温和派人士，在离开会议时说他们不会批准推进测试投票——不是因为政策——而是因为他们认为他们没有足够的时间来审查技术上复杂的边境条款。
共和党党鞭、参议员约翰·图恩(John Thune)说:“我认为公平地说，每个人都认为周三投票为时过早。”“我认为没有足够的时间是一个非常现实的问题。我认为周三的投票对我们大多数成员来说还为时过早。”
在周二的发言中，舒默痛斥共和党人计划在即将到来的程序性投票中阻止该法案的推进。
舒默说:“经过几个月的真诚谈判，在几个月向共和党人提供了他们要求的许多东西后，领袖麦康奈尔和共和党会议准备扼杀国家安全补充方案，即使有他们如此强烈要求的边境条款。”
舒默表示，共和党拒绝该法案的决定代表着“共和党思想的巨大转变”。他说参议院共和党人和众议院议长·迈克·约翰逊在谈判中“移动了目标”。
“这是共和党在边境的新路线:这是一个紧急情况，但它可以等待12个月或直到时间的尽头。舒默说:“这完全是一派胡言。
舒默表示，他不会介意推迟投票——尽管他对共和党人希望推迟投票的动机表示怀疑。
舒默说:“我甚至会提议将投票推迟到周四的某个时候，以便给参议员更多的时间来做出决定，但我怀疑他们甚至不会接受这一提议，因为他们并不是真的想要更多的时间，他们只是把它当作一个借口。”
周二下午，麦康奈尔给棺材钉上了钉子:“在我和我们的大多数成员看来，我们没有真正的机会在这里制定法律。”
麦康奈尔没有追究前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的责任。特朗普向共和党人施加了巨大压力，要求他们拒绝该协议。他表示，支持特朗普的边境巡逻委员会支持该法案。
“我认为最终，尽管该产品得到了支持特朗普总统的边境委员会的批准，但我们的大多数成员都认为我们无法在这里制定法律。如果我们无法制定法律，他们就不愿意继续前进。”
周一晚上，一些需要获得60票的温和派参议员表示，如果投票在周三举行，他们将对下一步行动投反对票。
共和党参议员迈克·朗斯(Mike Rounds)表示，他愿意继续研究该法案，但将在周三投票阻止该法案向前推进。
美国广播公司新闻的最新报道
“我想我们一开始就说过我们需要时间。我仍然认为我们需要时间，”Rounds说。
阿拉斯加共和党参议员丹·沙利文表示同意。
沙利文说:“显然，在48小时内将如此规模的法案提交给议会是非常仓促的，所以这是我们在那里谈论的另一个因素，在我看来这是有问题的。”
如果他的会议的其余部分没有准备好向前推进，甚至兰克福德也可能选择在周三投票反对继续进行。
兰克福德说:“我正在听取会议的其他内容。“如果裁谈会没有准备好就此采取行动，我就没有理由对cloture进行投票。这不是投票反对该法案。”
周日法案文本发布几小时后，议长迈克·约翰逊否决了该法案，并在一份声明中表示比尔“抵达时已死亡”“甚至比我们预期的还要糟糕，而且不会接近结束总统制造的边境灾难。”
当被问及约翰逊的评论时，兰克福德承认，如此迅速地对这项稳健的法案做出结论存在挑战。
兰克福德对美国广播公司新闻高级国会记者雷切尔·斯科特说:“人们在真正有机会通读和阅读之前，就把所有这些伟大的夸张都抛在了那里。”“这很有意思——有人对我说，‘嘿，这真的很专业，需要几天或几周的时间才能读完它——但在几分钟或几小时内，他们又说，‘嘿，我反对它，因为我已经经历过了。"
参议员们没有明确透露他们认为需要多少时间来考虑这个问题。
但一些人确实表示，任何前进的道路都需要有机会对一揽子计划提出修正案。
'No real chance': McConnell says Senate border deal is going nowhere
The Senate's bipartisan border deal is teetering on collapse Tuesday as many Republicans say they will block the procedural vote set for later this week -- a frustrating loss for the negotiators who spent months fine-tuning the bill.
"I can't believe this is happening. This is unbelievable," Sen. Chris Murphy, one of the lead negotiators of the bill, said in a Senate floor speech Tuesday.
Murphy and other senators worked for months to negotiate the terms of the$118.28 billion bipartisan national security supplemental package, the text of which was released Sunday night. By Monday night, it was on the brink of collapse as fellow negotiator Sen. James Lankford acknowledged it didn't have the votes for it advance in the Senate in a procedural vote on Wednesday.
"What the hell just happened?" Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said on the floor.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a floor speech on Tuesday, said he would be willing to delay the vote -- but was skeptical it would make a difference. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said flat out that the bill is going nowhere.
In a closed-door meeting that lasted nearly 90 minutes Monday night, Republicans debated the merits of the 370-page national security supplemental, and whether or not to provide the necessary 60 votes to get to floor consideration of the bill during a key procedural vote on Wednesday.
A good chunk of the Senate Republican conference opposes this bill because they object to the policies in it. At least 19 have issued statements stating as much.
But many Senate Republicans, including those moderates who would likely be necessary to getting 60 votes to proceed during the upcoming test vote, left the meeting saying they won't greenlight moving it forward -- not because of policy -- but because they don't believe they've had sufficient time to review the technically complex border provisions.
"I think it's fair to say everybody thinks that, you know, voting Wednesday is voting too soon," said Sen. John Thune, the Republican Whip. "I think there's a very real concern that there hasn't been adequate time. And I think the Wednesday vote is going to be for most our members too early."
In floor remarks Tuesday, Schumer lambasted Republicans for their plans to block the the bill from advancing during an upcoming procedural vote.
"After months of good faith negotiations, after months of giving Republicans many of the things they asked for, Leader McConnell and the Republican conference are ready to kill the national security supplemental package, even with the border provisions they so fervently demanded," Schumer said.
Schumer said the GOP decision to reject the bill represents a "dramatic transformation in Republican thought." He said Senate Republicans and House Speaker Mike Johnson have "moved the goal posts" on negotiations.
"This is the new Republican line on the border: It's an emergency, but it can wait 12 months or until the end of time. What utter bunk," Schumer said.
Schumer said he'd be comfortable delaying the vote -- though he cast doubts on Republicans' motives for wanting the vote postponed.
"I will even offer to delay that vote until some time on Thursday to give even more time for Senators to make up their mind, but I suspect they won't accept even that offer because they don't really want more time, they're just using it as an excuse," Schumer said.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks during a news conference on border security, following...Show moreundefined
Jose Luis Magana/AP
On Tuesday afternoon, McConnell put the nail in the coffin: "It looks to me and most of our members that we have no real chance here to make a law."
McConnell did not go after former President Donald Trump, who put immense pressure on Republicans to reject the deal, saying that the Border Patrol Council, which supported Trump, backed the bill.
"I think in the end, even though the product was approved by the Border Council that endorsed President Trump, most of our members feel that we're not going to be able to make law here. And if we're not going to be able to make a law, they're reluctant to go forward," McConnell said.
On Monday night, a number of moderate senators who would be needed to get to 60 votes said they would vote no on moving forward if the vote is held on Wednesday.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said he'd be amenable to continuing to work on the bill, but will vote to block it from moving forward on Wednesday.
"I think we said to begin with we wanted time. I still think we want time," Rounds said.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, agreed.
"Clearly a bill of this magnitude being brought to the floor in 48 hours is really rushing it, so that's another element that we talked in there, which in my view is problematic," Sullivan said.
Even Lankford may choose to vote against proceeding on Wednesday if the rest of his conference isn't ready to move forward.
"I'm listening to the rest of the conference on this," Lankford said. "If the conference is not ready to be able to move on it, there's no reason for me to be able to vote on cloture. That's not voting against the bill."
Hours after the bill text was release Sunday, Speaker Mike Johnson shot it down, saying in a statement that thebill is "dead on arrival"and "even worse than we expected, and won't come close to ending the border catastrophe the President created."
Asked about Johnson's comments, Lankford acknowledged the challenge of drawing such a quick conclusion of the robust bill.
"People are throwing all these great hyperboles out there before they've really had a chance to be able to read through it and to be able to go through," Lankford told ABC News Senior Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott. "It's interesting -- I've had folks saying, 'Hey this is really technical, it's going to take days or weeks to be able to read through it -- yet within minutes or hours they were saying, 'Hey, I oppose it because I've gone through it.'"
Senators did not give a clear read out of how much time they believed they'd need to consider this.
But several did say that any path forward would need to involve opportunities to offer amendments to the package.
