Floor Statements

Madam President, the longest shutdown in American history will finally end today. The President has agreed to our request to open the government and then debate border security, which is great news for 800,000 Federal workers and millions of Americans who depend upon government services. I thank President Trump and Leader McConnell.

As just outlined, we have agreed to pass a clean 3-week continuing resolution to reopen the government. Also, we will pass legislation in the Senate that will be related to the Department of Homeland Security so the House and Senate can participate in a conference committee on that legislation. In the conference, Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to negotiate the details of the Homeland Security bill, which will include issues of border security, humanitarian aid, drug inspection technology, and many others. We expect the continuing resolution to clear the House and be signed by the President today.

As soon as the President signs the legislation to open the government, we in Congress will roll up our sleeves. I genuinely hope this process will produce something that is good for the country and acceptable to both sides. We don't agree on some of the specifics of border security--the Democrats are against the wall--but we agree on many things, such as the need for new technology and the need to strengthen security at our ports of entry, and that bodes well for our coming to an eventual agreement.

I believe there is good faith on both sides to reach an agreement, and we will work diligently to achieve one. Because we have set this up as a conference, Democratic and Republican leadership from the House and Senate will be involved, as will the appropriators from those committees.

Most importantly, this agreement means the government will reopen and that 800,000 Federal employees will finally get paid. After over a month of increasing desperation, our dedicated public servants will get the relief and paychecks they are entitled to, including backpay.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the Federal workers who have worked so selflessly this past month. They should never have to go through this again. We will do everything we can to make sure they will not have to.

The past month has proven just how vital government services are to the American people, whether they be air traffic control, food safety inspections, the Coast Guard, national parks, and so many others. With this agreement, the TSA, the Border Patrol, and FBI agents will all be paid again for protecting our country. Our airports will get back on track, and we will resume the maintenance of our cherished national parks. The IRS will be able to issue tax refunds in a timely manner-- all critical for the well-being of the American people.

As Democrats have said all along, the solution to this impasse was to separate funding the government from our disagreements over border security. This agreement endorses that position. It reopens the government without preconditions, and it gives Democrats and Republicans an opportunity to discuss border security without holding hundreds of thousands of American workers hostage.

Hopefully, it means a lesson has been learned--shutting down the government over a policy difference is self-defeating. It accomplishes nothing but pain and suffering for the country and the American people. That is a lesson we all must bear in mind when this next continuing resolution expires, which will make its success more likely. We can never hold American workers hostage again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Trump has kept the government shut down for 34 days, and the pain inflicted on the American people and their government is getting deeper and deeper every day.

Our economy is suffering. First quarter GDP is in the tank. Consumer confidence has fallen.

Our national security is suffering. FBI agents attest that criminal and anti-terrorism investigations are severely constrained. Border patrol, TSA, and hundreds of thousands of homeland security personnel are working under limitations. These people are all part of our security.

President Trump keeps saying that we need the wall for security. Most people disagree with that, but even if we did agree, it is not going to be built for years. Our security is suffering today because of the Trump shutdown. It is so bad that five former DHS Secretaries wrote a letter to President Trump, urging him to end the shutdown without the wall, including his former Chief of Staff John Kelly, a loyal soldier if ever there were one. Kelly knows and they all know that this shutting down of the government for the President's wall, which most Americans believe we should not build, is wrong. The President's former Chief of Staff is telling President Trump that his position on the shutdown is wrong, that his position on the shutdown is a threat to national security--I would argue far more than not building a huge, ineffective wall.

Yesterday, a joint statement from the air traffic controllers, pilots, and flight attendants unions issued a dire warning: ``In our risk averse industry, we cannot even calculate the risk currently at play, nor predict the point at which the system will break.''

Mr. Donald Trump, President, if you cared about security, you would open the government now. You are the only one standing in the way. We know most of our Republican colleagues want the government opened. They are, in a positive way, loyal to you and, in a negative way, afraid to buck you, but they all know it. Everyone knows it.

Of course, 800,000 Federal workers are on the cusp of missing their second paycheck--a month's share of pay. Some require the assistance of food banks to get by. That is so disheartening. Hard-working people who just want to help their families have a decent life have to go to a food bank. They did nothing wrong. President Trump is using them as hostages. Here is how callous this administration is. When asked about that fact this morning, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a billionaire, said ``I know they are, and I don't really quite understand why.'' He argues that it is easy for furloughed workers to get a loan.

Those comments are appalling and reveal the administration's callous indifference toward the Federal workers he is treating as pawns. Secretary Ross's comments are the 21st century equivalent of ``Let them eat cake.''

Many of these Federal employees live paycheck to paycheck. Secretary Ross, they can't just call their stockbroker and ask them to sell some of their shares. They need that paycheck.

We need to end this shutdown now. There is only one way to do it. This afternoon, for the first time since President Trump shutdown the government in December, the Senate will have a chance to vote on a bill that reopens the government.

Leader McConnell says that President Trump's bill is the only way to reopen the government. Bull. He claims that our bill will not pass because President Trump will not sign it. Has he ever heard of a veto override? Has he ever heard of article I?

The bill that President Trump has put together can't pass the House and can't pass the Senate, so it has no chance of passing. For Leader McConnell to say the only bill that has a chance of opening up the government is President Trump's bill--where he puts in a $5.7 billion wall, undoes many of the asylum provisions, and is broadly unpopular-- is false. It is just wrong.

The two bills that are on the floor are not equivalent votes. My friend on the other side and some in the media who are being lazy called the two votes ``dueling proposals,'' as if there is one Republican proposal and one Democratic proposal and they are sort of equal. It is just not true.

The President's plan demands 100 percent of what the President wants--$5.7 billion for a border wall plus radical new changes to our asylum system before reopening the government. For the Republican leader to call this a compromise is laughable. There was no Democratic signoff--not from me, not from Senator Durbin, not from any other Democrat. It is a harshly partisan proposal that essentially codifies

the President's position that government funding is a bargaining chip.

A vote for the President's plan is an endorsement of government by extortion. If we let him do it today, he will do it tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. The whole structure of our government will change, and the chaos that we now see will be magnified.

Even some of my Republican friends have admitted that the President's plan is not a serious offer. A few days ago, my friend from Oklahoma called it ``a straw man proposal.'' I think that says it all. The President's plan is a straw man, not a serious offer. It is merely a way to save face.

The second vote is the opposite. It demands nothing before we reopen the government--nothing. There are no partisan demands, not things we want or we will shut down the government. We don't do that. Only Trump does that, and our Republican colleagues go along. Our proposal allows us to open the government and then, after the government is opened, settle our differences over border security. I know it is not partisan because every single Republican supported the same basic idea just 1 month ago when we voted on it. When President Trump changed his mind and said no, everyone did a sort of 180-degree reversal, including my friend the Republican leader. He knows it.

So the two votes are not the same. They are not flip sides of the same coin. The first vote is harshly partisan and one-sided. The second vote is down the middle and seeks to reopen government and has received overwhelming support from both sides before President Trump said he wouldn't do it. Calling the two votes equivalent is not an attempt to simplify but to mislead.

Nonetheless, in a few hours, we will take these two votes. The Senate will have a chance to say no to the President's hostage-taking, and then the Senate will have a chance to send a clear message that Congress is ready to reopen the government.

To my Republican colleagues, even if you are for the wall--all of those who have said ``I may be for the wall, but I want to keep the government open'' have a chance to do it on the second vote. Let's see how they vote.

Throughout this debacle, I have not heard one good reason why 800,000 Federal employees must be held hostage for us to discuss border security. Democrats are happy to discuss border security under regular order with the government open. We support stronger border security. President Trump believes the best way to do that is an expensive and ineffective wall. We disagree sharply with that, but there is no reason we can't negotiate and figure it out. What we can't allow is the President to hijack our government and hold it hostage every time we disagree over policy, which he will do if he wins this one.

The votes this afternoon are about more than just a shutdown. They are about how we govern in a democracy.

We are allowed to come here and disagree over policy. In fact, our system of government was designed to allow for progress, despite our large and sometimes raucous differences. But when one side--in this case, the President--throws a temper tantrum and uses the basic functioning of our government as leverage in a policy argument, our system of government breaks down. If every President decided to shut down the government when they didn't get a policy from Congress, America would careen from crisis to crisis, an endless spiral of gridlock and dysfunction.

So the votes this afternoon are not about border security. These votes are about ending a manufactured crisis, a self-inflicted wound that is bleeding our country out a little more each day. I hope and I pray that the Senate rises to the occasion.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, President Trump is responsible not only for thousands of Coast Guard personnel not getting paid but also for hundreds of thousands of other Federal employees not getting paid.

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.

Will the Senator from Louisiana modify his request to include the unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. 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.

If the Senator would yield, it is mutual.

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

Madam President, I object to the original request because the Senator from Louisiana has not allowed the rest of the Federal Government to get paid. 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.

I object.

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.

Now, on a different issue, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to proceed to S. 1.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I heard my good friend from Wisconsin say, give him one good reason to object to the Coast Guard. No, there is not one; there are 760,000, if that is the right number--the number of non-Coast Guard workers who are not getting paid.

Similarly here, it will be easy for any Member to get up and pick and choose and say: Pay these. Pay those. Don't pay these. Don't pay those.

Our position on this side is simple: They should not be held hostage. They should not say: We are not going to pay you unless we get our way on the wall--which is exactly what President Trump is doing and exactly what my colleagues, with some exceptions, have decided to do on that side of the aisle, including my good friend from Wisconsin. That is not fair. Everyone deserves to be paid. These are all hard-working people. They have done nothing wrong. They all get up on Monday morning, even if they have a fever or something, to go to work because they believe in what they are doing. They are government workers. To pick and choose some and not others is the wrong way to go and would lead to a cacophony. Every one of us could get up and say: Maybe we should, say, just pay the workers in Brooklyn, NY. It doesn't make any sense at all.

So I would modify my friend's request and expand it to all of our Federal workers, which is only fair.

Reserving the right to object, would the Senator modify his request to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 28, which has been received from the House, making further additional continuing appropriations through February 28; that the joint resolution be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate?

I object to that. I am in the middle of an objection.

Leader McConnell has requested I go to his office. I think that is more important than some of these activities. I am going to object.

I object.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Republican leader, my friend, announced that the Senate would hold two votes on Thursday afternoon. First, the Senate will vote on the President's proposal, and then the Senate will vote on an amendment that is essentially identical to the underlying bill sent to us from the House, meaning a continuing resolution that opens the government for 3 weeks plus disaster assistance.

Let me be very clear. These two votes are not equivalent votes. It is not ``on the one hand, on the other hand.'' The President's proposal demands a wall and radical legal immigration changes in exchange for opening up the government. The second vote demands nothing in exchange for opening up the government.

The first vote--unless you do it my way, I am keeping the government shut down--is the Trump amendment. Our amendment says: Open up the government, and then let's talk.

To say, well, one is a Democratic amendment and one is a Republican amendment doesn't get the magnitude of this. The difference is one is holding 800,000 workers hostage--millions of Americans hostage--unless the amendment authors get their way. The second vote doesn't demand anything. It just says to open up the government and then let's discuss it.

The first vote, on the President's plan, includes radical changes to our asylum system and the full funding the President asked for the border wall in exchange for reopening the government. The first vote is completely partisan. The first vote is the President's hostage-taking position codified into an amendment. It says: You must do it our way and pay $5.7 billion for a wall before we open the government.

The second vote is the opposite. It does not demand anything before we reopen the government. It simply reopens the government for 3 weeks and allows us to continue debating border security. There is nothing partisan about the second vote. If President Trump weren't opposed to it, there would be nothing controversial about the second vote and just about every Republican would vote for it, as they did the first time, a month ago.

The second vote is not a Democratic proposal with demands. The first vote is a Republican proposal with Republican demands. One simply reopens the government. The other says: No way. It embodies the President's temper tantrum: If you don't do it my way, I am shutting down the government and hurting lots of people.

The two votes are not equivalent. It is not ``on the one hand, on the other.'' They are diametrically opposed in concept.

I do give Leader McConnell credit. He put on the floor, for the first time, an ability for Senators to vote on a clean proposal to reopen the government. That is the second vote. It is completely silent on the issue of border security. A vote for the continuing resolution does not preclude a continued discussion on how we best secure our border. It isn't pro-wall or anti-wall. It just says: Open up the government. It is a way to reopen government while we continue to work out our differences.

I want my Republican friends to understand the stakes here. Reopening the government for 3 weeks may not sound like a long time, but it is massively important to 800,000 public servants who have been languishing without pay. Reopening the government even for 3 weeks would mean that all 800,000 get their backpay, to which they are entitled. That is three full paychecks: one for January 11, one for January 25, and one for February 8. Let me repeat that. Even a 3-week continuing resolution would provide three full paychecks to our Federal employees: TSA, Border Patrol, FBI agents, air traffic controllers, food safety inspectors, Coast Guard. Every one of the ones I mentioned involves our security. The President says--in my opinion, totally incorrectly, misstating all of the facts--that we need the big wall for our security. Even if he succeeds--which he will not, I believe--it would take years to build that wall. There is also eminent domain and so many other issues that it might never be built at all. But this is hurting TSA, hurting Border Patrol, and hurting FBI agents, air traffic controllers, food safety inspectors, and Coast Guard members, who all deal with our security right now--right now.

So if you believe in the security of America, you vote for the second amendment, no matter what you think of the wall.

The American people, more and more--it is amazing--were on our side to start with, and they are turning more on our side now. In a CBS poll this morning, 7 out of 10 Americans say the issue of a border wall is not worth this government shutdown, including 71 percent of Independents, but, astoundingly, 43 percent of all Republicans say a border wall is not worth a government shutdown. Close to half of all Republican voters are saying to President Trump and to Leader McConnell and to every Republican Senator in this Chamber: Don't keep this shutdown going over the wall. Don't hold the government hostage. Open it back up and figure out your policy differences.

Parenthetically, I would remind my colleagues that this poll--and another one this morning showed the same thing with President Trump's ratings lower than ever--occurred after his speech on Saturday. His gambit to try to get the shutdown off his back failed, as it should have, because the shutdown is solely his. He said he was proud of it. He said 25 times before he did it that he wanted to do it. Everyone knows the shutdown is his. Neither the President nor our Republican friends can squiggle out of that one. Because of the President's destructive hostage-taking gambit, as I said, his disapproval rating reached the highest level of his Presidency in the CBS poll.

What more do my Republican colleagues need to hear? The will of the American people is crystal clear: Open the government.

I know that President Trump has some power in these Republican primaries, but sometimes you have to rise to the occasion.

The second bill, without any preconceptions or preconditions says: Open the government. The first bill is hostage-taking: Unless you do it my way, the government is staying shut down.

So these are not equivalent bills. These are not ``on the one hand, on the other hand.''

For weeks we have been at a stalemate. Leader McConnell has not allowed a vote on legislation to reopen the government until now. Tomorrow the Senate will finally have its chance. We can reopen the government until February 8 and continue to discuss border security. If you are worried about hundreds of thousands of Federal employees going without pay, if you are worried about the impacts of the shutdown on our economy or our basic security--as law enforcement, Border Patrol, and food safety are not paid--if you are worried about our national security, and if you are looking for a way to open up the government, this is the way. The second vote is the only way that is on the floor of the Senate and can actually open up the government.

I urge all of my Republican colleagues, as they did once before-- before President Trump said what he said--to join Democrats on a bipartisan basis on the second vote tomorrow and, finally, open up the government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Trump shutdown is now in its 32nd day. Essential government services are straining under the lack of resources--airport security, food safety, our Federal courts, our national parks. The economy is taking a serious hit. It was even revealed today that FBI investigations--law enforcement--are being curtailed, and, of course, 800,000 public servants who are dedicated to their jobs and their country continue to languish without pay.

The personal financial crisis President Trump is inflicting on these patriotic Americans is worsening by the day. He is hurting the 800,000 dedicated public servants, the millions who depend on them, and the entire country. This must stop. The government shutdown must end. President Trump and Leader McConnell need to come to their senses and reopen the government. Instead, over the weekend, President Trump made a televised address to outline an immigration proposal that is going nowhere fast.

It is clear that the President has realized he has put himself and the country in an untenable position. Everyone knows the President said he would be proud to shut down the government. Everyone knows that he and Leader McConnell are the only obstacles to opening it back up. Across the board, the polling shows it. Even a good chunk of Republicans is getting disillusioned with the President and the Republican Senate because they persist in keeping the government shut down because they demand that they get their way or else. The leader's attempts--that I just heard on the floor--to blame the Democrats for the shutdown are futile. They are so far from reality that no one takes the leader seriously when he says it. The American people know President Trump is responsible for the shutdown, and now they have learned Leader McConnell is a coconspirator in the shutdown.

In his realizing he is hurting the public and hurting the economy and in the underlining of the fact that his Presidency has far too much chaos and too little order, direction, and certainty, the President has had to make a proposal to try to shake things up. It is not a good- faith proposal. It is not intended to end the shutdown. The President's proposal is one-sided, harshly partisan, and has been made in bad faith.

The President single-handedly canceled DACA and TPS protections. He did it himself, on his own, a while back. Now the offering of some temporary protections in exchange for the wall is not a compromise--it is more hostage-taking. When the President says: ``I will give you DACA and TPS partially''--even though he created the problem on his own-- ``in exchange for the wall,'' it is like bargaining for stolen goods. The President didn't offer the DACA protections in good faith. The President's team sold the DACA protections as the BRIDGE Act--a temporary fix originally proposed by Senators Durbin and Graham. It turns out the actual legislation is even more limited than the BRIDGE Act and would barely restore the protections that President Trump himself took away.

The New York Times reported that Stephen Miller, the architect of the President's harshest policies on illegal immigration, intervened to narrow the DACA proposal as much possible. When Stephen Miller is crafting the policy, you can be darned sure it is not a compromise.

Worst of all, we found out this morning that the legislation includes incredibly partisan changes to our asylum system so as to make it nearly impossible for migrants to claim asylum at our border. This is a dramatic change in what America has been all about--a dramatic turning around from what America has always had as its symbol--the Statue of Liberty. The asylum changes are a poison pill, if there ever were one, and show a lack of good faith that the President and now Leader McConnell have in trying to make a proposal

The President and his team have tried to spin this proposal as a reasonable compromise with there being concessions to the Democrats. That defies credulity. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were no serious negotiations with the Democratic leaders or any Democrat to produce this proposal. Let me say that again. There were no serious negotiations with the Democratic leaders or any Democrat to produce this proposal. The President didn't ask what the Democrats needed in a bill to achieve our support. He simply laid his proposal down on the table and proclaimed it a compromise.

You can't have a compromise when one side declares: This is what we want, and this is what you want. You can't have a compromise when one side is determining not only what it wants in the bill but what we want in the bill without even seriously negotiating with us. That is not how negotiating works. That is not the ``art of the deal.'' What we have here is just another one-sided, partisan proposal from the President.

Contrary to the President's claims, it hardly represents a softening of his position. If anything, it is even more radical. First, President Trump said: Give me the wall or I will shut down the government. Then President Trump said: Unless you give me the wall, I will keep the government shut down. Now President Trump is saying: Give me the wall, and make radical changes to legal immigration or I will shut the government down.

No one can call this new effort a compromise. The President's proposal is just wrapping paper on the same partisan package and hostage-taking tactics. When you take off the wrapping paper, it is the same partisan, narrow, unacceptable package that cannot pass the House and that cannot pass the Senate.

So far, there is only one piece of legislation that has a chance of arriving at the President's desk, and that is for the Senate to take up and pass any of the appropriations bills that have already been passed by the House. These bills are noncontroversial, and there are no surprises or poison pill riders. In essence, what is in those bills has been supported by Republicans already, and each of them would reopen the government and allow us to continue our discussions on border security. The sooner Leader McConnell allows a vote on those bills, the sooner we can end this pointless shutdown and reopen the government.

President Trump and Leader McConnell, the American people and 800,000 workers are asking and waiting for you to act.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

First, I want to echo the words of my colleague, our great ranking member of Health and Human Services, Senator Murray.

Now, look, folks. As the Trump shutdown drags into its 27th day, the pain inflicted on our country, our citizens, and our economy grows. The Council of Economic Advisers said the shutdown would hurt our economy twice as much

as originally projected. Experts are predicting it could wipe out the entire first quarter of economic growth.

At airports, an understaffed TSA means longer and longer lines. Yesterday, the executive vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said that flying ``is less safe today than a month ago, absolutely.''

Hundreds of thousands of public servants are suffering. I can give a list of a long number. President Trump, this shutdown--your shutdown-- has gone on too long. Why is President Trump punishing folks like so many of my constituents who have nothing to do with disagreements about borders?

If you sense exasperation in my tone, you are right. We Democrats are exasperated. All we want to do is reopen the government. We are happy to debate border security with the President and our Republican colleagues--happy to. But let's reopen the government.

My Republican friends here, both the President and Leader McConnell, are ignoring the overwhelming will of the American people. We urge our colleagues to think about this. We know that President Trump is not interested in ending the shutdown. Leader McConnell knows he has the power to end the shutdown. The only reason we are in this prolonged stalemate is that my friend the Republican leader refuses to take up any legislation to reopen government. We should do it now.

I yield the floor.

I yield back our time.

We spent the past few days debating the resolution of disapproval of the Treasury Department's plan to relax sanctions on Russia. We have made clear that Treasury's plan is insufficient and lets Putin and his cronies off the hook. We have made clear that Putin's malign activities around the globe have not abated. We have made clear that there is no reason to relieve sanctions on one of our chief adversaries when there has been no reconciliation and in exchange for nothing.

Earlier this week, 10 brave Republicans joined us on the motion to proceed and again on cloture, but it was not enough for passage. So many other Republicans who have campaigned that Democrats are not tough enough on Putin, when they had a chance to be tough on Putin, ran for the exits. I just want to let my colleagues know that the House was different and in this case far more courageous.

The House passed the same resolution of disapproval 362 to 53. Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 ratio--more than 2 to 1--voted to not allow the loosening of sanctions on Deripaska's Rusal, as 136 of them joined with the unanimous--unanimous--support of House Democrats to pass the resolution.

So two votes--two small votes--stand in the way of passage here in the Senate. Let the overwhelming bipartisan House vote be a message to my Republican friends in the Senate. We should pass this resolution. We should not let Putin get his way simply because Donald Trump has always wanted him to--too often.

So I am going to shortly reconsider the resolution before it expires tonight at midnight. I strongly urge my friend the leader not to block the request and give Republican Senators a chance to change their minds on this incredibly important motion.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 14, H.J. Res. 30; that the joint resolution be considered read for a third time and the Senate vote on passage with a 60-vote affirmative threshold, with no intervening action or debate; and that if the joint resolution fails to achieve 60 votes for passage, it be returned to the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I just heard Leader McConnell, my good friend, rail on and on. First, he doesn't agree with Nancy Pelosi on the wall. That is a surprise. Second, he doesn't like the fact that we want to get a vote to open up the government before we move forward on S. 1. We know that. His arguments are getting kind of old and stale.

I will say to the leader, very simply--you may disagree with us: Open the government. Open the government. You can do it, Leader McConnell. All your blaming and flailing isn't going to open the government. We all know Donald Trump is the obstacle here. You know it. I know it. We all know it. The only way to help all the folks who need help is to open the government.

There are a good number of Republicans on your side who have advocated that already. To hold the government hostage, you are losing the argument. You are losing it with the public. An overwhelming majority of Americans think the government should not be shut down over a wall. Even a substantial number of people who support the wall say: Don't shut down the government to get the wall.

We have problems on the border. A lot of Americans don't think it is a crisis that demands hurting our economy and our government.

Leader McConnell, we know you disagree with Leader Pelosi and me on what should be border security. We know you think we should pass S. 1 before we open up the government. Leader, you--you--can open the government. That is what the American people want, and I dare say that is what most of your colleagues want, at least if they talk to you privately.

It seems that every day the Trump shutdown drags on, we read another story about a new way it is hurting our economy. Eight hundred thousand public servants have been without pay, including thousands of veterans who work for the Federal Government. Each one of those Americans has a different story about how the shutdown is hurting them and their families. As nine essential Cabinet Departments remain shuttered, we are learning that the effects of the shutdown are even more widespread and continue to worsen. Yesterday, President Trump's own White House Council of Economic Advisers doubled their projections of how much economic growth is being lost each week during the shutdown.

Let me repeat that. The Trump administration's own economic advisers have just said that the Trump shutdown will substantially hurt our economy--twice as much as they originally

predicted. Growth is down. Economic and consumer confidence is down. Billions of dollars have been pulled out of our economy. Some of the leading financial leaders in the country are now saying we might even go into contraction in the first part of this year if this shutdown continues.

Do you think, Leader McConnell, that is benefiting Donald Trump? Do you think, Leader McConnell, that is benefiting the Republican Party, who the Americans know own the shutdown? No. Let's open the government and then debate our differences on border security and whatever else.

Why is our country suffering self-inflicted damage? Because President Trump is using the American government as leverage in an attempt to extract taxpayer money for a border wall he promised Mexico would pay for.

He says: You know, I hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity: He promised this in the campaign.

No, he didn't. He promised a wall that Mexico would pay for. He never said once, that I can recall, in the campaign: But if Mexico doesn't pay for it, we will pay for it.

Of course people voted for it--or some, not that many. This is ridiculous. The President makes a campaign promise. He twists the campaign promise around and now shuts down the government so he can show he is keeping not the promise he made but a different one. It would sound ridiculous and absurd if it weren't the reality.

The fact of the matter is that eight Cabinet Departments not named Homeland Security have absolutely nothing--nothing--to do with our disagreements over border security. That is why Democrats have offered, and continue to offer, to reopen the government while we debate border security.

Again, three words for Leader McConnell again: Open the government.

Three words to my Republican colleagues: Open the government.

Three words to President Trump: Open the government.

Then, we can have all the discussion and debating, as we are supposed to do, on these issues where we don't agree.

Democrats have made entirely reasonable proposals. We proposed to open the government by passing Republican spending bills from the last Congress so there would be no controversy. These are not bills the Democrats put together. These are bills the Republicans put together with some Democratic input. Leader McConnell voted for every one of them--every one of them.

As for this idea that he will not move unless Trump agrees, that may have made sense in the first week or two. It makes no sense now because President Trump is adamant, all over the lot, and seems unwilling and unable to tie himself out of his own knots to get the government open. Someone should step in. On our side, we are willing to step in. Where is Leader McConnell? Where are the Republicans?

The American people support passing our bills--bills that we have asked unanimous consent for by wide margins--two to one, including nearly 40 percent of Republicans. Forty percent of Republicans support passing our bills and then debating.

So, Mr. President, even your prized base--a good chunk of it, about a third--is turning away from you on this issue.

When will the President and my Republican colleagues wake up to the hardship being inflicted on so many people across the country? It is time that the Senate act on House-passed bills to open the government.

The President, we know, is inflexible. He is ``proud,'' as he said, to have shut down the government. He is, amazingly--never seen a President like this--impervious to the pain and suffering of Federal workers and the American people. He makes stuff up: Oh, the Federal workers want the wall. Who? Two people who are on FOX News all the time who are part of a Border Patrol union? That is it, not the average worker.

The President has refused all entreaties to open up the government by Democrats and Republicans, like my friend Senator Graham--one of the President's biggest allies in this Chamber.

His deputies are hardly even empowered to negotiate with the Hill since President Trump retracts their offers almost as soon as they are made. Everyone--everyone--can see how fruitless it is to try and negotiate with this President at the moment.

My friend Leader McConnell is the one who can break the impasse. He has declared before that ``he is the guy who gets us out of shutdowns.'' He was proud of that. I wish he were still proud of it.

I think we are all ready for that, Leader McConnell, because so long as Leader McConnell hides behind the President and the President's absurd and destructive shutdown strategy, the Senate will be unable to vote on broadly popular legislation to reopen the government.

The longer Leader McConnell allows this to continue, the more he and Republican Senators will be tied to the President and the President's disgraceful tactic of government by extortion.

Russia

Mr. President, last night, the Senate voted to proceed to the resolution to disapprove the Treasury Department's plans to relax sanctions on Russia, and 11 Republicans--I am proud of that, proud of them--joined with every Democrat to advance the resolution, which will face a cloture vote today. Two or three more Republican votes will ensure cloture is invoked and the passage of the resolution achieved. So I would like to make a direct appeal to my Republican friends who are wondering about this.

This resolution is about a very simple thing. Do you believe America should take a tough line on Putin or do you think we should go easy on Putin and his cronies? From where I am standing, that is an easy choice.

The past half decade has seen Putin expand his malign activities around the world, from invading Ukraine and Georgia to annexing Crimea, to propping up the brutal Assad regime in Syria, to directing nerve agent attacks on foreign soil.

Russian intelligence has tried to destabilize Western democracies at every opportunity--France, England, many other European countries, and most obviously here in the United States. As proof positive, they go online, they try to sow dissension in America, this beautiful country.

As Leader McConnell said yesterday--confusingly, before voting against the resolution--``We have long seen Vladimir Putin for the KGB thug that he is.'' Those are strong words but accurate.

In the face of this global assault on Western democracies, of course we have seen that the Trump administration has been shamefully and suspiciously weak on President Putin. The President has avoided criticizing Putin at every turn. When asked about President Putin's brutal tactics against his opponents, President Trump demurs.

When this body, near unanimously, passed the Russian sanction legislation, President Trump contemplated vetoing it.

When President Putin told President Trump he didn't interfere in our 2016 elections, the President reportedly said: I believe you.

Last weekend, we learned that President Trump has expressed a desire to withdraw from NATO this summer--the past summer is when he expressed the desire. That is Putin's dream--Putin's dream. All the advice of our military and diplomatic leaders were against it. Somehow, the President wants to do it, and who benefits the most? Putin. Who loses the most? The West.

Now, with this proposed sanctions relief, we have another example of President Trump trying to lighten the burden on Putin's oligarchs. We should not allow it.

For a very long time, the Republican Party predicated its foreign policy on taking a tougher line against Russia and Putin. In so many campaigns for President, we Democrats were accused of not being tough enough on the Russians. I have always felt we have to be tough on the Russians, but it seems acquiescence to the President, a fear of breaking with the President, has held back too many of my Republican colleagues from supporting this resolution.

The resolution, just to repeat, is sort of--I know Treasury made an effort, although I don't have much faith in the strength. I think the Secretary of Treasury is an intelligent man, but he never stands up to Trump, and I don't have any faith in his strength in standing up this time. So if Trump wanted a

weakened resolution because maybe Putin or the Russians wanted it, that is what we have here.

Forty-five percent control is not--45 percent ownership, which is what this does, takes Deripaska out of this? Forget it. Then add to his 45 percent the 7 percent the in-laws own, that the large percentage that Russian banks--controlled by Putin--own, the control is just as tight as it was before. The people who were put in charge have close relationships with Russia. This is not a strong resolution. It is slightly less than a joke--slightly less than a joke.

So I hope some of our colleagues will come around. This is all about America, the West, the stability of our Nation, and if Putin thinks he can manipulate our country and manipulate the President and too many of my colleagues who have always been strong against Russia go along, what is he going to do next? What is he going to ask President Trump to do next, and what will President Trump do?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as the Trump shutdown drags on, more and more Americans are getting hurt. Public servants have been working without pay, critical Agencies are unable to perform the functions they are supposed to perform for the American people--whether that is inspecting food supply, protecting our airports and prisons, or helping farmers and small businesses get loans. We are now approaching tax season with the IRS under severe limitations.

When will the President's ridiculous manufactured crisis come to an end?

I have three words for President Trump, Leader McConnell, and our Republican Senators: Open the government.

We can debate border security. We have debated it for a month and a half. We haven't come to a conclusion. Open the government, and we can debate border security while the government is open.

Now, for weeks, as I said, we have been at a standstill. We have offered the President several ways to uncouple his demand for a border wall from a government shutdown. The President has been obstinate, insisting on a $5.7 billion wall he promised that Mexico would pay for.

The few times that his deputies--the Vice President and the Chief of Staff--have made proposals to Democrats, the President contradicted them soon thereafter. Just yesterday, the President flatly refused to consider a proposal from his close ally in the Senate, Senator Graham, to open the government temporarily while we debate border security.

Sadly, neither Republicans in Congress nor the President's own staff seem willing to tell him what everyone else already knows: The President does not have the votes in either House of Congress for his expensive, ineffective wall.

The reason we have been unable to make any progress is that President Trump is not yet interested in making progress.

So there is only one person who can help America break through this gridlock: Leader Mitch McConnell. For the past month, Leader McConnell has been content to hide behind the President, essentially giving him a veto over what comes to the floor of the Senate. It has put him in the ridiculous position of refusing to consider legislation to reopen the government that nearly every Senate Republican has voted for-- legislation that leader McConnell has proudly voted for; legislation that the American people favor by a 2-to-1 margin, including nearly 40 percent of Republicans.

The American people suffering the dire consequences of this shutdown can no longer afford to wait for the President to come around. The President must be shown the will of the Congress, and I believe that if Leader McConnell were to put the House-passed bills on

the floor, they would receive a significant majority in the Senate, a veto-proof majority.

So I would appeal to Leader McConnell: Do what is right for the country. Do what is right for hundreds of thousands of Federal employees laboring without pay. Do what is right for our farmers and small businesses, homeowners, and taxpayers. Do what is right for America.

President Trump may not care about the harm he is doing to all of these people, but our Republican Senators, including Leader McConnell, should.

A few years ago, Leader McConnell remarked: Remember me? I am the guy that gets us out of shutdowns.

Well, Leader McConnell, now is the time. Leader McConnell, allow a vote on legislation and reopen the government.

In a short time, a few of my Democratic colleagues will ask the Senate for that chance. Will Leader McConnell help us reopen the government? Will some of our Republican Senators actually join us, not in nice words but in actually voting to reopen the government? Or will Leader McConnell block it yet again, aiding and abetting President Trump's desire to extend his government shutdown?

One final point here, President Trump thinks if he holds out long enough, he will win the fight with the American people. Every day he is losing. The Gallup poll today had him at a near-record low of 37 percent popularity. Even some of his base is losing face.

President Trump, you are not going to win this fight with the American people. Every day it drags on, you are less popular. Every day it drags on, people blame you and the Republicans, not the Democrats. You are not winning the fight. You may be in your own untruth bubble, but you are not winning the fight. Everyone knows that. We certainly do.

Nomination of William Barr

Madam President, on another matter, as we speak, the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting its hearing on the nomination of William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States. It is an august position that demands the highest degree of credibility, transparency, and fidelity to rule of law, even during a normal Presidency.

But given President Trump's actions, his disdain for rule of law, his derision of the rulings of an independent judiciary, his public contempt for law enforcement procedures of the Justice Department, the burden of proof for William Barr is higher than it would be for other Presidents.

This is not a normal Presidency. We don't need an Attorney General who will just comply with this President. That is a danger to the Republic.

The Senate should expect unequivocal and explicit commitments from Mr. Barr to resist President Trump. Mr. Barr cannot merely give perfunctory, boilerplate assurances. Saying ``I am for transparency'' is not good enough.

Will he release Mueller's report--yes or no? If he can't answer ``yes,'' he doesn't deserve the position. Will he not interfere in any way with Mueller's investigation as opposed to saying he likes Mueller and thinks he is doing a good job? If Mr. Barr can't say ``yes,'' that he will not interfere in any way with the Mueller investigation, he doesn't deserve the job, particularly in light of his writings.

We should expect unequivocal commitments from Barr to defend the integrity of the FBI and our Federal law enforcement officers, not vague statements that give him plenty of wiggle room to do President Trump's dirty work if he gets to be Attorney General, and we should expect an unequivocal commitment from Mr. Barr to allow the special investigation to proceed and conclude without any--underline ``any''-- interference.

One last point, the expectations for Mr. Barr are even more demanding given the recent revelation that he wrote a detailed, unsolicited memo to the Justice Department criticizing the Mueller investigation, despite having no knowledge of its workings. The memo revealed that Barr holds an astonishingly broad--almost imperial--view of executive power. That should also be a serious line of inquiry for our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.

The next Attorney General will take charge of a Justice Department that has been embroiled in near-constant chaos for 2 years at a critical moment for our democracy. The Senate should only approve an Attorney General of unimpeachable integrity and unimpeachable fidelity to the rule of law, with the strength and conviction to resist the worst impulses of this President, who, probably, when it comes to the Justice Department, has the worst impulses of any President we have ever had.

Russian Sanctions

Madam President, finally, on Russia sanctions, later this afternoon the Senate will move to consider a motion to proceed to a resolution of disapproval on the Treasury Department's proposal to relax sanctions on three companies owned and controlled by sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The case against the Treasury Department's proposal is strong. It fails to sufficiently limit Deripaska's stake in the three companies. It merely reduces his ownership to 45 percent. Many U.S. companies are heavily influenced by an owner who controls much less than a 45-percent share. Why didn't they reduce it to 10 or 15? But they didn't.

Treasury's plan also allows for Russian shareholders with family and business ties to Deripaska to retain shareholder interest. Considering that Deripaska's ex-wife and father-in-law control 7 percent of the company, add that to the 45, and he has total control. So Treasury does not come close to going far enough.

Beyond the weak terms of the deal, the Senate must consider that Deripaska has deep ties to President Putin and his intelligence apparatus, organized crime, and Mr. Paul Manafort, a subject of the special counsel's investigation.

It is deeply suspect that the Trump administration would propose sanctions relief for Deripaska's companies before the special counsel finished his work. We should not allow any sanction relief for President Putin's trusted agents or the companies they control before the conclusion of the investigation.

Finally--and maybe most seriously of all--there is a foreign policy issue here at stake. President Putin's government, one of Russia's largest banks, and the Russian economy have a direct interest in sanction relief for Deripaska's companies. Why is the Trump administration proposing sanctions relief when President Putin has not yet made any move to curtail or constrain his maligned activities around the globe?

Now, this morning, my friend from Kentucky called this a political stunt and a farce. That is appalling. After all Putin has done, this is a stunt and a farce? And why are we doing it now?

He said: Why are Democrats doing it?

Because the underlying law that allows for this resolution has a 30- day alarm clock on it. The alarm clock goes off Thursday. Democrats are not forcing this vote; the law is.

I would say to the leader, Democrats were not the ones who decided to relax sanctions on Putin's cronies just before the Christmas holiday, hoping no one would notice. That was the Trump administration. If Leader McConnell wants to know why we are voting on Russian sanctions this afternoon, he should go talk to the White House.

So allow me to appeal directly to my Republican colleagues. Whatever your view on this issue, there are enough questions--enough questions-- that we should vote for the motion to proceed so that you can hear the debate. It is an important debate. Putin is laughing with the damage he is doing to America. We cannot go along.

In the past, one of the finer moments of this Senate, which Leader McConnell talks about all the time, was when we joined in a bipartisan way to impose sanctions on Russia. Well, we should not relax that view. We should not relax that vigilance. The details here are complex. The Senate and the American people ought to have a real understanding of the facts before voting. If that debate is allowed to proceed, I believe my Senate colleagues will see the wisdom of keeping the current sanctions in place.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am not going to talk about the substance of what we are here for.

To my dear friend, Johnny, whom I love and who serves the best barbecue I ever have every year, among his many other attributes, I will just make this point.

He says it is not a Democratic shutdown or a Republican shutdown. It is a Trump shutdown. We all know it. Donald Trump has called for the shutting down of the government 25 times. He said at our meeting he is proud to shut down the government.

We Democrats do not want to shut down the government. In fact, our slogan--our watchword--is ``open up the government.'' We have a difference on border security. We are for it. You are for it. You are for something different than we are, but we are not shutting down the government, and everyone knows it. The public opinion polls know it. There are 40 percent of all Republicans, let alone Democrats and Independents, who are for the wall, and most of those people say the government shouldn't be shut down over the wall.

I know how aggravated my colleague is. I would suggest to him that the best solution is to vote for what he voted for--or the whole Republican Party did by unanimous consent--which is to open up the government. Then we can discuss our border security issues.

I yield to my dear friend.

Madam President, I thank my colleague.

There is just one difference between what happened then and what is happening now: Neither side was shutting down the government until it got its way.

I will make my statement, I guess, and wait for Leader McConnell and the motion to proceed.

S.J. Res. 2

Madam President, before we take a vote on the motion to proceed on this resolution, I will make two brief points, and I know my colleagues have discussed this very well.

First, my friends the Republican leader and former Republican whip Senator Cornyn are being incredibly disingenuous to suggest this is a political stunt and to accuse Democrats of forcing this vote out of the blue. The timing of this vote was not determined by me or by Leader McConnell. It was determined by the wall. The law says that we only have 30 days to disapprove of sanctions relief on Russia. This was filed right before Christmas.

I would suggest the administration and the Treasury hope to get away with it because they know how unpopular it would be to remove sanctions on Deripaska or on the companies he controls. They knew how unpopular it would be, so they snuck it in right before Christmas, right before we left. We have only 30 days, and those 30 days expire on Thursday. If we wait, those 30 days will expire--they will be gone--and we will have no opportunity. So this is no accident.

If Leader McConnell and Senator Cornyn want to know why this vote is today, they should talk to the White House, because it is the one that filed this on December 21.

Second, there are serious, substantive reasons to oppose the Treasury plan. It fails to sufficiently limit Mr. Deripaska's stake in these three Russian companies. It gives Vladimir Putin exactly what he wants--sanctions relief on three major producers of aluminum and other metals. That is wrong for the country. Putin's Russia continues to run rampant over international norms, to meddle in democratic elections, and to destabilize the world. Russia has violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, has interfered in our elections and the Brexit vote, has propped up the brutal Assad regime, and has been implicated in nerve agent attacks on the soil of our closest ally. Yet the Trump administration proposes reducing sanctions on Putin and his cronies.

Show me the behavior from Vladimir Putin that warrants such relief. I can't think of any, and I will bet 90 percent of all Americans can't think of any.

Let me be clear. A vote against this resolution--a vote to not allow us to proceed--is a vote to go easy on President Putin and his oligarchs.

I understand my friend the leader, the Republican leader, will move to table the motion to proceed to the resolution. I remind my colleagues that

the timeline runs out on Thursday--48 hours from now. We have to take this vote now. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table and yes on the motion to proceed.

Motion to Proceed

Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 13, S.J. Res. 2.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 seconds.

Madam President, the leader's rhetoric belies his words. If you believe Putin is a thug, you don't vote to table this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, as the government shutdown enters its fourth unfortunate week, its effects are widespread and worsening. As of Friday, 800,000 public servants were without pay. Tomorrow, roughly 41,000 Active-Duty Coast Guard members won't get their paychecks. By the end of the week, our Federal courts will start running out of operating funds. Farmers and small businesses remain unable to access loans and assistance. Some working families are unable to access home loans. Food safety inspections are curtailed. Airport terminals are closing amidst widespread staffing shortages at TSA. The Trump shutdown is even affecting the opioid crisis. The DEA is in charge of approving a critical daily medication used by doctors in the recovery and treatment of opioid addiction. As long as the DEA is shut down, that is not happening.

It is all the more shameful because the Trump shutdown is a completely manufactured crisis--manufactured by Donald Trump. The only reason the government is shut down right now is that President Trump reversed positions the day before the government funding ran out, bewildering Senate Democrats and Republicans who were assured he would sign a stop-gap bill to fund the government.

Leader McConnell is trying to blame the current Speaker of the House. He is way out to lunch on that one. We are here because the President reversed himself, and the last Speaker of the House failed to use his responsibility to put the Senate-passed bill on the floor. This House has voted to reopen the government. It is the Senate that hasn't done it because Leader McConnell won't bring the bill to the floor.

President Trump has stubbornly refused to negotiate or soften his position from the get-go. Democratic leaders and staff have been over to the White House over and over again to urge the President to open the government while we negotiate over border security. We are all for border security. There are different ways to do it. Everyone wants it. But why shut down the government while we are negotiating that? Every time we have asked that of the President, he has been intransigent and uncompromising. He refuses to back down from his position that the price to reopen the government is $5.7 billion of taxpayer money for a wall he promised Mexico would pay for.

I want to remind all my Republican colleagues and the American people that Democrats only want to reopen the government. We offered a proposal that would separate the government shutdown from our disagreements over border security.

The House has passed six bills to reopen the government, each of which was drafted and approved by Senate Republicans. Let me emphasize that point. The Democratic proposal to reopen the government is to pass the Republicans' government funding bills. Democrats are not demanding any added policy changes, no Democratic agenda items, no nothing. These bills are noncontroversial. Leader McConnell has voted for each of them.

According to a Quinnipiac poll that just came out, the American people support our plan by an overwhelming majority--63 percent to 30 percent. A healthy minority of Republicans are for the plan. Thirty- nine percent are for the idea, while only 52 percent are opposed. So even Republicans are moving to the position: Open the government, and then debate border security.

President Trump started this shutdown. He is the person continuing it. It is irresponsible of him to do it. Make no mistake--Democrats are happy to negotiate about the best way to secure our border, but we need to open the government first.

The fact that President Trump refuses to consider our proposal means that he is holding the government and the American people hostage as a political tactic. To President Trump, innocent, hard-working Americans are no more than bargaining chips. He will bluster, mislead, and storm out of meetings until he gets what he wants. That is not how our system of government works. We don't--we can't--govern by temper tantrum. No President has done it. If we do not reject government by extortion now, what is to prevent the same thing from happening

over and over again under this President? What will he do when the debt ceiling needs to be renewed?

Before the Christmas holiday, we had a solution in sight. We believed the President would support a true compromise to end the shutdown. At the last minute, he reversed himself and said no. And now he is continuing the shutdown.

It is clear that the President doesn't want to end the shutdown--at least not yet. He has flatly refused our proposal to reopen the government while we negotiate on border security. He has contradicted his own deputies--the Vice President, the Chief of Staff--after they made offers to Democrats. Just this morning, he refused to consider one of his closest allies, Senator Graham's proposal to open the government temporarily while we negotiate border security.

How many more reasonable offers can the President reject? How much more suffering must the President cause before Leader McConnell realizes it is time to move ahead without him? It seems clear to nearly everybody but Leader McConnell that Congress needs to move forward without the President. At every juncture, the President has been the obstacle to progress. We need intervention.

It is time for Congress to fulfill our constitutional duty to govern, even without the President. It is time for Leader McConnell to realize he has the power to break this impasse and pass the House legislation to reopen the government--legislation his party already supports and legislation Leader McConnell has voted for and bragged about. The President is unwilling to move the ball forward, so Congress must. I urge my friend Leader McConnell to allow a vote on the House-passed legislation to reopen the government. It seems to be the only way out right now.

Russia Sanctions

Madam President, on another matter--Russia sanctions--before the end of last year, the Trump administration moved to relax sanctions on three companies owned and controlled by sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.

As a reminder, an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the last Congress supported additional sanctions on Russia as a response to President Putin's malign activities, particularly in Ukraine. Oleg Deripaska and a number of companies he controlled were placed under U.S. sanctions because Mr. Deripaska was effectively acting as an agent of Putin's interests abroad, leveraging the wealth he had accrued through control of these companies.

In my view, the Trump administration's plan to provide sanctions relief to these companies is deeply flawed and wrong.

First, it fails to sufficiently limit Mr. Deripaska's control and influence of these companies. Even though this plan brings Deripaska's ownership interest in these companies down from 70 percent to 45 percent, the terms allow for other Russian shareholders with family and business ties to Deripaska to maintain shareholder interests. His ex- wife and father-in-law will still own a combined 7 percent in the company, and a sanctioned Russian bank is acquiring more shares. Even with the 45 percent, he would probably control it--many American companies are controlled with far less--but with these additional people owning shares, there is no doubt that Deripaska continues to control the company.

Second, it must not be forgotten that Mr. Deripaska is wrapped up in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and has deep ties to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. There should not be sanctions relief for President Putin's trusted agent before the conclusion of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Just days ago, it was revealed that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort provided Trump campaign polling data to a close associate of Mr. Deripaska's. We don't know what Special Counsel Mueller knows. And the timing--at a time when these things are coming forward, to undue the sanctions on Rusal is very suspect.

Lastly, removing sanctions on these companies will benefit President Putin's government and economy since the export of metals, such as aluminum, is a key revenue generator for a country that needs revenues. At a time when Russia has failed to curtail its hostile action against our Nation and our allies--this is not the moment to give up a source of leverage over the Russian Government.

Tomorrow, the Senate will take up a motion to disapprove the Treasury Department's proposal. I strongly believe the Senate should vote to disapprove. And in a short time, I will be sending a letter to every single one of my Senate colleagues--Democratic, Republican, Independent--to urge them to block this misguided effort by the Trump administration and keep those much needed sanctions in place.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) are necessarily absent.