Floor Statements

Madam President, today is the 20th day of the Trump shutdown. Tomorrow, it will tie the record for the longest shutdown in American history, and 800,000 Federal workers will miss a paycheck--TSA agents and Border Patrol, air traffic controllers and food safety inspectors, veterans, and FEMA aides, and more. Many Federal employees--particularly, GS-3s and GS-4s and GS-5s--live paycheck to paycheck. Who is going to make the next mortgage payment for them? Who is going to put food on the table? And what on Earth do these employees and their agencies have to do with disagreements here over security down on our southern border?

The President is treating these hard-working Americans as nothing short of leverage--pawns in his political gambit to extract $5 billion from American taxpayers to fund a border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for. This is ridiculous and cruel, and it needs to end now-- right now.

The Democratic position is very simple. Let's separate our disagreements over border security from the government shutdown, reopen all the government agencies unrelated to border security, and let's continue to work to resolve our differences. Do not hold all of these workers as hostages, as pawns, as leverage.

That is why Democrats have passed the House legislation to reopen government that was drafted and supported by Senate Republicans. We Democrats are not trying to push down the throats of Republicans something they don't support or they can't swallow. Four of the bills in this package passed the Senate 92 to 6. The other two came through committee. They didn't get to the floor. They passed 31 to 0 and 30 to 1. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing--contained in the legislation that Senate Republicans oppose.

So why aren't we voting on it? Because Leader McConnell is hiding behind President Trump, saying he will not bring to the floor a bill to reopen the government unless the President says OK.

Now, for the past 3 weeks, we have tried to get the President to ``yes.'' We have gone around and around and around with the White House and made little progress. Congressional leaders have now been to the White House three separate times for negotiations. Each time, the President has been intransigent and uncompromising. He refuses to back down from his position that the price to reopen the government is $5 billion of taxpayer money for a wall that he promised Mexico would pay for.

On multiple occasions, he has refused our request to reopen unrelated parts of the government and continue negotiations on border security, revealing that he is holding the American people hostage as leverage, and he seems to be--in his words--``proud'' of it. After only a short time into yesterday's meeting, the President got up, said ``bye-bye,'' and left. Does that sound like someone who is working to solve this impasse?

Allies of the President pointed out that he passed out candy to start the meeting. With all due respect, President Trump, we don't need candy. Federal workers need their paychecks.

The Congress--the Senate in particular--can no longer wait for this President to see the light of reason. We gave it a good-faith effort. Staffers worked over the weekend. Speaker Pelosi and I have gone over to the White House whenever we have been asked, but the President is simply not budging.

A few weeks back, we all thought that the President, realizing he doesn't control the House, would come around and support a true compromise before hundreds of thousands of Federal workers would miss their paychecks. Clearly, that was wrong.

We need intervention, and Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans have a responsibility not simply to wait for the President but to intervene. Leader McConnell has voted for every single one of the six appropriation bills Democrats passed through the House. He voted for all six of them in committee, and he voted for four of them again on the floor, because two didn't get to the floor. There is nothing that he or his party truly opposes in this legislation.

They are refusing to vote on it because the President has bullied them into his hostage-taking gambit. I know that is not where most of my friends on the other side want to be. I don't even believe it is where my friend Leader McConnell wants to be. Just listen to Leader McConnell from last year:

Well I'm in favor of border security. There are some places

along the border where [a wall is] probably not the best way

to secure the border.

Here is Leader McConnell in 2014:

Remember me? I am the guy that gets us out of shutdowns . .

. it's a failed policy.

Fast-forward to today, and Leader McConnell--``the guy that gets us out of shutdowns''--is aiding and abetting the blockade against reopening the government over a policy he doesn't fully support.

In a moment, my friends Senators Cardin and Van Hollen will give the Senate a chance to do the right thing by asking this Chamber to vote on the six appropriations bills already supported by Senate Republicans and a short-term continuing resolution for Homeland Security.

Frankly, even if President Trump doesn't support this legislation, his intransigence has forced our hand and hurt America. We need to move forward, and Leader McConnell should allow the vote to happen.

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, would my colleague from Maryland yield?

I will just say three words to my friend the majority leader: Open the government. It is in your hands.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last night President Trump tried to convince Congress and the American people that there is a crisis at our southern border. It was little more than a rehash of spurious arguments and misleading statistics the President has been using for weeks. President Trump once again tried to claim there was a crisis at the border. The fact is, migrant border crossings have been declining for nearly two decades.

The President inveighed against drugs pouring over the border, but the vast majority of heroin enters the United States through legal ports of entry in trucks and on airplanes.

The President and his allies have been claiming that nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists have been stopped from entering the United States. They say that is a reason for the border wall. But nearly every single one of those apprehensions occurred in airports, not on our southern border.

In a recent report, Donald Trump's State Department concluded that there is no credible evidence that terrorist groups were trying to enter the United States through the southern border. In a report on the President's strategy to combat terrorist travel, sent to Congress by President Trump on December 21--the day the shutdown began--the National Security Council, appointed by President Trump, did not even mention a wall or a barrier to stop terrorists from entering the country.

The President continues to fearmonger, and he makes up the facts. This is a Presidency that is in crisis. It has so many problems, and it is the old trick--fearmonger, distort, try to scare people, and maybe they will not pay attention to the real problems in this administration.

In no way, however--the President is not getting his way. His fearmongering just isn't working. In no way did the President's speech last night make a persuasive or even a new case for an exorbitantly expensive border wall--a wall that the President guaranteed would be paid by Mexico. He said: I ran on this. Yes, he ran on it, saying Mexico would pay for it. At his rallies, he chanted: Who will pay for the wall? The people screamed back: Mexico.

The President's speech did nothing--nothing--to convince us here in Congress, and I believe it did nothing--nothing--to convince a skeptical public that this government shutdown is anything but a manufactured crisis of the President's own making. The President's speech, if anything, moved the American people even further away from his view that he should keep the government shut down until he gets his way. Reports say that the President didn't want to give this speech. Well, he was right. I don't think it helped his cause, and he probably hurt himself.

It is time for the President and our Republican colleagues to stop this fearmongering and to stop this diversion away from the problems that the President really has and end the shutdown. The shutdown is hurting millions of Americans, and it is going to get worse, all because of President Trump's temper tantrum. We should not--we should not--treat hundreds of thousands of Americans--millions of Americans-- as leverage to try and get something by pounding the table. That is not how our government works.

What is happening? Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers--innocent Federal workers who do their jobs, who work hard, and sometimes they get up on Monday morning with a 100-

degree fever, but they go to work because they know their job is important--have been furloughed because of what Trump has done. Four hundred thousand continue to work without pay. TSA agents, food safety inspectors, border agents--those hard-working, dedicated public servants--are about to miss a paycheck.

Last night, many of my colleagues--including Senators Warner, Kaine, King, Cardin, Casey, Van Hollen, and others--held the floor to give voice to these Federal employees who live and work in their States, many of whom are living paycheck to paycheck.

President Trump's government shutdown--his choosing, he is the only one who did it--is forcing a personal crisis on those public servants and their families. How unfair, how mean-spirited, and how wrong.

These families are owed a paycheck, but they are left to wonder how they are going to pay the mortgage or the rent and all of their other bills. They are wondering what will happen to the good credit they have worked so hard to maintain over the years. They are innocent victims of the Trump shutdown--a shutdown he said 25 times he would cause, a shutdown he said he would be proud to own.

President Trump, are you proud to own a shutdown that is hurting so many innocent people? Did you realize that when you caused this?

As government agencies remain shut down, American farmers and small businesses can't get the loans they desperately need. Tourism suffers as our national parks go neglected. Some families can't get a mortgage to buy a new home. The American people are suffering needlessly-- needlessly--because President Trump selfishly refuses to retreat from an intransigent, indefensible, and increasingly unpopular position.

The Democratic House has passed legislation that received support from many of my Republican colleagues to reopen the government. In no way does that legislation preclude us from having a debate and hashing out compromise solutions on border security. We have done that before.

We can continue to debate because, indeed, Democrats, Republicans, and the President all want stronger border security; we just sharply disagree about the best way of achieving it.

Why not open the government while we continue to hash out our differences? I have asked that of President Trump. I said: Give me one good reason why the shutdown should continue as we debate our differences on border security, which we all want. He could not give a single reason. We know the reason: He is leveraging--mercilessly leveraging--millions of Americans who are caught in his irresponsible action and who are hurt by it.

Let us open the government and continue to hash out our differences. That would be the responsible thing to do, and I believe Republican Senators, many of them, know that.

I urge my friend Leader McConnell to act now, convince the President to accept legislation to reopen the government, and let's pass it here on the floor of the Senate. The vast majority of the Republican caucus has already supported it. What are we waiting for?

Mr. President, on another matter, this morning it was reported that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein intends to step down from his post at the Justice Department if the nominee for Attorney General, William Barr, is confirmed. It is a timely reminder of the swirling conflicts of interest and bias that surround nearly every Trump nominee to lead the Justice Department.

Acting Attorney General Whitaker publicly and forcefully advocated for defunding and imposing severe limits on the special counsel's investigation, calling it ``a mere witch hunt.'' He has troubling conflicts of interest, including with a grand jury witness in the investigation, not to mention the fact that he appears to have been involved in fraudulent business dealings before joining the Justice Department.

The nominee to take his place, William Barr, is just as fatally conflicted a nominee when it comes to the special counsel. Last month, we learned that Mr. Barr sent the Justice Department an unsolicited memo, criticizing the special counsel's investigation.

Mr. Rosenstein's potential departure only heightens the stakes for Mr. Barr's nomination. From all accounts, Mr. Rosenstein has been an impartial actor at the head of the special counsel's investigation. President Trump is trying to replace folks like Mr. Rosenstein with conflicted loyalists like Matthew Whitaker and William Barr. The Senate, starting with the Judiciary Committee, should subject Mr. Barr's views to the strictest of scrutiny next week. I still believe, after the revelations about Mr. Barr's unsolicited memo, President Trump ought to withdraw this nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on December 19, as Congress was preparing to leave for the holidays, the Treasury Department notified Congress of its intent to terminate within 30 days a set of Russia sanctions imposed on En+ Group plc (``En+''), UC Rusal plc (``Rusal''), and JSC EuroSibEnergo (``ESE''). Each of these firms were sanctioned because they were owned or controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a notorious Russian oligarch and trusted agent of Vladimir Putin. As Treasury noted when it sanctioned him: ``Deripaska has been investigated for money laundering, and accused of threatening the lives of business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group.''

In its notification letter, Treasury argued it had secured an agreement with Deripaska, the companies and other stakeholders involved to significantly restructure the companies and make corporate governance changes. Under the agreement, Deripaska will remain sanctioned, and his property will remain blocked. The Treasury Department proposes to remove the three firms, including the huge Russian aluminum producer Rusal, from the sanctions list in the belief that the agreement will effectively separate the companies from Deripaska, eliminating his control over them and sharply limiting his influence. The proposal also reportedly places limits on any family members of Deripaska who are also significant investors in the companies.

I noted in December that Treasury's decision raises critical questions that the Administration must answer about whether the structural and governance changes made by these companies are sufficient to ensure that Deripaska is no longer directing or even influencing these firms. I have also said that it remains to be seen whether Treasury's approach can succeed in Putin's Russia. Serious questions remain about whether Treasury can monitor and enforce the agreement even with the monitoring mechanisms proposed.

The timing of Treasury's notice compressed an already tight 30-day review timetable provided for in sanctions law, giving Congress until January 17 to make its own independent assessment of whether it adequately protects US economic and national security, especially with respect to Russia. The Congressional review provisions of CAATSA were designed for precisely this kind of circumstance. They were imposed by Congress after serious questions had arisen about President Trump's relationship with Russia. Members on both sides of the aisle wanted an opportunity to independently assess the Administration's actions to lift, terminate or issue licenses on Russia-related sanctions. Those questions still linger, and have become even more pronounced in recent days.

The formal review process is underway. The Banking and Foreign Relations committees are assessing the terms of the agreement, and the documents that have been provided by Treasury. But time is short, and if we did not introduce a resolution today we would have been overtaken by events, since any resolution must be pending in committee for ten days before it is subject to discharge to the full Senate. So today I am introducing such a resolution. I do so not because I have concluded that Congress should act to disapprove this agreement--I have not made that determination yet--but to preserve the procedural option of moving to bring up such a resolution at the end of the review process, if necessary, for expedited review and a vote by the full Senate.

I intend to consult with my colleagues on the Banking, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees, and others, before making a judgment on whether to call for consideration, under expedited procedures provided for in CAATSA, of this disapproval resolution. I know my colleagues will carefully review the proposal, and I look forward to hearing their conclusions once that assessment is complete.

I ask unanimous consent that the Treasury Department's report provided pursuant to section 216 of CAATSA be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on December 19, as Congress was preparing to leave for the holidays, the Treasury Department notified Congress of its intent to terminate within 30 days a set of Russia sanctions imposed on En+ Group plc (``En+''), UC Rusal plc (``Rusal''), and JSC EuroSibEnergo (``ESE''). Each of these firms were sanctioned because they were owned or controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a notorious Russian oligarch and trusted agent of Vladimir Putin. As Treasury noted when it sanctioned him: ``Deripaska has been investigated for money laundering, and accused of threatening the lives of business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group.''

In its notification letter, Treasury argued it had secured an agreement with Deripaska, the companies and other stakeholders involved to significantly restructure the companies and make corporate governance changes. Under the agreement, Deripaska will remain sanctioned, and his property will remain blocked. The Treasury Department proposes to remove the three firms, including the huge Russian aluminum producer Rusal, from the sanctions list in the belief that the agreement will effectively separate the companies from Deripaska, eliminating his control over them and sharply limiting his influence. The proposal also reportedly places limits on any family members of Deripaska who are also significant investors in the companies.

I noted in December that Treasury's decision raises critical questions that the Administration must answer about whether the structural and governance changes made by these companies are sufficient to ensure that Deripaska is no longer directing or even influencing these firms. I have also said that it remains to be seen whether Treasury's approach can succeed in Putin's Russia. Serious questions remain about whether Treasury can monitor and enforce the agreement even with the monitoring mechanisms proposed.

The timing of Treasury's notice compressed an already tight 30-day review timetable provided for in sanctions law, giving Congress until January 17 to make its own independent assessment of whether it adequately protects US economic and national security, especially with respect to Russia. The Congressional review provisions of CAATSA were designed for precisely this kind of circumstance. They were imposed by Congress after serious questions had arisen about President Trump's relationship with Russia. Members on both sides of the aisle wanted an opportunity to independently assess the Administration's actions to lift, terminate or issue licenses on Russia-related sanctions. Those questions still linger, and have become even more pronounced in recent days.

The formal review process is underway. The Banking and Foreign Relations committees are assessing the terms of the agreement, and the documents that have been provided by Treasury. But time is short, and if we did not introduce a resolution today we would have been overtaken by events, since any resolution must be pending in committee for ten days before it is subject to discharge to the full Senate. So today I am introducing such a resolution. I do so not because I have concluded that Congress should act to disapprove this agreement--I have not made that determination yet--but to preserve the procedural option of moving to bring up such a resolution at the end of the review process, if necessary, for expedited review and a vote by the full Senate.

I intend to consult with my colleagues on the Banking, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees, and others, before making a judgment on whether to call for consideration, under expedited procedures provided for in CAATSA, of this disapproval resolution. I know my colleagues will carefully review the proposal, and I look forward to hearing their conclusions once that assessment is complete.

I ask unanimous consent that the Treasury Department's report provided pursuant to section 216 of CAATSA be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we near the third week of the Trump shutdown, the impacts on the American people are getting worse with each passing day. Nearly 400,000 Federal workers have now been furloughed. Food safety inspectors, vital to our health and safety, are working without pay and with limited resources. American farmers can't get loans from the USDA. Working families trying to buy a home are finding out their FHA loans are on hold.

I just heard from a constituent of mine in the capital region, near Albany--a fire police dispatcher, whose wife is pregnant. They closed on their first house, joyously, last week. But now their loan is delayed until the government reopens. That story can be repeated over and over again.

Our Federal courts are running out of money. Our national parks are suffering; we have seen the piles of debris and garbage in these beautiful places. Maybe most ironically of all, as the President is talking about making the border more secure, his shutdown is making it less secure. Border Patrol agents are going without pay. E-Verify is offline. Immigration cases are on hold. New immigration judges are not being hired. So with all the talk that the President has about making the border more secure, the Trump shutdown is making it less secure.

We have provided a way for him to continue to debate this wall issue but keep the government open. All of this means that we should be doing everything we can to bring this Trump shutdown to a swift end.

My friend, the Republican leader, quoted me this morning. So let me now quote my friend, the leader. He has said repeatedly: ``Nobody likes a shutdown.''

Leader McConnell has shown himself to be an adept negotiator during previous shutdowns. Why is he abdicating his responsibility now? Why is Leader McConnell shuffling off to the sidelines, pointing his fingers at everybody else, and saying that he will not be involved? Probably because he realizes this President--President Trump--is erratic, unreliable, and sometimes even irrational. In sum, President Trump is a terrible negotiator.

Given the unfortunate traits that reside in our President, I understand Leader McConnell's reluctance to get involved. But in truth, they are all the more reason for him to get involved. America needs Leader McConnell to get involved to stop this shutdown. He can't keep ducking this issue.

Left to his own devices, President Trump can keep the government shut down for a long time. The President needs intervention, and Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans are just the right ones to intervene.

Fortunately, we have a way to end this shutdown with the help of our Republican friends in the Senate. Last night, as expected, the House of Representatives passed two pieces of legislation to end the Trump shutdown--a six-bill package to provide appropriations for eight shuttered Cabinet Departments and a 30-day continuing resolution for the Department of Homeland Security. Both bills received bipartisan support in the House.

The logic behind those two pieces of legislation is very simple. We have disagreements on how to best secure the border. President Trump wants an expensive and ineffective border wall. He promised that Mexico would pay for it but now demands that American taxpayers should foot the bill.

Democrats believe that a border wall is an obtuse public policy and that we have much better, more effective, less wasteful ways of securing the border.

We don't have to have eight unrelated Cabinet Departments closed while we sort out our differences. We can reopen the 25 percent of the government now closed and continue to debate our border security. That is why we split the bills in two--one to reopen the government and another to keep DHS running short term while discussions continue about the border.

Neither piece of legislation should be controversial, and the House majority--I give them credit and Leader Pelosi credit--went out of its way to avoid controversy. They didn't send over a bill with lots of poison pill riders, lots of things our colleagues here wouldn't like. They sent the very bills that Republicans crafted and voted for. The majority went out of its way to avoid controversy by choosing the legislation crafted and supported by Republicans.

Let me emphasize that. The six appropriations bills passed by the House last night are the same bills--the very same bills; they have not changed a bit--that Republicans here in the Senate drafted--they were in charge--and approved. Four of them passed this Chamber by more than 90 votes, and the other two passed nearly unanimously in committee. Leader McConnell voted for every one of them and spoke glowingly about their passage last year.

So there is nothing--I repeat, nothing--in the six appropriations bills that Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans oppose. There is nothing--absolutely nothing, I repeat--about a continuing resolution for Homeland Security that now Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans refuse to put on the floor--because that was Leader McConnell's idea. He put it on the floor, and it passed the Chamber unanimously last Christmas.

Now we are seeing some real cracks in the Republican wall. Some of my friends in the Senate on the other side of the aisle in this body, to their credit, are already saying that we should take up and pass these two bills. Seven House Republicans, newly elected, under huge pressure not to, voted with these bills. Every Democrat voted for the bill; there is no dissension there. But a handful of Republicans did too.

It is time for Leader McConnell and President Trump, who is the ultimate reason we have this shutdown--it is time for Leader McConnell and President Trump to support this package of bipartisan legislation and reopen the government.

In a short time, Speaker Pelosi and I will head to the White House to meet with President Trump and congressional leaders about the government shutdown. I will be joined by my very

able colleague, Senator Durbin. Senator McConnell will be joined by Senator Thune. Speaker Pelosi will be joined by Leader Hoyer and, of course, Leaders McCarthy and Scalise will be there as well.

At the meeting, we Democrats hope to convince the President and Leader McConnell to take up and pass the two House-passed bills, both of which have already been approved by Senate Republicans. That is the quickest, least controversial way out of the Trump shutdown. It separates the fight on the wall from the government shutdown.

President Trump is holding hostage, using as leverage, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and millions and millions of other Americans, like the gentleman and his spouse in Albany, who can't get their FHA mortgage approved. That story, in many ways, can be repeated over and over again.

So I say to my Republican friends: Don't let President Trump hold hostage all of these fine people who have done nothing wrong themselves. Don't let him use the government shutdown to try and get his way. That is not how it should work, and that is not what is going to happen.

Instead, let's reopen the government, start paying our food safety inspectors, park Rangers, air traffic controllers, Federal courts, and our Border Patrol agents, so they can do the work they are supposed to do for the American people. All we have to do is take up legislation that Senate Republicans already support.

I yield the floor.

Merry Christmas, happy holidays to you, sir, and to the legislative staff.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, at midnight last night, roughly 25 percent of the government shut down because of one person and one person alone: President Trump. We arrived at this moment because President Trump has been on a destructive 2-week temper tantrum, demanding the American taxpayer pony up for an expensive and ineffective border wall that the President promised Mexico would pay for.

Make no mistake. The Trump shutdown is not about border security. All of the proposals we have made contain over $1 billion in new border security money, the same amount allocated last year by both parties and even the President agreed to. The Trump administration has barely even spent any of the border security money from last year. So the Trump shutdown isn't over border security; it is because President Trump is demanding billions of dollars for an expensive, ineffective wall the majority of Americans don't support.

Let me remind you, the President called for a shutdown no less than 25 times. He has wanted one for months. In our meeting in the Oval Office, President Trump said he would be ``proud'' to shut the government down. Imagine saying he would be proud to shut the government down.

Even Rush Limbaugh, one of the biggest supporters of the President, said it was a Trump shutdown; that he caused it. He said--this is Limbaugh speaking: ``The President wants you to know it's money [for the wall] or nothing, and if it's nothing, he shuts it down.''

Just 2 days ago, the Senate unanimously agreed to a proposal by Leader McConnell to keep the government open through February. It wasn't exactly what Democrats wanted--we thought it should be longer-- but we agreed because we wanted to keep the government open, and all indications were that the President would sign the bill, but President Trump--beholden to the far, far right, unwilling to shoulder even the slightest critique from Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham--changed his mind on the bipartisan Senate bill, passed unanimously by all Republicans and all Democrats in this Chamber, and he sent his House allies off to tilt at windmills.

Everyone knew yesterday, long before the House vote, that the President's wall lacked 60 votes in the Senate. It has proven to lack even 50 votes. It will never pass the Senate--not today, not next week, not next year.

So President Trump, if you want to open the government, you must abandon the wall, plain and simple. The Senate is not interested in swindling American taxpayers for an unnecessary, ineffective, and wasteful policy. What we do support, Democrats and Republicans, is real, effective border security--but not a wall. The wall is President Trump's bone to the hard-right people. It is no way to spend $5 billion, for a political bone.

I have heard the President and his allies in the media say Democrats don't support border security. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Democrats have always been for smart and effective ways to secure our border. We are pushing for technology, like drones and sensors and inspection equipment. Every single proposal we made to the President included $1.3 billion for border security. The Trump shutdown provides zero dollars for border security, but I have never supported a border wall, and I challenge anyone on the hard right to find a time that I-- or any expert--has supported a wall like what the President has proposed.

So where do we go from here? Well, three proposals are on the table, two by Democrats--Leader Pelosi and I--one by Leader McConnell, each of which would reopen the government and provide $1.3 billion in border security. We are also open to discussing any proposals with the President as long as they don't include funding for the wall, but in order for an agreement to be reached, all four congressional leaders must sign off and the President must endorse it and say he will sign it. Leader McConnell must agree. Speaker Ryan must agree. They cannot duck responsibility. Leader McConnell still controls this Chamber. Speaker Ryan controls what reaches the floor of the House. They are essential to this process. Leader McConnell can't duck out of it. He knows that. Of course, Leader Pelosi and I must agree. Most importantly, the President must publicly support and say he will sign an agreement before it gets a vote in either Chamber. We don't want to go through what we went through a few days ago.

Both Leader McConnell and I have agreed on that qualification for a specific reason. Repeatedly, the President

has privately agreed to a deal with congressional leaders, only to reverse himself when criticized by the far right. We can't have another situation when the President signals support at first but then reverses himself, which is precisely what caused this shutdown in the first place.

If Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, and I agree on a solution, and the President says he will sign it, we can end the Trump shutdown immediately.

Discussions continue among the members of our staffs. The Republican Leader and I will update the Senate on the status of those talks once progress has been made.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the events of the past week should concern every American. This may have been the most chaotic week of what is undoubtedly the most chaotic Presidency ever in the history of the United States.

The stock market is in a tumult and in decline. The Secretary of Defense, one of the only pairs of steady hands in our government, is resigning from the administration in protest. The United States is pulling out of Syria and likely Afghanistan, abandoning our coalitions, allies, and the Kurds, and surrendering the field to Putin, Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, the Taliban, and Bashar al-Assad.

The positions of Defense Secretary, of Attorney General, of Ambassador to the United Nations, of Interior Secretary, and even of Chief of Staff to the President are all in flux.

The institutions of our government lack steady and experienced leadership. With all of these departures, it is about to get even more unsteady. The President is making decisions without counsel, without preparation, and even without communication between relevant Departments and relevant Agencies. All of this turmoil is causing chaos in the markets, chaos abroad, and it is making the United States less prosperous and less secure. To top it all off, President Trump has thrown a temper tantrum and now has us careening toward a Trump shutdown over Christmas.

In a short time, the Senate will take part in a pointless exercise to demonstrate to our House colleagues and the President what everyone here already knows: There are not the votes in the Senate for an expensive, taxpayer-funded border wall.

President Trump, you will not get your wall. Abandon your shutdown strategy. You are not getting the wall today, next week, or on January 3 when Democrats take control of the House.

Just 2 days ago, the Senate came together to support a proposal by Leader McConnell--unanimously, every Democrat, every Republican--to extend government funding through February without partisan demands. What it would accomplish would be that the government would not shut down, the fights we are having would be postponed to a later day, and millions of Americans would not be hurt this Christmas week.

Let me repeat that. The Senate--every Democrat and every Republican-- has already unanimously supported a clean extension of government funding.

Democrats supported the measure because we do not want to see the government shut down. We have no demands other than that. We had every indication that the President would sign the legislation--as did our friends the Republicans on the other side of the aisle in the Senate-- but yesterday President Trump, hounded by the radical voices of the hard right, threw another temper tantrum, and here we are once again, on the brink of what the President has spent months saying he wanted--a Trump shutdown.

The President will try to do his best to blame Democrats, but it is flatly absurd. President Trump called for a shutdown no fewer than 25 times. In our meeting with the Oval Office, President Trump said: ``If we don't get what we want . . . I will shut down the government. . . . I am proud to shut it down. So I will take the mantle. . . . I'm not going to blame you.'' Those are President Trump's words, and nothing he says or does today can undo that.

No Democrat has called for shutting down the government. We are all working to avoid it. The President seems to relish it. He seems to feel he will throw a bone to his base--his base probably being less than one-quarter of America.

President Trump, you cannot erase months of video of your saying that you wanted a shutdown and that you wanted the responsibility and blame for a shutdown. President Trump, you own the shutdown. You said so in your own words.

President Trump may get his wish, unfortunately, but it doesn't have to be this way. Democrats have offered two alternatives, and Republicans--Leader McConnell has offered one. Democrats have offered to pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills, plus a 1-year continuing resolution for Homeland Security. We have also offered a 1- year continuing resolution for all the remaining bills. Republicans have offered to pass a short-term continuing resolution through early February. Each one of those proposals would pass the House and pass the Senate. Each one of those proposals contains $1.3 billion of real border security, not a wall. There is no wall in those proposals. Democrats support real border security, not a wall.

By the way, that is in addition to the $1.3 billion in border security Congress allocated last year, the vast majority of which the Trump administration has not yet spent. They are asking for loads of more money. They haven't even spent last year's money. It is clearly a political gambit by President Trump to appease his never-happy base.

On the other hand, a Trump shutdown would result in zero dollars for the Department of Homeland Security over the Christmas holiday.

There are several ways for President Trump and congressional Republicans to avoid a shutdown over Christmas--I mentioned three--but there is only one way we will have a Trump shutdown: If President Trump clings to his position for an unnecessary, ineffective, taxpayer-funded border wall that he promised Mexico would pay for.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as we said to President Trump a week ago, his wall does not have 60 votes here in the Senate, let alone 50 votes. That much is now clear.

The Democrats have offered three proposals to keep the government open, including a proposal offered by Leader McConnell that passed the Senate unanimously only a few days ago. We are willing to continue discussions on those proposals with the leader, the President, the Speaker of the House, and the leader of the House. All five are necessary to get something done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last night, the Senate agreed to pass a short-term continuing resolution to keep the government open through early February.

With less than 2 days to go until the appropriations lapse, if we are to avoid a shutdown, the House must pass this continuing resolution and President Trump must sign it. If President Trump vetoes the short-term spending bill, he would no doubt compound the serious errors he has made throughout the budget process. It is already indisputable that a shutdown would fall on President Trump's back. He has been demanding it for months, and, of course, when Leader Pelosi and I went to the White House, he demanded it in front of all the American people.

Now, compounding that--vetoing the last train out of the station, a CR--he would be doubling down on his responsibility for a Christmas shutdown, and every single American would know it. Most importantly, it would not move the needle an inch toward the President getting his wall.

I mention these points because several Members of the Freedom Caucus--the hard rightwing in the House--and hard-right voices in the media are openly encouraging the President to veto any CR that doesn't have his money for the wall. These are the same voices pressuring the House leadership to refuse to put the CR on the floor. The voices of the hard right--both in the House and in the media--give no strategy at all--simply, shut the government down. But none of them have detailed any path to get their wall.

Let me just walk my friends in the House through it. Democrats are not budging on the wall. We favor smart, effective border security, not a medieval wall.

A Trump shutdown will not convince a single Democrat to support bilking the American taxpayers for an ineffective, unnecessary, and exorbitantly expensive wall that President Trump promised Mexico would pay for.

I hear Mr. Jordan and Mr. Meadows say: This was a campaign promise. They are only mentioning half of the campaign promise. The promise throughout the campaign was this: We will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it.

Furthermore, there are not the votes in the Republican House for a wall. There are not the votes in the Senate for a wall--not now, not next week, not next month or beyond.

If Speaker Ryan refuses to put the CR on the floor or President Trump vetoes it, there will be a Trump shutdown, but there will be no wall. And if President Trump or House Republicans cause a shutdown over Christmas, on January 3, the new Democratic House will send the Senate a clean CR bill. Based on passage of the CR last night, it is clear-- and to their credit--that Senate Republicans don't want a shutdown.

What is the endgame here? What is the endgame of those who are demanding the President not sign the CR--that the House not pass the CR? It seems, unfortunately, that the Trump temper tantrum is spreading like a contagion down Pennsylvania Avenue to the allies in the House.

Trump's allies in the House can pound their fists on the table all they want, but it is not going to get a wall. They can--having caught the Trump temper fever--jump up and down, yell and scream. It is not going to get a wall. And neither Mr. Meadows nor Mr. Jordan have outlined any conceivable plan on how to achieve what they say they want to achieve.

I would say this to my less frenzied friends in the House. Go ask Mr. Jordan and ask Mr. Meadows: What is your plan? What is your endgame? What is your path to getting the wall?

I suspect that anyone who asks them will find that they don't have one. They are just angry and mad, and so they pound their fists on the table. They have caught the Trump temper tantrum, but they have no conceivable plan, and so their anger will result in a Trump shutdown, but not a Trump wall. Frankly, their anger will result in further discrediting the President whom they support.

Amazingly, Representative Meadows said yesterday that the American people will support President Trump shutting down the government over the wall. I don't know what evidence he has for that or whom he speaks to, because every public poll that I have seen shows that the American people are not only strongly against a border wall, but they are even more strongly against a shutdown to get the wall. Imagine how strongly they would feel as he ties those two things together.

When Mr. Meadows says the American people are for it, he must think the American people are only conservative Republicans. If he widened his horizons a bit, he would come to the understanding that shutting down the government over President Trump's wall is futile, self- defeating, and has minimal support among the American people. Even a quarter of President Trump's shrinking base does not support shutting down the government over the wall, and among the vast majority of other Americans who are not part of President Trump's base--and those are the majority of Americans--the strong majority are totally against it.

We need to get something done here to keep the government open over Christmas. We need to tell the hundreds of thousands--millions--of workers that they will get paid over Christmastime. The House needs to come to the same sensible conclusion that the Senate came to--that we should not hold millions of innocent Americans hostage to demand something they will never get.

The Senate has produced a clean bill. There are no partisan demands, no poison pill riders. We could have demanded lots of things in the bill that we want. It is just a clean extension of funding. If House Republicans and President Trump refuse to pass it, then we will have a Trump shutdown over Christmas. The choice is theirs.