Floor Statements

Mr. President, last night we received some extraordinarily concerning news regarding the President's nominee for Attorney General, Mr. William Barr.

According to reports earlier this year, Mr. Barr sent the Justice Department an unsolicited memo criticizing what he believed to be an avenue of investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Barr's memo reveals that he is fatally conflicted from being able to oversee the special counsel's investigation and that he should not be nominated for Attorney General.

Mr. Barr believes Presidents, in general, and, more frighteningly, President Trump, who has shown less respect for rule of law than any President, are above the law--much like Justice Kavanaugh--because he has an almost imperial view of the Presidency--as almost a King, not an elected leader. That much comes across in the memo because it doesn't allow legal processes to work against the President, who might be breaking the law.

We will see what Mueller finds out if that is true, but we should let him go forward. The fact that Mr. Barr holds these deeply misguided views and chose to launch them in an unprovoked written attack on the special counsel unquestionably disqualifies Mr. Barr from serving as Attorney General again.

Since Mr. Barr hasn't been formally nominated yet, the President must immediately reconsider and find another nominee who is free of conflicts and will carry out the duties of law impartially.

Finally this morning, on another Justice Department matter, the Justice Department seems that it is becoming more and more of a swamp--at least in its top leaders. This time it is Mr. Whitaker.

This morning, we learned that ethics officials at the Justice Department told Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker that he did not need to recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel's investigation. The decision by the Justice Department defies logic. Matthew Whitaker has publicly and forcefully advocated for defunding and imposing severe limits on the Mueller investigation, calling it a ``mere witch hunt.'' He also has troubling conflicts of interest, including his relationship with Sam Clovis, who is a grand jury witness in this investigation.

There is clear and obvious evidence of bias on the part of Matthew Whitaker against the special counsel's investigation. To allow him to retain oversight over that investigation without his recusal is incredibly misguided.

The Congress and the American people must be informed of any instance in which Mr. Whitaker has sought or is seeking to interfere with the Mueller investigation. If Mr. Whitaker has sought any limitation on witnesses, funding, subpoenas, or any other limitation, we must be informed of it right now.

We believe that Matthew Whitaker shouldn't be in the job in the first place. His appointment is potentially unconstitutional. His oversight of the Russia investigation is hopelessly biased.

It is clear that President Trump is trying in every way possible to appoint or to nominate people to lead the Justice Department who could well impede the special counsel's investigation.

I thank the Senator from Florida for patiently waiting.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we have a short time left before appropriations expire on Friday. Yesterday, we made some progress.

Thankfully, President Trump appears to have backed down from his position for billions in direct appropriations for a border wall. For the past several weeks, the President's insistence on $5 billion for a wall has been the biggest obstacle to keeping the government open past Friday.

The President's spokesperson has claimed that the administration can build the full wall from reprogrammed funds given to other areas of the government. Let me be very clear. Without our assent, the administration cannot reprogram funds proposed by Congress for the full wall. To do so would violate Congress's article I powers. They cannot do it on their own, and the House and Senate will not approve a wall from reprogrammed funds or anything else. It will not happen.

We Democrats have opposed massive appropriations for a border wall for five reasons. It is not effective compared to other border security measures. Expert after expert has said that. There is no plan to build it. The President asked for $5 billion, but there are no plans of where the wall would be, how much it would cost, what each part would be made of. There is no plan to deal with eminent domain. There are lots of people on the Texas border and on other borders who don't want to give up their land. They have said they will fight it in court. It will take years. We have not heard a peep out of the administration on how to deal with that. Above all, the President promised that Mexico would pay for it, not the American taxpayer. Was it a campaign issue? Yes. Yet, throughout, the President said Mexico would pay for it. He never campaigned on having Americans pay for a massive border wall, ineffective as it would be.

The Democrats have been perfectly clear. We want smart, effective border security, but that is not a wall. The President and, just this morning, the Republican leader have suggested repeatedly that Democrats are against all border security. Of course, we are not. Every expert has looked at that and said it is a total lie. Frankly, the reason our colleagues, the President, Leader McConnell, and others do it is that they have no defense of the wall. Instead of defending the wall, they say the Democrats are not for border security. Nothing could be further from the truth, as shown by what we have supported in the past and today.

This morning, the President also tweeted that Mexico could somehow pay for the wall through a new trade deal. This is a huge turnaround for a President who once insisted: Mark my words. Mexico will pay for the wall 100 percent. Of course, there have been multiple fact checks to show a new NAFTA could not possibly fund the wall directly or indirectly. There is nothing in the new agreement that stipulates Mexico must devote any resources to the United States, and any savings from a trade deal, if there are any savings, don't go to the Treasury; they go to American businesses and American taxpayers. Ultimately, the President would have to tax the American people to fund his wall. Mexico ain't footing the bill.

All that said, it is good news that the President has retreated from his demand that Congress fund the wall. Now, we Democrats in the Senate and in the House have made two reasonable

offers that, I believe, would glide through the House and Senate: No. 1, pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a 1-year CR for DHS or, No. 2, pass a 1-year CR for all seven remaining appropriations bills.

Leader McConnell proposed a short-term CR just a few minutes ago. We would have preferred one of our two options, but I am glad the leader thinks the government should not shut down over the President's demand for a wall, and the Democrats will support this CR. The President and the House should follow that lead because shutting down the government over Christmas is a terrible idea--one of the worst to come down the pike in a very long time.

Mr. President, on the CJR, criminal justice reform, I am really deeply heartfelt in thanking everyone who was involved in the criminal justice reform legislation.

I thank Senator Durbin, for whom this issue was a year's-long passion. When Senator Durbin gets his teeth into an issue, he does not let go until he achieves it, and he is great at getting it done. It was a real victory for him.

Senator Booker felt this issue so passionately from his residents in Newark and in seeing what had happened to friends of his and people he had known. He was a brilliant legislative tactician in knowing just how far to push and in getting the most he could from a Congress that was not from our side of the aisle.

Senator Whitehouse carried the mantle of making sure that while people are in prison, they are given adequate preparation so when they come out, they don't become recidivists again--free from drugs, with job training--and so they can become useful and productive members of society.

Senator Harris also added her passion and experience as attorney general to the great arguments for this bill.

I don't want to leave out colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Grassley played a real role as a statesman. Senator Lee did tremendous work on this bill. Again, like with Senator Booker but from an opposite point of view, he knew when to hold and knew when to fold.

I thank all of them because this bill will make an extraordinary difference in countless lives by making our sentencing laws fairer and smarter, by giving judges more discretion so low-level, nonviolent drug offenses will not always be subject to arbitrary mandatory minimums; by giving prisoners with good behavior and who work hard to rehabilitate themselves better opportunities to prepare for their integration back into society as productive citizens who can contribute to their communities; and by ending the most abusive practices of our criminal justice system, like juvenile solitary confinement and the shackling of pregnant prisoners.

The bill got 87 votes. Those 87 votes are an entreaty to the new Congress to do more. It is called FIRST STEP for a lot of reasons, one being that many of us feel we have to go further and do more. Next year, hopefully, we can, and the resounding support from both sides of the aisle that this bill got should help us. It should importune us not to let this be the last proposal but the first in this area. The law will bring more justice to our justice system. I was proud to vote for it and so grateful for the work of my colleagues who pulled a diverse coalition together to get it across the line.

Mr. President, on China, negotiations are ongoing between the Trump administration and Chinese officials about a potential detente in our trading relationship. Of import to the Chinese is the recent arrest of Huawei's CFO on charges of violating U.S. sanctions law, which is only one area of concern when it comes to Huawei's technology.

Let me be very clear. The United States should not make any--any-- concessions until and unless China makes credible and enforceable commitments to end all forms of theft and extortion of American intellectual property.

As Ambassador Lighthizer recently pointed out--and I cannot commend him enough for the good job he is doing--during the Obama administration alone, China made no fewer than 10 independent commitments to get rid of forced technology transfers and cyber theft policies.

As we know, China cyber espionage continues unabated. Just last week, it was confirmed that China was behind the data breach of Marriott hotels, and we know that they continue to require any company that sells things--and there are so many companies that sell things in China--to transfer their technology.

If we continue on this path that we have for the last 10 or 15 years, we will no longer be the leading economy in the world. All the great ideas Americans have because of our free and open and entrepreneurial system will be stolen, purloined, and China will dominate.

We are there for fair competition. China doesn't compete fairly. I have to say, neither the Bush nor the Obama administration stood up strongly to China. This administration shows signs of doing it.

My message to President Trump: Don't back off. Follow Mr. Lighthizer, not those in your administration, as reported, the Senate, Mr. Mnuchin, Mr. Ross, and others, who want to settle for next to nothing. That would be a disgrace.

President Trump has tried the conciliatory approach. He let ZTE off the hook in hopes of gaining concessions from China on North Korea and got none. North Korea continues to expand its nuclear capabilities.

Mr. President, do not make the same mistake again by interfering in the case of Huawei's CFO. Mr. President, do not capitulate on U.S. trade policy without meaningful, ironclad commitments from China to end its predatory trade practices, its theft of our intellectual property, and until China allows U.S. companies to compete freely in its markets without technology transfer or other coercions. To do otherwise would put the future of this great Nation at great risk.

Finally, Mr. President, I have come here to speak about a dear friend and a wonderful colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, Bill Nelson.

A Floridian born and bred, Bill Nelson didn't grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. Everything he has achieved in life, he achieved because he worked for it. Hard work is one of his credos.

In high school, Bill raised cattle in his spare time. That is not every teenager's idea of a good time, and that is something we never did in Brooklyn, but it led to a lifetime association with Florida's 4- H Program, which continues to support Florida's agricultural community today.

Just as important, Bill's extracurricular animal husbandry allowed him to save up the $10,000 he needed to attend college at the University of Florida. Even then, public service was never far from this generous man's thoughts. He gave his first political speech as a candidate for junior high school president--a race he won. In college, he interned for Florida's Senator George Smathers, whose son Bruce happened to be his roommate.

That internship turned out to be the lesser contribution of Bill's friendship with Bruce because a few years after law school, Bruce would introduce Bill to Grace Cavert, who became Grace Nelson, the love of Bill's life.

For those of us who know Bill, we know he loves Grace more than anything in the world. They are truly a dream team. Just to watch them together, caring about each other so, brings joy to anyone's heart-- certainly mine. Many of my colleagues, of course, know Grace as well and have worked closely with her, not the least reason being that she is the authority in that household today.

With Grace by his side, Senator Nelson embarked on what would be a distinguished career in public service in Florida as Congressman, tax commissioner, and eventually Senator. Of course, along the way, Senator Nelson would also earn the title of ``payload specialist'' abroad the Space Shuttle Columbia. As most folks know, then-Congressman Nelson, who was chair of

the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, participated in a weeklong space flight on the Columbia. What most folks don't know, however, is that the launch for the mission was aborted not once, not twice, but three times. Eventually, though, the liftoff was achieved, and Bill became only the second sitting Member of Congress to leave Earth's atmosphere, where, in his words, he saw ``the blue brilliance of the earth from the edge of the heavens.''

There is a name given to the shift in perspective experienced by astronauts called the overview effect. Seeing the Earth from the window of a space shuttle--that pale-blue marble in the vast emptiness of space--makes you realize how fragile and also how beautiful our planet truly is. Senator Nelson experienced something of an overview effect, and although he already cared about the environment, he became a lifelong champion of environmental causes.

Bill Nelson protected and preserved the Everglades, Florida's beaches, and offshore waters by standing against offshore drilling. There is none in Florida, and I have to a say that the reason is sitting right to my left--Bill Nelson. Time and again, when rapacious companies and others wanted to drill and risk the beauty of Florida's coastline and its economic vitality, there was Bill Nelson, like Horatio at the bridge, preventing it from happening. After the BP oilspill, Bill Nelson made sure Florida's gulf communities got the restitution they deserved from BP's settlement.

Senator Nelson has always been a loud voice speaking about the need for action on climate change, as his beloved State of Florida gets hit by ever more powerful storms and the low-lying areas, like Miami, get flooded regularly.

Of course, seeing the Earth from space didn't just focus Bill's eyes downward. This man is capable of doing many things at once. He kept them firmly fixed on the horizons as well. It will be a long time before the Senate sees a champion for NASA and space exploration like Bill Nelson. It may never see one as committed again.

The Senate, the State of Florida, and the country will miss Bill Nelson, as will Iris and I. He was even-tempered even in tempestuous times. He was always civil in the midst of such incivility. When so many of us are prone to looking backward, trying to figure out what we did wrong or what we could have done differently, Bill was always looking forward and upward.

I have had the pleasure not only of being Bill's colleague but being his friend. What a fine human being. One of my greatest regrets here is that some fine human beings are not going to be with us next time, and this Chamber and this country will show they are missed.

There is nothing Bill is now looking forward to more than spending time with his beloved Grace and visiting his children, Bill Junior and Nan Ellen.

Every one of us salutes the great senior Senator from Florida, everything he has accomplished in his distinguished career in the Senate, and just the great man that he is.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I return to the floor to conclude saying good-bye to Members of our caucus who will not be returning to this Chamber next year. Last, but certainly not least, to me and to so many of us, is my dear, dear friend, the Senator from Missouri--as she says it--Claire McCaskill.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Senator from Missouri found her way into politics. She got her start early. Growing up in a family that was actively involved in government and politics, Claire was not given the option to avoid subjects of national debate. When Claire was 7 years old, she was sent door to door on Halloween, saying: Trick or treat; vote for JFK.

Soon, politics wasn't just a passion passed down but a passion of her own. In high school, Claire launched a stealth campaign to become homecoming queen. In the tradition of her school, the football team picked the winner. So Claire befriended all the linemen--doing small favors, arranging dates--knowing there would be more of them than any other position. Guess what. She won, not because she skated by on popularity--although she was always popular--but because she put in the work. She was tenacious and tactical, qualities she would take from high school politics into the politics of the wider and older world.

That is how, as a Democrat in a State already becoming more conservative during her youth, Claire would go on to represent Missouri at nearly every level of government. As a prosecutor, in the State house, as State auditor, and, eventually, for 12 amazingly wonderful and productive years as Senator.

I was chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in 2005. Claire was just coming off a difficult loss in the Governor's race, after which she ``drank a lot of red wine and ate too many cookies,'' by her own typical frank admission. I had heard so much about her that I flew to London to meet with Claire and her dear husband Joe about a possible Senate race. Almost immediately, I was struck by the force of her personality.

She is a whirlwind. As Claire's mother, Betty Anne, said of her, ``Integrity, independence, and guts--that's what Claire McCaskill is made of.'' Everyone who meets Claire can see that from the get-go. By the end of dinner, I was so eager for Claire to run that I did something I almost never do. I paid for dinner. I have never been more glad that I did because Claire became an exceptional Senator and one of my closest friends, not just here in the Senate but in life. A moderate at heart, Claire had a knack for finding compromise between our two parties--a theme among many of our departing Members.

She worked across the aisle with Senator Collins to protect seniors from financial scams. She worked to fight for victims of opioid addiction, working with Republicans on taking on the big pharmaceutical companies that were funneling money to organizations to promote their own dangerous products.

In the tradition of her political idol, Harry Truman, she took a seat on the Armed Services Committee and fought fiercely for our veterans and our military.

Her hearings on the waste, fraud, and abuse of military contractors ushered in long-overdue reforms to military contracting, increasing transparency and accountability.

Almost every issue that Claire got her teeth into, she never let go and always succeeded. She was amazing as a Senator.

Of course, Claire wasn't just pragmatic. One of the reasons we love her is that she is both pragmatic and principled and combines those two in a unique way.

I will never forget the vote on the Dreamers. Claire was seated in a seat

back there. She was a more junior Member. She knew that voting to bring the Dreamers home--a pathway to citizenship and living here in America--could mean the end of her election. She said that to me. But she said: I cannot vote against them. And we walked down the aisle together, tears streaming down her cheeks, and, of course, she voted yes.

The Senate has its fair share of dealmakers. It has its fair share of principled fighters as well. But rarely, rarely, rarely is a Senator so adept at both. That is our Claire McCaskill.

We will miss far more, of course, than Claire the Senator. So many of us will miss Claire the person. When she has something to say to you, she does not hold back. Believe me--I know. I have been called just about every name in the book by Claire McCaskill, and each time, it rang true, but I didn't mind it because I know it was done with both affection and a desire to make me better and do a better job. And I can say this: Whatever job I am doing here as leader is in significant part because of Claire McCaskill's loving but pointed criticisms. I will miss them so much.

She is amazing. I am not the only one she criticized, and I am not the only one she criticized using the words that came right to her mouth. They say they used to keep a swear jar on her desk in the Missouri Legislature. I would be surprised if they didn't keep a few lined up along the whole desk.

But as much as Claire can sometimes criticize you in a pointed way, she can also make you laugh. She said her father insisted on two things: that she learn the rules of football and how to tell a good joke. That, she did. And more than that, she can tell a good joke at her own expense. That is just one of many reasons she was so well liked in this Chamber by Democrats and Republicans.

It is rare you can find someone who speaks her mind so directly and yet be so loved. That is one of the many uniquenesses of this wonderful lady, Claire McCaskill. And I am not the only one who felt that way. After a farewell address in this Chamber, the line of Senators to say a few words about Claire was long, and it wasn't just on our side of the aisle.

I could go on about Senator McCaskill for quite a while, but I am sure she is already telling me that I am getting longwinded. So let me close with this: When Claire was 9 years old, her father took her to the annual Jackson Day dinner in Springfield, MO, to hear the big political speeches on offer that year. After all, this was a famous venue that had hosted the giants of American politics--William Jennings Bryan, Harry Truman, JFK.

Well, guess who delivered the closing address at the Jackson Day dinner this year. Claire McCaskill, whose impact on her State and her country, as well as on the Senate and on so many of us, belongs in the same category as those distinguished names and will live on just as long.

Claire, we are going to miss you so. I will, the Senate will, Missouri will, and America will. I wish you and Joe and your wonderful family all the happiness in your next endeavors.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, with only 4 days remaining until a lapse in government funding, Democrats still have not heard back from President Trump about whether he is willing to accept either of our offers to keep the government funded. For that matter, Republicans in Congress--both the House and Senate--have been almost entirely silent about what plan they might support to avoid a shutdown. They say that they want to avoid a shutdown, but our Republicans in the House and Senate have no plan. Senate Republicans were telling reporters they had no idea what the White House's plan was or even if it had one.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues and President Trump that Democrats have put two reasonable ways to avoid a shutdown on the table: the six appropriations bills plus a 1-year CR for homeland security or a CR for all seven bills to fund the government.

Neither proposal contains a single Democratic demand. No Democrat is pounding a fist on the table, saying that we have to shut down the government unless we get our way--the way President Trump is. We only want to fund the government. If President Trump were to accept either proposal, it would sail through the House and Senate, and we could conclude the Nation's business before the Christmas holiday.

The only proposal that cannot pass is the President's demand for an unnecessary, ineffective, exorbitantly expensive border wall. So if President Trump throws a temper tantrum and clings to his position on the wall, he will not get a wall, but he will cause a Trump shutdown over Christmas.

With only a few days to go until appropriations lapse on Friday at midnight, President Trump needs to come out of hiding and accept one of our proposals to keep the government open. Either will get a majority of votes on the floor of the House and the Senate

A ruling last Friday from a Federal judge in Texas has put the future of the Affordable Care Act in doubt. Every American should be aware of the fact that if the rule is upheld, the entire law will come crashing down, including health insurance for 20 million Americans, protections for 130 million Americans living with preexisting conditions, parental health coverage for millions of Americans under the age of 26, and essential benefits like maternity care, mental health treatment, preventive screenings, money for opioid treatment.

It would cause nothing short of chaos in our healthcare system and calamity for millions of American families if this court case were to prevail.

We don't believe the ruling should stand or will stand, but the danger it poses is so great that we can't simply hope for the right result. We should do something quickly to allow the Senate to be heard and to persuade the courts not to tear down the healthcare law.

Senator Manchin has a resolution to authorize the Senate legal counsel to defend the Affordable Care Act on behalf of the Senate. We intend to force a vote on his resolution as soon as possible.

Every Republican who claims to be for protections for preexisting conditions ought to vote aye on that resolution. It is the quickest and best way to ensure that the court case against the Affordable Care Act does not remove these protections and the rest of our healthcare law.

Legislation--some of my colleagues are seeking refuge: Well, we will just pass legislation to tweak this or tweak that. Legislation would be difficult and slow and, frankly, unnecessary at this stage. We know how hard it is to do any healthcare legislation in this body.

Unfortunately, a good number of Republicans and President Trump, by their actions, have shown they want to cut healthcare. We are never going to get a deal with Democrats in the Senate--or the House Democrats who are going to be in charge--on doing that.

Senator Manchin's proposal is the best and first way to go. I urge my friends on the other side--all who talked about preexisting conditions: Put your money where your mouth is and support Senator Manchin's solution. To Leader McConnell, who says he wants to protect preexisting conditions: Bring the Manchin resolution to the floor.

Later this afternoon, the Senate will likely vote on a package of amendments and then final passage of bipartisan criminal justice reform. I wholeheartedly support the bill and intend to vote yes on final passage later today.

Among other important changes, the legislation will give judges more discretion in sentencing for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with the government. It will provide more support and new incentives for prisoners to participate in programming or other productive activities that will better prepare them to return to society as productive individuals, and it will effectively end the practice of juvenile solitary confinement and the cruel shackling of pregnant prisoners.

Despite what some of the opponents of the bill claim, the legislation is certainly not a ``get out of jail free'' card for violent criminals or sex offenders. That is simply not true.

Rather, the bill makes smart changes to our criminal justice system in ways that make it more fair, more humane, and more just. Individuals serving time in prison for these low-level prison crimes--nonviolent drug offenders--will eventually be released.

It is in the interest of both currently incarcerated individuals and the communities to which they will eventually return to ensure we are doing everything in our power to set them up for successful reintegration into our society so that they don't commit another crime. It is very important and the right thing to do. We need workers. We need productive citizens. We can't take 5 percent of America and just write them off. This bill says that we can't.

I want to commend so many people who did such good work on this bill. I want to thank my colleague Senator Durbin. This has been a passion of his for many years. I want to thank Senator Booker, who was principled. He knew when to hold, knew when to fold. That is why we have such a good bill. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse, who worked really hard to make sure those in prison would get the kind of training and drug treatment they need so that they can be successful and productive citizens when they get outside.

I want to thank some of our Republican colleagues--the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Utah--who had the courage to stand up and do the right thing here. There will be those on either side who object to things that were left out or included in the bill. As I say often, that is the nature of compromise. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This bill, with strong bipartisan support, should pass this afternoon with strong bipartisan majorities.

Finally, on a matter near and dear to my heart, the great Senator from the great State of Indiana--unfortunately, we are going to be saying goodbye to Members of our caucus who won't be returning to the 116th. This morning, I want to share some words about the senior Senator from Indiana, my dear friend Joe Donnelly.

Most folks don't know this, but Joe is actually a native New Yorker. Maybe it is because of his affable personality, his agreeableness, his midwestern decency that folks don't think he came from New York, and they are surprised to learn it.

After falling in love with Indiana after college, Joe is now fond of saying: ``You can pick where you live, but you can't pick where you're born.'' Joe, on behalf of all New Yorkers, I officially forgive you for saying that.

But like all of the young Irish Catholic kids from Long Island, Joe's dream was to go to Notre Dame. Joe likes to say that all good Irish Catholic kids are handed an application to Notre Dame, along with their baptism, and go to Notre Dame Joe did, where his long career and life in the State of Indiana began.

Something about Joe's inherent decency drew people toward him. His first foray in politics came when he received a phone call from a local official in the Democratic Party. Joe thought he was calling to ask for a donation, but the official instead asked him if he would like to run for the State legislature. Joe responded: ``OK, I'm eating my cereal; I'll get back to you on that.'' The people of Indiana and the people of America are glad Joe finished that bowl of cereal and decided a career in public service might suit him.

It didn't happen right away though. Joe lost that first race. A few years later, he found himself coaching the son of his opponent from that race in a local basketball league. At the first practice, sensing trepidation in the young man, Joe hugged him and said: Don't worry. It won't affect your playing time.

That is the kind of little story that shows the decency of Joe Donnelly--what a good man he is, how he cares about other people's feelings, how he holds no grudges or resentments and always gives his political opponents and, in this case, their children the benefit of the doubt.

He always tried to see things from other people's perspective. That quality is what made him such an effective and well liked Member of this body. It is hard to be both effective and well liked here. Joe is both.

And, of course, he hustled. A Donnelly day in Indiana is legendary among his staff. It begins before sunrise and ends long after the sun has set.

I travel to every county in my State every year, which is 62. Joe, of course, outdid me. He makes it to each of Indiana's 92 counties every year. When he offers an opinion on where to find the best gas station or fried chicken in Indiana, you know it is coming from real authority.

Joe's dad was a small business owner on Long Island who used to tell him as a boy: Joe, just do the work. That is what Joe Donnelly did. He did the work. And because he did the work, even in this divided Congress and this divided partisan era, Joe got a whole lot done. He passed right-to-try legislation, which, according to Republican Senator Ron Johnson, ``would not have happened without Joe Donnelly.''

There are going to be people who live decades from now because of his hard work and passion on that bill. Joe worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans as a member of Armed Services, and he passed legislation to reduce the number of military suicides. Again, there are going to be families who don't have to live with suicide of a family member, service member because of Joe's hard work and dedication and political skill in getting this passed.

Joe worked across the aisle with Senator Young, his colleague, to pass a bill that would improve mental health assistance for our police because he knew, coming from a family of police officers, the daily strain that officers undergo in risking their lives for our safety.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that Joe Donnelly will leave this Chamber with an outstanding bipartisan legacy in his wake.

So at a time when our politics is so angry and divisive, losing someone like

Joe Donnelly is a real loss. It is a loss for this body, a loss for the State of Indiana, and a real loss for America. He is an independent man and an honest person, and in a politics that is far too short on both, we will miss his steady hand here in the Senate, but also at first base, where he was relied on in the Congressional Baseball Games year after year.

We thank Jill, his lovely wife, whom he met in Indiana. Maybe she was the first reason he never went back to New York. We thank his children, Molly and Joe, Jr., for letting us borrow him these past 6 years.

Joe and I are friends for life. This election result will not break that friendship and that bond.

Iris and I and all of the Members of this Chamber wish Joe and his family the very best. Since there are no New York schools in the college football playoffs, this Senator will be rooting for Joe's beloved Fighting Irish.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be given 3 minutes.

You have 3 minutes.

Look over there.

Madam President, on another subject, we are 5 days away from a lapse in appropriations, and President Trump still doesn't have a

plan to keep the government open. In fact, the only indication he has given is that he wants a government shutdown.

At the moment, the situation should be clear to everyone: President Trump does not have the votes for his wall. He certainly doesn't have the votes in the Senate, and it doesn't seem he has the votes even in the House, where he needs only Republican votes.

Tellingly, the House is on recess until Wednesday night--just 2 days before the Trump shutdown would start. It is because the House leadership has no idea what to do, where the votes are, or where the people are. Many of them don't want to come back. Everyone knows the situation. Even with a Republican Congress, no threat or temper tantrum will get the President his wall.

On the other hand, Democrats are all together. We have given a proposal to President Trump. We have given two alternatives to President Trump that could easily pass both the House and the Senate. We could pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a 1-year CR on homeland security, or we could pass a 1-year CR for all of the remaining Agencies. President Trump should support one of these options and spare innocent, hard-working Americans the pain of an unnecessary Trump shutdown. His temper tantrum will get him a shutdown but will not get him a wall. It is futile.

Unfortunately, since our meeting last Tuesday, Leader Pelosi and I have still not heard from the White House whether they will accept either of these two options, nor have we even heard from our Republican colleagues in the Senate or House about what they might support to avoid a shutdown--not a peep. They are nowhere to be found.

A reporter told me that Republicans said: What is the Democrats' plan? We gave them two. The real question is, What is the Republicans' plan? They don't have one. They don't know what to do. In the scuttlebutt, where we talk to one another, Senate Republican leadership has no idea what President Trump wants. Neither does House Republican leadership. And they don't have the courage, the strength, in my judgment, or the wisdom to tell the President he is wrong on this, and let's move forward. That amazes me more in the House than anywhere else. House Republicans lost 40 seats by just clinging to President Trump even when they knew he was wrong.

Are they continuing this pattern of behavior, and are our Senate colleagues going to do the same? It makes no sense. My friends on the other side of the aisle know the President's wall is wrong, ineffective, and it cannot pass. The President's daily Twitter outbursts can't alter reality.

My Republican friends need to step up and convince the President to pick one of the two sensible offers we have made. Right now, nobody seems to know what Republicans want or plan to do. It is shocking that Republicans haven't engaged yet in this process, considering they control the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. What a symbol, what evidence of disarray.

Once again, I remind my Republican colleagues that going along with a Trump shutdown is a futile act. When Democrats take control of the House on January 3, they will pass one of our two options to fund the government, and then leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will be left holding the bag for a Trump shutdown. The onus for reopening the government will wind up on their lap. That is not what they should want. I don't think they do want it. They are just so fearful of departing from President Trump. I remind them, when the President wasn't mixing in, we did two good budget seasons. We did two good appropriations bills, which got large majorities of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. You can't let the President interfere, particularly when he does it in a pound-table, tantrum-like way, without any plan or knowledge of how to get things done.

If President Trump decides to shut down the government, there is no endgame in which President Trump gets the wall. There is no endgame for Republicans in which they can avoid their share of responsibility-- overwhelming share--for a shutdown. The time to solve this problem is now.

Healthcare

Madam President, on healthcare, on Friday, in response to a suit brought by Republican attorneys general, a district court judge in Texas issued a bizarre and dreadful ruling that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional because of changes to the law made by congressional Republicans. If the ruling is ultimately upheld, the consequences would be disastrous for the American people. It would jeopardize health insurance for more than 20 million Americans who gained insurance on the exchanges or through expanded Medicaid. It would end protections for the 133 million Americans living with preexisting conditions. Can you imagine a mom and dad who have a daughter or a son with cancer, and we now allow the insurance companies to cut them off by not giving them new insurance as they watch their child suffer? That is not America. That is not the situation now because of what we all did in 2009 with the ACA. Are our Republican colleagues going to let that happen?

Americans under the age of 26 could no longer stay on their parents' health insurance. That has been a sigh of relief a breath of fresh air for millions who get out of college and want to get a job but can't take the job they want because there is not adequate health insurance.

It would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole in Medicare. That would mean that seniors on Medicare--tens of millions--would pay more for prescription drugs, and essential health benefits would be gone.

These are not just trivial things. They include guaranteed access to maternity care, free preventive cancer screenings, treatment for opioid addiction--crucial things that Americans need that allow them to go away.

You can see the extent of the disaster if this court case prevails. Hundreds of millions of Americans would be hurt. Our healthcare system would be thrown into chaos, including for families who get health insurance from their employer.

We Democrats believe the ruling is based on such faulty premises that it will not be upheld by a higher court once it is appealed, but given the potential consequences of their ruling, we cannot twiddle our thumbs and hope for the right result.

The court, I would remind my colleagues, based a good portion of its decision on what Congress intended. We can clear that up in a minute-- in a minute. My friend, Senator Manchin, has a resolution which every Democrat in this body has signed onto, to petition the Senate legal counsel to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the Affordable Care Act on behalf of the Senate because the Trump administration refuses to defend the law and is in favor of it being overturned.

President Trump was almost gleeful when this court case came out. Is he going to be gleeful to those parents with cancer, to that college graduate who needs healthcare, to a family who has a father on opioids and needs help? Is he going to be gleeful if they don't get it? I don't get him sometimes, much of the time.

I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in this petition because if a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate tell the appeals courts our intention was not to overthrow healthcare, it will have a great deal of weight. Some say: Well, let's do legislation. We have all been through that before, with both Democrats and Republicans in charge, a very hard, long time--it takes a long time to get healthcare.

By the way, the President and a lot of my Republican friends want to cut back on healthcare. That is their goal. They will never come to agreement with us--Democrats in the Senate or the House, which will be democratically controlled in a few weeks--if they stick with that.

Legislation is not the best and first way to go; court intervention is. We will be watching. The American people will be watching, particularly so many of my colleagues who said: I am for preexisting conditions.

We are going to let them know this idea of ``let's do legislation'' will not work. Where are they on the petition? That will determine whether they are hypocrites, saying they want to protect preexisting conditions but not doing the best thing for it or whether they really care about the people who will lose health insurance.

The American people spoke loudly and clearly in the midterms: They want their healthcare protections, and they don't want Republicans to take them away. I believe Republicans will have no choice but eventually to join us. To not do so would be to jeopardize healthcare for hundreds of millions of Americans and risk a complete disaster for Republicans in future elections.

Tribute to Lamar Alexander

Madam President, on Lamar Alexander, my dear friend, we received sad news today--sad for us, happy for him--that our friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee will not be running for reelection in 2020. There will be time to reflect on his life and career at a later date, but upon hearing the news this afternoon, as I was taking the Amtrak down from New York, I felt a pang of sadness. Lamar and I have been dear friends, and we worked so hard on many things together.

I want to say a few words now. When Senator Alexander eventually does leave this body, the Senate will lose an incredibly capable legislator and statesman. He cares so much about legislating. He reminded me, when I talked to him this afternoon, that he will still be around for 2 years and wants to work together to get things done--an ``Alexanderian'' statement, if there ever was one.

Senator Alexander has been in the midst of so many things for his 16 years in the Senate, and that is not because he is some ideologue who stood all alone in his own corner and made a lot of speeches and didn't get things done. No. Senator Alexander seeks compromise almost reflexively, and he gets things done--the recent higher education bill and legislation dealing with opioids, which he was so passionate about, and he talked to me about it every day for about a month. He gets things done because of his passion, his intelligence as a legislator, and his persistence.

Both sides of the aisle respect and trust Lamar. I do. We have worked together so many times in my years here, and hopefully, as he said on the phone, there will be a few more opportunities in the next 2 years, his last 2 years in the Senate, to work together successfully, hopefully, and God willing again.

Even though he is not here at the moment, I salute my friend from Tennessee and look forward to seeing him in the gym tomorrow morning-- we always see each other in the gym--where I can convey these sentiments personally.

I yield the floor.