Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the efforts of Dr. William Medd and his work with Western Maine Health and Stephen's Memorial Hospital. His dedicated work with MaineHealth, the largest health system in Maine, has improved the lives and health of many residents of western Maine. Although Bill is originally from Long Island, he has proudly called Maine home for almost five decades. He studied and specialized in Internal Medicine at Wesleyan University and then at the University of Rochester School of Medicine. Following his medical residencies and 2 years of service in the Air Force, Bill and his family relocated to western Maine in the early 1970's. Throughout his career, Bill has dedicated himself to improving the quality of healthcare in Maine, specifically in the rural area he has worked and lived. His efforts to achieve this goal have taken many forms, from serving as a trustee at Western Maine Health Care Corporation and MaineHealth to his 45 years as an internist in the Oxford Hills region. Perhaps one of the most symbolic aspects of Bill's hard work is the growth of the local hospital in Norway, ME. At first a small facility when Bill arrived, it is now a fully equipped, modern hospital known as Stephen's Memorial and provides quality healthcare to the rural region. In early 2016, an expansion of Western Maine Health, was named the William L. Medd, MD, Health Center. This new facility integrated new models for delivering primary care and relocated other Western Maine Health units. For the last 3 years, Bill has had the unique opportunity to work out of the facility that bears his name. On March 30 of this year, Bill was presented the Legacy Award at the Oxford Hills Chamber of Commerce annual dinner. Not only does this award embody Bill's commitment to healthcare in Maine, but speaks to other contributions he has made to his community, from fundraising for local scholarships to supporting youth programs in the region. His work in these fields outside the medical profession demonstrate Bill's commitment to more broadly improve his community. I would like to thank Dr. Medd for his decade's long work in the State of Maine. Thanks to his determination and drive to make a difference, the future of healthcare in western Maine is bright. Dr. Medd's passion for his patients, community, and State sets an example for the medical professionals who will follow him. Congratulations, Dr. Medd, on a successful career and happy retirement. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions to your community.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in sadness and somewhat perplexed because what we are doing in this colloquy is recreating a statement, a letter, as the Senator from Minnesota outlined, that was sent by six of our predecessors in December of 1986, warning about the dangers of climate change, warning about what this can do to our country and to our world, about costs, and about how we had to take action. One of those Senators was George Mitchell of Maine, one of the great legislators of the 20th century. I am honored to be in the seat that once was occupied by George Mitchell and also by his predecessor, Edmund Muskie. I think the story of the major environmental legislation of the 20th century, sponsored principally at the beginning by Edmund Muskie, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, is worth mentioning, if only briefly. The most important point is that the Clean Air Act, one of the most important and comprehensive environmental pieces of legislation in our Nation's history, passed this body unanimously. It passed this body unanimously. It disturbs me that we couldn't agree on the time of day around here unanimously these days. I don't know when this issue became a partisan issue, but I deeply regret it because it is causing harm to our country. What I would like to do is step into George Mitchell's shoes for a moment and read a statement that he himself wrote and made back in 1986, and you are not going to believe how prescient this statement is. It could have been written yesterday. Here are George Mitchell's words: The problem of global warming is one of immense significance. It is the most serious and more pressing than anticipated. Previously, most of the models forecasting the rate of global warming focused on the air pollutants produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. More recent data suggest that trace gases may also increase the rate of warming by a factor of two. This means that warming may be increasing twice as fast as previously thought. The data produced to date suggests there may be an average increase in temperature of 1 deg.C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This was in 1986. We are now at about 1.5 degrees centigrade. Considering how much warmer this June has been than average, a 1 degree difference may appear to be insignificant, but an average of 1 degree increase could be devastating, so the experts tell us. A 1 degree increase in the average global temperature would melt glaciers-- That is happening-- and such melting would increase the sea level. That is happening. There are uncertainties in predicting how much the sea level would increase in a particular area. In some cases, it could be an average increase of a few feet; in others, much more. For a coastal State like Maine and to other States along the coastline, such an increase would be devastating. To deviate from George's words for a moment, this is what we see happening. We are now seeing what are called rainy day floods, flooding in areas of our country along the coast that were rare. Six-month events are now every high tide. George Mitchell says: An average of 1 degree increase in temperature could have major impacts on agriculture. This country's Midwestern bread basket could again become a dust bowl. More heat would mean less water for crops and variations in growing seasons. It is important to keep in mind that this average increase is global in nature. It is not a national or regional problem. If American farmers suffer for lack of water, so will farmers all over the planet. If shorelines along our coasts are flooded, so will shorelines everywhere in the world. The enormity of this phenomenon is staggering, and we have a responsibility to limit emissions of pollutants that trap the heat in our atmosphere. As difficult, as immense, and as seemingly remote as the problem is to our daily lives, we cannot delay. This was George Mitchell in 1986--we cannot delay. There will be those who argue that more research is necessary to completely understand the phenomenon and to answer every scientific question. We are still hearing that argument today--we need more science; we need more studies; we are not sure. George goes on: As in the case of acid rain, such complete understanding will come only after we flounder in the weight of our shortsighted policies. This is one more indication that the benefits of industrialization carry with them the burden of controlling pollutants. These pollutants threaten our lakes, fish, health, and forests today in the form of acid deposition. We will hear today that these pollutants also threaten the future of our planet, which cannot tolerate such a sudden and dramatic increase in temperature and survive in a form familiar to us. In 1986 George Mitchell said: Solutions are possible and available. The statement released at the conclusion of the Villach Conference in Austria last October-- This was in 1985-- addresses the common nature of some of our environmental problems. That statement said in part that ``climate change and sea level rises due to greenhouse gases are closely linked with other major environmental issues, such as acid deposition and threats to the Earth's ozone shield, mostly due to changes in the composition of the atmosphere by human activity.'' Reduction in coal and oil use and energy conservation undertaken to reduce acid deposition will also lower concentration of greenhouse gases. Reductions in emissions of chlorofluorocarbons-- Which we achieved-- will help protect the ozone layer and will also slow the rate of climate change. The rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly affected by governmental policies on energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases. Those words were written 32 years ago. The rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly affected by governmental policies on energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases. The testimony that they were intending to hear at the hearing that George is describing demonstrated ``that such governmental policies are needed . . . nationally and on a global basis.'' I pause on ``a global basis''--the tragedy of leaving the Paris climate accord, because the only solution to this problem has to be local, national, and global. The testimony from Federal Agencies will be that the current government policy is to conduct more research, a familiar refrain on issues of this type. George Mitchell said: What is missing in the Federal effort is action. The problem of global warming brings another round of scientists before us decrying the folly of waiting until it is too late to prevent irreversible damage. In the case of acid rain, research has been offered as a substitute for much-needed action. This policy has produced more bodies of water that cannot sustain life, more trees that are dying, and more people who find it hard to breathe. The policy has produced more studies, not any meaningful change in policy. I hope these two days of hearings will help persuade the administration-- And the people of the country-- that inaction has its own costs, almost invariably higher than the cost of action. George Mitchell was right. The cost of inaction is invariably higher than the cost of action. George concluded by saying: I represent a State that already has been affected by acid deposition. I want to do all I can to keep Maine, the rest of our country, and our planet from facing potentially more dramatic environmental damage from global warming. The best way to avoid these undesirable outcomes is to begin taking action now to prevent further damage rather than spending twice as much time and later money repairing damage. George Mitchell was right in 1986. Tragically, he is even more right today because we did not heed his call. We did not take action. We have avoided action. I don't want to be the generation that our children and grandchildren look back on and say: Where were you and what did you do when the climate was deteriorating, when the glaciers were melting, when the ice sheets were melting, when the sea level was rising, when the storms were increasing in intensity, when the wildfires were burning our States? What did you do, Senator? I, for one, want the answer to be ``I took action.'' The answer should be ``we took action.'' Today, this is a challenge even greater--significantly greater--than it was in 1986, but the very fact that people like Quentin Burdick, George Mitchell, John Chafee, Bob Stafford, and David Durenberger saw the future and predicted it so succinctly and profoundly should spur us to the type of action that is necessary to meet, confront, and overcome this most serious of challenges before us. Thank you. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the town of Auburn, ME, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. Auburn might be a small city, but it features something for everyone, from recreation activities and parks and trails to cultural opportunities, a variety of restaurants, shopping, and public and private school options. Located along the banks of the Androscoggin River, Auburn is home to over 23,000 residents and is the county seat of Androscoggin County. Auburn was first incorporated on February 22, 1869, and was created by annexing parts of the surrounding towns of Poland, Minot, and Danville, previously called Pejepscot. Auburn was the first city in Maine to adopt a council-manager form of government and grew into one of Maine's largest municipalities. In the early to mid-1800s, a new bridge across the Androscoggin River to Lewiston and the arrival of the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad helped spur development in Auburn. Like many Maine towns, Auburn developed into a mill town, and many of those mills were powered by the falls on the Androscoggin and Little Androscoggin Rivers. Auburn was also the home to a number of other manufacturing plants, including shoes, cotton and woolen textiles, carriages, bricks, and furniture. The population of the city grew quickly through the end of the 1800s, mostly due to the influx of French-Canadian immigrants coming to the city to work at the shoe factories. By the late 19th century, shoe manufacturing became the dominant industry in Auburn. In fact, the city seal depicts a spindle with different types of shoes at each outside point. In 1917, one factory in Auburn was producing 75 percent of the world's supply of white canvas shoes. Like many manufacturing towns, Auburn has had to reinvent itself in recent years, and they have shown their resiliency and grit. Today, Auburn is as vibrant as ever. The city of Auburn has contributed to the energy, vitality, and commerce of the State of Maine and is poised to make the next 150 years some of the best years in its long and cherished history. I hope that the citizens of Auburn take the opportunity during this yearlong birthday celebration to reconnect to their roots, share their life stories, and remind current and future generations about the rich past and the bright future ahead of us all. Happy 150th birthday, Auburn, and congratulations to all the citizens of this great Maine community.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to discuss for a few moments reflections upon the hearing we had this week in the Intelligence Committee on worldwide threats. This is an annual hearing and is in public, at least the first part. Then there is a closed session afterward with the heads of our intelligence Agencies--the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and, of course, with the Director of National Intelligence. This is an important hearing because it basically outlines to the American people the threats we face and the seriousness of those threats. It is an opportunity for those of us on the committee and for Members of the Senate in general to understand the nature of the threats, what the intelligence is, and what the information is that we have to help us make good policy decisions. Good intelligence is crucial to making good decisions. We live in an incredibly complex world, and my work on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees over the past 6 years has educated me as to just how complex and difficult a lot of these issues are. I remember a long discussion about the Middle East at one of the Intelligence Committee meetings, and one of the members on the committee said that this is a really hard, complicated subject. The witness that day, who was from the CIA, said: ``Welcome to the Middle East.'' These are very difficult issues, but in order to make rational, thoughtful, important, and very results-oriented decisions based upon the information from these hearings, we have to know the facts. We have to understand what the implications are and what the likely results are but also, more fundamentally, just what is going on, on the ground. Whether you look back 50 years, 100 years, or 150 years, often our worst foreign policy misadventures have been based on one of two things--either bad intelligence or intelligence that was somehow skewed in order to meet the desires of the policymakers. If we don't have good intelligence, we can't make good decisions. A lot of attention has been paid to the people who were testifying at that hearing--as I mentioned, the heads of the FBI and the CIA and the Directors of National Intelligence, Defense Intelligence, and the National Security Agency. Yet those individuals were speaking on behalf of thousands of other people who are scattered around the world, who often risk their lives to gain the information they were sharing with us that day. It was not Dan Coats' opinion or Gina Haspel's opinion or Paul Nakasone's opinion. They were distilling and presenting to us the intelligence and the information that had been developed by their good people over the course of the past month, week, years to inform us and to inform the President of the best information available so we can make the best decisions. After the hearing, what disturbed me was the reaction of the President of the United States. Instead of absorbing and listening to this information, he dismissed it. He not only dismissed the information, but he dismissed the messengers and said they had to go back to school or that they were being naive. Now, I don't want to be heard as having said that the intelligence community always gets it right. I know, in my having sat through hearings on Afghanistan and Syria and on many of the other difficult subjects we face, that there are mistakes made and that Dan Coats does not have a direct line to the Almighty in terms of the facts. They are not always right. Yet, if one is going to dismiss their findings, it should be based upon some additional set of facts or information from some source. There were two things that bothered me about the President's reaction. One was he essentially dismissed the facts in a whole series of cases--of Iran and ISIS. Those were two we talked about. With regard to North Korea and Russia, basically, he said: I don't believe any of it. The problem with that is, it undermines the confidence you have in the decision-making authority at the highest level if facts don't matter. The information that is supplied is not by Dan Coats, not by Gina Haspel, not by Paul Nakasone but is the view--the distilled wisdom--of the thousands of people whose job it is, whose profession it is, to ferret out the truth. At the beginning of the hearing, Dan Coats gave the best synopsis I have ever heard of the mission of the intelligence Agencies, of the mission of our intelligence community. It was very simple--to seek the truth and to speak the truth. That is exactly what they did at that hearing. They sought the truth through the auspices of these very professional, very thorough Agencies that are scattered throughout the world. Then they spoke the truth by telling us what they learned. The second problem I have with the President's reaction is a little more subtle, and this goes to the heart of the relationship between the intelligence community and policymakers. The subtle message that was being sent was: Don't tell the boss things he doesn't want to hear. Don't give it to us unvarnished. Style the information; sly the information; amend the information in order to meet what is perceived to be what the boss wants to hear. Whether the boss is this President, a past President, or a future President, that is disastrous. The intelligence community has to deal in facts and information, not policy, but if the message is sent down through the ranks of ``don't give me an assessment that disagrees with where I started,'' that will start to happen. Indeed, it is human nature. All of us want to be in the good graces of the boss. All of us want to give our superiors information they want to get. I was in law school over 50 years ago and had a friend who had been a captain in Vietnam. He told the story of being on the ground in Vietnam. There was a skirmish in which a half a dozen Viet Cong were killed. He filed his report. His report went to the division. At that point, half a dozen became 15. It went to headquarters where 15 became 50. It then went to Washington where 50 became 150. That is because Washington wanted to see higher counts. That was the perception that corrupted the process, not because people were being corrupt in the sense of being evil or of wanting to do wrong but because they were doing what is human nature, which is ``I want to please the person above me in the chain of command.'' If the President of the United States is not so subtly telling the intelligence community what he wants to hear, that will inevitably affect the quality of the product he receives, which, indeed, will also inevitably affect the quality of decisions he makes. Again, I am not saying the intelligence community is always right. I certainly believe the President or any other policymaker, including Members of Congress who receive this information, need to review it critically--ask questions, probe and prod--and try to be sure the information is correct, but to dismiss it out of hand in a tweet, it seems to me, is dangerous. It is dangerous because it undermines the Executive's authority to make good decisions based upon the facts, and it is dangerous because it has the potential for skewing the information itself in the future. Either one of those things is a danger to national security. If the President has facts that are different than those that are presented by the intelligence community, he should at least present them and say: This isn't consistent with what I learned at ``such and such'' a conference or what I am hearing from the State Department or from what I am hearing from Homeland Security. Yet to simply say they are naive, that they don't know what they are doing, and they should go back to school denigrates the work of thousands of loyal, patriotic Americans who are doing their level best to produce information upon which good decisions can be made. I stand today not to say the intelligence community always gets it right but to say the intelligence community should at least get an honest hearing and that the information they present is important to this country. It is important to the President, and it is important to the Congress. The day we start encouraging them to skew the information is the day the national security of this country is at risk. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, it strikes me that there are really two problems before us--one we can resolve this evening or tomorrow morning or in the next 24 hours, and that is the shutdown. At least we could resolve it for a limited period of time and then start talking about the second problem, which is border security. I think one of the unfortunate realities of what has happened in the last month is the assumption on the part of some that there was no good faith on border security and no interest in dealing with border security from this side of the aisle. That is a misunderstanding. I voted in 2013 for the largest border security provision that I think has ever come before the U.S. Senate. So did virtually every Member of this caucus and a third or more of the other caucus. Two-thirds of the Senate voted for that bill with a very important border security provision. I want to be very clear. I am very supportive of border security and of increasing border security. There also may be cases in which there may be parts of the border at which some kind of barrier makes sense and is cost-effective; whereas, there are other areas of the border at which it doesn't make sense. What I am interested in is a thorough discussion with the experts about what the most cost-effective way is to protect our citizens and secure the border. I believe this proposal today gives us the breathing space to have that discussion. I remind my colleagues that this administration submitted a border security proposal to the Congress last February with its budget of $1.6 billion. Lo and behold, it was approved by the Appropriations Committee and by this body. That is an indication to me that there is good faith. I think the important thing to communicate now is to not complicate this with conditions. Let's take the awful hammer away--and I don't have to reiterate all that has been said today about the devastating effect of this shutdown on people in all of our States and on people who are working for no pay, which is fundamentally wrong--and then spend the next 3 weeks finding a solution, which I believe we can do. I have had enough discussions with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think there is a solution to be had that will satisfy the President, the two bodies of Congress, and, most importantly, the American people in terms of the protection we can provide. I am happy to join my colleague today in supporting this message and, importantly, to join my colleagues across the aisle. Give us breathing space. Take the problem of the shutdown away. Then we can have a discussion and a debate and find a solution through a process, which is the way it ought to be, not with a shutdown hanging over everyone. That is not the way we should be governing. I look forward to working with my colleagues on finding a creative, cost-effective, and safe solution to this issue of border security to protect this country. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Ted Ames, of Stonington, ME, as he retires from the board of directors for Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries, MCCF. Ted has been a lifelong member of the Maine fishing community, and his knowledge and expertise will be missed by the board of MCCF. Maine fishing communities and our entire State are proud of Ted's work and we wish him all the best in his retirement. Ted was born and raised on Vinalhaven, one of the many vibrant island communities off the coast of Maine. Like so many before him, Ted has the ocean in his blood; he spent more than three decades as the captain of two boats, the F/V Mary Elizabeth and F/V Dorothy M., fishing for groundfish, scallops, and lobster. Ted was an early member of the Stonington Fisheries Alliance and then founded and served on the board of the Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington, which is now the Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries. Ted also founded and directed the Zone C Lobster Hatchery in Stonington. He is the former executive director of the Maine Gillnetters Association and a member of the Maine Marine Resources Committee to Establish a Lobster Zone Management Plan. Not only did Ted have a long career as a fisherman, but he also taught at the University of Maine and Mt. Desert Island High School, educating the next generation about chemistry, biochemistry, and environmental science. Ted has a M.S. in biochemistry with a specialty in tissue culture and 6 years of research experience; he has won numerous recognitions including the 2005 MacArthur Foundation's Genius Award, Monmouth University's 2007 ``Champion of the Oceans'' Award, and was named a visiting coastal studies scholar at Bowdoin College in 2010. In 2007, he was the Geddes W. Simpson Distinguished Lecturer at the University of Maine for his work at the intersection of science and history. Ted's career clearly shows his passion for ensuring that the tradition of fishing is preserved for generations to come. Ted has worked to restore cod, haddock, and flounder in the eastern Gulf of Maine, working with the Maine Department of Marine Resources to conduct interviews with retired fishermen, map historical stock distributions, and publish a paper that helped provide the scientific evidence that would explain the depletion of the fish in the area. Ted has served his community and the State of Maine for many years in so many ways, and we are lucky to call him one of our own. While we will miss Ted's wisdom, knowledge, and work ethic at MCCF, we wish him and his wife Robin Alden nothing but the best in this new chapter.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I first want to make a single declarative sentence: There is no one in this body who is for open borders. One of the most troublesome aspects of this debate that has been framed, particularly by this administration, is that you are either for the wall or for open borders. That is not true. In 2013, two-thirds of us voted for a very strong border security provision as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed this body--as I say, by two-thirds. It was never taken up in the House. Had it been taken up in the House, it likely would have passed; the President would have signed it; and a lot of these issues would have been behind us. All of us--everyone here on both sides of the aisle--support border security. What we support is cost-effective, sensible border security, not border security that really doesn't fit the nature of the problem we face and that so far, anyway, is undefined in terms of location, design, cost, and all of the other characteristics of any major construction project that is submitted to this Congress for its approval. Again, one of the problems with this whole discussion is what does the President mean when he says ``wall''? Is it 30 feet high? Is it 20 feet high? Is it steel? Is it concrete? This has evolved over time. The biggest question is where and how long. Is he talking about a wall that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Southern California, to the Pacific Ocean? That is about 2,000 miles. Is that what he is talking about? If so, we should know that. Then we can debate it as it relates to other potential options for securing the border along that distance. It also should be noted that there already is a wall, by anybody's definition, along portions of that border. I have seen it. I have been to McAllen, TX, where the President was yesterday, and I have seen the wall--a wall. Yet the questions are, How big is it? Where is it going to go? How is it going to be designed and paid for? One of the reasons the wall is really not the right solution for the current problems of immigration starts with the fact that about 50 percent of the illegal immigrants--of the undocumented immigrants--in this country today are here on overstayed legal visas. A wall has nothing to do with these people. These are people who came in through airports and all other ports of entry all over the country into the United States, and 50 percent are here on overstayed visas. The wall has zero effect on that issue. The other principal issue we are facing at the wall--and this has also been confused in the news coverage of the caravans and in the fear that has been spread--is that the vast majority of the people who come to the border today are not looking to sneak across; they are looking for a port of entry at which to give themselves up as asylum seekers. They are not illegal immigrants; they are availing themselves of American law. Once they get to this country, with their having credible fears of prosecution or of persecution or of danger in their home countries, they have a right to have it be determined whether they are legitimate asylum seekers. That is who we are dealing with. That is who all of those people are. When you see the pictures of the caravans, they are not headed for a blank place in the Arizona desert. They want to go. They want to be captured. They want to be taken into custody. Then they can have their asylum claims adjudicated. The wall has nothing to do with them. The wall is a response to a problem that is decades old but that has grossly, drastically diminished over the last 10 or 15 years. For the problem of people literally sneaking across the border--entering the country illegally--all of the data is that the number is down. It is down about 85 percent from the number of people who entered the country illegally in 2007, over the past 10 or 11 years. By the way, all of the data can be found in a fascinating document that was produced in September of 2017, about a year ago, by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security. I can't remember the exact title, but it is something like the ``Status of Illegal Immigration at the Southern Border.'' It is a long report that is full of graphs. I like graphs, but I don't need to hold them up because all of the graphs have a downward slope in terms of illegal entries, of the people who get away, of the number of people who come in who are recidivists, who have been here before. They are all down. So to argue that we are somehow in a crisis today, when all of the indicators are moving in the right direction, is really hard to reconcile with the reality. The issue I am trying to illustrate is that the wall is the wrong solution to the current problem. It may have been a rational solution in 1985 or even in 2005 or in 2006, when the Congress passed a major fence law and did increase border security substantially, but we are dealing with a different set of problems today that the wall--a wall-- whatever it is--doesn't address. I said at the beginning that nobody here is against border security and that there may be places where a wall is part of that. Yet one of the secondary problems we have is, we have never been told what this thing--the wall--is. How long will it be? How big will it be? How much will it cost? Is it going to be on private land or Federal land? We don't have a plan for what it is that is actually being proposed that the government is being held hostage over. We don't know what the President wants. To say ``I want a wall'' doesn't tell you much. Is it 2,000 miles long or 100 miles long? Is it 20 feet high, is it a fence, is it a 30-foot high concrete wall or something with steel slats, which seems to be the design of the day? We don't really know what it is. If the mayor of Bangor, ME, went to the city council and said ``I want to build a new school, but I am not going to tell you how many students are going to be in it; I am not going to tell you where we are going to build it, and I am not going to tell you what it is going to cost; just give me a blank check to build that school,'' the city counsel of Bangor would laugh Her Honor out of the hall. It wouldn't even think about doing something like that. No city in America would do something like that. Yet that is what we are being asked to do here today. We are essentially being asked for a blank check--well, it is a check for $5.7 billion, but that is a downpayment. The real estimate is for what they think the President wants, which is more in the $20- to $25- billion amount. That gets me to my final point before I talk about the impact of this in Maine. Let's say that we could settle this, this week. We could negotiate with the White House--which is not easy to do because their position changes day to day--and say: OK, it is going to be 100 miles of wall; this will be the size; this will be the design; this is the agreed-upon cost. Let's say we could do that. If we do that in the context of the government being shut down, we are inviting this to happen again. Next year, we will just have more budgets. We have a debt ceiling debate coming that is very important for the future of the country, for the economics of the country, for the soundness of our economy. We have budgets coming next September. If this works, if this shutdown that has been initiated by the President works as a tactic to get a portion of his wall, he will do it next time. That is why the age-old principle is, you don't negotiate with hostage-takers. Why? Because if you do, the next time, they will do it again. Then this will become a normal and routine tactic between this President and, perhaps, future Presidents and the Congress that puts us in a position of being totally--where we have to choose between a government shutdown and the pet project of whatever and whoever that President is. That is a very dangerous path for us as a deliberative body, particularly as a coequal branch of the U.S. Government. I have talked in sort of global terms, but this is hurting Main Street America. We have heard today and we have heard on the news and we hear all the time about the effects on the furloughed Federal workers, which are very real. Today is the day that they don't get their check. Here is the problem: You can shut down and stop people's checks from coming, but you can't stop their bills from coming--their mortgage payment, their childcare payment, their automobile insurance, their homeowners insurance, their heating bill, their medication, their food. All of that has to be paid for. We can say: Well, we know they will make adjustments. That is a pretty hard path to put people on. That is a heartless path. These people are being used as pawns, as hostages, in a policy debate that has nothing to do with them. One of the easiest solutions would be for us to pass the six bills that the House has passed and that we passed, which funds 90 percent of the government. Why should the Department of Agriculture be caught in the crossfire of a debate over a wall in Texas? Why should park rangers be caught in that? Why should the Coast Guard be caught in that? This is having a real effect. Aside from those Federal workers, of whom there are about 1,000 in Maine on furlough right now, there are all the contractors that serve these government Agencies. We passed a bill last night that is going to ensure that the furloughed Federal employees will eventually be paid. That doesn't say anything about what they are going to have to do about penalties on late mortgages and those kinds of things that they can't pay now. But there is no help for the contractors that are going to lose total income during this period, and some of them will be threatened with going out of business. It is not just the 800,000 workers nationwide; it is thousands and thousands--tens of thousands--of people who depend on those Agencies for the work that they do, that they provide to the Federal Government. Let's talk about effects in hometown, Main Street America--in places all over Maine. In Portland, for example--I will chuckle because it sounds like ``Oh, this is no big deal''--one of our most growing industries in Maine is beer. We have over 1,000 people employed in the craft brewing industry. It has been a growth industry. Yet many of the brewers are being stymied because they can't ship their beer across State lines without approval of their labels from the Food and Drug Administration. That is held up. We have a merger or an expansion of a brewery in Southern Maine that is held up because they can't get their permission from the tax and trade bureau, from the ATF. These are the kinds of things--the services that should be provided--that aren't occurring. The Portland Press Herald reported on the breweries. The Portland Press Herald also reported on a developer who has a project to develop a real estate project in Maine and can't get an SBA loan. The SBA is shut down. That is going to hold up the project and could even cause the deal to fall through. The Bangor Daily News reports that a family is stuck in the middle; they have moved out of their house, anticipating a closing on a new house with an Agriculture Department loan guarantee that is now stuck, stranded. There is no action, nobody to answer the phone. They are living out of boxes. They are caught in the middle. These aren't Federal employees. These are good Maine people who relied upon the daily activities of the Federal Government occurring, which ought to be just simple common sense. Yet they are caught without a place to live. The Ellsworth American newspaper in Ellsworth, ME, an award-winning weekly newspaper, reports about a smokehouse that does smoked salmon. They were getting ready to reopen and hire people. They got people on staff, and, all of a sudden, they are dead-stopped because the Food and Drug Administration can't act to approve their licenses. You can say: OK, this little smokehouse can survive. The family will find a place to live, but if you multiply these examples by thousands and millions, you are talking about a really substantial effect on real people's lives, and there is no excuse for it. If this were over some major life-or-death policy issue, it would be somewhat understandable, but this is an eminently negotiable problem. It is not a crisis but a problem. I don't argue that it is not a problem and that the southern border doesn't need to be secure--again, that is where I started--but the question is, How do you do it right? How do you do it in a way that makes sense to the American taxpayer? There may be places where we need a wall, but the wall is $200 million a mile. There may be ways to do it for a fraction of that and provide equal security. There also are ways--for example, with better screening devices at the ports of entry--to deal with drugs. By the way, all of the data from the DEA, the current administration's Drug Enforcement Agency, is that the principal source of drugs coming across the southern border is at ports of entry, hidden in cars, hidden in trucks, not over, through, and around some place in the middle of the desert. That is where the drugs are coming through. That is where we ought to be concentrating. That is where we ought to be putting the technology--more dogs, more technology that can detect this type of thing, not building a wall that doesn't address the current problem. It is a solution, but it is going after the wrong problem. These are real-life impacts. It doesn't need to be this way. If this were a project being proposed by the military--a new BOQ at Fort Benning--it would come to this Congress. It would go to the authorization committee. The plans would go to the Appropriations Committee. We would review it, question the sponsors, determine if it were an appropriate expenditure of public funds, and either approve it or deny it or suggest some alteration. This wall has never gone through that process. We are basically abdicating to the administration a major decision, particularly about public expenditure, without meeting our responsibilities. One really simple way to get out of this would be for us to vote by two-thirds to pass the budget that we voted on 98 to 2 several weeks ago. It has $1.6 billion in it for border security, by the way. We could pass that and then sit down and talk with the administration about just what it is that they want and what is reasonable and how do we do it in a sensible way, and then we can get this thing done. What worries me is the posture that the Senate is in today is adding a provision that isn't in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the President can veto a bill. What we are saying here, now, through our inability or unwillingness to bring a bill to the floor is that the President can stop a bill simply by saying he doesn't like it. That is not what the Constitution says. It doesn't say that the President has the right to stop a bill he doesn't like. It says that he has to veto it. If he is going to veto it, fine. Then we can discuss it, debate it, and determine whether that is an appropriate veto. But by avoiding the responsibility of considering this legislation, we are essentially handing the President a massive power that I don't believe Presidents should have. This is an important issue. It is one that should be considered. It is one that should be debated. I would like to see the administration given the opportunity to make its case for the specifics, not the case generally about criminals or drugs--many of those claims have been refuted--but a specific case: Here is what we want to do; here is the effect of it; here is what it will cost; and here is why this is the best solution, as opposed to other solutions, like a fence or more Border Patrol agents or more technology or drones or sensors or whatever. We are not being given that opportunity. I am perfectly willing to debate that in good faith. I don't dismiss out of hand that a wall may make sense in certain areas, but I am not prepared to give this administration a blank check for some construction project when I don't know what it is they want to build. I am also very reluctant to concede anything in the context of a hostage situation where the U.S. Government is being held hostage because of a project that the President wants to build. If we do this, this will become the go-to tactic for this administration and probably for future administrations. We will have established a precedent that will haunt this institution for years to come. That is one of the reasons I think it is just imperative that we not cave in to this kind of attempted intimidation and express our good-faith willingness to look at, work on, and try to establish the right role for all parts of border security, not put all of our chips in one area that I believe will be both ineffective--not cost-effective--and damaging to our other efforts to actually secure the border and protect the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Would the Senator yield for just a short comment?

Mr. KING. I can't leave the floor without complimenting the Senator from Alaska for her usual thoughtful analysis and constructive approach to dealing with this issue. I am proud to serve with the Senator on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She has brought the same wisdom to the floor today that she does to the work of our committee. I simply wanted to acknowledge that and thank her for her comments.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING. Mr. President, before coming here, I used to teach a course at the college level on leadership. At the time, what we tried to do was establish, over the term of a semester, the qualities of good leadership. One of them was that in any complex job, any difficult job, any challenging job, nobody can do it alone. Nobody can do it alone. That description certainly applies to our job here in the U.S. Senate--complex, challenging, and difficult--and we don't do it alone. In fact, all of us have staff. We might let the public think we are doing all of these good works on their behalf, but the truth is, we are supported by wonderful people who work long hours, are creative and able, and really enable us to do the people's work to the extent that we are successful. That is what I want to talk a little bit about today. We don't talk about staff very much, but they are really essential to the operation of this institution, whether it is the people here on this floor who allow us to do our daily work on the floor, whether it is committee staff or, particularly, the personal staff of each Senator, both in our home State and here in Washington. I rise today in sadness because this week--or actually the first week in January--marks the end of a 25-year association for my chief of staff, Kay Rand, and me. Kay is a young woman from Northern Maine-- Aroostook County--in the most northern part of our State. She grew up on a potato farm, learned the value of hard work, went to a public college in the southern part of the State, and she and I have worked together off and on for 25 years. She was my chief of staff when I was Governor, and she has been my chief here in Washington. Anything I have achieved in my public life has been in many ways attributable to the work of Kay Rand. She meets all those criteria, and I was just sitting down and going through the list that we used to come up with at the end of each semester about the qualities of leadership: vision, teamwork, empathy, management, communication, optimism, decisiveness, doing homework, integrity, and character. Staff members are so important to our functioning here. They are in many ways our ambassadors. They do research. They give us background. I call them the ball bearings of the legislative process. They allow it to function. Kay is certainly one of those people. She is a superb manager. She manages not only the office here in Washington but the staff back in the State--manages personnel matters, encourages, supports, provides empathy and listening, and she does it like no one I have ever met. She also has a vision. She is not just a functionary or somebody who says ``Well, we are just going to do this, this, and this'' or ``We are going to hire that person.'' She has a vision of public service. She has a vision of what we can be and what we can do as public servants. And she never lets me forget that is my job to be a public servant, not simply an officeholder. She is a sounding board. She is the person I go to for advice, and she always has good advice. By the way, one of the things we used to talk about in my classes was if you have staff or people who work with you who only tell you what you want to hear, that is a disaster for your leadership. You have to cultivate and value and enable people who are willing to tell you when you are wrong. Indeed, Kay has never had any trouble doing that with me. In fact, when I was first elected Governor of Maine, we had the whole staff and cabinet, including me, do a personality test; you know, what are your strengths and weaknesses? I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Kay scored 0 on the respect for authority scale. I know it was a good scale because the chief of police and the adjutant general both scored 100. That is so important. You have to have somebody who will tell you when you are on the wrong track, when you are not following what you said you were going to do, when you are not really thinking about what the proper issues are or what the proportion is for those issues. That is why Kay has been so valuable to me over these 25 years. I could always count on her to tell me the truth. That is an essential function for someone in a position of that kind of responsibility with a public official. She also is a perennial optimist. She always--it is amazing, of all the years we have been together and the discussions we have had and all the issues we have talked about, I always felt better at the end of a conversation with Kay Rand than I did at the beginning, with one exception. The one exception was when I was in the car, driving from Bangor to Augusta when I was Governor, and she called me to tell me that there was a $75 million shortfall in the State budget because of the recession of 2001. That was not a happy conversation; there was no way to feel better. Other than that, Kay always had a way of making me feel better leaving a conversation than I did entering into it. She also listens, which is an essential part of leadership. By the way, when you talk about a chief of staff, you are talking about a leadership position. She listens, and listens empathetically, and everyone feels that they are valued. That is one of the major things she has brought to my office and to my life over the past 25 years. She listens, she shares, and she is empathetic. She has no respect for authority. She is honest, and she has made an enormous difference in my life and, I believe, in the life of the people of Maine. She has never lost her passion for public service, her deep affection for and understanding of the people of Maine, and the responsibility that those of us who have been entrusted with the public charge, the public trust--with the responsibility we have to remember who sent us here, to remember what the values are, what the issues are, what we can do to represent the people of Maine. Kay Rand has always reminded me of that because that is who she is. Facetiously, I have often said that my standard for leadership can be summarized in one sentence: Hire good people and take credit for what they do. I have been doing that for 25 years. Kay Rand is an extraordinarily able, devoted, and serious public servant. She is leaving--well-deserved--going back to Bar Harbor, ME. That is not a bad place to be going back to. I understand it fully. I just want this Senate to know and the people of Maine to know that an important public servant is leaving us but has left us and left me with an everlasting legacy of leadership, integrity, and character. She, in many ways, has taught me how to lead. I will miss her. I will miss her as a friend. I will miss her as a leader in my office. I will miss her as a person who has made such a difference in my life, in my family's lives, and in the lives of the people of Maine. Kay Rand is an extraordinary person. She has done an amazing job for the people of Maine, for the Senate, and for me. Personally, I will make it, but it is going to be difficult. It is going to be difficult. Kay Rand is a very special person, as all of us who know her can attest. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING. First, Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing forth this proposal that makes so much sense and that, as he points out, has bipartisan support. In fact, I don't know if I have ever heard the Senator make so much sense twice in the same time of being on the floor--about this bill and about Senator Alexander. He is right on both counts. We are certainly going to miss the Senator from Tennessee, but like the characters in ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,'' when Tom and Huck were in the attic of the church during their own funerals, he is still here. He is going to be here for another 2 years, and we are going to get a lot done. I had a very formative experience as the Governor of Maine. Every year, we used to go to New York to talk to the rating agencies about our bond issues and the bond rating. Of course, the desire of any Governor of any State is to have a good bond rating so that you will pay less interest. At one point, I was making a presentation to the bond council and the rating agencies in New York, and I said: We have low debt, and we don't take on much in bonds, and we pay them off in 10 years. We are really keeping the bond indebtedness down. Then one of these green eyeshade guys stopped me. He said: Governor, when you are not fixing things, it is debt just as if it is on your balance sheet. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a debt that is going to have to be fixed sooner or later, and we will have to come up with a method of funding it that will be very creative and that won't take funds for another purpose. It will be symmetrical because it will take funds from the utilization of Federal lands to provide the maintenance and support of other Federal lands for the National Park System. The Senator from Ohio mentioned that 330 million people visited our national parks last year. That happens to be the entire population of the United States. We have a wonderful park in Maine--Acadia. We had 3.5 million people last year at that park. The problem is, I have seen leaky roofs and roads that need repair, and if we don't do that, we will not be serving the public, and we will not be serving the next generation of Americans that wants to enjoy the parks. Now we will have an opportunity to do so. It is supported on a bipartisan basis in this body, in the other body, and by the administration. This is something we ought to be able to do, and it is a responsibility we have. I would say maintaining what we have is one of our most fundamental responsibilities, and this is a bill that will enable us to do that in a way that is responsible fiscally. I emphasize that if we don't do this, we will be adding to the national debt. We are adding to the national debt, and that is going to have to be paid. Construction costs always go up. So, in effect, it is going to have to be paid with interest. Now is the time to take this step in order to maintain the national parks in the condition that our American public deserves. They expect us to meet this responsibility. So I want to compliment and thank the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Tennessee, as well as our colleague Mark Warner from Virginia, for bringing this bill forward. We have now added cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and we are ready to make this happen. There is no reason that we can't move forward, hopefully in this Congress, if not very early in the next Congress. This is one of those things that is not all that glamorous, repairing roofs and doing trail maintenance at national parks, but it will mean something to the people who come. Someday, years from now, a family will walk through Acadia National Park or Yosemite or the Great Smokies or the great parks in Ohio, and they won't know who fixed that trail. They won't know who repaired that visitors' center. They will just know that they have had one of the most memorable experiences of their life, and somebody helped that to take place. I just hope that that somebody is us because we are able to do it. We have the means. We have the vehicle. Now is the time to move this bill, to do something to pay a debt that we all have to the American people. I yield to my esteemed colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. KING. My only final comment is to suggest a friendly amendment as to how to allocate these funds. I suggest alphabetically, and the fact that Acadia is in Maine is a mere coincidence. Seriously, I think my two colleagues have made the case. Hopefully, we are going to be able to move this again through the committee. As Senator Alexander reported, it has already been considered and reported favorably by the committee and, hopefully, it will be one of the first items of business in the new year. As Senator Portman has said, this is a win. It is a win for the American people, and I think it will be reassuring that we can, in fact, find ways to work together on important national problems. Senator Alexander listed the things that have been done. The only one he didn't mention was the farm bill that passed last week, I think 87 to 13--heavily negotiated, entirely bipartisan, makes a real difference for rural America. Here is a chance to make a difference for all of those who love and treasure our national parks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make it happen.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Harry Hafford of Masardis, ME, as he retires his gavel as chair at the Northern Maine Veterans Cemetery. Harry is an extraordinary man, a passionate community leader, an honorable veteran, and a friend to me and my staff. Harry is special in so many ways and has quietly led countless efforts to improve the lives of others. Aroostook County and the entire State of Maine is a better place because of folks like Harry Hafford. Harry returned to his home town of Masardis, ME, to spend his retirement years quietly after a long career at General Motors, where he also served as a strong and steadfast union steward. This next chapter of Harry's life seemed ideal for some much deserved rest and relaxation, but that isn't who Harry is; instead he became an active member of his community, continuing to serve our State and its people. Harry went back to work serving others. Harry shared his lifelong love of the beautiful natural resources in Maine by advocating for more access to waterways and working with State and local officials to provide additional boat landings in Ashland, Masardis, and Oxbow in northern Aroostook County, including one that is named for him, so that the public would have more access to the beautiful Aroostook River and its native brook trout fisheries. He was a loyal member of the Ashland Rotary Club and earned a Paul Harris Fellow for his service above self. He is an active member of the Caribou American Legion, a moderator for town meetings, a lifetime member of AMVets, Ashland and Presque Isle Fish and Game Clubs, and Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. Harry's honorable service in the U.S. Army is something I am very appreciative of, but in addition, what is truly inspirational is the dedication Harry has shown to veterans for all of his adult life, especially in retirement. He was instrumental in creating and sustaining a veteran's surplus clothing organization to ensure that the needs of his fellow veterans were met. Perhaps his most notable and impressive work was as a founding member of the Northern Maine Veterans Cemetery Corporation, which developed the Maine Veterans Cemetery- Caribou. I was proud to be Governor of Maine when this effort began and was pleased to sign the document creating the committee to determine the cemetery's viability. Had I known Harry then as well as I do now, I could have just looked for his name on the roster of volunteers and been immediately assured of 100 percent success. Harry has chaired that committee since its inception in 2003 and has decided to retire his gavel at the end of 2018. People like Harry are a rare breed. They give for the right reasons and ask nothing in return. The entire State of Maine has benefited from Harry's hard work for many years, and while we will miss him, we hope that he can finally enjoy retirement the way it should be.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, ME, which is celebrating its 90th year of serving the public. The Abbe Museum was founded by Dr. Robert Abbe, a prominent New York physician, known for pioneering the use of radiation therapy, who spent his summers in Bar Harbor. Dr. Abbe assembled a collection of early Native American artifacts from the Frenchman Bay area and persuaded others with similar collections to join with him to establish a museum to protect and display these important objects for public education and enjoyment. The Abbe Museum was founded in 1926 and opened to the public on August 14, 1928. It was first opened as a private museum at Sieur de Monts Spring in Lafayette National Park, later renamed Acadia National Park. That same year, the Abbe became the first institution in Maine to also sponsor archaeological research. Today, the museum continues to conduct excavations throughout the State and is now the main repository for archaeological collections from the midcoast region. While the initial focus was archaeology, the Abbe soon expanded to include ethnographic materials from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Three years after opening, Mary Cabot Wheelwright donated an important collection of Native American baskets and other objects. Since then, other major basket collections have been given to the museum, and it is now home to the largest and best documented collection of Maine Indian basketry. The Abbe also houses collections that document 12,000 years of Native American culture and history in the State, and its conservation program has been nationally recognized as a model for other museums to follow. Education and local involvement is also an important part of the work at the Abbe. The Abbe has developed a number of publications to share its knowledge with a larger audience. They offer many resources for local students and educators, including a summer camp for children ages 7-12, opportunities for local school groups to visit the museum, and an educator hub to help teachers bring Wabanaki history and culture into their classrooms. Recently, Native Americans have become increasingly involved in all aspects of the museum, including as members of the board of trustees. In 2013, the Abbe was honored as the first Smithsonian Affiliate in the State of Maine. Being a part of this prestigious network, the Abbe Museum now works closely with the Smithsonian Institution to serve the public through custom developed education programs, traveling exhibitions, and collaborative research. This partnership has allowed the Abbe to take advantage of the resources of the Smithsonian Institution and bring collections that have special significance to Maine where they can be accessed by the Wabanaki communities. I am proud to recognize the Abbe Museum for their work over the last 90 years. They have played an important role in educating the people of Maine about the Wabanaki history of our land and expanding our knowledge through research and exploration. I want to thank all those who have been involved with the Abbe Museum over the last 90 years, and I look forward to their continued success for many years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first I want to congratulate and thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his moving and eloquent remarks--so moving and eloquent, in fact, that I contemplated foregoing my own. The Senator expressed the feelings of many of us, particularly in his closing, which was very powerful, and, I think, very well encapsulated the one possible positive result from this sorry process. I stated my opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court before Dr. Ford's allegations became public--before I had ever heard about them, before anyone had ever heard about them, as far as I know, except some members of the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I don't believe you have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court-- first, because of his judicial philosophy. If you will pardon me, I want to digress for a moment into constitutional history--preconstitutional history, if you will. There is a basic paradox of government. We give power to something called the government in order to protect our security, to protect us as individuals, to protect our liberty. The paradox is that we then have to worry about the government to which we have given the power abusing us. James Madison captured this in the 51st Federalist: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men-- And, of course, today Madison would say men and women over men and women-- the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself. The Romans put it this way: ``Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.'' Who will guard the guardians? The other philosopher who talked about this was the English philosopher Lord Acton: ``All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' The American Constitution, in my view, is the most sublime answer to this ancient question of any instrument of government ever formed by people on this Earth. It is based upon a profound understanding of human nature: If you give people power, there is the potential for it to be abused--not the potential, the likelihood that it will be abused. So the Constitution is an elaborate scheme for preventing that abuse. The first line of defense is the structure of the government itself. What Madison was talking about was obliging the government to control itself--this herky-jerky, complicated, Rube Goldberg device involving two Houses, checks and balances, the President, the veto, submitting treaties, two-thirds votes, advise and consent, and then the whole level of the State government and local government, the division of responsibilities between the governments, and enumerated powers. The Framers wanted it to be difficult for majorities to ride roughshod over minorities. They wanted it to be difficult to legislate, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It is a very difficult piece of machinery to bring into action, but even after the Framers had designed this elaborate structure specifically in the name of protecting the rights of the people, they weren't satisfied. They wanted to take another step, because going back to our other fundamental document, the Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--and that word ``inalienable'' isn't defined much. Not much attention is paid to it. ``Inalienable'' means neither can you give it away nor can it be taken from you. To alienate is to give away or have it taken from you. That is what ``inalienable rights'' mean. Going back to when they said we have this elaborate structure that will be very complicated to operate, what if the majority makes this structure work in such a way that is amicable to the fundamental rights of people? The first thing Congress did was to adopt the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the second shield for us as individuals. I always thought of it as a force field around individuals that protects the basic rights, even if the government follows all of the procedures. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, establishing religion, or controlling the free exercise thereof. Search and seizure must be reasonable. You don't have to give testimony against yourself. All of these rights in the Bill of Rights are designed to protect us as individuals from the government. The framers then had an interesting problem when they got to the Bill of Rights, and they listed the rights. Somebody--and I can't remember who it was right now--came up with the problem that if you list the rights, then people will later say: Well those rights are listed. Therefore, there aren't any other rights that can be protected. So they added the Ninth Amendment, which is one of the most unappreciated and undiscussed amendments to the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment says: ``The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' In other words, there are rights that exist--they recognize that--that aren't the ones listed that we all think of in the First through the Fifth Amendment--rights such as freedom of speech, the press, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to bear arms. They were afraid they would appear too exclusive. So they passed as part of the Bill the Rights the Ninth Amendment. What does this have to do with Judge Kavanaugh? To understand Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence, what kind of judge he will be--by the way, that is what we are all doing here. This is an exercise in forecasting the future. What will this person decide? What kind of judge will they be? That involves things like demeanor and temperament, but it also involves judicial philosophy. To understand the judicial philosophy of Judge Kavanaugh, you have to understand the judicial philosophy of Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Kavanaugh has characterized Justice Rehnquist as his judicial hero. He gave a speech about him in 2017. He says that the article in the Texas Law Review in 1976 written by Justice Rehnquist is one of the most important legal documents ever written. What do Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kavanaugh have in common? They have a very expansive view of what States can do to limit your rights and a narrow view of what the Federal Government can do to protect your health, welfare, the environment--you name it. Justice Rehnquist voted against Roe v. Wade. Justice Rehnquist criticized Griswold v. Connecticut. He voted against Roe v. Wade because he said the right of a woman to control her own reproductive health is not enumerated in the Constitution. Obviously, it is not listed in the first two or three Amendments, but the Court found that it was a basic human right of women, and that is the basis of Roe v. Wade. The problem with Justice Rehnquist's approach and Judge Kavanaugh's approach to unenumerated rights is that they say unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the Nation's history and tradition. That is called originalism, or it is a piece of originalism. In other words, you can't assert a right unless you can show that the Framers thought about it when they passed the amendments, or that it was somehow rooted in the tradition. If abortion was legal across the country in 1897 or 1867 or 1787, then you couldn't do it. The Court would be making law. The problem is that this approach freezes rights in history, and it allows no room for the evolution of ethics and morality. A good example is Loving v. Virginia, which is the case that overturned misogynation laws that made it illegal in many States in the country, including Virginia, at the time--and this was in the 1960s--for people of different races to marry one another. It is hard to argue using the Kavanaugh philosophy that that is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority because certainly, at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights and the passage of the 14th Amendment, anti-misogynation laws were all over the place. So Rehnquist and Kavanaugh would say you can't do that. This isn't judicial lawmaking. This is judicial protection of individuals' rights from State incursion. In Griswold v. Connecticut, in many ways, Griswold was the case that said the State of Connecticut could not constitutionally prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. It has been widely criticized in many ways. The Griswold case, I believe, was the founding document of the Federalist Society. It was in reaction to Griswold and the following cases that the Federalist Society arose in the 1980s. So this philosophy is that the States have wide latitude to restrict these rights--enumerated or not. That is why I believe there is--I don't know--a 50-50 chance, 60-40, or 70-30 that a Justice Kavanaugh would repeal Roe v. Wade. I give it 99 percent that he will gut Roe v. Wade. There are something like 15 cases headed for the Supreme Court right now from various States around the country where the right of a woman to control her reproductive future is under assault. The decisions may not be an outright repeal, but by piecemeal, chipping away at that right, making it harder and harder to exercise Roe v. Wade, it will be a hollow shell. Judge Kavanaugh said in his hearing: I am not going to make these value judgments, ideological judgments. I am going to call balls and strikes like an umpire. I have a new principle for judging Supreme Court nominees: Anybody who says all they are going to do is call balls and strikes is an automatic no because they are conning us. Deciding whether a particular rule in a State that restricts the ability of a woman to control her reproductive future is unduly burdensome is not a mechanical ball and strike. It is a value-laden judgment call. Don't tell me there is some easy ball-and-strike thing here. You are making judgment calls based upon values. I don't have any doubt that a Justice Kavanaugh is going to vote to restrict, to control, to limit, and ultimately, to gut Roe v. Wade. Indeed, that is what the President said he was going to do--to appoint a judge who was going to take that step. That is why he is so widely supported in some parts of the country. By the way, he said Roe v. Wade is a precedent. That is like saying this is a chair. That is a statement of fact. That is not a value. That is not a philosophy. That is just a statement of fact. Then he says: Well, we have Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So we have a precedent on a precedent. That is like saying this is a chair and this is a desk. That is a statement of fact. That is not anything that gives you any indication of what he says he is going to do. By the way, Justice Gorsuch sat in my office and talked to me about precedent and how committed he was to precedent. He had written a whole book about precedent. I don't think he was on the Court even a year, and he voted in the Janus case to absolutely trample 40 years of precedent in a very important area of American law. So when somebody tells me it is a precedent or it is settled law, that doesn't convince me of very much. That is not a predictor of what they will do. He has an expansive view of the State power to restrict individual rights. He has a narrow view of the national legislature's ability to protect individuals, whether it is healthcare, and I will give you 75 percent that he is going to start voting to undercut and destroy the Affordable Care Act. In 16 out of 18 cases on the environment that came before his court, the DC Court of Appeals, he voted with the polluters. He narrowed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. In one case particularly relevant to my State, he decided against the right of the EPA to tell upwind States they had to control their pollution in order to benefit downwind States. Maine is in the tailpipe of the Northeast. All the air moves from west to east and ends up in Maine. We could shut off every automobile and every factory in Maine and still have air pollution problems. Telling the EPA they can't regulate air that moves across State lines is a direct shot at the State of Maine. As for campaign finance reform, I predict he will join with the 5-to- 4 majority to continue the deregulation of campaign finance, one of the most serious issues facing this country. He even said that net neutrality was unconstitutional because of the right of large internet service providers to have free speech. That is a case that would deny free speech and freedom of activity to millions of internet users across the country. You don't have to believe Dr. Ford to oppose and believe that Brett Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. You also don't have to believe Dr. Ford to believe that Brett Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court because of his views on Presidential power, but first let's establish what he said. In the Minnesota Law Review, he said we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. He has an elaborate argument about that involving impeachment and that the Congress should pass a statute and a whole lot of other things. We can argue about that. They are legitimate disputes about the meaning of article III and how it relates to impeachment and how it relates to the subject of the President being subject to criminal prosecutions. I understand that. I understand we can have those arguments, but once he stated that position, he should have announced that he would recuse himself from any case involving the President who appointed him--the first rule of the judicial canons. Canon No. 2 is that a judge shall avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, and 2a, from the Code of Judicial Responsibility says that a ``judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. Let me read that again: ``A judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.'' The reason for that is obvious. The Judiciary doesn't have the power of the purse. It doesn't have an army. It has to rest on public confidence. He already violated that principle in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee last week. He violated that principle. Imagine the reaction of the public if a newly minted Justice Kavanaugh, within the next couple of years, votes in favor and, indeed, can provide the deciding vote, the swing vote, on a case involving the President who appointed him. I am not saying he can't take this position ever in his judicial career, but to have not recused himself when he had an opportunity to do so, to announce he would do so, to me, is disqualifying. It is obvious and mandatory that he should not take a position on a case coming before the Court involving the President who appointed him. No. 3, we don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to a lifetime job because we have been denied the ability to learn about his record. Imagine, Mr. President, you are doing a job interview for a very important job in your company, and a guy comes in and says: I would like this job, and I am going to show you 10 percent of my work product. The 10 percent that I am going to give you is going to be picked out by an old buddy of mine whom I used to work for. In fact, he used to work for me. Oh, and by the way, once you hire me, you can never fire me; I am there for life. Nobody would take that deal. Any employer in America would laugh at that job applicant. Yet that is exactly what we are doing here this week. We have seen 10 percent of his record in the White House and have been given no reason whatsoever why we can't see it all. People talk about, oh, we have seen 100,000 pages or 200,000 pages. That is not the point. He has a huge record, so the number of pages isn't the issue; it is how much of it we have seen as a percentage, and we have seen 10 percent of it. If I were on the side of this case preparing to vote for this gentleman, I would be terrified about what is going to come out because it is all going to come out. The records of the Bush administration are going to be available in 2020 under the Presidential Records Act--12 years from the end of the administration. In 2020, all of these records will come out. In fact, I think they are going to start coming out in the next couple of weeks from the National Archives. I don't know what is in those records. There may be nothing. The fact that they are being withheld raises my main suspicions. Are they worried that something is in there that will derail this nomination, or do they know it? Asking us to vote on this lifetime appointment, with no do-overs, no amendments, no chances, no repeals, when we haven't seen the entire record, is beyond me. There is no justification for it. Even if I were inclined to vote yes, I would say: Wait a minute. You can't ask me to vote for this until I see all his records. We haven't done it. It is ridiculous. There is no other word for it. No. 4, we don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court because he has demonstrated he lacks the temperament and demeanor to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. First, I think it is only fair to state the standard. What should be the standard for temperament and demeanor for a judge? Here is the standard, as I have seen it: To be a good judge and a good umpire, it's important to have the proper demeanor. Really important, I think. To walk in the others' shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges. To understand them. To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk. This isn't me; this is the standard published to show and help display that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately, based on the law and not based on your emotions. Who established that standard? Who wrote it? Brett Kavanaugh. Those are his words from a speech several years ago at Catholic University. Proper demeanor. Calm amidst the storm. On the bench, don't be a jerk. Help display that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. I don't see how anybody, with a straight face, can argue that Brett Kavanaugh met that standard last Thursday afternoon. I had an interesting experience that day. I was in a hearing in the afternoon while he was speaking, and there was a television screen in the hearing room, but the sound was off because we were doing other committee work. Every now and then, I could look at the screen, and I could see him. I turned to the person sitting behind me and said: He is coming unhinged. What is going on? What is he saying? He is shouting. You could see it. You could see his face contorted. Then, of course, I saw what he was saying. No one could argue that he demonstrated judicial demeanor in that hearing. In fact, something like 3,000 law professors, including 40 from Yale, have come out and said that based on that performance, he should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens, a retired Justice, in an extraordinary moment, said: This man should not be confirmed for the Supreme Court. If you were from Mars, Mr. President, or from South Dakota and you knew nothing about the history of this matter, you knew nothing about the documents, the opinions, the philosophy, none of those things, and all you saw was that hearing that afternoon, you would say: This guy has no business anywhere near a courtroom. His defense is, I was angry. I was being charged with something. My family is being threatened, and I am being threatened. I understand that. All of us have thought about how we would feel if some unjust or untrue charge were made against us, whatever the nature, and a particularly heinous charge was made against him. I understand that he was passionate. But here is what really bothers me: What he said--the conspiracy, the direct insults to the Democratic Senators, the idea that he was a victim of a smear campaign--he had written down. That wasn't a spontaneous outburst--that he was so mad and caught up in the moment and said something he regretted--it was in written testimony. He had written it down, his answers to the questions. Back to canon No. 2, avoid anything that would undermine confidence in the judiciary. He actually said, looking at the Democrats, ``What goes around comes around.'' Everybody knows that is a threat. He was looking at Richard Blumenthal, who is the plaintiff in a case called Blumenthal v. Trump, which is in the Federal district court in Washington and will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court based on the emoluments clause. How can Richard Blumenthal possibly believe he would get a fair and impartial hearing from somebody who said: ``What goes around comes around''? That phrase itself should be disqualifying. Anybody who talks about a political party or a group of people or millions of people or anybody else and says ``What goes around comes around''--that is disqualifying. I think that based upon judicial philosophy, his failure to recuse himself from issues involving the President who appointed him--his refusal to say he will recuse himself in issues involving the President who appointed him, the incredible lack of documentation based upon his record, and his demeanor last week disqualify him. No, you don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude, as I have, that Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. Before I close, I should add one note: I do believe Dr. Ford. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Biddeford Regional Center of Technology, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. BRCOT offers unique hands-on programs and follows rigid national standards to help prepare its students for academic success and future careers. BRCOT offers a variety of programs to local high school students and integrates academic study with firsthand career and technical education. Students work closely with instructors who stress ``learning by doing.'' BRCOT began in 1967 when the Biddeford School Board and the Biddeford City Council voted to build an addition on to the high school specifically dedicated to technical training. This addition opened for the 1968 school year, and though, over the past 50 years focus on career and technical training ebbed and flowed, today there is a resurgence of interest and support for students to develop the skills and practical knowledge gained through career and technical education. BRCOT is one of 27 career and technical schools in Maine and serves students from Biddeford, Dayton, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and surrounding communities. Students can focus on 16 different career pathways, including auto technology, legal studies, early childhood education, machine tool technology, and welding and metal fabrication. BRCOT ensures that students are fully prepared to work in their chosen field by collaborating with the local business community to develop updated and current programs based on industry standards. All coursework is approved by the State of Maine and includes a heavy emphasis on safety and ``habits of work,'' with BRCOT providing job shadow and internship opportunities that give students real world experience. BRCOT also boasts an active student leadership council, representing students from each program. The leadership council is involved in community projects, fundraising, advising fellow students on BRCOT policies, and special events, such as the annual awards banquet. The 2018 school year has a full complement of 345 students in 16 programs. BRCOT boasts a 90 percent graduating rate, with 40 percents of those students earning technical credentials, making them ready to transition to full-time careers. Nearly two-thirds of graduates choose to attend postsecondary schools, including Maine Maritime Academy, Maine College of Art, the University of Maine, as well as choosing to serve in the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps. I am proud to recognize the work of the Biddeford Regional Center of Technology. For 50 years, they have served thousands of students in the Biddeford area, increasing their skills and preparing them to continue their education or enter the workforce. I want to thank all of those involved in the work of BRCOT, from the students to the teachers and faculty, and I look forward to seeing their continued success for many more years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Maine Development Foundation, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. MDF is a nonpartisan membership organization that advances sustainable, long-term economic growth for the State of Maine. MDF works to empower leaders, strengthen communities, and shape public policy through trusted economic research. MDF was created by State statute in 1978 and now operates statewide across all economic sectors. MDF's 250 members represent private companies, educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. The MDF board of directors is made up of no less than 15 members who are elected each year. MDF operates a number of programs, aimed at increasing economic opportunities in Maine, including Leadership Maine, FOR/MAINE, Maine Downtown Center, the Maine Economic Growth Council, the Policy Leaders Academy, and more. Leadership Maine, a cornerstone program of MDF, is a yearlong experience that prepares leaders across the State to help shape Maine's changing economy. This program has been operating for 25 years and now boasts over 1,000 alumni. These leaders are each creating an economy driven by educated, innovative, and engaged individuals. Participants learn firsthand about important issues facing the State through an intensive program that gives exclusive access to key community and business leaders. Each class is comprised of 35-45 leaders from across the State, from a cross section of the economy. All participants share a commitment to make Maine a better place to live and to engage in public service in new ways. MDF also provides support and staffing for the Maine Economic Growth Council, a legislatively chartered group that annually prepares the Measures of Growth report. This snapshot of the Maine economy over a range of sectors is instructive to policymakers finding the intersection of economy, community, and environment in securing a high quality of life for Mainers. MDF played a critical role in the work and success to date of the Economic Development Assessment Team, EDAT, a Federal effort funded by the Economic Development Administration to support job growth and economic development in Maine's rural communities. Under MDF's guidance, the EDAT helped fund and establish the Forest Opportunity Roadmap Maine Initiative, a unique collaboration between industry, communities, government, education, and nonprofit organizations, working together to strengthen Maine's forest economy. With MDF's leadership, FOR/Maine developed a comprehensive action plan and strategy to support a thriving, innovative, and diverse industry that provides good jobs in vibrant rural communities for generations to come. I am proud to recognize the great work of Maine Development Foundation over the last 40 years, and I look forward to what the future holds. I want to thank them for all their work to improve their community and the State of Maine--your work makes Maine such a special place to call home.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Sunrise County Economic Council of Washington County as they celebrate their 25th anniversary. Founded using funds left over from the Quoddy Job Opportunity Zone, an initiative from then-Governor John McKernan, SCEC has used a grassroots approach to economic development in Washington County. They have worked tirelessly across political, economic, and municipal boundaries to promote development in one of the least populated counties in the State. SCEC was founded in 1993 by a group of businesses and community leaders to promote economic and community development. SCEC brings together community-focused businesses, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, and citizens to all work together to create jobs and promote prosperity in Washington County. During my time as Governor, we created the Investing in Washington County initiative, which was a partnership between SCEC and State agencies working through the cabinet subcommittee on economic development. Since then, SCEC has been dedicated to job creation and development and continues to play a vital role in Maine's economic prosperity. Today SCEC has several programs and initiatives to achieve their goals to improve their community and promote development. One of these programs is Family Futures Downeast. This program aims to break the cycle of poverty by providing children with a safe, secure environment, high-quality education, and supporting parents through postsecondary education and career development. Parents enroll at the University of Maine Machias or Washington County Community College and their children are enrolled in early-education programs right on campus. Families receive support from a variety of partners, including college preparatory and tutoring services, workforce training, career counseling, and financial support. This program is life-changing for parents and children. Thanks to the program, children are thriving in high-quality childcare, parents can pursue opportunities without worrying about their children's care, and parents are on path to long- term, higher-paying jobs right in Washington County. Another SCEC program is the Washington County Leadership Institute. Founded in 1997, the institute provides Washington County citizens with the skills, insight, and professional network to be more effective leaders in their communities. Participants come from all sectors, including small business, finance, education, tourism, healthcare, nonprofit, and municipal government. Institute graduates have gone on to serve on planning boards, school boards, filled a variety of volunteer positions, and served in the legislature. I am honored to join all of the communities of Washington County and the entire State of Maine in congratulating Sunrise County Economic Council for 25 years of incredible work. I look forward to their continued growth and service to the State, and I thank them for their dedication to making Maine such a special place to call home.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, the discussion today is about the opioid crisis, one of the most serious public health crises I have seen in my adult life, certainly in the State of Maine. It is an enormous problem across the country, particularly in rural areas. In my State, we are losing more than one person a day to an overdose death. That is an epidemic by anybody's definition. There are few rays of hope in this rather bleak picture. The numbers continue to get worse. More and more families are being devastated by this crisis, and there aren't many answers being provided. There is, however, one ray of hope this bill we are going to be discussing and voting on this afternoon does provide, and that is, treatment works; recovery is possible. I was at a rally in Portland, ME, just a week ago, with people of all ages from all over the State who were there to publicly say: I am in recovery. It works. Treatment saved my life. I think that is what is so important about continuing the work we have done in this body. The problem is, treatment, particularly in rural areas, is short on infrastructure. It is short on people who can deliver the treatment. We can fund programs and talk about them here, but if you are talking about a rural county--about Milo, ME, in Piscataquis County, you are not talking about a tremendous amount of available infrastructure, but there is available an army of people who can contribute to the solution of this problem. The people I am talking about are nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners are, in many ways, among the unsung heroes in the healthcare discussion--particularly, again, in rural areas where there aren't a lot of physicians. Nurse practitioners were enabled in the CARA bill to provide medicine-assisted treatment, but the problem is, that authority expires in 2021. Therefore, we need to fix that. It is working. It is an important part of our ability to deliver these lifesaving services. In Maine, we have nurse practitioners who are ready, willing, and more than able, and they have proven that, to deliver these lifesaving services--1,700 of them in the State of Maine. Unfortunately, the bill we are going to be voting on this afternoon does not have this extension in it. I am here this afternoon to urge those who are going to be supporting the bill, and then working on it in conference with the other body, to see that this small change-- giving the authority for nurse practitioners to deliver medically assisted treatment to those people suffering and trapped in the throes of addiction--allowing those nurse practitioners to have that authority, to not have it expire in 2021 and create the anxiety, both in the patient community and in the medical community, that termination will create. Let's, for once, do something before it is a deadline. Let's do it now. I believe we can do it as part of this discussion, as part of the final resolution of the bill that is going to be before us this afternoon, which I entirely support. I think this is an important addition that will strengthen it, and it will particularly strengthen the ability to deliver this care, this treatment that is so important to so many people and families and communities, particularly in the smaller towns of rural areas of America and in my State of Maine. So I rise to support the bill but also to suggest this small change that I think will dramatically increase the effectiveness of the treatment the bill enables and will allow it to be delivered in an equitable and direct and important way to people all across the country--no matter where they live, no matter what the status of their health infrastructure is--because, as I say, nurse practitioners are an army of people who are ready, willing, and able to deliver this service. I hope we can make this one modification to this bill that will allow that service to be provided not only between now and 2021 but on into the indefinite future when, hopefully, we can rid the country of the scourge of this terrible opioid and drug addiction. I believe this is something we can and should do. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Portland Housing Authority, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Portland Housing Authority and its affiliates provide critical long- term affordable rental housing and rental assistance to more than 3,000 low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals in the Portland area. They house over 6,500 residents, nearly 10 percent of the city's population. Portland Housing Authority was established in 1943 through State legislation and is authorized by resolution of the Portland City Council. They receive most of their funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Their mission is to provide and expand affordable housing opportunities and services that ``improve quality of life, build community, enhance safety, and promote personal success for the people [they] serve and the neighborhoods in which they reside.'' Certainly, over the last 75 years, Portland Housing Authority has made great strides in helping those in the greater Portland area find affordable housing and strengthening the community for everyone. One example of the strengthened community can be seen in the community groups created within the housing units. The Portland Housing Authority received one of the first grants from Women's United, to help fund community dinners where single mothers could learn about relevant topics and get to know each other. Many of these single mothers used these dinners to make friends, discuss their goals, and encourage and motivate each other. They have created their own network, helping each other out when needed. Another of these community groups is the Pihcintu chorus. This all- girls chorus is made up almost entirely of refugee immigrants who live in Portland Housing Authority units and who have represented Maine on some of the biggest stages, including NBC's Today Show and the Kennedy Center here in Washington DC. This group, whose name in Passamaquoddy means ``when she sings, her voice carries far,'' is a unique way for girls who are new to Maine to gather from their diverse background to join as one voice. This group was started in 2005, and since then, more than 200 girls have lent their voices to the chorus. For many, the group offers a bit of serenity, companionship with other girls who have gone through similar journeys, and a reminder of the home they left behind. The chorus is also a symbol of their new home in the State of Maine. Over the last 75 years, Portland Housing Authority has not only helped Portland residents find affordable housing, but also has helped them thrive in their community. I want to recognize all the work they have done for the greater Portland area and the State of Maine over the last 75 years, and I look forward to seeing their continued success for many years to come.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 150th anniversary of Franklin Savings Bank, one of the oldest and most successful business in Franklin County and the only locally owned bank in Franklin County. Today the bank has eight locations across western and central Maine, including a commercial lending center in Ellsworth. Founded on February 24, 1868, when Governor Joshua Chamberlain signed a bill into law incorporating the bank, the bank's early mission was ``to help the people of Franklin County lay by something each year and deposit in some good bank where it will be safe and earn a little something.'' At the beginning, President Joseph Fairbanks said that they preferred the small accounts of children, which would be added to little by little over time, over the large account of a rich man. Times have changed since then, with the bank now serving four Maine counties with eight locations, but their dedication to customer service has not waivered. Over the past 150 years, Franklin Savings Bank has shifted from focusing on individual savings accounts to now also offering home mortgage lending and commercial lending. Online banking services were added to Franklin Savings Bank in 2001 and have only increased, today offering customers the ability to deposit, complete transactions, and pay bills all from the convenience of their cellphone. Franklin Savings Bank is not only committed to its customers, but also to its neighbors in the communities it serves. In 2000, the board of directors established the Franklin Savings Bank Community Development Foundation. This is a not-for-profit foundation that supports the community, economic, and educational needs within areas served by the bank. Over the first 15 years, the foundation has contributed $2 million to local economic development, education, and various charities. Amidst the mortgage crisis of 2008, Franklin Savings Bank continued to be a safe and trusted place for the people of Maine to keep their money. Franklin Savings Bank was named the Strongest Bank in Maine for 19 years and, during the mortgage crisis, the strongest bank in New England. Today Franklin Savings Bank is consistently ranked as one of the safest banks in the country. Their mission is to continue to be a financially strong and independent community bank, and I look forward to seeing their continued growth and impact on the State of Maine. I join with their customers in congratulating Franklin Savings Bank on 150 years of leadership in western Maine.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, my colleagues have spoken eloquently about the weaknesses of the supposed new Clean Power Plan, which is anything but. I wish to speak a minute about why this is such a detrimental idea for the country but also for my State. Let's put it in very stark terms. Even by the terms of the new plan that has been announced, the original Clean Power Plan would have reduced carbon emissions by 30 percent, CO2 by 30 percent, and the new plan by about 1 percent. That may be being generous. We have clean air and water in Maine, but pollution knows no boundaries. That is one of the problems with this plan. It essentially leaves up to each State how to regulate the plants within its borders. That is a good idea, except the pollution from these plants does not stay within those borders. This is a representation of the way air moves in the Northeast part of the United States. What you can see is, the arrows are coming up over Massachusetts, the Gulf of Maine, and then into Maine, west through Vermont, New Hampshire into Maine, through Quebec, and back into Maine. We are literally the end of the country's tailpipe. Therefore, anything that weakens pollution controls to our west or south or, indeed, north is a direct harm to my people. That is why I think this plan is so ill-conceived and will not achieve meaningful results. By its own terms, we will see more deaths as a result of this plan. In the data that has been submitted with the plan, they admit deaths will increase. In my State of Maine, we already have higher than average asthma rates. This will only exacerbate that. What this plan is doing, essentially, is extending the life of dirty polluting plants and shortening the life of real people. I don't think that is the direction we should be moving in. I think this body should correct that, and I believe this is important to the country, to the region, and particularly to the State I represent. The word ``clean'' should not be in this plan because that is not what it does. A Clean Power Plan should do what it says it is. It should improve the environment. It should improve the air for the people of this country, not make them worse, which is what this plan would do. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today we remember the life of Christopher ``Chris'' Cousins, who passed away suddenly last week at the age of 42. Chris was a political reporter for the Bangor Daily News and recently named by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting as one of the most respected journalists in Maine. Chris was well-liked by all who met him, and he leaves behind his wife, Jen; two sons, Caleb and Lucas; his mother; sister Jen Cousins; and many other family members and friends. He will be greatly missed by his colleagues, his readers, his friends, and all who knew him and his work. Chris was a consummate professional who embodied the best ideals of journalism. He was devoted to the truth, tenaciously pursued the stories most important to the people of Maine, and had a passion for the communities he served. Chris's death leaves a hole in Maine journalism that will not be easily filled. Chris began his journalism career at the Advertiser Democrat in Norway, ME, then joined the Times Record in the early 2000s as a reporter and city editor. He left the Times Record to join the State House News Service before moving to the Bangor Daily News in 2009, where he began covering southern Penobscot and Somerset Counties. Chris quickly moved on to politics, covering the 2010 Maine Governor race, and by 2013, he was appointed State house bureau chief. Those who worked with Chris remember him for his storytelling abilities, his laugh, and exceptional abilities as a journalist. Chris had a huge heart and also fought for the truth from government leaders at the State house, holding them accountable without being caustic. Maine is a better place because of Chris and his relentless pursuit of the truth on behalf of Maine people. For me, Chris's political coverage shined when he covered people. Chris was an incredible storyteller, and he was such a great journalist because he got to know the people involved. No assignment was ever too much for him, and his standard response was, ``I am not afraid.'' That fearlessness resulted in clear stories that his editors loved, heartfelt narratives that his readers could relate to, and more passionate articles from his coworkers. Chris exemplified what so many aspire to be: respected by their peers, a loving husband and father, and a great friend. We have much to be thankful for in Maine because of Chris's dedication and service to the State and our Nation, and he will be deeply missed by so many.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Farnsworth Museum in Rockland, ME, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. The Farnsworth Museum highlights Maine and American art, proudly holding one of the largest collections of works by sculptor Louise Nevelson, a Rockland, ME, native and features works by Andrew, N.C., and Jamie Wyeth in its Wyeth Center. Their nationally recognized collection fills over 20,000 square feet of gallery space and contains more than 15,000 works of art. The Farnsworth has been a longtime supporter of the arts and a positive presence in the Rockland community. Officially opening in August 1948, Lucy Farnsworth turned the estate left to her by her parents, William Alden Farnsworth and Mary Catherine Sprague, into a $1.3 million legacy that would later become the William A. Farnsworth Library and Art Museum in memory of her father. Over the course of next several years, the Farnsworth amassed an impressive collection of American art, opening the Andrew Wyeth Gallery in 1968, presenting a major exhibition of works by Louis Nevelson in 1976, and, in 2000, opening both the Jamien Morehouse Wing, to display larger and more in-depth exhibitions, and the Wyeth Research Center, dedicated to scholarly research and the development of a groundbreaking computer database program. In addition to the beautiful art on display, the Farnsworth has been a long contributor to Maine communities and is a tourist destination for many visitors. In 1999, the Farnsworth celebrated the permanent collection, ``Maine in America,'' as well as the naming of director Chris Crossman as the recipient of the Kathryn M. Weare Award for Achievement in honor of his contributions and service to the Maine community. Additionally, the Farnsworth established the Art Initiative for Maine Schools, AIMS, to encourage Maine children to participate in tours and workshop programs and created Julia's Gallery for Young Artists to educate people on the operations aspect of museums. In 2004, Julia's Gallery for Young Artists received the Maine College of Art Award for Leadership in Arts Education. The Farnsworth is also the steward of the Farnsworth Homestead and the Olson House. The homestead is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was the home built for William A. Farnsworth and his family. The Olson House, a National Historic Landmark, located in Cushing, ME, is the late 19th century farm that was home to Alvaro and Christina Olson and the inspiration for hundreds of works by Andrew Wyeth. These examples and many more highlight the importance of the Farnsworth Museum to the Maine community and all those who visit our great State. I applaud the Farnsworth Art Museum on their achievements over the past 70 years and look forward to their continued success as a positive driving force in the State of Maine for many more years to come.