Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Let me just show everyone this. This was made by the mothers who came to our office. What they have written is: ``Please protect the families of New Hampshire from air pollution and climate change. Moms Clean Air Force.'' You are able to see all of the folks who were with the delegation and who visited my office to sign this because everyone is concerned about what the impact is going to be on their families and on their communities if we don't address climate change. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon with a number of my colleagues because we are very concerned about the lack of legislating that is happening here in the Senate, particularly on the issue of climate change. As this poster shows, it has been 76 days since the House passed H.R. 9, which is the Climate Action Now Act. It is legislation that would prevent the President from using funds to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. We also have a Senate proposal, which is bipartisan legislation that I have sponsored, called the International Climate Accountability Act. It has been cosponsored by 46 Senators. Yet the majority leader has refused to bring these bills to the floor for a debate. It didn't used to be this way. Even in my time in the Senate, it didn't used to be this way. The Senate used to take up important issues, put them on the floor for substantive debate, and at the end of the day, work to pass legislation to improve the lives of Americans. Sadly, what we see now is that the Senate is turning into a legislative graveyard. Unfortunately, the International Climate Accountability Act is one of several proposals that the majority leader wishes to bury. Yet, without a doubt, climate change is the greatest environmental challenge the world has ever faced. At the end of last year, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released its ``Fourth National Climate Assessment.'' This report makes it abundantly clear that every American is affected by climate change and that the threat it poses will get worse over time unless we take action. I want to be clear that climate change is not just an environmental issue; it affects our public health, and it affects our economy. In New Hampshire, we understand this all too well. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season. They are disrupting maple syrup production. They are affecting our ski industry and snowmobiling industry. We are seeing stresses on our fisheries. Our trout is moving farther north in streams. We see an increase in insect-borne diseases. Lyme disease is on the rise in New Hampshire and throughout New England. Our moose population is down 40 percent, and other wildlife is being affected. All of these changes are tied to the effects of climate change. A few months ago, I met with members of the New England Water Environment Association to discuss the enormous effect climate change is having on our water infrastructure. Rising temperatures and increased rainfall brought on by climate change make flooding more frequent and rainstorms more intense. We are seeing that now on our gulf coast, where we have seen 20 inches of rain in parts of Louisiana. Americans are witnessing this firsthand across the country with the historic flooding and with the tornadoes that have swept across the South and the Midwest. These extreme weather events not only endanger families and homes and businesses, but they increase the strain on our Nation's overburdened water systems. They take water treatment plants offline. This means debris is discharged into our rivers and streams, which affects our water quality. These extreme weather events are particularly dangerous for coastal communities. I see my colleague from Maine is here, Senator King. They face this in Maine with its long coastline. In New Hampshire, we have 18 miles of coastline, but we still see it at our coastline. Accelerated sea level rise, which is primarily driven by climate change, is worsening tidal flooding conditions and imperiling coastal homes and businesses. According to a 2018 study from the Union of Concerned Scientists, projected tidal flooding in the United States will put as many as 311,000 coastal homes that are collectively valued at $117 billion at risk of chronic flooding within the next 30 years. That is the lifespan of a typical mortgage. By the end of the century, the report estimates that 2.4 million homes and 107,000 commercial properties that are currently worth more than $1 trillion will be at risk for chronic flooding. This includes properties in towns like Hampton Beach, which is located in New Hampshire's Seacoast Region. For those who haven't had a chance to visit Hampton Beach, it is beautiful. It is a perfect vacation destination. It is a barrier island town with the Hampton River on one side of the city and the ocean on the other. Unfortunately, this makes Hampton Beach one of the State's most at-risk towns from rising sea levels. In this photograph, we can see the impact of rising sea levels. This was taken in November of 2017. We see what is happening. All of these homes should not be underwater here. Yet that is what we are seeing. A 2019 report from Columbia University and the First Street Foundation found that Hampton Beach lost $7.9 million in home value due to tidal flooding between 2005 and 2017. In total, increased tidal flooding has cost New Hampshire homeowners $15 million in lost property value. This is just in recent years, and the problem is only going to get worse. The impact of climate change will get worse if we don't act now to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. I am proud that in New Hampshire, we understand the need for climate action. We have implemented policies that reduce carbon emissions, that help us transition to a more energy-efficient, clean economy, but New Hampshire can't do this alone, and the United States can't do this alone. International cooperation is key to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. That is why the Paris Agreement is so critical in mitigating the worst effects of climate change. With a delegation from the Senate, I had the opportunity to attend the 2015 U.N. climate summit, and we participated in discussions that led to the Paris climate accord. During the summit, we were impressed by the leadership and the determination that was shown by the United States to encourage other nations to reach ambitious emissions reduction goals. Unfortunately, when President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the United States forfeited this leadership to other countries. In the absence of leadership from the White House, the majority leader should allow the Senate to consider the International Climate Accountability Act, which would keep the United States in the Paris Agreement. Let's take up the bill that has been sent over by the House. Let's take up the Senate bill. Let's bring this bill to the floor, and let's have a debate. If people don't support it, they can debate it, but we should be talking about this. The threat to New Hampshire and to this country is in doubt, and until we act, it is only going to get worse. We have a number of our colleagues who would like to come to the floor and speak to this issue, and I am pleased that Senator King from Maine, my colleague, is here to talk about these impacts. Yet, before my colleagues speak, I ask unanimous consent to show a banner that was delivered to my office by the Moms Clean Air Force.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, in Nansie's letter, she writes: The ACA saved my son's life. It was due to ObamaCare that we were able to get him insured so that he could get the proper help he needed and get into a Suboxone program that assisted him. Now, if the courts side with the Trump administration, this critical source for treatment and recovery could be ripped away. We don't have enough time for me to go through the whole list of all of the benefits under the Affordable Care Act that will be lost if the ACA gets overturned. One of the benefits, though, that would be thrown out yet is critically important to the people of New Hampshire and across this country is that of the consumer protections against skyrocketing prescription drug costs. They will be gone. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a hearing in the Committee on Aging, and we had someone from the FDA who was testifying. She talked about the fact that the major driver in prescription drug costs under Medicare and Medicaid was the cost of biologic drugs and that what was bringing down that cost was the pathway for biosimilars to create alternatives of those biologic drugs for those people. What she failed to point out was that this provision was in the Affordable Care Act and that if the Affordable Care Act gets struck down, this provision will get struck down. Those increased costs that we have been seeing of those biologic drugs are going to continue going up. What is probably even more important for most people in New Hampshire is that the Affordable Care Act includes a very important program that has closed the Medicare Part D coverage gap--what is called the doughnut hole--for prescription drug coverage. This program has saved New Hampshire's seniors an average of $1,100 a year in Medicare prescription drug costs. These savings help to ensure that Granite Staters who have fixed incomes can pay their utility bills or put food on the table. The court's decision could wipe out these critical Medicare savings for seniors, just as it could wipe out coverage for preexisting conditions, coverage to keep young people on their parents' insurance up until they are the age of 26, and coverage for essential health benefits, which means that mental health care and coverage for substance use disorder treatment are required by insurance companies to be covered. So given what is at stake, at this point I want to offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 134, which is a resolution I introduced to express a sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice should reverse its position in the Texas v. United States case and defend the Affordable Care Act.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, on Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Texas v. United States case to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, although the Affordable Care Act is currently the law of the land, the Department of Justice--our Nation's highest law enforcement authority--was not there to defend the law of the land, the Affordable Care Act. The DOJ was not there because it had been instructed by this President and this administration to join the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Sadly, the stakes of the Texas v. United States litigation are profound. This year in New Hampshire alone, approximately 90,000 Granite Staters obtained health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion or through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces. Across the country, more than 17 million Medicaid expansion enrollees and 11 million people in the marketplaces' health plans depend on the Affordable Care Act for their coverage. Yet the Department of Justice refuses to defend them. It refuses to defend the law of the land in court. In this case, if the courts side with the Trump administration and the Republican attorneys general, millions of these people will return to the days when they were one cancer diagnosis, one medical complication, or one car accident away from medical bankruptcy. The Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion is also our most powerful tool in combating the opioid epidemic. This is critically important in New Hampshire as we have the third highest overdose death rate from opioids of any State in the country. In New Hampshire, more than 11,000 people receive substance use disorder treatment thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and many more Granite Staters are able to get substance use disorder treatment thanks to coverage obtained through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces. Just think. Without the expansion of Medicaid, which is a bipartisan effort in New Hampshire, and without the ACA's health insurance marketplaces, we would have thousands of people affected by substance use disorders who would not be able to get treatment. There is no plan B if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. In 2017, a mother named Nansie, from Concord, wrote to my office. I will not use her last name. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Nansie's 2017 letter.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I knew my colleague from Wyoming was going to object. I am disappointed in his objection, and I know he is a doctor. I believe he cares about his former patients. I believe he cares about providing healthcare to his constituents, as I believe all of my colleagues care about that. That is why I am so puzzled by why there has been a 9-year effort to try and undermine the Affordable Care Act and the healthcare that it provides to people in this country. As I said earlier, there is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. There is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with substance abuse disorders, for mental health coverage. That is all going to go out the window. By failing to send a clear message to the Justice Department that they should defend the Affordable Care Act, we are putting access to care at risk for millions of Americans across this country. What we should be doing--and we should have done it as soon as the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act was defeated in 2017--is working together to put in place changes that make the Affordable Care Act work better. We should be looking for ways to provide coverage to people that is affordable, that provides quality healthcare, that is accessible to every American. Instead of that, we have no plan B. There is no bill that would provide coverage if this administration is successful in overturning the Affordable Care Act. I am very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction from my colleague from Wyoming. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to salute Clyde Terry for his many years of dedicated service and staunch advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities. Clyde is retiring from his longtime role as CEO of Granite State Independent Living, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude. Granite State Independent Living--GSIL--is a nonprofit that breaks down barriers for seniors and people with disabilities and expands the training and support services available to them. Its mission is grounded in a firm belief that all people have a right to define their own level of independence. Under Clyde's leadership, GSIL has blossomed into an essential statewide organization with a $17 million budget and several awards and accolades to its name, including Non-Profit of the Year Awards from Business NH Magazine, NH Business Review, and the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. Service offerings have grown as well to meet the aging, education, and employment challenges faced by so many across the Granite State. Clyde has tapped into a wealth of experience to build GSIL into an expansive and responsive organization that remains committed to its founding principles of personal choice and direction. Before his tenure at GSIL, he was the executive director of the New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council, a State agency tasked with protecting the rights of our State's most vulnerable citizens. While affiliated with the council, he coauthored a report on the accessibility of polling locations in the United States and established himself as a national expert on election reform. He was also an administrative hearings officer in the State's service systems, and before that, he helped to create and implement New Hampshire's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Throughout his career, Clyde has shown an unrivaled passion for improving the lives of the disabled, the aged, and the impoverished. I was honored to recommend Clyde when a vacancy arose on the National Council on Disability in 2009. As a member of the council, he became a sought-after voice on the potential of autonomous vehicles to broaden a sense of independence among people with disabilities. He was also a force in fighting for fair pay and equal treatment in the workplace. Clyde was eventually named chairperson of the council, a testament to his leadership and communication skills and his fluency on the broad set of issues in the disability community. I have known Clyde for decades. We worked together on Gary Hart's 1984 Presidential race. Though the campaign eventually ended in heartbreak, Clyde emerged from the race having met Susan, who would become his beloved wife of many years. As Governor of New Hampshire and U.S. Senator, I always appreciated Clyde's guidance and counsel. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Clyde Terry for his years of service and advocacy and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here today with my colleague Senator Graham to express my profound concern about the humanitarian tragedy that is currently unfolding in Idlib and northern Hama in Syria. It is hard to imagine that after 8 years of war, the greatest humanitarian disaster in Syria might still be before us, because clearly what we have seen in the past 8 years is a horrible humanitarian tragedy, a civil war that has involved, really, international players and that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and to the displacement of millions more. But with the escalated attacks that have occurred since late April, the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are threatening a population of approximately 3 million there in Idlib. Of those 3 million, 1 million are children. This is a region that is strained by hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who have already fled from Assad's forces in other parts of Syria and neighboring countries. Just last Thursday alone, observers counted over 50 airstrikes in this region from early morning to early afternoon, and that was on top of artillery-shelling that was going on. Last December, Senator Graham and I came to the floor to warn about the dangers of President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria. I felt very strongly about that because last summer I had a chance to travel with Senator Graham to Syria, and we saw the important work that the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve and its Syrian partner forces were doing there. We saw communities like Manbij city that had recovered after 3 years of occupation by ISIS. We saw that Syrians were returning to that northeast region of Syria where it was peaceful, and they were growing crops again. We visited the market. We walked around without any fear that terrorists were going to bomb us. Local multiethnic residents saw the positive presence of U.S. troops and the value of U.S. global leadership. In fact, as we drove down the road and went by children, they flashed a ``V'' sign for ``victory'' when they saw it was the U.S. military. Together with our partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, we made significant gains against ISIS, but that progress, sadly, is not guaranteed. Unfortunately, what we are seeing now in Idlib is the result of a confused U.S. strategy in Syria. When I spoke on the floor here in December, I warned that a hasty and ill-informed withdrawal could embolden ISIS and threaten the gains that U.S. partners have made. We discussed the fact that it would also cede the accomplishments of U.S. forces and our allies to Assad, Russia, and Iran. What we are seeing now in Idlib and northern Hama is Assad's and his foreign supporters' military solution. We are seeing indiscriminate bombing and shelling that destroys schools and hospitals and that sets fire to farmers' fields. The latest surge in violence has killed dozens of people. It has destroyed thousands of acres of crops. It has forced another 300,000 people to flee their homes. I would urge President Trump to listen to his military and diplomatic advisers and to recognize that an absence of U.S. leadership in Syria would give a free hand to Assad and to his Russian and Iranian allies, because clearly they are not our allies. The people of Syria face danger at the hands of ISIS and of their own government. Unfortunately, they have very few options left, but what they do have is the voice of the international community, and it is now up to us to stand against the carnage in Idlib once and for all. I urge President Trump to use U.S. leadership to oppose the humanitarian disaster that Syrian and Russian forces continue to create in Idlib and northern Hama and to work with our allies to truly bring an end to this civil war and this disaster that has been created, the humanitarian disaster that has been created. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Jenny Tsao, and Pearson fellow, Anthony Pirnot, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 116th Congress.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today, on behalf of the New Hampshire congressional delegation, Senator Maggie Hassan and Representatives Ann McLane Kuster and Chris Pappas, I wish to salute the Mount Washington Cog Railway on its 150th anniversary. Once hailed by famed showman P.T. Barnum as the ``Second-Greatest Show on Earth,'' the Cog Railway remains an engineering marvel and a one-of-a-kind experience a full century and a half after its maiden voyage up New Hampshire's highest peak. A railway summiting 6,288-foot Mount Washington was first proposed by New Hampshire native Sylvester Marsh, a retired meatpacker who made a fortune working in Chicago. When he approached the New Hampshire State Legislature for a charter to build his cog-and-rack system, Marsh encountered some skepticism of his innovative design. Legend has it that one lawmaker remarked that Marsh ``might as well build a railway to the moon.'' Marsh got his charter in 1858, and his system found a nickname, ``The Railway to the Moon,'' that it proudly uses to this day. Construction began in 1866 at the base of the mountain, and it took engineers and builders 3 years to complete the 3\1/4\ mile track to the peak. It opened to fanfare on July 3, 1869, as the world's first mountain cog railway. One of its passengers that first summer was Ulysses S. Grant, who became the first U.S. President to visit Mount Washington. According to newspapers, the President was impressed with the safety and simplicity of the locomotive's air brake system. The Cog Railway's locomotives embraced technology and ingenuity to push passenger cars up the track and slow their descent. The first locomotive, nicknamed ``Old Peppersass'' because of its likeness to a pepper sauce bottle, mounted a vertical boiler on twin trunnions in order to keep it upright as it climbed the steep grade. Old Peppersass was eventually replaced in the late 1800s by a fleet of more modern coal-powered steam locomotives, but it remains preserved and on display at base station. Today, under the direction of current owner Wayne Presby, most locomotives are powered by state-of-the-art biodiesel technology. The new trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, and more efficient, but the Cog Railway still uses a couple of steam locomotives for those who want to experience the trip as it was years ago. While the locomotives may change with the times, one feature of the Cog Railway has remained a constant: Personnel must maintain a resilient system capable of withstanding extreme and unpredictable weather. Winters come early and leave late atop the Northeast's highest peak, often burying the mountain in several feet of snow. Mount Washington is famous as the site of one of the fastest recorded wind speeds in history: 231 miles per hour in 1934. The Cog Railway weathers torrential rain, heavy snow, blustering winds, and even hurricanes. A severe hurricane battered the mountain in 1938 and destroyed Jacob's Ladder, a steep, curving trestle near the top of the mountain. It was quickly rebuilt with the help of Dartmouth College. The White Mountains are a majestic site, and there are few better places to behold this beauty than the Mount Washington Cog Railway. It offers spectacular views and brings you to a summit where you can see up to five States and into Canada on a clear day. Moreover, riding the Cog Railway is an experience that ties riders to Sylvester Marsh and a century and a half of steam, steel, and many unforgettable memories. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, we ask our colleagues and all Americans to join us in congratulating the Mount Washington Cog Railway on 150 years of service and wishing its staff and many supporters all the best in the coming years.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to salute Jack Middleton for his 60-plus years of dedicated service to the Mount Washington Observatory. Jack is stepping down this year from his longtime post as secretary of the board of trustees. In this role, he helped to build the observatory into a respected authority on climate research, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude. Those of us who know Jack recognize him as president of McLane Middleton, one of the largest law practices in the Granite State and a firm that encourages its attorneys to be active participants in their communities. This is undoubtedly a reflection of one of Jack's core beliefs. He has been a force in raising awareness and funds for programs like DOVE--the Domestic Violence Emergency Project--that provide legal representation free of charge for people in need. Jack has also served as president of the United Way and board member of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, New Hampshire Public Television, The White Mountain School, and The Nature Conservancy, always finding a way to employ his diverse talents in pursuit of a greater good. Those of us who really know Jack understand that he is just as comfortable on top of a mountain as he is in a courtroom or boardroom. It was a young Sergeant Middleton--fresh out of his service in the Marine Corps--who arrived at the Appalachian Mountain Club's Pinkham Notch Camp in 1952 for a new job at a warming hut on Mount Washington's Tuckerman Ravine. He was drawn there after hiking in the White Mountains as a child and staying with friends in the Madison and Lake of the Clouds Huts as a teenager. This new venture was the beginning of a decades-long, unbroken connection to New Hampshire's highest peak. While working as an observer at the Mount Washington Observatory in the early 1950s, Jack discovered another love--Ann Dodge, the daughter of Observatory founder Joe Dodge and Jack's future wife. Dating the boss's daughter has it challenges, but anyone could see that the bond between Jack and Annie was immediate and strong. On his days off, Jack would hike down the mountain to see her at the AMC Pinkham Notch Hut. Annie would return the favor when she was free, scaling the 6,288-foot mountain to visit Jack when his duties kept him inside the Observatory. Jack left his job to attend law school after 1 year at the Observatory. Shortly after graduating, he was tapped to serve as corporate secretary by a board of trustees who both recognized his potential and appreciated his love of the mountain and its summit. That was 1957. Jack has been diligently taking minutes at board meetings ever since, and he remains an outstanding ambassador of the Observatory and an outspoken supporter of its important role in climate research. Over the past few decades, the Mount Washington Observatory has emerged as a significant institution of science education and plays a vital role in helping advance the public understanding of the complexities of our natural world. Its Weather Discovery Center in North Conway has become a popular resource in communicating these findings to classrooms and workshops across the globe. Throughout each step of this journey, Jack Middleton has been there with his expert guidance, his dry wit and his devotion to preserving the past and shaping the future of this Northern New Hampshire gem. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Jack Middleton for his service and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my neighbor and friend, Senator Collins, and Senator Feinstein--the two of them for organizing this afternoon's conversation on the floor in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment. I also begin by recognizing Senator Mikulski, who was such a trailblazer for so many women. I remember being a young woman involved in politics in the late eighties in New Hampshire right after she was elected to the Senate, and she came up and spoke to us. At the time, I was not sure there was ever an opportunity for a woman in New Hampshire to go anywhere, and listening to her made me realize there were opportunities for women everywhere, and we need to take advantage of them, so I thank Senator Mikulski. Today we celebrate not only the passage of the 19th Amendment but the countless women who fought for decades before 1919 so that women would one day realize the full rights protected under the Constitution. As so many of my colleagues have said, we remember women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who organized the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848; Susan B. Anthony, who took up the fight following the first convention, and Harriet Tubman, Ida Wells, and Sojourner Truth, who worked tirelessly for women's rights all while battling the forces of slavery and racism. These women and so many others faced extraordinary obstacles as they protested, marched, lobbied, and, at times, sacrificed their own freedom so women could one day secure the right to vote. The leaders of the women's suffrage movement understood the fundamental truth; that the rights protected under the Constitution are merely privileges if they are not enjoyed by everyone in our society. As Susan B. Anthony put it in 1873, ``It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; not yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves . . . . but to the whole people--women as well as men.'' The suffrage movement was, of course, an effort to achieve political equality for women, but it was also an effort to secure a more perfect Union by giving life to the ideals laid out in our founding documents. This pursuit for equality continues today, and it is in the spirit of our trailblazers that women carry on the fight for full equality under the law. It is in that spirit that we are here this afternoon on the floor of the Senate to talk about the importance of carrying on the tradition of our Founding Mothers. These figures are an important part of our history, and because of the generations of women they inspired, their legacy lives on today. We must remember their stories and honor their sacrifices. Those sacrifices have helped shape the identity of our Nation, and it is why we celebrate these women in the same regard as we have our Founding Fathers. It is why the issue, for me, of keeping a promise to redesign the $20 bill with the likeness of Harriet Tubman is so important. The United States was not shaped exclusively by men, and our living history, which our currency is a part of, should reflect that because the symbols that we have for our country matter. Leaders of the women's suffrage movement rose from communities across this country, but today I would like to recognize one of the pioneers of that movement from my own State of New Hampshire, Armenia S. White. Armenia spent most of her life in Concord, NH, which is our capital. She was active in the community, including supporting the abolitionist and temperance movements, but the cause for which she was most passionate was securing the vote for women. Armenia was the first signer of the call for an equal suffrage convention in New Hampshire, which was held in Concord in 1868. She was also the first president of the New Hampshire Woman Suffrage Association, a position that she held for nearly 50 years. When the time came for New Hampshire to send a delegate to the American Woman Suffrage Association, organized in Cleveland, Armenia was selected and served in that position for decades. Armenia's efforts in New Hampshire were largely responsible for the decisions by the State legislature in 1871 and 1878 to make women eligible to serve on school committees. I think it is interesting that we were eligible to serve on school committees before we were eligible to serve in the legislature. But, nevertheless, not only did she help women become eligible to serve on school committees, but she secured women a vote in local school district elections. Sadly, Armenia never lived to see women secure the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment, but her efforts to improve equality in New Hampshire and throughout the Nation left an enduring impact on the movement. It is an impact that, as the first woman elected to be Governor of New Hampshire and then elected to be Senator there, I have benefited from. I feel a deep sense of gratitude to Armenia and to so many women who came before me for forging a path so that women could one day serve in public office and so that one day we could vote. Alice Paul, the leader of the women's suffrage movement, once described women's suffrage saying: I always feel the movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us puts in one little stone, and then you get a great mosaic at the end. As we recognize and celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment, we must remember that there is still so much work to do, and even the smallest stones contribute to this great mosaic. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank again my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Feinstein, for leading this effort. We still have a lot of work to do.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues. I was going to say I am pleased, but I am not pleased. I am disappointed that we are here on the floor today talking about something that should be an issue that is decided by women with their families and their physicians. Yet we are here to sound the alarm about the relentless assault State legislatures and this administration have leveled against constitutionally protected reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose the healthcare she needs. I certainly applaud Senator Murray, who has done such a great job of leading the response to this assault, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his efforts. This radical effort to limit women's freedom to a full range of reproductive care is part of a broader strategy by some in this country to take healthcare away from people who need it. Americans across the country, both women and men, are calling out these threats and fighting them head-on. Today, in hundreds of capitals across this country, in courthouses, at hundreds of rallies, a powerful message is being sent that we are not going back. As Members of Congress here in Washington, we need to join them and defend women's reproductive rights. In just the past 2 weeks, Governors in Alabama and Georgia signed extreme and dangerous abortion restrictions into law. Yesterday, the Missouri Legislature passed another bill to place draconian restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. These actions are part of a concerted effort around the country to overturn Roe v. Wade and to deny women access to reproductive care. What is so ironic about this is that this is coming at a time when last year this country saw fewer unintended pregnancies than at any time in our history because giving women access to family planning, to the range of reproductive healthcare that women need, means that there are fewer unintended pregnancies. What laws like this will mean is that there will be more abortions, more unintended pregnancies, more maternal health deaths. That is not the direction in which we should be going. All of these State actions are concerning, especially the new Alabama law, which would outlaw abortion in virtually all instances with no exception for cases of rape or incest. The Alabama law also establishes prison sentences for providers who perform abortions in violation of the abortion ban. So think about that for a second. If a doctor performs an abortion for a rape victim, the Alabama law could put that doctor in prison for as long as or even longer than the rapist. That makes no sense. The Alabama abortion ban, and so many other State laws like it, will not only impede on a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive choices, but it will also push women into the shadows and increase the likelihood of unsafe abortions. We know that. We have data that shows that--not just in the United States but around the world. Today, one in three women live in States where abortion would be outlawed if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The Alabama law and other State abortion bans are designed as a direct challenge to the protections provided by Roe in the hopes of forcing action from the Supreme Court and sowing chaos in those States where abortion would be outlawed. So rather than thinking about women and how they will be affected by this law, it is strictly designed to try to challenge the current Roe v. Wade law. Unfortunately, even in the light of the extreme nature of these recent abortion bans, we have an administration that is compounding the issue through its own actions to interfere with access to reproductive health services. Now, whether it is creating new administrative obstacles to insurance coverage of abortion, preventing title X family planning clinics from informing their patients about reproductive care choices, or any of the many other recent Federal actions, the Trump administration's clear goal is to chip away at access to abortion. Now, these recent actions by States and the administration pose grave threats to the freedoms and reproductive health protections that are relied on by women all across this country. At this critical time, we need to say loud and clear that we are ready to fight these extreme actions with everything we have. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs SHAHEEN

Mrs SHAHEEN. Madam President, today I wish to salute Michael L. Hopkins for his decades of tireless work and devoted service to the schools of Rochester, NH. Mike is retiring this year as superintendent of the Rochester School District after spending the entirety of his career in the city's school system. He leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude. We all know the value of a quality education. It plays a critical role in the development of young minds everywhere, and enthusiastic teachers and administrators make it possible for so many students to take part in experiences that shape a lifelong appreciation for learning. As a former teacher myself, I know the commitment and understanding required to engage students, encourage curiosity and critical thinking, ultimately prepare them to find success after school and outside of the classroom. Mike is also a former teacher, and he has brought that perspective to every move he makes as his district's top decision-maker. After graduating from his hometown school, Grinnell College in Iowa, Mike set his sights toward New Hampshire and accepted a teaching job at the Gonic School. He quickly assumed managerial duties in addition to his teaching responsibilities as the school's teaching principal. Mike was a fitting choice when a full-time principal position opened a short time later at the nearby William Allen School, where he served for 6 years before being promoted to assistant superintendent of the city's school system. A dozen years later, he made a seamless transition to superintendent of all Rochester schools. As superintendent, Mike has retained a deep connection to the classroom, even in a sprawling district comprised of 11 public schools with over 4,400 children and 800 employees. He is a constant presence in the halls of city schools, and teachers are quick to point out how his caring, compassion, and guidance make it easier for them to fulfill their essential roles as educators. He has also forged meaningful relationships outside school walls with business and nonprofit leaders in the Greater Rochester region, all in an effort to strengthen the educational programs he is able to offer to students. Under Mike's leadership, Rochester schools have been quick to adapt to a changing learning landscape, embracing technology and alternative educational methods in order to provide the best education possible to city students. He has been influential in developing training programs at Spaulding High School's Creteau Regional Center that pair bright high school students with local businesses looking to grow. This is an approach that can help satisfy demands statewide for a capable, qualified workforce. Mike has accomplished so much in his four decades in the Lilac City schools. Words like visionary, innovator, and community builder are often used to describe his tenure; yet, if one were to ask Rochester teachers, staff, administrators, school board members, and residents about Mike Hopkins, one quality emerges more often than the others: his humility. Mike always put the interests of students and teachers first, and when he found success, he was always eager to share credit with others. He was driven by a desire to better the lives of students, and his impact on the Rochester community will be felt for years to come. On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Mike Hopkins for his service and wishing him all the best as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues in raising concerns about the unrelenting attacks that this administration has waged on the health of women in New Hampshire and across the country. With Mother's Day just around the corner, it is important to make clear that we cannot stand idly by while the administration undermines access to maternity care, to family planning, and to reproductive care for women. Through misguided executive orders, regulations, and other actions, this administration is making it more difficult for women to access the care and services they need in communities across the country and abroad. Now, new mothers deal with significant medical expenses. That is why we worked very hard, when we were writing the Affordable Care Act, to require insurance coverage for maternity care, to help new mothers cover the cost of obstetric services and of hospital charges for childbirth and other expenses. The Affordable Care Act and the access to maternity care coverage it provides have made a real difference for so many people in New Hampshire and across the country. One of those women is Samantha Fox from Bow, NH. Samantha is now a State legislator in New Hampshire, but prior to the Affordable Care Act, Samantha was denied coverage for health insurance because of a reproductive system disorder, and the insurance that she was able to get didn't provide prenatal and maternity care coverage. Well, thanks to the ACA, she was guaranteed coverage of these vital maternity care services that were so important when she gave birth to her son Leo in 2017. We can't go back to those days before the Affordable Care Act, when only 12 percent of health plans on the individual market covered maternity care or when women could be charged higher premiums than men for the very same coverage. But that is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do by expanding the availability of junk plans that are not required to cover maternity care, and that is what this administration is trying to do by urging the courts to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. Now, in addition, at a time when 43 percent of childbirths in this country are covered and paid for by the Medicaid Program, the Trump administration continues to propose Medicaid block grants and funding caps that would fail to adequately support States for the cost of coverage for pregnant women and new mothers. Senator Casey was very eloquent in talking about what will happen if the effort to reduce Medicaid is successful. Sadly, the barriers to women's healthcare that this administration has created go beyond just insurance coverage. They are also imposing significant impediments to access to family planning services. The administration's title X gag rule would violate the provider- patient relationship by prohibiting providers who receive Federal family planning grants from informing their patients about reproductive health options, including safe and legal abortions. In 2017, more than 16,000 Granite Staters obtained care from family planning providers that receive support through Federal title X family planning grants. This includes more than 1,200 cervical cancer screenings and nearly 1,500 breast exams that were provided by New Hampshire's Planned Parenthood facilities that, if this gag rule is allowed to stand, would then be eliminated, and women would have to get those screenings somewhere else, and in many cases, the women would not be able to afford the cost of those screenings. The title X gag rule puts access to these and so many other vital services at risk. The administration's barriers to family planning services extend around the world as a result of a similar global gag rule on international family planning grants. Based on the unfortunate experience with the global gag rule, we already know that when you exclude entities like Planned Parenthood and other providers from family planning grants, you will impede access to care for vulnerable women in impoverished countries around the world, and we are now beginning to get the data from so many NGOs that provide those services. It is ironic because people in this administration who say they support the gag rule say they do it because they are trying to reduce the number of abortions. Yet what we know is that putting on this global gag rule increases the number of unwarranted pregnancies, increases the number of unsafe abortions, and increases the number of maternal deaths in childbirth. I don't understand why the data is not convincing to those people who share the view that we should try to reduce the number of unwarranted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. That is why, each year, I have come together with Senators Collins and Murkowski to lead a bipartisan charge to repeal the global gag rule and to bolster resources for international family planning. Hopefully, we will be able to pass that again this year. In light of all of these dangerous efforts to erode protections for women's health, we need to stand together here in Congress. We need to join forces with women around the country and around the world. We need to say enough is enough. Women should be able to access health insurance for reproductive services and for family planning services, just as men can access health insurance for all of the services they need. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today following our colleague Senator Tillis to join him in talking about the importance of NATO and expressing our deep appreciation for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Senator Tillis and I are the cochairs of the newly established Senate NATO Observer Group, which builds on the effort that was started back in the 1990s, by Tom Daschle and Trent Lott, to address the expansion of NATO, following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our task is not just to shepherd through the Senate any changes in NATO that require Senate approval, but it is also to remind all of us and to remind the American public just how important NATO is. Over the last seven decades, the NATO alliance has stood by its members in the darkest hours, including in Afghanistan, after the United States was attacked on September 11. As Secretary General Stoltenberg reminded us yesterday, the only time article 5, the mutual aid clause of the NATO charter, has been invoked was after September 11, after the United States was attacked by terrorists. Our Transatlantic bond has been critical to the United States and NATO, and, in particular, it has sustained a period of unprecedented global security and stability. While people may not recognize it, every day the United States sees the benefit of NATO. Whether we need to use NATO bases to evacuate American troops from conflict or to ensure that American goods and people travel safely across the Atlantic Ocean, NATO plays a critical role. As NATO marks its 70th anniversary--today, in fact--the fact is that the alliance makes us stronger around the world and safer at home. So it is no wonder that Americans are very supportive of this organization. Any implication that Americans don't like or understand NATO is just simply wrong. This week the Pew Research Center unveiled research to show that nearly 8 in 10 Americans, or 77 percent of Americans, including large majorities in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, agree that being a member of NATO is good for the United States. We have also seen that the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has recorded a steady increase in NATO favorability across generations of Americans. Even the millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996, which are now the largest voting bloc in the United States, value our alliances, and 72 percent back the United States' contribution to NATO. Boosted by these numbers, Congress has been more active than at any time in my memory in expressing its support for NATO. In 2017 and 2018, Congress took more votes in support of the United States' enduring commitment to article 5 and NATO than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union. That is why Senators Tillis and I reestablished the Senate NATO Observer Group last year. Since then, we have enjoyed a diverse and active membership across the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the enduring support of the Senate's leadership-- both Senator McConnell, the majority leader, and Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader. Further, Congress continues to put its word into action by allocating significant levels of funding to help Europe deter threats that emanate from NATO's eastern and southern borders, already having provided $6.5 billion in the last year alone for the European Deterrence Initiative. I have no doubt that as the Senate prepares to provide its advice and consent to NATO's 30th member, North Macedonia, Members of Congress will, once again, rally to NATO's side and push forward on initiatives to further strengthen NATO. I should just call out the Republic of North Macedonia, as well as the country of Greece, for reaching an agreement around the name change for North Macedonia that both countries have agreed to and that the Parliaments of both countries have supported. So as China and Russia struggle to maintain allies and resort to coercion and force to keep countries in their sphere, NATO has proven to be an enduring American advantage in an uncertain world. Our NATO allies continue to magnify the strength of our military, and they stand ready to protect us and protect our shared interests and values worldwide. For this reason, I thank our allies for what they have done for the United States and for the people of Europe who are part of our partner nations. While we may have our differences, we will always remain stronger with allies. As the Secretary General said yesterday, ``it is good to have friends.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here this afternoon to support the resolution that would terminate the President's unconstitutional emergency declaration. It is a declaration that would take money away from critical military construction projects to fund a costly and ineffective border wall. Congress did not provide these funds for a border wall that President Trump promised Mexico would pay for; rather, we specifically allocated these resources that are being talked about to be used by the President for the wall to ensure that our military is ready and capable and that our servicemembers receive the support they deserve. The President's attempt to circumvent Congress by making the military pay for his border wall jeopardizes our national security and does a disservice to our men and women in uniform. That is why the House passed the legislation on the Senate floor today and why I introduced legislation with my colleagues in the Senate to terminate the emergency declaration. The resources Congress has provided support military construction projects in New Hampshire and across the country. Those projects often provide necessary infrastructure improvements that enable our servicemembers to accomplish their mission. Several of those projects that, I think, are potentially being reviewed for being added to the list of projects to have money taken from are at the Portsmouth Naval shipyard. It is one of the many installations that faces potential cuts in funding if this emergency declaration is executed. Congress has already approved funding for several projects at the shipyard and at our public shipyards around the country that support critical submarine maintenance, and any disruption to funding of those projects could lead to costly delays and to a reduction in military readiness because they would derail carefully laid plans to upgrade aging infrastructure. Delays in projects that support the shipyard's mission threaten to exacerbate the Navy's already high demand for submarine maintenance and the projected submarine shortfall in the coming years. I recently sent a letter to President Trump and spoke with the leaders at DOD urging them to protect these important projects at the shipyard, but the only way to ensure that these projects move forward is to terminate the emergency declaration. In addition to projects at the shipyard, the emergency declaration could also impact New Hampshire's National Guard readiness centers, which are in desperate need of modernization. A 2014 report from the Army National Guard ranked the condition of New Hampshire's National Guard facilities 51 out of 54 States and territories. Our National Guard has been forced to shoulder an enormous burden since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Servicemembers have often faced multiple deployments, and they still had to respond to national disasters at home and to other personal crises. The New Hampshire National Guard can't afford further delays to the readiness center improvements because of President Trump's emergency declaration. These military construction projects in New Hampshire are at risk because President Trump wants to score political points by building a wall rather than focusing on the border security proposals that actually work. I was disappointed to hear my colleague from Texas accusing Democrats of not supporting border security because, in fact, virtually everyone here has supported significant border security proposals in the past, including targeted fencing in vulnerable areas where we know fencing or barriers can make a difference. We have supported more Border Patrol agents, better surveillance and screening technologies, and increased security at the ports of entry. Coming from a State where we have a huge challenge with the opioid epidemic, where we understand the impact of having cocaine and fentanyl and other drugs come across our border, I also know the best way to interdict those drugs is through the ports of entry. That is where most of them are coming from. In a recent bipartisan budget agreement Congress provided, I supported, along with the majority of this Senate, nearly $15 billion for Customs and Border Protection, including $1.3 billion for physical infrastructure in vulnerable areas along the southern border. The reality at our borders is, the vast majority of drugs and contraband come through the ports of entry. They don't come through the areas between the ports of entry. In the past 2 months alone, law enforcement officials have made the largest cocaine seizure in the past 25 years at Newark, NJ, and the largest fentanyl seizure ever at any port of entry in the U.S. in Arizona. Despite this reality, President Trump insists on having our military bear the burden to fulfill his campaign promise. His insistence that the situation at the border requires the military to pay for his wall runs counter to what I have heard in the Senate Armed Services Committee from our military leaders. In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, General O'Shaughnessy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, testified that the threats to our Nation on our southern border are not military in nature, and he has never advised the President that a border wall is necessary to support his mission. Just this morning, we heard testimony at our SASC hearing with Secretary Shanahan and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dunford that we have more troops on our southern border with Mexico than we have in all of Europe, on Europe's eastern border with Russia, and we have almost as many on our southern border, and one-quarter as many as we have on the DMZ on the border with North Korea. By any measure, North Korea and Russia pose a greater threat to our national security than Mexico. It is a policy that does not make sense. Yet we have more troops on the southern border now than we do in Eastern Europe and in Syria. The fact is, the men and women at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and at the New Hampshire National Guard and men and women serving in our military across this country should not be forced to sacrifice readiness for an unnecessary border wall that takes funding away from projects that this Congress has already approved that are going forward. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect Congress's constitutional authority and defend our national security by supporting the resolution to terminate President Trump's emergency declaration. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon with mixed emotions--mixed emotions because I feel a tremendous sense of gratitude but also sadness because at the end of this month, tomorrow, after more than a decade of working together, my chief of staff, Maura Keefe, will leave to start a new adventure. Maura is here on the floor today with my new chief of staff, Chad Kreikemeier, and most of our staff here in DC are in the Gallery watching. Everyone is here because we think so much of Maura, and we are so sad that she is leaving but wish her Godspeed in everything she does. She has been an incredible asset as we worked together to improve the lives of Granite Staters. I must thank her for her service and share some of the memories from the past 10 years. In New Hampshire, where we are the home of the first primary State, public service and political engagement are part of our culture. It is a culture that is epitomized by Maura and her family. Maura helped me get elected in 2008. Actually, she helped me before that--in 2002, when I didn't win the election. Despite our loss, she came back and she worked with me in 2008, and then when we won, she set up the office. She had already accumulated several careers by that time in political campaigns and nonprofits and in the private sector. At each and every step along the way, Maura made new friendships, and she blazed a trail of accomplishments. Her time with us has certainly been no different. I remember right after that election, she and a small group of people were working to set up the office. She showed me the files of people who were interested in working on the staff. I was down here for orientation, and she and the woman who would become the deputy chief of staff spent the whole weekend--while I was running around doing fun things, they were working into the night to go through those resumes to hire the best possible people to open the office. Maura's father, who served as chief of staff to New Hampshire Senator Tom McIntyre, whose seat I now hold, would be very proud of everything she has done and all of her accomplishments. I will never be able to thank her enough for building our wonderful team, for hiring a staff of dedicated public servants who work hard for the people of New Hampshire. Those of us who have had the pleasure to work with Maura know her sense of humor. She does great birthday cards that are very funny. Every month when we do birthdays in the office, she does farewell cards that are sort of testimonials but more roasts--or equally roast and testimonial. Her sense of humanity is also what makes her special. I have certainly benefited from both of these over the last 10 years. Maura is going to be missed, not just in our offices here in Washington and in New Hampshire but throughout the Senate because for the last several years, she has played an important leadership role among the Democratic chiefs of staff and among the women chiefs of staff. She has made a positive difference for all of our offices, and she has made important and constructive inroads with Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle. Her presence will be missed by so many people in this institution. Of course she is going to be missed for forging important consensus on the golf course as well. Our office does a golf outing every summer, and Maura is always the one who comes out on top in those golf outings. She has two holes in one, and she displays the plaques for those holes in one on the wall that is between our two offices. They are a reminder that from the Capitol to the tee box and everywhere in between, Maura is a fierce competitor. Over the last 10 years, there have been real historic moments. I hope those moments will be the cornerstone of Maura's memories from the Senate--the passage of healthcare reform that was decades in the making, ushering in the first bipartisan energy efficiency legislation in a generation, working to put a woman on the twenty-dollar bill, increasing funding and resources to combat the opioid crisis, expanding critical investments for the Office on Violence Against Women, and so many other critical infrastructure projects, changes in New Hampshire that have meant jobs and that have improved the lives of so many of our citizens. Perhaps the most succinct description of Maura can be credited to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, for whom Maura worked as chief of staff in the 1990s. Congresswoman DeLauro once told a reporter aptly that Maura is ``someone who doesn't mince words.'' I can attest to that. When I do things that she thinks are not quite what I ought to be doing, she doesn't mince words; she lets me have it. I am going to greatly miss her daily doses of wisdom and wit. Her supporting counsel has always been invaluable to me. I can't thank her enough for her dedicated service. Thank you, Maura. We are all going to miss you but me, most of all. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the legislation that the Presiding Officer has authored. It would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and it would pose new obstacles to a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health. Regardless of what the intent of the legislation is, the fact is, the way it is written, it intimidates doctors with the threat of criminal liability for performing safe and legal abortions. It will have a chilling effect on the ability of women to access the services they need in the United States. We must always remember that abortions that are performed later in pregnancy are most often done as the result of severe fetal diagnoses and the serious risks that pregnancy poses to the life of the mother. And let's be very clear: This isn't a decision that any women or family wants to be in a position to make. It is tragic and it is heartbreaking, and efforts to politicize the trauma of women and families who have been forced to make this decision are really shameful, and it sets a dangerous precedent for women's comprehensive healthcare. By installing new uncertainty and risk of criminal liability into the process for late-term abortions, this legislation increases the risk that women will not be able to get the medical care they need when their pregnancy poses a risk to their lives. This bill ignores those important realities in what appears to be an attempt to score political points with anti-choice groups. Again and again, at every turn, we have seen this administration and our Republican colleagues push forward policies intended to threaten access to abortion care. Just last week, the Trump administration cut off critical family planning resources for family planning clinics that offer information and referrals for women seeking to obtain legal abortions. If you want to prevent abortions, you want to make sure families have access to family planning. We know that is an important way to reduce the number of abortions in this country. So we are seeing that this bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women's health. Now more than ever, we need to stand up and help protect women's healthcare and make certain that abortions remain safe and legal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its consideration on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today we hope to vote on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that will fully fund the government and provide additional measures to strengthen our border security. I want to applaud all of the members of the conference committee who worked on this agreement. I particularly want to recognize those Senate Members, led by Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, for negotiating a bipartisan compromise that will keep the government's doors open. Neither side got everything they wanted--that is why it is called a compromise--but in the end, fully funding the government and keeping it open is what is best for the American people. What we saw during the 35-day government shutdown was that it took a terrible toll on our Federal workers, and it cost the U.S. economy $11 billion--including $3 billion that is gone forever, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Across the country, Federal workers have been very anxiously waiting to see if we were going to come to an agreement, if they were going to be able to pay their mortgages, afford groceries, and get their prescriptions. Well, today, hopefully we can put their minds at ease. We can pass this legislation, and hopefully the President will sign it, because failure to do so would once again deprive Americans of important government services and throw our economy into a tailspin. I urge all of our colleagues in Congress to take up this funding legislation, to pass it, and the President to sign it as soon as it reaches his desk. Protecting our borders should not be an exercise in partisanship, and I am glad to see that this bill supports commonsense investments that focus on the technology, infrastructure, and personnel that are needed at the southern and northern borders to provide actual security that works. The bill provides $1.375 billion for targeted fencing in vulnerable areas along the southern border and more than $800 million for Border Patrol agents, better surveillance and screening technologies, and increased security at our ports of entry. When resourced and deployed appropriately, these types of smart investments are far more likely to interrupt the flow of narcotics than a costly and ineffective border wall. Importantly, the legislation also includes $77 million for opioid equipment and staffing to interdict fentanyl and other synthetic opioids that are shipped through international mail and express consignment facilities. This is particularly important to States like mine, New Hampshire, where we have the second highest overdose death rate from opioids in the country. So many of those deaths are caused by the synthetic fentanyl. The opioid epidemic is a true national emergency, and Federal investments like these are needed to stop the illegal flow of these drugs into the country. When Congress takes up and passes this deal, it will not only pass the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security but also six other appropriations bills that have unfortunately been waylaid by our shutdown. This appropriations package supports critical Federal investments across all government Agencies, and I want to highlight just a few of those, starting with the programs funded in the bipartisan Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019. As ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee, I worked closely with my colleague Senator Moran from Kansas, who chairs the subcommittee, and we crafted what I believe is a truly bipartisan bill that will promote the economy, protect the American people, and secure our Nation's leadership in science and innovation. For example, the fiscal year 2019 CJS bill provides $468 million in dedicated Justice Department grant programs to tackle the opioid epidemic. The legislation will provide funding to State and local governments and those organizations working on the frontlines-- providing a balanced approach of law enforcement, treatment, and recovery resources to help our communities that are dealing with opioid and fentanyl deaths. This amount is $21 million higher than the fiscal year 2018 level and $336 million higher than the President's budget request. For communities desperately fighting opioid addiction, any further delay in funding is dangerous and could be deadly, so it is critical that we pass this bill today. Importantly, the legislation also contains the highest funding level ever for the Office on Violence Against Women--$497.5 million for critical programs that provide training for police officers and prosecutors, rape prevention programs, and funding for women's shelters. While I am glad that the appropriations package provides funding for these Violence Against Women Act programs, more work needs to be done to better support survivors of domestic and sexual violence. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the complex issue of domestic violence. The appropriations package also supports investments in our national infrastructure and provides more than $49 billion to the Federal Highway Administration to modernize our highways and repair our bridges. This legislation would also provide a $1.3 billion increase for housing programs like rental assistance and homeless support services. For us in New Hampshire, that means that 9,500 low-income households will continue to have a place they can call home. I am pleased that the appropriations package includes a 1.9-percent pay increase for Federal civilian employees. This is a cost-of-living increase that is long overdue. During the shutdown, I had a chance to meet with a number of our Federal workers, and one of the things that impressed me the most was the dedication those workers had to their jobs and to serving the people of this country. They were going to work without getting paid and without knowing when they were going to get paid. Yet they showed up every day because of their commitment to the people of this country. In addition to passing this appropriations package, Congress should take further action to provide financial security to Federal employees and contractors. We just heard our colleague Tina Smith talking about the importance of providing the pay to those people who so far are not slated to get backpay. I have cosponsored legislation to secure backpay for the Federal contractor employees, including janitorial, food, and security service workers who were furloughed or forced to accept reduced work hours as a result of the shutdown. I hope we in Congress will take up and pass the bills Senator Smith outlined as soon as possible. I know you know this, Mr. President, because we have talked about it, but Americans are tired of partisanship. They expect their elected officials to work together to come to a bipartisan compromise and to do what is good for the country, and I couldn't agree more. The Senate will soon consider an appropriations package to supply Federal investments for programs that support national defense, small businesses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low- income families, and so much more. This package also includes compromised proposals to improve our border security. I hope that we will pass this package this afternoon and that the President will sign this legislation into law as soon as it passes the House. Federal workers are dedicated to serving the American people, and they have families to care for. They should never again be used as pawns. We should never again use shutting down the Federal Government as an excuse over disagreements over policy issues. It is time for our elected leaders to move away from the partisan politics and to live up to the expectations of our constituents. Let's fund the government, and let's do it today.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, after the longest shutdown in government history, Federal employees across the country are finally returning to work. National parks are reopening, grant programs are up and running again, and those who depend on essential government services are now being helped by our Nation's public servants. One of the things that impressed me the most during the shutdown was, as I met with our Federal employees who were affected, their dedication to their jobs and to the services they were providing to the American people. Like the rest of the Members of Congress and people in this country, I was thrilled when we were able to end that shutdown last week, and I was especially pleased to work with my colleagues to make sure government operations would return to normal. This shutdown should never have happened. For 35 days, partisan gamesmanship forced government Agencies to close their doors, and more than 380,000 Federal workers were furloughed and another 450,000 employees worked without pay. These Federal workers, some of whom live paycheck to paycheck, were forced to have very difficult conversations with their families on what bills will not be paid this month and how to make ends meet. I remember I was at the Coast Guard station in New Hampshire last week meeting with members of our Coast Guard who were talking about the Coast Guard cutter that is stationed there--the Reliance--heading out that morning and the families of those Coast Guard members who were on the Reliance not having any idea when they would again be paid. Thankfully, these 800,000 employees and thousands more Federal contractors are returning to work. Unfortunately, the prolonged economic effect of the shutdown and the morale of the Federal workforce is going to last much longer. A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office found that during the shutdown, the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 billion that is gone forever, which we are never going to be able to recover. When people aren't paid, they don't shop. They don't travel. They miss payments. They default on loans. They can't participate in our economy if they have nothing in the bank. Although the shutdown has ended, some Federal employees who have gone without a paycheck for over a month still may not get paid until the end of this week. I know everybody is trying to make sure those paychecks go out as soon as possible. They can't go out soon enough for those workers who have missed their paychecks. As the President continues to threaten another shutdown in the coming weeks, Congress needs to take additional action to protect Federal workers. I am cosponsoring three bills that would provide some financial security to those employees. These bills would eliminate penalties for Federal workers who make early withdrawals from their savings plans, require the government to pay back all Federal employees with interest, just as the private sector does, and they would ensure that excepted Federal employees are eligible for unemployment insurance compensation. What we know happened during the shutdown is that those people who were working couldn't collect unemployment because they were working, even though they weren't getting paid. That is something we would never allow the private sector to do. I was very disappointed to hear the President and White House officials say over the weekend that if the President doesn't get what he wants, he is going to shut down the government again. The American people, our economy, can't afford another partisan shutdown that jeopardizes our Federal workforce and does nothing to increase border security. Our focus now needs to be on working together to pass bipartisan legislation that secures our borders and funds our government. Protecting our borders shouldn't be an exercise in partisanship. In the past, in the Senate, we have been able to garner support from across the ideological spectrum to fund commonsense proposals that provide effective security. If we look at this chart that traces appropriations for Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2018, we can see that Congress has consistently increased funding for Customs and Border Protection each of the past 5 fiscal years, providing nearly $60 billion for the Agency. In 2014, we provided $10.6 billion; 2015, $10.7 billion; 2016, $11.2 billion; 2017, $12.1 billion; and 2018, $14 billion. It is consistently increasing the dollars that are available. Just last year, Congress provided $1.3 billion for border fencing on our southern border--$1.3 billion last year. I am not sure everyone in the administration knows that is how much money we have provided. The money has yet to be spent on the actual construction of proposed fencing projects. As we are thinking about how we spend our money on border security, we need to be spending it in a way that is smart. We should not be putting aside money we can't spend yet when there are other needs we have for those dollars. We need to build on these proposals moving forward. We need to focus on technology, on infrastructure, and we need to focus on the personnel who are needed at the southern and northern borders to provide actual security that works. We need to make targeted investments and innovative technologies that provide comprehensive surveillance at our borders and ports of entry, along with increasing personnel and physical infrastructure where necessary. As a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds Homeland Security, I have supported these investments in the past and so has the majority of the members of the committee. We have worked in a bipartisan manner to secure our borders. I have supported funding for targeted fencing in vulnerable areas, funding for more Border Patrol agents, for better surveillance, for screening technologies, and for increased security at ports of entry. I intend to continue to support commonsense efforts such as these. Unfortunately, providing billions of dollars to fulfill a campaign promise to build a wall that has no plan that has been presented for how to do that is really not a serious proposal. It is unlikely to solve the problems it seeks to address. Our efforts to secure the border should focus on solutions that will stem the flow of opioids, fentanyl, and other drugs that have decimated our communities. Last year, New Hampshire had the second highest rate of overdose deaths due to opioids, primarily fentanyl. Physical infrastructure and some fencing in high-risk areas can help to disrupt drug trafficking across our borders, but it should be done in conjunction with and not at the expense of other technologies that allow law enforcement to identify and disrupt criminal activity. Several years ago, Senator Hoeven and I--when he was chair and I was ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee-- visited the southern border. We had a chance to talk to Customs and Border Protection officials, to immigration officials at the border. They talked about the drugs that come across at the ports of entry. In Laredo, we saw dogs and CBP agents looking in a pickup truck for an area in front of the gas tank where they thought drugs were being secreted. We are not going to intercept those drugs that are affecting our States and communities by building a wall. We have to have new screening technologies at our ports of entry, new technologies that utilize artificial intelligence and advanced imaging so they can assist in identifying contraband and weapons that are hidden in commercial cargo. Sensor technologies and other surveillance techniques, such as unmanned aerial systems, or drones, allow our border agents to expand their region and respond immediately to illegal activity at our borders. When resourced and deployed appropriately, these types of smart investments are far more likely to interrupt the flow of narcotics than a costly and ineffective border wall. It is also important to remember that the United States and Canada share the longest international border in the world, and the northern border may not face the same threats as those posed at the southern border, but transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors still attempt to exploit vulnerabilities and enter the country illegally through our northern border. Coming from a State that shares a small portion of our border with Canada, I have heard from law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. Our law enforcement officials face unique challenges with enforcement and security. These challenges include a lack of broadband in highly rural areas that impedes law enforcement activities. If we see somebody coming across the border in northern New Hampshire from Canada, we can't pick up a cellphone and call law enforcement because we don't have cell service in northern New Hampshire along our border. Truly comprehensive border security must recognize the threat at our northern border and invest in technologies to address the unique challenges that law enforcement faces there. We need broadband access in northern New Hampshire and all along our northern border. We also need to improve the functioning of our immigration port system. We really need comprehensive immigration reform, but we are not going to get there, I don't think, by the February 15 deadline. We can look at what is slowing down our immigration court system and help support those efforts to adjudicate immigration cases fairly and expeditiously and reduce the enormous immigration court case backlog. Again, as a ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice, I have supported strong funding to increase the number of immigration judges, including an increase of $59 million for fiscal year 2019. This increased amount is, in fact, the President's request that would support new immigration judge teams. We already put that money into the 2019 budget, if we are allowed to go forward with what the Appropriations Committee in the Senate agreed to. Our immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 800,000 cases waiting to be heard, and the shutdown exacerbated this problem by forcing more than 80,000--80,000--court hearings to be canceled. The average wait time to hear an immigration case is already longer than 2 years, and these unnecessarily canceled hearings will be rescheduled into 2020 and beyond. This shutdown-caused delay means years longer that people who should be deported, who may pose a threat in this country, will be able to stay here and years longer that the people who may deserve relief, who should be allowed to stay in the United States, will have to wait in limbo. Now that the shutdown has ended, now that cooler heads can prevail, and we can look at what makes sense to secure our borders, look at what we have already done, how we can build on that and how we can address legitimate concerns about what is going on at our borders, it is time for all of us--Republicans and Democrats--to put aside gamesmanship and to support commonsense proposals. It is my hope that the conference committee that has already been appointed to negotiate funding for the Department of Homeland Security will focus on the solutions that work rather than proposals that score political points. This shutdown took an enormous economic and emotional toll not only on our Federal workforce but on everyone who accesses government services. As we craft a bipartisan proposal to fund the government and secure our borders, let's not forget the impact that has had on the people we serve and on the potential impact if we don't get this resolved by February 15. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I know every Member of the Senate has heard from constituents who are facing significant hardships as a result of the shutdown. I know every Member wants this shutdown to end. Unfortunately, President Trump doesn't seem to want this shutdown to end. The House has already passed appropriations bills that would reopen the government. This appropriations legislation is not partisan. In fact, they are bills that have already had bipartisan support in the Senate. So I urge President Trump, Majority Leader McConnell, and our Republican colleagues to take up these bills to reopen the government. I believe we should reopen the government. Let's do our jobs so the rest of America can do theirs. I yield the floor.

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