Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Air traffic controllers keep our airways safe, but, as we all know, they are being asked to work long shifts without being sure they are going to get paid for that work. One air traffic controller I heard from was recently transferred to the Boston area, which is covered in New Hampshire. She is the sole provider to her mother. Now she is paying not only her mortgage but her mother's mortgage. In a letter she addressed to my office, she wrote: As a sole source of income to my household, the foreseeable future of this shutdown is detrimental. . . . [It has created] a substantial burden on not just me but the thousands of federal employees it's impacting. Sadly, the shutdown also stands to affect the safety of air travel-- not because our air traffic controllers aren't on the job. They are on the job. They are doing the work even though they are not getting paid. But the fact is, men and women who provide administrative and maintenance functions on the runway--those people who fix equipment when it stops working, who are in the control tower and at airport facilities--they will not be at work to support our air traffic controllers. So when a runway or taxiway light goes dark, it is going to go unrepaired. That jeopardizes the safety and the efficiency of aviation operations. Then there are the impacts to those Agencies that are funded by the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. I understand this particularly well as the ranking member on the CJS Subcommittee of Appropriations. I know what a devastating effect this shutdown is having on these Agencies. More than 41,000 law enforcement agents of the Department of Justice--including agents within the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Prisons--are working for IOUs. We are hearing this directly in New Hampshire, where every staff member at the Federal Correctional Institution in Berlin, NH, which is in northern New Hampshire, is excepted. That means they are required to report for work, and they are not being paid. I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Chris Allen. Chris is the president of the union at FCI Berlin, which represents 180 staff members. He highlighted the kinds of choices staff members are being forced to make. He said: While some staff members can call and potentially have a mortgage or a car payment excused if they are missing only one source of income, even buying simple groceries or paying for childcare becomes difficult for a family when all sources of income have been stopped and you are required to continue working. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Chris's letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, because of the shutdown, the Department of Commerce is not processing U.S. companies' requests to be excluded from the President's steel and aluminum tariffs. That delay will cost companies millions of dollars and will increase economic uncertainty. The shutdown is also preventing the Department of Commerce from assessing new anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases that help ensure our companies are competing on a level playing field. Finally, this shutdown, like all shutdowns, is going to put a lasting burden on the economy. The 16-day shutdown in 2013 cost the government $2.5 billion in pay and benefits, and it lowered fourth-quarter gross domestic product for the country by about $3 billion in lost output. The 2018 Trump shutdown has furloughed about 380,000 employees, nearly half of the number furloughed in 2013. So it is fair to say that the shutdown has already cost the government at least $1 billion, and the number is growing every day. The toll this shutdown is taking on the American people was completely avoidable. That is what is so frustrating, and I know it is frustrating to everybody in this Chamber. Last week, the House passed legislation to reopen the government that is virtually identical to legislation that passed the Senate or was reported by the Appropriations Committee with strong bipartisan margins. In fact, here, as we remember, that continuing resolution to allow us to keep negotiating passed by a voice vote. I urge Senator McConnell to bring these bills to the floor. Let President Trump decide to sign them or not sign them. He can make that choice as President, but we are a separate branch of government, and it is up to us to make the determination to end the shutdown immediately and to do what is right for the American people. We need to ensure that all government employees affected by the shutdown receive the pay they deserve. I know there is legislation, led by Senators Cardin and Collins, to do that. I urge Congress to take up and pass this critical legislation as soon as possible. One of the most fundamental constitutional duties of Congress is the appropriations process--to supply annual funds for Federal programs that support national defense, transportation, small businesses, food assistance for low-income families, research and development, and so much more. Right now, by refusing to allow legislation to reopen the government, this Senate--this Congress--is failing, and millions of Americans are suffering as a result. I urge President Trump, Senator McConnell, and congressional Republicans to reopen the government and allow Americans to get back to work. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kaine and so many others who are here on the floor today to talk about the hardship that has been created for so many Americans by this government shutdown--a government shutdown that is wasteful, unnecessary, and totally about politics. Today is the 17th day since this partisan brinkmanship shut down 9 out of 15 Departments and dozens of government Agencies that we depend on to protect our health and safety. We could reopen the government's doors today if Senate Republicans take up the bills that were passed by the House--bills that were written and overwhelmingly approved by the Republican-controlled Senate just a few weeks ago. If there is bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the appropriations bills, then why has the government shut down? Sadly, it is because the President wants to force American taxpayers to foot the bill for an ineffective and costly wall on the southern border--a wall which the President promised Mexico would pay for and which is opposed by the majority of Americans. Meanwhile, the men and women who work in Agencies that protect the American people and who protect our borders are either not working or on the job but not getting paid. In total, more than 380,000 Federal employees have been furloughed, and more than 450,000 are working without pay. This shutdown affects the entire country, including New Hampshire. It is not just the thousands of Federal workers who are affected by the shutdown; it is also harming millions of Americans who depend on essential services provided by the affected Agencies, people like those Senator Kaine described. Last Friday, I had a chance to meet with farmers in New Hampshire who are affected by the ongoing closure of the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. They are not receiving the essential services and loans they need to prepare for spring planting. Many dairy farmers, who have been under extreme hardship anyway because of the tariffs with China and falling dairy prices, talked about the impact on them. Last year, New Hampshire dairy farmers lost $1 million because of the tariffs, and our farmers tell me they are in danger of losing several million more this coming year. So they can't afford to have another hit. The fact that this new dairy safety net program, which was passed in the farm bill--and congratulations to Senator Stabenow, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. She and Senator Roberts did a great job providing help for the first time for so many dairy farmers. Even though they are hurting because of the tariffs, those farmers can't benefit from that right now because the program's implementation has been delayed. They don't know how long they will be able to hold on before they are able to get help. Furloughs have also slowed work at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the programs it oversees that are integral to New Hampshire's effort to fight the deadly opioid epidemic. Everybody who is getting ready to speak has seen the effects in their States because of the delays in these programs. Last year, New Hampshire had the second highest rate of deaths due to opioid-related drug overdoses. Continued delays from the Agency will pull the rug out from under our first responders, who rely on ONDCP resources and critical Federal opioid response efforts. Just as we are beginning to see some progress in fighting the opioid epidemic because of the work of Congress, we are seeing steps taken that move us backward. Of course, there are the air traffic controllers. Last Friday, I visited with New Hampshire's air traffic controllers to discuss how the shutdown is affecting their operations and safety at our airports. I have received 38 handwritten letters from New Hampshire air traffic controllers who are opposed to the shutdown. (Mr. DAINES assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his compelling remarks. In fact, for the last several hours, we have heard compelling remarks from a number of our colleagues. I thank Senator Kaine from Virginia for helping to organize this effort and all of those who have come to the floor to talk about the lasting and negative effects of this senseless shutdown--a shutdown that is all about President Trump yielding to Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing commentators who told them he wasn't being tough enough. Senators Casey and Markey reminded us how we got here, that we had an agreement we thought the President had committed to sign. His Vice President, his Acting Chief of Staff, told us he was going to sign it. It passed the Senate on a voice vote. What is so ironic, as Senator Markey said, is that what is happening now is actually making us less safe. The idea that we have all of these people on our southern border, all of these TSA agents, people who are working, 800,000 employees, 400,000 who are furloughed, 380,000 who are working without pay--that is actually making us less safe. As Senator Durbin pointed out, a wall across our southern border wouldn't do anything to interdict the fentanyl that is coming across from China. That is the biggest killer of people in New Hampshire from overdoses; it is the fentanyl. As Senator Jones pointed out, the Coast Guard's role in interdiction is what is significant. It is not a wall that is going to keep out those vehicles that are going to come through our ports of entry. Senator Stabenow reminded us that there are 38 million people who depend on food assistance, and a quarter of the people in New Mexico, as Senator Heinrich told us, depend on food assistance. He quoted his constituent Kathy, who pointed out that the President is holding us hostage. She said: Federal employees are being held hostage. We are now being held hostage in the Senate because the majority is unwilling to act on the legislation that has passed the House and previously passed the Senate. Senator Bennet talked about China landing on the dark side of the Moon last week. It is a reminder that we have to compete in this world, that we can't assume that America is going to be No. 1 in everything again. Yet, while China was landing on the dark side of the Moon, our government was shut down. Thousands of researchers weren't doing their jobs at NASA, the Department of Agriculture, and so many other places because we were shut down. The cost to the economy as a whole, as Senator Hassan pointed out-- there are craft breweries in New Hampshire, small businesses that can't get their businesses started because government is shut down. Senator Klobuchar pointed out that the cost to the economy, according to the President's own advisers, is $10 billion a week. At a time when the stock market is going up and down, when we have people losing billions of dollars because of fluctuations in the stock market, $10 billion a week contributes to that uncertainty. Then, of course, Senator Van Hollen and Senator Merkley and virtually everybody here talked about the impact on ordinary Americans from this government shutdown. We are going to hear from President Trump in about 5 minutes. He is going to speak to the country. I will bet he doesn't talk about the impact on ordinary Americans of this government shutdown. I will bet he doesn't talk about the cost to the economy or what he promised to sign when this Congress passed funding bills. I will bet he doesn't talk about the future of America and what is going to happen if we don't continue to invest in research and if we don't continue to invest in our people and instead get involved in these partisan fights. No. I think what he is going to do is tell Americans a made-up story about the emergency at our southern border--an emergency that we saw from Senator Durbin and Senator Merkley is not real. We have gone from 1.6 million people coming across our southern border and being arrested down to about 200,000 in the last year. This is not a crisis that is affecting America. We need to address border security. Everybody here believes that. All of the people who spoke tonight said we need to address border security. We need to do it in a way that is thoughtful and that spends taxpayer dollars wisely. It is time for us to act in the Senate. It is time for Congress to fund this government, to get it back open. I very much appreciate Senator Kaine's work here tonight as we talk about the impacts on this country of this government shutdown. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to my colleague from Virginia.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely, and it is what we saw in Iraq.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Not at all. In fact, if you look at this map, you can see this orange color. That is one of the pockets that remains of ISIS. Right here. We have not yet eradicated ISIS, and that does not account for some of the cells that exist throughout this area.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Without a doubt, and we saw that firsthand, as you remember. When we saw them guarding our outposts, when we saw them in the communities, when we saw them in the detention facilities, trying to abide by international standards with respect to the foreign fighters they were guarding, it was very impressive.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am in distress to be on the floor of the Senate today with my colleague, Senator Graham, to express our deep and profound disappointment in President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria. We had the opportunity to visit Syria this summer, and we saw what a difference our troops had made there in the fight against ISIS in stabilizing Syria along the northern Turkish border. We saw the response from the Syrians we talked to, both the Kurds and Arabs, as we drove along the road. We saw children and people in the area flashing a victory sign at our troops, and you can see from this map the land that is controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, our partners in Syria, so this is the United States and Syrian Democratic Forces. We have a significant piece of Syria that is now peaceful and stabilized and ISIS has been thrown out of that part of Syria, but the President's decision--which was announced by a tweet--is dangerous, premature, and wholly inconsistent with the facts on the ground in Syria and our own military's advice. I was listening to Senator Rubio earlier today talking about what is the plan? What is the plan if we withdraw? Well, I will tell you what the plan is. There is no plan. There is no follow-on to what we are going to do if we withdraw from Syria. What we know is, the work of our combined joint task force, Operation Inherent Resolve, and its partner forces, the Syrian Democratic Forces, is truly remarkable. Again, we can see it. We can see it in this brown section of the country where we have control and there is peace and stability. Senator Graham and I, when we visited this summer, we went to Manbij, which was controlled by ISIS for 3 years. We walked through the market in Manbij without any body armor, with no guards. We talked to people in that community about what life was like under ISIS. I talked to one woman who told me she did not go out of her house the entire time ISIS controlled Manbij, for 3 years. She went out of her house once to visit the doctor. We saw women strolling through the market. We saw children playing. We saw people who were happy to be back in their own communities. They said to us: Please stay. We are worried about what will happen if the Americans leave Manbij. We also flew over Kobane, right here on the Turkish border. I remember all of the TV coverage of the fight for Kobane and what it looked like. We could see it was being rebuilt, not with money from the United States but with money from the region. We could see all the building going on. We flew over a center where they were holding some of the most dangerous foreign fighters who had been captured in the fight against ISIS, being held right here in Kobane. Then we went down to Ayn Issa, where we saw, directly, the difference certain forces had made in helping to guard our outposts where our troops were stationed. We saw detention facilities where they were holding, again, fighters from Syria who had fought for ISIS. We then went over to Al-Hasakah where we saw a prison that was being built to hold the most dangerous of the foreign fighters. Those foreign fighters who--we don't know what will happen if we withdraw our troops. There will be nobody there to support the Syrian Democratic Forces that are holding hundreds of those fighters. What happens? Do they get released? Do they come back to the United States and to Europe where they can engineer terrorist attacks? Do they go back into the villages and restart another terrorist group? There is no--we don't know what is going to happen there because there is no follow-on plan. Again, we heard from people everywhere we went how important it was to have American troops stationed in Syria--about 2,000 American troops who have made such a huge difference there. They serve a vital shield against ISIS cells that are still operating in Northeast Syria. While the President claims that the threat of ISIS within Syria has dissipated, the conditions on the ground paint a very different picture. So working with our partners we have achieved gains against ISIS because we have partnered with the Syrian Democratic Forces that are partly Kurd and partly Arab. If those Syrian Democratic Forces lose the support of the United States, we run the risk of a resurgence of ISIS and the possible capitulation or all-out destruction of Kurdish resistance in the region. What does that mean? That means those ISIS elements are emboldened. They may go underground, but they may reemerge. If we don't remember history, we are destined to repeat it. That is what happened in Iraq. We left al-Qaida, moved to Syria, and they reemerged as an even bigger threat. If we leave, it is not at all clear what is going to happen. These are hard-fought gains that are critical to ensuring that we win the fight against terrorism in the Middle East. If we leave, we are going to cede influence in that region to Russia, to Iran, to Assad. In fact, just moments after this decision was announced this morning, we heard the chair of Russia's State Duma, the chair of the Defense Committee, Vladimir Shamanov said: ``U.S. plans in Syria had failed,'' and he added that we, the United States, had decided to make this knight's move in order to avoid a ``shameful end.'' Make no mistake. They are celebrating in Moscow tonight after the President's announcement, just like they are celebrating in Tehran tonight because of the President's announcement because we are going to leave the field in Syria to those countries that are aggressors against the United States. I urge President Trump to listen to his military and diplomatic advisers before he goes any further on this shortsighted decision. It is important to understand that U.S. leadership is essential to completely defeating ISIS and to bringing an end to the violence in Syria. It is also important to reassure our allies that America keeps its word; that when partnering with us, we are there to support you. If we leave now, what does that say to anybody else in the future who may want to partner with the United States on any conflict? It says: You can't count on the United States because we may just pull out on you tomorrow if the President suddenly thinks it is in his interests--not in the interests of the United States but in his interest to withdraw. This is a reckless decision, and it is undoubtedly going to have consequences for years to come for our military and for our ability to partner with others internationally. The only ones who are going to benefit from this decision are our enemies. So I am pleased to partner with Senator Graham on a resolution that would express the sense of the Senate that we should not be withdrawing our troops from Syria, that there is too much at stake here for us to take this reckless action and send the wrong message to our partners in the rest of the world. I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Graham, and we will do everything we can to urge the President to reverse this reckless decision.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely not. In fact, they talked about how pleased they were with the gains we had made, with the partnership, with the SDF, with what they were seeing in terms of stabilizing those communities, people coming back to their homes, rebuilding, and how important it was for us to stay there.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. You talk about those 700 prisoners. A number of them are foreign fighters. A number of them are ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq. What do you think will happen to those detainees who are being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces if we withdraw and there is no support for what they are doing?

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, we will soon be voting in this Chamber on S. Res. 64, which is a Congressional Review Act resolution looking at a Treasury Department rule that I believe will promote dark money in politics. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, our political system has been flooded--absolutely flooded--with money from special interest groups. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, independent expenditures on campaigns went from $203 million in 2010 to $1.48 billion less than 10 years later, in 2016. So it went from $203 million in 2010, after the Citizens United decision, to $1.48 billion in 2016. This massive influx of money into our elections undermines the confidence of the American people in our political system. It creates an environment that is ripe for corruption and inappropriate influence. It sows further disenchantment among the electorate and impacts participation in our democracy. It allows voters to believe that their votes are less important than businesses with a bigger checkbook. That is why it is so important that we ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing through robust disclosure requirements and oversight. Unfortunately, instead of making it easier to identify individuals and organizations who are funding campaigns, the Treasury Department has issued a rule that will increase the amount of dark money in the political process. That is money that comes in, and we have no idea where it comes from and who is behind it. This ill-advised rule change from the Treasury Department will eliminate the requirement that social welfare organizations, or 501(c)(4)s, and business leagues, or 501(c)(6)s, report donor information to the IRS. That basically gives a blank check for anyone to come in and spend any amount of money, and we are not going to know who it is or who is behind the money. The change risks impeding law enforcement efforts to track money laundering in our political system, and it makes it more likely that foreign money will illegally influence our elections. Under this new rule, organizations that made over $197 million in independent expenditures during the 2016 election cycle would now be totally exempt from disclosing who those donors were to the IRS. The door will now be open to hundreds of millions more in dark money from secret groups with hidden agendas, trying to buy an election with money and influence. These dark money groups have increased in size and scope since the Citizens United decision, as they recognize the opportunity to influence elections with no accountability. Malicious actors at home and abroad will likely exploit the increased secrecy in this process, and the proliferation of these dark money groups will further influence our political system. This Congress has a duty to ensure the integrity and security of our electoral process. We have to eliminate dark money contributions as we do this. Dark money has a corrosive influence on our Democratic process because it erodes trust in our institutions, it distorts the motives of our elected representatives, and, perhaps most importantly, the American people have a right to know if the candidates they choose to represent them are supported by foreign groups and shady special interests. For these reasons, I strongly support attempts to stop the Trump administration's misguided attempt to allow more dark money into our political process, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that will be coming up shortly. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Whitehouse. I am pleased to join both of you, who have done such a tremendous job in leading on this issue of trying to get everyone to wake up to the challenges that we face in climate change and what that is going to mean, not just for us in New England but for people across this country and across the globe. Maybe the reason we feel so passionate about this is because we see it. We already see it happening in New England, as my colleagues detailed so well. We are on the cutting edge of these changes. You don't have to have lived in New Hampshire for very long to have seen what is happening as a result of climate change. Last week, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released its fourth National Climate Assessment, and that details the profound effect climate change is having and is going to continue to have on the environment, on the economy, and on our public health. The report makes it abundantly clear that every American--every American--is affected by climate change and that the threat it poses will get worse unless we take action. As I said, people in my State of New Hampshire have no doubt about the reality of climate change because we have been seeing it for years now. We have been experiencing it. The steady increase in temperatures and the rise in annual precipitation are already affecting New Hampshire's tourism and outdoor recreation economy. Each year, hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and wildlife watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our mountains, our lakes, and all of our beautiful natural resources. The outdoor economy--hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation--contributes more than $4 billion to New Hampshire's economy each year, but this is threatened now because rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, and they are negatively affecting our snow- and ice- related winter recreation activities. That includes skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobiling. The New Hampshire ski industry employs 17,000 Granite Staters, and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services warns that these jobs are threatened by climate change. New Hampshire's--in fact, all of New England's fall foliage is at risk. This is climate modeling by the Union of Concerned Scientists that shows that by the end of this century, New Hampshire's summers will feel like present-day summers in North Carolina, 700 miles to our south. While the Presiding Officer certainly understands that this works great for North Carolina, it changes dramatically what happens in New Hampshire. What this shows is that--this red color, which are the maple and beech and birch trees--the maple trees in particular that produce our maple syrup--that make such a difference in our fall foliage--those are going to be gone by 2070--by the end of this century. All of this red that we are seeing throughout--from Pennsylvania, New York, across Northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine--that will all be gone by the end of this century. Again, this underscores that if we fail to act on climate change, we are going to see a steep loss of jobs and revenue. That is going to affect our outdoor recreation industry, and it is going to affect our traditional maple syrup industry. New Hampshire produces more than 100,000 gallons of maple syrup annually. That makes it the third largest maple syrup producer in the United States. Maple syrup is entirely dependent on weather conditions. We are already seeing the impact these changes are having because as we get into spring, the temperatures are not getting cold enough at night to make the sap run in the maple trees, and during the day, we are not seeing the fluctuation in temperatures that allows maple syrup to be produced. The National Climate Assessment notes that the changing climate is putting more and more stress on sugar maples. If we fail to act on climate change, this could destroy New Hampshire's multimillion-dollar maple syrup industry. Now, it is also affecting our wildlife. It is affecting their habitats. Probably one of the most iconic symbols of New Hampshire is our moose. Yet they are being threatened. Because of milder winters due to climate change, ticks and other insects aren't dying off, which leads to infestation on our wildlife and on our trees. According to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the estimated moose population in New Hampshire has decreased by more than 50 percent since the mid-1990s. That story is even worse for moose calves. A recent study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire found that winter ticks are the primary cause of an unprecedented 70-percent death rate of calves over a 3-year period. On average--and we can see this dramatically in these photos--47,000 ticks were found on each calf that was monitored during this study. To quote Dr. Peter Pekins, a professor at UNH who is a lead author on the study, ``the iconic moose is rapidly becoming the new poster child for climate change in parts of the Northeast.'' We are going to see moose totally disappearing from the Northeast--in fact, from all of the northern part of the United States, if we don't take action. As my colleagues have said, global warming is also impacting our fishing industry. New Hampshire may have a small coast--18 miles of coastline--but we have an important commercial fishing industry that contributes $106 million to the State and supports 5,000 jobs. Unfortunately, because of climate change, the average annual temperatures in the waters off of southern New England have increased by about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1970s. This change in temperature is driving some of New England's most iconic fisheries northward and further out to sea. Lobsters, for example, have migrated 40 miles northward to the Gulf of Maine in the last decade. As we can see from this illustration, it shows the red areas where we used to have lobster until the 1970s. They have totally disappeared, and those lobsters have moved north of Cape Cod. They are moving into northern Maine and up into Canada. They are totally gone from the New England Sound. That is devastating to Southern New Hampshire fishing communities where lobster is their livelihood. Ironically, as I think Senator Markey said so well, the lobster migration has contributed to an overabundance in the Gulf of Maine, and that has caused price volatility in the lobster market. So we have seen dramatic fluctuations which have also affected our fishermen. Of course, the impacts on human health have been dramatic because people are suffering from the impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures increase the number of air pollution action days. They increase pollen and mold levels, and they increase allergies. All of these things are dangerous to some of our most vulnerable populations, including children. In New Hampshire we have one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country because of air pollution that has been moving primarily from the Midwest but now is being exacerbated by climate change. The elderly are affected, as well as those with allergies and those with chronic respiratory conditions. Rising temperatures also facilitate the spread of insectborne illnesses, such as Lyme disease, which have been a huge factor for people in New Hampshire and across New England. Now, because New Hampshire and the Northeastern States and New England have been experiencing major negative impacts from climate change, we have been working to reduce carbon emissions to try and transition to a more energy-efficient and clean-energy economy. New Hampshire is one of nine Northeastern States that participates in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, since the program launched in 2009. Massachusetts and Rhode Island are also participants. But carbon emissions in RGGI States have fallen by 51 percent. So in less than a decade, because of RGGI, we have seen a 51-percent reduction in carbon emissions. In addition, customers in RGGI States have saved an estimated $773 million on their energy bills, and billions more are expected. That is thanks not just to renewables but to energy efficiency. I am a big believer that energy efficiency is also one of the most important ways we can reduce our carbon emissions. Also, the wholesale price of energy has fallen. So we can see on average 6.4 percent and $773 million in energy savings. So climate change--as everyone who has spoken about this evening has pointed out--is probably the greatest environmental challenge the world has ever faced, but we can do something about it if we take action. Through smart energy policies and through thoughtful conservation measures, we can stop climate change from reaching dangerous, irreversible levels, but we have to act now. So I urge my colleagues and I urge this administration to recognize the economic and environmental imperative of addressing climate change before it is too late. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse, not just for those kind words but for all of the work he has done and continues to do. For the last 6 years, Senator Whitehouse has come to the floor of this Senate week after week, every week, to talk about climate change and to talk about its effects throughout the United States and around the globe and our need to take action to address this crisis. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, for your leadership. Climate change is real, and it is a present threat to our planet. Senator Whitehouse talked about some of the science involved with that. It is very clear to anybody who has looked at the science who doesn't have a political agenda that this is real. It is a threat, and we need to address it. In New Hampshire, we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in so many ways. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, they are disrupting our maple syrup production, and they are shortening our ski seasons and our snowmobiling. Ice-out occurs earlier each year on our lakes. They are causing sea level rise that can imperil businesses and homes along our seacoast. The strains on our fisheries and the increases of insect-borne diseases that endanger our wildlife can all be tied to the effects of climate change. I have here a photo that I think it is important for people to see. Moose have been one of New Hampshire's iconic wildlife representatives, to put it, I guess, the easiest way. The moose are something that we are very proud of in New Hampshire. We have seen them in the wildest parts of our State, some even as far south as where I live in southern New Hampshire. What we are seeing as the result of climate change is a 40-percent reduction in the moose in New Hampshire. As I said, that is happening because of increases in insect-borne diseases. If we look very closely at this picture, it looks like there are little round balls on this moose. Those are ticks. Those are ticks that have been able to attach to the moose and, in so many cases, kill the moose. They are there because it is not getting cold enough in our winters to kill off those ticks, so they multiply in such numbers that they attach to the moose and they kill them. You can see this is a distressed moose that has been affected by those ticks. She shouldn't look like this, but it is the ticks. Those insect-borne diseases are also responsible for something called brain worm that affects moose as well. So for our hunters and the people who enjoy the outdoors and wildlife viewing, that is being threatened now because of climate change. The beautiful maples that produce maple syrup and that produce such beautiful colors in our fall foliage are being threatened because of climate change. The estimate is that in several decades, we will no longer see either moose or maple trees in New Hampshire because they will have been forced out because the warming temperatures will mean they can no longer survive. Climate change is also affecting the public health of New Hampshire citizens. Rising temperatures increase smog levels. They heighten the effects of allergy season. They increase the number of children with asthma. New Hampshire has one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country, and that has gotten worse because of climate change. Scientists have proven without a doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary culprits for the climate changes that we are seeing and that human activity has increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases. If we are going to stop global warming, the United States must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in every sector, starting with how we produce and consume energy. One of the things that I have learned since my days as Governor is that the easiest, fastest way to reduce our energy use is through energy efficiency. It is without a doubt America's largest energy resource. It has contributed more to our Nation's energy needs over the last 40 years than any other fuel source. Without the economy-wide improvements in energy efficiency that have occurred since 1973, it is estimated that today's economy would require 60 percent more energy than we are now consuming. In fact, savings from energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our national energy bill by an estimated $800 billion--with a ``b''--all while growing and expanding our economy. Put another way, in the last 40 years, we have saved more energy through energy efficiency than we have produced through fossil fuels and nuclear power combined. So think about that. Think about the potential of energy efficiency in addressing our energy needs. Energy efficiency is also the largest sector within the U.S. clean energy economy. It employs nearly 2.25 million Americans nationwide, and the majority of those people work in our small businesses. We know that small businesses create about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. They are overwhelmingly responsible for innovation. Sixteen times more patents are produced by small businesses. So this is where innovation is going on, and it is going on in energy efficiency. Just to reiterate, energy efficiency measures have proven time and time again to be the easiest and most cost-effective way to address climate change, while reducing energy costs and creating private sector jobs. The thing that I like about energy efficiency is that you don't have to live in a certain part of the country and you don't have to be a proponent of other types of fuel sources to appreciate and to support energy efficiency. Everyone benefits from energy efficiency. Unfortunately, since he took office, President Trump and his administration have proposed policies that seek to undermine America's clean energy economy and delay our progress toward addressing climate change. The administration has proposed rollbacks to clean car standards that will force Americans to pay more at the gas pump and harm our environment. Here is a chart that shows very clearly what rolling back CAFE standards--the vehicle emissions requirements--would do. By 2035, the rollback would add at least 158 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. It would increase U.S. fuel consumption by 13.9 billion gallons per year. This is according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. If we think about that in terms of fossil fuels--this fuel consumption--that is more fuel than we import from Iraq or Venezuela each year. Think about what that will mean for increased consumption. The administration has also proposed to replace the Clean Power Plan with regulations that would relax standards for powerplants at the expense and well-being of current and future generations. Appliance efficiency standards have been frozen in place. After four decades with energy efficiency as a bipartisan cornerstone of Federal energy policy, the President has once again proposed profound cuts to energy efficiency and to renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy. For those of us who support energy efficiency, there can be only one response to these rollbacks: We must address them head-on, and we must redouble our efforts to keep America on the right track. As a result of bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate--as I said, energy efficiency is one thing that we can get behind, Republicans and Democrats--last month the President signed into law a spending bill that includes increased investments for clean energy programs at the Department of Energy--something that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. In addition to increasing those investments, this appropriations bill marks the first time since 2009--so the first time since I have been in the Senate--that the Department of Energy will secure its funding before the start of a fiscal year. This financial certainty will strengthen these programs and the industries they support. The passage of the Energy and Water appropriations bill that we did today demonstrates that Congress remains committed to advancing commonsense, bipartisan policies that will strengthen our Nation's energy efficiency. Just last week, this Senate adopted a bipartisan resolution that was sponsored by Senator Portman of Ohio and me, along with 19 of our colleagues, that recognizes the economic and environmental benefits that energy efficiency has contributed to this country. Senator Portman and I are also committed to advancing our legislation to spur energy efficiency innovation and other initiatives across the most energy- intensive sectors of our economy. Senator Whitehouse talked about the efforts that we have engaged in over the last 7 years. We have introduced our bill into Congress in each Congress over the past 7 years. Each time, we are getting a little more momentum in getting this through. We have gotten certain provisions of the bill through in the last two Congresses. It has been far too long since Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill, so it is time for us to work together to pass an energy bill that includes energy efficiency. This is bipartisan legislation. If it were brought to the floor today, I guarantee you it would pass overwhelmingly, and it would improve our Nation's energy policies and help to grow the economy. We have some great examples of what is being done, and Senator Whitehouse talked about some of what is being done around the country to address energy efficiency and reduce our energy use. New Hampshire, like Rhode Island, is one of the States that are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. At the State, local, and grassroots levels, individuals, businesses, and governments are rising to the challenge by intensifying their efforts to advance energy efficiency and clean energy. This chart shows what has happened in the States that have been part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Carbon pollution has gone down 51 percent, and electricity prices are down 6.4 percent. For us in New England, where we have very high energy costs, that is very positive. So if you don't support energy efficiency for any other reason, you should support it because it reduces costs. Look at how much in energy savings to consumers: $773 million. Since 2009, the nine States in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have outperformed the national average in terms of all of these measures. Because the majority of proceeds are invested in energy efficiency, they have allowed electricity prices to fall, and they have saved consumers millions on their energy bills. As we look in the outyears, billions more are expected in savings, thanks to those investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In August of 2017, RGGI's nine States agreed to strengthen their program by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 30 percent more by 2030. New Hampshire and other RGGI States have shown the Nation that States can make smart clean energy choices that benefit the environment while strengthening the economy. For those who say we need a market- driven approach to addressing climate change, this is a perfect example of that. Climate change represents an enormous challenge, but solutions are within reach if we put into place policies that will allow for swift action. We have a responsibility to help protect our children and grandchildren from the severe consequences of global warming. We have to start now, and we have to start with energy efficiency. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note that my allergies are a result of that climate change.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor to join so many of my colleagues in expressing my opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. As the highest Court in the land, the Justices on the Supreme Court are tasked with the enormous responsibility of interpreting and protecting the fundamental constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all Americans. Its decisions are not abstract legal principles that are reserved for a few. Its decisions affect the rights of all of us. They touch on issues that affect all of our daily lives--from the healthcare we receive to the person we can marry, to the air we breathe. These are significant stakes that we face when considering any nominee to serve on the Supreme Court. Weeks ago, I announced my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination based on concerns I had with his record. Even though--as Senator Markey pointed out so eloquently--we haven't gotten to see a lot of that record, we have enough to know that I have very serious concerns about Judge Kavanaugh. I want to talk about a couple of those and actually highlight three concerns. First is his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. I believe all Americans in this country--everyone in this country--should have access to healthcare, healthcare they can afford so they don't have to worry when they take their kids to the doctor, so they don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they can't afford the costs, and so they don't have to worry if they develop a serious illness. Yet Judge Kavanaugh dissented in a decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, and as a result of that decision, he puts critical protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions at risk. It is particularly concerning now, when we know there is a court case in Texas which the Government of the United States has declined to continue to defend that puts at risk the requirement that insurance companies cover those with preexisting conditions. You can talk about trying to bandaid over that any way you want, but the fact is, unless we have a real healthcare program, as we have under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are not going to cover people with preexisting conditions, and they are going to charge you more if they do cover you. Second, I am very concerned about his opposition to women's reproductive rights. Judge Kavanaugh has praised Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions. I believe that is one of the most basic and fundamental rights we have, not just as women but that families have. Women should be able to make that decision in consultation with their families, with their physicians, according to their religious beliefs, and this should not be something the government dictates. Yet Brett Kavanaugh suggests this fundamental basic right is up for consideration. Finally, I have a serious concern about Judge Kavanaugh's view of executive branch power that could place the President above the law. Judge Kavanaugh has said that sitting Presidents can't be indicted, can't be prosecuted, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. Well, with the Mueller investigation, with so many concerns that have been raised about this President's manipulation of laws that have allowed him to enrich himself and his company, where he has been suggesting that he may fire the Attorney General because he is not willing to do his bidding at the Justice Department--I just don't see how we can put somebody on the Supreme Court who thinks that the President is above the law. As I have learned American history and our Constitution and our values and principles, I believe that nobody is above the law in our democracy, including the President of the United States, and I think we need a Supreme Court Justice who believes the same thing. Yet what we have heard from Judge Kavanaugh suggests that he thinks the President is above the law. At the time I announced my opposition to the nominee, we had not heard the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. In the weeks since those allegations have come out, this Senate, this country, have been rocked by those allegations. I was one of the many millions of Americans throughout the country who tuned in to closely watch that hearing when Christine Blasey Ford shared her story. Her testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee was sincere and credible, and I believe her. The impact of Dr. Ford's testimony is very telling about the pervasiveness of sexual violence in our culture. The allegations made by Christine Ford and others were serious and trustworthy, and I believe they should have been thoroughly and impartially investigated, and they were not. But on the positive side, Dr. Ford's bravery has given so many women in this country the courage to tell their stories. She gave others courage, and we have seen an outpouring from survivors who now feel as though they, too, can come forward. Senator Markey talked about the number of people that he has heard from in his office, and I have heard that same story time and again from so many of my colleagues. We are certainly seeing this in New Hampshire. The Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention Program, which is also called SHARP--a program at the University of New Hampshire that provides services and support to sexual assault survivors--reported an increase in people reaching out for help. I have heard from crisis centers across the Granite State that have fielded an influx of calls from survivors who can relate to Dr. Ford's testimony and who feel compelled to speak out. On Tuesday, I spoke with the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, which told me that they have seen similar reactions with survivors who are now stepping forward--women and men whose trauma of sexual assaults has been revived by Christine Ford's testimony. Like my colleagues, I have received letters from sexual assault survivors who have been deeply affected by Dr. Ford's testimony and whose courage has given them the strength to share their own stories. What has been amazing to me as I have read them, when I have heard from people who have contacted our office, is that some of them are in their seventies and eighties, and they reveal decades-old sexual assaults for the very first time. These wounds are real. The wounds are raw. And it is incumbent on all of us in this body--regardless of where you stand on Brett Kavanaugh-- it is incumbent on all of us to not deepen those scars by diminishing the pain of these women as political theater. This is not political theater, and it should not be viewed through a partisan lens. In those emotional emails and calls and letters from dozens of women and a few men--I think sometimes we forget that sexual assault doesn't just happen to women; it happens to men--they have described their sexual assaults and how they have been affected by the events of Christine Ford's testimony and the hearing with Judge Kavanaugh. In so many of those letters and emails, they talk about the details of what they experienced in those sexual assaults--how it has affected them; how it has affected their lives; the fact that, in most cases, they didn't tell anybody because they didn't feel they would be believed or they thought they would be demeaned or they thought it was their fault. What has been interesting to me in those letters and emails has been that so many of the people we have heard from have not just told their personal stories, but they have expressed their concerns about the country as part of writing in--concerns that we are so divided, that we are so angry, that we are so uncivil to one another. Sadly, they are right, based on what they have seen over the last couple of weeks. We have seen that at political rallies over the past few years, and we have seen it in this building. We must do better. The disunity that we model here is hurting the country. The scorched-earth politics that have been practiced here are deepening our divide. I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, and I continue to hope that something may happen at the eleventh hour; I know that is not likely. But I also will encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think about this moment, to reflect on our obligations to the American people, to the U.S. Senate, and to considering future Supreme Court nominees. So many people have said that this process has undermined the faith of the American people in the ability of the Supreme Court to be an objective arbiter of cases that come before them. This process has inflamed existing divides within our country and within Congress, and we can't let this become the status quo. As an institution, as a legislative body, we must be better than this. I have always been told that when we are standing at the edge of an abyss, the best step is always backward. So I hope all of us can take a step back. I hope we can take a step back when we are past this nomination, that we can return to a more civil discourse. I hope that we can better try to understand each other's points of view and that we can see each other's humanity. I hope that we can be better stewards of our democracy because this country demands it. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to address two pieces of legislation that are coming before the Senate. One we are currently waiting to consider is a long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the second, which I hope we will soon consider, is comprehensive legislation to address the Nation's opioid epidemic. I begin by thanking Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for their work to deliver a bipartisan, bicameral FAA reauthorization bill that provides a 5-year reauthorization for the agency. The last time we reauthorized the FAA, when I was in the Senate, I think it took us 23 tries to get it done over a period of time that was actually longer than the original authorization, but this time we are doing it much faster, with three short-term extensions. Last week, the House passed this bill, the FAA reauthorization, with broad bipartisan support, and I hope the Senate is going to act quickly so we can get this bill to the President's desk for signature. The FAA has not received a long-term reauthorization since February of 2012. Short-term reauthorizations fail to give the FAA the certainty and the necessary resources they need to make to improve our Nation's airports and make commercial air travel safer for all passengers. I think it is particularly an issue right now as we are switching over to the NextGen system of air traffic control. Last month, I had a chance to visit with air traffic controllers in New Hampshire at the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility in Merrimack, also called the TRACON. What I heard from folks there was that a long-term reauthorization bill means that the TRACON and Merrimack will be able to upgrade its systems to keep our airways safe, while also allowing the center to continue to hire well-qualified, trained controllers to meet staffing needs. The bill we have before us now provides critical investments through the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants to airports nationwide for planning and development projects that these airports would be unable to complete otherwise. In New Hampshire, where we have a number of small airports, this grant program is particularly important. It also increases investments in the Essential Air Service Program, which provides services that would otherwise be too cost prohibitive for airlines to operate in rural communities like we have in New Hampshire. For example, EAS is vital for Granite Staters who utilize the Lebanon Municipal Airport and depend on this service for access to regularly scheduled flights that would not otherwise be available. I am sure the Presiding Officer has an appreciation for the Lebanon Municipal Airport, since he went to school at Dartmouth in that region of the State and knows how important that airport is to New Hampshire. I am also pleased the FAA bill includes legislation I introduced as part of it to permanently reauthorize the Human Intervention Motivation Study, the HIMS Program, and also directs the National Research Council to study how other subagencies within the Department of Transportation could create similar programs to fight drug and alcohol addiction within their workforces. HIMS, as it is known, is an employee assistance program that provides education and outreach in order to coordinate the identification, treatment, medical recertification, and return to the cockpit of flight officers with substance misuse issues. HIMS doesn't provide direct treatment but instead helps identify those who are in need, and it facilitates the successful return to work. It is an industrywide effort in which airlines, pilot unions, and the FAA work together to preserve careers and promote air safety. Since its implementation, the program has successfully helped over 5,800 pilots, and it provides airlines with a $9 return on every dollar that is invested. There are a lot of lessons from the HIMS Program that I think have real resonance to other agencies within the Department of Transportation, and I am hoping the study that is authorized as part of the FAA bill we are considering will be able to be shared so we can see how other agencies can also benefit from this. Right now, we have a 1-week extension on the FAA bill that expires this Sunday, October 7. I hope this bill is going to come to the floor for final passage before we go home this week.

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 want to start by thanking my colleague and chairman, Senator Moran, for his very kind remarks and for his leadership on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. As he says, it has been a great partnership this year. It has involved give and take. We both have compromised. Neither of us has gotten everything we wanted for the appropriations, for the committee, for our States, or for the country, but I think we made a commitment that I think has been shared by the Appropriations Committee as a whole that we were going to get back to regular order of passing these appropriations bills, of funding the government on a reasonable timetable that people could count on. That is what this bill represents, and I applaud Senator Moran and all of the staff, the majority and the minority staff, who have worked with us to get this done. I also want to congratulate, as you did, Senator Moran, Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy on moving all 12 appropriation bills out of committee in a bipartisan manner. Nine of those bills have passed the Senate by now. Three are already on the President's desk, and the Senate today will pass a conference report with two more of those bills and a continuing funding resolution. We expect that those bills will become law before the end of the fiscal year on September 30. This is the first time since I have been in the Senate--I started in 2009--when we will actually see the bills that were passed out of the Appropriations Committee. We have seen them taken up on the floor, and we are going to see them pass and get signed into law by the President. Now, unfortunately, for the work that we have done on CJS, the CR that we are going to be acting on today includes the funding for the departments and agencies in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, among others, but like Senator Moran, I believe that passing the short-term CR today should not keep us from working to pass full-year funding for CJS. That is why we are here on the floor today urging that the Senate continue to take up and pass the CJS appropriations bill. I am sure that is what Chairman Shelby would support and what Vice Chairman Leahy would also support if they joined us on the floor. If you have any doubts about why what is in the CJS bill is so important and why we should take it up, all you have to do is turn on the TV or have watched the television coverage over the last 4 days of Hurricane Florence as it has hit the Carolina coast. It has caused devastation. It has caused deadly flooding. I know that we all empathize and support the people of the Carolinas with what they are dealing with with Hurricane Florence, but we have been able to predict the course of that hurricane because of the National Weather Service hurricane forecasters. They got a lot right about Florence's track, and the forecasters didn't do it alone. They need models to track wind intensity, to track storm surge, to track the direction of hurricanes, and we need researchers who are constantly working to improve those models and to make the forecasts more accurate. Those predictions rely on satellite imagery. They rely on direct measurements from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and hurricane hunter aircraft, and all of those programs and initiatives are funded in the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. That is why we need to make sure the whole bill actually gets passed and signed into law ultimately. The other thing that is in the CJS bill that I think all of us share in the importance of in a bipartisan way is the support that it provides to address the opioid epidemic. This is an issue that is particularly important to us in New Hampshire, where we have the second highest overdose death rate from opioids in the country, but it is important to the entire country because from 2015 to 2017, the number of deaths from drug overdoses has risen nearly 40 percent, from 52,000 in 2015 to 72,000 in 2017. That rise was driven in large part by continuing increases in deaths from synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, as well as heroin. Of those 72,000 overdose deaths, 30,000 are estimated to be from fentanyl. Last year, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that 21 million Americans have a substance use disorder. That is far more people than are affected by cancer, but only 1 in 10 is receiving any kind of treatment. That is one of the things that is so important in this CJS bill, because it would provide funding to State and local governments and organizations working on the frontlines, for law enforcement, for treatment and recovery, and for those resources that help our communities deal with the opioid and fentanyl crisis. The bill also continues the COPS anti-heroin task force grant program, despite efforts by the administration to discontinue that very effective law enforcement program. I want to enact the whole CJS bill into law because I don't want to lose these critical increases in funding that are going to support people in New Hampshire and across the country who are dealing with substance use disorders. Senator Moran mentioned trade and what is in this bill that is related to trade. Our subcommittee has held two hearings on the administration's trade policies in the last month or so, and I think it is fair to say that at these hearings there has been bipartisan concern about the impact of the administration's tariffs on manufacturers, on farmers, and on small businesses. I am hearing from small businesses in New Hampshire about what they are seeing as the result of these tariffs. While I don't support those tariffs, I think it is important that we make sure that the Department of Commerce has the resources that are included in our bill to quickly and fairly evaluate and decide on American manufacturers' requests for exemption from those tariffs so that we can continue to promote American exports abroad. Also, to keep the American economy going strong, the bill supports strong investments in research and development at the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and especially at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Again, my colleague mentioned NASA and the breakthroughs that we are seeing at NASA that are helping to drive innovation. This scientific innovation creates new discoveries that lead to new industries and to new American jobs. That is good for this country, and we need to make sure that the funding that is in this bill actually gets passed out of the Senate and the Congress before we get to the next appropriations process for 2020. Instead, today, what we are going to do is to vote to put the agencies that are funded by CJS on autopilot until December through a continuing resolution. They will spend the same amount on programs and initiatives on the same items with no adjustment under the CR. We know that businesses don't operate this way, families don't operate this way, and the U.S. Government shouldn't operate this way. Senator Moran and I are going to continue to argue that we need to pass this bill. I would urge the leaders here in the Senate and our leaders on the Appropriations Committee to bring the full bill to the floor. Let's have a robust debate. Let's pass the fiscal year 2019 Commerce-Justice-Science bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life and legacy of my friend and colleague, Senator John McCain. Over these past months, his presence has been dearly missed, and I must admit it is still hard to imagine that John isn't coming back. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues who have so eloquently discussed John's lasting legacy as a great statesman and as a true American hero. I join with them and so many Americans across the country in mourning his passing. As many people know, John had a special relationship with New Hampshire, a relationship forged during his Presidential campaigns. We often considered John one of our own, a true Granite Stater. He just seemed to click with the Granite State; in fact, he would call New Hampshire his ``second favorite state.'' Throughout his many visits to New Hampshire, Granite Staters appreciated his candor and sincerity. The Straight Talk Express wasn't just a slogan--the John McCain you saw was the John McCain you got. Most memorable, during a campaign stop in Wolfeboro in 2008, a mother stood up and asked John to wear a bracelet with her son's name it. Her son, Matthew Stanley, was only 22 years old when he died serving in Iraq. She wanted to make sure that her son's sacrifice wasn't forgotten, that he didn't die in vain. John said he would be honored to wear the bracelet. From then on, it was on his wrist everywhere he went. In his final days, John continued to wear the bracelet of Matthew Stanley on his wrist. Until the very end, John was true to his word and true to his convictions. As my chairman on the Armed Services Committee, it was always a great honor to work with John on the annual defense authorization bill. The issues we addressed were so important to him. His devotion to service and the Armed Forces not only ran deep in his character, but in his family legacy. Delivering a good and timely defense bill was John's No. 1 priority. One issue I had the great honor of working with John on every year was providing additional visas to Afghan interpreters and support staff who help our troops and diplomats on the ground. For their service, these men and women are often targeted by the Taliban and other terrorist groups. John recognized that we have a profound obligation to provide a safe haven to these Afghan allies who risk everything. John led this fight because it is just the right thing to do. He understood that the solemn commitment to leave no man behind extends to all who fight, and just like John, America would be true to its word. I also had the pleasure of traveling internationally with John to represent the United States and observe U.S. missions. As many of my colleagues can attest, rarely was a minute wasted on a McCain delegation. One of his great passions was human rights and supporting those on the side of freedom and democracy around the world. Whether that be students seeking academic freedom in Belarus or newly elected leaders in Tunisia, he always made time to encourage and support their efforts. John cared greatly for the U.S. Senate and was deeply worried about the current state of our politics. I believe that the floor speech that Senator McCain delivered soon after learning of his cancer diagnosis will echo for decades to come. We can fight like hell for what we believe in, but we must always recognize that we are fundamentally Americans who have more in common than we have differences. Compromise in a legislative body is essential, not a dirty word. Political expediency must take a backseat to what is best for the country. We should all take this message to heart every day as we seek to address the many challenges our country faces. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the McCain family. I wish for them strength and perseverance during this very difficult time. There will never be another John McCain, and the Senate will not be the same without him.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor a great American and steadfast Air National guardsman. Capt. Miguel ``Mike'' E. Cosio has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform. A leader and expert communicator, he has provided distinguished service to our country while assigned to the National Capitol Region. As an Air legislative liaison in the National Guard Bureau Office of Legislative Liaison from May 2016 to August 2018, Captain Cosio performed his duties well and without reservation. His strategic thinking and foresight contributed to the completion of numerous high- level tasks and engagements between Congress and the National Guard. During this assignment, Captain Cosio conducted more than 50 congressional engagements to provide Members insight into the worsening trend of substance misuse and the critical role of the National Guard's counterdrug program in effectively combating this epidemic. He also actively engaged Members of Congress regarding the growth of the State Partnership Program, a vital driver in strengthening our alliances overseas. In addition to those meetings, he organized dozens of direct engagements between Air National Guard senior leaders and Members of Congress, which were essential in conveying important information on behalf of the Department of Defense and building trust and understanding. After serving in this vital role for the past 2 years, Captain Cosio will move to his next assignment: deploying in support of our Nation's defense as a true citizen-airman. Mike, his wife, Traci, and their two children have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Mike's service and his work with my office over the past 2 years on issues important to the State of New Hampshire and the country. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the White Mountain National Forest. In 1911, Congress passed the Weeks Act, which authorized the Federal Government to purchase forest lands at the head of navigable streams to protect the health of our waterways. This landmark legislation paved the way for President Woodrow Wilson's Executive order in 1918, a century ago this year, which formally established the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire and Maine. Today, these public lands cover nearly 800,000 acres of woodland and attract millions of visitors each year who camp, hike, ski, and explore some of the most breathtaking natural beauty in New England. In fact, the region attracts more guests than both Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks. If you were to visit the forest today and take in the lush, healthy woodland, it may surprise you that the environmental and economic success of this region was once in serious jeopardy. At the beginning of the 20th century, 80 percent of the White Mountain region had been depleted of its trees. Then-Governor Chester Jordan of New Hampshire said that the single greatest challenge facing the Granite State's future was excessive and unrestrained timber cutting. In his words, ``Our forests are fast becoming despoiled, their scenic beauties marred and destroyed, the public health endangered'' and the State's agriculture, tourism, and even lumber industry threatened with ruin. Without action, he warned, New Hampshire's forests were headed toward extinction. In 1901, the year Governor Jordan issued his warning, Granite Staters began a remarkable effort to save our woodlands, efforts that continue to this day and have helped create a rich and vibrant forest ecology. Organizations like the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Society of American Foresters have worked for over a century to protect our woodlands and foster appreciation for the natural world. Through their tireless work, the commitment of Granite Staters, and the efforts of local, State, and Federal governments, New Hampshire is now the second most heavily forested State in the U.S. The White Mountain National Forest, one of the greatest successes of the State's conservation efforts, has become a major part of the Granite State economy, supporting a $9 billion statewide tourism and outdoor recreation industry and nearly 80,000 jobs--proof that environmental and economic success can go hand-in-hand. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the National Trails System Act. This important legislation, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, established a national network of public trails that expanded access to outdoor recreation across the United States, including nearly 350 miles of public trails in the White Mountain National Forest. As we celebrate the National Trails System Act and the White Mountain National Forest, we must also look toward the future--toward the next 100 years--and ask ourselves what we can do to advance this legacy of stewardship. In Congress, we must reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has enhanced recreational access to the White Mountain National Forest and helped New Hampshire to protect parcels of the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, and the Appalachian Trail. We must also advance environmental and economic policies that conserve our public lands, protect our clean air and water, and support local economies. We each must take time to appreciate the natural wonder of our public lands and renew our efforts to preserve these precious areas for generations to come. I stand with and congratulate the supporters of the White Mountain National Forest on 100 years. Thank you.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to also talk about an issue that has not made it into the Defense authorization bill, unlike the amendment that Senator Tillis and I support. Sadly, help for the Afghans who aided our troops in the war in Afghanistan is not included in this Defense authorization bill. As most of us know in the Senate, the Afghan special immigrant visa program allows Afghans who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and who face threats of harm to themselves or their families because of their service--we allow them to apply for refuge in the United States through the special immigrant visa program, or SIV program. Over the years, there has been strong bipartisan support for this effort to bring those Afghans in harm's way back to the United States. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Tillis, Senator Wicker, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, and, of course, Senator McCain, who has been the champion in the Senate to address this issue. I am proud to partner yet again with these Senators, and we have introduced legislation to authorize 4,000 SIVs for 2019 so that we can continue to bring to the United States those people who are at risk. Even as the administration sharply restricts immigration and refugee programs, President Trump has made an exception for those who serve alongside our soldiers and diplomats. He has included 4,000 Afghan SIVs in his budget request for this upcoming fiscal year. The support for this program truly is bipartisan. I am here on the floor with Senator Tillis today to try to put a face on this important program. Afghan civilians who have assisted our military as interpreters, firefighters, construction workers, and community liaisons are being targeted by the Taliban for their willingness to work with the United States. Without congressional approval, our military and our diplomats will be powerless to help those Afghans. Moreover, U.S. officials in Afghanistan will be powerless to help themselves. Unless Congress acts, this program will lapse, and our Embassy and military will unnecessarily suffer the devastating effects of this decision. We cannot afford to break our promises to the Afghan people, to those who serve our mission with such loyalty and at such enormous risk, particularly at this time. U.S. forces--our military--and our diplomats have always relied on local people to help accomplish our mission. As we think about our future engagements, we will need this kind of support in other places in the future. What does it say to people if we renege on our promises to the Afghans? We must be aware of the message we are sending to partners around the world when we don't fulfill our duty to protect them after they have protected us. This is exactly why countless military commanders and Ambassadors have pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV program. Behind me is a quote from Senator John McCain, a leader, as I said, in the effort to ensure the safety of Afghan SIVs. We have worked together each year since 2013, and his presence is sorely missed this year. During last year's NDAA debate, he said: We're talking about the lives of men who have put it on the line for the men and women serving. . . . They're going to die if we don't pass this amendment and take them out of harm's way. Don't you understand the gravity of that?'' That is what Senator McCain had to say in 2016 when we were trying to get this done in the Defense authorization bill. He is right. There is no plan B for these Afghans. Either we save them by authorizing additional special immigrant visas, or they will die. They will be killed. Their families will be killed. If Senator McCain were able to come to the floor today, I have no doubt that he would be right here with Senator Tillis and me saying the same thing. I hope that we can do Senator McCain a service by reauthorizing the program he cared so much about under the bill that bears his name. We have also had many officials who have spoken out against attempts to limit the eligibility of applicants. Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker said: When deciding whom to kill, the Taliban do not make such distinctions in service--nor should we when determining whom to save. Similarly, our former commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, said: Afghans performing a variety of roles are vital to the U.S. mission, whether they work directly or indirectly with U.S. Forces. I would urge Congress not to further erode already limited eligibility guidelines. In addition, our soldiers and marines are keenly interested in protecting Afghan civilians who served with them. Many of them owe their lives to the Afghans in various roles who went into combat with them. The roles in which Afghans serve range from interpreter, to lawyer, to aid administrators, to cafeteria workers. Abdul--who doesn't want his last name used because he fears for the safety of his family back home--worked as the head waiter for American troops in Afghanistan. Despite his classification as a cafeteria employee, he helped our troops translate documents and interpret conversations they were having both on and off the base. One night he came in, and someone jumped him, beat him up, and threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to help the United States. Abdul was recommended for a special immigrant visa by the Army sergeant he reported to, who found him the night he was attacked. The chief of mission who approved his application thought that Abdul's heartfelt service to our Nation was worthy enough to help save his life. I believe that too. He wasn't an interpreter. He wasn't part of a narrow group of Afghans who helped us. But he was there, nevertheless, putting his life on the line for Americans serving in Afghanistan. Last year, in Keene, NH, I met with a remarkable immigrant from Afghanistan named Patmana Rafiq Kunary. Patmana had worked closely with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul. She went door- to-door and encouraged women to take out microloans to start their own businesses. Patmana eventually became the vice president of operations for the USAID-sponsored microloan program. Yet, for a woman in Afghanistan, going door-to-door and working closely with Americans, this was dangerous work. She drew unwelcome attention wherever she went, and she became a high-profile target for the Taliban and others. Then, one day in 2013, she received a call at her USAID office. It was from the distraught wife of a USAID colleague, an Afghan. The caller's husband had just been murdered, apparently, in retaliation for his work with the Americans. In her realizing that her life was in danger, too, Patmana applied for a special immigrant visa. For 2 years, she and her husband were subjected to repeated interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. She told me that while those background checks were going on, they had to move periodically because, as soon as they settled someplace, the Taliban would find out where they were, and they would be threatened again. Her background was checked and rechecked before the visas were finally granted. Now, thankfully, Patmana lives happily in Keene. Her husband has found work, and they have a 3-year-old daughter. They are welcomed as valued members of the Keene community. When it comes to the SIV program, there is no shortage of inspiring narratives like the ones I am sharing today. It is no wonder that during his own confirmation process, the Secretary of Defense, Gen. James Mattis, said: ``Most of our units could not have accomplished their missions without the assistance, often at the risk of their lives, of these courageous men and women.'' We would never leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must not leave behind those Afghans who served side by side with our warriors and diplomats. We made a solemn promise to these brave men and women, and I know that those of us here who believe we need to keep that promise are going to do everything we can to make sure that those special immigrant visas are authorized and available next year for those thousands of Afghans who are still in the queue, who are still themselves facing threats and threats to their families because of their trying to help our military in Afghanistan. I encourage all of my colleagues in the Senate to allow this program to continue and to not permit any ill-informed notions about the program's eligibility standards or the vetting process distract from its success and from the strong bipartisan support it receives each year. I urge my colleagues to keep our promise to our Afghan allies by supporting these efforts. I am very pleased to be here with Senator Tillis, who is also committed to the effort of trying to get this done. I know my colleague Senator Ernst, who is here to speak, is also a supporter of this program. There is strong bipartisan support to make this happen. We should not allow one or two people to keep us from moving forward. I thank the Presiding Officer. We will continue to work on this effort.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Tillis on the floor today as he discusses Turkey and Pastor Andrew Brunson. I applaud Senator Tillis for his continued commitment in seeking justice for Pastor Brunson. Since March, Senator Tillis, Senator Lankford, and I have joined together to keep pressure on Turkish President Erdogan. We are not driven by diaspora politics, we have no hidden agendas, and we are not agents for Gulen or other actors like the Turkish papers have claimed--quite the contrary. As cochairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, Senator Tillis and I are ardent supporters of NATO. We value Turkey's importance as an ally. We want U.S.-Turkey relations to improve. Yet, supporting Turkey and the Turkish people should not mean appeasing the Turkish President. It is clear that the less we push back as a nation against Turkish President Erdogan, the more emboldened he becomes. Five years ago, if you had asked any diplomat or military official whether Turkey would stoop so low as to take innocent Americans hostage and leverage them for political gain, no one would have said that this was a possibility. Yet that is where we are today. Turkey has not only joined the ranks of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela as a hostage-taker, but it has shifted its orientation away from NATO and toward Russia for no other reason except for Erdogan's financial and electoral gain. Even with the near-constant propaganda, however, there are things the Turkish Government can't hide: Turkey's rapidly falling currency, the faltering state of their judiciary, the inexplicable enrichment of President Erdogan, his family, and his inner circle. All these issues are well-known concerns. In fact, according to New World Wealth--the research outfit that tracks millionaire migrations--in 2017, the largest exodus of millionaires was seen in Turkey--a clear indication that those who can leave Turkey are choosing to do so. Unfortunately, the Turkish people can only do so much while living under a dictatorship--a dictatorship that is about to expand on June 24, the date of Turkey's next election. For this reason, the United States should not stay silent about what is happening in Turkey and what is happening to NATO because of Turkey. Senator Tillis and I both serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we successfully added a bipartisan and widely supported amendment to this year's Defense bill that is moving through the Senate. The amendment would stall the delivery or transfer of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Turkey. I hope that both the Departments of State and Defense hear Congress loud and clear: We should have no signing ceremonies, no planes, and no moves to weaken NATO are acceptable at this time. Our government is well aware of the serious security concerns that may come if Turkey takes control of any F-35 aircraft. My colleagues Senator Donnelly and Senator Tillis have already spoken eloquently to that. First, the Turkish Government claims to have purchased a Russian air defense system designed to shoot these very planes down. NATO partners need these F-35s to counter Russian activity. We would be handing this technology over to the Kremlin if we granted Turkey these planes, and Congress will not stand for it. Second and absolutely critical to this afternoon's discussion is that nothing should be more important than the safety of American citizens. Pastor Brunson has been held in Turkey since October of 2016. The charges against him are clearly fabricated, and the legal proceedings have been a farce. His defense is not allowed to call up witnesses, and the identities of the secret witnesses in his indictment are known to be petty criminals. What is happening to Pastor Brunson is an absolute shame, but it has become a sad reality for those living in Turkey because Turkey has already imprisoned over 50,000 of its own people. I wish we could do more for all of those people, but at the very least, our government has a duty to act when any American anywhere is held unjustly by a foreign government. We must do everything we can to bring Americans home, to bring Pastor Brunson home. I encourage the administration to use every tool available in their diplomatic and economic toolbox to bring the pastor and all innocent Americans home at once. In the meantime, Senators Tillis, Lankford, and I will continue to push for targeted sanctions against Erdogan and all officials who are involved in the unlawful detention of Americans in Turkey. We will not cease our efforts until Turkey rejoins the community of democracies it once belonged to. We all hope this day comes sooner rather than later.