Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to longtime New Mexico State Representative Luciano ``Lucky'' Varela, who passed away on September 2, 2017. Lucky served the State of New Mexico for over five decades--first as a financial expert for the State finance department and then as a respected legislator in the New Mexico House of Representatives. We will remember Lucky as a champion for all of New Mexico, for his expertise and legislative skills, and also for his kindness, civility, and great heart. Lucky was born to Celestino and Catalina Varela in Pecos, NM, on February 17, 1935. Growing up during and right after the Great Depression, his early jobs including hauling firewood to miners working near Pecos. He developed a strong work ethic and a love of the outdoors. Those early experiences informed his work in the State legislature, including his effort to keep New Mexico rivers and streams open to sportsmen and recreationists. Lucky graduated from Pecos High School and joined the U.S. Army in 1957. He served 2 years in the Army and 6 years in the Army Reserve. He graduated from the College of Santa Fe with a degree in accounting. He then earned a law degree from LaSalle University. Lucky worked as a comptroller for the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s. There he got to know the State's finances inside and out--knowledge that would be key to his success in the legislature. After retiring from State government, Lucky couldn't sit still. He ran for a seat in the New Mexico House of Representatives and represented District 48 in Santa Fe for 30 years, from 1987 to 2016. Lucky's knowledge of State finances was legion. It is said that he knew State agency finances better than the agency heads. He served as chair of the legislative finance committee and deputy chair of the house appropriations and finance committee. Lucky understood the numbers, but just as importantly, he understood the people behind those numbers--their struggles, hopes, and dreams. He championed public education, seniors, State employees, and technology, fighting for increases funding for public schools, higher salaries for teachers, raises for State employees, and modernizing State government technology. During the fiscal crisis of 2009, Lucky is credited with singlehandedly developing the budget that balanced the budget and saved State finances. This ensured schools stayed open, State employees were not laid off, and State police got paid. One of his final accomplishments was a 2013 bill he cosponsored to overhaul the Public Employees Retirement Association pension fund-- helping make sure State retirees are secure in their retirement. Lucky gave selflessly to the people of Santa Fe, the entire State of New Mexico, and our Nation, but he was even more devoted to family. Lucky is survived by his three children--Jeff, James, and Bernadette-- and nine grandchildren. New Mexico is a better place thanks to Lucky's over 50 years of service. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, this May, a spray of pesticide from a nearby orchard drifted over to a field, exposing nearly 50 farmworkers in California. They soon became sick with nausea and vomiting. Several were hospitalized. The workers described it as a living nightmare. The chemical they were exposed to is called chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide related to sarin gas. It has been in use since it was developed by Dow Chemical over 50 years ago. Today, it is most often used on fruits and nuts, including strawberries, citrus, apples, and pecans from my home State of New Mexico. It is also used on grains and vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower. A few years ago, Bonnie Wirtz also experienced the effects of chlorpyrifos. Bonnie is a farmer in Minnesota. She was exposed when spray drift came into her home through the air-conditioner. Her heart started racing, almost to the point of cardiac arrest, and she couldn't breathe. At the hospital, her nurse practitioner told her she wasn't surprised. She had seen others with similar reactions. About 10 years ago, Claudia Angulo--a farmworker in California's San Joaquin Valley--was exposed to chlorpyrifos when she was pregnant. Claudia worked sorting oranges, apples, broccoli, and other produce treated with the chemical. When her son Isaac was born with a mental disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, she suspected the pesticides she was exposed to. A few years ago, European scientists tested some of Isaac's hair. He had traces of over 50 pesticides in his body, and the highest concentration was chlorpyrifos. It has long been known that exposure to chlorpyrifos can be deadly. After years of study, researchers in the United States and a number of other countries now believe there is a strong connection between chlorpyrifos exposure and mental disability, ADHD, and memory deficit in children. They believe the chemical damages children's developing brains, even if they are exposed before birth. Latino children, whose parents are exposed to the pesticide, and grow up near fields treated with it, are at the greatest risk. Scientists believe the pesticide poses a threat even to children exposed to it from produce from the grocery store or through drinking water. The connection is so strong that scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency recommended that the EPA ban all uses of the pesticide in 2015. The agency had already negotiated a ban on household use 15 years ago. This March, the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ignored his own scientists and the body of scientific evidence that chlorpyrifos is dangerous. Instead, he reversed course and refused to ban chlorpyrifos. That is why I rise to talk about this danger to our children. When moms and dads feed fruits and vegetables to their children, they are trying to do the right thing. They shouldn't have to worry that these foods are laced with dangerous nerve agents. They shouldn't have to worry that the farmworkers who picked that produce or the farmers living near it were exposed. I have been part of the fight to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals most of my life. I remember when Rachel Carson published ``Silent Spring'' in 1962. My father, Stewart Udall, was her champion when she was fiercely attacked by the chemical industry. Just over a year ago, I led the bipartisan effort to reform the broken Toxic Substances Control Act. I spent several years working to reform how the EPA regulates chemicals, fighting to stand up a credible program that could be respected, that could restore confidence in the EPA on chemical safety. I am very disappointed to have to do this, to introduce a bill on a related matter, pesticide regulation. Normally, I would argue that Congress should stay out of the business of regulating individual chemicals. That is why the EPA was created, to make thoughtful, science-based decisions on issues that affect public health and the economy. In his first decision at the EPA, the administrator has shown his hand. He did not respect the science, not even his own scientific team, and not even when the science is overwhelmingly decisive. If the EPA and this administration will not act to protect the public, to protect children, then Congress must. I have studied the case for banning chlorpyrifos. There is no question it needs to come off the market. In this situation, I believe Congress must step in to protect children's health. That is why I have introduced the Protect Children, Farmers, and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act--to do what the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt refuses to do: ban chlorpyrifos. Let's look at the reasons for banning chlorpyrifos. There are three very good ones. There are three reasons, I believe, this bill is necessary. First, Administrator Pruitt is wrong. The science is established that chlorpyrifos is a threat to health in its current use. The EPA has studied and studied the toxicity of chlorpyrifos for over a decade. I have talked to the scientists who have been studying it for over 30 years. In a December 2014 risk assessment, the EPA found chlorpyrifos caused unsafe drinking water contamination. Based on that assessment, the EPA formally proposed, in November 2015, to revoke the use of chlorpyrifos on food. As recently as December 2016, the EPA reaffirmed its determination. The pesticide is intended to act on the nervous system of insects, but it can act on the human nervous system as well. It can cause immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, convulsions, respiratory paralysis--as Bonnie Wirtz and farmworkers in California experienced. In extreme cases, it can kill. More worrisome, even low-level exposure of chlorpyrifos to developing fetuses in young children can interrupt the development processes of the nervous system. Exposure during gestation or childhood is linked with lower birth weight, slower motor development, and attention problems. Long-lasting effects on child brain development from in utero exposure also include impaired perceptual reasoning and working memory and undermined intellectual development by age 7. Exposure to organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos is associated with changes in children's cognitive, behavioral, and motor performance. In plain English, chlorpyrifos damages children's brains. Second, chlorpyrifos was one of the most widely used household insecticides until the EPA raised concerns in 2000--17 years ago. Household use was phased out. That same year, the EPA discontinued use of chlorpyrifos on tomatoes altogether and restricted its uses on apples and grapes. Currently, chlorpyrifos is still widely used in agriculture, but its use is on the decline. In 2012, EPA required no-spray buffers around schools, homes, play fields, daycare centers, hospitals, and other public places. Growers are already working to find alternatives. The third reason is, scientists, doctors, advocates, I, and many of our colleagues were shocked when Administrator Pruitt changed course on chlorpyrifos in March, choosing to wait until 2022--5 years from now. The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote a letter to Administrator Pruitt in June telling him that ``EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe.'' As a result, EPA has no basis to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and its insistence on doing so puts all children at risk. The science hasn't changed since the EPA proposed to ban chlorpyrifos in 2015 and in 2016. Only the politics have. The law should protect Americans from unsafe pesticides. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA Administrator ``may establish or leave in effect a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food only if the Administrator determines that the tolerance is safe.'' ``'Safe' means . . . that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will [come] from aggregate exposure.'' If the Administrator can't determine that a pesticide is safe, the Administrator must revoke or modify the tolerance. In the case of chlorpyrifos, Administrator Pruitt did not determine the pesticide is safe with reasonable certainty, nor could he. Instead, he hid behind his claim that the issue requires years more study. This issue has been the subject of litigation for many years. When the EPA asked the Federal court overseeing the lawsuit for a mere 6- month extension for more study, the court gave a resounding no. It called the request ``another variation on the theme of `partial reports, missed deadlines, and vague promises of future action' that has been repeated for the last nine years.'' The EPA Administrator has now given himself a 5-year extension. He is failing to follow the Food Quality Protection Act, and he is tying up the Federal Government in more unnecessary and wasteful taxpayer-funded litigation. In the meantime, children, farmers, and farmworkers are at risk because the Administrator refuses to follow the law. It doesn't stop there. Administrator Pruitt wants to dismantle protections for farmworkers. The EPA is proposing to delay two rules vital to protecting our Nation's farmworkers: The agricultural worker protection standard and the certificate of pesticide applicators rule. Farmworkers have one of the highest rates of chemical exposure among U.S. workers. They are regularly exposed to pesticides. Despite the urgent need to protect them and their families, they actually are less protected than other workers. We don't know exactly why Administrator Pruitt is choosing to believe a chemical company over respected scientists at his own Agency and around the world, but we can follow the money and guess one reason. While the President and the Administrator ignore science and the law, they have not ignored Dow Chemical Company. Dow gave the President $1 million for his inauguration. Its CEO attended the signing ceremony when the President issued his Executive order requiring agencies to roll back what he called unnecessary regulations. The CEO even got the signing pen. And the CEO met with Administrator Pruitt shortly before the order not to ban one of Dow's big moneymakers. Administrator Pruitt may choose to put aside science, public health, and environmental protection in favor of big chemical profits, but Congress should not. I urge all of my colleagues, especially those across the aisle, to stand with me and pass this protection for children, families, farmers, and farmworkers. I thank my cosponsors and the cosponsors who are coming aboard every day: Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harris, Markey, Merkley, and Cardin. There have been many public health and labor groups that have stood up on this issue--just to name some of them today: National Hispanic Medical Association, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Farmworker Justice, Project TENDR, United Farm Workers, Earthjustice, GreenLatinos, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, LULAC, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Pesticide Action Network, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Mana, and others. The pesticide registration information act is currently moving through Congress. This gives Congress the opportunity to address chlorpyrifos use and worker protection. This bill is a good start for those discussions. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Senate is now in its third day of voting on major healthcare legislation, and we still have no idea exactly what the Republican leadership wants or what bill they are going to put on the floor. The Republican leadership tosses out options, bills that would affect the lives of millions of Americans and one-sixth of our economy. Not even Republicans know what proposal is coming next, and the American public certainly doesn't know what is coming, and they are very interested because they have healthcare and they want to know if it is going to be taken away from them. It is as if the Republicans are playing healthcare roulette. The leader spins the roulette wheel, the ball lands arbitrarily on some version of the ACA repeal, and the leader quickly calls a quick vote on that random version of ACA repeal. Soon we are going to vote on a cynical amendment from the Republicans offering Medicare for all. My understanding is the Senator offering this isn't even going to support his own amendment. If you were in a State legislature, you would be prohibited from offering an amendment like that. They oppose this Medicare-for-all amendment. They oppose Medicare for all. So why are they seeking a vote? To distract from their own dangerous bills and reckless process. It is a desperate ploy, and everyone sees through it. I support healthcare for all. It should be a right in this Nation. But this is a phony and insincere amendment. All the while, the President stands to the side, not caring one whit what the bill looks like or how many people will be hurt in the rush to get a bill out the Senate door. On Tuesday, we voted on the leadership's Better Care Reconciliation Act 2.0. That would cut 22 million Americans off healthcare. It also has been rejected overwhelmingly by Americans. Yesterday, we voted on straight ACA repeal, not replacement. That bill would throw 32 million Americans off of healthcare. That idea is no more popular than the other bills. Today, maybe we will vote on a last-ditch version which would repeal parts of ObamaCare, the so-called skinny repeal option. That bill is no better. It would mean 16 million Americans get thrown off healthcare, and the other very important part of this is that it would raise premiums 20 percent. We have heard our friend from Nebraska come down here on the floor and talk about their concern about healthcare and concern about the cost of premiums. They ought to know that this proposal is going to raise premiums 20 percent. This bill is the Republicans' last hope. It takes away the individual mandate to get health insurance and the employer mandate to provide health insurance to employees. Like the other schemes the Republicans have tried, it would hike premiums for the elderly and for the sick. Blue Cross Blue Shield is opposed to this proposal. They say ``strong incentives for people to obtain health insurance and keep it year round''--that is what they are looking for, that is what is in current law, and we have the Republicans wanting to take it out. There must be Affordable Care Act cost-sharing provisions for consumers. Otherwise, there will be--and this is Blue Cross Blue Shield again--``steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.'' Like the other schemes, this won't ensure that more Americans will have healthcare; it means many fewer will. It doesn't decrease healthcare costs; it increases healthcare costs. Even worse, there have been no committee hearings, no public input on this or any of the other versions of ACA repeal the Republican roulette ball has landed on. To give you a sample of the public feeling on this issue--I am seeing it across New Mexico--my office has received 14,500 calls, emails, and letters rejecting the Republican plans. It is an unprecedented number from the small State of New Mexico. I agree with Senator McCain. We must go back to regular order. We must stop this gamesmanship. We need to work together on a solution to improve the Affordable Care Act by bringing down costs, making it easier for small businesses to provide healthcare, and especially making prescription drugs more affordable--but not by denying New Mexico families and millions more access to quality healthcare. The Republicans are playing with people's lives. Making sure severely disabled children have healthcare through Medicaid is not a game; neither is kicking elderly grandparents out of their Medicaid-funded nursing homes or enabling women to get breast and cervical cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood. It is hard to keep up with the Republican versions 2.0, 3.0, 4.5, 5.0 of the Affordable Care Act repeal. Every bill is consistent in cutting care for millions of Americans. The Republicans keep proposing so-called healthcare bills that are not actual healthcare bills. The real healthcare bill would protect gains made, cover more people, and make health insurance more affordable. The Republican bills do none of these things. Their bills reverse the gains, cover millions fewer people, and make health insurance less affordable, especially for those most vulnerable. The American people want everyone to have affordable healthcare. That must be our goal. Republicans and Democrats should be working hard right now to get us to that national goal. I have shared the stories of New Mexicans who have lives that have been changed, and even saved, because of the Affordable Care Act--New Mexicans like Mike, from Placitas. Mike had an aggressive cancer but was diagnosed early, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and doctors saved his life. Alexis, from Albuquerque, had a stroke and brain surgeries when she was 28. She had affordable health insurance under the ACA, and those subsidies helped her keep health insurance and get healthcare coverage. Elena was able to afford a lifesaving mastectomy because of Medicaid expansion. These are real people who are now jeopardized by the Republican bills and Republican proposals. There are thousands more across New Mexico and millions across the country who are crying out for the Republican majority to change this reckless and dangerous scheme. I yield the floor. My colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, is here. He has been a real champion in terms of fighting for working families and for their healthcare.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628 and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628 and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record. I ask that the Record reflect the support of Senator Heinrich.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit H.R. 1628 to the Finance Committee to review the impacts of this bill on the Indian Health Service, Tribal Health Programs, Urban Indian Health Programs, or Indian Tribes or other Tribal organizations, or with respect to services provided to individuals who are American Indian or Alaska Native. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and it is supported by Senators Cantwell, Cortez Masto, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Franken, Murray, Merkley, Schatz, Stabenow, and Tester.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for your recognition. Let me just say, at the beginning, I thank the Chair for the bipartisanship with which we both work on the Indian Affairs Committee. I very much appreciate that. We are here with a few Members. I rise with my colleagues from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I think Senator Heitkamp, Senator Franken, and, maybe, others will join us. I join them in reminding the Congress of its duty to Tribes and in its standing up for the healthcare of American Indians and Alaska Natives across Indian Country. Most of us are aware of the health disparities facing Native communities. We have seen the news about the failings of the Indian Health Service, and many of us have heard directly from Tribal leaders and Native constituents about the barriers to healthcare access on reservations, pueblos, and in villages, but the Members of the Senate on the Indian Affairs Committee are uniquely aware of the complex ways that the Tribal healthcare system works and how those systems will be catastrophically disrupted by TrumpCare and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. Government has a trust responsibility to provide American Indians and Alaska Natives with comprehensive, quality healthcare. The U.S. Constitution, treaties, and long-settled legal precedents are the basis for this responsibility. The Indian Health Service is the primary agency for fulfilling this obligation, but our trust responsibilities do not end there. The Medicaid and Medicare Program, Planned Parenthood, and other public health services all play key roles in the delivery of Native healthcare, and because the IHS is so consistently and severely underfunded, the ACA has made a huge difference. Each fiscal year, the IHS receives a finite allocation of discretionary funding that it must stretch in order to meet the healthcare needs of 2.2 million Native Americans. That leaves the IHS with just over $3,500 per person--less than one-third of the national average--for healthcare spending. As a result, without additional resources, the IHS is forced to ration care, which limits Native families to hospitals and clinics that can only provide ``life and limb'' emergency medical services. Basic preventive care, like wellness visits, prenatal exams, and mammograms, have frequently been unavailable to most IHS patients. ``Don't get sick after June,'' which is the unofficial motto given to the Indian Health Service on many Indian reservations, has, tragically, become the epitaph of too many Tribal members whose cancers have grown undetected, whose diabetes have gone untreated, and whose high-risk pregnancies have gone unnoticed. In seeing this catastrophic need for healthcare dollars, Congress enacted a series of laws that supplement IHS's resources. The Affordable Care Act is the most recent and now is the most significant. Nearly 287,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives from 492 Tribes-- almost 90 percent--have benefited from the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Another 30,000 individual Native Americans have private insurance, thanks to the ACA's individual marketplace and the Native cost-sharing subsidies. In my home State of New Mexico alone, Medicaid expansion has insured an additional 45,600 Native Americans. Thanks to the Medicaid expansion and increased access to the individual insurance market, 63 percent of IHS patients have healthcare coverage that allows them to receive care above and beyond the level of life and limb. Because of the ACA, the IHS now receives almost $1 billion to supplement its healthcare delivery, and that is an increase of 21 percent. We can see the results. Not only are people healthier, but they are more productive. Health insurance has allowed Native Americans to finish school, return to work, and lead productive lives instead of worrying that their next illnesses could lead to an IHS referral denial or ruin them financially. It has also improved the economy in Indian Country. The ACA has created new healthcare jobs, and it has led to the construction of new medical facilities. It has meant dialysis clinics on New Mexico pueblos, new hospitals for the Choctaw in Mississippi, and thousands of jobs for Montana's Blackfeet Indian Reservation. These are just a few examples of a nationwide trend. TrumpCare will undo this progress. It will undo the newly expanded access to care. It will shut down those new healthcare facilities. It will freeze the economic progress of those areas. These are not just numbers and statistics. We are talking about people's lives. Individuals will be harmed by TrumpCare and the evisceration of Medicaid. Let me tell you about Rachel, Justin, and their two children--Adalie and Jude. They are one Native family whose lives have been changed for the better under the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion. Rachel and Justin are from the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico. Here is a photo of them right after Jude was born in August 2015. Before the ACA and Medicaid expansion, Rachel received hit-or-miss care from the IHS, but when she enrolled at the University of New Mexico, she was able to qualify for Medicaid because of the expansion. This meant that when Rachel and Justin decided to start a family, Rachel had access to preventive services, including prenatal and maternity care. Rachel was able to get the care she needed when she became pregnant with Adalie. Rachel's prenatal care became even more important when they decided to add to their family when Rachel was in graduate school at UNM. That pregnancy with Jude had serious complications. The doctors figured out that Rachel did not have enough amniotic fluid to support Jude, and she had to have a C-section. Medicaid expansion allowed Rachel to complete her college education and to get a master's in public administration without her worrying about healthcare for her and her children. Medicaid expansion meant that Rachel was able to get the preventive care she needed to make sure that she and Jude were healthy. Rachel recently got a job offer to work in her chosen field, but now that she is able to get off Medicaid, she is worried that the Republican healthcare proposals will make insurance coverage ineffective or unaffordable. Even though she lives near her Tribe's IHS facility in the Albuquerque area, she knows that she cannot depend on the IHS to guarantee critical care if insurance premiums become unaffordable. Once again, Rachel is worried about the future of her family's healthcare. Rachel is one of thousands of Native Americans whose lives have been dramatically helped by the Affordable Care Act and who are scared that TrumpCare will leave them unable to get the healthcare that their families need in the future. If this bill becomes law, Tribal communities will be forced back to a system of healthcare rationing. If the President and the Republican leadership eviscerate the Medicaid Program and Federal supports for public health programs, Native American lives will be lost. There is no doubt about it. Let me say this plain and simple: TrumpCare would devastate Indian Country, and it must be stopped. Just this morning, as vice chair of the Indian Affairs Committee, I held a roundtable with Tribal leaders and Native health experts to hear more about how the Republicans' healthcare proposals would impact Tribes. I thank the leaders who came in to talk with me and my colleagues on the committee. Senator Franken, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Tester, and Senator Cantwell were there. All came to hear these Native leaders, and their insight into the damage this bill could do to Native communities was profound. The Turtle Mountain chairman from North Dakota reported that ``don't get sick after June'' is no longer true on his reservation because of the ACA and Medicaid expansion. Panelists warned that the rollback of Medicaid would be devastating to Tribal members, and a representative from the San Felipe Pueblo reminded us that Indian health is not an entitlement; it is an obligation. Now the Republican leader and the President are moving in an even more dangerous direction. They are pushing to repeal the ACA without having any replacement, which would strip healthcare from over 30 million Americans. It would devastate anyone who is sick today, anyone who relies on insurance one gets through the Medicaid expansion or the Affordable Care Act, and it sets up a disaster for anyone who might get sick after its repeal because it would destabilize insurance markets and would throw our economy into turmoil, killing up to 50,000 jobs in New Mexico alone. As often happens with policies that hurt the most vulnerable, Indian Country would be hit the hardest. Traditionally, the Senate has worked on a bipartisan basis to address Native American issues. That tradition must continue now. We must work together to find a sustainable solution so that Native Americans can get affordable, quality healthcare when they need it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from the National Congress of American Indians, National Indian Health Board, National Council on Urban Indian Health, and the Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal Consortium sent to Republican leadership on June 27, 2017, and shared with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be printed in the Record. This is just one example of the many such letters sent to the Senate over the last few months, and I will submit those additional letters as part of the record at our next Indian Affairs Committee Hearing.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President. While this small effort cannot fully replace the necessary government-to-government consultation we owe Tribes on this issue, I hope it reminds us of our Federal obligations to Tribes and to all Native Americans. TrumpCare would turn back the clock. It would violate our trust responsibilities. It would endanger the lives of Native families. We cannot let that happen. Senator Franken has been such an advocate on the Indian Affairs Committee for Tribes in his State and across the Nation. All of us have worked extensively to try to improve a situation about which, many times, we hear from Tribal members is despairing. I really appreciate his effort and thank him for coming to the floor today and participating in this discussion about Indian healthcare and what these Medicaid expansions mean. I yield the floor to my colleague and friend from the great State of Minnesota, Senator Franken.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we have been joined by Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota. I appreciate her work on the subcommittee, her incredibly hard work and hard dedication that she has put in. She has been a champion for her Tribes in North Dakota, a champion for Native children and Native women, and a champion for Native Americans across the country. I yield to Senator Heitkamp.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I know Senator Durbin is on the floor so I am going to wrap up very quickly. I first want to thank Senator Franken, who came down here and advocated for his State and for Native Americans across the country. I thank Senator Heitkamp for her passionate speech about Native Americans and Native children. I have known her almost 30 years, as the State attorney general, when she was doing the same things, and she has made real progress. You can see from this roundtable today--and I really appreciate Senator Heitkamp coming and helping me chair that. I had to slip out to Foreign Relations, but she spent a significant amount of time chairing that roundtable. I think it really made a difference to all of the Tribal leaders there. I want to finish with what one of those Tribal leaders said to us. Senator Heitkamp, you said something very similar. This Tribal leader reminded us, he said: Decades ago, Tribes made a downpayment on the healthcare they receive. We are not asking for a handout. We made a downpayment. What was he talking about? We made a downpayment with our land, with our water, and with large areas of what were then either territories or the United States--that they considered their homelands. How sad it is to see that we are not fulfilling the promises of these sacred treaties they entered into. With that, I would conclude--as Senator Franken did and I believe it was the same thrust of what Senator Heitkamp was saying--with this. We have hit a wall on healthcare. We have come up to the point where you don't know where to go. The best thing to do when you hit a wall is to get back to the regular order, work on a bipartisan basis, go into committee, let people put proposals forward, have amendments, open up the process. That is where we need to go at this point. I would urge the Republican leadership to take a look at the regular order. That may help us find our way out to improve the healthcare situation for not only Native Americans but all Americans, which is what we face with this TrumpCare, which is taking us in the wrong direction. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to defend the essential healthcare that 300,000 New Mexicans and millions of Americans depend on. Leader McConnell calls his TrumpCare bill the Better Care Reconciliation Act, but actually the bill will mean worse care for seniors, children, the disabled, rural communities, and working families all trying to make ends meet. It will mean no care for 22 million people, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office report. The bill cancels health insurance and slashes Medicaid funding, all so Republicans can give big tax breaks to the richest Americans. President Trump called the original House bill mean. The Senate Republicans' healthcare bill isn't just mean; it is cruel. It is cruel to take away nursing home care that seniors depend on, cruel to take away necessary medical services from disabled children. Make no mistake, this bill will cost lives. This version of TrumpCare is a massive redistribution of wealth from working families, seniors, and the disabled to the wealthy. But the Republicans' bill is not Robin Hood in reverse. TrumpCare doesn't just take money away from the poor to give to the rich; it takes away people's healthcare and robs families of their health and ability to work, care for their families, contribute to society, and lead happy and healthy lives. This bill was drafted in secret. Only a handful of Republicans and their lobbyist friends got to see the bill. It is no wonder the American people hate what TrumpCare would do to them and to their families. TrumpCare is cruel; there is no doubt about it. It is good that Leader McConnell decided not to call a vote this week on this terrible bill, but I am by no means satisfied. We need to hear from the Republican leadership that they are ready to work with Democrats to improve the Affordable Care Act, not gut it, and to truly improve our healthcare system. This is what the American people are demanding, and this is what we in Congress should be working toward on a bipartisan basis. We created Medicaid in 1965 to serve a critical need. Since then, Medicaid has become one of the most successful programs for making sure low-income people get the healthcare they need. People get treatment for illnesses that once were a death sentence. The American people support a government that doesn't leave its most vulnerable to suffer and die, but the current Senate bill cuts Medicaid by more than $770 billion. Let's be clear, these cuts have nothing to do with better healthcare. They are a ruthless tactic to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. On the campaign trail, the President vowed not to cut Medicaid. He said it a number of times. Last week, he tweeted that he is ``very supportive'' of the bill. Yesterday, he met with the Republican caucus and told them to pass the bill. By supporting this bill, the President breaks the promise he made during the campaign. Medicaid expansion has allowed millions of Americans and over 265,000 people in my State to see a doctor. Many of these folks work but don't have health insurance through their jobs or can't afford private health insurance. Medicaid expansion is literally a lifeline, but TrumpCare wipes this out. I can't believe that our Republican friends are doing this to New Mexico children and families. Take 1\1/2\ year old Rafe--this is Rafe. Rafe is here with his mom Jessica and his dad Sam, a veteran. They are from Albuquerque, NM. Rafe was born with cortical visual impairment--a kind of legal blindness-- and significant developmental delays. He faced monumental medical challenges. But Jessica and Sam have been able to access the intensive medical care, early intervention services, medical equipment, and therapies he needs through a combination of their military insurance and Medicaid. Now Rafe's parents are scared he will lose his Medicaid services. Their military insurance alone doesn't cover all the services and equipment Rafe needs. They need Medicaid. Without it, Rafe's chances for a better life are threatened. They worry about--and this is their quote--``dealing with insurance, finding healthcare, tracking down specialty doctors, keeping up with therapy appointments and doctor's appointments.'' They worry whether Rafe will be able to walk, feed himself, graduate from high school, and get a job. Now they must worry whether he will get the medical care he needs to give him the opportunity to do all of those things. Let's talk about Carmen and her three children. Carmen is a single parent. She serves Native American students as a teacher, a coach, dorm parent, and higher education administrator. The small nonprofit organization Carmen works for doesn't offer health insurance. For the past 4 years, Medicaid has helped pay for the healthcare for her two sons. Her kids are healthy, but two have nut allergies and need EpiPens at school and at home. According to Carmen, ``When I renewed their EpiPen prescription for school this past fall, I was astounded that the price sky-rocketed to $741 to fill one prescription!'' Now Carmen is worried; she doesn't know whether her kids will lose Medicaid or how she will pay for prescriptions. She asked me: ``Please continue to fight for the Affordable Care Act because you are fighting for me and my family's well-being.'' It is cruel to threaten Rafe's chances for a healthier life, cruel that Carmen might not be able to pay for EpiPens for her kids. TrumpCare threatens these two families and millions more. TrumpCare will hurt seniors, so it is not surprising that AARP strongly opposes it. AARP opposes the TrumpCare age tax that allows insurance companies to charge seniors up to five times more for their premiums. The age tax, combined with reducing tax credits for premiums, will price seniors out of health insurance needed to supplement their Medicare. AARP is calling on every Senator to vote no on the Senate Republicans' bill. Medicaid pays for an astounding 62 percent of all nursing home care. By cutting Medicaid, the Republicans threaten our mothers, our fathers, and our grandmothers and grandfathers in nursing homes. States can't bear the burden of these costs. Republicans want to shift them. I know the State of New Mexico can't handle this. This cost-shift sets States up to cut reimbursement rates and reduce eligibility for services at nursing homes. Medicaid pays 64 percent of nursing home care in my State. New Mexico's 74 nursing homes will be impacted by these cuts. Many of the folks in nursing homes are middle-class Americans who worked all their lives, paid taxes, and saved for retirement. They did everything right, but because skilled nursing care is so expensive, they have outlived their life savings, and now Medicaid pays the cost of care at the end of their lives, allowing them to live with dignity. Senate Republicans may say that one improvement in their bill over the House bill is it protects people with preexisting conditions, but the American people shouldn't be fooled. People with preexisting conditions are not protected under the Senate bill the way they are now protected under the ACA. The Senate Republican bill still allows States to waive the essential health benefits that all insurance companies must now provide under the ACA. These benefits include prescriptions, hospital stays, rehabilitative services, and laboratory services. If States waive these benefits, people with serious illnesses would have to pay out of pocket for these services or buy additional insurance, or if these services are covered but are not essential health benefits, insurance companies can put annual or lifetime limits on the services, and people with serious illnesses could end up with no coverage or be priced out of services. All this sends us back to the time when people faced not getting care or going bankrupt if they got sick. We passed the ACA because the American people agreed no one should go broke to pay for lifesaving care and that insurance companies shouldn't be able to place limits on the care someone could get in their lifetime. Why do Republicans want to take us back? Finally, the steep cuts to Medicaid would devastate hospitals, especially rural hospitals. Make no mistake--rural hospitals are already struggling. Medicaid cuts will force some to close their doors if TrumpCare becomes law. In New Mexico, our rural hospitals are often an economic anchor for the community. Hospital administrators in my State are very worried. Medicaid has helped the Guadalupe County Hospital cut its uninsured payer rate from 14 percent to 4 percent from 2014 to 2016. Its uncompensated care decreased 23 percent in the same period. The hospital's administrator, Christina Campos, fears what might happen if TrumpCare becomes law. She is urging me to protect access to care in rural areas. I will fight hard to keep residents in our rural areas insured and to keep rural hospitals open in New Mexico and across the Nation. The President and congressional Republicans want to take us back to the days when healthcare was a privilege for those who could afford it. The American people do not support the Republicans' cruel plans. Congress should listen to the pleas of our constituents. The American people reject the framework of TrumpCare. They reject gutting Medicaid and the Medicaid expansion. They reject making seniors pay more for healthcare. They reject making healthcare inaccessible for those with fewer resources. The Republicans need to go back to the drawing board and begin to work with Democrats. I say to my colleagues across the aisle, do not take healthcare and the opportunity to lead a productive and happy life away from millions of Americans. Together, we can make affordable healthcare a reality for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for the recognition. All across my home State of New Mexico, thousands of hard-working people owe their healthcare and in some cases their lives to the Affordable Care Act. Since early January, I have received over 10,000 letters, emails, and calls from New Mexicans pleading with me to help save their access to healthcare. Over 96 percent of my constituents who have contacted me about healthcare oppose TrumpCare. Let me say that again because I think it is a very important number. Over 96 percent of New Mexicans who have contacted me about healthcare over the past 6 months are opposed to TrumpCare, and they are opposed to the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The TrumpCare bill is a disgrace and a disaster. It is a disgrace that Senate Republicans are trying to force an extremely unpopular bill on the country in 1 week, and they are doing this even though this bill affects one-sixth of our economy and even though it would cost hundreds of thousands of people in New Mexico and millions of Americans to lose access to healthcare, prescription drugs, drug addiction counseling, and other lifesaving services. The Republican plan raids Medicaid, it strips away protections that prevent insurance companies from canceling your policy for getting sick, and it reduces the services your insurer has to provide. It does all this to pay for massive tax cuts for the wealthy. This bill is a disaster because it would be devastating for older New Mexicans, families who are struggling to make ends meet, women, people with preexisting conditions, and New Mexicans in rural areas. Our rural areas would be particularly hard hit. In some cases, it would do very severe damage to healthcare in rural areas. Hospital administrators in rural counties like Guadalupe County and Socorro County in my home State have told me that losing Medicaid reimbursements could break their budgets, and that could force the small, rural hospitals to limit services or even to close. You know, the last thing you want to have happen in a small, rural community is to have the hospital close. We all know what happens after that: The hospital closes, and then a diminution in services takes place, and it is very hard for communities to stay alive in that situation. It is no wonder the American people don't want this bill. They don't want TrumpCare. I suppose it is no surprise that the Republicans have kept it hidden--without letting anyone see it. I want to talk about that for a moment. That is not just a talking point for Democrats. If this bill passes and becomes law, many people will suffer, and it has been kept a total secret. I wish I could read on the Senate floor every story I have gotten from my constituents who are concerned. If I could, I could hold the record for the longest floor speech. I have shared several in the past, but today I would like to read just one, which is from Elena from Albuquerque. This is a picture of Elena from Albuquerque, NM. She has a very moving story that she wrote me about. In this story, I think you see the story of the Affordable Care Act and the good it does. Elena is 31 years old. Earlier this week, I told some of Elena's story in a speech on the Senate floor, but today I want to tell Elena's full story. Elena graduated last year from the University of New Mexico Law School--my alma mater--and she is quite determined and motivated, as you will hear. She wrote her story in a Facebook post to friends and gave me permission to share it with the American people and with my colleagues here in the Senate. Here is her story. This is Elena's story in Elena's words: For the past 18 months, I have been carrying around a big secret. I felt really guilty for not sharing it, yet, try as I might, I could not work up the nerve to tell you all. Lucky for me, Senator Udall has helped me to rip off the Band-Aid. In the spring of 2016, I found out that I have a BRCA-1 mutation, which puts me at a very high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Women with a BRCA-1 mutation tend to get breast and/or ovarian cancer very young, sometimes even in their 20s or 30s. When you have a BRCA-1 mutation, you have two options: One, you can get breast screenings every six months and yearly ovarian screenings and keep your fingers crossed that nothing pops up. Or two, you can get your breasts and ovaries removed and significantly decrease the odds of getting cancer. Needless to say, there's not really a ``right'' decision. A woman's choice just comes down to what she feels is right for her body and life. In the past 18 months, I've gotten to check a whole lot of things off my ``absolutely not on my bucket list'' bucket list. In April 2016, I had my first breast MRI, which revealed a lump that my doctor thought might be breast cancer. I then had my first mammogram, my first breast ultrasound, and my first breast biopsy. These tests thankfully revealed that I didn't have breast cancer. They also helped me to make the difficult decision to have a prophylactic mastectomy and significantly reduce my chances of getting breast cancer. In August 2016, I had a prophylactic mastectomy. And in October and February of this year, I had follow-up surgeries to have my breasts reconstructed. Since February, I've been focusing on healing, and I feel great. Obviously, this isn't the end of the road. Doctors suggest that women with a BRCA-1 mutation get their ovaries removed around age 40. And of course screening will continue to be important. But for now, I feel at peace knowing that I'm doing what I can to protect myself. As Senator Udall mentioned, at the time that all of this health stuff came up, I had health insurance thanks to Medicaid Expansion through the ACA/ObamaCare. I first enrolled in Medicaid about three years ago when I was a law student at UNM School of Law. UNM had just given qualifying students the opportunity to enroll in Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. I was a healthy 29-year-old with no preexisting conditions, and doubted I would ever use my health insurance. Little did I know, completing the Medicaid application would be one of the most important decisions I ever made. So, a truly genuine #thanksObama to President Obama, his staff and all our elected leaders who worked to make the ACA happen and are fighting to keep it alive. I am so grateful that I qualified for Medicaid at a time in my life when I unexpectedly needed health insurance more than I could have ever anticipated. I am so thankful the drafters of the ACA understood that allowing me to get the preventive care I needed was better for my health, and also more financially sound. The ease with which I have received my medical coverage has allowed me to focus on my recovery. While it has been a challenging year and a half, knowing that I could trust my health insurance made it so much easier than I'd imagined it would be. I am so relieved that now I can focus on my future instead of figuring out how to pay off insurmountable medical debt. I am fully recovered from my surgeries and am working on moving my life and career forward. I look forward to paying taxes (I swear, I really do) to support programs like Medicaid so that I can do my part to assist other Americans in staying healthy. If you had told me when I signed up for Medicaid that I would make such extensive use of it, I wouldn't have believed it. At times, I have felt guilty for having to utilize Medicaid at a time in my life that has proven to be so medically and financially complicated. Friends and family have been good enough to remind me that this is what Medicaid is about: ensuring that Americans can afford to take care of their health, regardless of their financial state, when an issue strikes. The Affordable Care Act has made this a reality for more people than ever before; I am so grateful to be one of them. I am very scared for what the future will bring for those many individuals who have received insurance thanks to the ACA. I worry that if the [Affordable Care Act] is destroyed, my preexisting condition will make it financially impossible for me and many others to get health insurance. I worry for people who couldn't get insurance through their work and were finally able to get it through the Exchange. I worry that those who suffer from ailments that constantly affect their health won't be able to afford the care they need. I worry about the millions of Americans who are about to lose so much. I understand that the ACA is not perfect. It needs some work, especially for people on the exchange who are paying premiums that are way too high. But the replacement plan that is being proposed is going to make it incredibly difficult for all of us to get quality, affordable coverage. There are no words to adequately express my gratitude to all those who worked so tirelessly to make the Affordable Care Act happen. I am so hopeful that instead of destroying the ACA, our leaders will work to make it stronger so that all Americans can get the healthcare that they deserve. Those are the words Elena posted on her Facebook page, very, very moving words. Before her surgery, Elena had an 87-percent chance of developing breast cancer, and now it is less than 10 percent, less than that of the average woman. I commit to Elena and to every New Mexican and American that I will work to make the ACA stronger so that all Americans will get the healthcare they rightly deserve. But the Senate Republicans cannot claim the same. Their bill, drafted in secret behind closed doors, hurts people like Elena who have preexisting conditions. It hurts people in her situation who have complicated healthcare needs with high medical costs and those who benefit from Medicaid, from the Medicaid expansion. Americans support the Medicaid Program. They understand that even if they don't need Medicaid, neighbors, friends, family may need it. And they understand that they may need it unexpectedly in the future, as Elena did. Medicaid expansion has meant that over 265,000 New Mexicans have healthcare coverage that they didn't have before. It is a pretty remarkable thing. In 6 short years in New Mexico, after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we had people who didn't have any healthcare, and now 265,000 have Medicaid coverage. They could be in a situation just like Elena's. Many of these are hard-working families--families living in rural New Mexico and Native American families living in New Mexico. The Senate Republican bill, like the House Republican bill, will end Medicaid expansion in New Mexico for people like Elena. I want everyone listening to hear: This bill cuts Medicaid overall more deeply--more deeply--than the House version. And when President Trump said that the House version was a mean bill, this is a meaner bill. They are not necessary; these cuts are meaner, and they are not necessary to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They will hurt millions of Americans. They are also devastating to our State economies. New Mexico can't afford to pick up the tab for those cuts, so the State will be forced to cut services and reduce payments to doctors. Hospitals might close, and that would mean healthcare jobs will dry up. Elena's story is one of millions. Every Senator has hundreds of thousands of constituents with these stories. We all need healthcare at some point in our lives. I urge, I implore my fellow Senators across the aisle to reject the McConnell TrumpCare bill. Work with Democrats on a bipartisan basis to improve America's healthcare system so that every American has access to affordable healthcare. Don't do this. Don't gut our healthcare system. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I am happy to be joined today on the floor by Senator Heinrich, who has been a real fighter for healthcare for New Mexicans, and I am looking forward to staying on the floor and hearing him talk about how he feels about this Republican healthcare bill as well. I rise today for the third time this session to oppose plans by President Trump and the Republicans to gut our healthcare system and to throw millions of Americans off their health insurance. On May 4 of this year, the day that House Republicans narrowly passed their TrumpCare bill, the President held a celebration at the White House in the Rose Garden and pronounced the bill a great plan. Well, TrumpCare may be a great plan if you are wealthy and healthy, because if you are wealthy you get big tax cuts and if you are healthy, your premiums may not go up, and may even go down--that is, until you are sick. TrumpCare is not a great plan if you are over the age of 62, if you are a hard-working family trying to make ends meet, if you live in a rural area, if you have or have not had an illness like cancer or heart disease or diabetes, or if you are a woman. Twenty-three million Americans will be left high and dry--out of health insurance by 2026. They don't think TrumpCare is a great plan. To them, it is a mean plan. Actually, those were President Trump's own words several weeks after the Rose Garden celebration. President Trump came clean with the Senate Republicans, admonishing them that the bill is ``mean'' and needs to be more ``generous, kind, and with heart.'' For the first time since his inauguration, I agree with the President on healthcare. Since day one of the 115th Congress, Republicans have had the Affordable Care Act in their sights, and so has the President. They have tried mightily to do away with the rights and benefits under the ACA. But there is good news. The American people have rallied. They have called, they have emailed, and they have gone to town halls. They have marched, they have made their views known, and they have shared their stories. So far, they have stopped Republicans from gutting our healthcare system. Just this past Saturday in my home State, simultaneous rallies in opposition to TrumpCare took place in 20 counties. I say to them: Keep up the fight, and I will continue to fight as hard as I can. We need to do all we can to stop this attack on healthcare. The consequences of upending our healthcare system are enormous. They are enormous for the 20 million Americans who now have healthcare because of the ACA through private insurance and through Medicaid expansion. TrumpCare hurts the most vulnerable--the elderly, the disabled, and those with fewer resources. The consequences of gutting the ACA and restructuring Medicaid are enormous for our economy, one-sixth of which is related to healthcare. They are enormous for hospitals that rely on third-party reimbursements under the ACA and Medicaid expansion. These hospitals need those revenues, and even more so for rural hospitals that keep their doors open thanks to the ACA, as well as the Indian Healthcare Service facilities, which have reduced wait times and added services because of the ACA. But the majority in Congress refuses to hold hearings, and they are blocking all public participation. This is unconscionable, and it is undemocratic. Before Democrats voted on ObamaCare, the Senate held 100 committee hearings, roundtables, and walk-throughs. The final Senate bill included 147 Republican amendments. The majority leader has missed an opportunity for political and moral leadership on one of the most important issues we face. Senator McConnell should have an honest and open process, including Senate committee hearings, with full public participation and a chance for patients to tell Congress how this proposal impacts them--not hidden meanings, not limited debate and a simple majority vote. Americans deserve an open process from their elected leaders. That is why I introduced a bill last week with my Democratic colleagues called the No Hearing, No Vote Act. This bill would require a public committee hearing for any legislation that goes through the fast-track budget reconciliation process, including the TrumpCare legislation. Members of Congress were elected to improve lives, not destroy them, and I believe we need bipartisan cooperation to ensure we don't do that. If we wanted to improve on ObamaCare, we could: No 1, make sure that all Americans have healthcare; and No. 2, make healthcare more affordable. So I will tell my colleagues what is really happening here. The American people don't want the benefits they have gained through ObamaCare to be repealed and replaced with an inferior plan. They do not support TrumpCare. Only 17 percent of Americans support the House Republicans' current bill. With this degree of public opposition, it is baffling that Republicans keep pushing the bill that kicks 23 million Americans off their healthcare. But the moral underpinnings of TrumpCare are as bankrupt as Trump's New Jersey casinos. The winners of TrumpCare are the wealthy, and the Republicans are plainly serving those interests. The Republicans can keep trying to hide TrumpCare, but Americans understand that it is just plain wrong. I want to talk about a few of the ways that it is just plain wrong. While women make up half of our population, no women serve on Senator McConnell's healthcare working group. Yet women are uniquely affected by TrumpCare. For example, the range of cost-free preventive services under the Affordable Care Act includes screenings for breast cancer, including mammograms, bone density screenings, cervical cancer screenings, domestic violence screenings and counseling, breast feeding counseling and equipment, contraception, and folic acid supplements. All of these services were critical to maintaining women's health and the health of their babies as well. New Mexico leads the Nation in the percentage of births that are covered by Medicaid at 72 percent of all births in the State. So these services that are now available to every woman are essential. TrumpCare would repeal the cost-free preventive care requirements for the Medicaid expansion population. Not only would this repeal risk the health of women and their babies, but it would result in increased medical care costs overall. Preventive medical services save money in the long run. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to provide a range of essential health benefits. For women, these required services include maternity and newborn child care. But TrumpCare would allow States to apply for a waiver to define their own essential health benefits beginning in 2020. So States could choose to exclude maternity and newborn care, and women would end up paying more for this care. The result is women not getting the care they need. TrumpCare would cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood for 1 year. Planned Parenthood provides preventive medical and reproductive health services to women and men, and Planned Parenthood funding provides a safety net to low-income women. According to the CBO, cutting off Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood for 1 year would mean a total loss of access to services in some low-income communities because Planned Parenthood is the only public provider in some regions. Take Elena from Albuquerque, NM. When she was 30 years old and in law school, Elena found out that she had the BRCA gene mutation, which puts her at a much higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The treatments for the BRCA gene mutation include a mastectomy and ovary removal-- treatments she couldn't afford. Thankfully, Elena qualified for Medicaid under the expansion. She got her breast cancer screenings and decided to have a mastectomy because of the cancer scare. Elena had three surgeries, costing thousands of dollars, covered by Medicaid, and now the chances of her getting breast cancer are very low. But Elena now worries that if she decides to have her ovaries removed and TrumpCare becomes law, she will not be able to have this potentially lifesaving surgery. If she has had a lapse in Medicaid coverage, her Medicaid expansion coverage will be gone, and because TrumpCare would end the ban against insurance companies denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions, she may never be able to get insurance or surgery. Public schools and schoolchildren will be hurt by TrumpCare. Schools are now eligible to receive Medicaid funds for necessary medical services for children with disabilities. Schools are reimbursed for vision, hearing, and mental health screenings. These services help children get services early so they can be ready to learn. Right now, New Mexico schools are reimbursed $18 million from Medicaid, but under TrumpCare, States would not have to consider schools' Medicaid-eligible providers, and the costs would be on the public schools. The problem is, New Mexico public schools cannot take on these kinds of costs. That might mean hundreds of schoolchildren each year will go without vision, hearing, and mental health treatment because no one else will be able to provide them. Dr. Lynn McIlroy, superintendent of the Loving Municipal Schools, a rural school district in Southeastern New Mexico, said: Medicaid funding is vital to our continuum of care and service to the majority of our students. Often, our school nurse is the only medical professional our students ever see. New Mexico has one of the highest percent Native American populations in the country, more than 10 percent of our residents. Even though many Native Americans receive healthcare through the Indian Health Service, IHS has not always been able to provide needed care due to a lack of funding. Medicaid expansion has changed that and changed that dramatically. Dr. Valory Wangler, who works with the Zuni Pueblo, says: Since the Affordable Care Act, patients of Zuni have access to special services that were once difficult to fund and often delayed or denied. An IHS physician working on the Zuni Reservation had a patient with severe arthritis that was making it difficult for her to stay physically active and work at a local school. She needed knee replacement surgery. Before Medicaid expansion, IHS had trouble funding knee replacements, and the surgery was denied for years because IHS could only afford to pay for life and loss of limb services. This patient is now on the Medicaid expansion. She was able to get a total knee replacement, is working full time, staying fit, and is no longer in pain. One of the ACA's most popular provisions is the protection from discrimination if you have a preexisting condition. This is one of the most mystifying parts of TrumpCare. Republicans would end that protection by allowing States to waive out and set up high-risk pools. All of us know someone with a serious illness or condition, like Kitt here. Kitt is 4\1/2\ years old and has type I diabetes that will require lifelong care. Her mother Dana is worried about TrumpCare. Dana says: It breaks my heart that elected officials are leaning toward dropping the Federal mandate to guarantee affordable health insurance for those with preexisting conditions. Sit down with a child who has an unbearable disease and be their warrior in DC to make everything possible for that special soul and their family to have an easier tomorrow. I hope we will all be those warriors to protect that healthcare program which has been put in place for them. I yield to Senator Heinrich. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today many of my colleagues will come to the floor to speak about the devastating impact that TrumpCare will have on rural communities. I rise to join them in speaking on this topic and on the many other serious flaws in the Republicans' bill to replace ObamaCare. When he was elected, President Trump promised he would provide healthcare for everyone, but President Trump and our Republican friends have turned their backs on that promise. The Republican healthcare proposal would put insurance companies back in the driver's seat, and that means less quality and more costs for all of us. Rural communities, working families, and people with medical conditions would be hit the hardest. Today, we got a taste of how devastating TrumpCare would be. The President's budget proposal slashes billions of dollars for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. President Trump takes direct aim at bipartisan programs that have made historic progress for kids, for the disabled, and for the elderly. Former Senator Hubert Humphrey once said: ``The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' When Senator Humphrey spoke those words, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He died a few months later. His words are just as meaningful today. TrumpCare fails Senator Humphrey's moral test. It doesn't cover more people or more services or improve healthcare. It raises costs and reduces quality. Compared to the ACA--or ObamaCare--TrumpCare would be a disaster for families in my home State. In New Mexico, tens of thousands of people have healthcare, thanks to ObamaCare and the Medicaid expansion. Before the Affordable Care Act, New Mexico had one of the highest rates of uninsured in the country. It was almost 20 percent, at 19.6 percent. That rate has been cut in half to 8.9 percent. Approximately 300,000 more New Mexicans now have healthcare. And each one of these 300,000 people has a story about how having healthcare has made a difference--even saved lives. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans now have essential health benefits, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescription drugs, pregnancy and childbirth, and mental health services, and a range of preventive services, like mammograms and other cancer screenings, are available at no cost. I am not saying that the ACA is perfect. Premiums are still too high, deductibles are increasing too much, and we still must bring down the cost of prescription drugs. We absolutely need to work to bring down costs. But, on balance, the Affordable Care Act passes all tests--many with flying colors. TrumpCare does not come close. TrumpCare gets an F. Test No. 1: Does TrumpCare increase the number of Americans who will have healthcare? No, it decreases coverage and decreases it dramatically. According to the most recent figures from the CBO, 24 million Americans will lose healthcare coverage under TrumpCare over the next decade. TrumpCare would dismantle the Medicaid expansion provisions that help so many working Americans, including 265,000 people in New Mexico, and TrumpCare would hit rural communities the hardest. The National Rural Health Association has said that TrumpCare ``does nothing to improve the health care crisis in rural America, and will lead to poorer rural health outcomes, more uninsured and an increase in the rural hospital closure crisis.'' Rural areas like the ones we have in New Mexico have more elderly and disabled people, and fewer people have insurance through their jobs. TrumpCare is the hardest on these groups. Rural hospitals are already struggling. They will have an even harder time keeping their doors open. Many New Mexicans would have to drive an hour or more if their local hospital closed. And not only would closed hospitals mean less access to healthcare, it would also hurt the economy. In rural areas, hospitals are a big employer. If they close, the rural economy takes a hit too. The administrator of the Guadalupe County Hospital in New Mexico, a fine woman by the name of Christina Campos, fears what might happen if TrumpCare becomes law. She is urging me to protect access to care in rural areas. Guadalupe County is one of our smallest counties by population. The hospital's uninsured payer rate declined from 14 percent to 4 percent from 2014 to 2016, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and its uncompensated care increased 23 percent in that same period. I can tell my colleagues that I will fight tooth and nail to keep residents in our rural areas insured and to keep rural hospitals in New Mexico open. Test No. 2: Does TrumpCare increase coverage of healthcare services? No, it fails this test too. Under the ACA, insurance companies must cover essential healthcare services, period. But under TrumpCare, starting in 2020, States can get a waiver and define their own essential benefits for individual and small group plans. So States would be able to cut the benefits that people count on--and that are making patients healthier. Test No. 3: Does TrumpCare make healthcare more affordable? It doesn't. It takes aim at the most vulnerable working and low-income families and seniors--the people most in need of care--and it cuts access to healthcare out from under them. If you are older and poorer, you lose big under TrumpCare. If you are young and wealthy, you win. What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is that it is unjust. And it is bad for healthcare costs over the long run. Trump and the Republicans are proposing drastic changes to our healthcare system--and they are changes for the worse. They want to go backward to a time when insurance companies could decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't. Finally, TrumpCare would hurt anyone with a preexisting condition. One of the most popular provisions of ObamaCare is that it prohibits insurance companies from dropping you if you get sick and from refusing to cover you because of a preexisting condition. A preexisting condition could be something serious like cancer, but insurance companies have considered everything from childbirth to hand warts a preexisting condition. Under TrumpCare, States would be able to decide whether to get a waiver from those patient protections. And then we would go back to that time when insurance companies decided who could get healthcare and who couldn't. States would have to set up high-risk pools to provide people with the option of insurance in catastrophic situations. But in the best cases, high-risk pools wouldn't protect many people from going bankrupt just to get healthcare, and TrumpCare wouldn't provide nearly enough funding for States to run them successfully. Take Alexis from Albuquerque. Alexis is here in the photograph with her husband. Alexis had a stroke and brain surgeries when she was 28 years old. Even though she had no lingering effects, she was denied insurance in the private market and had to get insurance in New Mexico's high-risk pool. According to Alexis, ``It broke us financially.'' Alexis now has affordable health insurance with the help of the Affordable Care Act subsidies. Like most people, she doesn't want to risk going broke just to get healthcare. She shouldn't have to. Finally, I want to tell you about a 1-year-old from Albuquerque, NM, whose name is Rafe. Rafe was born with cortical visual impairment--a kind of legal blindness--and significant developmental delays. His parents--Jessica, his mom, and his father, Sam, a veteran--have been able to access the intensive medical care, early intervention services, medical equipment, and therapy he needs through a combination of the military's insurance and Medicaid. But TrumpCare jeopardizes Medicaid by turning it into a block grant for States, which will most certainly result in deep cuts to Medicaid. It threatens Rafe's chances of a better life. The President promised he would keep protections for people with preexisting conditions--people who are sick. His broken promises can hurt tens of millions of Americans. In the end, TrumpCare is not a real healthcare bill. It is a tax relief bill for the richest 1 percent. The CBO estimates that TrumpCare would cut taxes by $346 billion over 10 years, at the expense of the healthcare of working families and seniors. Our priorities for healthcare reform should be increasing coverage, increasing the services provided, making people healthier, and providing affordable healthcare. I strongly and unequivocally support all Americans having healthcare. Let's get to that goal, and let's get to that goal now. Ninety-one percent of the American people are insured, thanks to the steps taken under the Affordable Care Act. Rather than repealing it, let's build on its strengths so 100 percent of people can afford to see a doctor when they are sick. We can do this. We can do better. Let's ensure that Americans in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the disabled, have the right to healthcare so that America meets the moral test of good governance. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues. I know Senator Coons and others have come together as a bipartisan group to talk about fallen police officers. It is with my greatest respect and deepest sympathy that today I honor five fallen New Mexico heroes on the floor of the Senate. These five brave men were police officers who died in the line of duty. Police officers who sacrificed their lives in service to the people of their communities and our State. Police Officer Jose Ismael Chavez was a member of the Hatch Police Department. While conducting a traffic stop in Hatch on August 12, 2016, one passenger exited and opened fire on Officer Chavez. Officer Chavez is survived by his wife and two children. Secondly, Police Officer Clint E. Corvinus of Alamogordo was part of the Alamogordo Police Department and was shot while pursuing a suspected felon on foot in Alamogordo on September 2, 2016. Officer Corvinus is survived by his daughter. Deputy Sheriff Ryan Sean Thomas of the Valencia County Sheriff's Department was responding to a call for service on December 6, 2016, when his patrol car left the roadway between Los Lunas and Belen, and overturned. He was ejected from his car. He is survived by his wife, daughter, and a baby boy after he died. Sheriff Steven Lawrence Ackerman, of the Lea County Sheriff's Department, was killed in a single vehicle crash near Encino on January 17, 2017. Sheriff Ackerman had served with the Lea County Sheriff's Department for 14 years and previously with the Lea County Detention Center for 12 years. He is survived by his wife, daughter, son, and grandson. Police Officer Houston James Largo, of the Navajo Tribal Police, was shot while responding to a domestic violence call near Prewitt, NM. He passed away the next day on March 12, 2017. He was only 27 years old. There are no words to express the sadness or the gratitude we all feel toward these New Mexico officers and their families and toward all police officers who are killed in the line of duty. We honor them all this Police Week and by legislation we introduced last week in the Senate to extend flying the flag half-staff for the first responders. We will push to give first responders the respect they are owed by passing the Honoring Hometown Heroes Act. Every day, tens of thousands of policemen and policewomen serve our communities in myriad ways, from tracking down violent criminals to finding shelter for homeless persons. The police and their families deserve our respect, gratitude, and support every day. I thank you, Officer Chavez, Officer Corvinus, Deputy Sheriff Thomas, Sheriff Ackerman, and Officer Largo, from the bottom of my heart and with sincere appreciation.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, if I sound a little hoarse, it is because my allergies are acting up, but I feel just fine. Let me start out by thanking Senator Cantwell. Her leadership on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is pretty incredible. For this Congress, I think this is the very first CRA that has been turned down. We have been voting on many of them since the Congress came back in session in January. This is the very first victory we have had on denying the CRA. When we talk about what a CRA does, it is a very blunt instrument that has only been used once until this Congress, and what it does is just blow out an entire area of the law. So if you talk about this BLM methane rule and you have a part of the law that says the government shall try to prevent waste, well, if you blow that provision of the law out, the agency can do nothing until we get to the point that the Congress acts again, and sometimes we move very slowly. So I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Cantwell, and I want to thank her so much and all of the members of her committee, in particular, Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich serves on that committee and has been very outspoken on this rule, and I believe his leadership has always been acknowledged by Senator Cantwell as well. This issue that we are debating and that we had this good vote on is about three things. First of all, it is about the waste of a natural resource that the public and the Tribes own. Let's talk about the resource here for a second. We are talking about, to start with, natural gas. So when we think of natural gas, as many people know, what we are talking about is when you turn on your stove, and it is a natural gas stove, that is how we cook our food. Many houses run and heat on natural gas, and we know now that many of our powerplants are converting over to natural gas because it is a very good fuel in terms of lowering carbon emissions. So natural gas is a big part of our energy economy. It is actually going up as coal is going down. Look at this photograph which shows more than $330 million of natural gas wasted. This just shows us the huge power of natural gas. What was happening is that natural gas was being flared. This depicts the top at one of these oil and gas operations. They are just burning that up. So rather than that energy being used at home or used in industry, it is just being wasted. On top of that, we know it has a massive climate impact. This was a very commonsense rule. I think the thing people should understand is that several Western States, including Colorado and Wyoming, passed an almost identical rule to deal with this issue. All BLM tried to do was to use that common sense from the West, where it had already happened in several States, and put it in place for the Nation. So this is a good, solid rule, and it is a commonsense rule, and I think it prevents waste, just like it was laid out to do. The second point is that when we talk about this issue, it is about job creation. What we are talking about here is, when you have this kind of waste, how do you prevent the waste? Well, the thing we have seen in New Mexico that occurs is that many of these oil and gas industries reach out to people who maybe haven't been in business, and they say: How do we prevent this waste? Well, actually, we use infrared to focus on the oil and gas operations and all of their pipes, and we can detect the natural gas waste, and then we can go about actually fixing it at all the various fittings and places where that happens. Guess what. A lot of jobs are created in that process. This is growing in New Mexico, growing in Colorado, and with this rule in place, over time, it is going to continue to grow. So this is going to create some small businesses. It has already created small businesses, and it is going to be pretty dramatic on that front. The third thing that we are here about has to do with public health. Obviously, if you are venting all of this--and as Senator Cantwell showed, you have a methane cloud the size of Delaware over the Four Corners area; so it is really impacting New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona--what is the impact in terms of methane? Well, we know there are serious public health impacts. We know that asthma is impacted by this, as well as other respiratory diseases--the kinds of things that occur on a regular basis as we have that kind of methane pollution that goes into the air. As I mentioned just a little bit earlier, methane is a very, very powerful and potent greenhouse gas. So we know that by releasing it--the flaring that we talked about--we are wasting it and we are putting that methane into the atmosphere. We are also adding to the greenhouse gases, which are warming the planet and creating, in the Southwest, as we know, catastrophic forest fires, extreme weather events, impacts on water, and impacts on agriculture. So we know that it is here now and that the Western States are in the bull's-eye. So let me just say that these are three commonsense things that we have done today by asserting this rule. We are preventing waste, we are moving job creation, and we are acting on the part of public health. When we have a victory like this, there are just so many people that should be congratulated--people that pulled together. First of all, just to start, Senator Cantwell just finished, and she is our ranking member on the committee. Senator Bennet, I think, was actually the 51st, and I hope he tweeted that out. When he came over, we were at 50, and it went to 51. So he and all of the Democrats hung together on this--every single one of the Democrats. It just shows that when we get Democratic unity--and with our Independents--we come right up on about 48 votes. If we get a couple of Republicans--if we work in a bipartisan way--to come with us, we can have a big impact. Who are the Republicans who voted with us? They should be called out and congratulated for having courage, for having common sense, and for stepping forward. I would just like to say about my three friends on the Republican side-- Senator McCain, Senator Collins, and Senator Graham--thank you so much for stepping forward and seeing the commonsense nature of this issue and standing to make sure that we didn't head in the wrong direction on this. Thinking a little bit about some of the groups that voted with us and worked with us and helped us and advised us out in the field, the groups that stood with us shoulder to shoulder include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, and the Ceres business group. We had a lot of businesses--understanding that this is a business issue and a job creator--like Taxpayers for Common Sense. We don't always see them weigh in on regulations like this. The Center for Methane Emissions Solutions, and so many environmental and public health groups, including Earth Justice, the National Parks Association, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and many, many others, including the Western Environmental Law Center, are also a part of that. I thought we should talk for a second about--in addition to all of those groups--some other groups that joined us, and they are these medical and public health groups that abhor natural gas waste. Look at all of these groups in addition to the ones I mentioned. These are people who have real expertise in public health: Allergy & Asthma Network, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Center for Climate Change and Health, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. I have always been impressed by that group. Here you have docs who are stepping up, wanting to be socially responsible on things. There are many wonderful physicians like that in New Mexico and across the Nation, and they have organized themselves as PSR. We also have the Public Health Institute and the National Medical Association. So we have a lot of these medical and public health groups that have stepped forward and said: We are not going to waste natural gas. Let me thank them. Also, the Western Environmental Law Center, which is in New Mexico and works on this issue, has been a pretty incredible group, hard- working, headed up by a gentleman by the name of Doug Meiklejohn, and Doug really makes a difference on all of these issues in New Mexico and, in particular, really helped us out here. I would be remiss if I didn't mention some of the groups that have pulled together--groups of ranchers, Tribes, and public health groups. We just talked about the public health groups. But there is one rancher in New Mexico whose sole focus has been this issue. His name is Don Schreiber. He appeared at a press conference yesterday here in Washington with Senator Bennet and Senator Cantwell. I was at my own press conference, and more or less as a Senator there, speaking out on methane. I know if Don is ever at a press conference, he is going to say what I would have said on this methane issue, which is that we have to prevent waste. Don Schreiber is his name. He is a rancher from Northwestern New Mexico. He is actually up under that methane cloud, and he talks about his family and his ranching operation and what the impact is. We also have Tribes in that area. I want to congratulate and thank President Begaye of the Navajo Nation. He sent in a very persuasive statement and made a very strong statement against wasting natural gas. We also had the Western Organization of Resource Councils. This is another group that has been very active in the West. They stepped forward on this natural gas waste issue, and we are incredibly thankful to them. Also, we never get anything done around here on the Senate floor without our wonderful staff. I want to thank Jonathan Black, who has worked on this issue for many years. Jonathan actually worked for Senator Bingaman on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so he brought a lot of that expertise. We have a young man from the office sitting here with me on the floor, Sean MacDougall, helping me with these charts. Sean is a congressional fellow in our office on loan from the Bureau of Land Management, and he has brought a lot of knowledge to the table. Mr. President, to reiterate, I oppose H.J. Res. 36--the Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove the Bureau of Land Management's methane and waste prevention rule. BLM's rule prevents the unnecessary waste of a public resource and makes sure New Mexicans--and all American taxpayers--get fair value in return for commercial use of that public resource. The rule requires oil and gas facilities operating on public and Indian lands to prevent unnecessary flaring, venting, and leaking of methane. Rigorous analysis shows that the overall benefits to the American public far outweigh the costs, and technology to implement the rule is readily available and cost-effective to industry. The current BLM rules on natural gas waste are over 35 years old, issued in 1979. Federal watchdog agencies have been issuing reports for almost a decade--recommending that the BLM update its rules and prevent waste wherever possible. With new technologies like horizontal drilling, the amount of gas wasted in recent years has increased significantly. From 2009 to 2013, the total amount of natural gas flared on BLM land doubled. We throw the phrase ``common sense'' around a lot these days when we talk about laws or regulations we like, but the BLM's waste prevention rule really is a commonsense rule. Over the past 4 months, Congress has repealed 13 Federal rules using CRA authority. These regulations involved years of work by the agencies and were developed transparently through the public notice and comment process. Congress overturned these rules without public input, hearings, or debate. I understand repeal of ``burdensome'' Federal regulations is a strong rallying cry, and I wholeheartedly agree that Federal regulations should not be overly burdensome. The BLM's waste prevention rule is good for the American public, and the cost to industry is de minimus. In fact, there is benefit to industry from increased production and the resulting increase in revenues. The BLM's rule is one rule that should not get swept up in the political tide of CRA repeal. Congress has spoken loud and clear that the BLM has an obligation to prevent waste of oil and gas on public and tribal lands starting with the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. That act--governing leases on BLM lands--requires every lease to contain provisions for ``the prevention of undue waste. . . .'' Federal law obligates the BLM to make sure the public gets a fair return from profits generated by oil and gas leases on public lands. The 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act requires that ``the United States receive fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources. . . .'' The 1982 Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act obligates these same oil and gas companies to pay the Federal Government ``royalty payments on oil or gas lost or wasted.'' Congress has determined that oil and gas companies extracting resources on public lands can't waste the resource, and, if they do, they must pay fair market value to the American public. Despite Congress's prohibition against waste, tremendous volumes of oil and gas under BLM lease are wasted each year through flaring, venting, and leaks. Operators do not always use best practices when they flare and vent. Some even abuse the practice. As a result, operators vent and flare significant amounts of oil and gas that are economically recoverable. Natural gas is colorless and odorless, so you can't see leaks with the naked eye. Operators do not always use best practices to detect and prevent leaks either, but we now have readily available technology, like infrared cameras, that quickly and easily identify leaks. We don't let leaky pipes in our homes go unattended. For-profit companies shouldn't be given a free pass to let gas leak on public lands. Oil and gas operators under BLM leases reported flaring and venting 462 billion cubic feet of natural gas from 2009 through 2015. That is enough gas to supply over 6.2 million households for one year. That is every household in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. An independent study by ICF International estimates that, in 2013 alone, 65 billion cubic feet of gas was wasted. That includes over 18 billion cubic feet from tribal lands, with an estimated loss to the American public of $27 million in royalties. The amount of oil and gas waste is rising dramatically. Oil and gas operators report flaring has increased over 1,000 percent between 2009 and 2015. The number of applications to vent or flare royalty free has gone from 50 in 2005 to 622 in 2011 to 1,246 in 2014. The BLM's outdated rules and the loss of royalties caught the attention of the Government Accountability Office years ago. A 2010 GAO report estimated that approximately 128 billion cubic feet of natural gas was vented or flared from Federal leases in 2008 and that approximately 50 billion cubic feet was economically recoverable. That recoverable gas represented $23 million in lost royalties in 1 year. The 2010 GAO report highlighted real world experiences, where operators made money by putting in technologies to recover gas instead of venting or flaring. One large producer in the San Juan Basin installed equipment that reduced venting by 99 percent. That same company reported increased revenues of $5.8 million, from a $1.2 million investment in technology to reduce emissions during well completion. That is money well spent. The San Juan Basin is one of the oldest and most productive gas- producing areas in the United States. It lies in the Four Corners area, where my home State of New Mexico touches Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. That area is home to a methane ``hot spot,'' with the highest concentration of methane in the Nation. In 2010, the GAO pointed out what was obvious, that the BLM's decades-old guidance did not take account of current technology to reduce venting and flaring. The GAO recommended that the BLM update its regulations to address the avoidable loss of gas on public lands. There are other GAO reports, but I will talk about one more. In 2016, the GAO issued a report entitled, ``Interior Could Do More to Account for and Manage Natural Gas Emissions.'' It detailed the BLM's highly inconsistent practices approving royalty-free venting and flaring incidents. Looking at a random sample of operator requests to vent or flare from fiscal year 2014, the GAO found that fully 90 percent had inadequate documentation, but, despite the bad documentation, the BLM approved 70 percent of the requests, almost half of which were for royalty-free venting or flaring. That is a lot of Federal, State, and tribal royalties lost based on incomplete records. The GAO is charged with helping Congress make sure Federal agencies are doing the best job they can for the American public. We should not disregard repeated GAO recommendations--spanning almost a decade--for the BLM to modernize its oil and gas royalty program. If we pass this disapproval, the BLM is foreclosed from updating these rules. In the face of the GAO report after another telling us that the BLM must do better, that would be just irresponsible to taxpayers. Secretary Zinke has been charged to review the BLM rule as part of the President's ``Energy Independence'' Executive order. If, after review, the Secretary concludes that the BLM rule should be modified, the Department of the Interior can proceed to amend the rule through the public rulemaking process, but, when we have been told time and time again that there is unnecessary waste and the BLM rules need updating, Congress should allow the DOI review to go forward and not permanently prevent DOI from considering how to prevent unnecessary waste by oil and gas facilities. Let's not forget that half the royalties from Federal leases go to State treasuries. States use these royalties for schools, roads, and infrastructure projects. My home State of New Mexico has the second highest number of acres under BLM lease in the country, after Wyoming--over 4.6 million acres-- and the second highest number of BLM oil and gas leases--over 8,000. New Mexico has a lot at stake in the BLM's waste prevention rule. ICF International estimates that the natural gas in New Mexico that could have been captured and marketed under the BLM's rule between 2009 and 2013 would have been worth more than $100 million a year and would have produced $43 million in royalty payments for our State. In New Mexico, those royalty payments are used in part for educational materials in the public schools. That is textbooks, digital materials, science supplies, art supplies, and accessible materials for students with disabilities. That $43 million would have gone a long way for New Mexico schoolkids. Many of you may be aware of the methane ``hot spot'' over the Four Corners area that I talked about earlier. The hot spot covers about 2,500 square miles--the size of the State of Delaware. This single cloud comprises nearly 10 percent of all methane emissions from natural gas in the United States. The San Juan Basin is ranked No. 1 in per capita methane pollution in the U.S. Scientists have been researching the sources of this methane plume. When the hot spot was discovered, oil and gas companies claimed the high concentrations were caused by ``natural'' sources, but researchers have found out this is wrong. They have identified 250 sources--the majority of which are oil and gas operations and include gas wells, storage tanks, pipelines, and processing plants. Of the four States, only Colorado has robust rules to prevent methane emissions. Colorado's rules are proving successful, and the BLM incorporated provisions from those rules. It is important for my State that the BLM's waste prevention rule stay on the books. We don't need that methane hot spot in our backyard and New Mexico sorely needs the royalty payments owed. The BLM's rule is also important for tribes. As vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I work to make sure the Federal Government upholds all its trust responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is making sure tribes get the royalties they are entitled to from private oil and gas companies operating on Indian lands. Tribes receive 100 percent of the royalties from the oil and gas leases on their lands. The BLM estimates tribes will get up to $12 million more in royalties over 10 years under the rule. That is money we have a trust responsibility to make sure tribes get. The BLM estimates the rule would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, by 310,000 tons over 10 years on tribal lands. Reducing VOC emissions means cleaner air for tribes. The Federal Government will not be upholding its trust responsibility if the BLM rule is repealed. I have a statement from the Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye, detailing the reasons the tribe supports the BLM's rule. President Begaye states, ``It would be contrary to BLM's trust responsibility to allow Navajo Nation resources to be unreasonably wasted, particularly when best practices can be cost-effectively employed and are not overly burdensome to industry.'' A really important cobenefit of the rule is protection of public health. Toxic chemicals like benzene--harmful to the public, carcinogenic--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce these toxic emissions. Similarly, other VOCs--that contribute to ozone or smog--are emitted with methane. Reducing methane emissions will reduce smog formation. Smog irritates the respiratory system, reduces lung function, and aggravates asthma--among other public health problems. Without the Rule, not only do we lose royalties for hospitals, schools, and roads, but citizens pay more for their hospital visits and healthcare. Industry arguments against the rule do not hold up. Industry argues the rule costs too much and will kill jobs. That is not true. Here are the facts. First, the rule will result in increased production and increased revenues, and the technologies and practices to prevent waste are economically feasible. In fact, many oil and gas operations will see a net benefit. Like the company in the San Juan Basin that got almost a fivefold return on its investment. The BLM conducted an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis of the rule. Looking at the average cost to a company to implement the rule, the BLM found that profits would be reduced by only 0.15 percent, a bit over one-tenth of 1 percent. That is minimal. That cost does not even count the savings to industry from increased production and increased revenues. In fact, the BLM found that net economic benefits to industry could be as much as $47 million per year--taking into account the savings from increased revenues. If the benefits of reducing methane are included, the overall net benefit is huge--up to $204 million annually. That number does not even count the public health benefits from reduced ozone and hazardous pollutants. Opponents have exaggerated the costs to industry, and they have not taken into account the benefits to States, tribes, and the public. Finally, there is no evidence anywhere that the rule will cost even one job. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has recorded 2,700 new jobs since November 2016, while the price of oil has stayed flat. This month, the Baker Hughes rig count showed 300 more rigs drilling for oil and gas since the BLM rule came into effect. This is an increase in production of over 50 percent. Colorado issued the most comprehensive rules to date to decrease methane emissions, and not only have no jobs been lost, but jobs have been gained as new companies and technologies focused on inspection, monitoring, and compliance have opened. These are good American jobs. In New Mexico, we have at least 11 new companies in the methane mitigation business, and I want to see that number grow. Even if the rule were to force an operator to shut down, that company would be eligible for exemption from the requirements. So job loss is not an issue. Second, we hear that the BLM's rule is duplicative and unnecessary, that the EPA's methane rule is adequate, and that States are already regulating methane. Here are the facts. The EPA's rule only applies to new and modified oil and gas operations. The BLM's rule applies also to existing facilities. This is a big difference between the rules. Making sure all current operations prevent waste is critical to making sure taxpayers get the benefit owed. The BLM's rule covers areas not covered by other Federal or State rules, like wasteful routine flaring. Not all States have passed methane waste prevention rules. My home State of New Mexico has not. New Mexico needs to reduce methane emissions. Also, States and tribes may get a variance if they have similar rules that achieve the same results. The BLM worked with the EPA and States to ensure the rule works for them and does not impose conflicting or redundant requirements. Just last week, the EPA announced a 90-day delay on its own methane control rule based on industry's objections to regulation. More concerning, the EPA withdrew its information request from industry that was intended to help EPA determine how to address methane emissions from existing oil and gas sources. These EPA actions mean the BLM rule is needed more than ever to reduce natural gas waste and the proper collection of royalties. Third, we hear that the BLM lacks the authority to regulate methane waste. In January of this year, the U.S. District Court of Wyoming denied a preliminary injunction to block the rule. The court found that the rule ``unambiguously'' was within the BLM's authority. The Congressional Review Act is a blunt tool, and it is the wrong tool for Congress to use to change provisions in BLM's methane waste prevention rule. Disapproval under the CRA would permanently block the BLM's authority to reform outdated rules, reforms that the GAO began recommending almost a decade ago. The BLM should not be prevented from making sure the Federal Government meets its obligations to States, tribes, and taxpayers--the obligation not to waste public resources and to make sure the public gets a fair return on the for-profit use of public resources. For these reasons, I oppose the CRA to disapprove the BLM's waste prevention rule. Just as a final word to summarize why we are here and why this victory was so important and why we need to hang tough on this: This could be changed if they decide to do another vote or if they try to do another piece of legislation or something. The core of this needs to be protected. We are here because we don't want to waste our natural resources, which belong to the people of America and belong to the Tribes. We want to create jobs, which is what this BLM methane waste prevention rule does. It creates jobs, and it protects the public health. I believe we are going to have a couple other speakers. I know Senator Heinrich is going to be here. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the United States is a world leader in innovation, science, and technology; promoting democratic and humanitarian values; and maintaining international security and economic stability. The United States should play no less of a global leadership role combating climate change. Climate change is the defining issue of our time. It is our greatest environmental, political, and moral challenge. History will judge our generation by what we do--or don't do. I call on this body to pass S. Res. 155, affirming in no uncertain terms the U.S. responsibility to work cooperatively with the international community to aggressively and effectively fight climate change. There is no need to debate whether manmade climate change is occurring. The scientific evidence is clear. Greenhouse gases emitted through human activity are having a profound effect on Earth's climate, and 2016 was the warmest year on record, beating the record of 2015, which beat 2014's. The international community is no longer debating the science of climate change, and there should be no further debate in the halls of Congress. Instead we must agree how the United States--as part of the international community--will take all steps necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to preserve our environment and way of life for future generations. We are seeing species extinction and reduction in record numbers. We are seeing our landscapes changing, especially in the American West and in our colder climates like the Arctic. We are seeing extreme weather events devastate communities. As a dry, arid State in the Southwest, my home State of New Mexico is right in the bull's eye of climate disruption. New Mexico is the country's sixth-fastest warming State: the annual temperature has increased about 2.7 degree Fahrenheit since 1970. Droughts are becoming more intense. We have decreased snowfall in the winter and decreased runoff in the spring. All this has negative consequences for our land and communities. Climate change not only threatens our environment, it threatens our economic stability and international security. More than 1,100 U.S. businesses, corporations, and organizations, many of which operate internationally, are on record supporting the Paris Agreement. The businesses include Arch Coal, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, and DuPont. Business leaders agree that the Paris Agreement is good for business. Support for the accord is broad based within private industry, from electricity generators such as PG&E and National Grid, to oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell, to mining companies such as Rio Tinto, and to manufacturers such as General Motors. Even some of the largest coal producers, such as Cloud Peak Energy and Peabody Energy, support remaining in the agreement. This broad support is due to a simple reality: leaders of successful businesses make decisions based on the available science, not ideology. Business leaders are telling Congress and the President to stay in. Last November, over 360 businesses and investors called on U.S.-elected leaders to support the Paris Agreement and other domestic low-carbon policies. The letter was signed by more than a dozen Fortune 500 companies, as well as small family-owned businesses across more than 35 states. All these businesses want the U.S. economy to be energy efficient and powered by low-carbon energy. They are concerned that a failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk. Despite this overwhelming support from the business community, the President has not decided whether the U.S. should continue as a member of the Paris accord. He is undecided despite the fact that his Secretary of State, former CEO of the world's largest oil company, says we should stay in, so we have a ``seat at the table.'' While sufficient resources and attention must be given to carbon- intensive industries and their workforces to ensure that transitions are not disruptive, we must look forward to supporting a new energy economy, that addresses climate change and produces good jobs. We should not underestimate the threat climate change poses to national security. Secretary of Defense Mattis does not. He has testified before Congress that climate change poses as a national security threat. Indeed, the Pentagon has considered climate change a national security threat for over a decade. Secretary Mattis wrote to the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``[c]limate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.'' He observed that, ``[c]limate change can be a driver of instability, and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.'' To prepare for this threat, Secretary Mattis stated that ``. . . climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.'' According to the American Security Project, climate change serves as an ``accelerant of instability''or a ``threat multiplier'' that makes already existing threats worse. ``The threat of global warming for security will manifest through a range of effects: resource scarcity, extreme weather, food scarcity, water insecurity, and sea level rise will all threaten societies around the world. Too many governments are not prepared for these threats, either because they do not have the resources or because they have not planned ahead. How societies and governments respond to the increase in instability will determine whether climate change will lead to war.'' The President should not disregard the advice of his Secretary of Defense and the established position of the Pentagon. The challenge of climate change requires a broad response from the entirety of the Federal Government. The President should meet this challenge head on. Across the globe, people are suffering from the effects of climate change. U.S. businesses and the military feel those threatening impacts as well. U.S. elected officials must listen to these businesses and our Armed Forces. The United States should not only have a seat at the international table, we should be leading the global community. I urge passage of S. Res. 155, affirming our commitment to work with the international community to effectively address climate change.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President. We have many important responsibilities as U.S. Senators. We often have to make very difficult decisions. Deciding to vote against cloture and confirmation for Judge Gorsuch has been a tough decision. Since coming to the Senate, I have been a strong advocate for reforming the rules, to curb abuses to ensure the body can function, and to make sure that the President's nominees are treated fairly. I believe our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent is one of the most important of all of our responsibilities as Senators, especially for nominees to our Nation's highest Court, and I believe that withholding consent should be rare--rare but not unheard of. Sometimes circumstances will be so extraordinary that filibustering a Supreme Court nominee is necessary. The gang of 14 knew this. That was the group of 14 Senators who forged a compromise in 2005. Three of them are still in the Senate. Their agreement allowed some controversial judicial nominees to be confirmed to appellate courts, but it also allowed the Senate to avoid triggering the nuclear option, and it addressed how they would weigh future nominations. The gang of 14 agreed to the following: ``Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.'' I think that is a good standard, to only filibuster a nominee under extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, in my evaluation of Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, I can't think of more extraordinary circumstances. First, this wasn't President Trump's seat to fill. Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016. President Obama still had nearly 1 year at that point to serve in his term. So President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty. He nominated one of the most qualified nominees in the history of the Court, Judge Merrick Garland. Shortly before Judge Garland was nominated, Senator Hatch, one of our most respected Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, said Judge Garland would be a great pick. Senator Hatch went on to say that President Obama ``probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election.'' But President Obama did do it. Judge Garland is not just a fine jurist, he is an exceptional human being. Judge Garland's lifelong commitment to public service is well known. He deserved far better treatment by the Senate majority. Judge Garland was denied a hearing. Many of my Republican colleagues wouldn't even give him the courtesy of a meeting, and he never got a vote, which was a disgrace. It is an injustice that needs to be remedied before I could ever consider voting for Judge Gorsuch. President Trump could fix this. He could make a commitment to nominate Judge Garland to the next vacant seat on the Court. It would be the right thing to do. I have been very open that I believe the Senate has become dysfunctional, but what the majority did last year was unprecedented. Things went from bad to rock bottom. Being senatorial used to mean something. The Republican majority has shattered that tradition for purely partisan reasons. In fact, the majority leader has publicly stated: ``One of my proudest moments was when I told Obama `you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy.''' That is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the Senate provide advice and consent. Now, in 2017, Senator McConnell has guaranteed Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, even before he had his hearing. For him the outcome has been a foregone conclusion. So we see there is no advice and consent now, either, just the exercise of power to block a nominee from another party. But President Trump could help heal that deeply partisan wound inflicted by his party. There is still time for both sides to come together and work out an agreement with bipartisanship and fairness first, and put aside the bitter partisan fighting that has divided the Congress and our Nation. There is also a pragmatic reason for President Trump to appoint Judge Garland to the next seat. President Trump needs to ask himself if he wants to be subject to the McConnell precedent. Is he willing to accept that he only gets to appoint Justices for 3 years? If a Supreme Court vacancy occurs in 2020, does President Trump understand that it is not his vacancy to fill? That is the absurd standard that Leader McConnell has established. If the Republican majority is dead-set on changing the rules to jam this nominee through after all that has happened, then we need to talk about this. Perhaps the best thing to do in order to ensure the President understands the gravity of the Republicans' obstruction of his predecessor is to go ahead and put the McConnell rule in place for President Trump. Let's establish in our rule that President Trump only gets 3 years to appoint Justices. We can do this with a simple standing order. The majority leader believed President Obama should only have 3 years to appoint Justices, certainly the same standard must apply to President Trump. If the Republican majority thought that their policy in 2016 was good for President Obama, it should be good for President Trump. What is fair is fair. I have a standing order drafted that would do that, and I hope an agreement can be reached to rectify the injustice that was done to Judge Garland, and I hope that Republicans will decide against using the nuclear option. But if that doesn't happen, I will call on the Senate to adopt this standing order so that President Trump was bound by the same restrictions as President Obama. If we are going to change the rules tomorrow, then let's get the Republican majority on record. Are they prepared to hold President Trump to the same unjust standard as President Obama? We can find out. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of my standing order at the end of my remarks. Unfortunately, Judge Garland's unacceptable treatment isn't the only concern that guides my decision to vote against Judge Gorsuch. Like many things in the Trump administration, there is no shortage of extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps the most serious is the cloud of suspicion over his Presidency. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government interfered in the U.S. Presidential election and that it interfered to help Candidate Trump. There are unexplained ties between the President, his campaign staff, his associates, and Russian officials. People close to the President had meetings and telephone calls with Russian officials during the campaign and transition, and, most critically, the FBI and the Department of Justice are investigating whether the President and his associates coordinated or conspired with the Russian Government to interfere with the Presidential election. It is an investigation that began last July and is likely to continue for months. If the President or his close advisers worked with Russia to help him win the U.S. election, do we really want to let him appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court, someone who could be on the Court for 30 years or more? There is no reason to rush this nomination. Remember, Republicans had no problem letting Judge Garland's appointment languish for 293 days, and President Obama wasn't under investigation. Judge Gorsuch was nominated just 64 days ago. If Republicans had treated Judge Garland's nomination with the same expediency, he would have been confirmed last May when President Obama still had 8 months in office. The unacceptable treatment of Judge Garland and the investigation into Russia's influence in the election are reasons enough to vote against Judge Gorsuch. But there is one more critical issue: the nominee himself. I have met with Judge Gorsuch and followed the hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I carefully studied his record, and based on all of this information, I can't support his confirmation. The Supreme Court changes people's lives. Its decisions stand for generations. It is essential that Justices understand not only how these issues impact our democracy but how they affect people's lives, and that they consider them free of ideology. Our meeting and the Senate hearings were Judge Gorsuch's opportunity to convince me that he will be an independent mind on the Court. He failed to answer questions that were critical for me--his position on the rights of working mothers, whether women can choose their own health care decisions, LGBTQ rights, and dark money in our elections, just to name a few. But what I found most troubling is that he failed to convince me that he would be an independent voice on the Court. In just the last couple of months, the President has taken constitutionally questionable actions affecting Muslim immigrants, freedom of speech, and religion. The FBI is investigating his campaign, and he faces scrutiny about whether his company is benefitting from his office. All of these issues could well come in front of and before the Supreme Court. It is more important now than ever before that we have a neutral, clearminded Justice sitting on the bench. After carefully considering all these issues, I cannot support Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. It is not an easy decision, but I believe it is the right one for our country.