Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff--Ned Adriance, Lauren Arias, Clinton Cowan, Renee Gasper, Cara Gilbert, Annie Orloff, Leo Sheehan, and Lisa Van Theemsche--be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart to each of you for your hard work, your public service, and your commitment. I want to thank my family--my parents Stewart and Lee Udall, who instilled in me the will to do good and to be good. To my brothers, sisters--my sister Lori, who is here--and cousins who have supported me throughout my three decades in elected office, thank you. To Amanda, our daughter, who is my forever campaign manager, and to Judge Jim, our son-in-law and just recently a judge in New Mexico, I thank them for their constant love and support. Most importantly, thank you to my brilliant and beautiful partner of 42 years, Jill Cooper Udall. Jill has been my rock. She has been my chief counsel. She has been my everything, and I couldn't have asked for a better partner with whom to have this public adventure. It has truly been an adventure for this son of the West, for after 20-plus years, it is time for me to go back home. As the great western writer Wallace Stegner wrote, ``It is not an unusual life curve for Westerners to live in and be shaped by the bigness, sparseness, space, clarity, and hopefulness of the West--to go away for study and enlargement and the perspective that distance and dissatisfaction can give--and then to return to what pleases the sight and enlists the loyalty and demands the commitment.'' Stegner said that we fall into two categories. We are either boomers or stickers. Boomers ``pillage and run.'' Stickers are ``motivated by affection, by such a love for place and its life that they want to preserve it and remain in it.'' I am telling you here today that I am a sticker. I am also an optimist. I want to be more accurate: I am a troubled optimist. I have tried to open my eyes to the challenges we face, while never losing conviction in our ability to meet those challenges. As the scientist Rachel Carson said, one way to open your eyes is to ask yourself, ``What if I had never seen this before? What if I knew I would never see it again?'' I believe this Nation has arrived at a moment when we are opening our eyes to the enormous challenges before us and also to their solutions. Our planet is in crisis--facing mass extinction and climate change. Our people are in coronavirus--ravaged by a pandemic that has laid bare the inequities of our society. Also, our democracy is in crisis as the people's faith in their government is shaken. We cannot solve one of these crises without solving the others, and that is why I am troubled, but all I have to do to be optimistic is to look around me. I look at the young people across this country who are calling for change, for climate action, for voting rights, for immigrant rights, and for economic, environmental, and racial justice. They have held sit-ins in my office--probably in yours too. They are demanding that we do better, and their determination gives me hope. I am optimistic as I look back on the small acts of kindness and the big acts of progress that define my time in the Congress. I believe that there are lessons in these accomplishments. Now, you may know me as someone who wants to reform the filibuster, but to be clear, I have always supported the talking filibuster. So, if you will indulge me--and by the rules of the Senate, you have to; you can leave, but I get to keep talking-- (Laughter.) --I would like to talk about a few of the highlights of my career and what I have learned from them. As you know, protecting America's outdoor treasures is a cause close to my heart. It is something of a family project. My family homesteaded in the West almost 180 years ago, and like generations of Udalls before me, I grew up with a special connection to the land--to the gorgeous, untamed beauty of the West, to the 60-mile vistas, to the snow-covered, rugged mountains, alpine lakes, and abundant wildlife. Mitt Romney knows this, for our great-grandfathers settled the same small western community. Stegner called the West the ``geography of hope.'' It sure is for me. It is what has inspired much of my public service, and that is why I am so proud of what we have accomplished together to conserve our natural heritage. On the Appropriations Committee, we have worked together for resources for our public lands and environmental protection, on a bipartisan basis, in the face of massive proposed cuts, and we have held off anti-environmental riders that have had no place in these bills. Thank you to my friend Lisa Murkowski, who has been the best partner I could ask for in this work. In New Mexico, where public lands are central to our way of life, we have had enormous success unlocking tens of thousands of acres of enchanted land for all of us to enjoy--and for Martin to hunt on every now and then. Each of these efforts was collaborative and community-driven, and that collaborative work has culminated in one of the biggest conservation victories in American history--the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act. Thanks to the determination of a grassroots coalition and many champions here in Congress, we got this bill over the finish line. For the first time, we have realized the promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the promise my father envisioned almost 55 years ago, when he helped to create our Nation's most successful conservation program. After more than 20 years of fighting for this in Congress, I am thrilled we have gotten it done, and we have gotten it done together. The law is a model for how conservation and economic recovery can go hand in hand. It will help us to achieve the urgent goal of protecting 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030. Enacting the Great American Outdoors Act, at a time of immense division, is a tremendous feat, and it tells us a lot about what we are capable of. It tells us that conservation is popular--a political winner. Environmental protection can be an area of cooperative action, and it must be if humanity is to survive and prosper. As I talk about my love of the land, I cannot neglect to acknowledge how much I have learned from the original stewards of this land--Native Americans, indigenous people. I got my start in politics by working with my father in fighting alongside the Navajo uranium miners who had been hurt and many who had died. They had been hurt by this Nation, by our nuclear weapons program. My work as vice chair of the Indian Affairs Committee has been the honor of a lifetime and another area in which this committee has achieved bipartisan progress. I thank my chairmen, Senator Hoeven and Senator Barrasso before him, for their partnership and friendship. We have worked together as a committee for better healthcare, education, housing, and urgently needed resources for Native communities, especially as they battle this pandemic. The Federal Government's obligation to uphold its trust and treaty obligations is sacred. Some of my proudest achievements have been the result of working with Tribal leaders to advance the Indian Country's priorities and to support New Mexico's 23 Tribes Recently, a bipartisan coalition passed legislation to strengthen the principle of Tribal self-governance, provide Native entrepreneurs critical resources, and secure investments in Native language revitalization. The achievements I remember most fondly are ones like these--those we did together. Indeed, those are the only kinds of achievements that are possible in this body. Take the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act--our landmark reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It was the biggest environmental reform in a generation. I was proud to lead that effort to protect our families from toxic chemicals. It was hard work, and it took years. But if you can get a project where Jim Inhofe and Ed Markey are working for the same goal, you can get a lot done around here. It is another example of how friendships get you over the finish line. My friendship with David Vitter, my partner on TSCA reform, was sort of like Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch's friendship, a political odd couple--me, the son of Mormon pioneers; David, a son of New Orleans-- two very different political backgrounds and different views on the big problems before us. But I will never forget the dinner we had after Frank Lautenberg passed away, when we decided to take on TSCA reform. We looked at each other after that dinner and shook hands and said: We are going to get this done. And we did. It passed the Senate unanimously. We agreed that there was a problem, and we found common ground on a solution. That is still possible in the Senate. But I didn't come here to just list accomplishments. You can check my Twitter feed if you want to see more of that. I do want to share some final thoughts about challenges our Nation faces before I leave the Senate. I believe that, for all of us here, public service is a calling. It certainly is for me. In my life I have had the privilege of learning from many dedicated servants. One of them was Senator John McCain. Senator McCain was a friend to me and a friend to my family. When John first came to the House, my Uncle Mo--big Uncle Mo, 6 feet 5 inches--took him under his wing. John did the same for me, and we worked together on issues like campaign finance reform, Native American issues, and others. John often said to me: ``We disagree in politics--but not in life.'' Let's remember that. ``We disagree in politics--but not in life.'' My great-grandfather helped settle St. John's, a small farming and cattle community on the Arizona-New Mexico border, in the 1880s. He had an embroidery that hung on his frontier home that read: ``If the good folks don't get into politics, the scoundrels will take over.'' I believe there are a lot of good folks here in the Senate, but the system we are caught in makes it too hard to work together. We need to remember that we disagree in politics but not in life. I am not the first to say in a farewell address, and I won't be the last: But the Senate is broken. The Senate is broken, and it is not working for the American people. We are becoming better and better political warriors. We are good at landing a punch, at exposing the hypocrisy, and at riling each other up, but we aren't fostering our better angels. Our peacemaking skills are atrophied. Every hurt takes time to heal, and each time we hurt each other, it sets us back. But, unfortunately, the structures we have built reward us for hurting one another. We need to reform those structures or we will never make that progress we need to make. I have proposed Senate rules changes when I was in the minority and when I was in the majority to make sure this institution does not remain a graveyard for progress. The Founders did not envision a Senate requiring 60 votes to act. The filibuster came to be through historical accident, and it is now woven into the institutional framework. The promise of the filibuster is that the majority will find common ground with the minority, but the reality of the filibuster is paralysis--a deep paralysis. On top of this, we have a campaign finance system that is out of control. John McCain told you that over and over again, and he called money the cancer growing on our democracy. And John McCain knew a lot about cancer. Secret money floods campaigns to buy influence instead of letting the voters speak. Voting rights are under attack. We can do our best to be good people in a system like that, but it is no surprise that America's faith in government is declining. These structures are antidemocratic. They reward extremism. They punish compromise. Our government is supposed to respond to the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Instead, we have ``the tyranny of the minority.'' That tyranny is super wealthy, politically powerful, and dangerously out of touch with the American people. The majority of Americans support pandemic relief, healthcare for every American, action on global warming, racial justice and police reform, and so many other priorities that don't see much progress in the Senate. People are losing their faith in the system--rightfully so. We have to do something to fix this. If we are to take bold action necessary to tackle the urgent problems before us, we must reform our democracy. We must make it easier to vote. We must end the dominance of Big Money, and we must root out corruption. And we do not have any time to waste. We have no choice but to be bold because the crises before us demand bravery. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead from a pandemic--a pandemic that this administration has callously ignored, a consequence of its continued rejection of science. In New Mexico, we have surpassed 108,000 cases, over 1,700 are dead, and tens of thousands have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, our Nation is facing dual climate and nature crises of epic proportions. Earlier this year, much of the American West was engulfed in wildfire. As an arid State, New Mexico is in the crosshairs of climate change. We lose a football field's worth of nature every 30 seconds. A million species are at risk of extinction because of human activity. Our planet's life support system is under threat. As the climate crisis worsens, ecosystems are destroyed, and as ecosystems are destroyed, we emit more harmful greenhouse gases. We cannot solve one crisis without solving the other. Protecting nature is about protecting humanity. It is just that simple. And marginalized communities, communities of color, low-income communities, and indigenous people are bearing the worst consequences of the environmental destruction and pollution caused by the rich and the powerful. We have the power to solve these crises--the power and the obligation. All it takes is clear eyes and political will and remembering that we may disagree in politics but not in the future that we want for our children. When I was a young man, I spent the summer of 1969 in the mountains of Colorado, teaching students wilderness skills. Each night, we would look up and open our eyes to the Moon. It seemed impossibly far away. I am reminded of Rachel Carson's words: ``One way to open your eyes is to ask, what if I had never seen this before?'' When we emerged from the wilderness, we learned what Apollo 11 had achieved. We had landed on the Moon--the Moon that seemed so impossibly far away. We should never forget that we can do--we, all of us, can do--the impossible when we open our eyes to the challenge and work together to meet it. So as I return home to the West, I am clear-eyed about--even troubled by--how far away our destination is. But I am optimistic that we will get there, like we always have.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I thank Senator Schumer for those kind remarks earlier. As you know, I announced last year that I wasn't running for reelection, and if I had known everyone was going to be so nice to me, I might have announced it earlier. I am not the only Senator who is giving a farewell speech. Many of us got to hear Lamar Alexander last week. Lamar is the perfect example of what a U.S. Senator should be. Before I was wet behind the ears in the Senate, in my first week here, Lamar invited me and Jill, my wife, to dinner. There it began. Jill and Honey, Lamar's wife, became fast friends, and Lamar and I grew closer, building the kind of friendship that is essential here in the Senate. We worked together to get things done for our States in bolstering our National Laboratories and conserving our great outdoors. Something else we shared was Mario, our barber in the Senate barbershop. To be honest, that is the best place to learn the wisdom of the Senate--by sitting in Mario's chair. Friendships like I have with Lamar and Mario are what I will miss most about the Senate. It is the friendships because, as any good Senator will tell you, friendships are what get you over the finish line. I will cherish the friendships I have forged over the last 12 years. I will miss serving the people of New Mexico in Congress. The greatest honor of my life has been doing that, and I am confident that New Mexico will be in good hands with my friend Senator Heinrich, my great partner over the last 8 years. With his dedicated advocacy for our communities and his love of the land--all of that--Martin has been an inspiration, and Senator-Elect Ben Ray Lujan, whom I have the privilege of calling a friend, I know will fight for New Mexico families every single day in the Senate. I will miss the righteous struggle we take up in these Halls to build a more perfect Union, and I will miss all of you--my staff, colleagues, and everyone who works around the clock--and the unsung heroes who keep the Senate running, people like John, Leigh, Mary Anne, and all of the folks who are here in front of you. There are too many to thank. First and foremost, I thank my staff. Every Senator here knows we are only as good as the people on our teams, and as my friend Patrick Leahy says, we Senators are often just a constitutional impediment to the staff. Over the years, I have been blessed with staffers who are full of talent, skill, drive, and heart. I don't want to leave anyone out, so I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all of my staff who have been part of Team Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, 30 years ago this week, the Native American Languages Act, NALA, was signed into law. As we celebrate this momentous occasion, I would like to take some time to reflect. Native languages hold within them the culture, history, and resiliency of their communities, but they are not only crucial to the communities that speak them. Native languages have influenced our shared American history, contributed to our understanding of environmental stewardship, and made the very fabric of our Nation's identity richer. As just one notable example of the impact Native languages have had, in World War I and World War II, Native American soldiers known as Code Talkers used their Native languages to transmit coded tactical messages. Code Talkers were able to improve the speed of communications encryption during both wars, leading directly to American forces out-maneuvering enemy troops in numerous military operations. Yet prior to enactment of the Native American Languages Act in 1990, the United States' Federal policies and practices often resulted in suppression and extermination of Native languages. Recognizing that these past practices were in conflict with the principles of Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sought to reshape Federal policy to better align with these principles. Under the leadership of Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman McCain, the paradigm-shifting Native American Languages Act became law, and the United States formally acknowledged the rights and freedoms of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native languages. Under the Native American Languages Act, Congress set out our current Federal Native language policy, declaring: ``It is the policy of the United States to-- ``(1) preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages; ``(2) allow exceptions to teacher certification requirements for Federal programs, and programs funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government, for instruction in Native American languages when such teacher certification requirements hinder the employment of qualified teachers who teach in Native American languages, and to encourage State and territorial governments to make similar exceptions; ``(3) encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction in order to encourage and support-- ``(A) Native American language survival, ``(B) educational opportunity, ``(C) increased student success and performance, ``(D) increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history, and ``(E) increased student and community pride; ``(4) encourage State and local education programs to work with Native American parents, educators, Indian tribes, and other Native American governing bodies in the implementation of programs to put this policy into effect; ``(5) recognize the right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior; ``(6) fully recognize the inherent right of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies, States, territories, and possessions of the United States to take action on, and give official status to, their Native American languages for the purpose of conducting their own business; ``(7) support the granting of comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a Native American language the same academic credit as comparable proficiency achieved through course work in a foreign language, with recognition of such Native American language proficiency by institutions of higher education as fulfilling foreign language entrance or degree requirements; and ``(8) encourage all institutions of elementary, secondary and higher education, where appropriate, to include Native American languages in the curriculum in the same manner as foreign languages and to grant proficiency in Native American languages the same full academic credit as proficiency in foreign languages.'' Over the last 30 years, catalyzed by the Native American Languages Act, Congress has promoted the maintenance and revitalization of Native languages. In 1992, Congress amended the act to establish a grant program at the Administration for Native Americans, ANA, to support Native language projects. During my time in Congress, I have worked to support Native American languages revitalization efforts. In 2006, as a U.S. Congressman for New Mexico, I helped lead a bipartisan bill to expand the ANA's grant program to bolster Native language immersion education programs. I also participated in an Education and Workforce Committee field hearing in my home State to hear from Native language advocates, which solidified support for the bill's passage in the House. Enacted as the Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act, this legislation was named after an Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo traditional storyteller and Tewa language advocate who tragically passed away in 2006. As the current vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I had the honor of leading the most recent Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act, which was signed into law this past December, to further enhance ANA's Native languages grant programs. I also convened a Native American Languages Listening Session last year and worked with Committee Chairman John Hoeven to hold an oversight hearing in 2018 to hear directly from Native language revitalization stakeholders across the country. At those events, we learned that, over the last three decades, great strides have been made to rectify past injustices and move toward support of Native languages. Sadly, despite our efforts, a number of Native languages are still endangered today. The loss of even one Native language would deal a significant blow to our shared American and global heritage. There is still more work to do. This anniversary is an important opportunity for Congress to reflect. I hope my colleagues will join me and recommit to fully upholding the policies set out in the Native American Languages Act.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for the recognition today and thank you very much for being here. Today, the Senate is gathered in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. More than 220,000 Americans have died, millions more have been infected, and millions more are out of work because of the resulting economic crisis. These are some of the hardest times to fall upon this Nation in decades. People are hurting. They are scared, they are exhausted, and they are looking for help. Millions of Americans are also looking around asking how they can help in their communities. They are stepping up, whether it is as members of the essential workforce, as healthcare workers, or by donating their time or resources to a charity or local food bank. We are seeing the best of this country. Here in the Senate, we, too, have the power to do something to help. On a much larger scale, we have the power and the duty. We could do something big to help beat this virus, to help people and businesses get back on their feet, get the kids back in school, to help make life easier for the millions who are struggling. Yes, the Senate is gathered in the middle of a pandemic, but we aren't gathered here by the majority leader to do anything to help the American people. We aren't gathered here to do the hard work, to negotiate, to compromise, and to pass an urgently needed COVID-19 relief package that Americans are clamoring for--no. Instead, we are gathered here today to fast-track the confirmation of a far-right judge onto the U.S. Supreme Court, in the middle of a pandemic, 8 days before the conclusion of a Presidential election, with tens of millions of ballots already having been cast. It is shameful. This body has truly lost its way. The American people are looking on in anger and disbelief as the Senate majority focuses on this nomination just 4 years after the majority in no uncertain terms said that the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee 8 full months before the election. Yes, that is what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said--the Senate should not consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee a full 8 months before the election. But now he says we should install President Trump's nominee 8 days before the election. How did we get here? Why would Republicans so flagrantly violate their own rules and violate the legitimacy of the Court and Senate for this nominee? To solve that mystery, we have actually got a clue. It is on the Supreme Court schedule. On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a suit, brought by Republican attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration, to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Three years after the Senate Republicans tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act in Congress, they are now trying to terminate the law in the courts. Their relentless pursuit to destroy the Nation's healthcare law knows no end, and they need to get their Supreme Court nominee onto the Bench in time to hear their case. You have heard it many times over the last few weeks, but it bears repeating, what is happening right now, because it is stunning. Senate Republicans are rushing another far-right judge onto the bench days before the election and all in the effort to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court to destroy the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic. This is all taking place under the direction of a President who has stated that the coronavirus pandemic ``affects virtually nobody.'' That is the President's direct quote--``affects virtually nobody.'' That is what he is saying about the pandemic. Republicans want to rip away healthcare from millions of people in the middle of a public health crisis that has killed more than 220,000 Americans. They want to take away protections from millions of people living with preexisting conditions in the middle of a pandemic--a pandemic that has caused millions more Americans who have contracted COVID-19 to now have a new preexisting condition. The President openly admits he wants the Supreme Court to do what Republicans in Congress couldn't do, and that is to demolish the ACA. ``It will be so good if they end it.'' That is the President's quote. He said that on 60 Minutes. ``It will be so good if they end it,'' speaking about what he wants the Supreme Court to do and what his Justice Department is arguing. And the President and Republicans in Congress won't have any plan to replace what they want to destroy. After all these years of trying to end the Affordable Care Act, including a 2-year period when the Republican Party held control in the House, Senate, and White House, they still don't have a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans succeed and this Supreme Court nominee joins an increasingly conservative Court in striking down the ACA, the results would be catastrophic for my home State of New Mexico. The estimated 834,700 New Mexicans with preexisting benefits would face higher costs, fewer benefits, and could have trouble finding coverage. Overturning the ACA would immediately end coverage for millions of Americans who became eligible for Medicaid through the Medicaid expansion. In fact, in my State of New Mexico, 250,000 people have coverage under that expansion. Seniors getting prescription drugs could no longer afford their medications. It is people like Jeanne, an Albuquerque-based senior who told me recently: Now, like many seniors, I take a medication that is so expensive that I would reach the donut hole every year. I can't afford to pay for that medication out of pocket. Rural hospitals, which are absolutely critical during this pandemic, could close their doors. As Dr. Val Wangler, the chief medical officer of Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services told me: The Affordable Care Act is critical to the health of patients in New Mexico's rural communities. Threatening the healthcare coverage of our communities in the midst of the greatest public health crisis of our times is unconscionable. For Indian Country and Native communities, ACA repeal would be absolutely devastating. I have heard firsthand accounts from Tribal leaders, Native families, and healthcare providers about how the ACA has improved the healthcare landscape across Indian Country--literally saving lives. The ACA has opened the doors for so many Native Americans to access the care they need, whether it is an unplanned medical emergency or routine wellness checkups and screenings. Access to quality healthcare is critical for Native communities, which face disproportionate impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Federal Government has a trust and treaty obligation to consult with Tribes and to provide Native Americans healthcare. With this rushed, hypocritical process, Senate Republicans are violating our most sacred duties to Indian Country. We know that the Supreme Court will rule on the fate of the Affordable Care Act. That much is certain. But what other cases might this Court rule on in the near future, or in what other cases might Judge Barrett cast the deciding vote? Well, as you have heard me mention a few times now, we are in the middle of a Presidential election--the most important election of our lifetimes. Facing an uncertain outcome at the polls, President Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to undermine the legitimacy of this election. He has lied about the safety of mail-in voting, despite the fact that he is a mail-in voter himself. He deliberately tried to weaken the Postal Service, and President Trump, along with Members of this very body are telegraphing that they want the Supreme Court, not voters, to decide this election. They want to sow enough doubt about the legitimacy of the democratic process that it has to go to the courts, and they want their hand-picked conservative judge to tip the scales for them. You don't get to choose the judge who decides your own case. That is not how we achieve true justice in a democracy. The core of our system is having an impartial judge. It has been shocking to watch as this President, aided and abetted by Members of this very Senate, has been so overt about his desire to put a judge on the Supreme Court who will rule in his favor in any disputed election. That is a tactic of authoritarians, not a democracy. But in her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett wouldn't even comment on whether a President should commit to the peaceful transfer of power, as this President has refused to do. She called that a political controversy. The peaceful transfer of power is not a political controversy. It is one of the most sacred tenets of our democracy. What else might Judge Barrett rule on in the coming years? No doubt cases concerning the most urgent, existential crisis we are facing as a Nation--climate change. Cases to decide whether we will let big polluters do whatever they want to our air, water, and planet. There is no denying the science of climate change. It is a real and present danger to the lives and livelihoods of people all across this Nation and the world. My home State of New Mexico is in the bull's eye, with increasingly severe wildfires and droughts. This President is one of the few public figures left in this country who says he doesn't believe the scientists. You would hope a nominee to the Supreme Court--the highest Court in our land--wouldn't follow his lead. But Judge Barrett, again, wouldn't even comment on whether she believes climate change is real. She again said that was a political controversy. The only place climate change is a political controversy is within the White House and within the Republican Party, and the rest of us are paying the price while they decide whether or not to believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community--whether or not to believe their very eyes. There are so many other issues on which a Justice Barrett would likely rule, including a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. A leading advocate for women's rights to reproductive health, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be replaced with a public advocate against Roe v. Wade. The nominee signed her name to statements against Roe that ran in full-page newspaper ads, undisclosed to the Senate. She signed joint public letters against Roe. This was also undisclosed to the Senate. She gave multiple speeches to organizations dedicated to overturning Roe, undisclosed to the Senate. In a law review article, she wrote that abortion was ``always immoral.'' And after promising for years only to nominate judges who will overturn Roe, Senate Republicans suddenly are shy about it. They suddenly don't have the courage of their convictions, and they won't let the public in on their true, long-stated agenda--overturning Roe once and for all. There is so much else at stake in this fight--on voting rights, on worker rights, and so much more, all with real human consequences for the lives of people all across this country. Let's not lose sight of the real people who will be affected by this Republican march to overload the Court with loyalists. With so much at stake, the American people deserve to have a say. It is that simple. So I urge my Republican colleagues to take a step back and think about what you are doing. Think about the long-term damage you are doing to the legitimacy of the courts and to the faith of the American people that their voices are being heard. What is at stake is more than Justice Ginsburg's seat. It is the American people's seat I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I join my Democratic colleagues today to voice my frustration with the Senate Republicans' drive to manufacture votes on anemic half measures instead of focusing on enacting robust and comprehensive COVID-19 relief for the American people. With over 220,000 deaths, positive cases surging throughout the country, and flu season right around the corner, it is unconscionable that we are not taking up legislation to address the health and economic needs facing this Nation. Simply put, this week's votes have been engineered as political theater. They were designed to feign action, while failing, and to further divide this body along party lines while making no progress on another bipartisan coronavirus relief package. Earlier this summer, I took to the Senate floor to address the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 on our Nation's health and economy. The majority of the $8 billion in CARES Act relief funding had barely gotten out to Tribes by then, thanks to the administration's delay and fumbled distribution. Now the administration wants Indian Country to believe it championed that funding for Tribal governments, but the truth is the administration and Senate Republican leaders offered nothing for Tribes in coronavirus relief. Tribes didn't see progress until Senate Democrats fought back, demanding targeted relief for Tribal governments. We ended up securing over $10 billion to fight the virus, stabilize Tribal economies, and support Native health systems. Yes, it was obvious even then more would need to be done. I sounded the alarm that Native communities, like every American community, needed more help and were bearing the brunt of the virus's continued spread. As vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am compelled to speak out again and urge immediate bipartisan action to provide more targeted relief for Native communities and to urge my Republican colleagues who represent a number of Native communities to join me in this effort. Our shared trust and treaty obligations demand nothing less. Throughout this pandemic, I have heard directly from Tribes, Pueblos, and Native Hawaiian communities about their urgent and ongoing needs for healthcare and economic resources to combat the virus. I have heard how existing Federal policies, practices, and program structures have left these communities particularly exposed to severe and long-lasting impacts from the coronavirus pandemic. In a recent oversight hearing on implementation of Federal programs to support COVID-19 response efforts, Tribal panelists testified about how their communities have been hurt by congressional inaction, funding shortfalls, and a lack of coordination between the Federal agencies. Among other things, we learned that existing Federal policies and failures have exacerbated health disparities, economic barriers, and institutional inequities among Native communities; that the Indian Health Service, Tribes, and Urban Indian Health clinics have faced challenges securing personal protective equipment and testing supplies; that they were excluded from most Federal public health emergency preparedness planning; and that Indian Country continues to struggle to navigate the bureaucratic maze of COVID-19 programs because many agencies had little to no meaningful engagement with Tribes prior to this pandemic. This testimony is key to putting into context what little data exists on COVID-19 impacts in Native communities. Even though data was slow to come in, it confirms our worst fears; that the pandemic will extract a heavier toll on Native communities if decisive Federal actions aren't taken immediately. Thirty four percent of American Indian and Alaska Native adults--the highest percentage of any race--are at high risk of serious health complications due to COVID-19; and they are 4\1/2\ times more likely to be hospitalized due to COVID-19 complications. These statistics are staggering, and they appear to be worsening in parts of Indian Country. Just this week, Indian Health Service officials told Congress that COVID-19 trends in the Bemidji, Billings, Great Plains, and Oklahoma City service areas were ``very concerning.'' Each of those regions have had a 7-day rolling positivity test rate in double digits. Several IHS service units are reporting that their network for transferring patients in need of ICU care are nearly full. There is so much we still don't know about COVID-19. But what we do know is this: Throughout this crisis, Native communities have fought back. They are resilient. For example, in my home State of New Mexico and in Arizona and Utah--the Navajo Nation has instituted strict curfews to prevent the spread. They have ramped up testing, despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning. But the U.S. trust and treaty responsibilities remain. Our obligation to provide quality, accessible healthcare to all Native Americans doesn't end with this once-in-a-century pandemic. And it cannot be fulfilled by partisan half measures meant to score political points rather than provide meaningful health. Congress must do better. We must do much more. Each day we fail to act--to advance policies to address the disparities faced by Indian Country--is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office. It is a day we fail to meet the single most defining moment of this Congress--perhaps, of our entire careers. American families are struggling. Our country is struggling. We in Congress have the tools to help end that. Instead, we are wasting time with sham votes. History will not forget this inaction. That is why it is imperative that we pass comprehensive COVID-19 relief legislation with targeted resources for Native American communities. We must infuse the IHS with additional funding for Tribal healthcare and ensure Indian Country has parity in accessing Federal public health programs. We must provide Tribal governments with the resources they need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing additional funding within the Treasury's Coronavirus Relief Fund. The Senate should pass bills I have introduced that have already been adopted by the House of Representatives in its Heroes Act, passed over 3 months ago. We must make the strategic national stockpile available to Tribes. Tribes should be able to access PPE, ventilators, and other necessary medical equipment, just as States can. We must make sure the Tribes have equal access to the Centers for Disease Control resources to prepare for public health emergencies, like this pandemic. We must equalize the Medicaid reimbursement rate for Urban Indian Health facilities and help the 41 Urban Indian Health facilities across the Nation expand their services. And as so much of our lives move to the internet, we must make sure that Native schools, healthcare facilities, and government services are not left on the wrong side of the digital divide. All Tribes must have access to high-speed broadband. This public health and economic crisis has impacted every community in every State in the Union, but it has hit Native communities particularly hard. We must take real action. We need to lock arms, negotiate in good faith, and get immediate relief out the door--not engage in insincere, sham votes on ``skinny'' relief bills going nowhere, marked by continued partisan bickering. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last Friday, as the Jewish New Year began, Rosh Hashanah, our Nation lost a titan of justice and an unmatched force for good--Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. According to Jewish tradition, a person who dies on Rosh Hashanah is a tzaddik--a person of great righteousness. Justice Ginsburg, who was only the seventh Jewish Supreme Court Justice and the first female Jewish Justice, was, indeed, righteous. I and Jill, my wife, were proud to call Ruth a friend, and like all Santa Feans, we are proud that Ruth graced our city at the Santa Fe Opera every summer. She loved New Mexico, and New Mexico loved her. Our hearts are with Justice Ginsburg's family. You shared a great national treasure with all of us, and we are eternally grateful. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 1 of only 12 women who graduated from Columbia Law School in 1959. With a young child in tow, she tied for first in her class. Talk about a trailblazer. Indeed, RBG, as she is so affectionately called, blazed so many trails--too many to list. She was the first woman to serve on two major law reviews and one of the first female law professors in the Nation. She cofounded the first law journal on women's rights, and coauthored the first casebook on gender discrimination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to push open those doors because no one opened them for her. She was no stranger to gender discrimination. She was demoted at work when she became pregnant with her first child. She was refused a U.S. Supreme Court clerkship because she was a woman. She was also paid less than her male counterparts as a law professor. Always driven toward justice, RBG became the leading legal mind behind incrementally dismantling gender discrimination laws in the United States. She spearheaded the strategy to apply the 14th Amendment--requiring equal protection under the law--to women, and she won in the Supreme Court five times. Her victories helped to take down the mass of legal structures relegating women to second-class status. She accomplished what was nearly impossible and expanded who is included in ``We the People,'' and her quest for justice never ended. As a jurist, she authored groundbreaking opinions--striking down strict requirements on abortion clinics that were designed to put them out of business, establishing the right of persons with mental illness to be treated in the community instead of in institutions, and opening up the Virginia Military Institute to female cadets, which, I think, Senator Kaine talked about a little bit earlier. She was also as well known for her forceful dissents. ``I dissent'' has become a rallying cry against an activist conservative Court. In 2013, when the Court struck down the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Ginsburg declared: ``'Hubris' is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA.'' She observed that striking down voting protections because they worked too well was like ``throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Justice Ginsburg was brilliant, determined, and courageous. Now, as her long and well-lived life has come to an end and as the Nation mourns, it is only fitting that she continue making firsts--as the first woman to lie in state in the Capitol. All of us--women and men alike--owe a debt of gratitude to Justice Ginsburg and to her righteous and unwavering commitment to justice and equality under the law. As you have now heard many times, Justice Ginsburg's last words to the American public were ``My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.'' Yet, mere hours after the Supreme Court announced Justice Ginsburg's passing, while the Nation was in mourning, Leader McConnell announced he would replace her before the current Presidency ends. Let me say this: While my heart is broken, my soul is on fire. Not only are Senate Republicans disregarding Justice Ginsburg's last request, they are turning their back on the principle that they claimed was pure just 4 years ago. In February 2016, Justice Scalia passed away a full 9 months before a Presidential election. At that time, the majority leader refused to hold hearings on President Obama's highly qualified nominee, proclaiming: The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. Those words meant nothing. They were deceitful tricks in pursuit of raw power, and they have brought shame upon this body. Election day is only 40 days away, but it is more accurate to say that the election ends in 40 days, because the election is actually underway today. Voters are already voting in 29 States. More than half of the States are voting. Tens of millions of Americans will cast their votes before election day. The leader's vow to vote to replace Justice Ginsburg is a slap in the face to these voters and runs roughshod over the Constitution. Senator McConnell is moving at lightning speed to steal the second Supreme Court seat because he knows this President faces an uncertain electoral future. He is scared to let the American people, as he put it, ``have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.'' This hypocrisy is only outmatched by the utter disdain for American voters--disdain for their intelligence, disdain for their will. But the real scandal will be what this means to the American people. On November 10, 7 days after election day, the Supreme Court will hear argument on the legality of the Affordable Care Act, or what many call the ACA. After failing to repeal the ACA in Congress, now the Republicans are trying to destroy it in the courts, and they are rushing to fill this vacancy with a judge who will do that work for them. The Trump administration is standing with 20 Republican Governors and attorneys general who are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the ACA. Republicans are trying to take away Americans' healthcare in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century. It is unforgivable. By overwhelming numbers, the American people support the ACA. Before the ACA, insurance companies could deny healthcare insurance to people with preexisting conditions. Up to 129 million Americans under age 65 have preexisting conditions. The millions of people who have been infected by COVID-19 now have a preexisting condition for the rest of their lives. In my home State of New Mexico, more than 840,000 people live with a preexisting condition. Because of the ACA, 23 million more Americans have healthcare insurance, and millions more have Medicaid expansion. This includes hundreds of thousands of New Mexicans. When the ACA was challenged years ago, the Supreme Court upheld it by a 5-to-4 vote. We are one vote away from the decimation of our healthcare rights at a time when nearly 7 million Americans have contracted COVID-19. The threat is not only to the ACA but also to women's reproductive healthcare, our environmental protections, and what is left of our campaign finance limits. So we know why they are moving at a record pace to fill this seat. But while the President and the majority leader want to rush through a lifetime Justice in just a few weeks, COVID relief has languished on Senator McConnell's desk for months. Millions of Americans are out of work. Small businesses are closing their doors. Schools can't reopen safely. Parents are burning the candle at both ends, working and caring for kids at home. State, local, and Tribal governments can't meet budgets for essential services. The American people desperately need another relief package, but the Senate Republicans and the President don't think there is any urgency. Leader McConnell said that himself. According to the President, COVID-19 ``affects virtually nobody.'' The President said that--``affects virtually nobody.'' This virus that ``affects virtually nobody'' is the third leading cause of death in the United States, has taken more lives in 8 short months than the Vietnam and Middle East wars combined, and has sent our economy into a nosedive not seen since the Great Depression. We talk a lot about priorities here in the Senate. Right now you are seeing Senate Republican priorities in stark relief. They will rush a lifetime Supreme Court pick in weeks--violating every principle they established themselves--to please their far-right donors. But they will neglect relief for you--for struggling families, for people out of work, for people sick and dying--for months. Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the President has explicitly said he wants to fill this vacancy to help decide the 2020 election in his favor. He has repeatedly lied that absentee ballots, votes from Democratic areas, or votes that are tabulated after election day are somehow fraudulent. And like an authoritarian, he does not even try to correct himself when his lies are debunked. Instead, he openly admits he wants the Supreme Court to decide the election by disqualifying votes he does not like and even refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. The Senate should not become an accomplice to this corrupt scheme that threatens the future of our democracy, and every Senate Republican should condemn the President's refusal to commit to give up power peacefully. I would note that several of my Republican friends have stood up and have said that there should be a peaceful transition of power, and I applaud them for that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to call attention to key legislation that addresses violence, and this piece of legislation should come to the floor. That is the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. VAWA reauthorization expired over a year and a half ago, on February 15, 2019. Funding continues, but key improvements are being delayed by the lack of reauthorization. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 is supported by all 47 Democratic Senators. The House passed the bill 236 to 158. Thirty-three House Republicans voted yes on that bill. The bill would extend VAWA for 5 years, through 2024, while making key improvements. As the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I know how critical VAWA reauthorization is to Indian Country. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that Native women face murder rates that are more than 10 times the national average murder rate. There are more than 5,000 cases of missing American Indian and Alaska Native women, and 55 percent of Native women have experienced domestic violence. More than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women experience violence in their lifetime. Without the enactment of a VAWA reauthorization, these Tribes will lack the jurisdictional tools they need to keep their communities safe. The House-passed bill strengthens Tribal sovereignty, provides important protections for LGBT people, and bars dating partners convicted of domestic violence from having handguns. The bill would make a real difference in preventing violent crimes against women and making Native communities safer, and I ask that the Senate take up its consideration immediately. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2843, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object. As a former assistant U.S. attorney and New Mexico attorney general, I worked hard to prosecute violent crimes, including those committed against law enforcement. The recent shootings of two law enforcement officers in California were heinous. My deepest condolences and prayers go out to the officers and their families. The perpetrator must be brought to justice. All such violence is appalling. However, this bill is both unnecessary and, potentially, a problematic expansion of Federal criminal law. It is already a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill an officer or employee of the United States. Most, if not all, States already make killing a police officer a specific crime, and, of course, murder and assault are crimes in all 50 States and Territories So it is unclear that this bill will increase deterrence, and the bill is very broad, covering not only murder and attempted murder but also any assault against hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of people. One new crime created by the bill is death eligible, raising historic concerns about executing the innocent and the death penalty being arbitrarily applied. This bill has not gone through the regular order, with no hearings on such a sweeping change in the balance of State and Federal criminal law. For many years, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, the Federalist Society, and congressional Republicans have all spoken out against the expansion of Federal criminal law. It is not just conservatives. There is bipartisan support for that view and broad consensus among criminal law experts and the Federal judiciary itself. The Judicial Conference of the U.S. courts has testified to Congress against the over-criminalization of Federal law, citing the burdens they already face. And former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese wrote for the Hoover Institution over 20 years ago, in 1999, highlighting the following problems with over-criminalization of Federal law. He warned about these: An unwise allocation of scarce resources needed to meet the genuine issues of crime; An unhealthy concentration of policing power at the national level; An adverse impact on the federal judicial system; Inappropriately disparate results for similarly situated defendants, depending on whether essentially similar conduct is selected for federal or state prosecution; A diversion of congressional attention from criminal activity that only federal investigation and prosecution can address; The potential for duplicative prosecutions at the state and federal levels for the same course of conduct, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution's double jeopardy protection. I think the Senate should consider those warnings and should not rush to approve such a measure without hearing testimony and a long and careful study. Therefore, I object.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. Yes, there is. I object.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you very much for the recognition. Reserving the right to object, as a former New Mexico attorney general and assistant U.S. attorney, I have worked closely with law enforcement for many years. I have worked hard to prosecute violent crimes in my career, including crimes where law enforcement officers were the victims. I have been privileged to work with law enforcement in New Mexico, and we are all thankful for the tremendous work of the Capitol Police here in our Nation's Capital. The Senate is united in our respect for law enforcement. Just 5 months ago, in May, the Senate passed a number of bills and a bipartisan resolution during National Police Week in support of those who serve our communities in the face of risk. We all agree that deadly violence targeting law enforcement is appalling, and we all have expressed gratitude for the brave men and women who serve in law enforcement. The recent shooting of two law sheriff's deputies in California was heinous. Our prayers go out to the officers and their families, and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Like many of us here on both sides of the aisle, I am also dedicated to embracing a moment before our Nation where we confront the very real issues of systemic racial injustice. We have policy disagreements on how to do that, but I hope that we can all agree the Senate should be a place for coming together and making progress to respond to this moment in our country, not fanning the flames of division and anger. The initial draft of this resolution has some vague but divisive language that I do not think belongs in a Senate resolution, and a number of other Members agree. Our side is asking for some reasonable changes in good faith. To reflect the public safety and trust between law enforcement and communities is fundamental to the security and prosperity of our Nation. I hope that the Senator from Florida and his colleagues are willing to accept those changes, which I will offer in response to his request. Then the Senate can speak with a united voice and set a good example for our Nation at a time like this. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my resolution at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition today. We rise--a number of Senators who will be speaking today in this hour--we rise today to demand that the White House immediately remove William Perry Pendley from exercising the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and nominate a qualified person to be Director, subject to Senate confirmation. William Perry Pendley embodies the Trump administration's approach to conservation--they don't believe in it. He embodies the Trump administration's approach to Tribal sovereignty--they don't respect it. His continued employment at BLM embodies the Trump administration's approach to the law and the separation of powers--they will trample all over it every chance they get. Mr. Pendley has been exercising the authority of the Director since July 2019. Let's get one thing straight: This title has no basis in law. He is serving as Acting BLM Director under temporary appointments that the Secretary keeps renewing in a cynical ploy to evade the Constitution, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and the judgment of the Senate. Mr. Pendley's record on conservation is so bad, so antithetical to the agency he oversees, that the Trump administration knew he wouldn't survive a Senate confirmation. So, instead, they have concocted this shell game. The Director of BLM is subject to Senate confirmation. This administration did not bother to nominate anyone for 4 years until June of this year when Mr. Pendley was formally nominated. However, the ink had barely dried on his nomination papers before the President was forced to withdraw the nomination. From the beginning, the conservation outdoor recreation sports men and women communities have been uniformly opposed to Mr. Pendley's appointment, but that is not why the President withdrew his nomination. He withdrew the nomination because Mr. Pendley's extreme anti-public lands positions made him too toxic for Republican Senators from Western States facing tough reelections. If Mr. Pendley can't be confirmed as BLM Director, he should not remain the de facto leader of the agency. He should be immediately removed. No more shell games. There are many reasons Mr. Pendley is unfit to serve, more than I have time to discuss, but let me discuss three with you now. First, over the course of his 40-year career, he has established himself as one of the premier anti-public lands crusaders in the Nation. He has repeatedly advocated that the Federal Government sell off public lands, arguing that was the Nation's Founders' intent. As recently as 2016, he penned an op-ed entitled--and I quote here from his op-ed--``The Federal Government Should Follow the Constitution and Sell Its Western Lands.'' This is from the man who is now charged with running the agency that oversees our public lands. It is appalling. BLM manages 245 million acres on behalf of the American people. Managing these public lands is the central mission of the job, and he doesn't think there should be any. It is no wonder he is trouble for western Republican candidates. Poll after poll of westerners show overwhelming support for public lands among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Selling off our national heritage to the highest bidder is extreme and extremely unpopular. Mr. Pendley has been singularly focused on renting out our public lands to extraction industries to the exclusion of other purposes, such as conservation, outdoor recreation, and preservation of cultural and historic values. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy and Minerals for the Department of the Interior in the 1980s, Pendley was a tireless advocate for opening up public lands, from the Outer Continental Shelf to wilderness areas, to drilling and mining. When he was in charge of coal leasing in the interior in the 1980s, he helped coal companies get a sweetheart deal--leasing 1.6 million tons of coal in the Powder River Basin at bargain basement prices. The General Accounting Office concluded that Federal taxpayers received about $100 million below fair market value for that sale, or about $286 million in today's dollars. Mr. Pendley was removed from his position after that GAO report, and he hasn't changed one bit over the years. As executive director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation for 30 years, Pendley fought tooth and nail for drilling and mining on our public lands. If left unchecked, I have no doubt Mr. Pendley will continue to turn back the clock on 60 years of our Nation reckoning with the devastating consequences of recklessly extracting from the Earth. Second, Mr. Pendley's well-documented racist attitudes make him unfit for his role. He has disdain for Native Americans--their Tribal sovereignty and their religious practices. He is very anti-immigrant. He smears the Black Lives Matter movement. He called Native religious views: ``pantheism, paganism, and cultural myths.'' He has fought against protecting their sacred sites on Federal lands. It is Pendley's BLM that wanted to hold virtual meetings to determine the future of the greater Chaco Canyon landscape at the same time that the Navajo Nation was facing one of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in the country. And in that area that has some of the lowest broadband rates in the Nation--now talk about tone-deaf--as the vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am here to say that Mr. Pendley has no business managing lands that are home to sacred Native sites. He has questioned the basis of Tribal sovereignty and even Tribal recognition. He wrote: ``The day may come sooner than many expect given that, with ever-declining blood quantum per tribal member, recognized tribes may soon be little more than associations of financial convenience.'' Let's call Mr. Pendley's offensive statement what it is: overt racism. But his disdain for people of color is not limited to Native Americans. He has called undocumented immigrants ``a cancer.'' He has claimed immigration will lead to: ``You and I permanently losing the country we love.'' He has claimed undocumented immigrants create violent crime, crowded schools, and spread disease. Mr. Pendley's racism has no place in today's America. He is unqualified to manage public lands at a time when we all should be working to make them more accessible to all America. People of color who have business before the Bureau of Land Management, as many do every day, have every right to wonder: Is the deck stacked against them? It shouldn't be that way. And, finally, a third reason that all of us should demand Mr. Pendley be removed from his position: He is a climate change denier. The science of climate change that is happening and that is human-caused is well established. We are years and years beyond any scientific argument on these points. Just open your eyes and look at the wildfires that are raging throughout the West, forcing people to evacuate their homes and making wide swaths of the West look like an apocalyptic scene out over a Hollywood movie. Yet Pendley has claimed that climate change is like unicorns--neither exist. Pendley's hostility to science comes as no surprise. He is working for a President who claimed just yesterday, as he made a belated visit to California, that ``I don't think science knows,'' referring to climate change. The President is saying: ``I don't think science knows.'' The President claims he knows, insisting, ``It will start getting cooler.'' This President tries to undermine any institution that challenges his world view--whether it is science, the press, our national intelligence agencies, or the courts. But while Mr. Pendley and the President deny the reality of climate change, right now, today, in California and Oregon, BLM and other public lands are burning. While they put their heads in the sand on climate change, the families who have lost loved ones in this unprecedented fire season in that part of the country and the thousands who have lost homes don't have that luxury. In the view of William Pendley, the President, and his administration, the West is a place to be plundered for natural resources and then left to burn. And while Pendley and the Trump administration don't think the Interior Department has any role to play combating climate change, in fact, one- quarter--25 percent--of all U.S. carbon emissions come from fossil fuels extracted from public lands. Our public lands are a big part of the climate change problem. Instead of being a source of pollution, public lands must be an integral part of the climate solution. William Pendley's vision for public lands is some terrible caricature that should be consigned to the history books, where our public lands are to be exploited, not conserved, where Native people are scorned and people of color are not seen, and where climate change does not exist. William Pendley is an extremist, and he was never going to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. It is time he is shown the door. I now turn to my colleagues who are with me on the floor. I am very proud to introduce my good friend and colleague, New Mexico's junior-- soon-to-be senior Senator--Senator Martin Heinrich. Martin led the entire Senate Democratic caucus in a letter to the President opposing Mr. Pendley's nomination as BLM Director, and once the nomination was withdrawn, he led the caucus urging the Secretary to remove Mr. Pendley from his Acting position I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, as if in legislation session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2843, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I thank Senator Bennet once again for the good work he is doing there. Just a couple of other words in closing, talking about the career employee scientists, the people who work at the BLM. The men and women who work at the BLM are public servants dedicated to the mission of the agency. They deserve a leader who values them and respects them and carries out that mission, not an extremist who doesn't even believe that public lands should exist. Mr. Pendley's hostility toward our public lands resulted in his nomination as BLM Director being pulled by the President. If he is not fit to be confirmed as BLM Director by the Senate, he is not fit to exercise the authority of Director and should be immediately relieved of that authority. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. Yes, please.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the eloquent words of Senator Bennet of Colorado. Not only does Senator Bennet speak with eloquence, but he matches it with deeds and with action. He has a major piece of legislation before the Senate to try to protect public lands in his State of Colorado. We very much appreciate Senator Bennet and his activism there. I would also like to thank Senators Heinrich, Manchin, and Rosen for so eloquently talking about why William Pendley is unfit to continue as the de facto BLM Director.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. As a former New Mexico attorney general and assistant U.S. attorney, I have worked hard to prosecute violent crimes. I have been privileged to work with law enforcement, and we are all thankful for the tremendous work the Capitol Police do here in our Nation's Capital. The recent shootings of two sheriff's deputies in California was heinous. Our prayers go out to the officers and their families. The perpetrator must be brought to justice. But I do not support rushing through this bill in response to the California shootings. Under California law, murder of a law enforcement officer already makes someone eligible for the death penalty. This bill needlessly expands the Federal death penalty. As I understand this bill, for someone to be eligible for the death penalty, he or she would have to first be convicted of Federal murder, and then it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was killed or targeted because he or she was a law enforcement officer. I also want to point out that the death penalty itself has widespread issues and many instances of misapplication. DNA testing and other science have proven that innocent people have been executed. The Innocence Project has found that 21 of 375 individuals who were falsely convicted and exonerated by DNA testing since 1989 had served time on death row. The death penalty has also been applied in a racially discriminatory way. A 1990 GAO report on capital sentencing noted that 82 percent of studies conducted between 1972 and 1990 found that the race of the victim influenced whether a capital murder charge was brought or a death sentence imposed. As Justice Breyer has noted, ``The factors that most clearly ought to affect application of the death penalty, namely, comparative egregiousness of the crime, often do not. Instead, circumstances that ought not to affect application of the death penalty, such as race, gender or geography, often do.'' That is in a recent Supreme Court case here in 2015. I also understand that this bill has not been through the regular order in the Judiciary Committee. It is important that legislation that would have serious consequences is fully examined by the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction here. I would also like to take this opportunity to call attention to key legislation that addresses violence and should come to the floor, and that is the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. VAWA authorization expired over a year and a half ago, on February 15, 2019. Funding continues, but key improvements are being delayed by lack of reauthorization. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 is supported by all 47 Democratic Senators. The House passed the bill 263 to 158. Thirty-three House Republicans voted yes on that bill. This bill would extend VAWA for 5 years, through 2024. As the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I know how critical this bill is to Indian Country. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that Native women face murder rates that are more than 10 times the national average murder rate. There are more than 5,000 cases of missing American Indian and Alaska Native women, and 55 percent of Native women have experienced domestic violence. More than four in five American Indian and Alaska Native women experience violence in their lifetimes. Without enactment of a VAWA reauthorization, these Tribes will lack the jurisdictional tools they need to keep their communities safe. The VAWA bill also explicitly states that grant recipients can train staff to prevent LGBT discrimination, and it adds dating partners convicted of domestic violence and stalking to the category of persons barred from having handguns. This bill would make a real difference in preventing violent crimes against women and has passed the House and has been pending before us here in the Senate for many months. For these reasons, I respectfully object to the Senator's request.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, this family has suffered a terrible loss and has my sincerest condolences. Too many families in my home State of New Mexico have lost loved ones to DUIs, and I have made reducing DUIs one of my top priorities. As State attorney general, I worked to increase penalties and get them off the roads. In the Senate, I am working on a bipartisan basis to use technology to get us to the place at which we can eliminate drunk driving and save thousands of lives per year. The Presiding Officer also knows that we are working very well, in a bipartisan way, to tackle this issue. I have concerns that this bill uses a tragedy to paint immigrants as more dangerous than other people, which is false by all available data. The immigration detention system is also in need of comprehensive reform, and this bill does nothing to improve our immigration system. Instead, the bill imposes judicially unreviewable detention on immigrants simply charged with certain crimes, not convicted. This is not consistent with due process. Importantly, this bill has not been subject to committee review. My understanding is that senior members of the Committee on the Judiciary have strong concerns about this bill. I also believe that we should not be legislating on immigration matters unless and until this body takes action to permanently protect Dreamers and provide them with a path toward citizenship. I object. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the AFGHAN Service Act, which I introduced with Senator Paul. It has been nearly 19 years since the United States entered this war in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and we have had several Presidents--one a Democrat, one a Republican--say they want to end this war. They announced: We don't want endless wars. We want to end this war. Our current President has said he wanted to do this for the last 3\1/ 2\ years. He hasn't gotten it done. President Obama wanted to end it. This is the way--the responsible way--to end this war. We give a year timeframe. We make absolutely clear we are not against our American soldiers. We give them a bonus, and we say: You have done a good job. So don't listen to the distortions that will be talked about what this amendment is about. We have soldiers who are heading to fight in this war who weren't even born when it began, and most of the soldiers I have talked to who have come home from Afghanistan believe we should be out of there. That is one of the most persuasive things I have seen. Several of those soldiers have been elected to the U.S. Congress and have spoken up very, very strongly about continuing our war in Afghanistan. It has been nearly 10 years since I first came to the Senate floor in 2010 to call for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan. We have accomplished our goal of routing al-Qaida and killing Osama Bin Laden. Those were two of the big things that were talked about originally when President Bush went in and basically said: We have these short-term objectives, we are going to get them achieved, and then we are going to be out. We have achieved those objectives. There is no reason for delay and to continue this endless war. The longer we stay with an ill-defined mission, the greater the risk of a wider war in the region. Believe me, I listen to people back home. They don't want a wider war. They want us to bring our troops home. The recent news that has gripped the Capitol only underscores that our men and women in Afghanistan remain in harm's way. They should be brought home and focus on our core national security. After 19 years of war, peace in Afghanistan will need to come from negotiation, and the United States can and should continue to play a role in those diplomatic efforts. This legislation ends the U.S. involvement in the war in a responsible way, with a yearlong timeframe. It also sunsets the 9/11 AUMF, which has been stretched beyond recognition to justify wars we never considered. Even to this day, some in this administration envision using the 2001 AUMF to justify a war with Iran rather than actually standing on the floor and introducing a proposal, as required by the Constitution to get in a war, as is Congress's authority. On the AUMF, this isn't something sudden either; it would give Congress a year to consider a new AUMF, if needed. It is long past time for Congress to make the difficult decision and stop ducking the votes on whether to send our troops into harm's way. Finally, this amendment rewards the veterans of these wars. We owe a lot more to them, but this is a start. I hope you will join me in supporting the end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and support the restoration of congressional war-making authority and vote against tabling this amendment. This amendment deserves an up-or-down vote, not a tabling vote, so vote no to tabling this amendment. I say this in great respect to Senator Inhofe, and I know that Senator Inhofe has been very courteous in terms of the time. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and I thank Senator Inhofe. I talked to him. I would ask unanimous consent, as Senator Paul did, to complete my remarks and unanimous consent to complete my remarks right here on the floor before we have the vote.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, COVID-19 has taken a wrecking ball to our Nation's health and economy. No corner of the United States has been spared. Communities of color are being hit the hardest. We here in Congress must focus our work on helping these communities. We must take on the longstanding systemic reasons that these communities entering this crisis are entering at a greater risk. We must enact real reform so that the next time the next pandemic or economic downturn hits, it is not these same communities that once again bear the brunt of the disaster. Today, I want to focus our attention on American Indian and Alaska Native communities--communities where infection and mortality rates are much higher than the overall U.S. population and communities that can't escape the economic hardships this pandemic has caused. We already knew that pandemics like this take an awful toll on Native communities. This was true 100 years ago during the 1918 flu pandemic when Native Americans died at four times the rate of the rest of the country. This was true a decade ago during the 2019 H1N1 outbreak when Native Americans died at the same high rates. It is unforgivable that the administration was not better prepared. The underlying reasons that Native peoples--whether living on Tribal lands, in urban settings, or elsewhere--are at risk are multifaceted. They are all rooted in historic systemic injustice. First and foremost, many Native Americans do not have ready access to quality healthcare, despite the Federal Government's trust and treaty obligations to provide it--trust and treaty obligations taken on by this government in exchange for millions of acres of land and countless lives lost. On the large, rural reservations and in remote Alaskan Native villages, the nearest healthcare facility might be hours away, and when you get there, if you can get there, there often aren't enough doctors or nurses or hospital beds. These logistical barriers are compounded by the chronic, historic underfunding of the Indian Health Service, which many of us have fought for years to correct. While we have made progress, the IHS budget still only covers an estimated 16 percent of the need. As a result of centuries of discriminatory land, agricultural, and environmental policies, Native communities also face the highest rates of underlying conditions, like diabetes, heart and lung disease, asthma, and obesity, that result in worse COVID-19 outcomes. Battles over water rights and underinvestment in Tribal infrastructure have compounded the problems. We all know that washing our hands is a critical measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Yet Tribal communities are 3.7 times more likely to lack complete indoor plumbing than other U.S. households. On the Navajo Nation, which is confronting one of the worse coronavirus outbreaks in the Nation, 18 percent of households don't have complete indoor plumbing. So, again, it is no surprise that researchers have already found that COVID-19 cases are more likely to occur in Tribal communities, with a higher proportion of homes lacking indoor plumbing. We also know that social distancing is key to preventing the spread of the virus. Yet almost one in six Native households is overcrowded, making social distancing not just difficult but physically impossible for many families. All these institutional barriers combine to create a perfect storm. These barriers aren't the result of chance; they are the result of policy. It is these institutional barriers that we must acknowledge and finally address so that this pandemic is not one more example of the failure of the United States to meet our obligations. This time must be different. We must meet our responsibilities and help build a more just and equitable society Throughout this crisis, Native communities have fought back. They are resilient. They have fought back hard. For example, in my home State of New Mexico and in Arizona and Utah, the Navajo Nation has imposed strict curfews to prevent the spread. They have ramped up testing despite the complete lack of testing supplies in the beginning, and they have now, as of today, tested about 25 percent of their population, compared to 10 percent nationally. Tribal responses to the pandemic have been repeatedly hamstrung by this administration and congressional inaction. As vice chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I fought hard for funding targeted for Tribes. When the administration offered nothing for Tribes, we secured over $10 billion in the CARES Act. When the administration fumbled distribution of Tribal funding, missing the statutory deadline for distribution by almost 2 months, Congress and the Tribes pushed back. Because Tribes are in crisis, days matter. It took a lawsuit and a Federal court order for Tribes to get their share of the $8 billion set aside for them under the CARES Act. Today, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee will hold an oversight hearing on implementation of Federal programs to support Tribal COVID- 19 prevention, containment, and response efforts. Tribal witnesses will testify that policies and practices at FEMA, the CDC, HRSA, and a number of other Federal Agencies have made Tribal access to Federal COVID-19 resources much harder. Whether it is denying Tribes access to coronavirus surveillance data, creating a confusing, Byzantine bureaucracy for requesting emergency medical supplies, or delaying access to grant funds, this administration continually makes decisions that disadvantage Native communities, decisions that threaten Native lives and prolong this country's legacy of systemic injustice. The administration must do better, and Congress must do much more. Each day we fail to act to advance policies to address the disparities faced by Indian Country is a day we fail to uphold our oath of office. The Republican Senate majority has delayed far too long. Infections are on the rise. The United States has surpassed every other nation in the world in the spread and death and destruction of this virus. Now, 20 million Americans are out of work, which is the highest unemployment level since the Great Depression. State and local and Tribal governments and healthcare systems across the Nation are shuttering essential services and furloughing essential workers. None of this should come as news to the Republican majority. Inaction in the face of this disaster is unconscionable. This body must get down to the business that we are here for and we are elected to do. It is long past time we pass another COVID-19 relief package. Our next package must include targeted funding and programs for Native communities and Tribes. We must infuse IHS with additional funding for Tribal healthcare and ensure it has parity in accessing Federal programs. We must provide Tribal governments with the resources they need to keep their communities up and running safely by providing $20 billion in additional targeted funding within the Treasury's Coronavirus Relief Fund. The Senate should pass bills I have introduced that have already been adopted by the House of Representatives in its Heroes package, which was passed over 6 weeks ago. We must make our strategic stockpile available to Tribes. Tribes should be able to access PPE, ventilators, and other necessary medical equipment just as States can. We must make sure that Tribes have equal access to the Centers for Disease Control and their resources to prepare for public health emergencies like this pandemic. Seventy percent of Native Americans live in urban settings. Yet the Medicaid reimbursement rate for Urban Indian Health facilities is lower than the Federal reimbursement rate at other IHS facilities. We need to balance the scales and help the 43 Urban Indian Health facilities across the Nation expand their services. As so much of our lives move to the internet, we must make sure that Native schools, healthcare facilities, and government services are not left on the wrong side of the digital divide. All Tribes must have access to high-speed broadband. This public health and economic crisis has hit us all hard, but we shouldn't deny that some communities have been hit hard. We need to send immediate relief to those communities that have been so severely hurt, including Native communities, and we need to set our sights on genuinely taking on the systemic and institutional barriers these communities have faced for far too long. We can, we should, and we must do better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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