Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I thank Senator Whitehouse. I very much appreciate his comments here today and especially appreciate his participation in terms of moving this forward in a bipartisan way. I worked with my staff diligently on this bill. I was lucky to have a chief of staff by the name of Mike Collins who spent many hours working on this. My legislative director, Andrew Wallace--Drew Wallace--worked on this. He is a lawyer by training. Jonathan Black was the legislative assistant in the main policy area. He has been with this bill all along, and he is very evenhanded and very good at dealing with the other staff members in getting people to focus on the goal and not get into the arguments and not get sidetracked. I think this is true of the staff on the Republican side and the staff on the Democratic side. We have had tremendous support, and I expect that to go forward when we start. Indeed, if we can get floor time and get this out--and I believe the bill is ready to go--I think we have the kind of staff effort in the House and the Senate that can resolve most of the major differences without too many problems. So that is what we are looking forward to. As I said earlier, I would like to say a few words about Senator Frank Lautenberg. This is a picture of Senator Lautenberg and his grandchildren. I served on the Environment and Public Works Committee with Senator Lautenberg for a number of years, and there couldn't have been anything he was more passionate about than his grandchildren. You saw that in his public work. Before I got onto the committee, Senator Lautenberg was a champion in terms of smoking and indoor smoking and tobacco smoke hurting people and passed some significant legislation. So it was particularly moving to me to hear him say--when he got on this compromise bill with Senator Vitter, he said he thought that bill, the Lautenberg-Vitter bill, would save more lives than all the work he had done in the public health and environmental arena. I know he said that to Bonnie Lautenberg. And that really hit all of us. He saw the legislation, he saw how it was going to evolve, and he really believed this would make a difference. I saw that in Senator Lautenberg over and over again on the committee. Whenever an issue would come up--it didn't matter what issue it was--he always came back to his grandchildren: Are we doing the right thing by our children? So if we were looking at a infrastructure issue and the question was ``How do we frame the best possible infrastructure package?'' he was looking out a couple of generations in the future and saying ``Are we going to pass on a better infrastructure system so we can grow jobs and do those kinds of things?'' He had passion about it, and he brought up his grandchildren on a frequent basis. We all miss him very much, and we have named this bill after him. This bill is the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Everybody is going to know how it started because he was one who believed in fighting for the very best, but he always believed in compromise. I will never forget when Senator Lautenberg had what I would call the perfect bill--I guess that is the best way to describe it--and he was able to pass it through the Environment and Public Works Committee, but it passed without a single Republican vote. When it passes out of committee, it is now ready for floor time. But everybody realized that without any Republicans on the bill, it wasn't going to go anywhere. So leadership said: You know, you better go back to square one. You can't get this out of the Senate the way it is currently crafted. To Senator Lautenberg's credit, he then took the opportunity to visit--I believe Senator Manchin was involved with this in terms of them going together, and they started talking and saying: Maybe we can come up with something which is bipartisan and which can attract people from both sides. And that was the original Lautenberg-Vitter bill that was introduced. This is one of the interesting things: It immediately had 24 cosponsors--12 Republicans and 12 Democrats. I was one of those cosponsors. I think that was due to the very good staff work--he had some great people on his staff--but it was also due to his meeting of the minds with Senator Vitter, coming together, and finding that common ground. I will never forget that on that bill, the New York Times came out almost immediately--they had huge respect for Senator Lautenberg, and they said: You know, this is much better than current law. Congress ought to pass this. Of course, it needs a couple of changes--and I think they mentioned three things in their editorial. We eventually made those three changes they were talking about. But that just shows the respect Senator Lautenberg had. He was able to work with everyone, he was able to convey to the media what he was trying to do, and he had tremendous support for engaging the other side. One of the things that has helped us come such a long way is--we lost Frank, and then I joined with Senator Vitter on the bill. We lost Frank, but we haven't lost Bonnie, his widow. Bonnie Lautenberg has been in this from the very beginning, wanting to see this bill become law and wanting to see that her children and grandchildren are protected. I remember very well the speech she gave on the floor of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senator Inhofe was very generous in terms of saying: If Senator Lautenberg's wife, Bonnie Lautenberg, wants to come and testify on the bill, we are going to put her right up front. She spoke very eloquently at the EPW Committee earlier this year: Frank understood that getting this done required the art of compromise. . . . This cause is urgent, because we are living in a toxic world. Chemicals are rampant in the fabrics we and our children sleep in and wear, the rugs and products in our homes and in the larger environment we live in. How many family members and friends have we lost to cancer? We deserve a system that requires screening of all chemicals to see if they cause cancer or other health problems. How many more people must we lose before we realize that having protections in just a few states isn't good enough? We need a federal program that protects every person in this country. That was Bonnie Lautenberg testifying before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Earlier today, we also had a large number of groups, which I will talk about in a little bit, and Bonnie Lautenberg came down once again and spoke eloquently about the need to get this done for our children and to have a tough cop on the beat who is going to look out there, analyze these chemicals, and try to do the right thing when it comes to that regulatory effort--at the same time, as Senator Inhofe said, working with the business community. It has been great having Bonnie Lautenberg work with us. I know she feels so passionate about this, she picks up the phone from home and calls Senators and says: The bill is at this particular point. We need your help. Will you take a look at it, and get with your staff? She has been quite an advocate in terms of moving this legislation along. Now, I just want to say a little bit about what happened earlier today because it was really a remarkable experience to see the coming together of Democrats and Republicans and for us to finally reach the 60 votes we need in order to break a filibuster and get the bill on the floor. We had a variety of groups represented from the public health and environmental side. There was my good friend Fred Krupp from the Environmental Defense Fund, Collin O'Mara from the National Wildlife Federation, and then we had representatives from the March of Dimes, the Humane Society, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Moms Clean Air Force, and other groups there on that NGO side. We also had business leaders such as former Congressman Cal Dooley, with whom I served in the House of Representatives. Cal is now the head of what is called the American Chemistry Council. And there were other leaders who were there also from the business side: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute. When we got them all there and saw them together, the big question I asked was this: Who would have ever thought that all of these groups would be together supporting this bill and wanting this bill to move forward? So that is one of the reasons we say to the leadership now that this bill is ready to go. It has 60 Senators. We believe the actual votes would be higher than that, but clearly we have 60 cosponsors now, and we are ready to roll here. So that is something that is very important for both the leadership on our side and the leadership on the Republican side to know, that we are willing to do the hard work on the floor and willing to make sure that these kinds of issues that will arise as we move through this we can take care of. Now, I want to say a little bit about--I am hoping Senator Manchin or Senator Vitter will arrive at some point here because they have crucial things they want to talk about. But people should understand that the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is there to protect American families, and it doesn't. There are over 84,000 known chemicals and hundreds of new ones every year, and only 5 have been regulated by the EPA--only 5 out of 84,000. What is absolutely clear here is that the American people want and deserve a government that does its job to keep families safe. That is why I rise today to urge support for the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Senator Vitter and I introduced this legislation for one reason and one reason only--to fix our Nation's broken chemical safety law. Ever since the EPA lost a lawsuit in 1991, it hasn't been able to regulate asbestos, a known carcinogen. So that was one of the key things that Senator Lautenberg knew a lot about. In 1991--so imagine, 20-plus years back--the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling said that in their analysis and in the tests they put forward--and the lawyers at the EPA looked at it and said: We are unable to regulate asbestos now. We are unable to move forward. And no real activity has taken place since then. There is nothing that says something is more broken than when an agency is unable to move forward with the regulatory activities it was set up to do. So for decades the risks have been there, the dangers have been there, but there is really no cop on the beat taking a look at chemical safety. The current system has failed. It fails to provide confidence in our consumer products. It fails to ensure that our families and communities are safe. So there is just no doubt that reform is overdue--40 years overdue. On this Sunday, TSCA will be 40 years old. I see my good friend Senator Vitter has arrived on the floor. Let me just take a moment, before I introduce Senator Vitter, to say that I couldn't have a better partner. I remember that over 2 years ago, Senator Vitter and I met for dinner, and we talked about this bill. We said: Let's work on it with each other, and let's grow bipartisan support. The Senator has worked actively on both sides of the aisle, as have I, and we have come a long way. We think we are ready to go. We think this bill is ready to go. I sure appreciate the partnership that Senator Vitter and I have formed on this. He has been a man of his word. When he said he was going to do something, he did it, and that is the way we have worked through all of the issues. And we have had many issues. Just to inform the Senator, we are in a colloquy situation now until about 3:40. I think we have about 5 more minutes of the colloquy, and then Senator Daines, who has arrived, is taking time at about 3:40, unless we can persuade him to give us a minute or two more. So I thank the Senator for his good work on this. He has really pulled long and hard to get the bill to this point, and we are ready to go; are we not?

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator so much. As I have said, he has been a great partner to work with on this. He has always been a man of his word. Senator Manchin is now on the floor, and I thought it would be good for him to talk a bit about his involvement. I know he was an early cosponsor. He was a good friend to Senator Lautenberg. I say to Senator Manchin, one of the issues we have been talking about is the question of whether this bill is ready to go, but please, it is open for your comment and discussion. Please proceed.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy until about 3:40 p.m. with Democrats and Republicans who are going to show up here--I think Senator Vitter, Senator Inhofe, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Manchin, and we may have others who will be here. I see my good friend Senator Inhofe is here. Senator Inhofe, we are now beginning. And Senator Whitehouse is here. So if the Senator would like to jump in with his statement, that would be great at this point.

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Manchin, I want to thank you too because I know you have labored hard on this, and you helped the original cosponsors get together and talk with each other and help them find common ground. With Senator Vitter here, we both believe we are going to have a couple of meetings now to try to move forward with the bill, as you have talked about, and meet with leadership and iron out the differences. But this thing is ready to go.

Mr. UDALL. I couldn't agree with the Senator more. I also wish to talk a little bit about Senator Frank Lautenberg. I have a picture here of him with his grandchildren. But let me first say, Senator Whitehouse, did you wish to mention your staff member who worked on it, who I know spent time with Jonathan Black and with the whole team? We have a great team of staff members who are very goal-oriented and who want to get things accomplished.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to join several Senators who have come to the floor to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I know Senator Burr and Senator Daines have spoken, and I think there were several others who spoke about this very worthwhile program that has been on the books for a very long time. I come to the floor to say I support their effort. I support the idea that we should be able to get a unanimous consent request so that we can extend the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I thought I would talk first a little bit about the history because my father, Stewart Udall, was one of the people who actually worked with Congress to create the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the 1960s. He worked with Wilbur Mills in the House of Representatives and a number of other Members of Congress. The idea at the time was, here we had this resource--offshore oil--and we were taking a resource that was irreplaceable--the idea that once you use it, it is gone--and we were saying: Why don't we dedicate some of those resources to the permanent protection of land, of parks, for the American people? So that was the idea behind it, and it was endorsed by a nationwide commission of very distinguished Americans who said: We aren't keeping up with the amount of parks and other public lands that our growing population needs. We all knew that the American people loved their parks, and the same is true today. So this outdoor commission recommended something along this line of, how do we make sure we are able to create these great national parks and create parks at the State and the city level? So the fund was designed in such a way that there was a State-fund side of the program, and on the State-fund side of the program, you could take dollars that were dedicated to the State program, which would be Federal dollars, and match them at the State and local level and create a Federal park. So in most of your communities today, if you drive around and you see a beautiful park, if you go and look at the plaque, most of the time that plaque will say: Done in cooperation with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. What local people have told me many times is that in the planning they do to try to create a new park--they have an area that is growing or they have a housing development that has gone in--they say: How do we get the money? Well, if they know there is going to be a Federal match and they are able to get the Federal money, they can do the planning. They can go to their local taxpayers, raise some funds, and then pool the money together and get a city park or a State park, that kind of thing. As everybody knows well, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has funded Federal purchases of land, from our national parks, to national wildlife refuges, to many other public lands. For example, in my home State of New Mexico, we have 14 national parks. We have a brandnew national park that was just put into place within the last year called the Valles Caldera National Preserve, which is one of the newest parks in the country. Here you have about 89,000 acres which is a collapsed volcano that has been used in many different ways in the past but now is available for hunting, fishing, camping, and all sorts of outdoor recreation. So this is something the people of New Mexico know. I think the crucial point to make here is the economic one. We don't have any doubt that investments in parks, wildlife refuges, and other Federal lands create many jobs outside those parks. They create jobs in the gateway communities, but they also create jobs in the outdoor industry. We have seen, with two new national monuments that were just created in New Mexico, big economic growth 6 months and a year after the creation of those monuments. So this is about the economic integrity of our communities. In less than 11 hours right now on the clock, the Land and Water Conservation Fund could expire. It has been in place for decades, and we could let it expire because of the gridlock here. Well, we aren't going to do that. And why aren't we going to do that? Because we have Members on both sides of the aisle who care about this. I would like to say a word about Senator Burr. I have worked with him very well. He is a member of the International Conservation Caucus in the Senate, and he has taken a real interest in conservation around the world and has been a real leader. Senator Burr has been out front on this land and water conservation issue. He has led a letter to various officials that 53 Senators signed that said: We want the Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorized before it expires. He has shown real leadership to make sure that as we approach this deadline, this doesn't happen. Senator Burr was on the floor just a few minutes ago. I want to say to him and the other Senators who worked with him that I think it is very important that we continue to work in these last 11 hours to make sure the Land and Water Conservation Fund is continued. Obviously, what we are trying to do right now is a 60-day period, but, as Senator Burr mentioned, the important thing is permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Then the big task we need to get these Presidential candidates to face is we have to have the funding for it. It always had a funding level that was reasonable and rational and supported, but unfortunately we don't ever meet the funding level. The money is there. The money is in the fund. It comes out every year from the offshore oil resources into the fund; it is just taken for other purposes. So we have to make sure we get a permanent Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization and the funds in that are going to really make a difference. Mr. President, I see my good friend Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. I know he is waiting in line, and I am sure you are going to hear some wise words from him. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Merkley, I have listened very carefully, and I think you and I have worked diligently since we got into the Senate to try to make sure the Senate functions properly. What we want to see more than anything is bipartisanship, working together. Whenever we have worked on the rules, I know one of our principles-- which was a good one--was to draft rules so that they apply to either the majority or minority. That is something I think we have done on a regular basis, is to look at the rules and say: If we do the right set of rules, then if we are in the minority, we will feel good about it, and if we are in the majority, they will work for us that way also. I am wondering. I see calls of reform all around the Senate right now. You see the Presidential candidates who look at our Senate rules and say there ought to be reforms. There ought to be filibuster reform. You see Republicans over in the House almost every week raising the issue that there should be filibuster reform. We need democracy to work. Many of the outside scholars--people such as Thomas Mann, Norm Ornstein, and scholars like them--write books over and over again, and always a big part of the reform package goes to the Senate rules. So I would ask the Senator, do you think that we are really talking about there being fertile ground right now for us to come together; that this is a time, when enough people are speaking about this, that we should be able to come together? And what we are urging--are we urging them to join us in some kind of format on the floor, off the floor, to have a meeting with various Senators who have worked on this in the past? Is this a good time to do this?

Mr. UDALL. Yes, I say to Senator Merkley, you are absolutely right. I am just going to close by saying that the thing we have--and I said this in the beginning. The thing we have worked on and tried to achieve is to make sure that when we crafted changes to the rules--motion to proceed, talking filibuster, how we allow each side to have amendments--we have always said we could live with them if we were in the minority. We have been in the minority now for almost a year. In a couple of months it will be a year. We came out right at the beginning of the Congress and talked about our rules again. We proposed the same rules in the majority. We want to be fair to both sides, but what is more important isn't that fairness; it is the fairness to the American people to get their democracy back again so it works. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, what you point out that is so important for people to understand--when we put the original bill back in there in World War I, it was put in so that a minority could not block it. We had Woodrow Wilson as President. He was very concerned. We were talking about national security during a war, and he wanted to arm our merchant ships. He got a bill out of the House of Representatives, and it was rolling toward the Senate. It was near the end of the session, and he took that bill very seriously. He thought it was vital to the national security of the country, and he asked the Senate to act on it. There were about 11 or 12 Senators, I believe, who had decided: We are near the end of the session; let's just run out the clock. There was no procedure to be able to get to the bill before the clock ran out. These 11 Senators took to the floor and they ran out the clock, and Woodrow Wilson said: No way am I going to allow that to happen again. He got a bee in his bonnet on that one. The next Congress that came in, the President said he wanted a rule so that wouldn't happen again. So they put in a rule which was at the time 67 votes in order to cut off debate, and that rule has really been turned on its head with what is happening in recent times. The rule was originally so that a small minority could cut off debate and could proceed to the issue. Now we have calls to the cloakroom, calls to the leadership. You and I don't know what is going on. We don't know why we don't get on an issue. We go on a motion to proceed, and we have a motion to invoke cloture and all these procedural things nobody understands, until people say: Why can't you get on the bill? Well, because the filibuster rule has been turned on its head. That is something people have to understand. We are not using this filibuster rule the traditional way that we used it in the Senate for the purpose it was originally put in. As Senator Merkley pointed out on the motion to proceed--and I wanted to ask one more question about the motion to proceed. You talked about how in 1962 we increasingly started to see obstruction in terms of the motion to proceed. It would prevent bills from getting to the floor. There wasn't any way to get on these bills. It jammed things up. I will never forget the Senator whom I succeeded, Senator Pete Dominici, a solid Republican who believed in the Senate. He came out and said we shouldn't have filibusters on a motion to proceed; we should get right on the bill. I remember several Senators who came in in our class and after--Republican Senators--who said the same thing. So I think there is a lot of room here. I am asking you again, in terms of the motion to proceed and us calling for a bipartisan effort--we should be able, with the people who are here, to either work on a motion to proceed, work on the talking filibuster, or work on a variety of other amendment issues that are crucial. Don't you think this is the time? I just want to make sure before you leave that we make sure there is an invitation from us to 98 other Senators to sit down in some format, whether it is a bipartisan conference or something else, and talk about how we make this place work better and how we make it more democratic.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I have said many times. The Senate is too often a graveyard for good ideas. And the shovel is the broken filibuster. I want to thank Senator Merkley for his remarks about the need to reform the Senate rules. And I want to say a few words myself, because this issue continues to prevent this body from working for the American people. That is why we pushed for reform in the 112th Congress and in the 113th Congress. Some said it was just a power grab by the majority--a partisan push--nothing could be further from the truth. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I think many Republicans are realizing the modern filibuster may need reform. Some of the same people who voted for, or supported, record numbers of filibusters in recent years are now complaining about the filibuster when Democratic Senators use it. Conservative commentators, House Members, and Republican Presidential candidates all are now talking about the filibuster. Several years ago, a number of senior Republican Senators said Senator Merkley and I would step back once we were in the minority. They said we would not try again, but we renewed our fight at the beginning of this Congress. We are in the minority today. We hope that does not last long, but we support filibuster reform--regardless of who is the majority leader. The American people want a government that works. Majorities will change, but the need for responsive government does not--at least it should not. So we will keep pushing for reform that is fair, that reins in abuse, and protects the minority. That was our goal before and that is our goal now. The heart of our proposal is the ``talking filibuster.'' It is simple, it is reasonable, and it makes sense. If you oppose a bill, then go to the floor and explain why. The filibuster was once used sparingly. It allowed the minority to be heard. But under the current rules, it is used too much and too easily. One Senator just needs to notify the floor staff of his or her objection. The American people deserve a real debate, not one Senator picking up a phone. This is not news to our Republican colleagues, who are now in the majority. In the last Congress, we voted on cloture 218 times. To put that in perspective, the Senate voted on cloture only 38 times in the 50 years after the rule was adopted in 1917. Filibuster reform will allow a majority to pass more legislation in the Senate. But as everyone who has served here knows, floor time is a precious commodity. The ability to come to the floor and delay action by debating forces compromise, and most importantly, filibuster reform would apply to both parties equally going forward. If legislation is passed more easily under a reform scenario, it can also be reformed, amended, or repealed more easily. Demanding one party to give up its rights under the rules will never succeed. The solution is to change the rules for both parties going forward on a permanent basis. We made some progress in the last Congress by allowing for simple majority votes for qualified nominees for judicial and Executive appointments, and the Senate is working better. By changing the rules, we confirmed 96 judges--more judges than any modern Congress since 1980. We also confirmed 293 Executive nominations in 2014--the most since 2010. That was an important change. It was bold. It was necessary. And the unprecedented mass obstruction by the new majority of this President's nominees only underscores that we did the right thing last year. But, we still need broader filibuster reform. We said it before, and we will say it again: We can do this with respect for the minority, with respect for differing points of view, and with respect for this Chamber, but most of all with respect for the people who send us here. The right to change the rules at the beginning of a new Congress is supported by history and by the Constitution. Article I, section 5 is very clear. The Senate can adopt and amend its rules at the beginning of a new Congress by a simple majority vote. This is known as the Constitutional Option. It is well named. It has been used numerous times--often with bipartisan support--since the cloture provision was adopted in 1917. We opened the door, as we said we would, at the beginning of this Congress. Our reform proposal remains on the table. The majority leader can bring it up at any time. This is not just about rules. It is about the norms and traditions of the Senate. I support any Senator's right to oppose bad legislation. The filibuster has a role to play. The abuse of the filibuster does not. Our constituents are waiting. There is a lot of work to be done. We need to make sure we get it done, and get it done right. These are commonsense reforms to restore the best traditions of the Senate. Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for obstruction. And no doubt they had their reasons. But most Americans don't care about that. They don't want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair, reasonable, and works no matter which party is in the majority. We changed the process for nominations, and that was a good start, but, it was the beginning, not the end. We still have a lot of work to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to carry on a short colloquy with Senator Merkley or maybe other Senators who could join us and also for as much time as we may consume.

Mr. UDALL. I say to Senator Merkley, I couldn't think of this being a more appropriate time. I think it is fertile ground, and I think it is great that we have come here. The important thing to remember is a point you and I both made in the past, and it has to do with the old movie everybody knows called ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' People always thought the filibuster was as it is portrayed in that movie. You have Mr. Smith coming to Washington, and he is concerned with a passion about an issue, and he thinks he may be in the minority, but he wants to fight it out. He comes to the floor and he speaks about it, and he rallies people outside. Now today, as we know, you don't see that very often. Actually, sometimes what people call a filibuster, we are at the early stage of a motion to proceed before we even get onto the bill. What we are doing is trying to return to ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' What we want to see happen is a talking filibuster where every Senator gets to talk. As you and I know--you have been a real scholar and a student of the Senate in terms of its history--before there was this rule in place on the filibuster, the tradition was always that every Senator had an opportunity to speak. That was a fine Senate tradition. It was established. They didn't have to write it down. Everybody said: We are not going to take any action until we let every Senator speak. The other part of it was just what you talked about in our amendment proposal--allowing Senators to offer amendments. Today we are so far away from that. We have this motion to proceed. We don't even get onto the bill. That causes so much mischief because you have all these procedural things that happen in advance of even getting on the bill. You were a leader in the Oregon Legislature, so I would ask you to just reflect a little on that because you have seen that when you get a bill on the floor, you work on it, you get to amend it, to debate it-- and most of the time when people are working on it, they want to get to the end game, but we are not able to do that. Was that your experience in working in the Oregon Legislature? If you get on the bill, that is half the work right there. And we are blocked here on the motion to proceed and the filibuster on the motion to proceed.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, it bears repeating. Senator Carper is very modest, and he is a humble man, but he has done a lot to help bring us to this point. I think he is one of the Senators here who work the best across the aisle, and that is what has happened. We have had a lot of Senators who have wanted to work across the aisle on this bill. As Senator Carper knows, on the Environment and Public Works Committee, he was joined by Senator Booker, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Merkley in terms of helping to mark up the bill and make it a better product. When the Senator talks about going across the finish line, with 53 cosponsors about evenly divided between Democrat and Republican--I think it is almost exactly even--that sends a signal to our majority leader that this has tremendous support in both caucuses. I believe the Presiding Officer here is on the bill. So everybody standing on the Senate floor right now is on what is a good, bipartisan product. So we are going to work very carefully in the next couple of days to see that attention is brought to this, and hopefully we will have an opportunity to have a debate with amendments and then meet with the House. The House, as Senator Carper knows, has already passed a piece of legislation, I think 378 to 1--1 person in the House opposing it. So we have a bill that is alive and ready to go, and we need to get it out of the Senate so we can conference it with the House and get it to the President's desk for his signature. I don't know if the Senator has any other thoughts on what is the best way to move forward. I mean, obviously we have to be bipartisan, but at this particular point, is it the Senator's sense we are ready to go, from everything he has seen from the Environment and Public Works Committee and these other Senators in various places? Is it ready to go?

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, thank you very much for the recognition. I wish to say to Senator Carper about TSCA that we have been working on--you were one of the early Senators who really cared about this issue. You were involved with it, and you helped it develop. Over time, we did a marvelous thing in terms of improving what Senator Frank Lautenberg had put on the table, bipartisan--he developed a lot of Republican and Democratic support--and you were a key player all the way through. So we know--we think at this point, you and I believe--and we do a lot of visiting around on both sides of the aisle--that this is ready to go. We now have I think 53 cosponsors. We are developing more cosponsors every day, and we don't think there is any real hostility toward the bill in terms of wanting amendments that aren't relevant. That is a key factor for us, and both sides need to focus on that. I would like to express my appreciation to you for what you have done on TSCA to help blend it into and make it into a bipartisan product. We have been trying--you know, it has been very busy with the Pope in town, with the sequester facing us and the shutdown and things such as that. We have been trying to get onto the floor to talk about this, and I think we are going to continue to do that in the future. But it is tremendously important that this gets some floor time now, and I know you have been working on that with me. Do you see this as a product that is better than current law? I mean, my sense is it is much better than the current law.

Mr. UDALL. And let me say again that not only on TSCA, as Senator Carper held, we were going to have speeches earlier in the week, but we were unable, with some of the scheduling issues and everything, to get down here and talk as a group. We had Senator Whitehouse, who was going to come down, and Senator Merkley was going to come down, as well as several of the key members of the Environment and Public Works Committee who played such a big role in terms of moving this bill forward. The person who really kicked this off was Senator Frank Lautenberg. What a star in terms of bipartisanship. I remember working with him when I was on the Environment and Public Works Committee for a long period of time on a very substantive piece of legislation. It was so good, we couldn't find much bipartisanship on it, and he understood that. It got out of the committee. It wasn't ready for prime time here on the floor, and so what we ended up doing was saying we need to go back to square one. Senator Lautenberg took that very seriously. He met with Senator Vitter. Senator Manchin played a role in that, and Senator Manchin was one of the ones who were going to come to the floor to talk, and he played a role in getting them together. As a result, a bipartisan bill came out in the last Congress. That has continued now for almost 2\1/2\ years, and it is a very good product. Madam President, the American people want a government that works, not one that shuts down to send a message. They want a Congress that moves the Nation forward, not one that grinds to a halt. They want a responsible budget that supports working families and strengthens our economy and creates jobs. These should be our priorities, not an attack on women's health care. I understand some people have strong views about a woman's right to choose that are different from mine. There are strong differences of opinion on many important issues in this Senate and in the Congress-- health care, energy, climate change, foreign policy. We could make a very long list. I read an insightful quote the other day from my good friend Republican Senator Lamar Alexander. Senator Alexander said: ``If we had a shutdown every time we had a dispute over a contentious issue, the government would never open.'' I think that is a very wise observation. We do have many differences, but, most importantly, we must have the broader national interest in mind. The clock is ticking. Funding runs out in just a few days. We need a clean continuing resolution, and we need it now--a temporary funding bill just to keep the lights on. Have we forgotten what happened 2 years ago? The people of my home State of New Mexico have not forgotten. We were badly hurt by the shutdown then, and we would be badly hurt by a shutdown now. In Los Alamos and Sandia, our two DOE labs are working on modernizing aging nuclear weapons systems to keep them safe and secure. It is foolish to cause unnecessary disruption to projects of this significance where there is no margin for error. Each of these labs employs thousands of people, many of them scientists at the top of their field. Why would we threaten their paychecks and the important national security work they are doing? We have three Air Force bases in New Mexico--Cannon, Kirtland, and Holloman--all serving a variety of unique national security missions for our country. White Sands Missile Range, unlike any facility in the country, provides critical research and testing for future technologies. Shutdowns and sequestration send a terrible message to the men and women at these facilities. It limits their effectiveness and harms the economies in nearby communities, such as Clovis, Albuquerque, Alamogordo, and Dona Ana County. Shutdowns mean lost jobs and lost revenue, all in the face of a struggling economy. We cannot afford another government shutdown, and we cannot afford a return to sequester cuts. These are bad choices. These are self-inflicted wounds. A clean CR will keep the government open, but we need a long-term cure. We need a bipartisan budget agreement--one that makes smart investments and meets the real needs of American families. The people of my State work hard. Many are still struggling. The economy of New Mexico has not yet recovered completely from the recession. We know New Mexicans want us to come together and push for a stronger recovery. New Mexicans are eager for solutions, and they are tired of these political games that threaten jobs and weaken our economy. Yet here we are once again facing a manufactured crisis. We all know that in fiscal year 2016, which begins next week, the Murray-Ryan budget deal will expire and we will be left with a return to sequestration. As ranking member of the interior subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations, I would like to talk about that today because the impacts of the funding levels required by the Budget Control Act are clear and they are very destructive. Just look at the Senate Interior appropriations bill reported out of the committee in June. To stay within the spending limits we faced under sequestration, it slashes more than $2 billion from the President's budget request. That means it doesn't provide enough funding for basic water infrastructure or to protect our public lands or to fulfill our trust responsibility to American Indians and Alaska Natives. I know my chairman, Senator Murkowski, did the very best she could with the allocation she was given, but here is the reality: The Budget Control Act caps don't meet the needs of our Nation. They fail critical programs. They fail our communities in New Mexico and nationwide. Our Nation faces an infrastructure crisis. Yet the Senate bill cuts grants to States for water and sewer infrastructure by more than $500 million below fiscal year 2015 levels. Actions have consequences, and here are the consequences of the Senate bill: Some 230 communities will not have their water projects funded, 14,000 construction jobs will not be created, and $1 billion in matching and leveraged funds from State partners will be lost. The Senate bill also shortchanges the National Park Service with $318 million less than the President requested. That means 1,000 fewer park rangers. That means $150 million less to maintain our national parks even though the Service will celebrate its centennial in 2016 and will host a record number of visitors at national parks nationwide. We have 15 national parks in New Mexico, including our newest national park, the Valles Caldera National Preserve. These parks and other public lands in my State are critical not only for conservation but for our economy. A shutdown would be a disaster; sequestration is just a slower moving disaster. Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Bandelier National Monument, Tent Rocks National Monument, Bosque Del Apache Wildlife Refuge, and many other sites are key economic assets. These sites help grow jobs, they help communities grow, and they are great conservation assets in communities across the country. We cannot keep asking them to do more and more on less. Yet, without a sensible budget, that is exactly where we are headed in New Mexico and across the Nation. The Senate Interior appropriations bill also cuts more than $300 million from the President's request for the Indian Health Service. We have a solemn trust responsibility to Native Americans, and we are failing. Again, these are not just numbers. The impact is very real and very painful. It means the Indian Health Service will fund 20,000 fewer doctor visits in 2016 and nearly 1,000 fewer hospital stays. It means falling further behind. We need a responsible budget to meet our obligation to the Indian Health Service and other tribal programs, such as housing, school construction, Indian education. All of those are being hurt by this sequestration budget. We cannot continue being shortsighted. We can't keep shortchanging programs that make a real difference in the lives of all Americans. This includes art and cultural programs, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and funding for our national forests and wildlife refuges. And the list goes on and on. The time is now, and we are running out of time. We are on the wrong train, on the wrong track, and going nowhere. Fortunately, there is a solution. Let's pass a clean CR, and let's work together to pass a budget that actually meets the needs of our Nation, with sensible funding levels for defense and nondefense programs alike. Before I wrap up my remarks, I wish to call attention to another deadline that is fast approaching. The authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund will expire on September 30 if this Congress doesn't act. Recently, I was one of 53 Members who called on the leadership of this Chamber to pass an extension of the law, and I want to reiterate that call today. The Land and Water Conservation Fund just celebrated its 50th birthday. It enjoys strong bipartisan support because the idea behind it is so simple and so powerful. When this Nation develops one natural resource--our oil and gas reserves--we invest some of the proceeds in other critical conservation priorities. For five decades now, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected our national parks, forests, and other public lands. It helps ensure hunting, fishing, and recreational access, and it improves and expands our local parks and recreation facilities. The program has been a tremendous success and has had a tremendous impact on my State, from urban refuges--such as the Valle de Oro--to wide open preserves such as the Valles Caldera. It provides crucial funding to preserve open spaces, strengthen the economy, and enhance our way of life. LWCF allows us to leverage today's resources to protect vital lands and waters for future generations. Allowing the law to expire breaks that compact. It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't have to happen. We shouldn't let the Land and Water Conservation Fund expire, even for a single day. I call on this Chamber to act swiftly to permanently authorize this important program and ensure that it is fully funded. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Senator. I wish you Godspeed on that train headed to Wilmington because you have a wonderful wife.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my State Department fellow, Andreea Paulopol, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, just to clarify, the bill that it is being paired with is S. 1523. It is a bipartisan bill in the same committee. The proposal to pair them has come from the committee chairman, Chairman Inhofe. So that is the reason for the pairing. They are both sitting in the EPW Committee. The chairman believes this is the way to proceed. That is the state of play as it is right now. I would say that with all due respect to my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today we are considering a diplomatic agreement about the future of a nuclear-armed Iran. Most of us in this body have strong opinions about that agreement. Some believe it will weaken our position. I believe the opposite, and I have come to the floor to express my support. Republican and Democratic Presidents have all at times used the tools of diplomacy. Those efforts made us stronger and in some cases brought us back from the brink of nuclear disaster. President Reagan negotiated disarmament with the Soviet Union. President Nixon reengaged with China. President Kennedy used diplomacy--not war--to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. These were heroic initiatives. In each case, they were attacked for weakness, and in each case they made us safer. I begin my remarks with the power of diplomacy because I want to echo points Senator Durbin made so well last week. I urge my colleagues to review his remarks, to better understand the history and importance of diplomacy in our country. None of the historical deals we reference was perfect. All were fiercely attacked. But they made the world a safer place. They moved us forward. And this agreement will also move us forward. When it comes to our relationship with Iran, there is much we need to do, but there is one thing we must do: Stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, period. That is our priority. That is our goal. And that is what we all agree on. The sanctions did what they were intended to do--they brought Iran to the table and enabled our diplomats to effectively stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. The results are clear: multiple centrifuges--ready to be disconnected; uranium levels--insufficient for a nuclear weapon or a quick breakout; and no access to plutonium. This is a historic moment. This agreement has profound impact if we approve it and, make no mistake, if we fail to approve it, because let's be clear on one reality: This is a multilateral agreement. It was confirmed by the U.N. Security Council just last week. The sanctions regime cannot be sustained by U.S. action alone. This is a time for careful review, and I hope we can take a step back and take a clear view. In this debate, we need to consider three basic points of the agreement: No. 1, what it does; No. 2, what it does not do; and No. 3, what it will require of us in the future. I wish to start by talking about what this agreement does. To build a nuclear weapon, we need either weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, and we need infrastructure. Those are the pathways, and this agreement will block them all. Before the negotiations began, Iran was well on its way to enough uranium, enriched to nearly 20 percent, for breakout to weapons grade-- possibly within 2 to 3 months. With this agreement, the breakout time would increase to 1 year, giving the United States and the international community more than enough time to respond. Under this deal, Iran's uranium stockpile is cut by 98 percent. I will repeat. This is a surprising development. Under this deal, Iran's uranium stockpile is cut by 98 percent. Enrichment is limited to 3.67 percent for 15 years. Centrifuges are reduced by two-thirds. Enrichment capability at the Fordow facility will also be limited and closely watched. The International Atomic Energy Agency will be able to verify that Iran is abiding by its uranium limits by monitoring every stage of the nuclear supply chain. Plutonium will be blocked. The reactor core at Arak is a heavy water reactor and can produce plutonium. The core will be removed. Its openings will be filled with concrete in a way that the IAEA can verify--those international inspectors can verify--so it will not be used for plutonium application. Critics rightly ask: How will we be sure? Iran has cheated before, and they may cheat again. That is why the P5+1 will be closely involved in the redesign and rebuilding of this reactor. If it has plutonium, we will know it. A modernized reactor will not use heavy water and will be limited to 3.67 percent enriched uranium. A violation at Arak would be nearly impossible to hide. It doesn't stop there. Iran will have to abide by and ratify the additional protocol of the nonproliferation treaty before the deal is finalized. Contrary to detractors, this is not an 8-year or 10-year or 15-year deal but a deal that lasts. We all agree on one thing: Verification is key. I don't think any of us have any illusions here. Iran has had a long and troubling history of deception. I am pleased the administration included Secretary of Energy Moniz in these discussions. The Department of Energy is one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Any agreement on nuclear weapons must be guided by science--not politics, not speculation, science. Our scientists at New Mexico's two National Labs, Los Alamos and Sandia, and scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories--all have played a key role in these negotiations. The physics of nuclear weapons is complex. You can't make a bomb out of thin air. I have met with our scientists. I have listened to the experts at the Department of Energy. Iran may be able to break the rules of the deal, but it can't break the rules of physics. Nuclear materials give off telltale signatures. The radioactive decay of uranium and plutonium is detectable even in the event of delayed access. Uranium in nature has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Enriched uranium 235, which can be used in a weapon, has a half-life of 700 million years. In effect, you can delay, but you still can't hide. Verification will be strong, and that means continuous monitoring, it means tamper-proof electronic seals, and it means dedicated facilities to inspect the Iranian nuclear program. It will include up to 150 inspectors with long-term visas. We will have the best inspectors in the world in Iran. They will have unprecedented access 24/7 to all declared sites. I would add that they are all trained by nuclear experts at our National Laboratories. I may not trust Iran, but I do trust the science and our National Laboratories. This is a serious debate and one of the greatest challenges of our time. This agreement will meet that challenge ongoing and for years to come. But let's not kid ourselves. There are other challenges. There are continued dangers posed by the Iranian regime. We all know this. That is why sanctions against Iran's support for terrorist groups will remain and we will stand by our allies in the region. The President has made this very clear. This agreement will take the nuclear threat off the table. That is what it will do, but here is what it will not do: It will not diminish our resolve to combat other threats or to defend our allies in the region. That resolve will be and must be stronger than ever. To my colleagues who argue that we should walk away from the agreement which has already been approved by the world's leading powers, I would ask, walk away to where, to what end, to what alternative? Has an alternative been proposed? I would make two proposals: First, I urge my colleagues to support this agreement. We have a choice between this deal or no deal. I do not believe we will get another chance. Second, I ask that we be open to ways that Congress can reinforce the agreement--and that should be part of this process, too--with investment in people and technology to support nonproliferation enforcement with strong oversight of the implementation plan--not to embarrass or score political points but to ensure Iran is abiding by its part of the deal--and with increased support for our allies in the region and with a clear provision for a quick snapback of existing sanctions should that be necessary. We have a strategic opportunity, just as Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan did with adversaries in the past. We need to act now from a position of strength and not wait until another day when the danger may be greater and our options may be more limited. I began my remarks with a reference to history. I would conclude with one other, closer in time and devastating in consequence, and that is Iraq. Instead of exhausting our diplomatic options, we opted for war. Instead of measured resistance, we opted for regime change. The result was and is tragic. Diplomacy takes time. It is often imperfect. But there are times when it is our best option and our best course, and this is one of those times. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Michigan.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, with great respect for my colleague from Oregon, I object. But I object because there is an additional bipartisan proposal that is out there and another unanimous consent request where this bill is paired with another bill. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 212 and S. 1523 I ask unanimous consent that the EPW Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 212, a bill to provide for the assessment and management of the risk of algal toxins in drinking water, and S. 1523, a bill to reauthorize the National Estuary Program; further, that the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration en bloc; that the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bills and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, 70 years ago today, the first atomic bomb was exploded at the Trinity test site in New Mexico. For our Nation, it was the beginning of the nuclear age. For the residents of the Tularosa Basin, it was also the beginning--of great suffering, of generations of cancer and chronic illness. Seven decades later, their suffering continues and so does their fight for justice. Windows rattled hundreds of miles away. The people of Tularosa saw radioactive debris fall from the sky, not knowing what it was. The fallout killed cattle, and poisoned water, food, and the air. The damage was done. The destruction was real, and so is the sadness, disappointment, and anger. That is very real too. The Tularosa Basin Downwinders have not forgotten. They rightly ask that we not forget, either. I met with them and their families earlier this month in Tularosa, and they told me their stories, some of which I will share today. Henry Herrera was just 11 years old at the time of the blast. He is now 81. He remembers: I heard a very large blast and saw a very big flash of light. I got so scared I thought the world was coming to an end. He himself is a cancer survivor. He told me: I'm the only one alive to tell about it. Everyone else has died of cancer. Edna Hinkle recalled so many in her family that had cancer, one after the other--aunts, uncles, cousins, mother, sister, and herself. She said: ``My oldest daughter . . . says it's not a matter of if you get cancer, it's a matter of when.'' Marjie Trujillo told me that of nine members of her family, six have cancer, and three died from it. The loss is tragic and so is the frustration. She said: ``Many in our community feel our government has turned a deaf ear to our health issues.'' I also heard from Virginia Duran. She was born in Tularosa in 1940 and lived on Padilla Lane. She told me that on the street where she lived, at least 10 people have had cancer. That is just one block. Many families from the Tularosa Basin know this loss and pain. Nora Foltz is 71 years old. She is the only sibling of five who doesn't have cancer. Her sister, Helen Guerra, is 81 years old. Helen was diagnosed with kidney cancer 17 years ago. Helen's daughter Lupe had multiple illnesses and chronic pain and died at the age of 62. There are so many stories--far too many stories--like this. As Gloria Herrera said, the Tularosa community has ``shed enough tears to fill a lake.'' It was my privilege to meet with these survivors. Their stories are courageous and troubling, but most troubling of all is the people who were not there, who were not able to speak, and those who have passed away over the last seven decades. We all speak for them now, and we will keep on speaking until justice is done. The Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium is doing critical work. They are organizing the community, telling their stories, and making sure people listen and understand what happened. Tina Cordova is one of the many great advocates who are dedicated, committed, and refusing give up. Tina summed up the feelings of many when she told me: ``We were the unknown, unwilling guinea pigs in the world's greatest experiment.'' I agree with Tina and the members of the consortium. Theirs is a tragic story. They suffered so that we could develop bombs and win wars. That is why I have again pushed for legislation with my colleagues--Senator Crapo and several others--to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and finally recognize the Trinity site and include New Mexicans who have suffered for decades. They deserve justice, they deserve compensation, and they are still waiting 70 years later. We can't change the years that have passed, nor can we erase the years of illness and the pain endured by too many for too long, but fair compensation will make a difference and will provide badly needed help. It took many years to create the original RECA Program. My father helped to lay the groundwork. He devoted many years to fighting in the courts for men, women, and children who were sick because they had lived downwind during nuclear tests. They were exposed to dangerous radiation. They should have been helped but were ignored instead. I remember going with him to meet folks in St. George, UT, in 1978. I was just out of law school. There were about 40 or 50 survivors there. They loved their country and trusted their government. They were hesitant to speak out. They did not seek special treatment, but they were wounded people. Caught in the fallout of the nuclear age, they had a right to be heard. My dad heard them, and he demanded that others hear them as well. He fought for them until the end of his life at 90 years old, first in the courts and then in the Congress. He worked with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch--an unlikely match if ever there were one--and they kept pushing. President H.W. Bush signed RECA into law 25 years ago in 1990. It was a bipartisan bill. It was driven by simple fairness and it was a historic step forward, but it left some folks behind, including the Downwinders in the Tularosa Basin. My dad would not give up, the families he worked with would not give up, and we won't give up either. Our bill expands the downwind exposure area to include seven States from the Trinity and Nevada test sites, and it also includes Guam from the Pacific site. It would also allow compensation for post-1971 uranium workers and fund a critical public health study for those who live and work in uranium development communities. I will continue to push for this legislation. It is the right thing to do, and we should get it done, which is why I will again join my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to the Judiciary Committee to request a hearing on this important bill. Many families in New Mexico have been hurt, and they worry there is more harm to come. When I was in Tularosa this month, I spoke with a woman named Louisa Lopez. Her husband has mantle cell lymphoma. They know at least 17 other people who have cancer or who have died from it. She said, ``We fear passing this on to our children, future grandchildren, and other generations.'' This weekend, there will be a candlelight vigil in Tularosa. Folks will gather, as they do every year now. They will stand together as candles flicker in the warm New Mexico night. They will remember those who have been brought down by cancer and other radiation-related diseases. They will remember those who have passed away. They will remember that a wrong was done and has yet to be righted. And they will offer prayers and support for those who continue to struggle. Rosemary Cordova told me in Tularosa: We can't bring back those we've lost, but we can support those still suffering. All we're asking is that our government face up to the wrong that has been done . . . that someday soon our government will do what should [have] been done long ago. It takes courage to speak out. It takes courage to speak truth to power. These folks are heroes, and on this 70th anniversary, I want to say to them: Thank you. Thank you for making your voices heard. Thank you for making your stories known. And thank you for refusing to give up. I will not give up, either. Together, we will keep working for fairness, and the day will come when we can stand together in Tularosa and light the candles of remembrance and finally say justice has been done. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. 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, Nelson Mandela once said there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way it treats its children. Every child deserves a fair chance. If we fail at taking care of our children, we fail at everything else. So the stakes are high as we work to reform the No Child Left Behind Act. Too many children are left behind. The Every Child Achieves Act is a step forward. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Murray for working so hard on this bill. It is bipartisan, and it is an opportunity for real progress in educating our children. My dad used to say get it done, but get it done right. When we say ``every child succeeds,'' we have to mean it--every child, including those in the poorest and most vulnerable communities. That is what we must do. This is the bill we must pass. I am cautiously optimistic, but I would remind my colleagues, we cannot keep playing catchup. I have met with child well-being experts in New Mexico and across the Nation. They are very clear. Early intervention is key. For too many children, there are too many hurdles and too little hope. Our commitment has to begin early and has to stay the course. In New Mexico, almost one in three children lives in poverty. One in five goes to bed hungry. We are ranked next to last in education, last in overall child well-being. That is absolutely unacceptable. The future of my State, for our children and for our economy, depends on changing it. Earlier this year, I introduced the Saving Our Next Generation Act for full funding for programs that work, that work on a daily basis, work in our communities for critical prenatal care, and for Healthy Start and Head Start. Too little too late doesn't work. The result is wasted opportunity and continued failure. Children need to arrive at school ready to learn and able to realize their full potential. That is why I also emphatically support Senator Casey's strong start amendment for pre-K education for every child. Early learning is critical. Senator Casey's amendment would expand and improve those opportunities for children from birth to age 5. We need to ensure all students get the same opportunities. I have introduced an amendment that provides support for Native American schools. The Bureau of Indian Education functions as a State education agency and has 50,000 students in it, but it is not funded as one. It often loses out on grants and other Federal funding. We have to change that. Both sides have worked to improve this bill. I am pleased it has several measures that I have long fought for. For example, healthy children are an investment in our future. Their health education should be a priority, not an afterthought. The bill includes my amendment to make health a core subject. In addition, we know that too many students, especially in minority communities, are not graduating. In my State, one-fifth of high school students drop out every year. Many who drop out are teen parents. My amendment provides critical support to these students. We need to do all we can to help them stay in school and to raise healthy children while they do so. The Every Child Achieves Act strengthens STEM education, financial literacy, rural school districts, and 21st century community learning centers. It ensures that tribal leaders can teach native languages in their schools--something I have long pushed for. It also supports vital school and community public-private partnerships. These are much needed reforms and will make a difference to children and families in my State. Our goal is clear: to reach all students, especially those who need the most support to succeed in school. In New Mexico, three out of four of our schools are title I schools. They face great challenges. Many students are low income. Many have special needs. We have to make sure they have the resources they need. This has to be a priority, and it starts with good teachers. We aren't going to recruit great teachers--especially in schools with the greatest need--if we unfairly punish those teachers for poor student performance. There has to be flexibility, especially early on. Our first obligation is to students--all students. We are accountable to them and their parents, and we need to keep applying pressure, while providing support, to States and school districts to ensure that truly no child is left behind. But we can't just test for failure; we need to plan for success. We should build on what works and leave behind what doesn't. But don't leave behind good students or those teachers who dedicate their lives to helping them. Now is the time for reform--to ensure that standards are strong and, if not met, efforts are in place to help those students, to make sure parents and teachers know how students are performing every year, and to give States and school districts the support to succeed. Let's be clear. We face troubling and chronic achievement and opportunity gaps. Every school must address this and be held accountable. Now is the time to address resource inequities. Now is the time to invest in what works. Now is the time to make sure we are not taking resources away from students, schools, and districts with the greatest need. Parents deserve to know that when children fall behind, their schools will take action and that we have the resources to do so. But it isn't just schools that must act. So must we act--the Congress, parents, and communities. We all have a stake in this, and we share the same goal--to protect at-risk students, to provide accountability for taxpayer funds, and to make sure that every child has a fair chance. I want to again commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for bringing this legislation to the floor. Working together we can provide all students with the education they need. With that, 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.