Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition, and I thank Senator Merkley very much for yielding. I have been here on the floor, listening to Senators Kaine and Merkley, and I saw Senator Cardin speaking earlier from my office. We can see that for many of us who sat through these hearings and heard the answers, it didn't give us a lot of confidence that Rex Tillerson was going to be able to step in and be the top diplomat for the United States of America. So I join in all the comments that have been made earlier. I want to talk about one of the issues that has developed over the last couple of days and that really has bearing on this. For the last century, the United States has led the world stage. We are the inspiration for countless nations as they nurture hopeful democracies-- democracies that respect human rights and individual liberties. We are a nation of freedom, where men and women can work hard, build a happy, healthy life, and live the American dream. That is what makes President Trump's anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant actions last week so repugnant. I believe his actions violate the Constitution. They also violate everything we stand for as a country. Turning our backs on refugees and those seeking a better life doesn't project strength. It shows weakness. It fuels anti-American rage around the world. Our Nation doesn't punish innocent people because of what they believe and who they pray to. We don't slam the door in the faces of those who need help the most. I call on all of us, especially my colleagues across the aisle, to denounce this action and the people behind it. I am relieved that Federal judges around the nation are blocking the President's unconstitutional order, and I am also very proud of our strong constitutional system of checks and balances. I can't express adequately how proud I am of Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General who was fired by President Trump. Now you have to know something about her. This is a very courageous person who stood up and did the right thing. Sally Yates is a career prosecutor. She has served as a U.S. attorney in the U.S. attorney's office under Democrats and Republicans--a career prosecutor. When she was put up for a vote in the Senate, she got 84 votes when she was approved for Deputy Attorney General of the United States. This is someone who understands what is going on, understands the Constitution, and understands her legal obligations. She stood up and said that she wasn't going to represent in court the President on this Muslim ban, and he fired her. He fired her. These kinds of actions are disturbing. They are un-American acts, and they are the most urgent reason I rise today to state that I cannot support confirming Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson was qualified to run ExxonMobil. Exxon was his first job out of college, and the only company he worked for during his 40-year career in the oil and gas industry. There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson, as CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, was 100 percent committed to making sure the best interests of the company's shareholders were served. But with no diplomatic experience or history of public service, I am not confident that Mr. Tillerson is qualified to serve as the United States' chief diplomat. After studying his work and studying the history and his responses at the confirmation hearing and looking at his answers in writing, I do not believe that Mr. Tillerson is able to commit 100 percent to serving the best interests of the American people. Negotiating the complexities of oil and gas deals is not the same as negotiating the complexities of treaties and agreements with foreign governments. ExxonMobil's top priority is profit. That is its reason for existence. Leaders negotiate business deals over money and access to resources. The United States and the American people have different priorities--sometimes conflicting priorities. Our Nation is economically successful, for sure, and we value business and we value making money, but our core values go way beyond economics. We value representative government, we value human rights, and we value freedom of speech. We value the four freedoms that President Roosevelt talked about when we entered into international agreements to spread the four freedoms around the world. An incoming Secretary of State should not be learning on the job. He or she should already have substantial relevant experience. He or she should already have proven experience fighting for our Nation's core values, for human rights. Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he lacks substantive foreign policy experience and knowledge. He told the committee many times that he was not familiar with the issues at hand or needed briefing. He must have said that a number of times. As just one example, Mr. Tillerson was unfamiliar with Russia's role in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Syria. He had no opinion of the legality of the slaughter under international law. These are some of the most important, most urgent foreign policy matters we face, but he was unprepared to answer them. Like Senators on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned about Mr. Tillerson's close personal business ties to the Russian Government. I am concerned about those. They may color his view of Russia. He has been long friends with Vladimir Putin. He has a highly profitable relationship with Igor Sechin, the head of the state-owned oil company Rosneft. I worry that these ties make it difficult or maybe even impossible for him to objectively evaluate Russia's actions and to act in America's best interests. Are his close ties to Russia why he does not condemn Russia's actions in Syria? We cannot be sure. Mr. Tillerson also will not confirm whether he will advocate maintaining sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea. We know that the sanctions also continue to cost ExxonMobil because it is not able to drill for oil in Russia's Arctic. Will Mr. Tillerson not commit to maintaining sanctions because of his ties to Russia? We cannot be sure. In a third example, Mr. Tillerson would not commit to sanctions against Russia for its interference in our Presidential election. He said he didn't have enough information. Well, every U.S. security agency--all 17 of them--has concluded that the Russian Government hacked the Democratic National Committee, disclosed email from the hack from getting in there, and tried to influence our election. They agreed that these actions were authorized at the highest levels of the Russian Government, with fingers pointing right at Vladimir Putin. The intelligence community's public reports stated it this way: We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump-- Now President Trump-- We have high confidence in these judgments. So 17 of our intelligence agencies pooled together all of their information, and they had high confidence in what they concluded there. Mr. Tillerson had adequate information to make a strong statement against this attack, against this hacking, and in favor of American democracy. He did not make such a statement. We must have a Secretary of State whose allegiance is 100 percent committed to U.S. interests. Mr. Tillerson's equivocating testimony on Russia did not convince me that he can be counted on to serve America's interests and America's interests only. Mr. Tillerson's equivocations mirror the Republicans' record on Russian interference in our democracy. While the President has plans to dismantle the post-World War II international order, Republicans have done nothing to address Russia's attempt to dismantle our democracy. I was also unsatisfied by Mr. Tillerson's answers on climate change. While he acknowledges the existence of climate change, he testified that ``our ability to predict that effect is very limited'' and that what action to take ``seems to be the largest area of debate existing in the public discourse.'' That is not what the overwhelming majority of scientists tell us. Our ability to predict what is happening to the planet's climate is not ``very limited,'' and there is international consensus written into the Paris Agreement as to what actions nations agree they must take. Scientists from all over the world have joined together through the United Nations and said that climate change is real and we have to take specific actions. I appreciated that Rex Tillerson at least said that he believes the United States should remain at the table, but he questioned a key part of the Paris Agreement: the nationally determined contribution, or what is called the NDC. Without the NDC from the United States, the agreement is likely to fall apart, and his claimed support for the Paris Agreement becomes meaningless. I cannot be clearer: Ignoring the threat of climate change is a direct threat to the United States. We have heard other Senators talk about the threat to their States, and it is a direct threat to my home State of New Mexico. While President Trump may be trying to quiet our climate scientists, the science is clear. Climate change is real. We just finished the hottest year in recorded history. We know we must act, and we know there will be devastating impacts if the United States does not lead on this issue. No matter what one believes about science or foreign policy, we should all be alarmed at the lack of transparency in the new administration, especially the unwillingness of our President and key Cabinet members to be open and honest with taxpayers about their finances and potential conflicts. While Mr. Tillerson has divested from ExxonMobil, we still don't have copies of his tax returns. Mr. Tillerson's ties to ExxonMobil are decades old. Yet he has said he will recuse himself from matters related to ExxonMobil for only 1 year. For only 1 year will he recuse himself. He has worked for this company his entire life. He should refrain from taking calls from his old company for as long as he serves as Secretary of State. He is serving the country. He is serving in a taxpayer-funded job. I don't understand why he cannot agree to this simple standard to avoid the appearance of any conflict. If he deals favorably with ExxonMobil, how can the American people know he is working for us or for his former employer, which made him an extremely wealthy man? But most concerning to me is whether Mr. Tillerson will be able to speak truth to power. We have just seen this weekend how vital that will be in this administration, where it appears that there is no unifying vision, and different factions of President Trump's Cabinet are competing for his attention. We need a leader with a clear vision for America's role in the world, someone who will put American values ahead of everything else. Too many times, when pressed during his confirmation hearing about U.S. interests and values, Mr. Tillerson did not give straight answers. On questions such as human rights violations in the Philippines and Syria, he did not call out these offenses for what they were. On questions about whether we should maintain sanctions against Russia for illegally invading Crimea or for interfering with our electoral process, he deferred; he wavered; he said he would decide at a later date when he can be briefed or meet with the President. If Mr. Tillerson can't give straight answers, from the heart, about the most pressing human rights issues, on violations of international law, on a foreign power's interference with our Presidential election, how can we expect him to speak up and temper the worst angels in the Trump administration? If Mr. Tillerson were the nominee for a more conventional Republican President, these concerns would not be as serious. But I think every Senator can agree that Donald Trump is not a conventional President. He is offending allies and upending alliances on a nearly daily basis. He has made negative statements about the German Chancellor's domestic policies. He is threatening to extort the Mexican Government to pay for an offensive and ineffective wall on America's southern border. He has repeatedly questioned NATO, the fundamental alliance that has secured peace between major powers since World War II. He is threatening to slash funding for the United Nations, including the World Health Organization, which fights global pandemics. While addressing employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, standing in front of a wall honoring professionals who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, President Trump threatened to take Iraq's oil--that he wanted to take another look at taking Iraq's oil-- and he said: ``To the victor go the spoils.'' This is a line attributed to Julius Caesar, who decreed himself Emperor. He began rattling the saber with China before he was sworn in. The President has done all of this while repeatedly praising Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and proposing to improve relations there, while making them worse nearly everywhere else. This weekend, he closed America's doors to Muslim refugees trying to escape the very evil our government is fighting against. He not only closed the doors to people who believe in our democratic institutions and the freedoms we enjoy, he closed the doors to people who have risked their lives in service of our ideals. These are not normal changes in foreign policy between administrations. I would change many aspects of U.S. foreign policy if I could. But President Trump's approach to foreign policy so far is one of reckless change that is frankly scaring the American public and our allies around the world. In such a foreign policy environment, we need experienced, skilled hands, people who understand these allies and who understand our longstanding alliances and why we have them. But the President has fired all U.S. Ambassadors, and most high-level State Department employees have resigned or been forced out. Mr. Tillerson, there is no doubt, is a talented businessman. He loves his country. He has devoted himself to other worthy causes, like the Boy Scouts. It is no exaggeration to say that the post-World War II international order is under attack by the President, endangering U.S. leadership in the world. As a result, our national security and place in the world are threatened like never before. During such tenuous times, we need a leader as our chief diplomat who is prepared to take the reins and calm the waters. But I do not have confidence that Mr. Tillerson has the experience, knowledge, values, or temperament to stand up to the President, to be a voice of reason, or to moderate the President's extreme views and actions. For these reasons, I oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation as Secretary of State, and I urge my fellow Members, including those who claimed the mantle of President Reagan, to do the same. I know my good friend Senator Markey, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is here on the floor, as well as Senator Coons, another member of the committee, and I think both of them will speak on the Tillerson nomination. I yield to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of Congressman Mike Pompeo as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I respect Congressman Pompeo's background and service to our Nation. However, I strongly believe that his positions on at least three key issues undermine his qualifications to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. First, he has supported broad surveillance programs that allow the government to spy on the American people--programs that were far- reaching, invasive, and violated law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights to privacy. These programs were hastily passed as a part of the PATRIOT Act in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I was one of only 66 Members in the House of Representatives to vote against the PATRIOT Act. Since then, we have learned through reviews by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as well as the unauthorized disclosure of programs by Edward Snowden, that these programs did go too far. There is no doubt about it. They did go too far. The government collected massive amounts of personal cell phone information, with no probable or reasonable cause to justify the collection, and the PATRIOT Act was used to obtain hotel records, car rental records, apartment leasing records, credit card records, and other personal information. While the government collected personal information from innocent Americans, there is no credible evidence that it made us more secure. The majority of the American people opposed the surveillance program. They understood it went too far and violated our basic American right to privacy. So Congress responded and passed the USA FREEDOM Act-- bipartisan legislation to rein in the surveillance programs. Congressman Pompeo was skeptical of the USA FREEDOM Act, and he introduced his own bill to resume and expand the spying programs. I believe in strong national security, and I have consistently supported our military and our National Labs to ensure that we have the strongest and most effective defense in the world. However, in the United States of America, we protect national security and our constitutional rights. The United States is not a police State. The U.S. Constitution protects us from overreaching invasions of our privacy. Congress struck an appropriate balance in the USA FREEDOM Act between security and civil liberties. I hope the new administration will not try to return to mass surveillance programs that don't work, aren't supported by the American people, and invade our civil liberties. Second, Congressman Pompeo's views on torture are deeply concerning. He has stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation programs used by the CIA in the Bush administration ``were within the law'' and ``within the Constitution.'' That is his quote, ``were within the law'' and ``within the Constitution.'' They were not. They violated Federal law prohibiting torture, and they violated the U.N. Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions--treaties the United States signed and that became Federal law. Programs of torture were a stain on our Nation's history and contrary to our value as Americans. Beyond the legality of these programs, any CIA Director must understand that the use of torture is ineffective. It yields bad intelligence, which makes it harder for our analysts to do their jobs. The Senate Intelligence Committee's 6,000-page classified report, issued in December 2014, concludes: ``The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees.'' This finding is from the publicly available executive summary from the report. On key national security issues, like the use of torture, the new administration's top appointees must speak with one voice. Secretary of Defense Mattis has disavowed the use of torture. His many years of experience, training, and leading troops have taught him that torture does not work. Americans go to war--and risk and sacrifice their lives--to preserve our deeply held values. We cannot be engaged in conduct antithetical to those values at the same time. We must lead by example. Finally, if America uses torture, we have no moral authority to stop foreign countries or terrorists from torturing Americans. We can never give implicit license to others to brutalize our soldiers. President Obama banned the use of torture in 2009. Again, I hope we will not be forced into debate about whether to return to the use of inhumane interrogation techniques that don't work and that undermine what we stand for as a nation. Third, Congressman Pompeo has expressed that the Guantanamo Bay detention center should remain open, and he has said he believes detainees can be imprisoned indefinitely. The continued use of Guantanamo Bay prison and indefinite detention are at odds with our Nation's commitment to human rights and rule of law. There is no place in America's traditions under the Constitution and under international norms for indefinite detention without trial or adjudication. Guantanamo Bay hurts America's standing around the world, it is a recruiting tool for terrorists, and it is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Again, we must strike an appropriate balance between national security and America's fundamental principles. We cannot take actions to preserve American values that at the same time are opposite those very same values. Finally, Congressman Pompeo's views on Muslims are troubling. He has stated that Muslim leaders are ``potentially complicit'' in acts of terrorism if they don't condemn it. Muslim leaders around the world have condemned extremists' violence. Muslims around the world strongly condemn such acts. Accusing Muslim leaders of complicity and acts of terrorism that they have nothing to do with, that they oppose, is not acceptable speech from a Director of a national security agency. In conclusion, I want to underscore that I have nothing but respect for the men and women who work in the Central Intelligence Agency. They are true patriots who work hard every day, at personal risk, to keep our Nation secure. These patriots deserve a leader who will keep our Nation secure and secure our Nation's basic values. In defense of America, in the name of national security, we must protect Americans' constitutional rights, the rule of law, and human rights. I believe Congressman Pompeo's views do not hold with American values. His positions will not keep America safe. I think they could undermine our security. For these reasons, I must oppose Congressman Pompeo's nomination as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I voted against the confirmation of General John Kelly to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I have deep concerns about the homeland security policies that President Trump advocated during the campaign, and I worry that as Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly will feel it necessary to work to advance those reckless policies. For instance, General Kelly was unable to promise the Senate that the administration will refrain from deporting our nation's DREAMers, and I am troubled by his stated plans to reverse the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, DACA, program. Furthermore, General Kelly did not provide sufficient assurance that he fully opposes the President's wasteful and misguided plan for a border wall. However, now that he has been confirmed, it is my hope that Secretary Kelly will be the voice of reason in the deliberations to shape the Trump administration's homeland security policy and that many of the reckless ideas candidate Trump espoused during the election will never become reality. While I voted against General Kelly, I recognize and appreciate his long and distinguished career in the marines. I believe this experience, particularly his final assignment as head of the U.S. Southern Command, will serve him well. In addition, I am encouraged by several statements General Kelly made during his confirmation hearing-- statements that are at odds with the dangerous comments President Trump made during the campaign. At the hearing, General Kelly spoke out against the use of torture and said the U.S. should always abide by the Geneva Conventions. He did state that building a wall along the southern border was not an effective way to secure the border, though he has not promised to oppose such a plan. He agreed with the intelligence community's assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking into our elections. He said that surveilling mosques and targeting Muslims as security threats was unacceptable. Finally, he said the sweeping collection of data on Americans violated the right to privacy and a much more focused effort is needed. General Kelly has a reputation for speaking truth to power--I sincerely hope he does so as a member of the Cabinet, and I hope the President will listen. New Mexico is a majority-minority border State with thousands of hard-working families now living in fear of President Trump's immigration plans. Unfortunately, I am deeply concerned that General Kelly will be the instrument of the President's harmful and backwards homeland security agenda.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, Gen. Jim Mattis is an extraordinary individual and an American patriot who has dedicated his life to service of country. Nevertheless, his nomination did concern me, given that it was contrary to underlying law that has been in place since World War II. This law restricts individuals who have come out of the military less than 7 years ago from serving as Secretary of Defense. The reason for this longstanding law is to ensure civilian control over the military. Civilian control is an important American tradition which General Mattis himself called a ``fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.'' Due to this fundamental concern, I opposed the legislation to create an exception to the law to allow General Mattis to serve. I intend to oppose any future such exceptions for any future President as long as I serve in the Senate. However, now that the exception exists for General Mattis, and he is eligible to serve and has been nominated, I supported his confirmation today. During his confirmation hearing, he clearly stressed that he understood his new role and would work to ensure the longstanding American tradition of civilian control. He will serve at the pleasure of the new President, but his job now is not to simply give and follow orders, but provide candid advice, ask tough questions, provide civilian leadership, and exert broad management over all aspects of DOD, not only warfighting. During his career in the U.S. Marines he has distinguished himself both in combat and at home, earning the respect of his fellow marines as well as servicemembers in every branch of the military. He has also held his marines and anyone serving with him to the highest of standards, emphasizing commitment to duty and the importance of learning and perfecting their profession. While I voted against a waiver for him to serve as Secretary of Defense, I in no way can oppose him on the merits now that the waiver has been approved. My vote on the waiver was no way a reflection of my support for his qualifications, but a vote which I felt was important to maintain the tradition of civilian control of the military, an important American tradition which General Mattis himself called a ``fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.'' As Secretary of Defense, he will be charged with the important task of providing civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, the largest agency in our country, and the one tasked with our national defense. New Mexico plays an outsized role in these efforts, beginning with our national labs, that maintain our nuclear weapons and play an important role in multiple defense efforts. In addition, New Mexico is home to three Air Force bases. Kirtland Air Force Base, one of the most diverse in the country, not only plays a lead role in managing our nuclear weapons, but is both the home of state of the art Air Force Research Lab facilities and AFSOC's premier training wing--the 58th Special Operations Wing. Cannon Air Force Base, home of the 27th Special Operations Wing, is at the tip of the spear in our efforts to counter terrorist threats to the United States. Holloman Air Force Base, which was recently selected to receive additional F- 16s, continues a proud tradition of training our future F-16 pilots. Furthermore, White Sands Missile Range, which is utilized by all our services, is the premier testing facility in the country. Finally, New Mexico also shares the Army's Ft. Bliss with our neighbor El Paso. I would encourage Secretary Mattis to visit New Mexico as soon as possible to learn more about how New Mexico supports our Nation's military. I am proud to support them and our many veterans who have made New Mexico their home.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Mr. UDALL. I vote no--

Mr. UDALL.--because this will hurt the citizens of New Mexico and the Republicans have no plan--no plan.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise, along with Senator Warren and my other colleagues this evening, to oppose this action by President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans to take health care away from tens of thousands of New Mexicans. Let me be clear. What President-Elect Trump and Republicans are doing now will throw health care into chaos. It is reckless. It will hurt thousands of New Mexicans and millions of Americans. The worst part is, the Republicans have no plan to replace care they will take away. The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law. I have always said we should work to improve it. It has helped thousands of people in my home State of New Mexico. Before we passed the Affordable Care Act, New Mexico had a high rate of people without health insurance. It was one of the highest in our region and in the country. Since 2010, that number has gone down 44 percent--pretty incredible. Countless people have written me, called my office, and stopped me on the street to tell me how relieved they are to have health care. Others tell me we can't afford to go back to having insurance companies in charge, we can't go back to caps on coverage, back to allowing corporations to deny care because of a preexisting condition, and back to lifetime limits. Tonight I want to share what just a few of my constituents have told me. ``Save my daughter.'' That was the heartbreaking plea that came to me from one of my constituents, Kevin from Albuquerque. Kevin's 33-year- old daughter Amber has multiple sclerosis. It is a tough disease, as we all know. To treat her MS, Amber must follow an exact and rigorous drug regimen, coupled with regular visits to her neurologist and annual MRIs. The retail cost of her drugs is $60,000 per year. Her doctor visits and MRIs would run into the thousands of dollars. Amber works. In fact, she has a good-paying job, but her employer does not provide health insurance. Amber purchases health insurance through the individual open market without Affordable Care Act subsidies. Amber is able to work because she gets the medical care she needs through insurance. Kevin fears his daughter will lose the right to health insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. The ACA makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition such as MS. The Affordable Care Act provides assurance that Amber will get the coverage she needs to remain healthy, to lead a normal life, to work, to contribute to society, and to stay off public assistance, and to survive. This one provision protects an estimated 861,000 New Mexicans and an estimated 134 million Americans. It is a safe bet that all of us here know at least one person like Amber. It isn't surprising that the vast majority of Americans--close to 70 percent--want to keep this protection. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates more than one-quarter of all adults under age 65 have health problems and that could make them uninsurable without the Affordable Care Act. If President-Elect Trump and the Republicans get their way, all of this will be at risk. Kevin is also scared because the cost of treating Amber's disease is so high. Without the ACA, any insurance company could cut off her health coverage if her medical expenses exceeded the company's lifetime limit. This provision protects an estimated 550,000 New Mexicans and an estimated 105 million Americans. People who need medical care the most, people with serious medical problems, have some of the highest medical costs. If President-Elect Trump and Republicans have their way, care for people like Amber would be wiped away. I am the father of a daughter, and I am angry this father has to worry about whether his daughter will get the medical care she needs to live a healthy and productive life. Let me tell you about Pam and Mike. They are a husband and wife from Placitas. They own a small business. They signed up for an insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act as soon as they could because premiums before the ACA were too expensive and Pam had a preexisting condition. Using their new preventive care, they found out that Mike had an aggressive form of cancer. Thankfully, doctors caught the cancer at an early stage. Mike was treated at the New Mexico Cancer Center and is now cured. Pam says there is no question that the ACA saved her husband's life. Because of the ACA, private health plans must cover a range of free preventive services--everything from cancer screening to flu shots. Over 730,000 New Mexicans now benefit. Discovering a disease early saves lives and reduces health care costs, but preventive care is expensive if you are uninsured or poor. An overwhelming majority of Americans--83 percent, in fact--support making preventive health care free. What would President-Elect Trump and Republicans do to make sure Pam and Mike and millions of others can keep getting cancer screenings? Nothing. They have no plan. They talk but no plan. Next, I want to tell you about Karen from Albuquerque, the mother of two college-aged children. Karen's son graduates next May and turns 23. She is worried he will not get health insurance for an entry-level job. Her concern is well-founded since young adults have the lowest rate of access to employer-based insurance. Young adults do get sick, and one in six has a chronic illness such as cancer, diabetes, or asthma. Karen wants her son to have medical care if he needs it. Today, the ACA allows him to stay on her insurance policy until he turns 26. This is one of the ACA's most popular provisions. The vast majority of Americans--85 percent--want young adults to be able to get insurance, but President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans would leave an estimated 15,000 New Mexicans, like Karen's kids, and an estimated 2.3 million Americans without coverage because they have no plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. New Mexico is not a wealthy State. A lot of working people qualify for Medicaid. New Mexico wisely adopted the Medicaid expansion under the ACA, allowing 82,000 more people to get health care. Before the ACA, the only place many New Mexicans could get health care was in the emergency room. Now many are scared that President-Elect Trump and Republicans will take their health care away. Take Amy, her husband, and her four boys--ages 13 to 19. Amy and her husband own a family business in Sante Fe. Before the ACA, they went without health insurance because they couldn't afford it. They just hoped nothing catastrophic happened to them. As soon as she could, Amy applied for health insurance under the Medicaid expansion. It covers her, her husband, her oldest son. Amy says she is grateful that because of the ACA, medical bills will not ``drain us financially.'' There are 8.4 million people across this country like Amy. Like Amy, many are low-income workers. They have jobs but no health insurance. They couldn't afford health insurance before the ACA, and they will not be able to afford it if President-Elect Trump and congressional Republicans have their way and repeal it with no plan to replace it. These hard-working Americans deserve good medical care. Americans agree. Eighty percent favor the Medicaid expansion for low-income, uninsured adults. Finally, we have 19 pueblos--Indian pueblos--and 4 tribes in New Mexico. Native Americans make up more than one-tenth of our population. As vice chair of this body's Indian Affairs Committee, I represent all of Indian Country. Native Americans are eligible to receive care through the Indian Health Service, but it is severely underfunded. Long delays are common. As a result, many tribal members rely heavily on Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA health exchanges. More than 132,000 tribal members are enrolled in Medicaid in New Mexico alone. The All Pueblo Council of Governors, which represents all 19 pueblos, tells me, without the ACA, more tribal members will go back to the days of long delays, many will see their coverage cut. This is also the subject of an amendment I will be offering. Indian Health Services' hospitals are heavily dependent on third-party collections for clinical services. In fact, current Federal funding covers less than half of their operational costs. Fortunately, increases in revenue from the Medicaid expansion have offset those annual costs. But without that revenue, necessary services may no longer be available throughout Indian country. This is unconscionable. My amendment would protect the Indian Health Service from any cuts in Federal funding if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. There are tens of thousands of stories in New Mexico like those of Kevin, Pam, Mike, Karen, and Amy. Over 360,000 New Mexicans have gained health care since the Affordable Care Act was passed, and over 21 million Americans have health insurance because of ObamaCare. I have heard from New Mexicans who are terrified because there is no plan to replace the Affordable Care Act's protections, benefits, and rights. Republicans have called to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for years. They have had years to figure out how to replace it, and they have not. They have no plan. Repeal and replace is not a sound public policy. It is only a sound bite. Health care is a basic human right. Providing adequate medical care for everyone should be our guiding principle for health care policy. What is the guiding principle of repeal and replace? Act now; figure it out later. I have said it before: The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but it was historic--the biggest expansion of health care since the 1960s. It has helped millions of Americans get care. Many of them now can see a doctor regularly for the first time ever. We need to work to improve, not repeal the Affordable Care Act. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to continue what has become a tradition. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, I took to the Senate floor and called for this body to adopt its rules with a simple majority vote and to amend them so they actually allowed the body to function as our Founders intended. I did the same at the beginning of the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses. Today, at the start of the 115th Congress, I again call for reform. This is something I have done as a member of the majority and the minority. Senator Merkley has worked closely with me on this issue and spoke briefly yesterday about our efforts. But we did not start this tradition. It dates back decades. My predecessor, Clinton Anderson, was a leading proponent of what has become known as the ``constitutional option'' in the 1950s and 1960s. Vice President Walter Mondale--then a Senator from Minnesota--carried on the tradition in the 1970s. When Senator Merkley and I first joined the Senate, Senator Tom Harkin worked closely with us to help us carry on the tradition. The proposals we have offered to change the rules at the start of a new Congress have never been radical. They were changes we were willing to live with whether we were in the majority or minority. We have offered the same proposals as Members of the majority and minority. We believe the Senate is broken, and even the minority party should want to fix it. Congress had made some progress in recent years, but unfortunately, it took unprecedented Republican obstruction to bring it about. Republicans blocked nominees to all sorts of positions submitted by President Obama, so we took action to change the rules to break through the gridlock. It was unfortunate that Republicans precipitated that situation, but the result was for the best. New rules allow for a lower cloture threshold for all nominees except those to the Supreme Court now, and the new Republican President can take advantage of them, just as President Obama was able to do for the final years of his term. But no one would argue that Congress or the nomination process has been fixed. Further debate and reform is needed on many aspects of Senate function. We believe the Senate should openly debate and consider its rules at the start of each Congress, to consider changes that can provide commonsense reforms. This ongoing process is the ideal way to restore the best traditions of the Senate and allow it to conduct the business that the American people expect. We have one goal whether we are in the majority or in the minority: to give the American people the government they expect and deserve--a government that works. This is not just about rules. It is about the norms and traditions of the Senate. Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have used the rules for obstruction. No doubt they had their reasons. But I don't think the American people care about that. They don't want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair, that is reasonable, and that works. I hope that all my colleagues--and especially the new Senators--give serious consideration to reform. We do not need to win every legislative or nomination vote. But we need to have a real debate and an open process to ensure we are actually the greatest deliberative body in the world.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about PFC John R. Allman. John was born November 22, 1963, in Carlsbad, NM. He played fierce football for the Carlsbad High School Cavemen and graduated in 1982. John always wanted to be a Marine--like his father and grandfather before him. He fulfilled his dream and became a marine weeks after graduating from high school. Tragically, John was killed in a terrorist bomb attack on his barracks while on a multinational peacekeeping mission in Beirut, Lebanon. John and his fellow marines were stationed in Lebanon to help stabilize the country from civil war. On April 18, 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was hit by a suicide truck bomb--one of the first suicide attacks in the region--killing 63 people, including 17 Americans. On October 23, 1983, two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing American and French military forces in Beirut--members of the multinational force. The attack on American barracks housed the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, John's battalion. The bomb striking the marines' quarters was the largest nonnuclear explosion that had ever been detonated, equaling in force between 15,000 and 21,000 pounds of TNT. The death toll was 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers, John among them. It was the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima and the deadliest single terrorist attack on American citizens prior to the September 11 attacks. The blasts led to withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force. John's hometown of Carlsbad and Eddy County proclaimed Veterans Day 2016 as ``John Allman Day'' in his honor. That day, the community celebrated with a parade, speeches, and tributes to John. A bench was made and commemorated in John's name and sits permanently in Carlsbad Veterans Memorial Park. John was humble, quiet, dedicated, fun-loving, intelligent. He was honest and proud. John always gave his all. John was born the day of John F. Kennedy's assassination. He was not supposed to be named John, but his parents did so in honor of the slain President. Of veterans, President Kennedy said, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' We must honor John by doing all we can for our veterans. PFC John Allman gave his life in the service of peace in the Middle East. We do not forget his sacrifice and the sacrifice of his family. And we honor John's service and the ultimate sacrifice he made on behalf of our country.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Taos Pueblo Governor Tony Reyna, who passed away December 5, 2016, at the age of 100, in Taos, NM. Governor Reyna's life was defined by service to others: he served his country, his State, his community, his Pueblo. Governor Reyna was born February 1, 1916, to Helario and Crucita Reyna of Taos Pueblo. He was given the name ``Chuta,'' which means ``Hunter's Call.'' According to Governor Reyna, ``It was so important, the care my father and mother gave us, their commitment to us they said, `Don't take. Give something back.' That's the philosophy we live by.'' Governor Reyna was raised in the traditional pueblo of Taos--occupied for 1,000 years and considered the oldest continuously inhabited community in the United States. The five-storied adobe pueblo--dramatic and picturesque--lies at the base of the Mo-ha-loh or Ma-ha-lu, which we call the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Governor Reyna maintained a home there, where the family gathered for pueblo ceremonies. Governor Reyna attended the Taos Pueblo Day School as a young boy. ``By the time we could carry a bucket, we were carrying water and wood for mother to cook. We would run home from school to water and feed the horses. We would ride into town bareback to get kerosene. Those were very enjoyable days. We thought it was very hard, but looking back, it was very worthwhile. We learned to work and to take responsibility.'' He attended Santa Fe Indian School and graduated from Santa Fe High School in 1936. After high school, he taught woodworking at Albuquerque Indian School. Governor Reyna was a member of the New Mexico National Guard in 1941 when he was shipped to the Philippines. At that time, Native Americans were not considered full citizens. They served in the military with bravery and distinction, yet did not have the right to vote. Governor Reyna was captured by the Japanese, along with 10 other servicemen from Taos Pueblo. He endured and survived the 65-mile Bataan Death March and 3 and one-half years of brutal captivity. He was tortured and forced to bury hundreds of his fellow servicemen, including his best friend. ``I was raised a farm boy from sunrise to sundown, so I was tough enough to survive starvation,'' he said. ``Determination kept me going. I had a family, a home to come back to.'' Five from Taos Pueblo survived till the end of the war, and Governor Reyna was the last surviving of them. His American Legion garrison hat--honoring his service--bears an eagle feather in the band. According to Governor Reyna, ``This feather represents all the Indian veterans, men and women.'' Today marks the 75th anniversary of the Bataan invasion, which began on December 8, 1941--just hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor--when soldiers from the 200th Coast Artillery Regiment became the ``first to fire'' to defend the Philippines from Japanese bombers. It is fitting that we Honor Governor Reyna today. After the war, Governor Reyna returned to Taos Pueblo and, as he said, ``. . . got busy.'' He married, and he and his wife, Annie Cata Reyna, had four children, Diane, John Anthony, Phillip, and Marie. Governor Reyna wanted to open an art shop in Taos, but banks would not loan to a Native American, even a veteran. ``I went to the bank, but they weren't interested in loans to Indians because they had nothing in the way of security,'' he said. He found two businessmen in town who would lend to him, and over the next 2 years, he hand-built an adobe shop and home and paid the men back in full. ``I opened the doors to the shop May 1, 1950,'' he said. ``There was no shop like this at the Pueblo at the time. I felt I had a responsibility to promote Indian craft.'' At the time, Governor Reyna's shop--Tony Reyna Indian Shop--was the only Native-owned store dealing strictly in Native-made crafts. The shop is open to this day--run by Governor Reyna's son Phillip--and is the oldest shop in Taos selling Native-made art. Governor Reyna served Taos Pueblo as secretary for the Governor's office in 1975 and Lieutenant Governor in 1977. He served two terms as pueblo Governor, in 1982 and 1992, and was a lifetime member of the tribal council. ``I served in the Army, I served the state of New Mexico, and I served the city of Taos, but the most important of all was serving my people as governor.'' Governor Reyna was instrumental in the successful effort to return Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo. Nestled in the mountains northeast of the pueblo, the lake is sacred to the pueblo. It and 48,000 acres were taken from the pueblo and appropriated as Federal lands in 1906. After much work, the area was returned to the pueblo in 1970. As Governor, Governor Reyna was instrumental in securing Taos Pueblo's designation as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1992. He secured that status without compromising the pueblos' conditions for privacy. After the designation, he convinced the U.S. Air Force to change flight patterns of supersonic jets over Taos Pueblo. The flights were damaging the structure of the buildings. As a veteran, Governor Reyna had credibility and assured the Air Force he understood the need for national security, but firmly demanded the damaging flights stop. The Air Force rerouted the flights. Governor Reyna served as police commissioner for the town of Taos, as a member of the Taos Municipal School Board, as a trustee for the Millicent Rogers Museum in El Prado, and as a tribal judge at the Santa Fe Indian Market. In 1992, he was honored as a Santa Fe Living Treasure. The Heard Museum gave him the Spirit of the Heard Award in 2010. The chair of the advisory committee stated that Governor Reyna was selected ``. . . because he dedicated his life to the betterment of Indian people and, in particular, to helping preserve the culture, resources and traditions of his tribe.'' And, ``[h]e is a man who has given much, but has asked for little in return.'' The New Mexico Legislature proclaimed his 100th birthday, February 1, 2016, as ``Tony Reyna Day.'' Governor Reyna was buried December 5, 2016, dressed in a deerskin robe and with full military honors, at the Taos Pueblo cemetery, following a mass at the pueblo's San Geronimo Church. War hero, husband, father, businessman, pueblo leader, community leader--Governor Reyna's contributions to arts, culture, politics, community, and the Nation are astounding. His life demonstrates the value of service to others. He will be missed.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Tom M. Phelps on his retirement as chief executive officer, CEO, of Plateau Telecommunications, New Mexico's oldest telecommunications company. Tom leaves Plateau after a distinguished career of more than 20 years in my home State of New Mexico and more than 50 years in the telecommunications industry. Plateau began as Eastern New Mexico Rural Telephone Cooperative in 1949 when a group of civic leaders, farmers, and ranchers responded to the need of rural New Mexico for affordable, reliable telephone service. The next year, the cooperative received its first Federal loan of $581.00 to construct and operate telephone lines and facilities in Curry, De Baca, Quay, Roosevelt, and contiguous counties. Tom joined Plateau in 1995 as assistant general manager. However, it was not long before he took the helm in 1997 as general manager. The title changed to CEO in 2001. During his 21 years of leadership at Plateau, he has improved the quality of life for those in our rural communities through deployment of modern telecommunication services, community economic development partnerships, and participation in many local philanthropic projects, community events, and educational enterprises. Tom oversaw the company as it grew and changed--when it first offered high speed DSL internet service and a fiber-to-the-home program. He managed expenditure of $116 million to install over 5,200 miles of fiber-optic cable across eastern and central New Mexico and to expand high-speed internet access to critical community institutions. This facilitated distance learning so children in rural schools can access resources that are not available in their hometowns. And it has enabled hospitals to use telehealth to improve care and provide services they can't offer in person. Plateau's service area now extends in 25 counties in New Mexico and western Texas, covering 25,000 square miles. Under his leadership, Plateau's technology has been and continues to be state-of-the-art. In 2015, Plateau was the fastest home internet service provider in New Mexico. Bringing affordable and reliable telephone service to rural areas is key to economic development. Plateau brought service to rural New Mexico when larger, national companies would not. Its investments in telecommunication services created many business opportunities in rural Eastern New Mexico, supporting and enhancing economic stability in the region. When Plateau decided to sell its mobile wireless operations, the company anticipated having to lay off 70 employees. At that time, Tom was eligible to retire, but he stayed until he made sure his employees were taken care of. As the company transitioned, he provided early retirement for employees and made sure there were no layoffs. Under Tom's management, Plateau continually contributed to the communities it served. Plateau collected school supplies for local school children, provided economic development grants for new businesses, and annually gave over $70,000 in scholarships to area high school students. Tom has been active in many local, State, and national activities. He received the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award in 2014, which recognizes those who have made ``unusual contributions to the public service and to the improvement of government at all levels by both government employees and private citizens.'' His service as a member of the Clovis Committee of 50, Cannon Air Force Base support groups, and the Plains Regional Medical Center Board, as well as his continued support for the Clovis/Curry County Chamber of Commerce and United Way of Eastern New Mexico contributed to his selection. Tom's dedication, leadership, and business acumen--and personal commitment to Plateau employees and his community--have made a difference in the lives of many people across our State. We wish him continued success and that he and his wife Candyce enjoy retirement.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Vice President Joe Biden, a man who has dedicated his life to serving our country, working across the aisle whenever he can, and always doing his best to get things done for the American people. I am proud to have known and admired Joe a long time. I first met Joe toward the end of his first campaign for the Senate, in the fall of 1972. My father, Stewart Udall, had been called to Delaware to help the young Democratic candidate with environmental issues. I tagged along with my dad and spent a day on the campaign trail with a man who would come to spend 36 distinguished years in the Senate and become our 47th Vice President. The following summer, I worked as a staffer in his Senate office-- writing constituent letters, researching policy issues, preparing press materials. That was my first job in the Senate. In so many ways, Joe Biden is the same person now as then--caring, passionate, energetic, tenacious, and ready and able to get things done. Joe gave me my first Senate job, and this January--44 years later--he swore me in for the 114th Congress. I note that Senators from across our country--from both parties--have lined up to speak to Joe's character and accomplishments. We respect him as a colleague, and we love him for his passion and commitment to public service. Joe has never forgotten his blue collar roots. He has never forgotten our country's working class. Joe has fought all his life to make sure the working class gets a fair shake. He sounded the clarion call in the last months and weeks of the Presidential campaign--that we not forget working families and, more broadly, America's middle class. In his words, ``The middle class is not a number; it's a value set. It's being able to own your house and not have to rent it; it's being able to send your kid to the local park and know they'll come home safely. It's about being able to send your kid to the local high school and if they do well they can get to college, and if they get to college, you can figure out how to [pay to] get them there, and when your mom or dad passes away, you can take care of the other who is in need and hope your kids never have to take care of you. That's Joe Biden's definition of the middle class, and the middle class has been clobbered.'' Joe championing the working and middle class helps my State of New Mexico, helps all of our States. His policy expertise is broad and deep but maybe in no area as much as foreign policy. He has spent decades working on international matters--as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as the committee's chair or ranking member, as President Obama's foreign relations troubleshooter. From my service on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a keen appreciation for the complexity of foreign policy matters in today's world. Joe's foreign policy is at once pragmatic and sophisticated. He has stalwartly promoted peace and nonproliferation. But he understands the need for military force when national interests are at stake, diplomacy is not an option, and such action will bear intended results. Joe recently summed up what can be called the Biden Doctrine in Foreign Affairs. He identifies the broad themes of Obama foreign policy strategy and advises the next administration. The essay should be required reading for anyone serious about foreign policy, and I hope the new administration takes his advice to heart. While Joe's legislative accomplishments are too many to list, I would like to underscore one achievement that has made a difference in my home State of New Mexico--The Violence Against Women Act. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joe drafted VAWA and led the charge for enactment. Passed in 1994, VAWA reordered how the Federal criminal justice system handled rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases. VAWA gave victims needed protections and strengthened prosecutors' tools. I was attorney general of New Mexico in 1994. In the wake of VAWA's passage, I formed the Violence Against Women Task Force. We got strengthened antistalking laws passed in the New Mexico Legislature in 1997. While VAWA was easily reauthorized and strengthened during the 2000s, reauthorization became difficult in 2012. As Vice President, Joe was instrumental in breaking impasses. VAWA represented a sea change for how our society addresses violent crime against women. The law was reauthorized and strengthened in 2013, and now extends protections to gay and transgender persons, immigrant women, and on- reservation Native Americans. Like Joe, I am a husband and father of a daughter. I am proud to have voted in favor of reauthorization. We all know that Joe has faced deep, personal tragedies. But he has confronted tragedy with courage and love for his family and with an unimaginable determination to keep working for the American people-- turning his own losses into ways to help others. Joe and his equally capable, determined, and indefatigable wife Jill have brought new energy and urgency to the fight to cure cancer. The Cancer Moonshot has already had many successes. Joe turned the premature death of his son into actions to help others with cancer. This week, the Senate that Joe gave so much to gave something back, sending the 21st Century Cures Act to President Obama for signature. The $1.8 billion cancer initiatives in that bill are the direct result of Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot initiative. It is fitting that we named the cancer initiatives in the Cures Act after Beau Biden. Joe Biden leaves the Vice Presidency, but he will never leave the fight for all Americans--Black, Brown, White, poor, working class, middle class, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian--everyone--fighting for what is right, fighting to make sure we all have a fair shot. Joe's heart is as big as they come. I honor his decades of work, commitment, and accomplishments, and I look forward to Joe continuing being Joe--the same guy I met in 1972--working hard every day to make a difference in the lives of all Americans.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I wish to say a heartfelt thank you and congratulations to Donda Morgan, who retired at the end of last month after 17 years and 8 months with my office. I do this knowing that she shies away from fuss and attention, preferring to stay quiet and behind the scenes. But she deserves this recognition for her service to me-- and especially to the people of New Mexico. Donda was born and raised in the Clovis-Portales area of Eastern New Mexico. She graduated from Eastern New Mexico University and worked in public service for over two decades. She came to Washington in 1995 after a nearly 10-year stint with Capitol Government Reports, a Santa Fe publication. She went to work for one of my predecessors in the House of Representatives, former U.S. Representative Bill Richardson, until he was appointed Energy Secretary. So I knew she was well qualified for the job. When I was elected in 1998, she joined my new congressional office, starting almost on the first day of the new year, January 3, 1999. Donda began as the manager of my office operations, managing the office budget and then my schedule--which I am sure was no easy task. As one newspaper reporter once wrote, she was in charge of ``everything that [came] in and out of the . . . office from pencils and pens to letterhead and business cards.'' She served with me throughout my tenure in the House and then moved over to the Senate staff as my executive assistant and scheduler when I was elected to this body in 2009. I admire many things about Donda, but perhaps the most important is that she served with the highest integrity. As my assistant and scheduler, she worked directly with New Mexicans who came to my Washington office for appointments or to check in with me or my staff. Donda was always particularly careful to make sure that everyone was treated the same. In a sense, she was the face of my Senate office, scheduling and greeting everyone--celebrated or not--with equal parts of graciousness and firmness, while keeping the train running on time, a daunting task in a Senate office. She firmly appreciated that her first responsibility was to the people of New Mexico. My constituents from New Mexico got to know and love her. I have heard them comment that they were glad that she was my scheduler because they knew she would try her best to make sure they had an opportunity to see me. Donda has a strong work ethic and was an incredible coworker and team player, always willing to help where she could. She also has a quirky sense of style. My staff especially enjoyed hearing ZZ Top and AC/DC playing from her office while she worked. She was known for wearing colorful hightop sneakers, chosen with the help of her beloved grandson Aiden. Donda also has a fondness for certain celebrities, and while she shied away from the fuss, she enjoyed seeing some of the Hollywood stars who sometimes visit Congress to talk about issues they care about. But, more than anything, Donda appreciates good, hard work. My dad used to say it was important not just to ``get it done--but get it done right.'' And that fits Donda to a T. She had a demanding job. To use a metaphor, she was a juggler, and she managed to do it with humor and unfailing commitment. Time, which she managed for my office with such skill and aplomb, has now brought her to a much deserved retirement, which I know she will manage with equal grace and spirit. I thank her on behalf of my office and the people of New Mexico.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the life of Justice Dan Sosa, Jr. On September 4, New Mexico lost an accomplished jurist, combat veteran, and champion of the Hispanic community. It is with great sympathy and respect that I honor this beloved Las Crucen. Justice Sosa dedicated his long life to serving others. And thanks to news coverage of his life, I am able to share some details about his background and history. Shortly after enrolling at New Mexico A&M, he enlisted in the Air Force. When he returned home from World War II with 35 successful combat missions under his belt, Justice Sosa finished his undergraduate degree and spent a year teaching at Mesilla Elementary before enrolling in the University of New Mexico Law School. It was there that he met and married the love of his life, Rita. After graduating from law school, he returned to Las Cruces to start his own practice. He served as an assistant district attorney and city judge before being elected district attorney of Dona Ana, Otero, and Lincoln Counties in 1956, becoming the first Hispanic to ever serve in that position. Justice Sosa's efforts to break down barriers for fellow Hispanics went far beyond his personal trailblazing. After completing two terms as district attorney, in 1965, he helped found the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, an organization aimed at protecting the legal rights of Hispanics in America and promoting educational opportunities. Justice Sosa is best known for his tenure on the New Mexico State Supreme Court. He was appointed to the court in 1975 and left as its chief justice in 1991. He remains one of the longest serving justices in the State court's history. Throughout his storied career, Justice Sosa never forgot about the Las Cruces community he called home. In fact, he passed away in the very same adobe house he was born in on November 12, 1923. His commitment to the principles he learned from his family and community guided his great life and helped him build a towering example for generations of New Mexicans. Justice Sosa leaves behind his wife, Rita, his sister Lucia, 7 children, 26 grandchildren, and 31 great-grandchildren, and I extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends. He served his community, his State, and his country with honor. New Mexico will miss Justice Dan Sosa, Jr., a humble and dedicated public servant.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, this week marks a sad milestone for the U.S. Senate, a milestone of inaction, obstruction, and failure. This week marks 6 months since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. President Obama did his job and his constitutional duty, and Judge Garland should have been confirmed by now. He is eminently qualified. He is a dedicated public servant and a respected judge. Instead, Judge Garland hasn't received a hearing. Today marks 182 days since his nomination, and not even a hearing. In the last 40 years, the average time from nomination to confirmation has been 67 days for a Supreme Court nominee no matter which party has controlled the White House and the Senate. We have always done our job. We have always given a President's nominees a hearing and a vote as the Constitution requires. After my remarks, I will formally introduce a proposal to change the Senate rules to require that any judicial nominee who has been pending for more than 180 days receive a vote. I do not take this decision lightly, but I fear that a line has been crossed. This level of obstruction will only get worse in the years to come. We should not ever be in this situation again. I urge all of my colleagues to consider this proposal fairly and without partisan interests. I had hoped that the Senate would act on Judge Garland's nomination. I met with him in May. It was a good meeting. We talked about some areas of the law of particular importance to New Mexicans, including campaign finance reform, tribal law, interstate water issues, and other topics. He is well-versed and well-informed, but he is not prejudging any issue. I really enjoyed the opportunity to get to know him better. He is an exceptional jurist who has dedicated his life to public service. He is a nominee who deserves our respect and a hearing and a vote. But for several months now, Republicans have argued that President Obama's nominee shouldn't get a vote, that this President shouldn't get the same 4-year term as every other President. They argue that it is better for the Supreme Court to have a vacancy for what is likely to be more than a year. This makes no sense. It is hurting the Court and the American people. It leaves a highly qualified nominee in limbo. Judge Garland has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. With many judges, that would be a problem--too many controversial opinions or decisions overturned--but Judge Garland's record is exceptional. He has spent nearly 20 years on the DC Circuit, the court often referred to as the second most powerful in the country. He has participated in over 2,600 merit cases and 327 opinions. He has heard many controversial cases. Yet the Supreme Court has never reversed one of his written opinions. Judge Garland's record demonstrates an incredible ability to build consensus on a wide range of difficult subjects, and his opinions show that he decides cases based on the law and the facts. These are traits which will serve him well as a Supreme Court Justice and, more importantly, which will serve all plaintiffs and defendants who come before him. Judge Garland's legal career before joining the bench is equally impressive. He was a Federal prosecutor and later served as a high- ranking Justice Department attorney. At Justice, he oversaw major investigations and prosecutions. He led the prosecution of the two Oklahoma City bombers and supervised the prosecution of the Unabomber. He was known for working closely with victims. But he is more than just an exceptional judge and lawyer; he is a person of high moral character. For the last 18 years, he has tutored students at a local elementary school. He speaks to law students about public service careers. He also regularly speaks about the importance of pro bono services and access to the courts. Judge Garland is a good American, and he is being treated unfairly. Many Republican Senators are so caught up in the politics that they have even refused to meet him. He is being denied a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, and the majority leader refuses to allow him to receive an up-or-down vote. This is unprecedented obstruction against one of the most qualified Supreme Court nominees in history. My Republican colleagues will say it is not about Judge Garland. They say President Obama--who still had over 10 months in office at the time he made the nomination--had no right to fill the vacancy. They argue that it is the next President's job. But we are talking about a vacancy that will have been open for almost a year before the next President takes office. This defies common sense and defies historical precedent. Sadly, obstruction in the Senate is the new normal. Judge Garland is just the most glaring example. A Supreme Court vacancy gets a lot of attention, but our lower courts have been understaffed for years. Right now there are 12 vacancies on the appellate courts, our district courts have 75 vacancies, and 33 of those are considered judicial emergencies because the court is so shortstaffed. There are many nominees we could vote on today. Twenty-eight judicial nominees are on the Executive Calendar, voted out of committee with bipartisan support, but Republicans have slowed the confirmation process to a standstill. Last year Senate Republicans confirmed the fewest judicial nominees in more than 50 years--11 for the entire year--matching the alltime record. Only 18 have been confirmed this Congress. Let's compare that to the last 2 years of the Bush administration. With a Democratic majority, the Senate confirmed 68 judges. All this gets back to something I have discussed since joining the Senate: the need to end the dysfunction so the Senate can work for the American people again. I pushed for reform of the Senate rules in the last three Congresses. We did change the rules to allow majority votes for executive nominees and judicial nominees to lower courts. That was a historic and much needed change. Without it, the judicial system would be even more overburdened. But even that change does no good if the judges remain blocked. The majority leader is using the power over the calendar as a stealth filibuster, and that is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets longer and longer of perfectly qualified nominees denied a vote, denied even to be heard. Now a seat on the Supreme Court is empty and the majority leader is actually arguing that it should stay empty for over a year in the hopes that maybe a President Trump will be able to fill all of these vacancies that came up during President Obama's term. This isn't governing; this is an unprecedented power play. Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated and fed up with political games, with obstruction in the Senate, with special deals for insiders and campaigns that are being sold to the highest bidder? They see this obstruction as just another example of how our democracy is being eroded. I believe it is so bad that we need a change in the Senate rules to address our broken judicial confirmation process. My suggestion is very simple: If the Judiciary Committee hasn't held a vote on a nominee within 180 days from the nomination, then he or she is discharged and becomes the pending business of the Senate and gets a cloture vote. It would be the same for nominees voted out of committee but blocked by the majority leader's inaction. After 180 days, they get their vote. Let me be clear. If this rule is adopted, 180 days should not become the normal time period to confirm nominees. That is the longest it will take, but there is no reason the Senate shouldn't act quicker, as it has done throughout history. We need to end the stealth filibuster of this President's nominees. No more burying nominees in committee. No more leaving them to languish on the Executive Calendar. The Senate will have to do its job. Under my rules reform, Judge Garland would have his vote this week, Senators would do our jobs, and the voters would know where we stand. Many other nominees would finally get their votes. There are currently seven appellate court nominees who have been waiting more than 180 days. There are 30 district court nominees, including 5 judicial emergency districts. Some critics may argue that the tables will be turned and Democrats will object to a Republican nominee. Well, if a nominee is truly objectionable, then any Senator, Democratic or Republican, should convince the majority of the Senate to vote against confirmation. That is how democracy works. It is time to get our courts fully staffed so our judicial system can do its work. We have already seen the impact of a Supreme Court with eight members--cases sent back to the lower courts without decisions. The Supreme Court isn't taking cases that are likely to deadlock. These are some of the most important cases for them to decide. When we fail to do our job, the justice system suffers and the public suffers. The old saying is so true: Justice delayed is justice denied. It is time for Senate Republicans to do their job. The Constitution gives the President the responsibility to nominate Justices on the Supreme Court, and the Senate's job is to consider those nominees. The Constitution doesn't say: Do your job except in an election year. The President has done his job by nominating Judge Garland. Many Republicans expected him to select a highly controversial nominee-- someone to energize the liberal base in an election year--but the President took his responsibility seriously. He selected a widely respected nominee with impeccable credentials, a man who should be easily confirmed. It is time for us to take our responsibility seriously, give Judge Garland the hearing he deserves, and allow the Senate to take an up-or-down vote. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the recognition. Let me also, as my other colleagues have done, thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on climate change, global warming, and the work he has done in that area. I was also part, with Senator Coons, of the Paris 10 who went to Paris and did everything we could to let the rest of the countries in the world and their representatives know, as Senator Coons knows very well, that we are in this for the long haul and we are going to make sure that it happens and that the United States will continue with all of the good policies that have been put in place. Senator Whitehouse has shown particularly good leadership in the area of exposing a sophisticated network of climate deniers, a network of special interest groups and front groups that have all rallied around the slogan of being climate deniers. I rise to join my colleagues to draw attention to what we are calling the web of denial--interconnected corporations and special interest groups spending millions of dollars misleading the public about the harmful effects of climate change. Contrary to what these groups want the American people to think, climate change is a fact, it is a reality, and we have to deal with it. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas and a byproduct of fossil fuels, is a major contributor to global warming. This is not some ideological belief I share with some of my colleagues. We wish global warming did not exist and that it was not threatening our health, our livelihoods, and the environment, but it is real, and New Mexico and the Southwest are in the bull's-eye. We are seeing it in the form of more frequent droughts, increasingly severe wildfires, and rising temperatures. There is no doubt and the data cannot be denied. Scientists cannot be ignored. We can see it before our eyes in New Mexico and across the country in so many different areas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and independent researchers at our most esteemed universities have written extensively about this link between greenhouse gases and the warming of the Earth. Scientists at Las Alamos and Sandia National Labs in New Mexico are key parts of this scientific effort. We trust these institutions to perform the scientific research that is critical to our Nation's national security. They ensure our arsenal of nuclear weapons is safe and secure. So when these scientists tell us that manmade climate change is real and poses a serious threat, we should listen and take them seriously. The evidence has been mounting for decades. The research has been thorough and unbiased. Countries around the world have been pressing to address this challenge in a global manner. So why are people still trying to foster a debate? Why are they asking if global warming is really happening? That is what we are here to discuss--the web of denial. There are many who have different agendas that are not rooted in truth or science, and those agendas are playing out in our politics in the most disgraceful way possible, through the dark money that is poisoning the system and spreading lies to benefit a few. It started when industry became concerned that this link could harm the bottom line. Over the years, industry groups have spent millions of dollars to influence the debate through dark money and front groups. Many of my colleagues have talked about this today and many more will talk about it tomorrow. The evidence of this strategy is profound. An early example is, the Information Council for the Environment, or ICE, and the Greening Earth Society. These groups sound technical and environmental, but they aren't. They were cooked up in the boardrooms of fossil fuel industry executives--people who put profits over public health. They were designed after focus groups and market data convinced them the public trusted scientists more than politicians, more than political activists, and certainly more than industry press people. These groups, founded by the Western Fuels Association, aimed to shape the global warming discussion at a crucial time in the early 1990s, as the world was gathering in Rio and Kyoto to hammer out agreements and tackle the problem. ICE ran several print and radio advertisements asking: ``If the Earth is getting warmer, why is Kentucky getting colder?'' Another quote: ``If the Earth is getting warmer, why is the frost line moving south?'' ``Who told you the earth was warming, Chicken Little? And how much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?'' These questions and claims were misleading and false, but they helped to stir up the public. The public was looking to trust independent scientists and analysts, not industry front groups. Even more concerning is the way global warming deniers have refocused their strategies at discrediting scientists and researchers. We have seen a terrible trend. As the public has become more aware of these front groups, they have changed their tack. Now they are working to discredit and disavow the credible scientists who are out there, charging that scientists have hidden agendas, wanting more research dollars and more Federal funding. I find this absurd and ominous. The funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and university researchers is transparent. The money is there for the public to see. None of these folks is getting rich. They don't have profits to protect. They are providing the public with data and with research, but it is getting harder and harder to stop these outside groups from spreading their smear campaigns. These groups have an interest in making sure Congress never gets anything done to prevent climate change, and they are using our broken campaign finance system as a tool to keep it that way. We used to have sensible laws on campaign finance. We used to have an enforcement agency, a watchdog over the Federal finance system. The laws have been gutted by the Supreme Court's devastating decisions, whether it is Citizens United, McCutcheon, or many other misguided decisions. The enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission, has become completely dysfunctional and mired in gridlock, leaving super PACs and special interests free to pollute the political system with unlimited dark money and always to protect someone's bottom line. That is the way Western Fuels Association and so many other companies have put pollution above public health. We need to fix the system. A few months ago, several of my colleagues and I got together to discuss the state of our democracy. The question we asked ourselves was this: What can we do to repair this damage, to return the government to the people--the government by and for the people. The product of these meetings was the bill we introduced last month, the We the People Act. It will bring dark money out of the shadows and create a real watchdog to enforce campaign finance laws and rein in the influence of special interests and lobbyists. The ``we the people'' reform package includes my constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley, Citizens United, and other decisions. It will allow Congress and the States to enact real reform, to get the flood of money out of our political system, laws that five conservative Justices on the Supreme Court can't overturn. I know the political climate of an election year makes bipartisanship unlikely, but I will reintroduce the ``we the people'' reform package in the next Congress and hope my Republican colleagues will join me. Poll after poll shows that our constituents across the political spectrum want reforms tackling climate change, eliminating dark money from our political system, and standing up to groups that distort public perception. It is time we listened. Our democracy, our environment, and the planet are at stake. I see Senator Whitehouse is here and there may be others. Once again, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership. I think one of the things he has done in our caucus, on the floor, and being constantly vigilant about it is, how many of these groups are out there networking with each other. It is a very sophisticated operation that has to be exposed if we are going to get down to what is happening and get down to what we need to do. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, once again, Congress has responded at the last possible moment to a dire issue--in this case, the debt crisis in Puerto Rico. Friday, July 1, is a critical deadline for the island Commonwealth, the date when Puerto Rico must repay $1.9 billion in debt service that it has repeatedly stated that it is unable to pay. If we had failed to act, over 3.5 million Americans would have faced an economic and humanitarian crisis. The Commonwealth government has stated that, even after clawing back revenues from other parts of the public sector like education, health, and public safety, it will not have sufficient resources to meet the entire debt service obligation due on July 1. That is just a few short days from now. On January 27 of this year, I joined 44 of my colleagues in the Senate to urge Majority Leader McConnell to work with us and swiftly enact legislation to give Puerto Rico access to the tools it needs to address the debt crisis. Over 150 days later, the Senate is only just beginning to act. This Congress has dragged its feet on important issues, waiting until we are right up against dangerous deadlines to take critical action. Puerto Rico is just one example; funding to fight Zika is another. We saw these problems on the horizon long ago; yet the majority allowed the problem to build, permitted the crisis to grow, waited until the last minute, and, in doing so, restricted the Senate's opportunity to act. The Senate has just passed the House-passed bill, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act. I understand that this was a difficult issue on which the administration and Republicans and Democrats struggled to agree. This bill is far from perfect, but without it, the situation in Puerto Rico will worsen. I share my colleagues' concerns about the unelected fiscal control board. Cuts to public services and public safety for the benefit of debt holders and financial speculators would be unacceptable. Also, just as Republicans tried to use funding to fight Zika as cudgel to push through cuts to the Affordable Care Act and reproductive health, they now are using the crisis in Puerto Rico to chip away at fundamental labor protections, such as overtime pay and the Federal minimum wage. I supported the bill with these substantial reservations because it was critical to pass this legislation before July 1. The Senate would have been able to exercise its right of careful consideration and debate if this bill had been brought to the floor when we called for it in January. But today, the time was up. I urge Congress to stop this destructive pattern of procrastinating on difficult issues and waiting until the eleventh hour to act on critical issues.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition. In 5 months, Americans will go to the polls and vote. That is our heritage, and it is something to celebrate and something to protect. But this year, many Americans are fed up with our political system. They are tired of corporations and the super wealthy controlling our politicians and our elections. They don't trust our democracy to reflect the will of ``we the people.'' What has changed since our Founding Fathers began the Constitution with these words? What has changed since several decades ago when many more Americans had more confidence in our government? I will tell you what I think has changed. People are now questioning the integrity of our elections. Our campaign finance system is under siege, drowning in record amounts of money, much of it from outside groups and much of it hidden money--dark money. Our elections should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln saw the danger of too much money in politics. Lincoln warned about ``corruption in high places . . . until the Republic is destroyed.'' We are reaching that point. Money has poisoned our political system. It is no wonder the American people have lost faith in us with this constant money chasing from special interests and very little else getting done. Our constituents want Congress to get to work and to work together, finding real solutions to real problems. That is why a few months ago several of my colleagues and I got together to discuss the state of our democracy, our electoral system, and our political system. The question we asked ourselves was this: What can we do to repair this damage and return the government to the people? The product of those meetings is the bill we introduced last week, the We the People Act. It will bring dark money out of the shadows, create a real watchdog to enforce campaign finance laws, and rein in the influence of special interests and lobbyists. The We the People Act includes my constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the States to enact even more significant reforms--reforms five conservative Justices on the Supreme Court can't overturn. We are offering this to start a conversation about what needs to be done to fix a broken system. I hope it will even lead to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in this effort. I want to talk specifically about two sections of the bill. My colleague Senator Merkley will be here momentarily to talk about some of the other portions of the bill that are especially important to him. The first is the ``Democracy for All'' constitutional amendment, which I introduced after the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United ruling when the Court put a ``for sale'' sign on our elections. Changing the Constitution is a big step. I know that. As James Madison said, it should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' I agree, but I also believe we have reached one of those rare occasions. Citizens United was wrong, it is dangerous, and it cannot stand. Amending the Constitution can take a long time, but this movement actually was started decades ago by a Republican. Many of our predecessors from both parties understood the danger. They knew that money had a corrosive impact on our elections. They spent years championing the cause. Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican icon from Alaska, introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v. Valeo in 1983. He saw the effect that unlimited campaign expenditures were having on Congress over three decades ago. He recognized over 30 years ago that we were in an arms race. But the drive for money would only get worse and Congress's ability to function would suffer. That was only the beginning. In every Congress from the 99th to the 108th, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments very similar to the one that I am offering this year. Senator Schumer and Senator Cochran continued the effort in the 109th Congress. Even Majority Leader McConnell once had his own constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money on our elections. That was all before the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions by the Supreme Court. It was before things went from bad to worse. The out-of-control spending since those decisions has further poisoned our elections. In a few minutes Senator Merkley and I and our colleagues will hold a press conference about this bill. We will highlight the growth of one special interest group that has increased its spending exponentially since Citizens United. That group is the NRA. Fueled with contributions from gun manufacturers, it has Republicans so scared they don't even hold a vote on commonsense steps to protect families from gun violence, even when Americans are crying out for action, even after tragedies like Sandy Hook and Orlando, even when Democrats are holding a protest in the House Chamber itself. I went to stand with them for a while yesterday. Republicans could loosen the hold the NRA has over themselves and the Congress if they would join us in this effort to reform our elections as they have in the past. I know the political climate of an election year makes it even more difficult, but I will reintroduce this amendment in the next Congress and the next, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me. Poll after poll shows that our constituents across the political spectrum want this amendment. New York just became the 17th State calling for Congress to pass this constitutional amendment. It is time we listened to the States. I would also like to talk about my bill to replace the dysfunctional Federal Election Commission with a new organization. We would replace it with what we call the Federal Election Administration. It is also included in the We the People Act. My constitutional amendment would allow Congress to finally enact meaningful reforms. Meanwhile, it is more important than ever to have a cop on the beat enforcing the rules on the books. That job is supposed to go to the Federal Election Commission, but in today's hyperpartisan environment, the FEC is powerless to enforce the law. Gridlock is pervasive. One of its own Commissioners admitted that there is a slim chance they would be able to do anything this year. She called it ``worse than dysfunctional.'' The New York Times editorial board called the FEC ``borderline useless.'' Reform groups have dubbed it a different kind of FEC. They call it the ``Failure to Enforce Commission.'' It is time to replace the FEC with a new agency that is empowered to keep a close eye on the candidates, super PACs, and the parties and that will finally crack down on election law violations. My friend Senator John McCain was one of the first to propose abolishing the FEC as we know it and to create a new bipartisan agency with the teeth it needs to do the job. He and Senator Feingold introduced this bill several times in several Congresses. The Federal Election Administration Act will eliminate the FEC and start afresh. There will be a new sheriff in town standing up for voters nationwide. My constitutional amendment and the Federal Election Administration Act are just two pieces of the ``we the people'' reform package. My colleagues will discuss the measures they have contributed to this effort. Senators Whitehouse, Leahy, King, Baldwin, and Bennet all have important pieces in this legislative package. Let me be clear. This is just a starting point. The We the People Act includes many important reforms, but there are additional issues we must address to return democracy to the people. We must ensure every American has access to the polls. We need to end the gerrymandering of congressional districts--a practice that allows incumbents to stay in office indefinitely--and we must enact comprehensive public financing that will empower small donors and make their voices heard again. This is an opportunity for Congress to respond to the American people. They want and demand reform. Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, often in the wake of scandal. Since 1867 we have had the Pendleton Act, the Tillman Act, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the Hatch Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. First scandal and then reform is the unfortunate pattern. It is a pattern that we can break with the We the People Act. Let's reform the system before there is another major scandal. Let's respond to the voters--Republicans and Democrats--who want a better government, a government of ``we the people.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the We the People Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I really appreciate the leadership of Senator Murphy and his effort to see that the Senate addresses commonsense gun legislation. It is probably around the hour when people are getting home, and they are wondering why we are here, why the Senator is choosing to hold the floor in this extended debate. People should know that our Nation has seen a string of gun tragedies. The Senator's home State of Connecticut saw the horrific Sandy Hook shooting of young children. In San Bernardino we saw an ISIL-inspired terrorist attack. This terrorist slaughtered his former coworkers--innocent people. In Orlando, a disturbed man, perhaps inspired by ISIL, murdered 49 people in cold blood. This was an assault on the LGBT community--a hate crime. In the last week, in my home State of New Mexico, we have seen some terrible gun tragedies. A man is now accused of murdering his wife and four children in Roswell, NM. There are so many tragedies, and they all have different reasons. But one thing that almost all of us agree on is that we must do more to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who mean harm to others or to themselves. You should have to pass a background check to buy a gun. If you are a risk to others because of a history of making threats or because you may be affiliated with a known terrorist organization, law enforcement should be able to step in and prevent you from buying weapons. The first thing I wanted to ask the Senator from Connecticut, for people who are just tuning in right now, is this: What are the two amendments that you are seeking to vote on today, and how would they help stem this tied of horrific violence that we are seeing across the country, and as you have continually pointed out happens every day?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask the Senator this, through the Chair. My offices in New Mexico today received many calls asking why Democrats are on the floor debating the Second Amendment. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut if this is an accurate assessment of today's debate. It is my understanding--and I believe most of my colleagues would agree--that the Supreme Court has settled this issue. Congress can't take away that right. President Obama can't take away that right. What we are doing here today is taking steps to ensure that dangerous people are not able to buy a gun. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. UDALL. I would ask an additional question here. Last week, several of us announced a ``we the people'' government reform package, and I plan to introduce that bill tomorrow. The bill includes several pieces. It has Senator Whitehouse's DISCLOSE Act, which would require mandatory disclosure of all special interest campaign donations. It also includes my good friend Senator Bennet's legislation to strengthen lobbying laws. I bring this up because I think it highlights the reason for Congress's inaction on gun violence. We have been here before after the tragedy in Connecticut at Sandy Hook. We stood here and debated many of the same issues, including expanding background checks, closing the gun show loophole, limiting the capacity of magazines--things that should have been passed but weren't. I wish to ask my friend from Connecticut: Do you think our inability to pass commonsense gun safety legislation is in any way connected to the flood of money in our campaigns from special interests?

Mr. UDALL. I ask one additional question through the Chair. Many New Mexicans live in very rural areas near the border with Mexico. Carrying a gun is not unusual in those areas. It is a different way of life than in Connecticut or anywhere on the east coast. For example, the entire State of Connecticut is about 5,500 square miles, with a population of 3.5 million. Hidalgo County, NM, one of our 33 counties in southwestern New Mexico, is almost 3,500 square miles and has a population of fewer than 5,000. Many of the ranches there are tens of thousands of acres. They are in the remote boot heel area of the State, a region that is divided by mountain ranges and that borders Mexico on two sides. So I understand why many New Mexicans feel safer carrying a firearm. They might be miles from the closest help. It might take law enforcement a significant time to reach them. So I certainly don't want to do anything to infringe on their right to protect themselves with a firearm. But I would ask my friend from Connecticut who has worked on this issue so long and understands this so well, would any of the proposals we are asking to get a vote on take away their rights to purchase or own a firearm?

Mr. UDALL. I appreciate that answer, and I yield the floor.