Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to a member of my staff, Lauren Arias.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the prescription drug crisis. Every day someone in our Nation dies--a son, daughter, a parent--from a drug overdose. Most overdoses are from prescription drugs, such as opioid painkillers. Too often drugs that were intended to bring comfort end up bringing tragedy. Oxycodone, hydrocodone, OxyContin--we have an epidemic of these prescription drugs and the abuse of them. These drugs wreck lives, wreck families, and wreck entire communities. In my home State of New Mexico, we know this all too well. We have the second highest rate of drug overdose deaths. We are in a crisis, and it is getting worse. More New Mexicans are dying from drug overdoses than ever before. It touches home and it hits hard. One of those we lost was a young man named Cameron Weiss. According to the Albuquerque Journal, Cameron was 18 years old, an athlete, a poet, and then became addicted to painkillers for the treatment of sports injuries. That led, as it often does, to heroin. Within 2 years this promising young man with his whole life ahead of him was dead from a heroin overdose. His mom, Jennifer Weiss, took her grief and put it to work to help others. After Cameron's death, she founded a group called Healing Addiction in Our Community so she could help other young people struggling with addiction. She told the Albuquerque Journal the following: Something tragic has to happen before change happens. Unfortunately, when it comes to heroin, that tragedy happens all the time. Most of us know young people like Cameron. A similar story of another young life that was lost to a heroin overdose was shared with me last week. This young man's father who visited my office is a medical professional in New Mexico. With all of the resources and knowledge available to him, he was still not able to prevent his son's tragic death last year at the age of 22. One of my own staff members who was raised in Albuquerque lost four of his friends at Cibola High School. All four turned to heroin after abusing prescription drugs. One was his best friend, Michael, whose life was cut short at 30 years old. We see this pattern time and again. A person becomes addicted to painkillers and then turns to another prescription or to heroin, which is cheaper and easier to get. It is a lethal combination and a downward spiral. We have all heard the numbers, and they are chilling. Opioid-related deaths quadrupled nationally from 2002 to 2013. In 2014, nearly 30,000 Americans died from prescription opioid and heroin overdose. More Americans die each year from drug overdoses than from car crashes. Addiction knows no boundaries of race, gender or background, but our Hispanic and tribal communities in places such as Rio Arriba County, NM, are ground zero. Year after year, Rio Arriba County has the highest rate of overdoses in the Nation, more than five times the national average. Just a few weeks ago KOB-TV reported on the toll that this has taken, generation after generation casting a long shadow over the beautiful Espanola Valley. A young man named Rufus Billy said: ``Growing up here, they'd say this was the heroin capital of the world.'' For many, prescription painkillers come first and heroin comes later. According to KOB, prevention groups report that 2 million opioid prescriptions were filled in New Mexico in 2014, double the number from 10 years ago. The abuse is so severe, according to Rio Arriba County Sheriff James Lujan, that ``6 and 7-year-olds are talking about grandma and grandpa being addicts. . . . It's like a never-ending cycle.'' New Mexico is on the ropes and so many other States are as well. I listened to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. The stories are heartbreaking, and, sadly, we are losing the fight. This is not just about numbers. It is about families and communities torn apart. Too often it is a story of those looking for help and not finding it. We can change that, but it will take more than words, more than handwringing. It will take a real commitment, and, let's be clear, real money. Rehab saves lives--not always, and that is a tragedy all its own for some families. But treatment certainly can't help when you can't get it. People are desperate and trying to get treatment and help. We see this every day, especially in rural States like New Mexico. That is why we need to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, because this isn't just about addiction. It is about recovery and giving hope to those who feel hopeless. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I thank Senators Whitehouse and Shaheen for their leadership. CARA will help States and local communities fight this battle for prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement efforts. CARA is a step forward, and we urgently need to move forward. We can't keep falling behind. In Spanish, C-A-R-A, ``cara,'' means face. We should remember the faces and remember our loved ones. These are not just statistics. That is why I have also introduced legislation to improve monitoring of prescriptions and to have a better referral for addicts to treatment services. It also directs the FDA to review naloxone, which is an important lifesaving medication for over-the-counter use. There is no doubt we have a crisis. We can't just say what works. We need to pay for what works. Our commitment has to be equal to the challenge, so I am quite disappointed that last week we did not adopt a key amendment for additional emergency funding. Let us step up to the plate and get this done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, my good friend, Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona, appeared here just an hour or so before and also spoke on the issue that I am going to speak about today. That issue is the ambassadorship to Mexico and the woman who has been nominated by President Obama, Roberta Jacobson. Senator Flake made a very strong case. It has been a pleasure working with him in a bipartisan way. We believe this nomination has very strong bipartisan support, and we look forward to working together to get this to the floor and get an up-or- down vote. So I rise again today to urge support for Roberta Jacobson. She is a dedicated public servant. She is more than ready to be our Ambassador to Mexico. The Los Angeles Times has called Roberta Jacobson ``among the most qualified people ever to be tapped to represent the U.S. in Mexico.'' We have a distinguished candidate, a career member of the Senior Executive Service. She is ready to serve. We have strong support for her on both sides of the aisle. What we need now is an up-or-down vote. Once again, we failed to get one. It is hard to explain this dysfunction when I talk to my constituents in New Mexico. They just don't understand this kind of dysfunction. They don't understand it, and, frankly, neither do I. We are a border State. This is a critical position. It is critical to our security, and it is critical to our economy. Earlier today, Senators Flake, Klobuchar, Heinrich, and I met with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce about the urgent need to confirm this nomination. Our business leaders in New Mexico, Arizona, and every other State in our country are telling us they need an ambassador in Mexico City. We have ongoing border-related business issues that need attention. From time to time, we will call on the Mexican government to take some action, to work with us on coordinating with ports of entry, infrastructure, and other important issues. We are at a disadvantage without an advocate for America in Mexico City. It is very frustrating. This is not the first time we have faced this kind of dysfunction. I pushed for reform of the Senate rules in the last two Congresses, and we did change the rules to allow majority votes for executive and judicial nominees to the lower courts. But that does no good if they remain blocked, and that is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets longer and longer of perfectly qualified nominees who are denied a vote, denied an opportunity to be heard. Roberta Jacobson was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee months ago with bipartisan support. Yet the weeks go by, and still we wait. What is holding up her nomination? It isn't her qualifications; those aren't the problem. A big part of the problem is Presidential politics and the policy differences with the administration over her work with Cuba. This year, we reopened diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. As the Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta helped negotiate on behalf of the administration. After 50 years of failed policy toward Cuba, we have opened a 21st-century relationship with the people of Cuba, one that is already seeing change as more Cubans enter the private sector. And more Americans, who are our best diplomats, continue to increase their engagement with the Cuban people. I congratulate the President for leading this historic change. Some disagree. I understand that. But their objection is with the President's Cuba policy. We are talking here about Mexico and an important position that has been unfilled since last summer because a few Senators would rather return to the failed policies of yesterday and are using Roberta to make a political point. Fair Elections Mr. President, just when we think things can't get any worse, they do. 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, no matter who is nominated by the President. This isn't governing; this is a failure to do one's job. Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated, fed up with political games, with obstruction in the Senate, with special deals for insiders, and with campaigns that are being sold to the highest bidder? They see this obstruction as just another example of how our democracy is being taken away from the people. Each year we have a Student Leadership Institute in my State. High school juniors and seniors attend to learn about and discuss the challenges affecting our State and the Nation. I always look forward to meeting with these bright, young people. They are smart and committed, and they raise thoughtful points about how government works and how sometimes it doesn't work. One thing we talked about this year was how important it is to listen. This is one of the most underrated virtues, especially in politics--stating your views but also listening to the views of others. I am always optimistic when I see students engaged in that process. I only wish we could see more of it in Washington. The art of politics is standing your ground, but also finding common ground and listening to the American people. Our democracy depends on every voice being heard and on every vote being counted. We are losing that. We have to get it back or we will continue to pay a heavy price. We can be sure of one thing: Beyond all the money, beyond all the special interests, these students and all Americans deserve to be heard, and they deserve a democracy that works. Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks or rigged districts. The U.S. Supreme Court created a Wild West of campaign finance regulations with their decision in Citizens United and their 2014 McCutcheon decision. It opened a fire sale of super PACs trying to buy elections nationwide. We are seeing the results--from the Iowa caucuses to local elections in Las Cruces, NM. We need to overturn those bad decisions. That is why I have led efforts to amend the Constitution to restore power to Congress and to the States to pass commonsense campaign finance laws. We need to listen to the voters, not to the billionaires hiding in dark corners. That is why earlier this week I introduced legislation to abolish the broken Federal Election Commission. Congress created the Federal Election Commission to fight political corruption when they created it after Watergate. But today, partisan gridlock leaves the agency powerless and dysfunctional. It even fails to enforce the few campaign finance laws remaining on the books. The Federal Election Administration Act would create a new agency, with five members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A chair would lead the agency, and the remaining members would equally represent both political parties. It is modeled after a bipartisan proposal previously introduced by Senator John McCain and former Senator Russ Feingold. Super Tuesday was just 2 days ago. Once again, we are seeing record spending, including millions of dollars in undisclosed dark money. Without a strong watchdog looking over their shoulders, super PACs and billionaire donors have free rein to push the limits. It is clear that the FEC has outlived its usefulness. We need a new agency, one with the power and the will to crack down on campaign finance violations. The Supreme Court has put billionaires and other special interests on a galloping horse. They are running away with our democracy--running away with our elections. We have created a dark money, special interest, gerrymandered train wreck, and the losers are the American people. That is why I have also introduced the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, because part of that train wreck is the secretive and highly partisan congressional redistricting process, and we need to end it. The President highlighted this issue in his State of the Union address, saying, ``We've got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters and not the other way around.'' In most States today, congressional maps are drawn behind closed doors by partisan lawmakers. Their aim is to keep incumbents in office, and they do that. Pick almost any district in the country, and we will see that almost every one is skewed to favor one party or another. We can end the gerrymandering status quo. Redistricting commissions should be independent. They should be led by citizens, not politicians. Arizona and California voted for reform, and they are already bringing new faces to Congress. The American people deserve fair elections-- elections that are free of unlimited and hidden special interest money and free of rigged district lines. Next year, I will meet again with students in my State. We will talk about leadership, about challenges, and about how government works. I hope I will be able to say to them that we have moved forward; we have reformed a broken system. I hope I can say to them that we have done our job and made sure that voters, not powerful elites, have their say. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 365; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition, and I just want to say to Senator Feinstein that this Senator has listened to many of her remarks and very much agrees with what she said, which is that we should be doing our job in terms of this Supreme Court nominee. It is our job to advise and consent. The Constitution says we shall advise and consent when we get nominations. Ten years ago the Senate faced a critical task: to consider the nomination by President Bush of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It was a fierce debate. Many opposed him, and some passionately so. I will not argue that it was an easy road, but it was a road that was traveled because that is our job and that is one of our most important duties. At the time, the current majority leader was very clear on that duty the Senate has. He said: We stand today on the brink of a new and reckless effort by a few to deny the rights of many to exercise our constitutional duty to advise and consent, to give this man the simple up-or-down vote he deserves. The Senate should repudiate this tactic. Justice Alito did get an up-or-down vote and was confirmed 58 to 42, including four Democrats who voted in favor. The majority leader was right. We do have a duty to advise and consent, and the Constitution indeed uses the word ``shall'' advise and consent. A President's nominee does deserve an up-or-down vote. That was true then, and it true now. I do not agree with many of Justice Alito's views, but I do believe that it was critical for the Senate to do its job. Now, here we are with a new nomination to the Supreme Court by a different President, but the majority leader seems to have changed his mind. We are told that no nomination of anyone by this President will be considered. The current Senate majority is refusing its constitutional mandate that it ``shall'' advise and consent, refusing to do its job for blatantly partisan and political purposes. This is misguided, and it is without precedent. The full Senate has always voted to fill a vacancy on every pending Supreme Court nominee in election years and nonelection years, every single one for the last 100 years. We can go back even further than that. The Senate Judiciary Committee was created 200 years ago. According to the Congressional Research Service, the committee's usual practice has been to report every nominee to the full Senate, even those nominees opposed by a majority of the committee. This is a bipartisan tradition that makes sense and that we should follow. When Senator Leahy was Judiciary Committee chairman, he and Ranking Member Hatch did just that. Nominations--even those opposed by a majority of the committee--went to the full Senate. In 2001, the Republican leader, Senator Lott, said that ``no matter what the vote in committee on a Supreme Court nominee, it is the precedent of the Senate that the individual nominated is given a vote by the whole Senate.'' Were those Senators any less principled? I don't think so. Were those Senators any less passionate in their views? No, but they did their job. They knew how important this was to our country. They honored Senate tradition, and they made sure the highest Court in the land was not running on empty. How did we get from there to here? If the majority leader has his way, there will be no hearings, no debate, and no vote. The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is critical to a functioning democracy. It has become contentious only in recent years. It wasn't always so polarizing. Take, for example, Justice Scalia, whom we just lost. Justice Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0. This Senator does not argue that either side of the aisle is 100 percent pure, but we know that a fully functioning Supreme Court is vital to ensure justice in our system of government, and that depends on a fully functioning Senate. This obstruction is part of a bigger problem. We have seen before and we are seeing now that the Senate is broken. The American people are frustrated, fed up with political games, obstruction in the Senate, 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 taken away. In this case, the hammer doing the damage is the filibuster. Instead of debate, we have gridlock. Instead of working together, we have obstruction. That is why I pushed for rules reform in the 112th Congress and in the 113th Congress. That is why I continue to push no matter which party is in the majority. We changed the Senate rules to allow majority votes for executive and judicial nominees to lower courts, but that does no good if they remain blocked, and that is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets longer and longer of perfectly qualified nominees who are denied a vote--denied even to be heard. Meanwhile, the backlog grows to 17 judges, 3 Ambassadors, and even the top official at the Treasury Department whose job is to go after the finances of terrorists. We are on track for the lowest number of confirmations in three decades. We now have 31 judicial districts with emergency levels of backlogs. A year ago, we had 12. Thousands of people wait for their day in court because there is no judge to hear the case. That is justice delayed and justice denied. Just when you think things can't get any worse--they do. A seat on the Supreme Court is empty, and the majority leader is actually arguing that it should stay empty for over a year. I do not believe that the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee, no matter who is in the White House. This Senator says that today and has said it many times before. Amazingly, this obstruction may reach all the way to the Supreme Court--not just for a specific nominee, but for any nominee. What we are seeing is bad going to worse, and what we are seeing is election-year politics. The majority leader said that the voters should have a say in who the next Supreme Court Justice is. They had their say. They overwhelmingly reelected President Obama to a 4-year term-- not a 3-year term. There is no logical end point to the majority leader's position. They say no Supreme Court nominee should be considered in the President's last year. What if this were 2 months ago? Would their views be different if it was December 2015 or October? Additionally, Presidents aren't the only ones with limited terms in office. A number of sitting Senators are retiring. Do their constitutional duties and rights as Senators expire now as well? Of course not, and neither should a President's. Nominees should be judged on their merits. They are public servants in the executive branch, in our courts. They serve the people in this country. They should not be judged on feelings about a President you may not like. That is not governing; that is a temper tantrum. Let's be very clear. A Presidential election year is no excuse. For example, Justice Kennedy was confirmed unanimously in the last year of President Reagan's administration by a Democratic-controlled Senate. Our democracy works with three branches of government, not just two. This assault on the Supreme Court is without precedent, without cause, and should be without support. The President will do his duty and will nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Any Senator has the right to say no, but the American people have the right to hear why. I began my speech with comments by the majority leader. But this really isn't about what the majority leader said 10 years ago or what other majority leaders have said and what both sides say back and forth; it is about what the American people are saying now and what the Constitution has always said: Do your job. Uphold your oath. Move our country forward. So I state to my colleagues: Let's get serious. Let's stop these dangerous games. The President's nominee, whoever that is, deserves consideration. The American people deserve a government that works. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam President, for your recognition. Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 365; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination and, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this is about the nomination of Roberta Jacobson to be Ambassador to Mexico. This is one of the critical positions with one of our Nation's largest trading partners. It has now been vacant for over half a year. Important work is left undone. We also have in this individual, Roberta Jacobson, a highly qualified career nominee. She is ready to serve. She has solid support on both sides of the aisle. There is no doubt in this Senator's mind--and I think many Senators' minds--that we need a strong Ambassador in Mexico City to represent our interests. Mexico is working with us to stop those who cross our southern border illegally. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. One million American citizens live in Mexico. It is our top tourist destination with millions of U.S. visitors going to Mexico every year. There is a lot of work to be done on combatting illegal drug trade, including the trafficking of illegal opioids, reforming the judiciary, and creating economic opportunities on both sides of the border. That is something we are working on together, and we are working together to address immigration issues while cracking down on deadly border violence. In New Mexico, we know the importance of this position and this partnership with Mexico. My State shares a border with Mexico; we also share a cultural heritage and trade that grow with Mexico every year. Exports from New Mexico to Mexico have soared from over $70 million 15 years ago to $1.5 billion a year now. Over 36,000 jobs in my State depend on U.S.-Mexico trade. Arizona, California, and Texas also share similar and deep relations with the Mexican people, and not confirming this nominee harms those States as well. Let me just say a word about Roberta Jacobson. She is a dedicated public servant. The LA Times has called Roberta Jacobson ``among the most qualified people ever to be tapped to represent the U.S. in Mexico.'' Roberta has worked on the Merida Initiative to fight drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico. She has served ably as Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department. Last year the President reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba. After over 50 years of a failed policy with Cuba, Roberta helped negotiate this historic shift, giving the United States an opportunity to engage with the Cuban people. Time and again she did her job and she did it very well. She was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support. This was weeks ago, and still we wait for this nomination to come to the floor and get a vote. It is hard to explain to my constituents that we do not have an ambassador to Mexico because a few Senators disagree with the President's policy on Cuba. They don't understand it. The folks back home don't understand it, and neither do I. This is not just the President's team, this is our team. This is America's team working on trade, on security, moving our economy, and moving all of us forward. We need an ambassador in Mexico City. Roberta Jacobson is more qualified to serve than anybody that has been put up in many, many years. I know we have an objective now, but I would urge my colleagues to sort this out and bring it to the floor, and I would ask the leadership to make this a priority. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise with sorrow and regret to pay tribute to SFC Matthew McClintock. Sergeant McClintock was a native of my home State of New Mexico. He died on January 5 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, from injuries sustained from small arms fire. He was only 30 years old. In answering the call to serve--a call he answered fearlessly multiple times--Sergeant McClintock's brief time on this Earth ended far too soon. It is difficult to imagine the grief his family and friends are feeling, but I just want to say to them that the memory of this American hero among those whose lives he touched, among those whose lives he tried to protect, and in a nation's gratitude, his memory will always endure. Sergeant McClintock served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He joined the Army in 2006 as an infantryman and was assigned to the First Calvary Division in Iraq. He began Army Special Forces training in 2009 and was assigned to the First Special Forces Group. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012. He left Active Duty in 2014 and was later assigned to Alpha Company, First Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group of the Washington Army National Guard and was again deployed with his unit to Afghanistan in July of last year. That is the official record, but it does not begin to tell us the day-to-day risks, hardships, and challenges Sergeant McClintock and his fellow soldiers encountered and the remarkable bravery and determination they gave in return. Our Nation has the finest military on Earth because of the dedication and true grit of Americans like Matthew McClintock. Words cannot take away the pain of those who grieve for Sergeant McClintock. Words cannot fully express the gratitude our Nation owes to this valiant soldier. We can only remember--and must always remember--the sacrifice that SFC Matthew McClintock made in service to our country. We should not forget or take for granted that our men and women in uniform continue to defend our Nation every day. They put their own safety at risk to protect the safety of others. They stand watch in faraway lands always at the ready. Today we remember and we grieve that some of them, like Sergeant McClintock, tragically do not come home. His watch is over, but his fellow soldiers and his family now stand it in his place. President Kennedy said that ``stories of past courage . . . can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But, they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.'' In the face of great danger and great risk to himself, Matthew McClintock went where his country sent him, time and again, and he served with honor and distinction. I am inspired by his courage and the heroic actions of others like him. MG Bret Daugherty, the commander of the National Guard, spoke for all us when he said: Staff Sergeant McClintock was one of the best of the best. He was a Green Beret who sacrificed time away from his loved ones to train for and carry out these dangerous missions. This is a tough loss . . . and a harsh reminder that ensuring freedom is not free. Sergeant McClintock leaves behind a wife, Alexandra, and a young son, Declan. I hope they will find some comfort now and in the years ahead in Sergeant McClintock's great heart and great courage. He was truly a hero. He loved his country, and he made the ultimate sacrifice defending it. To his family, please know that we honor Sergeant McClintock's service, we remember his sacrifice, and we mourn your loss. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for no more than 7 minutes.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack Gardner, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to echo the comments Senator Murkowski made in terms of the new pages. We welcome all of you. We are excited about having you here. It is a big change to go from the previous pages to the new pages. We are excited about how things are moving along. As many people will tell you around here, pages end up doing great things. I have served in the House, and I have served in the Senate. There are Members of the House who started as pages, and there are Members of the Senate who started here as pages. So we are proud of you and expect good things of you. Mr. President, it has been over 8 years since we passed a comprehensive energy bill. A lot has changed since then. I first want to thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for their leadership and hard work. I know both of them worked very hard to find common ground. Senator Murkowski is my chairman of the Interior Department Appropriations subcommittee, and she is always trying to find a way for us to work together to move that appropriations bill forward. The same thing is true of Senator Cantwell's very good leadership on the energy committee. They both had a very tough job, and they crafted an energy bill that I believe moves us forward. This legislation isn't perfect, but it is bipartisan and it is moving us in the right direction. I am pleased that my bill, the Smart Energy and Water Efficiency Act, was included in this legislation. All too often, treated water is lost. A lot of it is wasted because of leaks and broken pipes. My State and many States have had historic droughts. We need every drop of water we can get. We can't afford leaking pipes. We have to do better, and we can do better. This bill supports the Federal pilot projects to develop water and energy efficiency technology. We can create a smart grid of technology to detect leaks in pipes even before they happen. This is critical to communities all across our Nation. Saving water is saving energy. Treating and transporting water is energy intensity. The more we waste, the more we pay--now and later. I also plan to file an amendment I have been working on with a number of other Senators. This amendment, like the House Energy bill, authorizes the WaterSense Program at EPA. The WaterSense Program is to water efficiency what the ENERGY STAR label is to energy efficiency. Products and services that have earned the WaterSense label have to be at least 20 percent more efficient without sacrificing performance. It promotes smart water use and helps consumers decide which products are water efficient. By authorizing this valuable program, we will make the WaterSense Program permanent and help consumers save water energy and money. We face great challenges, and one thing is very clear: Our energy future depends on investment in a clean energy economy. We have to be bold, we have to be innovative, and we have to encourage investment in the kind of creativity and enterprise that change the world and move us in the right direction. So today I am proposing a new initiative that will help us make those investments: clean energy victory bonds. During the First and Second World Wars, our country faced threats we had never faced before. We rose to the challenge. We gave it everything we had. Everyone contributed. For many, that included investing in victory bonds. They helped pay for the costs of war--$185 billion--over $2 trillion in today's money. Folks lined up to buy those bonds. That is the spirit of the American people--to pull together. It was true then, and it is true now. Today, we face a very different threat, but it also requires us all to come together to face our challenges and to fight. National security experts tell us that rising global temperatures are one of our greatest security concerns. In 2015, global temperature records were shattered-- records that were set just the year before. Climate change threatens agriculture, public health, water resources, and weather patterns. We are already feeling the impacts. In New Mexico, temperatures have been rising 50 percent faster than the global average, not just this year or last year but for decades. We have had historic drought. We have had the worst wildfires in our history. The science is clear: The threat is growing, and time is running out. We must act. Governments are working together to reduce emissions, as we saw in Paris last month. The United States is leading, with commitments from over 140 nations to reduce their emissions. This is providing a major signal in the marketplace and is driving up interest in investing in clean energy. Over the next 5 years, 20 nations will double their renewable energy research to $20 billion. Industry is stepping up to the plate as well, pledging to invest at least $2 billion in clean energy startups. This is progress. This is momentum. Our job now is to keep it going. Investment--public and private--is the key. My amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretaries of Treasury and Energy to submit a plan to Congress, to develop clean energy victory bonds--bonds all Americans could invest in. These bonds would raise up to $50 billion. That money could leverage up to $150 billion to invest in clean energy technology and would create over 1 million new jobs. People across the country want to do their part. They want to invest in a clean energy future and to help fight climate change. But most of them can't afford clean energy mutual funds with $1,000 or $5,000 minimums. Many can't afford $25 or $50. We must invest in jobs and healthier communities. Clean energy victory bonds will provide that opportunity. We can do this without any new taxes on individuals or businesses. Bonds are completely voluntary, and they are an opportunity for ordinary Americans who see the challenge and who want to do something about it. Here is how it works: Like war bonds, clean energy victory bonds would be U.S. Treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Investors will earn back their full investment--plus interest that comes from energy savings to the government--and loan repayments for solid projects. The investment would make a critical difference in our energy future. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. We face a great challenge, and we have a great opportunity. Now is the time for action. The American people want to pitch in and do what they can to fight global warming and to help ensure that the United States leads the world in the clean energy economy. Support for this amendment is growing with groups like the American Sustainable Business Council and Green America. Americans are already asking where they can purchase these bonds. This Energy bill is a good step, but it is a modest step. Our energy and climate challenges demand much more. Again, I thank Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell. They have managed to move a bipartisan bill and keep the process on track. I urge them to accept my amendment and to further strengthen this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last night was a historic moment in the Senate. After years and years of negotiations and collaboration, after working with stakeholders across the country, we made tremendous progress toward historic, bipartisan environmental reform. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act passed the Senate on a unanimous voice vote, with 60 bipartisan cosponsors and with overwhelming support. This is a great milestone. First, I want to thank Senator Vitter. Senator Vitter and I introduced this legislation for one basic reason: to fix our Nation's broken chemical safety law. I remember that over 2 years ago we had a very quiet dinner, and we walked away from that dinner saying: We are going to form a team, and we are going to get this done. It was after Frank Lautenberg had passed away, and Senator Vitter is a man of his word. We stuck to it, and we are making significant historic progress. I thank him for that. There were times when the bill was stalled from even getting introduced, and Senators like Tom Carper stepped in and helped us get back on track. I thank Senator Carper for that. His early leadership as an original cosponsor of this bill got us off on the much needed right foot. Other moderates joined in, and we had some momentum building up. This has been a long road to get here today. I thank Chairman Inhofe for his calm, steady leadership, and Senator Merkley, Senator Booker, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Markey, Senator Coons, Senator Durbin, and many others. They all helped move this forward and all helped make this a better bill. I also thank Bonnie Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg fought hard for TSCA reform. I was proud to take up that fight, and I am grateful to Bonnie, who has helped us every step of the way. She has been an incredible advocate in terms of interacting with Senators and their staff to push the crucial message forward on TSCA reform, and it was the message her husband Frank Lautenberg would repeat every day when I saw him in committee. He said: Are we doing the right thing for our children and our grandchildren? He really believed TSCA reform would save more lives than anything he had ever done in his life. He had a very rich life and lived to be almost 90 years old. I wish to also recognize the great advocates for reform. A lot of this was grassroots people standing up and saying that we haven't done what we need to do for the American people, for our families, and for our children on chemical safety. There are too many to mention all of them, but the Bipartisan Policy Center stood up and helped out; the Environmental Defense Fund--Fred Krupp, their leader, played a crucial role; the National Wildlife Federation; March of Dimes; North America's Building Trades Unions; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Moms Clean Air Force; the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; the Humane Society, and so many others. All of these groups taken together represent over 30 million Americans. They all support the Lautenberg act. They pushed Congress to act, and they kept pushing until we did that. Many thousands of Americans have worked for chemical safety reform over the last four decades. Thank you for not giving up. They understand that we need a national solution to our broken chemical safety law. The Toxic Substances Control Act was enacted in 1976--nearly 40 years ago. It was supposed to protect American families, but it doesn't. Over four decades, the EPA has been able to restrict just five chemicals and it has prevented only four chemicals from going to market. That is out of tens of thousands of chemicals. Everyday Americans go to the grocery store or the hardware store, and they believe the chemicals in the products they buy have been tested and are safe, but that is not true because TSCA is broken. This is about health and safety. This is about our children and grandchildren. This is about people like Dominique Browning, who works with Moms Clean Air Force and worries about her kids and the toys and products they use every day. She herself survived kidney cancer. When she asked her doctor what caused her kidney cancer, he said: ``It's one of those environmental ones. Who knows? We're full of chemicals.'' That was her doctor talking to her when she got kidney cancer. This is about people like Lisa Huguenin. Lisa is a Ph.D. scientist and has done work on chemical exposure at Princeton and Rutgers and at the State and Federal levels. She is a mother first. Her 13-year-old son Harrison was born with autism and autoimmune deficiencies. Five years ago, Lisa testified before Senator Lautenberg's subcommittee on the need for reform. She is eager to see TSCA reform signed into law. That is why we are here--to fix this broken system. Now we are close to the finish line for the first time in almost 40 years. In 2009 the Obama administration laid out six essential principles for TSCA reform. The bill we passed last night meets all six of those principles, and I will go through each one individually. Principle No. 1, chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment. Our bill requires the EPA to assess chemicals based only on the health and safety information, not on the cost. That was a significant change we made, and many of the Senators I talked about earlier helped us to get that done. Principle No. 2, manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health or the environment. Our bill gives EPA new authorities to develop testing data and requires a finding of safety before new chemicals--as many as 1,500 a year--enter the market. The finding on safety needs to be done not like it is done today but before they enter the marketplace. Principle No. 3, risk management decisions should take into account sensitive subpopulations, cost, availability of substitutes, and other relevant considerations. Our bill specifically requires the protection of vulnerable populations and lists examples of vulnerable populations, such as infants, the elderly, pregnant women, workers, and others. Principle No. 4, manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner. Our bill requires the EPA to systematically review all the chemicals in commerce, prioritizing the chemicals of most concern first, and it sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions. Principle No. 5, green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to information should be strengthened. Our bill includes a section on sustainable chemistry and also makes more information about chemicals available by limiting industry's ability to claim information as confidential, and it gives States and health professionals access to confidential information to protect the public. Principle No. 6, EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation. Our bill gives EPA sustained sources of funding and ensures that the EPA's priorities are not overwhelmed by private interests to ensure that the program we implement is a risk-based system. Additionally, the bill allows EPA to develop cost-effective final regulations but without the high procedural hurdles in the underlying statute, strikes an appropriate balance between Federal and State action, gives States the right to coenforce Federal standards. This will give a State's attorney general the ability to move when the Federal Government may not be moving, and it leaves State civil actions alone and gives no special advantage to either side in litigation. We are on the verge of historic reform, decades in the making and decades overdue. TSCA is the last of the environmental laws from the 1960s and 1970s left to be updated. Some days you might not think we could pass a major environmental law in Congress, but we have proven that wrong and we have a very strong bill. Our bill finally gives the EPA the authority it needs to set clear guidance for the EPA to evaluate new and existing chemicals and to protect the American people. That is why support for this bill was so strong and continued to build--from environmental, conservation, good government, industry, and health and labor groups. We will be working to reconcile the bill with the House legislation. This is historic reform. The old TSCA will be obsolete. We will have a cop on the beat and will finally be able to protect our kids from toxic chemicals. I wish to again thank Senator Vitter. I am proud to work with him on this bill. We may have disagreed many times on other issues, and the negotiations were sometimes difficult, but we stayed at the table, listened to all sides, and looked for solutions instead of roadblocks, and I thank Senator Vitter for that. I also want to again thank the many colleagues who worked with us to ensure that we have the best possible bill. At every step of the way, we had Senators from both sides of the aisle step forward, make suggestions, join the bill, cosponsor, and helped to move us forward. It wouldn't be right to finish this afternoon without mentioning the staff. The staff in the Senate do an incredible job in terms of getting focused on the issues, learning about them in depth, working with each other, and many times moving roadblocks out of the way. We had a number of staff members who worked on this legislation. Dimitri Karakitsos worked for Senator Vitter when Senator Vitter was chairman and he now works for Chairman Inhofe. Dimitri has been amazing in terms of his staff ability and his understanding. We really appreciate all of his help. I wish to also thank Chairman Inhofe's staff director, Ryan Jackson; Zak Baig, with Senator Vitter; Colin Peppard, with Senator Carper; Adrian Deveny, with Senator Merkley; Emily Enderle, with Senator Whitehouse; Adam Zipkin, with Senator Cory Booker; Michal Freedhoff, with Senator Markey; Jasmine Hunt, with Senator Durbin; and Lisa Hummon-Jones, with Senator Coons. I have mentioned the great work that Jonathan Black, a member of my staff, has done, but we have also had incredible work by my legislative director, Andrew Wallace, and all of my staff at various points. This legislation has been a heavy burden, and my staff worked hard to get this legislation completed. I truly appreciate the hard work they have done, including my chief of staff and everybody in the office. We also had the opportunity to consult with and ask for help from the Senate legislative counsel. They worked to turn around text quickly at crucial points, and that makes all the difference in the world--to have text, get it looked at, get the changes made, and get back to the individuals who are involved. Michelle Johnson-Weider played a key role, as did Deanna Edwards. I am sure there were others over there who also helped us out. This is not a definitive list. There were also many others. I wish to conclude by thanking, again, our bipartisan partners. Senator Vitter and I have been working on this for years. We took it up after Senator Lautenberg passed away. Senator Vitter was on the committee as the ranking member and the chairman--and back and forth-- and then Senator Inhofe took over. I remember when we had a meeting with Senator Inhofe, and he took a real interest in this legislation. He has incredible calm, steady judgment in terms of pulling together what needs to happen to get a bill done in this sometimes hyperpartisan atmosphere. As chairman, he was always willing to listen to the people on the committee, off the committee, and pull people together to help them find common ground on this bill. With that, we look forward to working with our House colleagues. Many of us served in the House. We served with House Members Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, John Shimkus, and Representative Tonko. These are some of the key people who will be working on this in the House, and we look forward to working with them and their staff and each other to reconcile these bills. The House has some very good ideas in its bill. We have been a little more expansive and covered more areas, and I hope they will work with us on that. We look forward to working with them and putting the two bills together and then getting this passed early next year. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I couldn't agree with Chairman Inhofe more. I know he knew Senator Lautenberg very well and worked with him on the committee and off the committee on a variety of issues. He was very committed to his grandchildren. As Senator Inhofe knows, many times we would see him in committee, and when he would talk specifically about the bills before us, he would say: Is this going to help my children and their children? One of the things he talked about on this bill was that this would save more lives and help his grandchildren's generation more than any bill he ever worked on. So he was very proud of this bill, and we were very sorry to lose him. But the thing I want to say about Chairman Inhofe is that as a dedicated and determined legislator, he saw the opportunity. Senator Vitter and I had worked on this. We came to Senator Inhofe at the beginning of the Congress and said: We have a good bipartisan piece of legislation we have worked on for a while. But you took the bull by the horns. You ended up helping us improve it. I think when we started in the committee--when you marked it up earlier in the year in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we had maybe one or two Democrats supporting it. We expanded that, and it passed out with a 15- to-5 vote, so a very significant vote in terms of holding people together. I really give you a lot of credit for the way you ran the committee, how gracious you were when Senator Lautenberg's widow, Bonnie Lautenberg, came down and spoke, and I wasn't on the committee any longer, but how you treated me and had me speak before the committee on the work we had done. It has been a real pleasure. All those staff members you mentioned--from Dimitri, to Jonathan Black, to Drew Wallace, and all the other staff members of the large number of Senators on the committee--Senator Carper, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Merkley, Senator Markey, Senator Booker--many Senators on that committee focused in with you and with Senator Vitter to make sure we got this done. I am very proud of what we have done today. I think it will be looked back on as a major environmental accomplishment in terms of bipartisanship and pulling people together. The thing we did that I am very proud of is we had all stakeholders at the table and we listened to them and we proceeded through. It is a real tribute to Senator Inhofe's ability as a legislator. We don't have to be convinced on this bill. Just earlier in the year, he produced a transportation bill--which was a major accomplishment--for 5 years. So now once again Chairman Inhofe shows how he is able to pull people together and get this done. So I once again just want to thank you. I know there are additional comments we will make later on. I know the Lautenberg family has followed this closely. Bonnie Lautenberg has followed this. They are going to be very proud. As you know, we are naming the legislation after Frank Lautenberg. It is going to be called the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of 2015. So all of us who served with Frank Lautenberg are going to be very happy and proud that this significant major piece of legislation will carry his name.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to urge consideration of the President's nominee for Ambassador to Mexico. I do so for two simple reasons: One, this is a critical position, vacant since July, and, two, Roberta Jacobson is highly qualified for this position. Her nomination deserves our attention. I do so as a Senator from a border State and as a Senator who believes we have a constitutional duty to advise and consent. We have a distinguished candidate ready to serve. We have strong support for her on both sides of the aisle. What we need is an up-or- down vote. The L.A. Times has called Roberta Jacobson ``among the most qualified people ever to be tapped to represent the U.S. in Mexico.'' She has impressive experience, including important work on the Merida Initiative, fighting drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico. She has served ably as State Department Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere, working to improve relations in our hemisphere and to engage Cuba--opening opportunities for Americans after over 50 years of a failed U.S. policy. She was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support. Yet the weeks go by and still we wait. Our relations with Mexico are critical--affecting our economy, affecting our security. Mexico is working with us to stop those who cross our southern border illegally. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. One million American citizens live in Mexico. It is our top tourist destination, with millions of U.S. visitors every year. My State shares a border with our neighbor to the south. We also share a cultural heritage. The trade that grows every year--hundreds of millions of dollars in goods and services--move between our Nations. Over 36,000 jobs in my State depend on United States-Mexico trade. This increased trade is an engine of economic growth. Exports from New Mexico to Mexico have soared from over $70 million a year to now $1.5 billion 15 years later. In New Mexico we know how important this partnership is. We need a strong ambassador in Mexico City--working on trade, on border security, and on cultural ties between our Nations. We need an ambassador to work with Mexico and other Central American countries to address immigration issues, to help resolve the migrant crisis, to crack down on border violence and drug trafficking. This is clear to both sides of the aisle, especially to those of us from border States. As someone who has worked with Roberta on multiple issues, I know she is the right person for this job. I especially want to thank my Republican colleague, Senator Jeff Flake, for his efforts. He is concerned, as I am, that this cannot wait. As Senator Flake said recently: It's crunch time now. Once you get into next year, it's easier to just put them on hold until the next president assumes office in 2017. I hope that will not happen. I hope we will listen to Senator Flake because it is crunch time and because we do need to get this done. What is holding up her nomination? It isn't her qualifications. It isn't concerns about how she would be able to carry out her duties as Ambassador. The problem is rooted in something else--something that should have no bearing on whether she is confirmed: Presidential politics and policy differences with the administration over her work on Cuba. This year, the world celebrated the reopening of diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. As the Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere, Roberta helped negotiate this shift. We have begun a 21st century relationship with Cuba--one I am convinced will bring freedom and openness. I congratulate the President for leading this historic change. A few Senators disagree with his Cuba policy, and so they are blocking Roberta Jacobson's confirmation to serve as Ambassador to Mexico. Unfortunately, this is just one example of how the rules are being twisted and misused. She is one of the many qualified nominees whose confirmations are on hold. Many of them wait because one or two Senators want to make a political point or extract political pain. Not happy with the President? Block his nominee. Not OK with a policy? Keep the seat vacant. The real aim is the administration. No matter how qualified, the nominee is just an easy target. Meanwhile, the backlog grows: 19 judges, half a dozen ambassadors, even a top official at the Treasury Department whose job is to go after the finances of terrorists. That position is vacant as well. We are on track for the lowest number of confirmations in three decades. We now have 30 judicial districts with emergency levels of backlogs. At the beginning of the year, we had 12. Thousands of people are waiting for their day in court because there is no judge to hear the case. Important work for the American people is left undone. When we fail to do our job, when we fail to give these nominees a vote up or down, our government fails too. This is not just the President's team. It is our team. It is America's team--working on trade and security, moving our economy forward, seeing that justice is done. These vital posts should not go unfilled. I urge my colleagues to allow us to move these nominations forward now. I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee, no matter who is in the White House. I say that today, and I have said it many times before. A Republican President may have nominees I disagree with. That is most likely so. But the people elect a President. They give him or her the right to select a team to govern. Today--right now--the majority leader can call a vote to confirm these nominees, yet he chooses not to. We changed the Senate rules to allow a majority vote, but that does no good if they remain blocked. That is what is happening in this Congress. The line gets longer and longer of perfectly qualified nominees who are denied a vote and are unable to serve. So I am not sure who wins here, but I know who loses. The losers are the American people. The losers are the men and women who cannot get a day in court, because there is no judge to hear their case. The losers are American citizens, businesses, and workers who rely on our embassies and other public servants. The room is empty, and the work is not done--all because one Senator says no, and the majority leader says OK. Nominees should be judged on their merits, not on feelings about a President someone may not like or a policy someone may not approve. They are public servants in the executive branch, on our courts. They serve the people of this country. Too often now that service goes begging because one Senator wants to make a point and will gum up the works to do it. That is not governing; it is a temper tantrum. So I say to my colleagues: Let's get serious. Let's stop these games. Give nominees the consideration they deserve. Give the American people a government that works. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to first say to Senator Cardin, who led our delegation--Senator Cardin is the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. Foreign relations has a lot to do with this issue. He showed great leadership, and I believe he is passionate about this issue and finding solutions. So we were somewhat disappointed, the 10 of us who went--all Democrats--that Republicans didn't join us. This is an issue that needs bipartisanship. We need to join--Republicans and Democrats--on an issue that threatens our national security, threatens our economy, and threatens our environment. It is an issue that is looming out there and needs attention. So we look forward to working with our friends on the other side of the aisle to move forward on this issue. As I looked over there and saw what was happening, I remembered many of the briefings we have had. Everyone who has looked at this challenge of global warming and climate change says that we need to do two things. First, we need to drive capital to new energy sources, to clean energy sources. We need to innovate is what they are talking about. If you get the capital there and you get the private sector working, you can come up with the solutions. Secondly, we need to put a signal in the marketplace to invest in clean energy and renewable energy. I was so proud of what happened over there in terms of the world joining together. More than 184 countries came together, and we are going to see the conclusion of their action this week. They have stepped forward and said: We are going to have targets, we are going to have goals, and we are going to be transparent. We are going to let people know we are moving in the direction of solutions and doing something about this immense problem. So it was a major step forward to see those 184 countries step up and decide to do something. In addition, Bill Gates led a group of entrepreneurs over to Paris to announce and to challenge the world about energy research and development. As everyone knows, Bill Gates is one of our great entrepreneurs. He and his wife are also philanthropists. He stepped up with 27 other billionaires to say: We are going to put billions into research and development, and we are going to put it into innovation. They called this project Mission Innovation, and they challenged other countries around the world to do the same thing-- double their energy research and budget. So seeing 184 countries step up to the plate and say ``We are going to do this''--and I think we will see those announcements in the next couple of days--and seeing these entrepreneurs step forward I think was a signal--and a bold signal--to the marketplace that we are changing and moving in a new direction and that we are going to get this done. I am very proud of my State of New Mexico because we have all sorts of energy--uranium, coal, oil, gas--and we have many renewable sources--wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, but we have taken a strong step in New Mexico to push for renewable resources. In our State statutes, we pushed for a renewable electricity standard of 10 percent by 2010. We met that early, so we put another standard in place of 20 percent by 2020. We are really in the bull's-eye in terms of climate change in New Mexico because of what we see and what we know happens in the Southwest. The temperatures are twice as high. We have seen those temperatures increase over the last 50 years. So we know there is a crisis, we know there is an issue, we know we need to do something about this, and we are very willing to step forward. Mr. President, according to a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory, by 2050--not far away--we may not have any forests left in my State. It will be as if New Mexico were dragged 300 miles to the south. Our climate will resemble land that is now in the middle of the Chihuahuan desert. Now, I am not a scientist. Neither are my colleagues. But the experts at LANL--and scientists all over the world--are clear. If we do nothing, global warming will only get worse. The nations of the world know this. That is why over 190 nations are in Paris: To meet the challenge of climate change, and to do it together. The Paris agreement will not solve the problem of global warming by itself, but it is a major step forward. It is what we need to ensure every country does its part, and does its fair share on climate change. The largest emitters in the developing world--China and India--are making serious commitments. They understand, they have to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. This is about their economy, and it is about a commitment to future generations. Opponents of U.S. climate action have argued that other nations-- especially China--would never act to limit their emissions. Well, now they are. This is encouraging--and something we need to encourage further. That is what the world's scientists tell us. That is what our own Department of Defense tells us. We can make progress now--or face ever greater instability later. More than 180 nations are on board with individual commitments. They will take concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is historic. This will slow global warming--and it must be done now, not later. The world cannot afford to wait. These nations see the threat. They see the mounting danger. A representative from Bangladesh told me that in his country every day, they face the threat of rising sea levels. These countries came to Paris with a commitment to succeed. And the work began before Paris--such as when the U.S. and China announced major mitigation commitments last year. Our task now is to keep up the momentum, to keep moving forward--both at home and abroad. I believe there are two things we can do right now: No. 1, work to drive capital to new energy efficient technologies. We need to renew the Production Tax Credit for renewables. Tax incentives have been in place for decades for oil and gas. Wind, solar and biofuels need that investment as well. No. 2, send a positive signal to the markets. That means keeping our own climate goals on track, and stopping efforts that would turn back progress. That means encouraging capital investment in sustainable energy--not just in the U.S, but, throughout the world. We are seeing a growing investment in new technologies with public and private resources. Last week, 28 of the world's billionaires committed to investing in energy research and innovation. And we are seeing a major market signal that there is demand for those technologies--here in the U.S. through the Clean Power Plan and other measures, and across the globe, especially in developing countries, that have demonstrated a commitment to grow their economies in a cleaner, more sustainable way. Now is the time for action. America must lead, because we cannot ignore the danger--to our planet, to our economy, and to our security. The science is clear, the threat is growing, and time is running out. This is not news to people in my State. In New Mexico, temperatures are rising 50 percent faster than the global average--not just this year or last year, but for decades. We have seen historic droughts. When it does rain we have seen terrible flooding. And we have seen the worst wildfires in New Mexico's history. What we have not seen--what we have waited for--is for Congress to act. It has not been for lack of trying. There have been many attempts-- including bipartisan ones. But each and every time Congress failed to make it to the finish line, failed to pass comprehensive legislation-- in both Houses--to curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Just this week, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science held a hearing focused on whether climate change is real. This is settled science. The world has moved on. The United States Congress should, too. So the President and the EPA have used their authority under the Clean Air Act to lead. They have done what needs to be done, with the support of many of us here in Congress--and of the American people. The Clean Power Plan is reasonable, and it will make a difference to restrict emissions from new and existing power plants. Mr. President, I hope that going forward Congress will work on solutions--rather than wasting time on Resolutions of Disapproval, rather than wasting time on questioning science. The American people do not want a science debate. They want action. The world has come together in Paris. Nations are moving forward. The very real question now is--how do we keep that going? As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to fight against dangerous environmental riders. I am encouraged by the conference in Paris, and I am confident that the United States will continue to lead--even if our Republican colleagues continue to block. With increased U.S. leadership over the last 5 years we have made great international progress. The Paris conference is evidence of that. Another sign of progress--the world's largest oil and gas companies are supporting a climate agreement. BP, Shell--and the massive state oil companies of Saudi Arabia and Mexico--are among the ten major oil companies making commitments. The United States can help lead this effort--not only at the negotiating table in Paris, but on the front lines in New Mexico and every other State. Because in this great challenge, there is also great opportunity. Our country can lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the technology, we have the resources. We need the commitment. That means finding solutions, developing technology, and not denying scientific reality; not wasting time on empty resolutions that come from nowhere and go nowhere. There are now more solar jobs in the United States than coal jobs. My state has every kind of energy resource: Coal, oil, gas, uranium, solar, wind, algae biofuel and more. We are doing all we can to diversify--and reduce carbon emissions. A clean energy economy protects our communities and creates jobs. A renewable electricity standard--which I have long fought for--would create 300,000 jobs. Most of these jobs are high-paying, they are local, and they cannot be shipped overseas. Support for renewable energy is strong. Nearly half of the U.S. Senate supported my amendment in January for a Renewable Electricity Standard that would mandate that 30 percent of our energy come from renewable resources by 2030. Over half the States already have renewable energy portfolios. Many of them are being met and exceeded. In New Mexico, we are blessed with great natural resources and with great human resources as well. Researchers at Sandia and Los Alamos national labs are studying climate change--not with an agenda, but with a commitment--to tackling the problem, with real science and with real innovation. Together, we can meet this challenge. We can find a path forward that works. We can work with the global community. We can protect our planet. But, America must lead and help drive progress across the world. Mr. President, 48 national security and foreign policy leaders-- Democrats and Republicans alike--have sounded the alarm. From Chuck Hagel to William Cohen, from Madeleine Albright to George Schultz, in a joint statement they urge us to fight climate change. They urge us to ``think past tomorrow.'' The Paris agreement is a starting point and a historic opening for a global effort to address climate change. It is an opportunity, it is an obligation, and it is something that history will show was the right thing to do. Mr. President, I see my colleagues have joined me on the floor. Senator Schatz, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Cory Booker are down here, and they have done excellent work. I yield at this time to Senator Schatz. I would just say by the way of introduction that I am so impressed with his State and the leadership in his State. Hawaii is going to be a 100-percent renewable State in 2040. A lot of that is due to his leadership and his legislature and Governor stepping up to the plate. With that, Senator Schatz.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, no family should lose a loved one to a drunk driver. But, sadly, so many families do--every day, every month, every year. It happens in my State. It happens all across our Nation. It is tragic, it is senseless, and it must stop. Last weekend, according to the Albuquerque Journal, police reported that an ``extremely intoxicated'' driver ran a red light and smashed into the car of three young people. Robert Mendez was 27 years old. His brother Sergio Mendez-Aguirre was 23, and their friend Grace Sinfield was 20. The violence of the collision was so great that their car flipped over. They died early Sunday morning--at the end of the Thanksgiving weekend. The police investigation continues. But this much is certain: A holiday that began in joy--for these families--ended in great sorrow. Sergio Mendez-Aguirre graduated from the University of New Mexico with honors in chemistry. Robert Mendez was a student at UNM. Grace Sinfield was studying to be a writer. Our hearts go out to the Mendez and Sinfield families. These young people were just beginning, just starting out in life, and just finding their way. Robert Mendez's family remembers how he believed that, ``Fear is everyone's number one enemy. Take chances, make mistakes, and learn from them. After all, we grow from experience. Life is too short to live timidly.'' The Albuquerque Journal reported that Sergio Mendez-Aguirre once asked, ``What can make you more happy than making others happy?'' His answer was, ``Nothing can.'' Grace Sinfield's family spoke of her great spirit. ``She was a true friend who taught us how to love unconditionally; she was the life of every party. She attracted laughter like she was a magnet. Just as important and relevantly, she was always responsible and by proxy made those around her more responsible and better people.'' Three young lives--full of promise--and now over in one terrible moment--they will be missed by so many in Albuquerque. Every DWI death is a tragedy--and an unnecessary tragedy. It doesn't have to happen. But, year after year, for too many families, it does. More than 10,000 people are killed every year, and another 290,000 are injured, all as a result of drunk driving. Those are horrific numbers, but they are more than just numbers. They are stories of profound loss and should outrage us all. In years past, it was even worse. In 1980, 25,000 people--two and one-half times more people than now--died because of drunk driving--25,000 people, in 1 year. We are making progress thanks to determined families and law enforcement and thanks to groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I am proud to work with them. But we still have work to do. There are 10,000 families--every year--to remind us--10,000 families in grief, in pain, and all because of drunk driving. No parent should have to grieve a child's loss on the holidays--or any day. When I was elected attorney general in New Mexico 25 years ago, we had the highest rate of DWI deaths in the Nation. We were the worst-- too many drunk drivers, too many repeat offenders, too many innocent people dying every year. We pushed for reform. We identified solutions--in law enforcement and in prevention. But there was a lot of push back, a lot of opposition in the State legislature. And then along came a mom named Nadine Milford. Her daughter and granddaughters were killed by a drunk driver on Christmas Eve 1992. It is hard to imagine such a loss. So we changed New Mexico's DWI and traffic safety laws. We got it done because of moms like Nadine, because of families and friends who had had enough and would not take no for an answer. In the early 1990s, my State had up to 500 DWI deaths a year. Last year, it was 166. But that is still 166 too many. We still lose too many innocent lives--young and old alike--in New Mexico and all across our Nation. I believe new technology will help. That is why I have pushed for the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS. This technology is critically important and will make a critical difference. We all know this. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration knows it. The auto industry knows it. And they are working together to make it happen. DADSS would be built into new vehicles. It would analyze a driver's breath or blood alcohol content. It would stop drunk drivers from turning on the engine. If you are drunk, you will not drive, period. This could save 59,000 lives over 15 years. It could save up to $343 billion. The highway bill includes continued funding for DADSS research over the next 5 years. I am grateful the conference committee supported this vital technology. But technology alone is not enough. In the meantime, the message should be loud and clear. Anyone who gets behind the wheel while impaired should not drive. That is why I also urge passage of a resolution I am submitting-- supporting the December 3, 2015, National Day of Remembrance for victims of drunk and drugged driving. We want to say to their families--we have not forgotten them. We remember. We will do all we can to prevent these tragedies. There are still far too many, far too often. In the time I have been speaking, two more people have been injured in a drunk driving crash. Every hour, another life is taken. We all have to say--enough is enough. We have to keep saying it-- until every single person in this country gets the message: If you drink, don't drive. Albuquerque police officer Simon Drobik spoke for all of us--when he said, ``Talk to your kids about drinking and driving. Share these tragic stories with them so they understand driving is a big responsibility. If you see your friend or loved one trying to get behind the wheel after drinking STOP THEM. Do the right thing.'' Officer Drobik is right. We all need to do the right thing. Let's not wait for 10,000 more families to lose their loved ones. We have to keep up the fight. Nelson Mandela said, ``It always seems impossible--until it is done.'' We can keep drunk drivers off the road. It is not impossible. We can get it done. For the sake of all families, for those who grieve now--and for those who may grieve in the future--let's do all we can. Let's work together. Let's stop these senseless tragedies. Let's get it done.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague Senator Warren for those very eloquent remarks. She and the Senators she traveled with have taught us a lot. We have heard her comments, and she is right. Our values in the United States of America are accepting and open to refugees who flee violence and persecution, and that is the country we are. So I thank very much the Senator from Massachusetts for her remarks. As I have said, we all have learned very much from her and the trip she took and from what she shared with us. Terrorist Attacks Against France Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today, in addition to the comments I have just made, I wanted to first pause for just a moment and say a few words about the Paris attacks last Friday. The people of New Mexico and the people the world over are grieving for those who were killed and injured in the horrific attacks that have just been spoken about by Senator Warren and others who have come to the floor today. Earlier today, we had a moment of silence to recognize them. I just want to say that our thoughts are with the French people, and we are united in our resolve to fight the murderous thugs of terrorism who thrive on hate, intolerance, and fear. I met today with the French Ambassador to give him New Mexicans' heartfelt condolences. All of us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate leadership met today with the French Ambassador to say to him that we stand together with him against these murderous thugs. Mr. President, today, because we are on this resolution of disapproval, we are discussing the issue of climate change and global warming. It is one of our greatest challenges and we have a choice. We can deny the reality. We can ignore the danger to our planet, to our economy, and to our security--that is one choice--or we can move forward. We can work together. We can find common ground with a diversified energy portfolio that includes clean energy, with an energy policy that makes sense, that creates jobs, that protects the environment, and that will keep our Nation strong. That is the choice we should make, that is the choice we must make and, once again, that is the choice we are failing to make. This year is almost over. It will likely be the warmest year on record. The current record holder is last year--2014. The impact is clear. People are seeing it all over the world, with rising sea levels and increased droughts. The Southwest is at the eye of the storm. In New Mexico, temperatures are rising 50 percent faster than the global average, not just this year or last year but for decades. This has strained my State with terrible droughts and wildfires. When the rain does come, it often brings floods as well. In 2011, we had the largest fire in our State's history--the Las Conchas fire. Then, in 2012--just a year later--we had an even larger wildfire. The Whitewater-Baldy fire burned 259,000 acres. We have seen massive droughts. Our crops and natural resources are at risk. Through all of this, Congress has failed to act. There have been many attempts in the past. We have had many bipartisan bills introduced in the Senate, including the McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, the Bingaman-Specter cap-and-trade proposal, the Cantwell-Collins cap-and- dividend proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, the Kerry-Graham bill, and others. In the House of Representatives, I had my own bipartisan bill with Representative Tom Petri. In 2005, over half the Senate voted on a resolution affirming the need to implement mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Each and every time Congress failed to make it to the finish line--failed to pass comprehensive legislation in both Houses to curb our greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Time is growing short, and we are going from bad to worse. So the President and the EPA have used their authority under the Clean Air Act to implement restrictions and to control the pollution. They have done what needs to be done with the support of many of us in Congress and, as we know, with the support of the American people. The proposals are reasonable, they are critical, and they will make a difference to restricting emissions from new and existing powerplants. Some in the Senate have argued these proposals do too much and others argue they don't do enough, but instead of rolling up our sleeves and developing a comprehensive energy and climate strategy of our own, we are here today voting on a Republican resolution of disapproval of the Clean Power Plan rules. What a waste of our time, the American people's time, and the time we have left to seriously address this very important problem. I started this speech talking about choices and again we are making the wrong one. We are wasting time when we should be working together and developing proposals that would address global warming and help push forward clean energy jobs. There are now more solar jobs in the United States than coal jobs. There are currently more than 98 solar companies in New Mexico, employing 1,600 people. Renewable energy jobs and solutions are in abundance in New Mexico, and this is true for many other States. A renewable electricity standard, which I have long fought for, would create 300,000 jobs. Most of these jobs are high- paying, local, and cannot be shipped overseas. Congress could be using this time moving forward. Our country can lead the world in a clean energy economy. We have the technology, we have the resources, and we need the commitment. Instead, the Republican leadership in Congress is doubling down, trying to overturn the President and derailing the progress we are making. They do so knowing they will fail, knowing the President will veto it, and knowing the votes aren't there to override the veto. Once again, this is a lot of sound, a lot of fury, and a lot of wasted time. It makes a false claim that support for climate action does not exist in the United States, and it does so ahead of the Paris Climate Conference, where 153 countries, it is my understanding at this point, are going to gather and sign on to positive climate proposals. Action on climate change is under attack in the U.S. Senate. That is true, make no mistake about it, but also make no mistake that all of these attacks will fail. I have led the charge in our Appropriations Committee, on the subcommittee of which I am the ranking member, to fight against dangerous environmental riders. I will continue to fight them, and they will fail. My colleagues and I are here today in opposition to this resolution of disapproval and we also are here to ask that we move on, to ask that we work together and face the very real threat of climate change. We will go to Paris next month, and we will get a solid, strong agreement from the international community. The United States will continue to lead on this issue even if our Republican colleagues continue to fight it each step of the way. With that, I yield the floor to my good friend from Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, who has been an incredible champion in terms of working legislation and who had a big part a Congress or two ago getting climate change legislation out of the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 2015. First, I thank Senator Heinrich, who will be here with me in a moment, for working with me on this bill. He is a dedicated conservation Senator from the West and really cares about this issue, and we have both been working together on this bill. I so much appreciate all of his hard work and his commitment to this important legislation. I also thank Senator Bennet and Senator Wyden for their hard work and support on this bill. I also thank our New Mexico colleague, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, for his efforts on the House side. We are proposing this bill for one reason: to reform the mining law of 1872. It is a matter of simple fairness, it is a matter of common sense, and it is a reform that is long overdue. The 1872 mining law played a historic role in the settling of the West. It encouraged mining for silver, gold, copper, uranium, and other minerals on public lands. It helped the West to grow, but there was a price--one we are still paying. It did almost nothing to compensate the public, it did nothing to protect the environment, and it did nothing to require mines to clean up the mess. It did nothing to require those mines to clean up the mess. The legacy is clear--thousands of abandoned mines, contaminated land, polluted streams, costly cleanup, and taxpayers stuck with the bill. We have a 19th-century law which is totally inadequate to 21st-century challenges. The spill at the Gold King mine earlier this year tells the story. With terrible damage in my State, in other States, and in the Navajo Nation, this is a disaster on many levels--to our water, our economy, and to our culture. Mistakes were made at the Gold King mine. We have to do all we can to make sure they are not made again and to make sure our communities are fairly compensated for losses. That is why Senator Heinrich and I introduced the Gold King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015. The Gold King mine disaster is also a wakeup call. The mine is still there; the owners are not. There are up to 500,000 abandoned mines in our country. They are a ticking timebomb. They are leaking toxins into our rivers and streams in the West and have been for decades. It will cost tens of billions of dollars to fix this. The estimates are anywhere from $20 billion to $54 billion, with a ``b''--billions. A mining royalty will bring fairness to taxpayers and help pay for the cleanup. I have pushed for--and will keep pushing for--mining reform, first in the House and now in the Senate because I believe in the simple principle that the polluter pays. The polluter pays, but under current law the mining companies do not pay--not for the minerals they take, not for the damage they have done. This cannot continue. They cannot continue to reap all the benefits and hundreds of millions of dollars while taxpayers continue to shoulder all the burden. This goes against every notion of simple fairness. Working Americans know this, middle- class families know this, and both sides of the aisle know this. The 1872 mining law also basically gives away Federal land for $5. Less than what a working American pays for lunch, mining companies can buy an acre of Federal land if they discover a valuable mineral deposit. So there is no surprise here. Hard rock mining companies don't want reform. They have had a free ride for a long time--no wonder they want to keep it--but it is long past time for that ride to end. Coal, oil, and gas companies have paid royalties for many decades. Hard rock mining companies, including foreign mining companies, should do the same. Our bill will require that they do that. It is not a radical idea. The oil industry pays a small fee on every barrel of oil, the coal industry pays a small fee on each ton of coal, and the sky has not fallen in. And when disasters happen, from oilspills to abandoned coal mines, these industries bear some of the cost. History may explain why the 1872 law was created, but it is hard to see now why it should continue. What began as an effort to settle the West has become a gravy train for multibillion-dollar companies and not just American companies but foreign ones as well. We know the taxpayers are getting shortchanged. We just don't know how much. In 2011 I asked the General Accounting Office for the numbers. They couldn't say. Not only do the hard rock mining companies not pay, they do not disclose, and under current law they do not have to--not how much they extract from Federal lands, not where the minerals are sold, not the overall value. Yet at the same time, oil, gas, and coal brought in $11.4 billion in Federal revenue. We need to get this done. We can't keep asking working Americans and struggling communities to foot the bill while mining companies reap the profits. Let us be clear. The silver and gold on public lands are a natural resource. They belong to the American people. They should be an investment for public good, not a giveaway for private gain. After my father left office after 8 years as Secretary of the Interior, he was asked what were his big regrets, and he said mining reform was his greatest unfinished business. Fifty years later we still need to do this and we still need to do it now. We have an outdated law. Special treatment for the profits of large hard rock mining companies is not a reason to keep it, at least not to the taxpayers of my State. It is time to stop giving away the store. It is time to reform the mining law of 1872. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and let us get this done. Mr. President, I was just in a press conference with Senator Heinrich and Senator Bennet where we talked, and one of the questions that was asked was: How are you working at building bipartisan support and is there bipartisan support? I want to say a word on that because we have seen very solid bills pass here in Washington with bipartisan support. One of the ones I wanted to point out was in 2007 in the House. Nick Rahall had a mining reform bill. He had Republican cosponsors by the names of Wayne Gilchrest and Representative Christopher Shays--24 Republicans in the House--and the bill was passed 244 to 166. Paul Ryan, who was in my class when I came into Congress in 1998--we arrived at the same time and Paul is now the Speaker over in the House--voted yes for mining reform back in 2007 on this Rahall bill. So I think if you look at the history, this is a bill where we need to work with both sides of the aisle, and I hope and wish Congressman Ryan--Speaker Ryan--the best and I hope he will join us in this effort to reform this long outdated law. With that, I see my good friend and partner in this, Senator Heinrich, is on the floor, so I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act of 2015. First, I thank Senator Heinrich, who will be here with me in a moment, for working with me on this bill. He is a dedicated conservation Senator from the West and really cares about this issue, and we have both been working together on this bill. I so much appreciate all of his hard work and his commitment to this important legislation. I also thank Senator Bennet and Senator Wyden for their hard work and support on this bill. I also thank our New Mexico colleague, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, for his efforts on the House side. We are proposing this bill for one reason: to reform the mining law of 1872. It is a matter of simple fairness, it is a matter of common sense, and it is a reform that is long overdue. The 1872 mining law played a historic role in the settling of the West. It encouraged mining for silver, gold, copper, uranium, and other minerals on public lands. It helped the West to grow, but there was a price--one we are still paying. It did almost nothing to compensate the public, it did nothing to protect the environment, and it did nothing to require mines to clean up the mess. It did nothing to require those mines to clean up the mess. The legacy is clear--thousands of abandoned mines, contaminated land, polluted streams, costly cleanup, and taxpayers stuck with the bill. We have a 19th-century law which is totally inadequate to 21st-century challenges. The spill at the Gold King mine earlier this year tells the story. With terrible damage in my State, in other States, and in the Navajo Nation, this is a disaster on many levels--to our water, our economy, and to our culture. Mistakes were made at the Gold King mine. We have to do all we can to make sure they are not made again and to make sure our communities are fairly compensated for losses. That is why Senator Heinrich and I introduced the Gold King Mine Spill Recovery Act of 2015. The Gold King mine disaster is also a wakeup call. The mine is still there; the owners are not. There are up to 500,000 abandoned mines in our country. They are a ticking timebomb. They are leaking toxins into our rivers and streams in the West and have been for decades. It will cost tens of billions of dollars to fix this. The estimates are anywhere from $20 billion to $54 billion, with a ``b''--billions. A mining royalty will bring fairness to taxpayers and help pay for the cleanup. I have pushed for--and will keep pushing for--mining reform, first in the House and now in the Senate because I believe in the simple principle that the polluter pays. The polluter pays, but under current law the mining companies do not pay--not for the minerals they take, not for the damage they have done. This cannot continue. They cannot continue to reap all the benefits and hundreds of millions of dollars while taxpayers continue to shoulder all the burden. This goes against every notion of simple fairness. Working Americans know this, middle- class families know this, and both sides of the aisle know this. The 1872 mining law also basically gives away Federal land for $5. Less than what a working American pays for lunch, mining companies can buy an acre of Federal land if they discover a valuable mineral deposit. So there is no surprise here. Hard rock mining companies don't want reform. They have had a free ride for a long time--no wonder they want to keep it--but it is long past time for that ride to end. Coal, oil, and gas companies have paid royalties for many decades. Hard rock mining companies, including foreign mining companies, should do the same. Our bill will require that they do that. It is not a radical idea. The oil industry pays a small fee on every barrel of oil, the coal industry pays a small fee on each ton of coal, and the sky has not fallen in. And when disasters happen, from oilspills to abandoned coal mines, these industries bear some of the cost. History may explain why the 1872 law was created, but it is hard to see now why it should continue. What began as an effort to settle the West has become a gravy train for multibillion-dollar companies and not just American companies but foreign ones as well. We know the taxpayers are getting shortchanged. We just don't know how much. In 2011 I asked the General Accounting Office for the numbers. They couldn't say. Not only do the hard rock mining companies not pay, they do not disclose, and under current law they do not have to--not how much they extract from Federal lands, not where the minerals are sold, not the overall value. Yet at the same time, oil, gas, and coal brought in $11.4 billion in Federal revenue. We need to get this done. We can't keep asking working Americans and struggling communities to foot the bill while mining companies reap the profits. Let us be clear. The silver and gold on public lands are a natural resource. They belong to the American people. They should be an investment for public good, not a giveaway for private gain. After my father left office after 8 years as Secretary of the Interior, he was asked what were his big regrets, and he said mining reform was his greatest unfinished business. Fifty years later we still need to do this and we still need to do it now. We have an outdated law. Special treatment for the profits of large hard rock mining companies is not a reason to keep it, at least not to the taxpayers of my State. It is time to stop giving away the store. It is time to reform the mining law of 1872. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and let us get this done. Mr. President, I was just in a press conference with Senator Heinrich and Senator Bennet where we talked, and one of the questions that was asked was: How are you working at building bipartisan support and is there bipartisan support? I want to say a word on that because we have seen very solid bills pass here in Washington with bipartisan support. One of the ones I wanted to point out was in 2007 in the House. Nick Rahall had a mining reform bill. He had Republican cosponsors by the names of Wayne Gilchrest and Representative Christopher Shays--24 Republicans in the House--and the bill was passed 244 to 166. Paul Ryan, who was in my class when I came into Congress in 1998--we arrived at the same time and Paul is now the Speaker over in the House--voted yes for mining reform back in 2007 on this Rahall bill. So I think if you look at the history, this is a bill where we need to work with both sides of the aisle, and I hope and wish Congressman Ryan--Speaker Ryan--the best and I hope he will join us in this effort to reform this long outdated law. With that, I see my good friend and partner in this, Senator Heinrich, is on the floor, so I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, we have now seen a demonstration. I want to talk to Senator Merkley about this. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with him.