Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, my State of New Mexico has a great tradition of military service. When the Nation has called, New Mexico has always answered. Today I wanted to say a few words to remember Chester Nez, the last of the original 29 Navajo code talkers of World War II. Mr. Nez passed away Wednesday morning in Albuquerque, NM. We are forever indebted to him and his fellow warriors. They turned the Navajo language into an unbelievable code, using the language they were forbidden to speak in school, as a weapon to defend our freedoms in war, freedoms they themselves did not always enjoy. This is a great story of courage, of love of country, of tremendous sacrifice. In battle after battle in ferocious combat, the Navajo code saved countless lives and helped secure the allied victory. In 2001, the original code talkers received the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor the Congress can give. Our former colleague, Senator Jeff Bingaman, fought hard for this. I was pleased to push for it in the House. It was richly deserved and long overdue. Mr. Nez was there for the ceremony, and the Presiding Officer, who was in the House with me, may remember we had that ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda. It was a great and uplifting day to finally see the Navajo code talkers receive their medals. I said then what I continue to feel now: Their service can never be forgotten and can never be diminished. Chester Nez was modest in his own life but proud of the code talkers and proud of the Navajo traditions. In his later years, he visited schools and colleges all across the Nation to tell the story of those Navajo code talkers. In his memoir, written with Judith Avila, he said: I recommended myself that my Navajo people had always been warriors, protectors. In that there was honor. I would concentrate on being a warrior, on protecting my homeland. As we mark Chester's passing, we honor his memory with a renewed dedication to preserve our Native languages, to keep alive the story of our code talkers, the heroic story of the Navajo, and also of other Native American tribes, their codes and their commitment forever unbroken. Today we say goodbye to this great hero, this humble man who served our country with such devotion. We say goodbye with sadness but also with appreciation for a debt that can never be fully repaid, for courage that will forever inspire, and for a life that truly made a difference. Chester, you made a real difference in our lives. I would just say to Chester's family, we send them our heartfelt condolences. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, on April 14, 2014, our Nation lost a great hero, Mr. Samuel ``Jesse'' Smith, Sr. Mr. Smith was one of the few remaining Navajo Code Talkers, who defended our country with such ingenuity and valor during World War II. As the number of these legendary warriors decreases year by year, our respect and gratitude for their remarkable service only increases with time. My State of New Mexico is proud to be the home of many of these extraordinary men, and we mourn their passing. Samuel Smith was a student at the Albuquerque Indian School on December 7, 1941, when news arrived of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. He and two of his fellow students knew, very quickly, what they must do. They resolved, without hesitation, and despite their youth, to defend their country. All three joined the U.S. Marine Corps, determined to go wherever they were needed. Samuel Smith dreamed of being a pilot, but fate would have other plans. He would never fly a plane, but he would serve with particular distinction as a Navajo Code Talker. Mr. Smith possessed the determination, intelligence, and language proficiency that was essential to the Code Talkers. He was assigned to the 4th Marine Division and was responsible for transmitting messages for Gen. Clifton Cates, the commander of the Marine landings in Saipan and Tinian. In the course of his military service, Samuel Smith fought at the battle of Roi-Namur, the battles of Saipan and Tinian to retake the Marianas Islands, and the battle of Iwo Jima. He and his fellow Code Talkers turned their language into an unbreakable code. They used the language of the Navajo people as a weapon to defend our freedoms. In battle after battle, in ferocious combat, that code helped secure Allied victory. Their courage and patriotism is all the more remarkable in that they fought so bravely for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them. It would be many years after World War II before the story of the Navajo Code Talkers, and the pivotal role they played, could be told. The true purpose of their service was not revealed until over 20 years later. In 2001, Congress honored Samuel Smith and his fellow Code Talkers with Congressional Gold Medals. This recognition and honor was richly deserved. The simple words on their medals told the heroic story: ``The Navajo language was used to defeat the enemy.'' After the war, Mr. Smith returned home. He married Rena Smith, and together they started a family. They moved to the Pueblo of Acoma, where they raised ten children. Later, at Fort Defiance Navajo Nation, Mr. Smith served as a law enforcement officer and was appointed chief ranger of the Navajo Nation Rangers. He also served as director of Transportation and Water Resources for the Navajo Nation. Samuel Smith lived a long and eventful life, until the age of 89. He leaves behind more than 150 direct descendants. His life is a testament of service to others, in war and in peacetime. For his family, his community, and his Nation, he set an example of courage and commitment. Those who knew him will long recall his steady presence. As his son Michael said: We were very fortunate to have one of the wisest and gentlest men in our lives. He could warm your heart with his smile, let you know you had to straighten up with his gaze, and always had something clever to say He is our hero. He is our dad. I extend my sincere sympathy to Mr. Smith's family. He will be deeply missed, and he will be forever remembered by a grateful nation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Next Monday is Memorial Day, a day when we remember the men and women who gave their lives defending our freedoms, a day to remember our solemn obligation to veterans. I rise today to speak about that obligation and about very troubling allegations that should outrage all of us, of sick veterans desperate for care, of secret scheduling lists, of mismanagement at Veterans Affairs medical centers, and of coverups and misuse of taxpayer funds. If true, this is a great disservice to our veterans. This is not quality care, it is betrayal. It is unconscionable, whether it is only one facility, such as the facility in Phoenix, or more, or in New Mexico and other facilities. For many people this story began in Phoenix, AZ, but I do not think it ends there. I asked Secretary Shinseki on May 8 to extend the investigation to cover the entire regional network, which includes Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The next day Secretary Shinseki announced an audit of the VA nationwide. Today, the VA appropriations subcommittee marked up an important bill to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs and to address these allegations. I am thankful to Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Kirk for including a key provision I requested to provide funding to expand the VA inspector general's investigation, and calling out New Mexico as one of the States that urgently needs the attention of the inspector general. These secret waiting lists, according to whistleblowers, were efforts in deception and fraud, hiding management failures. They kept appointment requests out of the VA computer system in order to cover up a waiting list to see a doctor, preventing veterans from receiving necessary care. At worst, this deception not only kept veterans waiting but may have contributed to the death of some who were very sick. There are also reports that allege these efforts to manipulate the schedule were taken to make managers look better to receive bonuses, bonuses that were supposed to have been awarded for meeting high-quality care standards, not for failing them. If true, this is tragic and possibly a serious crime. Thankfully, the appropriations subcommittee has taken action to freeze this bonus system while the investigation continues. I hope the full Senate will move quickly to do the same, to eliminate bad incentives which hurt our veterans. If managers hide the extent of the wait times at the VA, then Congress does not have the right information to allocate resources to address need. Lives are at stake. We are talking here about veterans' lives. VA Assistant Inspector General John Daigh testified before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs regarding a facility in South Carolina. He said, ``Over 50 veterans had a delayed diagnosis of colon cancer, some of whom died from colon cancer.'' GAO's Director of Health Care Debra Draper also testified about ongoing and past issues with the VA causing veterans to receive delayed care and delayed appointments. The GAO cited these shortcomings in a 2013 report and also made multiple recommendations to the VA on how to address them. Ms. Draper noted that the VA has not yet enacted their recommendations and that the VA still has work to do to fix problems spelled out in the GAO report. The GAO concluded that: Ultimately, VHA's ability to ensure and accurately monitor access to timely medical appointments is critical to ensure quality health care to veterans, who may have medical conditions that worsen if access is delayed. The GAO report speaks to a bigger picture, one we should not lose sight of, and that is the ongoing problem with scheduling gimmicks, with ways to game the system, first identified by the VA itself in an April 2010 memo. These practices have led to delayed appointments and care. This is not an allegation, this is a fact. Congress and the VA need to continue to work together for transparency, for accountability, and for real solutions. The allegations being investigated are very disturbing. This is not just a failure to provide timely care--that is bad enough--but also an intentional effort to cover up that failure by creating separate scheduling lists and gimmicks and harming veterans as a result. These allegations are serious and we take them very seriously for every veteran in this country. For every man and woman who puts their life on the line to defend this country, a full inspector general investigation is essential. In some cases a criminal investigation may also be needed. We need to find out what is truly happening at our veterans' medical centers. This investigation should be thorough. It should be exhaustive. It should uncover the truth and it should hold those responsible accountable. I also want to commend those who brought these concerns to the public and send a clear message to them: Congress will not tolerate interference or harassment with public servants who simply are trying to get out the truth, trying to do their job, and doing the very best to serve our veterans. The Whistleblower Protection Act is very clear: If you retaliate against an employee who is trying to expose the truth, then you are in the wrong. Congress and the President should speak with one voice: We will not tolerate actions to retaliate against VA employees or contractors who shine the light on the truth. Similarly, no one in the VA should be destroying or hiding any evidence of these practices. Destruction of a Federal record can be a crime. VA managers should come clean, not cover up. I urge any New Mexico VA patient, family member, current or former VA employee, to report serious management problems to the VA inspector general either directly or through my office. To those employees who continue to provide quality care to our veterans, this is not about you. Overall, the VA does provide great health care. I have heard from veterans who have testified to this fact. Many veterans would not go anywhere else. We must act quickly and decisively to restore faith in the VA and provide the care our veterans deserve. Today, the Appropriations Committee took a step in the right direction to expand the investigation and halt the bonus program. I look forward to continuing this work with the full Senate and also with the administration. All of us who work to support our troops and our veterans have a sacred obligation to make sure they have the care they have earned. They have been there for us; we have to be there for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I applaud Senator Durbin for his comments on the fair-shot agenda and on an affordable college education for all of our kids. It is something parents and families and people in New Mexico talk to me about all the time. I want to join the Senator in his comments and say, let's get this done. Let's see if we can get Republicans to work with us in a bipartisan way. I applaud the Senator's speech.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues to urge support for increasing the Federal minimum wage. Today's minimum wage of $7.25 falls short and working families are falling behind. It hasn't kept up with the rising cost of everyday life. In fact, it is $2 less than it was in 1968, when adjusted for inflation. A full-time worker earning the minimum wage in 2014 makes less than someone did in 1968, almost half a century ago. Now, $7.25 may be just a number to some but not for so many families in my State struggling to get by. It means working two or three jobs just to put food on the table or fill the gas tank or buy clothes for their children and still not be able to climb out of poverty. Our Nation was founded on a basic premise that no matter who you are, if you work hard, you can get ahead. You can make a decent living. We haven't always kept that promise. We have the opportunity to do so this week for millions of hard-working men and women, young and old, who are paid the minimum wage. Working Americans are not moving forward. They are falling behind. Year after year, paycheck by paycheck, they work just as hard, but they earn less and less. This is a disturbing trend, not just for minimum wage workers but all across the board. Worker productivity is rising pretty dramatically--69 percent in the last 25 years--but real hourly wages are not keeping pace, up 26.5 percent in the last 25 years. For the top 1 percent it couldn't be better. Their share of earned income is the highest it has been since 1929. But the average worker has to run faster and faster just to stay in place. This is not the promise we made. This is not the way to a better America for each generation, but this is the reality for too many workers in New Mexico and across the Nation. They are living it every day. They get up, they take care of their kids, and they go to work. They may run faster, they may work harder, but they cannot get ahead. A full-time minimum wage worker makes only $15,000 a year, well below the $23,550 poverty line for a family of four with two children. New Mexico has too many families in poverty, working hard, doing their best but falling further and further behind. This bill would give them a chance to build a better future for themselves and for their children. I have received many letters from my constituents because they know how important raising the minimum wage is. Here is a letter from Kathryn from Fruitland, NM. She says: ``Morally, raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do, because people working full time deserve to live decently.'' Barbara from Clovis, NM, told me: ``There are so many people who work for minimum wage and have a desperately hard time paying the bills.'' Liz from Albuquerque says: ``I hope you will do all in your power to assure that every working American will be assured of making a living wage, not just a `minimum' wage.'' Increasing the minimum wage helps families and helps the economy. It is one of the best things we can do to kick-start New Mexico's economy. It means workers in New Mexico would have over $200 million more to spend. It means boosting our State's GDP by $127 million, helping local businesses and generating 500 new jobs. It means moving forward, and it means that we honor an important idea that folks receive a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. That is the deal, and it is a big deal. Let's consider the alternative: When every year costs rise and the minimum wage stays the same, that is like a pay cut for families that can least afford it. The bill before us increases the minimum wage in three steps. Six months after the bill is signed, it raises the minimum wage by less than $1. A year later it bumps up the minimum wage by 95 cents, and two years after the first increase, it would finally reach $10.10, which is about where it would be if it had kept up with inflation over the past 40 years. But this bill does more than just give hard workers today the chance to earn a decent wage. It also includes an important provision to allow the minimum wage to continue to keep up with every-day costs so that future generations who are working their way up can have a fair shot. Our country has debated raising the minimum wage several times in the past. Opponents always paint a very gloomy picture, but we have been able to get bipartisan agreement to do it. Afterwards, families and the economy have been better off, and the pessimistic predictions haven't come true. We need to build an economy that works for everyone. Most Americans believe it is time to increase the minimum wage because it is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to do. It is time to keep our Nation's promise to reward hard work. It is time for all families to have a fair chance at the American dream. I urge my colleagues to support increasing the minimum wage. It is long overdue for millions of working families who continue to struggle, who continue to wait, and who have waited long enough. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer for her very kind words. She is the chairman of the committee which deals with climate change legislation and has been ever present in terms of trying to see if we can come up with a bipartisan solution and get legislation. I was very proud to serve on her committee when the Obama administration came in and the Senate sat down to work and was trying to do something about climate change. Unfortunately, we ran out of time. But as we can see by the number of Senators who have spoken--we are up to 30 now--we still have incredible passion about this issue. We know it is a serious problem, the American people know it is a serious problem, and we want something done. What have we learned? I have watched my colleagues over the night. I am No. 30 and I have watched what they have been talking about. The tradition here in the Senate is normally if we are talking like this and our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle want to come down and exchange with us, they can do that. That is our tradition, to say we speak and then they speak. What we have ended up seeing is one Republican Senator show up in this 12-plus-hour period is my understanding. I think I am right. This is what was reported on NPR this morning. To me, this is tremendously sad, because in the glory days of the Senate in the 1960s and 1970s major environmental legislation, major conservation organization legislation--remember the Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air, Endangered Species--was passed with significant bipartisan support. We don't see that effort today. It makes me very sad. We are here all night trying to engage and say: This is something the American people believe is serious, and we need to engage on this issue. Today I am going to talk a little bit about New Mexico, and how New Mexico and the Southwest are at the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change. What do I mean by that? If New Mexico is at one temperature and we compare it with the rest of the country--let's say in the rest of the country we have a 1-percent rise--New Mexico is going to be 2 percent, so there is a doubling effect in the Southwest. This is a map of New Mexico, but we are talking the Southwest. First let me talk a little bit about the drought we have had. Here we are from June 2011 to the present, a drought of epic proportions. The U.S. drought monitor shows more than 90 percent of New Mexico is in extreme drought. Northern and western New Mexico got some precipitation last year, but several other areas of the State remain mostly dry. We can see this is extreme; the other is moderate. Added together, it is a significant impact. These are the kinds of challenges we are going to face with climate change. To talk a little bit more about these impacts, I would now like to go to chart 2 and look at the snowpack in the northern New Mexico and southern Colorado watersheds. They only range from one-half to three- quarters of what normally would be there. This is a winter picture. Normally in northern New Mexico at this time of year we would see a massive snowpack. Why is that important? Because in the summer when we start using the water, we start irrigating, the farmers start doing things, they recharge the aquifer. So if we don't have a snowpack, we don't have that kind of recharge and we don't have the storage levels of drinking water. Just to pick one of our communities, Santa Fe, NM, gets 40 percent of its water from the ground and it gets another big chunk of the water from reservoirs. Those reservoirs are fed when we have a snowpack and when the ground gets recharged and it flows off and flows into those reservoirs, so this is something which makes a huge impact when we don't have a snowpack and when we have a decreasing amount of precipitation. We are going to see more and more of this as we move down the road, when we look at the modeling which has been done by the experts who are working on this issue. This next slide is particularly disturbing in terms of water. I remember it being roughly at this place on the Rio Grande just last year in the middle of the summer. This photo is showing a very meager amount of water. When I was there last summer, there was no water. It was completely dry. So here, the river which flows the whole length of the State of New Mexico down to southern New Mexico--El Paso, TX, relies on it; Mexico, our neighbor to the south, relies on it--there was no water to be seen. Once again, it dramatically shows the impacts of climate change and the impacts as we see this move down the road. One experience with ranchers and farmers I think really brings this home in terms of water. There was a flood control project in Tucumcari, NM, created in the middle of the Great Depression. Everybody in the community invested in it. The Federal Government invested in it. These projects have a dual purpose. One is, if there is a big flood, to try to control the flood. The second thing is to hold the water, so when we get to the irrigation season we can have irrigated farmland. They did this in the 1930s. I think about 600 or 700 farmers and ranchers rely on this project and have been relying on this project since the 1930s. I visited this community recently and learned from the people who run the project and from the farmers and ranchers, in the last couple of years, zero water. No water at all. They had never seen this since the 1930s, even though when we went through very serious conditions in the 1950s it was thought to be one of the biggest droughts and no water. The last 10 or 12 years, this particular project, the same thing: very, very little water. What ends up happening as a result? Farmers and ranchers cannot plant. Ranchers sell off their herds. Just to show how dramatic it is, in New Mexico we saw 50 percent of our cattle herds sold off this last year. People are hurting so badly in terms of this drought, they are unable to keep their livestock on the land and they end up having to pull the livestock off. This has a devastating impact to people who live closest to the ground. I have been out on the land in New Mexico with conservationists and scientists and talked to them about climate change. One of the things I try to describe in what I have learned--and I think this is what Chairman Boxer is talking about--when I made a presentation in one of the committees, is if we take the modeling which has been done on climate change in the Southwest, and particularly focusing on New Mexico, what we do with that modeling is ask ourselves: Where are we going to be 50 years down the line? We just had a study at Los Alamos National Laboratory which says by 2050--in less than 50 years--we are not going to have any forests in New Mexico. So much of this area of northern New Mexico and down here, the forests throughout this area, they are saying it looks like no forests and much less water, as I have just talked about. If we don't get snowpack, we can't charge the system back. The most dramatic description to me is what happens here 50 years from now. These are conservative numbers. These aren't the ones many of the scientists nowadays are saying we have. We are taking conservative numbers, and many scientists are saying it is happening quicker, it is moving faster. What they tell us is--imagine on a computer screen how we can drag things. New Mexico is over 300 miles. If we click on New Mexico and drag it 300 miles to the south--so we are moving the top of New Mexico down 300 miles to the south--what do we get? We are in the middle of the Chihuahuan desert in Mexico. So what was a dramatic forested area, what was an area which was very acceptable to farming and ranching: Devastating impacts. So those are the kinds of things. I could go on and on here. But the thing about the impacts--and we could talk about how one of our reservoirs at Elephant Butte has the lowest level in 40 years. This is a great recreational lake which people used. This is a picture of the reservoir in June of 1994. Here is the picture today--dramatically different. I wish to highlight as I close here--because I know we are trying to wrap up after we have been going for many hours--New Mexico has been focusing on solutions. One of the solutions sitting right in front of us is renewable energy. We know we are going to have to deal with this problem one way or another. It is much better to deal with it earlier. In New Mexico we are doing everything we can to foster the solar power industry. This slide shows solar power to beat coal prices in New Mexico. Right now, the solar installations going up are very competitive in terms of coal. Wind power. Once again, in New Mexico we have installed wind capacity of 778 megawatts. New Mexico ranks 19th for the total megawatts installed. So all over New Mexico, up on our mesas, as we can see here, we have wind turbines collecting the energy from the wind. The number of wind turbines: 575. New Mexico ranks 17th for the number of utility- scale wind turbines. Current wind generation in New Mexico is 6.1 percent. Just a few years ago when we put in place a renewable electricity standard, we had a lower level and we have been pushing that up. This is one of the things we need to do at the national level. My cousin and I worked in the House of Representatives before we were in the Senate to get a national renewable electricity standard. This is something we have to do which is a solution. As I laid out all of the things earlier, the devastating impacts, one of the things we should realize is there are solutions; they are here today; the technology is perfected; and we are able to put those into place. The final area of renewable energy I wish to talk about and we have huge potential here in the Southwest is called advanced biofuels. I have been to this facility and seen the experimentation they are doing. They have taken land and are farming algae. What eventually happens with this algae is it is refined and the algae becomes a very good fuel. So this is something which is, once again, a solution to this problem. We shouldn't despair when we look at the impact of climate change and when we look in the future as to what people are going to predict, because we know we have the ability to cultivate solutions. I am very proud of my State and how we have really worked to cultivate these sources of renewable energy, and we are moving it up with our renewable electricity standard higher and higher every year. I am very proud to have been a part of this effort, the 30th Senator to stand and speak about this. I guess we have been going about 13 hours, 14 hours. Once again, I can't close without mentioning I wish we had our friends and colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle down here to engage us. I don't know what to conclude but that either they don't care about this or don't want to engage with us. We only had one Republican Senator in this 14-hour period show up. This sure isn't like the glory days of the Senate when so many Republicans participated with Democrats to tackle the big problems which faced our country. This is a problem which faces the entire world, so we need the U.S. Senate and the entire world working together in a cooperative way to solve this. I thank the Presiding Officer, who was a key person in terms of organizing this, Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, and I yield for my good friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, thank you very much, and let me first of all congratulate my chairman, Chairman Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schatz for organizing this effort and what we are calling an up-all-night conversation. New Mexico is in the bull's-eye when it comes to climate change. Everyplace else, if it goes up 1 degree, New Mexico and the Southwest go up 2 degrees, so we know we are hit really hard. I am going to talk later in this conversation about all of the impacts. It is clear, forest fires, as my cousin talked about, droughts, huge die-off in terms of trees, extreme rain events after fires, and flooding are devastating. But New Mexico has been at the forefront of the solution. When it comes to renewable energy, we are out there-- solar energy, wind, bio, advanced biofuels such as algae. We are working in the direction we need all of us to be working in together in this country, to make sure we orient toward renewables and tackle this problem. I will be able to expand on this later. I would yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I see Senator Durbin on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I rise today to talk about health care for veterans. This is a critical issue for many veterans who have been left behind and to the many who are not getting the care they need. First, I want to say how important it is that we have reached an agreement to restore the cut to pensions for working-age military retirees. This cut in the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees should never have been included in the budget bill. Let's be clear. The bipartisan budget agreement was critical to New Mexico and our Nation because it rolled back damaging sequestration cuts--cuts that hurt our military and military families. Working-age military retirees should not have to bear the burden. Many of these men and women have given decades of service to our Nation. They were willing to give everything for us. They should get the benefits they have earned. From the beginning I have been working to restore this cut to their COLA benefits. I have been very happy we have a bipartisan agreement to move forward and ensure we keep our promise to them. I come to the floor today to also talk about rural veterans and a rural veterans improvement act. I was proud to introduce this bill with Senator Heller from Nevada earlier this week. When it comes to veterans' health care, we know there are challenges. We know we can do better, and we know we have to do better. Over 6 million veterans live in rural areas, including approximately one-third who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three million of those rural veterans receive health care through the VA. Our veterans have fought halfway around the world for our freedom. We should go the extra mile for them. Senator Heller and I both come from rural western States. We know the difficulties veterans face when distances are too far and choices are too few. Our legislation would do four things: improve access to mental health services, expand transportation grants, hire and retain more medical professionals in rural areas, and give Congress and the VA tools to improve the quality of rural facilities. First, let me start with mental health care. This is crucial. Veterans are struggling when the help they need is not available or is very far away. One of my constituents lives in a rural area in northern New Mexico. He fought in Vietnam and was diagnosed with post-traumatic distress disorder. He required therapy 2 full days a week for 2 years. This vital care probably saved his life. The VA was there for him, and he is grateful, but he had to drive to Albuquerque, over 3 hours away, to get that essential care. The veterans in my State are clear: They need better access to treatment and more mental health options. One size does not fit all. Conventional therapy does not work for everyone. Veterans groups, such as the Wounded Warrior Project, have long supported alternative treatments and more holistic methods. Tribal governments are also working with the VA to use traditional Native American healing techniques, helping their veterans with PTSD and other diagnoses. These veterans are in pain. They are at increased risk of suicide. Help has to be there when they need it. Our bill would enable the VA to work with non-VA fee-for-service providers for veterans with service- connected mental health issues when conventional treatment is not available or where alternative treatment is not an option. Second, even the best health care is useless if you cannot get to it. I have talked with many veterans in my State about this issue, and it is a big problem across New Mexico. Veterans in Carlsbad face a 6-hour drive to the VA hospital in Albuquerque, 300 miles away one way. One such veteran fought bravely in World War II. He is now in his eighties. He has to get up at 5 a.m. and make the trip to Albuquerque to see medical specialists. Sometimes he doesn't get home until midnight. Thanks to the great volunteer drivers at Southeast New Mexico Veterans Transportation Network, he is able to get there, but it is an exhausting day. Another of my constituents recently retired to Chama, NM, a rural community in the north. He and his wife built a home there, looking forward to retirement. The VA outreach clinic was nearby, but its contract was not renewed and it closed. His only option now is the VA clinic in Espanola, 80 miles each way through the southern Rockies. When winter storms come, as they do in northern New Mexico, he may not be able to get there at all. The VA offers transportation grants to help, but only for veterans in what they call highly rural areas with fewer than seven people per square mile, not for those in rural areas and small towns such as Chama, and the small towns in Nevada and so many other States. They need help too. The miles are just as long and the journey is just as hard. Our bill will help by expanding VA transportation grants to include rural communities, and it will not require matching funds for grants up to $100,000, making it easier for these communities to apply for assistance. Third, rural VA clinics, as their private counterparts, have trouble getting staff and keeping staff. This is not news to veterans who see constant turnover of doctors and nurses and other health care professionals or who have to travel long distances to see anyone at all. Our bill will establish a VA training program, working with university medical centers to train health care professionals, serving rural veterans at outpatient clinics. Those who complete the program and a 3-year assignment will receive a hiring preference for jobs with the Veterans Health Administration. We also propose a pilot program for housing incentives for health care professionals to work in rural VA facilities. We are proposing that the VA streamline the hiring of military medical professionals, transitioning to the civilian world into the VA system. Rural VA health centers have a big job. They do their best. We have to do all we can to help them to get and keep staff with incentives, training, and innovation. It is not easy, but it is essential. Fourth, we call for a full review of VA community-based outpatient clinics in rural and highly rural areas so we can prioritize expansions and improvements, making sure dollars are well spent and resources go as far as possible. We also call for a report to Congress on whether to add polytrauma centers in rural areas to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan recover from multiple major injuries such as serious burns and traumatic brain injuries. Every day, American servicemembers wake up far from home, and every day, they stand watch. They do the job they promised to do--and not only if it is easy or only if it is convenient. We owe them the same promise. Rural veterans should not be left behind. They should get the care they need and deserve. Again, I thank Senator Heller for working with me on this bill. He understands the problem. He is committed to finding solutions. Our bill is a step forward for the health and well-being of our veterans. This is about essential care, about access, about honoring our commitment to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our community. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized to speak immediately after me.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, last month the flags of the Navajo Nation flew at half mast, in honor of Wilfred E. Billey. Mr. Billey was one of the legendary Navajo Code Talkers. He died at the age of 90 on December 12. His passing is an occasion to reflect on a truly heroic life, and on the vital contribution of the Navajo Code Talkers to America's victory in World War II. Wilfred Billey was born on December 28, 1922, in Sanostee, NM. He was raised by his grandparents. In the summers, he herded sheep and farmed in the Chuska Mountains. In 1941, Wilfred was attending Navajo Methodist Mission School in Farmington when a Marine recruiter visited the school. Still a teenager, Wilfred would travel half way around the world with the all-Navajo U.S. Marine Corps Platoon 297. The Navajo Code Talkers turned their language into an unbreakable code. They would use the language of the Navajo people as a weapon to defend our freedoms. In battle after battle, in ferocious combat, they used that code time and again to help secure Allied victory. Their service was all the more remarkable in that they fought so bravely for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them. Wilfrid's journey would take him throughout the Pacific theater. He would witness some of the bloodiest, most brutal fighting of World War II at Tarawa, Saipan, and Okinawa. The code he spoke, however, would save countless American lives, and help lead to allied victory. Despite this work, this brave Marine never forgot those whom he believed to be the real heroes. His daughter, Barbara, in an interview with the Indian Country Today Media Network, recalled her father's humility. ``I'm not a hero,'' he said. ``The heroes are the ones we left behind.'' While most Americans would learn about the battles at sea and on land, the story of the Navajo Code Talkers was kept a secret, until the true purpose of their service was revealed over 20 years later. In 2001, Congress honored Wilfred Billey and his fellow Navajo Code Talkers with public recognition and Congressional medals. Wilfred helped draft the words inscribed on the medals: ``The Navajo language was used to defeat the enemy.'' Wilfred Billey defended our Nation during time of war and peril abroad, and he continued to serve by working to lead the youth of the Navajo Nation. He returned to New Mexico and obtained bachelor's and master's degrees, and embarked on a career as an educator. Wilfred worked for four decades in education, including at the Navajo Methodist Mission School, and as principal at Shiprock High School. When he retired, he continued to ranch and farm, and to advocate for and inspire others in his community. In Wilfred Billey's long and remarkable life, he exhibited impressive humility and unwavering service to his people, his community, and his country. If we look for exemplars of courage and commitment, we need look no further than Wilfred Billey and his band of brothers among the Navajo Code Talkers and the U.S. Marines. We are all forever in their debt. My wife, Jill, and I extend our sincere sympathy to Wilfred's family. He will be missed by those who knew him, and he will be forever remembered by a grateful nation.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I wish to tell the Senator how much all of the Senators on this issue appreciate the chairwoman's hard work. I think we need to stay focused. What happens with these counties is they wish to know early on whether the money is coming and how much. If they don't know, they aren't able to spend it wisely.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. That is exactly my perspective. In these counties, the programs run out. The counties have planned on this money because they have been getting it year after year, and we have to find a way to do this. I wish to applaud Chairwoman Mikulski. They are our people, as the Senator knows--there are Western Senators, Democrats, Republicans, and they have all talked with the chairwoman. We have been talking to the authorizing committees. We have talked to Senator Stabenow in Agriculture in terms of the farm bill. We think there is a way this can be worked out. I am very encouraged to hear that the chairwoman also believes it can be worked out, is willing to look at this next year in the appropriations process, and work with the authorizers to see this gets done.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Please.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their very hard work on this Omnibus appropriations bill. That is what I am down here to speak on. The American people sent us to make choices, sometimes very tough choices. They do not expect perfection, but they do expect us to be fair and to get the job done. Americans are tired of shutdowns and sequestration and stopgap funding. Today we are making decisions we were sent here to make. The annual appropriations process is the right way to do the people's business. Instead of kicking the can and passing the buck, lurching from crisis to crisis, I think we are making some significant progress. This was my first year on the Appropriations Committee. I especially wanted to thank Chairman Mikulski for her leadership, her unfailing support, and for doing such an amazing job. She once said, ``It is not how long I serve but how well I serve.'' Senator Mikulski has proven once again on both counts she is truly exceptional. This bill returns some sanity to the budget process in Washington. I am pleased that for the most part it does well by New Mexico. New Mexico plays a unique role in our Nation's national security. This bill provides strong funding levels for the safety and security of our Nation's nuclear deterrent, including the important B61 project at Sandia National Labs. The President's request of $537 million is fully funded. The highly qualified employees at Sandia will continue their vital mission making sure these weapons are managed safely and securely. This is not something we should shortchange. This bill also provides equally important funding for Los Alamos National Laboratory in northern New Mexico. The workforce there has been reduced in recent years. This bill will stabilize things for 2014. Both of these labs are critical for nuclear security. But they are much more than that. They are also engines for the innovation in aerospace, biotech, cyber security, and new energy technology. New Mexico is proud to host both of these labs. But the Department of Energy also has an obligation to our State and other States on legacy cleanup. The funding levels do not fully meet our request, but they do provide strong increases over 2013 for cleanup at Los Alamos and at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM. These cleanup activities are a serious obligation of the Federal Government and are a source of skilled, well-paid jobs for man New Mexico families. New Mexico is also home to three Air Force bases and the Army's White Sands Missile Range. This bill contains nearly $150 million in construction and infrastructure projects, including $60 million for a TRICARE facility at Holloman Air Force Base. These projects will benefit national security, they will create jobs, and will meet our obligations to the men and women who are serving their country. The Federal Government also plays a very important role in New Mexico's water infrastructure. We are an arid, Western State. Prudent water management is crucial for our economy. We cannot afford the waste that comes from neglected infrastructure. This bill contains over $120 million in funding for Federal water assets in our State and includes the Navajo-Gallup pipeline, and the Middle Rio Grande Project. We have been struggling with intense drought. Rural areas and small towns in particular have been deeply affected. Some small communities are seeing their wells run dry. They need help and they need it now. The $1.7 billion in USDA rural development water funding is absolutely essential. This historic drought requires that we rethink how we use water throughout the West. We need to be smart about our strategy. We need strategies that work for individual communities. That is why I advocated for greater funding for the WaterSMART grants, helping local governments and water districts improve water efficiency. The conference report promotes an innovative drought water-sharing arrangement along the Rio Grande, where we are facing difficult tradeoffs between agriculture, the environment, and urban uses. This bill also helps meet our obligations to our Nation's veterans. The backlog at the VA is unacceptable. Frankly, it is an outrage. No veteran should wait 1 year or more on their claim. This bill funds a 10-part plan to resolve this problem: improving IT infrastructure, better training, and hiring additional personnel. We dedicated $250 million specifically to carry out the VA's rural health initiative to ensure that veterans in rural and remote areas are not left behind, utilizing telehealth solutions and mobile clinics, bringing veterans the care they deserve without long drives. I will keep fighting for veterans in New Mexico, including those in rural areas, making sure they have access to the health care they have earned. Many veterans are understandably upset with the recent change in the COLA for working-age military retirees. I am outraged too. This cut was included in the recent 2-year budget agreement passed in December. I did not support this provision and I am working hard to repeal it. Thankfully, this bill ensures disabled veterans and spousal benefits will not be subject to the cuts. Congress has the rest of 2014 to do the right thing. We need to fix this mistake for good for all veterans. This year, I have had the privilege to chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. I am proud of the work we have done to safeguard our financial system, protect consumers and support job creation and to strengthen our Federal courts. The bill provides $112 million for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, fighting terrorist financing, money laundering, narcotics trafficking, and other illicit financial activity. To protect the public and consumers, the bill fully funds three key agencies. For the CPSC, $118 million to help protect the public against risk from injury of consumer products; for the FTC, $298 million to combat consumer fraud, fight identity theft, and promote consumer privacy; for the FCC, $340 million to maintain robust networks for emergency communications, political debate, social interaction, and business transactions. To support job creation, the bill provides $929 million for the Small Business Administration. It also supports the Small Business Development Centers to provide critical guidance to small businesses and emerging entrepreneurs. The bill supports community development in underserved areas, including tribal nations, providing $226 million for the CDFI Fund. For the Federal courts, the bill provides a much needed increase, $6.5 billion in discretionary funding, 5 percent above the fiscal year level of 2013. Budget cuts have forced the courts to downsize and furlough staff. This bill provides the judiciary the staffing and resources it needs for court offices, probation, pretrial services, and in particular Federal defender offices will be adequately staffed. The bill also calls for significant investments in the government's capital projects. For the first time in 3 years, it provides the General Services Administration a total of $1.653 billion for construction and repair of Federal buildings and courthouses. I would like to thank my ranking member Senator Johanns for his effort this year. He was friendly, honest, and straightforward. It has been a real privilege to work with him. Finally, I must thank our subcommittee staff, Marianne Upton, Diana Hamilton, Emily Sharp. Like all the committee staff, they have spent time over the holidays, on weekends, and uncounted long hours to help complete the final bill. In closing, I am very happy to be here talking about the good work of the Appropriations Committee and that good work that has been produced in this bill that is before us for New Mexico and for the Nation. But I must mention one problem that remains. It is a great concern for many of us from the West. Funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, known as PILT, has expired. These funds compensate counties in New Mexico and throughout the country where the Federal Government owns a good deal of land, land that cannot be taxed, cannot be developed, cannot be used to help pay for services such as roads and schools and public health and public safety. PILT is a lifeline to my constituents in many rural communities in New Mexico. I joined with my friend Senator Enzi of Wyoming urging that this crucial funding be included in this bill. Unfortunately, it was not. I realize PILT has not been in the appropriations bill for several years. In fact, it is preferable for it to receive mandatory, long-term funding. But we must find a solution and we must find that solution soon. I am calling for PILT to be included in the upcoming farm bill conference report. It is a commonsense solution to this very real problem. PILT is a long-term funding program. Our rural communities across the West need consistency. They need to be able to plan for long-term projects. Mandatory long-term funding is the only real solution. I hope my colleagues will work with me. With that, I would urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. No. The program which has been in place a very long time has expired. We have run out of money. These counties need to be able to plan for their projects. So that is where we are.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The Senator is absolutely correct. In some of our counties, 70 percent of the land in the county is Federal Government land. So what happens, as the chair pointed out, is the Federal Government says because that cannot be developed and it cannot be taxed, we are going to pay you in lieu of taxes.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, today the Senate took an unusual step to change our rules with a simple majority vote. I say unusual step, and not unprecedented, because it was something the Senate has done on many occasions in the past. Like those previous changes, the action we took was not intended to destroy the uniqueness of the Senate but instead was meant to restore the regular order of the body. I believe, as I have stated many times since coming to the Senate, that the best way to amend the rules is by having an open debate at the beginning of each new Congress and holding a majority vote to adopt the rules for that Congress. I, along with Senators Harkin and Merkley, tried to do that at the beginning of this Congress and the last. Ultimately we were unsuccessful in achieving the real reforms we wanted, including a talking filibuster. But there was some hope that the debate highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the rules and led to an agreement that both sides would strive to restore the respect and comity that is often lacking in today's Senate. Unfortunately, that agreement rapidly deteriorated and the partisan rancor and political brinksmanship quickly returned. As expected, many of my Republican colleagues called today's action by the majority a power grab and ``tyranny of the majority.'' They decried the lack of respect for minority rights. I do believe that we must respect the minority in the Senate, but that respect must go both ways. When the minority uses their rights to offer germane amendments, or to extend legitimate debate, we should always respect such efforts. But that is not what we have seen. Instead, the minority often uses its rights to score political points and obstruct almost all Senate action. Instead of offering amendments to improve legislation, we see amendments that have the sole purpose of becoming talking points in next year's election. Instead of allowing up or down votes on qualified nominees, we see complete obstruction to key vacancies. It is hard to argue that the majority is not respecting the traditions of the Senate when the minority is using this body purely for political gain. During the debate over rules reform we had in January, many of my colleagues argued that the only way to change the Senate Rules was with a two-thirds supermajority. As we saw today, that simply is not true. Some call what occurred the ``Constitutional Option,'' while others call it the ``Nuclear Option.'' I think the best name for it might be the ``Majority Option.'' As I studied this issue in great depth, one thing became very clear. Senator Robert Byrd may have said it best. During a debate on the floor in 1975, Senator Byrd said, ``at any time that 51 Members of the Senate are determined to change the rule . . . and if the leadership of the Senate joins them . . . that rule will be changed.'' That is what happened today. We keep hearing that any use of this option to change the rules is an abuse of power by the majority. However, a 2005 Republican Policy Committee memo provides some excellent points to rebut this argument. Let me read part of the 2005 Republican memo: ``This constitutional option is well grounded in the U.S. Constitution and in Senate history. The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd used the constitutional option in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 to establish precedents changing Senate procedures during the middle of a Congress. And the Senate several times has changed its Standing Rules after the constitutional option had been threatened, beginning with the adoption of the first cloture rule in 1917. Simply put, the constitutional option itself is a longstanding feature of Senate practice. The Senate, therefore, has long accepted the legitimacy of the constitutional option. Through precedent, the option has been exercised and Senate procedures have been changed. At other times it has been merely threatened, and Senators negotiated textual rules changes through the regular order. But regardless of the outcome, the constitutional option has played an ongoing and important role.'' The memo goes on address some ``Common Misunderstandings of the Constitutional Option.'' One misunderstanding addressed, which we heard today is that, ``The essential character of the Senate will be destroyed if the constitutional option is exercised.'' The memo rebuts this by stating that ``When Majority Leader Byrd repeatedly exercised the constitutional option to correct abuses of Senate rules and precedents, those illustrative exercises of the option did little to upset the basic character of the Senate. Indeed, many observers argue that the Senate minority is stronger today in a body that still allows for extensive debate, full consideration, and careful deliberation of all matters with which it is presented.'' Changing the rules with a simple majority is not about exercising power, but is instead about restoring balance. There is a fine line between respecting minority rights and yielding to minority rule. When we cross that line, as I believe we have many times in recent years, the majority is within its rights to restore the balance. This is not tyranny by the majority, but merely holding the minority accountable if it crosses that line and makes the Senate a dysfunctional body. I would expect the same if my party was in the minority and we were abusing the rules. Many of my colleagues argue that the Senate's supermajority requirements are what make it unique from the House of Representatives, as well as any other legislative body in the world. I disagree. If you talk to the veteran Senators, many of them will tell you that the need for 60 votes to pass anything or confirm nominees is a recent phenomenon. Senator Harkin discussed this in great detail during our debate in January and I highly recommend reading his statement. I think this gets at the heart of the problem. We are a unique legislative body, but not because of our rule book. We have recently devolved into a body that our Founders never intended. Rather than one based on mutual respect that moves by consent and allows majority votes on almost all matters, we have become a supermajoritarian institution that often does not move at all. With all of the economic issues we face, our country cannot afford a broken Senate. Both sides need to take a step back and understand that what we do on the Senate floor is not about winning or keeping the majority next November, but about helping the country today. Today's vote to change the rules is a victory for all Americans who want to end obstruction and return to a government that works for them. Americans sent us here to get things done, but in recent years, the minority has filibustered again and again--not to slow action out of substantive concerns, but for political gain. Any President--Democrat or Republican--should be able to make their necessary appointments. This change finally returns the Senate to the majority rule standard that is required by the Constitution when it comes to executive branch and judicial nominees. With this change, if those nominees are qualified, they get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. If a majority is opposed, they can reject a nominee. But a minority should not be able to delay them indefinitely. That is how our democracy is intended to work. New Mexicans--all Americans--are tired of the gridlock in Washington. The recent filibuster of three DC Circuit nominees over the last 4 weeks was not the beginning of this obstruction. It was the final straw in a long history of blocking the President's nominees. Doing nothing was no longer an option. It was time to rein in the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, and I am relieved the Senate took action today.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy following my remarks.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I do not think there is any doubt in this country that on both sides--the Republican side and the Democratic side--the base pushes us hard. I think we have reached this stage of hyperpartisanship. I believe our job as leaders is to overcome that and to lead. Leading here means allowing the norms and traditions of the Senate to continue, and that would be an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees. What I asked the Senator about what was particularly troublesome to me was when we look at the history, the last two women who were put onto the Supreme Court--Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--75 percent of the Republicans in the Senate voted against both of them. So we have that history compared with the women who have been denied here. It is very troubling to me to see that. I think we are supposed to wrap up. I do not know whether the Senator has any closing comments.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I could not agree more with what Senator Merkley pointed out. There has been a lot of discussion-- especially as shown on that chart the Senator talked about--that we have done this before. When the Senate hits a roadblock, we can come back to our majority powers and get through the roadblock and continue to do business, to do business as the Senate and do the business we were sent here to do. As the Senator noted, I remember I called for rules reform 4 years ago. I said the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas. I remember talking about that in my campaign and coming here, and I am sorry to say little has changed, that the digging continues. Americans are tired, I believe, with the gridlock and the dysfunction in Washington--filibusters, shutdowns, hyperpartisan attacks. Americans want reform in the way their government operates: more cooperation, more transparency, less partisanship, more problem solving. Monday's vote was one more example of why we need reform. Judge Robert Wilkins is well qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. He deserved an up-or-down vote. Instead, what did we get? Another filibuster. He is the fourth nominee to that court to be trampled on by the minority--not because he is unqualified, not because of any failing on his part, but because a Democratic President nominated him. For some that is enough, that is all it takes to tell an eminent American to go home. First it was Caitlin Halligan in March, then Patricia Millett last month, followed by Nina Pillard last week, and now Robert Wilkins--each of them exceptional, every one of them distinguished nominees. Each would be a credit to the court of appeals. So No. 4, and counting. In baseball, three strikes and you are out. Not so in the Senate. But this is not just about the rules. It is about having a Senate that works--not one that buckles under the weight of filibusters. The partisan games continue, and the game has gone on long enough because the losers are the American people. Senators Merkley and Harkin and I proposed changes to the rules at the beginning of this Congress--rules changes that were fair. They reined in the abuse. They protected the minority. We were very clear. We called for a talking filibuster. We argued that if the minority wants to continue debate, which is what voting against cloture is, they should actually have to stand on the floor and debate. Come down here, if you want to slow things down, and get on the floor and debate. Instead, a compromise was reached. The two leaders agreed to ``work together to schedule votes on nominees in a timely manner by unanimous consent, except in extraordinary circumstances.'' That was the standard and the test: ``extraordinary circumstances.'' The minority leader said: On the subject of nominations, Senate Republicans will continue to work with the majority to process nominations, consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate. That was the agreement, and we all know it has not been kept. In July, we had another shutdown on confirmations--all qualified candidates, all prepared to serve, but nominated by a Democratic President--or asked to lead agencies the other side does not like: the Department of Labor, the EPA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--all blocked. Once again we looked at changing the rules with a simple majority to restore the Senate's ability to function. We had a historic meeting in the Old Senate Chamber, and we reached another compromise. I was hopeful for the outcome. There was feeling on both sides that things had to change, that we needed to change the way we do business here, and we confirmed several of those nominees. But here we are again back on the filibuster merry-go-round and getting nowhere. Four months later, the same debate, the same partisan games, with qualified nominees denied an up-or-down vote. And not just judicial nominees but also Congressman Mel Watt blocked from leading the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The only ``extraordinary circumstance'' has been continual obstruction. These are not the norms and traditions of the Senate. It is the failure of partisan politics. In fact, it was not long ago that Republicans were the first to say so during the Bush administration. They were up in arms. Why? Because 10 judicial nominations had been blocked--10, mind you. That number seems quaint now, but it was enough for the Republicans. Here is what the Republican policy committee said in 2005. These are their words: This breakdown in Senate norms is profound. There is now a risk that the Senate is creating a new 60-vote confirmation standard. The Constitution plainly requires no more than a majority vote to confirm. Exercising the constitutional option in response to judicial nomination filibusters would restore the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices governing judicial nominations, and guarantee that a minority does not transform the fundamental nature of the Senate's advice and consent responsibility. This approach, therefore, would be both reactive and restorative. Restoring the Senate to its longstanding norms and practices. It would be difficult to state the case more clearly. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: We should be careful what we wish for; that is, majority rule could backfire, which might get more Justice Scalias. Well, that is exactly the point. The Constitution does not give me the right to block a qualified nominee no matter who is in the White House. The real norms and traditions of the Senate honor that principle. Some of us may disagree with Justice Scalia on judicial philosophy, but he was a qualified nominee. He received an up-or-down vote and he was unanimously confirmed. Likewise, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was considered liberal, the former ACLU general counsel. Many on the other side may have disagreed with her views, but there was no filibuster. She was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. A minority in the Senate should not be able to block qualified nominees. On the other side of the aisle, this is not advise and consent; this is obstruct and delay. The people elect the President. They give him or her the right to select a team to govern and to appoint judges to the Federal bench. If those nominees are qualified, they deserve an up-or- down vote. That is how our democracy is intended to work. That is the mandate of our Constitution. That is the real tradition of the Senate. That is the way it is supposed to work. It has worked that way in the past. My father was Secretary of the Interior for President Kennedy. He later told me--when I asked him how long it took to get his team in place at Interior, he said, ``Tom, I had virtually my entire team in place in the first 2 weeks''--in place and ready to serve the American people in 2 weeks. The President's team is his team to choose so long as they are qualified to do the job. My colleague on the other side is right. The winds can change. Let's be candid. Neither side is 100 percent pure. Both sides have had their moments of obstruction and, no doubt, their reasons at the time. But I do not think the American people care much about that. They do not want a history lesson or a lesson in parliamentary procedure. They want a government that is fair. They want a government that is reasonable and that works for them. I say to Senator Merkley, we are back in this situation now where we started as we came in the Senate in 2008 and saw a broken Senate, a Senate that was not responding to the American people. What I wanted to ask the Senator about, because to me it is one of the troublesome parts of what is happening with these judges, the last four judges who have been filibustered have been women. I think we are talking about a different standard because in between the four, a man got onto the same court, was voted in, but three women have been held up and filibustered: Caitlin Halligan, Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard. So over and over we have this kind of obstruction. Does the Senator think we have a double standard? Is it one standard when we look at what has happened recently on the court of appeals where a man gets on and three women get denied?

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I think we have come back to the central question. That question is, How does our Constitution work when it comes to nominees? I do not have any doubt that we are talking about majorities. There are only five places in the Constitution where a supermajority is mentioned. It is not mentioned when it deals with advice and consent, judicial nominees, or Presidential nominees to the executive branch. I think the Republican policy committee said it very well in the memo the Senator is talking about. It was authored at the time when the head of the policy committee was John Kyl. He was the chairman of the policy committee, known in the Senate as a good lawyer, and was respected on the Constitution. He wrote about the Constitution and how the Constitution should work. He said a couple of things that I think are interesting. This was back on April 25, 2005: The filibustering Senators are trying to create a new Senate precedent--a 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of judges--contrary to the simple-majority standard presumed in the Constitution. A little bit further on, he also said: An exercise of the constitutional option-- That means taking an action to put a judge on the court with a majority vote-- The exercise of the constitutional option under the current circumstance would be an act of restoration--a return to the historic and constitutional confirmation standard of simple- majority support for all judicial nominations. So I do not think anything has changed. I do not think it has changed from the time in 2005 to today. I do not think the Constitution has changed from the time we put it into place until today, that when it comes to those nominees the traditions and norms of the Senate are to have the majority have a say, that they get an up-or-down vote. That is the situation right now. We have a filibuster going on on a number of nominees, both Presidential nominees and judicial nominees. So I think what we are trying to do in working with our leadership is say: Let's go back to the norms and traditions of the Senate where we use the majority wisely and give that advice and consent.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, one of the great natural treasures of my State, and of our Nation, is Carlsbad Caverns National Park. Underneath the Guadalupe Mountains, in southeastern New Mexico, lies one of the most spectacular caverns in the world. Will Rogers famously called it ``the Grand Canyon with a roof on it.'' Since 2004, the park has been well served by Superintendent John Benjamin. I rise today to congratulate John on his retirement after 45 years with the National Park Service. John's tenure with the Park Service has been a remarkable journey, and he has served with distinction every step of the way. He graduated from Syracuse University with a bachelor's degree in resource management and a master's degree in forestry. He then began his career at NPS in 1968 as a park naturalist at Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado and Utah. For over four decades, John has been an exemplary public servant at America's greatest wilderness and recreation areas, including Lake Mead, Glacier National Park, Glen Canyon, the Everglades National Park, and the Grand Canyon. He served as deputy superintendent at Boston National Historical Park and Boston African American National Historic Site, and as superintendent of Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, prior to his time at Carlsbad Caverns. Throughout his career, John has reflected that he enjoyed every job he had and particularly his role as a mentor to others who would go on to serve the Park Service and the American people with the same dedication that he has demonstrated for so many years. In his book, The Quiet Crisis, my dad wrote the following: Each generation has its own rendezvous with the land, for despite our fee titles and claims of ownership, we are all brief tenants on this planet. By choice, or by default, we will carve out a land legacy for our heirs. We can misuse the land and diminish the usefulness of resources, or we can create a world in which physical affluence and affluence of the spirit go hand in hand. Public servants like John Benjamin make sure that our ``rendezvous with the land'' is a noble one and that our national treasures will be safeguarded for generations to come. John can look back on a career of great accomplishment and service. He exemplifies a legacy of professionalism and commitment that will continue to inspire others. I wish him and his wife, Deborah, much happiness in all their future endeavors.

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, in less than 1 week our Nation will commemorate Veterans Day. It is a day that we set aside to honor the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces, those who are still among us, as well as those who, sadly, have left us. Today I wish to pay tribute to an American hero, Vicente Ojinaga, who passed away on September 30 at the age of 95. Mr. Ojinaga was a valiant soldier, a member of the Army's 200th Coast Artillery Regiment, a defender of Bataan and Corregidor, and a survivor of the Bataan Death March. During World War II, the courageous defenders of Bataan were an inspiration for an embattled nation. The Japanese attack on the Philippines in December of 1941 came just hours after Pearl Harbor. The Battling Bastards of Bataan were outnumbered and outsupplied, but for 4 intense months they fought on against all odds. In holding off the enemy forces longer than expected, they bought the Allies precious time to regroup. They were, and always will be, an inspiring reminder of the grit and determination of both Americans and Filipinos. The courage and sacrifice of those brave troops should never be forgotten. Their number included 1800 New Mexicans. Many of them were also Hispanic, deployed to the Philippines because of their ability to speak Spanish. They were dedicated to defending the freedoms that we all hold dear, at a time when they themselves were treated as second- class citizens. For Mr. Ojinaga and his fellow soldiers, even worse was yet to come after the surrender. Those who survived the Bataan Death March faced 3\1/2\ years of horrific conditions and forced labor in Japanese prisons. In an interview with the Santa Fe New Mexican, Mr. Ojinaga's daughter, Teri Gonzales, recalled that her father would sometimes tell his family about his experience during the war, but not in detail. ``We didn't want him to relive the horrible things,'' Mrs. Gonzales explained. ``He said what kept him alive was faith and prayer and his family, knowing he was going to come back to his family.'' Vicente Ojinaga was born on January 22, 1918, in Santa Rita, NM. After graduation from high school, he worked as a carpenter in the copper mine. When his country called, on the brink of World War II, he answered that call, unequivocally and with a powerful sense of duty. With his passing, we say goodbye to a courageous veteran of the legendary New Mexican survivors of Bataan. Our Nation is forever in their debt. As his daughter said, despite the horrendous circumstances of his captivity, Mr. Ojinaga held on to his faith and held on to his hope that someday he would return home, that someday he would see his family again. By the war's end, his body bore the weight of his suffering. When he was finally released, he weighed only 95 pounds. Like so many of the Bataan survivors, Mr. Ojinaga served his country at war but also in peacetime. He married Celia Presciado and together they raised five children. He and his wife purchased a home, with the help of the GI bill, in the Casa Solana subdivision of Santa Fe. They would live there together for over half a century. Mr. Ojinaga graduated from the University of New Mexico in 1950 with a degree in business administration. He worked for the Internal Revenue Service and then for the New Mexico Bureau of Revenue until his retirement in 1978. His daughter recalled to the New Mexican that after his retirement Mr. Ojinaga was busy with his family and with community service. He was a Little League coach, volunteered to provide tax counseling to the elderly, was president of the Guadalupe Credit Union, and served as a Eucharistic minister at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. Mr. Ojinaga was blessed with a long and eventful life, and he dedicated his life to his country, to his family, and to his community. Our Nation has lost a brave soldier. We extend to the family our deepest sympathy and our enduring gratitude for his service.