Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. UDALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on my amendment.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the criticisms of the Udall amendment that I believe are misleading and deserve a response. To start, I want to point out an area of agreement. The opposition says our amendment is simple, and it agrees on its intent--that this amendment would prohibit a war with Iran without there being congressional approval, and that is what the vote is about. The arguments from those in the opposition mislead to avoid that simple truth. They are trying to create excuses for why we should ignore the Constitution and open the door to war with Iran without having a vote. President Trump has said he was 10 minutes away from doing just that. Here is some of what we have heard. Critics say we only have one Commander in Chief, not 535, and so we should not pass this amendment. We agree. We only have one Commander in Chief, but the Commander in Chief executes wars. Only Congress can declare them. Our Founders made that decision for good reason. Dictators and Kings declare war unilaterally. Democracies don't. In our democracy, the people decide whether we go to war or whether we don't go to war through their elected representatives. Congress is the most direct voice of the people. Once that decision has been made, then it is up to one Commander in Chief to execute that war. The people of New Mexico did not send me here to be a battalion commander or a general, and I have no intention of acting like one. The people of New Mexico sent me here to do my constitutional duty, and article I, section 8 vests the power of declaring war with the Congress. Critics also falsely say our amendment limits our forces' ability to defend themselves or take incoming fire before they can respond. The majority leader said our amendment defines ``self-defense'' too narrowly. I am confused at what he is referring to. Our amendment does not include a separate definition of ``self-defense.'' Our amendment expressly states that it does not restrict ``the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend against attack.'' This language does not, in any way, change the Department of Defense's rules of engagement that guide how to exercise our inherent right of self-defense. The DOD does not require a unit to absorb an attack before it can defend itself, and neither does our amendment. The only restriction in the amendment is that the President cannot enter into hostilities without having congressional approval. It is a restriction that is embedded in our Constitution. If the Republicans are proposing to do away with that restriction, I agree with my colleague Senator Merkley that they must come to the floor and propose a constitutional amendment to do so. Our forces in Iraq, Bahrain, and other locations in the Middle East are fully capable and empowered to defend themselves, and this amendment does not affect that. Unfortunately, the opposition is just repeating itself, trying to generate a reason to abdicate its own constitutional duty. We have also heard criticism that this amendment is ``appeasing the Ayatollahs'' and represents ``weakness'' and that we must allow the President to launch military action to be tough. We have heard these kinds of arguments before. They were very common in the run up to the disastrous Iraq war. Do not question the arguments for war. To do so is to be weak. I could not disagree more. Our Constitution is our strength, and this amendment simply reaffirms our Constitution in the face of a President who is threatening to flout it. Our Nation is strong when we are united. We do not need to give up congressional authority over war and peace to one man, the President, in order to be strong. Congress has authorized military action before, and when majorities believe that the circumstances warrant it, Congress will do so again. If we fear Iran so much that we are willing to walk away from the constitutional requirements to authorize military action, that would be the real sign of weakness. We have also heard that we cannot rely on Congress to authorize force if we need it to. We heard that Congress can barely name a post office. So how can we trust it with this kind of decision? What if Congress is out of town and cannot vote? First, it is disappointing to hear Members of the Senate speak so cynically about this body on the floor during a debate as important as this. The Congress does not function perfectly. That is very true. Yet history is clear that Congress has authorized military force many times in the past. I have supported some, and I have opposed others, but we had debates and votes. Only recently has the 2001 authorization been so abused to authorize military action all over the globe--far beyond the al-Qaida and Afghanistan mission that Congress thought it was voting on. Congress, though, has had these debates and has voted, and those decisions represent our national decisions. I see no reason to turn our back on our Constitution just because Iran is a regional threat and this administration has manufactured a crisis to exacerbate that threat. If there is a national security crisis that requires Congress to vote on military force, we can all get on a plane and come to Washington and do our jobs. Maybe we will even have a vote on Friday. Congress voted after Pearl Harbor, and Congress voted after 9/11. Both were in the middle of national crises. Our troops will be the ones making real sacrifices. We can bear the cost of some inconvenient recess travel. Our job is to debate and vote on matters of war and peace--period, end of story. We have also heard that the Department of Defense is opposed to our amendment. Yesterday, Mr. John Rood, the Under Secretary for Policy at the Department of Defense, sent a letter to the leaders of the Armed Services Committee in its opposition to our amendment. The letter is short, and while it contains speculation and rhetoric, it includes no legal analysis and fails to address the plain language of the amendment or longstanding DOD authority or rules of engagement. I am disappointed in the letter, but it should not be a surprise from a political appointee from the Trump administration, not when the President is openly declaring that he needs no authority from Congress to launch a war against Iran. The letter reads that the amendment ``purports to limit the President's authority in discharging his responsibility as Commander in Chief,'' which is simply false. The amendment straightforwardly affirms the constitutional authority of Congress to authorize military action--authority that the President is openly flouting in his public comments. If Congress authorizes military action against Iran, the Commander in Chief would be free to execute it. The letter asserts, without evidence, that our amendment will embolden Iran. I hope we are not so weak that we think our Constitution emboldens Iran. Overall, the letter cites nothing--the Constitution, no law, no DOD policy, no legal analysis, nothing--in support of its claims. This letter from DOD, which lacks a confirmed Secretary, is a disappointment, but it should not be read as any authoritative take on this amendment, its intent, or its effect. Some have said that this amendment would block the United States from helping Israel defend itself from an Iranian attack. I support Israel's right to defend itself, and this argument does not hold up. First, this amendment has no impact on our ongoing security assistance and cooperation with Israel, including the recent MOU signed with Israel by President Obama. Second, if Israel is attacked, there is nothing in this amendment that would prohibit the United States from coming to its aid with defensive measures. Third, if Israel is attacked and the United States wants to send our military to engage in direct hostilities, we are going to need to debate and authorize any response in Congress. That is simply what the Constitution says. Finally, the biggest risk of Iranian attacks on Israel, according to one Israeli Cabinet Minister last month, is the escalating tension between the United States and Iran. The best thing we can do to protect Israel is diplomacy to stop a broader regional war in the Middle East. If the United States does go to war with Iran, Israel is likely to face very serious threats, and that is something we should take seriously if we consider the use of force. Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz said in May that ``things are heating up'' in the Persian Gulf. He said: If there's some sort of conflagration between Iran and the United States, between Iran and its neighbors, I'm not ruling out that they will activate Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad from Gaza, or even that they will try to fire missiles from Iran at the State of Israel. So the threats to Israel from Iran only make it more important that we have a full debate and vote on military action, not less important. Again, the purpose of our amendment is simple: The President is threatening to launch military action against Iran without authorization, publicly flouting Congress. This amendment says that we are not going to go into an unauthorized war with Iran. If the President and Members of this body think we need to take military action against Iran, then let's have that debate and let's vote. The Udall amendment ensures we follow the constitutional process. To do otherwise is to be in dereliction of our constitutional duty.

Mr. UDALL. The Senator from New Mexico yields the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and let me thank the two Senators that preceded me here. Senator Merkley spoke on this issue of whether we should be going to another war in the Middle East, and Senator Kaine, whom I have watched since he has been in the Senate, has been relentless and very consistent about raising the issues of authorizations of force and relying on authorizations of force from 2001 and 2002--what we consider very outdated in terms of looking at the facts on the ground. I know he has been working hard-- Senator Kaine has--in the Armed Services Committee. Both of us have been working in the Foreign Relations Committee to try to address this constitutional issue that is really before us. I came to the floor of the Senate 4 weeks ago warning that this administration's reckless escalation of tensions with Iran was blindly leading us to the brink of war. I urged this body to assert its constitutional authority and pass my bipartisan legislation, the Prevention of Unconstitutional War with Iran Act. I called on all of us, Republicans and Democrats, to make it clear that the President alone cannot wage war against Iran without authorization from Congress. Well, here we are, 1 month later, and tensions with Iran have only increased. The threat of conflict has only drawn closer. Today, we woke up to the news that Iranian forces shot down a U.S. drone. That comes on the heels of 1,000 American troops being sent to the Middle East. Yet the Senate does nothing--nothing to assert Congress's constitutional authority and nothing to assume the responsibility that the Founders clearly placed on our shoulders, the people's representatives. The Republican leadership should not duck all debate on the military conflict with Iran. We need to vote. We owe it to our men and women in uniform, whose lives would be put on the line, to have this debate, to make the hard choices, and to take the tough votes. Today, we are calling for a vote on an amendment to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment prohibits funding for military operations against Iran without explicit authorization from Congress. I am joined in this amendment by Senators Kaine, Durbin, Paul, Merkley, and Murphy. My related bill has 25 cosponsors and still counting. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution couldn't be clearer. It is Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to declare war. This amendment recognizing Congress's clear-cut authority should have broad bipartisan support. Whether you support armed conflict with Iran or believe that the war would be a disaster, you should have the courage to cast a vote when the Constitution says it is your job. Let's be clear. This bill does not tie our Armed Forces' hands. Our military is highly capable, and we have an inherent right of self- defense, which this amendment clearly underscores. But we need to step up. The situation is more urgent day by day. The President and Secretary of State have accused Iran of being responsible for the attack on two oil tankers last week. Iran has denied that involvement. There is a somewhat conflicting report from the Japanese tanker owner. I do not know whether Iran, its surrogates, or another party is responsible for this heinous action, but this administration's itch to go to war is all too reminiscent of how we got embroiled in Iraq in 2003 and how the disastrous tanker war of the 1980s began. We must not make the same terrible mistakes again. We do need to find out precisely what happened and who is responsible, but the response need not be another endless war in the Middle East. We need a thorough and objective investigation of this incident, as has been called for by a number of nations, and the Senators need a real intelligence briefing that covers sources and evidence and not just a statement of opinions from administration officials. If the Trump administration is entering our forces into hostilities, then this Congress should demand that a report be submitted to Congress in accordance with the War Powers Act. Those who wrote that act made it clear: ``Hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired, but denotes a situation in which there is a clear potential either for such a state of confrontation or for actual armed conflict.'' We may have already crossed this threshold. Some have said we have. The Reagan administration failed to submit such a report to Congress during the tanker wars, and the Congress failed to hold that administration accountable, despite the overwhelming evidence of hostilities. Now, the current administration has hinted that it does not need to go to Congress for approval for hostilities against Iran. They seem to believe that the 9/11 AUMF gives them legal authority for war. Many of us in Congress today voted for that AUMF, including myself, and let me be clear--no one who voted for it thought it would be used to justify a war against Iran 18 years later. Congress needs to make that clear before it is too late. Yes, the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman should be safe from navigation. Vital interests are at stake. But I agree with the statement issued by the U.S. Central Command in the aftermath of this recent attack: We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We will defend our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best interest of the international community. A war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, and a majority of Americans agree. The American people are tired of forever wars in the Middle East that take our resources, produce no strategic gains, and, most tragically, endanger the lives of American men and women. In any war with Iran, we will have few allies to back us. The international community is not behind the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State's bellicose rhetoric. We would have to go it nearly alone. The administration's maximum pressure strategy is supposedly intended to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but this strategy has predictably failed to produce any negotiations or make any diplomatic inroads. Instead, it is emboldening the hardliners in Tehran who also want confrontation. The administration's pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement was a colossal strategic blunder. It was supposedly intended to get the U.S. a better deal, but violating our obligations has only produced saber- rattling, brinksmanship, and the very real risk that a miscalculation or mistake will result in an all-out war. The United States and the world were safer with the Iran nuclear agreement. It included strict verification requirements. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the President's own intelligence and defense teams agreed that Iran was complying. The unilateral withdrawal only undermined relations with our allies, signaled that the United States will not keep its word, and destabilized the Middle East even more. This was a predictable result and many warned the Trump administration about this outcome. Iran threatens to exceed the agreement's limits on nuclear fuel within days. While I hope Iran holds to its end of the bargain, the United States pulling out of the agreement and reimposing sanctions has opened the door for Iran to walk away as well. Now we must do all we can over the next 17 months to make sure this President does not precipitously start a war with Iran, a country of 80 million people, about four times the size of Iraq, and with proxy forces throughout the region. A war would cost trillions of dollars and undoubtedly American lives. With each passing day and with each incident, the risk of a catastrophic war grows closer. I realize some of my colleagues have a different view of the situation. Some talk about how all options must be on the table or say that the Iranian regime must be overthrown. I hope they reconsider and change their minds. If they don't, they should at least have the courage of their convictions. If you want to empower this President to fight a war with Iran, let's vote on that question. The American people and our men and women in uniform deserve to know that their representatives will debate, discuss, and vote on these most difficult of decisions. That is why all of us in this body must demand that this amendment be heard, debated, and voted on. Senate gridlock cannot be an excuse. The Constitution puts this decision squarely in our court. It is long past time for Congress to reassert its war powers authority. Our oath demands that we make any decision to go to war. The real possibility that this administration will precipitate conflict in Iran requires us to face this question now. The fact that American lives will be on the line places the moral imperative on us to debate this issue and to make clear to the President and his administration that any decision to go to war with Iran must be made by Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, Today I wish to honor Private William Tully Brown, a Navajo code talker who never considered himself an American hero but who was. Private Brown enlisted in the Marines in 1944 and was trained as a code talker at Camp Pendleton. Training was intense. The code talkers underwent extensive training in communications and in memorizing the complex code that included Navajo words used for 450 military terms that didn't exist in the Navajo or Dine language. Private Brown was part of the Second Marine Division. In July 1945, he shipped out of San Diego to Pearl Harbor, then to Saipan in the Mariana Islands, and finally to Nagasaki and Sasebo on the island of Kyushu, Japan's most southern main island. They landed in Nagasaki's harbor on September 23 with the mission of occupying the island. They were armed in full combat kit with fixed bayonets and full magazines. They didn't know what to expect from the defeated Japanese. Nagasaki had been bombed on August 9 and was devastated. Private Brown's division, along with other troops, successfully and peacefully secured the area in short order. Our Nation owes a great debt to the Navajo code talkers. They transmitted thousands and thousands of strategic military messages during World War II, but their code was never broken. Their skill, bravery, and commitment to country were integral to winning the war. Private Brown, like so many of our code talkers, was humble and modest about the courage he showed during the war. While Private Brown did not consider himself a hero, I do, and so does our country, which is why he and his fellow code talkers were awarded the Congressional Silver Medal in 2001 for defending the freedoms and liberties we enjoy today. Private Brown lived a long and productive life. After the war, he married Sarah Francis and fathered five children. He has 3 surviving children--Romero Brown, Vee Browne-Yellowhair, and Julie Brown--and 44 grandchildren an 2 great-great-grandchildren. Private Brown served his country, his community, and his family. We can ask no more of anyone. He is part of an American legacy.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to New Mexico Senator John Pinto--the longest serving member in the New Mexico Senate, who passed away May 24 of this year at the age of 94. John Pinto was born December 15, 1924, in Lupton, AZ, near the New Mexico border, on the Navajo Nation reservation to a family of sheepherders. He was Black Sheep born for the Red Running into the Water Clan. He was the oldest of seven children and had a tough upbringing. He was raised by relatives in Lupton until he was 12 years old, when his parents took him to their home in Gallup, NM. They lived in a small wooden shack. They sometimes went hungry. To eat, at times John hunted rabbits with a sharp stick. At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs picked him up and sent him to boarding school at Fort Defiance, AZ. Fort Defiance was the first boarding school on the Navajo reservation. John entered school at age 12. He spoke no English. They placed him in the beginner class, made up of 5-, 6- and 7-year-olds. A person of small stature, he would joke that was the last time he was the biggest one in the room. John joined the Marines in 1941 and was trained as a Navajo code talker. It was intense training. Approximately 400 Navajos trained as code talkers during the war. Famously, their code, based on the unwritten Navajo or Dine language, was never broken by the Japanese. John was ready for deployment when the war ended. He received the Congressional Silver Medal in 2001 for his service as a code talker. He was one of the last remaining surviving code talkers. After discharge from the service, he met the love of his life, Joann Dennison Pinto, to whom he was married for 65 years until her death in 2017. Together they had two daughters, Flora and Karen, and two sons, Cecil and Galen. After the war, he held odd jobs and then, on the advice of a BIA worker, he moved to Albuquerque to attend the University of New Mexico. He failed the English exam twice and was in tears that he wouldn't graduate and would be sent home. He hired a tutor, studied for 10 weeks, and passed. He was 39 when he received his college degree. He went on to earn a master's degree in elementary education and spent his career in the Gallup-McKinley County school system. Senator Pinto was first elected to the Senate in 1976, representing District 3, comprised of parts of San Juan and McKinley Counties in northwest New Mexico. The Navajo Nation makes up much of the district. In order to get to the State legislature, in January 1997, he took a bus from Gallup to Albuquerque and then began hitchhiking to the State capitol in Santa Fe. As he waited on a snowy street corner, up pulled another State senator, Manny Aragon, in his old Cadillac. Senator Aragon assumed the hitchhiker was a transient and picked him up. Senator Aragon asked his passenger why he was going to Santa Fe, and the hitchhiker replied, ``I'm a state senator.'' And off they went to the beginning of the legislative session together. During his 42 years in office, Senator Pinto worked tirelessly for the people of New Mexico and his district. He went into politics because he saw the overwhelming needs of his people and wanted to make a difference. He was instrumental in establishing the New Mexico Department of Indian Affairs and setting up a Tribal infrastructure fund for much needed projects for Tribes. Over the years, he pushed for dozens of projects for roads, power lines, water systems, and public buildings. He was responsible for widening U.S. Highway 491 from two to four lanes to increase public safety and commerce. During his last session in the senate, this year, he was successful in securing a $1 million appropriation to begin a Navajo code talkers' museum. He had fought for this project for years to honor this group of brave and skillful men who were so instrumental to U.S. success in World War II. Senator Pinto was a beloved and respected figure in the State senate. He loved to sing, and every year he sang the ``Potato Song'' to the chamber in his Native language--a song about planting, growing, and harvest potatoes on the reservation. He is not only the longest serving Native American in the New Mexico Senate, he is one of the longest serving Native legislators in the county. On May 17 of this year, Senator Pinto was awarded the first honorary doctorate of public service to be issued by Navajo Technical University in Crownpoint, NM. He was immensely proud of that honor. I have traveled all over the Navajo Nation with Senator Pinto. He would call me often to talk about ways to help. He cared deeply for his people and, in return, was loved by them. Senator Pinto said, ``My philosophy is to be happy, to meet people, to love people, all the races . . . they all need good water to drink, good food to eat, a good warm place to stay, and they need good jobs-- that's the basic needs.'' Senator Pinto understood what it is like not to have the basics in life, and he worked decades to make sure his people and all New Mexicans had those basics. Senator John Pinto: educator, statesman, Navajo code talker, brave Dine warrior, loving husband and father. He is a New Mexico legend and an American hero. I am proud to have known him and to have called him my friend.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor William Sauble of Maxwell, NM, for decades of outstanding service to his community. Bill was born into a ranching family in Maxwell, in North Central New Mexico, and has lived in that community almost all his life. After graduating with honors with a bachelor's degree in animal science from New Mexico State University in 1970, he married his high school sweetheart, Debbie. He then entered the Navy, where he served 2 years of Active Duty and 5 years in the Reserve. After returning home from the Navy, Bill and Debbie took up the family ranching business. They are the proud parents of two children, Troy Sauble and Tara Sauble Foster, and grandparents of two grandchildren. Bill has been a leader in the community and in ranching in New Mexico all his life. The number of civic organizations that Bill has been a part of is too numerous to list. He has served as president of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association, the Colfax County Farm Bureau, and the Colfax County Fair Association, and as chair of the New Mexico Livestock Board, the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the New Mexico State Land Office, the city of Raton Extra-Territorial Zoning Commission, and the American Farm Bureau Public Lands Committee. As a tribute to their ranching skills and acumen, in 2012, he and Debbie were awarded the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Farm Family of the Year. That same year, Bill was named Cattleman of the Year by the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association. Bill has not only worked hard for his own family ranch, but he has worked tirelessly to improve the cattle business throughout New Mexico, spending countless hours traveling the State on behalf of cattle growers and the livestock board. Bill has the respect of his community and served on the Colfax County Commission between 2009 and 2018. As chair of the commission, he doggedly pursued Transportation Investment, Generating economic recovery, or TIGER, grants to obtain capital investment for transportation projects for his county. When Amtrak threatened to discontinue Southwest Chief service between Dodge, KS, and Albuquerque, NM, Bill worked with me, the rest of the New Mexico congressional delegation, and the Kansas and Colorado delegations to secure funding from Congress and commitments from Amtrak to continue this critically important service. Bill is a person of integrity and character. He has a heart of gold. All his life he gave back to his community and our State. New Mexico owes him a debt of gratitude. I wish him and his family my very best.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. It is good to see you today. I am going to be joined by a number of my Senate colleagues to talk about reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. We have many who are very concerned that we need to move this reauthorization, so they will be joining me here today. The first chart we are putting up here is of Hanna Harris, who is a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Here she is with her son just months before she was brutally murdered on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Hanna was all of 21 years old, and her son was only 10 months old. We now honor Hanna and all murdered and indigenous women and girls each year on Hanna's birthday, May 5, as a national day of awareness. It is fitting to remember and honor these women and girls, and it is critical that we understand the magnitude of violence that Native women face. Eighty-four percent of Native women have experienced violence in their lifetime. That is four out of five. In some Tribal communities, Native women are murdered at rates more than 10 times the national average--10 times. One out of three Native women has been raped. Behind these statistics are thousands of faces, thousands of lives disrupted, shattered, and cut short--faces like that of Ashley Loring Heavy Runner. This is a photo of Ashley. Ashley was an outgoing 20- year-old Native college student during the summer of 2017 when she went missing on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana. Last December, I heard firsthand about the devastating impact of Ashley's disappearance when her sister, Kimberly Loring Heavy Runner, came before the Indian Affairs Committee to ask Congress to take action. Kimberly told us: We are going missing, we are being murdered. I am here to stress to you . . . we are loved and we are missed. We will no longer be . . . invisible people . . . we have worth. That is Kimberly talking. By the end of 2017, the FBI had identified 5,600 additional cases of missing Native women and girls. This number is likely a very, very severe undercount. This crisis is devastating Native families across the country. It is unacceptable. Just last week, the Senate passed a resolution remembering murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and I thank Senator Daines and other Republicans for sponsoring this bipartisan resolution. Now we must make good on those words. We must walk the walk. We must take bipartisan action to end the cycle of violence, and we should start by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and strengthening provisions to protect Native women. I have been a strong proponent of VAWA from the beginning, and I pushed hard for the law's passage in 1994 when I was New Mexico's attorney general. But it became clear early on that VAWA's provisions weren't reaching Tribal communities because of the Tribal jurisdictional maze put in place by a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, the Court held that Indian Tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes on reservations. This ruling undermined the sovereign right of Tribes to enforce the law on Tribal lands. It undercut public safety in Indian Country, and it let violent offenders escape prosecution. An astounding number of violent crimes against Native women on reservations are committed by non-Indians. According to the National Institute of Justice, 97 percent of Native women who experience violence in their lifetime have been victimized by non-Indian perpetrators. While Tribal authorities' hands were tied, Federal law enforcement authorities weren't addressing these cases either. Investigations were not pursued because the crimes took place in remote locations. Federal prosecutors declined to prosecute cases. Crimes against Native women and children were pushed to the back burner. The inability of Tribes to protect their own members was an inexcusable hole in the law. By the time the Senate took up VAWA reauthorization in 2012 and 2013, we could no longer ignore Oliphant. We could no longer ignore that Oliphant left Native women at risk. In the Senate, I fought to restore Tribes' authority to provide for the safety of their members, and we ultimately reinstated their authority to prosecute anyone who commits domestic violence on a reservation through VAWA 2013. Since then, 18 Tribes have begun exercising jurisdiction over domestic violence crimes. There have been 143 arrests of 128 violent offenders with 74 convictions to date. This is a real step in the right direction. With time and experience, Tribes have seen there are still gaps that must be closed to stop violence against Native women. Tribes have identified four changes Congress must make to hold violent offenders accountable. First, Tribal jurisdiction under VAWA doesn't extend to domestic violence against children. If a Native child is caught up in the violence, as is too often the case, Tribal law enforcement can't prosecute the offender. We have to change that. Second, VAWA applies only to domestic violence. It doesn't apply to general cases of sexual assault, sex trafficking, or stalking. Like other types of violence, Native women face higher levels of sexual violence than other women in the United States. In fact, of the Native women who have experienced violence, 56 percent have experienced sexual violence. Yet VAWA 2013 didn't cover the entire range of sexual violence directed toward Native women. Congress must fix this. Third, VAWA 2013 wasn't clear whether Tribes have jurisdiction over attempted domestic violence. If a perpetrator swings at his spouse and misses, there is no crime until the next time, when he lands a punch. We must fix this loophole or Native women will continue to be at risk. Finally, VAWA doesn't cover crimes committed against Tribal law enforcement officers charged with responding to domestic violence. If an officer is responding to a domestic violence case and he or she is assaulted, they aren't covered under the law, so that needs to be fixed. Domestic violence calls, as all of us know, are some of the most dangerous law enforcement responds to. Police officers, including Tribal officers, are assaulted when responding to disturbance calls more than in any other circumstance. Yet Tribes can't protect their own officers. These gaps in VAWA undermine the very purpose of the law and put children, women, and police officers at great risk. We must remedy this. Senators Murkowski, Smith, and I have introduced the Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act to ensure Tribes can exercise jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against children and Tribal officers and attempted domestic violence. The bipartisan bill is supported by 16 former U.S. attorneys appointed under Republican and Democratic administrations and the Indian Law and Order Commission, a body of Tribal public safety experts established under the bipartisan Tribal Law and Order Act. We have also introduced the Justice for Native Survivors of Sexual Violence Act, which makes sure that Tribes have authority to prosecute sexual assault, sex trafficking, and stalking crimes. The House of Representatives already passed these measures last month on a bipartisan basis as part of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2019. It is now our turn to take action. We cannot allow this bill to be buried in the majority leader's so-called legislative graveyard, not when women's lives are literally at stake. Friends, we must all agree it is long past time to address violence against women in Indian Country. I urge this body to reauthorize VAWA and pass the Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act and Justice for Native Survivors Act. Let the families of Hanna and Ashley and thousands of other missing and murdered Native women know that they are not invisible, that they have worth, and that they deserve justice. I mentioned earlier that 16 U.S. attorneys, both Republican and Democratic, wrote to us about the Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act. They wrote very eloquently about what the situation is that we face today. These are U.S. attorneys who prosecuted in States that have Tribes. They were trying to do everything they could to bring justice to these situations. Their letter of support for S. 2233, the Native Youth and Tribal Officer Protection Act, reads of some of the things here that I am going to quote, which, I think, make very, very poignant points about why we should take up this legislation and pass it immediately. The Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish severely limits Tribal nations' ability to prosecute crimes committed against Indians by non-Indians. Congress removed Federal limits on the inherent authority of Tribal governments to prosecute the non-Indian domestic violence offenders in the 2013 followup reauthorization. Under current law, the Tribal justice system has arresting and prosecuting authority over a non-Indian domestic violence offender, but it has no recourse if that same offender commits a crime against the responding Tribal public safety officer. U.S. attorneys' offices with jurisdiction often decline to prosecute a non-Indian who commits a violent crime on Tribal lands. The absence of Tribal criminal jurisdiction over some non-Indian perpetrated crimes and low Federal prosecution rates for those crimes contribute to the high rates of violence against Native people, particularly women and children who live on Tribal lands. Due to the experiences of the letter's signatories--the 16 former U.S. attorneys, Democratic and Republican--they say public interest, safety, health, and welfare all support the concept that, if possible, crimes committed on Tribal lands should be prosecuted by the presiding Tribal government. These former U.S. attorneys support the goal of this legislation--to restore Tribal jurisdiction over crimes that have been committed against Tribal police officers and children citizens of the Tribal nations. The need for Tribal jurisdiction over crimes against Tribal law enforcement is absolutely clear here. Under VAWA 2013 Tribal jurisdiction, Tribes cannot hold defendants accountable for violence against officers who are enforcing the law. This leaves arresting officers, court bailiffs, and corrections officers vulnerable. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is an example of the injustice here. It had one non-Indian defendant who had hit and strangled his girlfriend and, while in jail, had stricken the correctional officer who had been holding him after his arrest. He had threatened to come back and--this is his language--shoot up the reservation. The Tribe referred the assault and threat to Federal prosecutors, who ultimately dismissed the charges. If we pass this legislation that has come over to us from the House, the Tribes in this circumstance would have the ability to step in and do something about this. They don't have any option today. If they get a declination, if there will be no action taken on the Federal side, they will not have the ability to deal with crime and violence on their reservation. Let me talk a little bit about the need for Tribal jurisdiction over crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of incidents reported by the implementing Tribes involve children. According to the Department of Justice, Native children suffer exposure to violence at rates that are higher than any other peer group in the United States. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, which was one of the first five Tribes to implement the VAWA 2013 authority, identified at least 38 children involved as witnesses and victims with its VAWA 2013 cases. Clearly, when there is a domestic violence incident, one of the things that needs to be done by law enforcement is with regard to a woman's being assaulted in the presence of a child. You should allow the prosecuting authorities to take that into consideration and make it a part of the charge. With the law we have today, that is not allowed. So children are not protected. In another example, of the defendants and perpetrators who are known violent and criminal offenders, many defendants had run-ins with Tribal police for violence or criminal activity prior to getting arrested. For example, the Tulalip Tribe in Washington reported that the 70 defendants it prosecuted by using its VAWA 2013 authority had had a total of 171 contacts with Tribal police prior to their arrests. A Tulalip Tribal member was assaulted and raped by the father of her children--a non-Indian who had had 19 prior contacts with the Tribal police. VAWA 2013 allowed the Tribe to arrest and successfully prosecute the man. This is a good example of how VAWA 2013 has worked, but in all of these circumstances I have talked about, we need to demand it--whether it is with a law enforcement officer who is assaulted in the course of enforcing the law or whether it is with a child who is a part of the circumstances that involve the prosecution. I see that my good friend Senator Catherine Cortez Masto is here on the floor. She is a very active member of the Indian Affairs Committee. I know she cares passionately about these missing and murdered indigenous women and children. I would ask to have a colloquy with Senators who show up, but I will be here on the floor. So don't worry. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cortez Masto for her talk today. I can tell that she is very passionate about this issue. Both of us were State attorneys general from Western States. We have significant Native American populations, and we are very familiar with the jurisdiction issue. I have seen Senator Cortez Masto question many times in the committee on the issue of jurisdiction. And what I am talking about there--you have Tribal jurisdiction, and then you have Federal jurisdiction, and many times there is some State jurisdiction. So when the Supreme Court in 1978 came out with a ruling in the Oliphant case, they created a big hole, and for almost 30 years, there was a zone that really wasn't being prosecuted. Senator Cortez Masto is very familiar with this. Because of that, we had kind of a situation in Indian Country where, without enforcement, I think some of this violence grew. I am sure that ever since Senator Cortez Masto has been in law enforcement, she has seen this problem and advocated for changes to it, and we have seen dramatic changes with VAWA 2013, which allowed prosecution to take place. I don't know whether any of Senator Cortez Masto's Tribes within Nevada took cases and initiated things, but I think that across Indian Country, it is fair to say that there was very, very extensive effort. I think there have been a number of arrests--143, I think; 74 convictions--and things have really been moving along. Has that been your experience in terms of watching what has happened both at the State level and the Federal level since 2013? Have we been making some progress here?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I just want to say to my colleague from Minnesota that we very much appreciate her efforts on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. She has been a great member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. On all of these issues that are so pressing, whether it is violence or the lack of education or budgets that aren't adequate to support so many activities out in Indian Country, she has just been a terrific advocate. I know that she has followed this issue very closely in the years she has worked in government. One of the things that is really clear is we have given the Tribes an opportunity--and I know Senator Smith knows this very well--to undertake law enforcement in their communities as a result of VAWA 2013. Now is our chance to improve upon that, to lower the level of violence in Native American communities. I yield to the Senator to talk about what she has seen as a State- elected official--again, just as a citizen in Minnesota--to make sure that laws that have been passed are working well and working better, and there is a lot more we need to do. I yield to Senator Smith from Minnesota.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, one of the issues that has been highlighted by the two very capable Senators who are here on the floor, Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Smith, is that all of us--and I know that the Presiding Officer from the State of Utah also has many Tribes. All of us need to work in a very conscientious and deliberative way to try to make sure that we are able to do everything we can to bring forward the effort of the Federal Government to lower the violence level in Native American communities. The thing I saw over and over again in the State of New Mexico as I dealt with Tribes and then at the national level--I worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for several years as an assistant U.S. attorney. I saw over and over again that we were unable to prosecute some cases, but we were well aware that the Tribes, if they were given the authority, would be able to move forward because they were closer to the circumstances and would be able to do the job. That is why it is so important that 16 former U.S. attorneys who have jurisdiction across the United States--full jurisdictions of an area-- have stepped forward and said that they really feel that these pieces of legislation that Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Smith, Senator Klobuchar, and many others are sponsoring and that the House has actually sent over to us are ready to go. I see my good friend Senator Tester is here. The vote is going to take place in a few minutes, so I am going to yield the floor so that Senator Tester can speak on these very important issues. He is a great member of the Committee, and I always enjoy hearing from him because he is always right on point. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL. Take your time.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose this rush to confirm David Bernhardt to serve as the 53rd Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior is the chief steward of nearly 500 million acres of public lands and 1.7 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Interior Secretary is charged with managing the public's natural resources and protecting our Nation's most iconic spaces for now and for generations to come, and the Secretary has the duty of making sure that our trust and treaty responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives are met. It is essential to have the right individual serving in this position--someone who has a record of honoring these critical responsibilities and someone who will approach the solemn duties with only the interests of the American people at the top of his or her agenda. After considering the whole of Mr. Bernhardt's record, especially the open questions about his actions that have benefited his former clients, I cannot vote to confirm this nominee. His policies are too slanted toward private interests, and as a former lobbyist for many of these interests, his conflicts are too many. Any discussion of this nomination must begin there--by addressing the serious conflicts of interest that Mr. Bernhardt brings to this role and by addressing the ethical cloud that is plainly hanging over this nomination. I am rising today to call on the Republican leadership to put a halt to this nomination until that ethical cloud can be cleared, and if that cloud cannot be cleared, then, Mr. Bernhardt should be withdrawn. The concerns that have been raised are serious. Let's talk about a few of them. Much has been made of Mr. Bernhardt's ethics pledge and whether he has complied with the letter of the law, but we all know that he certainly has not complied with the spirit of the law. The Interior Department has begun or completed at least 19 policy actions requested or supported by at least 16 of Mr. Bernhardt's former clients since he came to Interior, according to just 1 analysis. Mr. Bernhardt's ethics pledge didn't stop him from trying to divert water to his former client, Westlands Water District in California's Central Valley, one of the largest agricultural water users in the county. On their behalf, Mr. Bernhardt sought to weaken protections for endangered fish species so that his client could pump more water. While an Interior official ``verbally'' ruled that he could participate in the matter, outside ethics experts disagreed. Mr. Bernhardt is clearly making a decision that directly benefits one of his former clients. Last month, I wrote to the DOI inspector general requesting an investigation into this matter. The Senate should know the outcome of such reviews before considering a Cabinet nominee. Otherwise, we are flying blind when it comes to a nominee's fitness for office. Just last week, it came to light that Mr. Bernhardt continued to work with Westlands after he filed notice that he was no longer lobbying on its behalf. He filed his notice on November 2016, but invoices from Mr. Bernhardt's firm show that he worked with his client all the way up to his nomination for Deputy Secretary. A spokeswoman claims that the work was not technically ``lobbying,'' but the fact is that Mr. Bernhardt's actions are benefiting his former clients. Westlands is getting the relief from the Endangered Species Act that they have sought for years. Once again, we need to know the full truth before we can vote on a nominee of such consequence. Americans deserve to have confidence in the impartiality of public officials, but how can they when the Trump administration has become a revolving door of lobbyists and industry advocates? As an attorney and lobbyist, Mr. Bernhardt built a profitable career trying to open public lands for development for his clients, and he spent years attacking the foundation of the Endangered Species Act. The problem is that since assuming his role as Deputy Secretary, he has continued to advocate for policies that benefit these same special interests. He helped to open millions of acres of public lands to oil and gas drilling, while looking to limit public input, and helped to gut protections that would mitigate the environmental harm of such development. He has tried to manipulate and bury the science of toxic pesticides that threaten endangered species. He has largely ignored the science of climate change. None of this is a personal attack on the Deputy Secretary, but we simply should not install private industry's representatives to run the Department of the Interior, because when we do, the American people pay the price. Just look at the policy outcomes. Climate change, for instance, is an existential issue--the most pressing issue facing our planet. The Department of the Interior oversees 20 percent of the lands in our Nation. These lands and their ecosystems and wildlife are threatened by a changing climate: drought and wildfires in the Southwest, wildfires and flooding in California, and hurricanes in the Southeast. Mr. Bernhardt has been clear that climate science will take a backseat to the President's politics. Under Mr. Bernhardt's guidance, the Department is blatantly ignoring the science of climate change. The Department took down its climate change web page, rescinded orders and policies aimed at addressing the impacts of climate change, and gutted the methane emission control rule at the behest of the worst performers in the oil and gas industry. Mr. Bernhardt now has the audacity to claim that there are no laws on the books that require Interior to act on climate change, all because his administration has attempted to dismantle every rule or regulation that requires the Department to take action. Very concerning is Mr. Bernhardt's role as the Trump administration's architect of opening public lands for unfettered energy development. In the last 2 years, Interior has auctioned off more than 16.8 million acres of public land for oil and gas drilling. In the first quarter of 2019, nearly 2.3 million more acres were put on the auction block. That includes potential lease sales within striking distance of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a UNESCO world heritage site sacred to the Tribes. That is why I just introduced legislation to permanently establish a 10-mile buffer surrounding Chaco so that we can enjoy this culturally significant area for generations to come without the constant threat of development. The Department has tried to open up nearly all coastal waters for offshore drilling and is speeding toward selling leases to drill in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--home to Native American Tribes and an area that supports a diversity of wildlife in a wild and untamed setting unlike any other on this planet. There are nearly 250 species, from caribou and grizzly bears to wolves and migratory birds. Yet this administration, under Mr. Bernhardt, is racing toward an outcome that could decimate this unique, grand, and biologically rich place. The Endangered Species Act stands as the Nation's commitment to protect wildlife from extinction. Protecting biodiversity is more important now than ever, as we see animal and plant species dying off in record numbers due to the loss of habitat and climate change. Mr. Bernhardt has had the ESA in his sights for a long time. Under his leadership, Interior has now proposed allowing economic considerations to override wildlife protections. Extinction is becoming just another cost of doing business. As I mentioned, on behalf of his former client Westlands, Mr. Bernhardt sought to weaken protections for endangered fish species, the delta smelt, and the Chinook salmon so that Westlands could pump more water. Mr. Bernhardt has looked to implement the very same policies he lobbied for, from within the walls of the Department. As Deputy Secretary, Mr. Bernhardt also dismantled a landmark agreement among bipartisan western Governors to protect the greater sage-grouse, opening up millions of acres of its habitat to oil and gas drilling without protections. The Endangered Species Act should be classified as ``endangered'' under Mr. Bernhardt's client-friendly Interior Department. Let's talk about another extinction risk: chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is not yet a household name like DDT, but it will be. It is a dangerous neurotoxin used in agriculture throughout the United States. It is linked to brain damage in children and can cause serious harm to human health and wildlife. In 2016, scientists from the EPA recommended a ban on all uses of this toxic pesticide. One of Scott Pruitt's first actions as EPA Administrator was to rescind that proposed ban. One of Mr. Bernhardt's early actions as Deputy Secretary was to bury a scientific study concluding that chlorpyrifos and another pesticide could ``jeopardize the continued existence'' of more than 1,200 endangered birds, fish, and other animals and plants. Let me repeat. More than 1,200 birds, fish, and other species are at risk of extinction from two toxic pesticides. Mr. Bernhardt reportedly ordered the staff to go back to the drawing board to block the release of this report. I have been working to get chlorpyrifos off the market with legislation, and the Federal courts have ordered EPA to move forward with the ban. There is no good reason chlorpyrifos is still in use except that it is manufactured by a powerful DowDuPont company. Mr. Bernhardt's withdrawal of the scientific study serves Big Chemical's interests, not the public's. One of the most egregious anti-conservation actions of this administration is the unprecedented attacks on the Antiquities Act, which has stood since President Theodore Roosevelt. The President reduced Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent and Grand Staircase- Escalante by over 45 percent--the largest rollback of protections for our collective Federal lands in history and an unlawful Presidential action, in my view. Each of these monuments is home to ruggedly beautiful lands that are at risk. The Bears Ears designation was the result of many years of hard work and collaboration by five Tribes who trace their ancestry to this remarkable area. Now the Department is pushing to open up the land outside their boundaries for coal and mineral mining corporations. Last month, I led 16 Democratic Senators in a letter to Mr. Bernhardt seeking his commitment to leave existing boundaries of other national monuments intact. So far, we have received no assurance from Mr. Bernhardt that any other monuments won't meet the same fate as Bears Ears and Grand Staircase. The pattern is clear: From the Arctic Refuge to California's Central Valley, from the Atlantic coast to Bears Ears, Mr. Bernhardt's Interior Department places profits over people. The American public deserves an Interior Secretary they can trust to look out for their interests--protecting public land, species, the air, and the water--but Mr. Bernhardt has not demonstrated that he has the necessary independence from his former clients. He has made them very happy. He has shut out scientists, Native Americans, conservationists, and the American people. He is tangled with conflicts. The Senate should stop the rush to confirm Deputy Secretary Bernhardt while these fundamental ethics and conflicts of interest questions are under review. If we move forward, I will vote no on this nomination. Before I conclude, I would like to offer one final point. I made my concerns with Mr. Bernhardt clear, but if Mr. Bernhardt is confirmed, one of his most important duties will be honoring our trust responsibility to Native Americans. On this count, I hope he will do better than what the Trump Interior Department has shown us so far. As the vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I want to ensure that the Department respects Tribes' sovereignty and self- determination and engages in meaningful consultation with Tribes. The Trump administration's record with Tribes and Native communities is, to put it lightly, lacking. The Tribes in New Mexico do not believe they are being properly consulted as leasing pushes ahead close to Chaco Canyon. For 3 years running, the administration has proposed budgets that would significantly cut BIA and BIE funding. Those are education budgets and budgets that help Native Americans on their reservations. Congress has historically worked across party lines on Native issues. Congress rejected the administration's proposed cuts for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, and I fully expect it to do so again for 2020. If confirmed, I would like to see Mr. Bernhardt follow suit and commit to do better on Tribal issues, commit to meet with Tribal leaders to understand their priorities and demonstrate in action that he respects Tribal sovereignty and that he commits the Agency to consult with Tribes whenever their interests are affected. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam President, for the recognition. It is great to be joined on the floor by Senator Collins, who is going to speak after me to stand up for the Constitution, and I very much appreciate Senator Lamar Alexander's comments also. He is a real student of the Constitution, and I respect very much the conclusion he has come up with here today. When each Senator is sworn into office, we take a fundamental pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That vow that we support the Constitution dates back to the very first Congress in 1789. Defending the Constitution is our first and foremost sacred duty. The Founders built a system of checks and balances into our Constitution. They made sure that the three branches of government exercised their own separate powers, and they made sure that no one branch, no one person, could exercise too much power, especially over the use of taxpayer money. The Founders gave to Congress the power of the purse, one of our most fundamental powers. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution could not be more clear: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' Congress holds the power to spend taxpayer money, not the President. It is our job to make sure that spending decisions have widespread public support and are not the product of an extreme minority, much less one man or one woman. We all know that the President wants a wall. We just had a major debate about border security funding. The President shut down the government for 35 days because Congress refused his wall request. Eventually he relented, but now he has declared an ``emergency'' to simply try and take the money that he couldn't get from the appropriations process. He said: ``I didn't need to do this.'' He flaunted the fact that this is not a real emergency. The President is testing the limits of Executive power. The questions before the Senate today are these: Are we going to let this happen or are we going to open Pandora's box? What about article I of the Constitution? What about the 35-day government shutdown? What about Presidential budget requests? What about the Appropriations Committee? Are we really going to let a President raid taxpayer money after Congress denies the request? The opposition to this power grab is bipartisan, as it should be. Among the American people the numbers are overwhelming. Almost 70 percent of the American people oppose the President's emergency declaration to raid taxpayer money for the wall. That is almost 70 percent. My fellow Senators, it is time for the Senate to do its job. It is time for us to assert our authority over the purse. It is time for us to honor our oath of office. Every Senator should vote yes on the resolution to terminate the President's emergency declaration. I want to thank my cosponsors in this effort. Earlier I mentioned Senator Collins, who is on the floor with me and will speak after me-- Senator Murkowski, Senator Shaheen. Again, I know that Senator Collins is on the floor to urge us to do the right thing, to stand up for Congress's authority. This vote is historic. The Constitution's principle of separation of powers is at stake. If the Senate enables the President to hijack our power to appropriate, history will not remember us fondly. This vote is not about the wisdom of building a wall along the border. This vote is not about party. This vote is about whether we will let any President trample on the Constitution, whether we will sit by and let the President take away our constitutional authority to appropriate. I rise today, hopeful that my Republican colleagues will speak up. In addition to Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski, Senator Tillis stated firmly in a recent opinion piece: I support Trump's vision on border security. But I would vote against the emergency. Why does he say he would vote against the emergency declaration? Because, he said, ``[a]s a U.S. Senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress.'' Former Governor Kasich authored an opinion piece recently titled ``It's time for Republicans in Congress to put country over party.'' He states: Let's be clear. This vote is not about the situation at the border; it's about an executive power grab and, above all, congressional respect for the democratic process. I couldn't agree more with Governor Kasich. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full pieces by Senator Tillis and Governor Kasich.

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, to get this wall money, the President caused the longest government shutdown in our Nation. The shutdown caused hardship for millions of Federal employees and lasting pain for thousands of Federal contractors, not to mention the millions of Americans who were denied services for 35 days--services they paid for with their tax dollars. I visited with New Mexicans hurt by the shutdown and it was very, very painful to hear their stories. In the end, Congress decided on a bipartisan basis not to spend the $5.7 billion the President demanded for his wall. He got $1.3 billion. I didn't want to see that much, and I wanted to see more restrictions as to specifically what it was going to be spent for, but it was a hard-fought compromise, and a deal is a deal. Congress's determination should have ended the debate for this fiscal year, the year that we are in. Now the President is asking Congress for $8.6 billion for the border wall next year. That is his prerogative, but make no mistake, it is not only Congress's prerogative, it is Congress's constitutional responsibility to decide if he gets that money. As the old saying goes, the President proposes and Congress disposes. President Trump is being treated no differently than all previous Presidents. That is how our constitutional system works--or at least how it is supposed to work. The President's emergency declaration is an end run around Congress, plain and simple. If any Democratic President issued an emergency declaration like this, say for climate change or gun safety funding, Republicans in this body would scream bloody murder and vote to disapprove. I am on record that climate change is one of the most pressing issues on our planet, and I am on record that gun violence is a national crisis. I have voted for and proposed actual legislation on these topics, as our system is supposed to work. No previous President has used the National Emergency Act to bypass the appropriations process like this. Our Constitution, the rule of law, separation of powers--all of these rise far above the day-to-day controversies like the President's border wall. On a practical note, the President wants to take real money away from real military construction projects, which will have a real impact on national security. These military construction projects have been vetted through years of scrutiny, through the military, through numerous congressional committees in Congress, and they are projects deemed essential to national security--projects all across the Nation, in our States, that are now at risk. We have a long list of military construction projects by the President. Yet he has not bothered to tell us which projects would be cut to build his wall. Will he raid $793 million to rebuild Camp Lejeune, NC, after the devastation from Hurricane Florence? Will he steal up to $800 million for Navy ship maintenance to make sure that accidents like what happened to the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald never happen again? Will he raid $125 million from my State of New Mexico for Holloman Air Force Base to develop unmanned aerial vehicles to track terrorists and for White Sands Missile Range to build a badly needed information systems facility? The answer is that we don't know, but these critical projects in all of our States are at risk. We each need to think about our States and the people we were sent here to represent. I am from one of the four States that border Mexico, one of the four States that would be the most directly impacted by any border wall, and I am here to state there is no national security emergency along my State's border with Mexico. What is happening at our border does not justify the use of this authority. New Mexico's border communities are flourishing with economic, cultural, and educational activity. Border communities are as safe as or safer than others in the interior. This is not a partisan view along the border. Republican William Hurd represents more than 500 miles of the Texas border with Mexico. He not only believes the President's emergency declaration is unconstitutional, but he also thinks the President's wall is ``the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.'' Again, whether you support or oppose the border wall is not an issue. What is at issue is our oath to support and defend the Constitution, whether any President can toss Congress aside and raid critical funds at will. We have an opportunity to stand up to an unconstitutional power grab. I urge everyone in this Chamber to seize that opportunity. With this, I yield to Senator Collins, who, from the beginning, has worked with me as we have our resolution in, and we are working hard to make sure that we stand up for the Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission Schools and Libraries program, commonly known as E-Rate, has helped connect our schools and libraries to high-speed broadband. Recent changes allowed for schools to pay for Wi-Fi on campuses, recognizing that students are using laptops and other devices for learning. This bill, cosponsored by my friends Senators Gardner, Cortez Masto, and Whitehouse, would allow schools to receive reimbursement for Wi-Fi on school buses--an idea inspired by a New Mexico high school student. A few years ago, a football player from Hatch Valley High School in Hatch, New Mexico told me how, after being on a bus for hours after a game, he would sit in the dark parking lot of his school doing his homework--because he didn't have high-speed broadband at home. Making Wi-Fi available on school buses is one piece to solving the homework gap--especially in rural areas. Adequate internet is an absolute necessity in this day and age. And I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure every home in the country has adequate internet access.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Federal Communications Commission Schools and Libraries program, commonly known as E-Rate, has helped connect our schools and libraries to high-speed broadband. Recent changes allowed for schools to pay for Wi-Fi on campuses, recognizing that students are using laptops and other devices for learning. This bill, cosponsored by my friends Senators Gardner, Cortez Masto, and Whitehouse, would allow schools to receive reimbursement for Wi-Fi on school buses--an idea inspired by a New Mexico high school student. A few years ago, a football player from Hatch Valley High School in Hatch, New Mexico told me how, after being on a bus for hours after a game, he would sit in the dark parking lot of his school doing his homework--because he didn't have high-speed broadband at home. Making Wi-Fi available on school buses is one piece to solving the homework gap--especially in rural areas. Adequate internet is an absolute necessity in this day and age. And I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure every home in the country has adequate internet access.