Tom Udall

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 today. I rise today for the people. I am glad to be joined by Senator Merkley. We have worked a long time together on government reform issues, campaign finance reform, and rules reform-- some very, very important issues that face the country. Today, in this country, there is a deep disconnect between what the American people are demanding from their leaders and what the President and the Congress have been giving them. Poll after poll shows that the American people want affordable healthcare. Yet the Republican leadership and this President have tried time and again to take away healthcare rights and healthcare protections. Poll after poll shows that the American people want good-paying jobs. Yet the Republican leadership and this President gave a massive tax-cut windfall to the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations. Poll after poll shows that the American people want clean air and clean water. They want Congress to tackle climate change. They want to protect our public lands. Yet for years the Republican leadership has done the opposite, and the Trump administration is dismantling environmental protections and sabotaging our efforts to fight climate change. Poll after poll shows that the American people support commonsense gun safety laws. Yet for decades the Republican leadership has refused to take any action whatsoever on even the most basic safety laws, like universal background checks. Poll after poll shows that the American people want Dreamers to stay in our country. They don't want children separated from their parents. They want comprehensive immigration reform to fix our broken system. Yet the Republican leadership has opposed these priorities for many years, and now this President moves forward with his divisive and hateful immigration policies. It is no wonder that trust in government is so low. According to a recent survey, just 19 percent overall trust the government to do what is right. Famously, root canals have a higher approval rating than Congress. We are a representative democracy. Yet the people are not being represented. Their will has been stymied. The situation has gotten dramatically worse under this President. There is no doubt about that. But these problems precede this President, and they will live much longer than his time in office unless we act. To put it bluntly, some of our most basic, democratic institutions are broken--our voting rights system, our campaign finance system, and our ethics rules. The American people know in their gut that this system is rigged. That is why the drug companies get what they want, and people pay through the nose. That is why the millionaires and billionaires get more tax cuts, and the working people get left behind. That is why the polluters get off scot-free, and the rest of us get dirty air and contaminated water. Unrigging this system requires reform--real reform--so that we bring power back to the everyday Americans and out of the hands of the special moneyed interests that rule Washington. Let's talk about how we do that. For years, I have stood with others in this Chamber to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, for an independent, nonpartisan drawing of House districts, and for closing the revolving door in Washington. In the past, some Senate Republicans were independent of their leadership and supported these ideas. The President had even promised to ``drain the swamp.'' As we all know by now, unfortunately, that promise was empty. But with the change in leadership in the House of Representatives, Congress is now making progress to enact the reforms that the American people want. The House will soon pass H.R. 1, the For the People Act--a major reform package to fix our broken system. It will be up to the Senate to follow suit. Next week, my Senate colleagues and I will introduce our own ``For the People Act''--a comprehensive set of reforms to move this effort forward. I hope we will have bipartisan support, but I was disappointed to hear the Republican leader deride this essential reform bill as ``the Democrat Politician Protection Act.'' This is not only a warped political comment, but it is also cynical and totally misses the point, especially when you consider that the American people overwhelmingly--across party lines--support these kinds of reforms. It is the special interests who oppose them because they are threatened by them. If the Republican leader feels the same way about this bill as the special interests do, perhaps the bill is not the problem. Every Member of the Senate will have a choice. Do they support reform, where our ideas and policies can compete on a level playing field, or do they choose to side with the special interests to do their bidding in return for their protection and money during election season? I have known plenty of Americans who oppose this system. John McCain was one of them. Senator Alan Simpson is another. Senator Cochran was a cosponsor of my constitutional amendment. No party has to side with the big money and special interests. It is a choice. It is a choice we must make together to return our democracy to the people and to rid our system of corruption. This bill will do just that. It will make it easier, not harder, to vote. It will bring an end to the dominance of big money and politics, and it will ensure that politicians actually serve the public interests. First, on voting rights, for 50 years the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has stood as a bulwark against voter suppression practices and enfranchised millions of voters, but in 2013 the Supreme Court eviscerated it in its Shelby County v. Holder decision, unleashing a torrent of State laws designed to suppress the vote among minorities. The Court's 5-to-4 decision rendered the Voting rights Act's preclearance provisions ineffective and cleared the way for States to engage in voter suppression. Since Shelby, nearly 1,000 polling places have been closed across the country, many in southern Black communities. Voter ID laws have been tightened, and early voting has been slashed. Voter rolls have been purged, and House districts have been redrawn to dilute the minority vote. One of the many egregious examples is North Carolina. Less than 2 months after Shelby, that State enacted far-reaching voter suppression requirements. North Carolina's law was struck down by a Federal court of appeals, finding that the law targeted African Americans ``with almost surgical precision.'' Just this last midterm, we saw voter suppression tactics surge. For instance, in North Dakota, the State legislature passed a law right before the November election that took aim squarely at the Native vote. The law required voter IDs to list physical addresses--an impossibility for many Native American voters living on reservations. A Federal court found that 5,000 Native American voters did not have the necessary identification. We have no choice but to respond and to restore the Voting Rights Act so States are stopped from closing off the franchise. That must also include the Native American Voting Rights Act to address voter suppression tactics in Indian Country and to make sure the Native vote is counted, not discounted. Bills to restore lost voting rights protections have been introduced in both Chambers. I hope the Senate majority will work in a bipartisan way to restore this landmark legislation. We should make it easier for voters to register, not harder. In a healthy democracy, automatic voter registration, online voter registration, and same-day voter registration for eligible voters would be noncontroversial. Voting should be easy. Too often, for too many, it is hard. It is our duty to fix that, and this bill will do that. Extreme political gerrymandering continues to skew State and congressional elections. Results from legislative races don't reflect the proportion of each party's voters. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. Congress must direct nonpartisan, independent line drawing in each State to draw congressional districts, and congressional districts must fairly reflect States' racial compositions so our representative government truly represents the electorate. There is no other way to put it. Our campaign finance system is broken. The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unlimited contributions and dark money, and this Congress's negligence has allowed the flood to drown out regular people's voices. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on candidates. The super wealthy can and do try to buy elections. Dark money groups can receive unlimited amounts of money from big corporations and wealthy individuals, spend their unlimited sums to influence elections, and never disclose their dollars or what they wanted in return for their investment. There was $1.4 billion spent on the last Presidential race in 2016. This midterm's outside expenditures topped a billion dollars. The system is rigged right before our eyes. How do we reverse course and return elections to the American people? For starters, Congress needs to shine a light on the dark money and require realtime disclosure, close loopholes that allow for foreign money, and create a small donor, public matching fund system for everyday contributions. Most critically, we must overturn Citizens United and related decisions. A Supreme Court that equates big money with speech puts campaigns for sale to the highest bidder. Once again, I will offer an amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United, as I have since 2016. Congress has a long way to go to push our popularity above a root canal and to restore the public's confidence. We also need comprehensive ethics reform. Elected officials and public servants should not reap huge personal profit from their public positions. We need to tighten the revolving door. We need to tighten lobbying disclosure laws, and we must require Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. Beyond that, Presidents and Vice Presidents must divest of any and all assets that create a conflict of interest. Candidate Trump promised to disclose his tax returns. He didn't. He then promised to disclose them after an alleged audit. He hasn't. That is unacceptable. We know the President has business and financial ties with Russia and Saudi Arabia, and this may well explain his strange closeness with Vladimir Putin and Muhammed bin Salman. Transparency and divestiture are the only ways to avoid conflicts of interest and corruption. These issues go to the heart of what it means to be an American. Our democracy is supposed to exist by the will of the people and by the consent of the governed. Congress has an amazing opportunity before it. The House of Representatives is starting debate on its comprehensive reform package. My colleagues and I will introduce our legislation next week. To Republicans around the country: Don't fall for the majority leader's cynical name-calling. I know you love your democracy as much as I do. This is not about protecting Democrats or Republicans; it is about protecting Americans from a rigged system. Let us commit to work together to pass reforms the American people hunger for. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you for the recognition, Madam President. Today I rise to call on this body to defend the Constitution, to protect the separation of powers, and to safeguard Congress's role as a coequal branch of government. Today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with my Senate colleagues to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency to build his border wall. My partners in this effort include Senator Collins, who is with me today. She will be here momentarily. Also partners are Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I just want to say to Senator Collins that I commend her on her principled stance and on standing up for the Constitution. The vote we will take on this resolution is historic. This is no longer about the President's wall. This is not about party. This is not about protecting the very heart of our American system. This is about protecting the very heart of our American system of governance. Congress--and only Congress--holds the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution clearly states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Constitution is absolutely clear. Congress's power to make spending decisions is very clear. There is no ambiguity. Deciding how to spend public funds is among our most fundamental powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Founders gave this power to the legislative body, not the executive, to ensure there is a broad support for how public funds are spent. Consequential and far-reaching decisions about spending taxpayer money are not left to one person, not even the President. This body has rejected the President's request to give him $5.7 billion for his wall along the southern border with Mexico. On February 14, not 2 weeks ago, we passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 by a vote of 83 to 16. That compromise bill did not include the $5.7 billion the President wanted to build his wall. Whether you believe Congress should fund the President's wall is not at issue. This is a question about the strength of the rule of law in this country and about the separation of powers, which forms the foundation of our American government. The President's declaration of a national emergency is an end-run around Congress's power to appropriate--plain and simple. To quote Senator Collins, the President is ``usurping congressional authority.'' We are the representatives of the people. The people do not want to spend $5.7 billion on the President's wall, and we must protect their will. Let's be clear. This emergency declaration has serious implications for States all across the country. To build this wall, the White House will raid $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction budget and $2.5 billion from that Department's drug interdiction program, but the White House apparently failed to realize there are only about $80 million in the drug interdiction account. So we should be prepared for a raid on other accounts or taking even more from military construction funding. These are military construction funds that Congress already has appropriated for specific projects necessary to support the national security priorities of the United States. I am privileged to serve on the Appropriations Committee. I understand the hard and careful work that goes into these funding decisions. From my home State of New Mexico, Congress allocated some $85 million to construct a formal training unit at Holloman Air Force Base in the south-central part of New Mexico for unmanned aerial vehicles. This investment in technology tracks terrorists and protects our national security. We allocated $40 million to the White Sands Missile Range to build an information systems facility badly needed for next-generation research and development activities at the range. Both of these projects were vetted over several years and deemed important to our national security. New Mexico is not alone. Many States' military bases and regional economies will be impacted. Colorado, for example, is at risk of losing almost $100 million for construction projects at Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. Ohio risks $61 million for the first installment for building at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base. Military construction projects totaling $210 million are at risk in Florida, $520 million in Texas, $81 million in Utah, and the list goes on and on. Projects in every corner of the country will be impacted. According to the 1976 Senate report from the National Emergencies Act, the President's emergency power may ``be utilized only when actual emergencies exist.'' As a border Senator, I am here to tell you that there is no actual national security emergency at our southern border necessitating a massive wall along the southern border, as this body has already determined. This is a matter where the President and Congress have disagreed and the President is trying to overrule Congress by fiat. A bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials are sounding the alarm. They write: ``Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border.'' The evidence speaks for itself. The number of border apprehensions has decreased dramatically. Since the early 2000s, southern border apprehensions have dropped 81 percent. The number of apprehensions at the end of fiscal year 2017 was the lowest it has been since 1971--a 46-year low. We have the lowest number of undocumented immigrants in our country that we have had in over a decade. The Pew Research Center estimated recently that the total number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is far less than since 2004. That is a 14-year low. And more people emigrate to Mexico from the United States than immigrate from Mexico to here. That is right. We have a negative net migration rate with Mexico. I am one of the four States that border Mexico--one of the four States that will be the most directly affected by a wall. I know for an absolute fact that there is no national security emergency along my State's border with Mexico. It is quite the opposite. New Mexico's border communities are thriving. International commerce is thriving. Our multicultural communities are thriving. Crime rates are low. A wall like the President wants would be disastrous for a State like New Mexico. It will seize away private property and carve up family ranches, farms, and homesteads. It will harm the beautiful but fragile environment there on the border. Again, whether you support the President's wall is not at issue on this vote. As Senator Tillis put it in an op-ed in the Washington Post, ``I support President Trump's vision on border security. But I would vote against the emergency.'' Another Senate Republican Senator recently said, ``Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking power back.'' Over 20 former Republican Senators and Representatives were compelled to pen a letter opposing the emergency declaration. They state: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents and party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution.'' The time to act is now. Litigation has been filed, but Congress should resolve the issue of our own constitutional authority and not wait for the courts. Let me repeat. The vote we will take will be historic. It is imperative that all of us--Republican and Democrat--protect and defend our Constitution and that we protect and defend the checks and balances that unequivocally place the power of the purse with Congress and that we affirm our powers--powers that are separate from the President's. Our oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not empower the President to raid money by decree just because Congress has already said no. I will vote to terminate the President's declaration of the national emergency to build his wall, and I will urge everyone in this Chamber to protect our constitutional prerogative and to do so as well.

Mr. UDALL. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. UDALL. I just want to say, because we have both been here for a bit talking on the floor about this, I want to thank Senator Collins for standing up for principle. I want to thank her for standing up for our Constitution. It is a real honor to join her in this resolution of disapproval. I also, as she just did, thank the two other Senators who are joining us, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Thank you for the recognition, Madam President. Today I rise to call on this body to defend the Constitution, to protect the separation of powers, and to safeguard Congress's role as a coequal branch of government. Today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with my Senate colleagues to terminate the President's declaration of a national emergency to build his border wall. My partners in this effort include Senator Collins, who is with me today. She will be here momentarily. Also partners are Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I just want to say to Senator Collins that I commend her on her principled stance and on standing up for the Constitution. The vote we will take on this resolution is historic. This is no longer about the President's wall. This is not about party. This is not about protecting the very heart of our American system. This is about protecting the very heart of our American system of governance. Congress--and only Congress--holds the power of the purse. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution clearly states: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'' The Constitution is absolutely clear. Congress's power to make spending decisions is very clear. There is no ambiguity. Deciding how to spend public funds is among our most fundamental powers and responsibilities under the Constitution. The Founders gave this power to the legislative body, not the executive, to ensure there is a broad support for how public funds are spent. Consequential and far-reaching decisions about spending taxpayer money are not left to one person, not even the President. This body has rejected the President's request to give him $5.7 billion for his wall along the southern border with Mexico. On February 14, not 2 weeks ago, we passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 by a vote of 83 to 16. That compromise bill did not include the $5.7 billion the President wanted to build his wall. Whether you believe Congress should fund the President's wall is not at issue. This is a question about the strength of the rule of law in this country and about the separation of powers, which forms the foundation of our American government. The President's declaration of a national emergency is an end-run around Congress's power to appropriate--plain and simple. To quote Senator Collins, the President is ``usurping congressional authority.'' We are the representatives of the people. The people do not want to spend $5.7 billion on the President's wall, and we must protect their will. Let's be clear. This emergency declaration has serious implications for States all across the country. To build this wall, the White House will raid $3.6 billion from the Department of Defense's military construction budget and $2.5 billion from that Department's drug interdiction program, but the White House apparently failed to realize there are only about $80 million in the drug interdiction account. So we should be prepared for a raid on other accounts or taking even more from military construction funding. These are military construction funds that Congress already has appropriated for specific projects necessary to support the national security priorities of the United States. I am privileged to serve on the Appropriations Committee. I understand the hard and careful work that goes into these funding decisions. From my home State of New Mexico, Congress allocated some $85 million to construct a formal training unit at Holloman Air Force Base in the south-central part of New Mexico for unmanned aerial vehicles. This investment in technology tracks terrorists and protects our national security. We allocated $40 million to the White Sands Missile Range to build an information systems facility badly needed for next-generation research and development activities at the range. Both of these projects were vetted over several years and deemed important to our national security. New Mexico is not alone. Many States' military bases and regional economies will be impacted. Colorado, for example, is at risk of losing almost $100 million for construction projects at Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. Ohio risks $61 million for the first installment for building at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center at Wright- Patterson Air Force Base. Military construction projects totaling $210 million are at risk in Florida, $520 million in Texas, $81 million in Utah, and the list goes on and on. Projects in every corner of the country will be impacted. According to the 1976 Senate report from the National Emergencies Act, the President's emergency power may ``be utilized only when actual emergencies exist.'' As a border Senator, I am here to tell you that there is no actual national security emergency at our southern border necessitating a massive wall along the southern border, as this body has already determined. This is a matter where the President and Congress have disagreed and the President is trying to overrule Congress by fiat. A bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials are sounding the alarm. They write: ``Under no plausible assessment of the evidence is there a national emergency today that entitles the president to tap into funds appropriated for other purposes to build a wall at the southern border.'' The evidence speaks for itself. The number of border apprehensions has decreased dramatically. Since the early 2000s, southern border apprehensions have dropped 81 percent. The number of apprehensions at the end of fiscal year 2017 was the lowest it has been since 1971--a 46-year low. We have the lowest number of undocumented immigrants in our country that we have had in over a decade. The Pew Research Center estimated recently that the total number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is far less than since 2004. That is a 14-year low. And more people emigrate to Mexico from the United States than immigrate from Mexico to here. That is right. We have a negative net migration rate with Mexico. I am one of the four States that border Mexico--one of the four States that will be the most directly affected by a wall. I know for an absolute fact that there is no national security emergency along my State's border with Mexico. It is quite the opposite. New Mexico's border communities are thriving. International commerce is thriving. Our multicultural communities are thriving. Crime rates are low. A wall like the President wants would be disastrous for a State like New Mexico. It will seize away private property and carve up family ranches, farms, and homesteads. It will harm the beautiful but fragile environment there on the border. Again, whether you support the President's wall is not at issue on this vote. As Senator Tillis put it in an op-ed in the Washington Post, ``I support President Trump's vision on border security. But I would vote against the emergency.'' Another Senate Republican Senator recently said, ``Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking power back.'' Over 20 former Republican Senators and Representatives were compelled to pen a letter opposing the emergency declaration. They state: ``It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents and party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution.'' The time to act is now. Litigation has been filed, but Congress should resolve the issue of our own constitutional authority and not wait for the courts. Let me repeat. The vote we will take will be historic. It is imperative that all of us--Republican and Democrat--protect and defend our Constitution and that we protect and defend the checks and balances that unequivocally place the power of the purse with Congress and that we affirm our powers--powers that are separate from the President's. Our oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not empower the President to raid money by decree just because Congress has already said no. I will vote to terminate the President's declaration of the national emergency to build his wall, and I will urge everyone in this Chamber to protect our constitutional prerogative and to do so as well.

Mr. UDALL. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. UDALL. I just want to say, because we have both been here for a bit talking on the floor about this, I want to thank Senator Collins for standing up for principle. I want to thank her for standing up for our Constitution. It is a real honor to join her in this resolution of disapproval. I also, as she just did, thank the two other Senators who are joining us, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I would associate myself with the comments of Senator Van Hollen, who I think hit the nail on the head when it comes to this overreach by the President. I rise in support of the growing calls for action on climate change that are echoing in every corner of this Nation. The science is overwhelming, the evidence is clear, and unless we take immediate action, we will lose our planet as we know it. There is nowhere that has more at stake than my home State of New Mexico and the Southwest, which are in the bullseye of global warming. Unless we act against greenhouse gas pollution, rising temperatures, drought, wildfires, deforestation, we will permanently harm our communities. Because I believe in climate science and because I believe we desperately need to act, I must strongly oppose the confirmation of Andrew Wheeler to lead our Nation's Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Wheeler has consistently advocated for measures that would damage the environment, hurt public health, and do long-term injury to the economy, and his record on climate change and the record of his administration are simply disqualifying. Mr. Wheeler's nomination is among the worst in a long line of backward nominations by this President. For someone who wants to lead the EPA--the key word being ``protection''--Mr. Wheeler's priorities are upside down. Let's be blunt with the American people. Mr. Wheeler was not nominated to protect the environment and human health. He was nominated to unravel and undo the environmental protections that are now in place. He was nominated to stop any new environmental and public health protections from being initiated. He was nominated to go easy on those who violate existing environmental laws. He was nominated to stand in the way of climate science and climate action. So far, by these measures, he has been a great success for a President who mocks climate science and who denies that this existential threat even exists, but there is no success for the American people. Mr. Wheeler's nomination puts the American public at great risk, and we should firmly oppose making his appointment permanent. Unfortunately, Mr. Wheeler's upside-down priorities don't end at climate change. In addition to actively resisting climate action, Mr. Wheeler is not looking out for the health and well-being of my constituents or protecting my State's most precious resource, our water. There, like in so many other parts of the country, fire foam used by the Air Force has contaminated groundwater with toxic chemicals known as PFAS. These chemicals are linked to various cancers, heart disease, and other ailments. Groundwater in and around Cannon Air Force Base, near Clovis, NM, is contaminated with PFAS. This is dairy country. One dairy is actually being put out of business because the PFAS is in groundwater and it has contaminated this farmer's water wells. The family that owns the dairy and its hard- working employees have drank water from these wells for years. Will a Wheeler EPA put us in this situation? Will they help us out of it? During his confirmation hearings, he refused to commit to setting a drinking water standard. Then, later, we find out that he had already decided not to set standards for these toxic chemicals in December of last year. Under bipartisan pressure, he has since backed down and says EPA will set a standard--someday. I wouldn't hold my breath. In the meantime, millions of Americans and the dairies in eastern New Mexico are being hurt. Furthermore, Mr. Wheeler is a committed soldier in the long-running assault on science that President Trump has championed. One of my constituents, Celerah Hewes, wrote this week asking me to vote against this nomination. She writes: I grew up in Corrales, surrounded by farmland and fresh air. I remember when the Rio Grande was full of water and the ditches in the bosque flowed freely. Climate change and drought have forever changed the land I call home and my daughter will not remember a time without severe fire danger and ozone pollution. Celerah wants me to vote no because Mr. Wheeler ``is putting our children's health and future at risk.'' According to the 2018 ``Fourth National Climate Assessment,'' we have 12 years to turn this around for Celerah, her daughter, and the world. Soon, the impacts will become irreversible. The previous EPA set rules to reduce carbon pollution from powerplants by 32 percent by 2030. Mr. Wheeler's new plan will allow increased emissions from fossil fuel plants instead. He is no better when it comes to even modest standards for methane waste from oil and gas operations. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the initial 20-year period. EPA's prior methane rules would have cut back methane pollution in a cost-effective way. Those regulations are out the window under Mr. Wheeler and replaced with loose rules, adding hundreds of thousands of tons of methane, volatile organic compounds, and toxins into the air. Climate change is the most significant threat facing our planet. The EPA is the Agency that should be leading the charge on tackling this threat, but Mr. Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the coal industry. Like so many other nominations, the President has again put the fox in charge of the henhouse. This time, the consequences could be disastrous and irreversible for our country and our planet. If we vote to confirm him, there will be little, if any, hope for climate action for the next 2 years. Mr. Wheeler leaves no doubt whose side he is on. His record shows that, under his watch, big polluters will get off scot-free. Companies that pollute often try to reduce their cost of business and increase their profits by dumping that pollution and its costs on society as a whole. When environmental officials fail to enforce the rules against polluters, bad actors get an unfair advantage. Lax environmental enforcement is bad for American businesses that do the right thing and bad for taxpayers, who get stuck with the cleanup bills. Sadly, Mr. Wheeler's EPA is the poster child for lax enforcement. In 2018, EPA collected the smallest amount of civil penalties against polluters since 1994. Inspections are half of what they were in 2010. EPA charged the fewest criminal defendants since 1991. It saw a steep drop in civil judicial enforcement cases as well. The bad news goes on and on. So the best that can be said of Mr. Wheeler's record is that he is not Scott Pruitt. As far as we know, he has not abused taxpayer funds or staff for a variety of luxurious perks or rented his house from a lobbyist. But the bar is so low that it is in the Capitol basement. Indeed, I believe that the EPA under this President has reached an all-time low. There is hardly even any pretense that their goal is to safeguard the environment and public health. They are actively damaging our environment and actively resisting action on climate change at a time when young people and so many others across New Mexico and this country are crying out for action. We simply must do better. So I will vote no, and I will urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of this nomination for their children, grandchildren, and beyond, and to vote no as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Eric Miller to be circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Senate traditions command respect, and if we are going to change them, we should do so in a bipartisan way. Changing rules midstream and changing traditions well into the Congress causes bitterness, acrimony, and it hurts our ability to work with each other. Such Senate traditions as the blue slip, where the nominee's home State Senators are given an opportunity to object--this courtesy has been in place for more than 100 years as part of the Senate's advice and consent responsibility. If confirmed, Mr. Miller would be the first circuit court nominee in history to be confirmed without having a blue slip returned from either of his home State Senators. The lack of respect shown for this Senate tradition by the Republican leadership of the Judiciary Committee is as saddening as it is alarming. Another Senate tradition again flouted by the majority was holding Mr. Miller's confirmation hearing during a Senate recess. The recess hearing--lasting only 30 minutes, with only two Republican Members in attendance--was objected to by Democratic Members who sought to question Mr. Miller on a number of legal issues, including Indian law. Instead, the questioning lasted less than 5 minutes. Bringing Mr. Miller's nomination to the floor without an adequate hearing is an abuse of the confirmation process by the Republican leadership of the Judiciary Committee. Putting aside these abuses of the process, as significant as they are, Mr. Miller's repeated willingness to side against Native American Tribes in court and the likelihood that such willingness will follow him to the bench where he would have an outsized influence on the development of Indian law for decades, concerns me deeply. As vice chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I pay special attention to a nominee's record on Tribal issues, especially if a nominee will preside in a jurisdiction that has 427 Tribal nations, as is the case with Mr. Miller. I am concerned that Mr. Miller's record has not shown and does not have the proper respect for Tribal sovereignty. As an attorney in private practice, Mr. Miller consistently advocated against Tribal interests and Tribal sovereignty. In fact, Mr. Miller has donated over 675 hours of pro bono work against Tribal sovereignty, against Native American religious practices, Federal recognition, and numerous other respected Tribal doctrines. For example, in the case of Upper Skagit v. Lundgren, Mr. Miller argued that Tribal governments are not entitled to sovereign immunity because it interferes with the ``State's sovereign interest in adjudicating disputes over title to land within their territory and frustrate[s] the ordinary adjudication of competing [ownership] claims.'' His arguments in this case demonstrate he does not understand the inherent sovereignty of Tribal nations. Mr. Miller has shown a lack of respect for Native American religious practitioners when he argued for a narrow application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when these practitioners argued that the construction of a solar farm would substantially burden their ability to conduct their religious practices. Mr. Miller has argued for an extremely narrow reading of the Indian Reorganization Act when considering the Federal recognition status of Tribes. He asserts that only Tribes that possessed federally managed lands when the act was passed in 1934 should be federally recognized. This narrow view does not acknowledge the well-established principles of Indian law and can lead to the termination of Tribal nations that do not meet his narrow and arbitrary standard. Mr. Miller's record on Tribal issues is one-sided and extreme. His history of advocating against Tribal interests does not give me confidence that he would be a fair and impartial jurist on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when Tribes come before him. I will vote no on Eric Miller's confirmation. I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Alfred K. Newman, one of last remaining Navajo code talkers, who passed away on January 13 of this year. Mr. Newman was born in Coolidge, NM, on July 21, 1924. He was Naaneesht'ezhi Dine'e--Zuni Clan--and born for Tsi'naajinii--Black Streak Wood People Clan. One of six children, his mother wove rugs that were sold at the Coolidge Trading Post and his stepfather worked as a silversmith there. When Mr. Newman was about 8 years old, his family sent him to the Rehoboth Mission School, where he boarded during the 9 month school year and rarely saw his parents. During the summers, he herded sheep. At one point, they had a herd of 200, and the young shepherd loved watching the lizards, birds, and bugs that surrounded him as he herded. Mr. Newman grew up knowing both Navajo and English. However, the boarding students were not allowed to speak Navajo at the school. One time, when he spoke in Navajo, in order to help another Navajo student who knew no English, he was punished by having to write ``I must not speak Navajo'' 500 times. While the missionaries at the Rehoboth Mission School forbade Mr. Newman and other Navajo students from speaking their language, as did Federal Government Indian boarding schools, the U.S. military came to greatly appreciate the strategic advantage the unwritten Dine language held. Mr. Newman enlisted in the Marines, in 1943, when he was 18, inspired to defend the Nation in light of the attack on Pearl Harbor. He, along with an estimated 44,000 other Native Americans, served in World War II, even though they couldn't vote in U.S. elections and faced discrimination within the military. Soon after Mr. Newman enlisted, he was assigned to a secret mission, as part of the Navajo code talkers. He attended code school, learning the complex code by memory, and learned how to operate communications equipment. Serving in the 1st Battalion, 21st Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, Alfred was stationed in New Caledonia, Guadalcanal, Bougainville Island, Guam, and Iwo Jima, among other duty stations. He saw battle at the latter three locations and was stationed in Iwo Jima during 28 days of the famous battle and was there the day the Americans raised the flag over Mount Suribachi. Mr. Newman was honorably discharged with the rank of corporal in December 1945. After his discharge, he came back to New Mexico, and married his sweetheart, Betsy Eleanore Denetsone. He worked as an ammunition inspector at Fort Wingate and then at an open-pit mine overseeing blasting at Kirkland Field. Together, he and Betsy have 5 children, 13 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren and were married 69 years before his passing. The Japanese famously never broke the Navajos' code, and Navajo code talkers are credited with playing a decisive role in key World War II battles, including Iwo Jima. The Navajo code talker mission was kept secret until 1968, when it was declassified. In 2000, Congress awarded the Congressional Silver Medal to the Navajo code talkers. Like so many others, Mr. Newman was humble about his bravery in service and modest about his medals. During a 2010 interview for an oral history project, Mr. Newman was asked, ``How did [the war] change you?'' He replied that, ``Before the war, I was just going just like any other non- Navajo. Peaceful, no worries. Doing what I like. But when the war came, it was a different story. So I had to do what needed to be done.'' We are forever grateful to Mr. Newman and all his fellow courageous code talkers for doing ``what needed to be done'' to defend our country. We will always honor and will never forget their service and sacrifice to the Nation.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I rise to express my strong support for the bipartisan public lands package. This legislation, which puts together over 100 public lands, natural resources, and water bills, protects and expands our Nation's lands and strengthens our local economies. This sweeping package shows the country the tremendous amount that can be accomplished when both parties in Congress roll up their sleeves and work together toward a common goal. While there are certainly other measures I wish we had included in this package, overall, this bill can pass both Chambers on strong bipartisan votes. I am looking forward to this Congress showing its strong support for keeping public lands in public hands and protecting them for future generations. I am particularly proud of provisions in this package that I have championed for years to benefit my home State of New Mexico, starting with permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's most successful conservation program and is extremely popular with the American people. Yet Congress has consistently underfunded it and failed to make it permanent. I have been fighting for years for full funding and permanent reauthorization. The public lands package does just that. This was a law championed by my father in 1965 while he was Secretary of the Interior. I have been proud to carry the torch and work to make the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent. In New Mexico alone, over 1,200 local projects have been supported by the LWCF since it began in 1965. Over the last 2 years, the President has proposed essentially eliminating the LWCF, but in a major step forward, the Senate package permanently reauthorizes the program and provides annual funding with at least $900 million--all from offshore oil and gas leases and other revenue streams that don't come from taxpayer dollars. Giving the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent authorization is a monumental win for our entire Nation. I hope that soon we can secure robust mandatory funding as well. Until then, I will continue to fight, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that this program receives significant funding each year in the appropriations process. The lands package includes my Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act, cosponsored by Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich and I have been fighting to protect this rugged, beautiful part of southern New Mexico for years. In 2014, President Obama used our legislation as the basis for his Executive order to create the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks area has contained protected wilderness study areas since the 1980s and 1990s. It is high time to make these study areas permanent wilderness. Senator Heinrich and I have worked closely with all stakeholders--ranchers, conservationists, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and many others--to bring these lands into 10 permanent wilderness areas. Our bill, S. 441, places approximately 240,000 acres into wilderness while it releases approximately 30,000 acres so that the Border Patrol has the flexibility that is necessary to keep the border secure. The Border Patrol concerns have been addressed, as have the interests of grazing leaseholders, who will be able to continue to graze their cattle. The areas targeted for protection showcase sky island mountains, native Chihuahuan Desert grasslands, caves, unique lava flows, limestone cliffs, and winding canyons. As you just heard, the landscapes for designation are tremendously varied. Here is a photo of one that depicts the Organ Mountains. What a magnificent range. Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, ``wilderness'' is ``an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' The 10 areas for designation in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks should remain untrammeled, and they deserve the special protection that ``wilderness'' designation confers. Like the wilderness study areas in our newest national monument to the south, Senator Heinrich and I have been working for years to designate two wilderness study areas in our newest national monument to the north as ``wilderness.'' The 13,000-acre Cerro del Yuta and the 8,000-acre Rio San Antonio study areas within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument are equally deserving of ``wilderness'' status. The centerpiece of Cerro del Yuta is Ute Mountain, which is a 10,000-foot- high volcanic dome that overlooks the magnificent Taos Gorge, which is shown here. It is pretty inspiring when you stand on top and look into this gorge. The Rio San Antonio sits 200 feet below a plateau and creates a unique riparian area and amazing recreational opportunities that boost the local economy. This designation is also the product of a grassroots coalition of local stakeholders, including sportsmen, small business owners, pueblos, and conservationists, who have worked for years to preserve the Rio Grande del Norte area for future generations. By designating the Cerro del Yuta and the Rio San Antonio areas under our Cerros del Norte Conservation Act, it cements their place as part of northern New Mexico's protected heritage. During the last congressional session, I and my good friend, the late Senator John McCain, worked hard on the 21st Century Conservation Corps Service Act, or 21 CSC for short. We wanted to make sure that our youth and our veterans had real and meaningful opportunities to serve our country by conserving our great outdoors. This bill reinvigorates public-private partnerships between the Federal Government and the private sector and enables our youth and veterans to engage in national service on conservation-related projects. The program also targets Native American youth by establishing an Indian Youth Service Corps to work on Indian Country priorities. The bill also expands eligibility so that returning veterans and others can participate in these important programs. It expands the number of Agencies that can establish service corps, and it authorizes detailed data collection so that we can track exactly how these programs help communities and our public lands. This kind of program makes so much sense, for we have a huge backlog of infrastructure needs on our public lands--a backlog that is only growing with increased wildfires and natural disasters. Younger workers, especially Native youth, face higher unemployment rates, and our veterans face their own set of challenges when they transition to civilian life. Service corps are a cost-effective way to promote conservation goals and to fill employment gaps. This program has broad bipartisan support--support from the Western Governors' Association, veterans organizations, and the outdoor industry--and it would pay special tribute to our late colleague, Senator McCain, whom we all admire so much. I urge its passage. One of New Mexico's most successful watershed management collaborations is the Rio Puerco Management Committee that was established in 1996. The Rio Puerco is the largest tributary to the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The watershed encompasses approximately 4.7 million acres and unfortunately is the primary source of undesirable fine sediment that is delivered to the Rio Grande system. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, on average, the Rio Puerco delivers 78 percent of the total suspended sediment load of the Rio Grande, although it provides only 4 percent of the runoff. The Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program is a community-based approach that brings Federal and State agencies, Tribes, nonprofits, and local citizens together to work on watershed management, including sediment reduction and habitat and vegetation restoration. The committee has been widely recognized for its success and has earned awards from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Land Management. Its most recent 10-year reauthorization ends on March 30 of this year. We need to permanently authorize this very effective program. Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell, I applaud your work on expeditiously bringing this package to the floor. The 100 bills that compose the public lands package boast 50 different Senate sponsors and nearly 90 cosponsors. The package represents the hard work of countless individuals and organizations throughout the country--all committed to preserving and protecting our country's greatest treasures. I stand resolutely behind that commitment as well, and I urge the unanimous passage of this historic package. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Senator Kaine is yielding to me to talk about the Interior Department in the bill. Let me just thank him for his vigilance. When we have 800,000 Federal employees across this country and their families hurting, he has been vigilant with this. I know that in the Commonwealth of Virginia he and Senator Warner are very concerned, as are Senator Heinrich and myself about what is happening in New Mexico. I want to speak a little bit about the Interior Department bill, where I am the ranking Democrat. I rise today to call on this body to take action and immediately end the shutdown that is causing tragic consequences in the lives of Americans. We are on day 27 of the shutdown, the longest in our Nation's history. Every day my constituents in New Mexico are asking me what are we doing to end this senseless shutdown. So I am here on the Senate floor demanding that we open the government, demanding that we do our jobs as a coequal branch of government, demanding that we pass bipartisan appropriations bills. I have the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I know how critical the Interior bill is, particularly to my home State of New Mexico and to States across the West and across the country. The Interior bill funds basic services like healthcare and public safety for 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives through the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bill keeps our air and water clean through the work of the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill protects and preserves national parks and other treasured public lands and helps to support small businesses that depend on them. The Agencies in this bill fund science, wildlife protection, energy development, and arts and cultural programs in every State, and they employ tens of thousands of Americans. There is no reason why they should be shuttered. They are simply too important. This shutdown is particularly devastating for Indian Country. Every day the President continues to treat Tribal programs like hostages for political gain. By his action he endangers families across Indian Country. Multiple health clinics that serve urban Indians have closed their doors, forced to turn hundreds of patients away. Tribal court programs are in jeopardy. Food distribution and social service programs are on the chopping block. Law enforcement services are stretched to the breaking point. Thousands of Tribal members are furloughed--all to devastating effect. Indian Country is paying the price for every day that the President's reckless shutdown continues. These are people's lives and livelihoods on the line. Our government is completely failing to uphold its trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans, and all for what? A wildly expensive and ineffective wall that this Nation doesn't want and a vanity project for a President who is not putting the best interests of this country first. It doesn't make any sense. We need to pass the Interior appropriations bill so we can reopen the entire National Park System, along with other public lands, and do so safely. Already, we have heard about the tragic impacts of the shutdown on our parks, including thousand-year-old Joshua trees cut down in California, and fossils that have been looted at Carlsbad Caverns in my home State of New Mexico. We can't let this kind of damage happen to our most treasured places, and we must ensure that small businesses that depend on our public lands--from fishing guides to gas stations and hotels--are able to thrive and keep our economy strong. Across the board, this shutdown is hurting businesses, contractors, and Federal workers. Even the President's own Council of Economic Advisers has released figures doubling the expected impacts to the economy. Think about that. The President's own aides admit this shutdown is worse than they anticipated. This is totally unacceptable, but it is not too late to change the situation. We can end this shutdown today. All it takes is for enough of my Republican colleagues and friends to find the courage to join us to pass these appropriations bills and to send a message to the White House that we need to reopen the government. I want to say to them, let's join together to make sure that Tribal health clinics are open and Tribal law enforcement officers are on patrol. Let's work side by side to reopen the entire National Park System and other public lands and ensure that there are enough staff members on the ground to protect our Nation's most cherished national and cultural resources. Let's pass these bipartisan appropriations bills without delay. I don't understand how this Chamber can stand by and watch the devastating effects of this shutdown on our Nation. In New Mexico alone, we estimate that there are at least 10,800 Federal workers who are working without pay or are furloughed outright. Nationwide, there are an estimated 800,000 Federal workers and as many as 2 million Federal contractors who may be affected. We are talking about millions of people's paychecks being held hostage for a border wall that the American public doesn't support. Yesterday I stood on this floor and talked about the impacts this shutdown is having on the Ornelas family of Carlsbad, NM. They are depending on a paycheck from the Department of Interior to help keep their family afloat as they deal with a disabled son who had two brain surgeries. The Ornelas family was already dealing with one of the worst crises a family can go through, and now they have to worry about how to pay for basic necessities. They are just one example of the lives at stake. It is not just Federal workers and Federal contractors. Every single American relies on the Federal Government for essential public safety and security. The Food and Drug Administration shut down--contaminated food can kill thousands. TSA agents and FAA air traffic controllers we rely on to keep air traffic safe are unpaid. In a massive irony, President Trump's shutdown means the Department of Homeland Security is unpaid. There are an estimated 2,000 New Mexicans we rely on for border security, international trade, and immigration work who are unpaid. This really truly is madness. For their sake and for the sake of all Americans who are affected by this tragic situation, we need to end this shutdown now. The consequences of inaction are too great. Once again, let me thank Senator Kaine for his passion on this issue, for his vigilance in terms of bringing this issue, and fighting with all of us on the floor. I yield to Senator Kaine.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a New Mexico family who is severely impacted by the shutdown, and I think there are probably hundreds of thousands of families like this across the country. This is Leah Teresa Ornelas, her husband Ervie, and their sons Ian and Zachary. They are all from Carlsbad, NM. Zachary, their youngest-- in the middle--had a brain tumor and has undergone two surgeries. Zachary is now disabled and requires constant care. Ervie, his stepfather, reduced his work as a daycare teacher by 75 percent to take care of Zachary. Leah is a public nurse, and her paycheck goes to their high insurance costs and medical bills. The family moved back in together to save on expenses. Their older son, Ian, is now the main provider for the family. Ian works for the Department of the Interior, has been furloughed for 26 days, and has now missed a paycheck. The Ornelas family is scared to death that Ian will miss another check and another check. They simply cannot make it without Ian being paid. The Ornelas family has made tremendous sacrifices as a family. They can make no more adjustments, as the President callously advised. This Trump shutdown must end now. The President and Senate majority must do the right thing for the Ornelas family--and for hundreds of thousands of families across the Nation--and open our government now. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me say to Senator Warner, my good friend from Virginia, who has an incredible empathy for the Federal workforce, we have the same thing in New Mexico, and to our good friend Senator Bennet from Colorado, we have Federal employees throughout this Nation that really give the extra bit. They go the extra mile. I am going to talk a lot about that, the same way Senator Warner is and with the same kind of passion he has. Today is day 24 of the Trump shutdown. Federal Government employees are furloughed, and others are working but did not get paychecks. Federal contractors have already received stop work orders. Not only are they not getting paid, but they will never receive backpay for work lost. This Trump shutdown is now the longest shutdown in U.S. history. History will show this shutdown to be a political and financial fiasco of the President's making. You can see in this map, published by the New York Times--and I am sure our Presiding Officer will see--that as you get more green on this map, you are hurt more by this shutdown. You can see Alaska, Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico, Montana, and Colorado, and there are a lot of States that are really hurt. We have a large workforce in some of the Federal agencies that are currently shut down, including the Department of Interior, the Homeland Security Department, and the Department of Agriculture. My staff estimates, conservatively, that we have at least 10,800 Federal employees affected, not counting law enforcement. We are a small State. This has a big impact. There are no good estimates of the impact on many New Mexicans employed by or under contract with Federal contractors. Federal employees are true public servants who often forego jobs that pay more because they believe in public service. These men and women have families. Some don't have much in the way of savings. Some live paycheck to paycheck. One of those individuals is a Border Patrol agent from Las Cruces, in southern New Mexico, who has worked for Customs and Border Protection for 18 years. He tells me: I live paycheck to paycheck. If I don't get paid the money that I earn, I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE IT! Creditors are not forgiving any debts. I am asking you to please try and help me and all federal workers get paid. I feel stressed and helpless, please help. This is from a Border Patrol agent--the folks we rely on to keep our Nation safe, which the President claims is his aim. This agent is hurting. The President is devastating these agents and their families. While Border Patrol agents may or may not support a wall, they do not support going unpaid for the difficult and dangerous work they do in service to our Nation, in service to keeping our borders safe, which we all know is the President's claimed goal. The President's unconvincing claim that he can ``relate'' to Federal workers not getting paid was belied by his completely out-of-touch statement that they can ``make adjustments'' and be just fine. This President cannot relate to the professional support employee in the Las Cruces FBI office whose mortgage company, gas company, and credit card companies are giving her no leeway--making no ``adjustments''--while she goes without pay. She says she is ``a REAL human [being] who is being held hostage.'' She has worked for the FBI for 21 years, but she will probably leave Federal service early so that she has the financial security she needs to pay her bills. She and the other 800,000 other Federal workers are being held hostage by a President who is willing to wreck American families for his vanity wall. An occupational therapist with the Indian Health Service at the Gallup Indian Medical Center in northwestern New Mexico tells me, emphatically and in all capital letters: ``I AM NOT WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE.'' She is working hard, providing needed services to Native communities, but providing for herself and with no pay, she is beyond stretched. She was helping her son pay off college loans. She has had to tell him that she can't help right now. She has an elderly mother she visits in Las Cruces. She can't plan a trip now. In fact, Indian Health Service healthcare providers all over the country provide services essential to the health and wellness of nearly 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives in over 800 hospitals and clinics in 37 States. These Federal employees and medical professionals--including over 2,000 nurses and nearly as many doctors, pharmacists, dentists, and physician assistants--aren't getting paid. They are forced to work without pay, and there is no end in sight. Federal contractors really feel the brunt of the shutdown. Their contract payments are stopped. Contractors have never received back payments after a government shutdown. We have a Federal contractor in Albuquerque, ADC LTD NM--a minority, woman-owned company that has 2,600 employees and contractors nationwide--with 330 employees in Albuquerque. The company conducts background check investigations for, ironically enough, the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal Agencies. This company's work has come to a complete stop. This slows down DHS's ability to hire qualified employees, inhibiting its mission to keep our borders and Nation safe. This company is losing tens of thousands of dollars a day. This, you can imagine, really hurts my State. Its loss in revenues translates directly to a loss in State tax revenue. The multiplier effect of the shutdown on New Mexico and the Nation will ripple throughout the economy. This privately held company, owned by New Mexicans, whose lineage in our State goes back more than 300 years, is currently paying its employees, even though its revenue has stopped. The owners are sacrificing to do so, but they can't continue for the months or even years the President says his shutdown could last. Federal employees will not stay in their jobs without pay for months or years. They have to feed their families and pay their mortgage or their rent. Last week, the Senate passed S. 24, sponsored by 43 Democrats and one Republican, by voice vote. The bill guarantees that furloughed Federal workers would be paid from retroactively as soon as possible. This is the least Congress can do for these workers. It does not resolve, however, the pain Federal workers endure through a shutdown or guarantee that their homes will not be at risk during a shutdown or guarantee that food will be on their table or ensure that the Federal workers will stay in their jobs during a prolonged shutdown like the one this President apparently foresees. The solution is to shut down the shutdown--to do it now, to do it immediately. This Trump shutdown doesn't only affect Federal employees and contractors. It affects the tens of thousands of Americans who rely on government services or need approval for projects. A local Sante Fe small business--a construction company, Sarcon Construction Corporation--is ready to begin an $8.4 million project to build two new hangars at the Sante Fe Municipal Airport. This 32,000-square-foot project will generate $650,000 in local tax revenue, and it will employ 75 to 100 people. Many of those people are unemployed now, waiting for this project to begin. This project is a big deal for my home city of Sante Fe. Do you know why the project is stalled? Sarcon can't get the necessary approval from the Federal Aviation Administration because of the Trump shutdown. The FAA personnel responsible for approval are furloughed. As we can see, the shutdown has real consequences for real people, especially for people like those unemployed construction workers in New Mexico, ready and eager to go to work but unable because of our President's inability to do his job. The President's ridiculous claim that many Federal employees who are not getting paid support his shutdown has no basis in reality. The Federal workers in New Mexico who are furloughed or are working without pay and the Federal workers we have heard from do not support this shutdown. An employee with the Department of Interior in Albuquerque writes: While I am not sure how much good it would do, I emailed the White House to go on record that I am not one of the Federal employees the President is touting as wanting to be out of work without a paycheck until he gets his wall. I just want to go on record . . . that no, Federal employees do not want to stay out of work; we want to go back to work and get paid. This is not our fight, just his. A husband and wife from Las Cruces who both work for the Environmental Protection Agency are also among the many Federal workers who did not support the Trump shutdown. They have three children, and they need their paychecks. They don't support Trump's wall either. As EPA engineers, they understand and oppose the environmental destruction it will cause. A scientist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico is one of the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who are essential and working without pay. He is working on critical space infrastructure and testing related to the Space-X launch scheduled for later this month. There is no good reason why this important work is not being paid for right now. There is no good reason why any Federal employee is not getting their salary today. There is no good reason why Federal contractors' contracts are not being honored. This Federal shutdown hurts American families across my State and the Nation. It hurts our economy. One Federal employee in New Mexico wanted to tell their story but was banned by their employer on the ground it would represent illegal lobbying of Congress. That is patently false. Federal employees contacting their elected representatives about this shutdown and its impact on their work and lives is not prohibited lobbying. The Trump administration has not only put these people out of work, it is now gagging them and denying them their free speech rights. I call upon the President to end this terrible shutdown. He should do so immediately. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to call on the President to stop holding the government hostage and trying to force taxpayers to pay for his border wall--a wall that would be ineffective and wasteful and that is rejected by the American people. President Trump said he is ``proud''--that is his word that he used-- to shut down the government. He is proud to force hundreds of thousands of people across this country to miss their hard-earned paychecks. He is proud to shutter critical services. He is proud to try and extort the American people into paying for a wall they don't support. This Trump shutdown is nothing to be proud of. It is a national disgrace, and it is time to end this recklessness. I join with my Democratic colleagues today in calling on the Republican leaders to do their jobs and reopen the government right now. The American people don't support Trump's border wall, and they don't support this Trump shutdown. The funding bills that are being held up and used by the President as a bargaining chip have broad bipartisan support. The Democrats in both Chambers want to pass these appropriations bills now. Yet, as the Democrats stand ready to reopen the government, President Trump plans to address the Nation tonight to tell us again why he is proud to keep the government shut down. We will likely hear more bizarre talk tonight about what we need at the border from a President who doesn't know the first thing about the border. Once again, we will likely hear blatant lies about immigrants, about our border, and about our border communities. The American people are tired of this President's assault on the truth. They are tired of having their lives and livelihoods caught up in this President's inability to rise to the office he holds. No address from the Oval Office will change that. We need the Republican leadership in this Chamber to muster the political will to stand up to the President and get Federal employees back to work and critical services restored. We are now on day 18 of this shutdown--the second longest period that the government has been shuttered since 1980. We have already begun to see real-life consequences for families all across the Nation, and my home State of New Mexico is one of the States that is being hit the hardest by the President's temper tantrum, by his act of political extortion. In New Mexico, roughly 5,800 Federal workers are either furloughed or are working without pay. These aren't just numbers, these are real people. They are real people who are wondering how they will make their mortgages or rent payments or will feed their families. A Federal employee in Albuquerque wrote to my office to tell me how this shutdown is affecting her and her family. She wrote to me to ``go on the record that I am not one of the Federal employees the President is touting . . . as wanting to be out of work, without a paycheck, until he gets his wall.'' She had an important message for the Republican leadership of the Senate: The Senate does not work for the President--it is supposed to represent the citizens of the United States . . . . Federal employees do not want to stay out of work; we want to go back to work and get paid. She ended: This is not our fight--just his. Economic anxiety is pervasive in all corners of the State. In fact, New Mexico was recently ranked as the most vulnerable to the impacts of the shutdown because of our significant Federal workforce and the importance of the Federal Government to our economy. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I am acutely aware of how the lapse in appropriations is affecting the Agencies that are funded in our bill and the services they provide. These include the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Indian Health Service. As the ranking member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I am especially cognizant of how this shutdown is hurting Native communities. For Tribes across Indian Country, the shutdown's consequences are particularly dire after their going more than 2 weeks without Federal funds. Simply put, Tribes report that Federal programs that are critical to health and public safety are grinding to a halt and that lives are in danger. In New Mexico, the shutdown has left the Mescalero Apache Tribe's reservation--larger in size than the entire city of Houston, TX--with only one on-duty police officer, which would be unacceptable even under normal circumstances. Yet, due to a huge winter storm that left my State under heavy snowfall and subfreezing temperatures, that lone officer is responsible for not only responding to domestic violence and child welfare but also to snow-related accidents and emergencies across 720 square miles--all because furloughed road crews aren't clearing the snow and ice from the reservation's roads. One elder already died because he was unable to make it to dialysis. Sadly, Mescalero's experiences are not uncommon. The Yurok Tribe of California will soon have to close its courts, curtailing the Tribe's efforts to rein in the opioid epidemic. Urban Indian Health Programs in Baltimore and Boston are days away from closing completely, leaving Native families in these cities without support. The Yankton Sioux Tribe in South Dakota was just informed that its Indian Health Service unit must begin reducing services. The 276 Tribes that depend on the USDA's Food Distribution Programs on Indian reservations--a program that feeds nearly 100,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives--are also faced with reliving the 2013 shutdown crisis, when food rotted in locked warehouses while hungry families gathered outside--all because the President and some extreme Members of his party refuse to do their jobs and keep the government open. It is disgraceful, and it is dangerous. Every day that the President continues to treat Tribal health and public safety programs like hostages for political gain, it endangers families across Indian Country. The United States has trust and treaty obligations that Tribes obtained in exchange for ceding millions of acres of land. The consequences of the President's outright disregard for treaty obligations are real. The consequences of the Senate majority leader's inaction are real. The consequences of the Republicans' unwillingness to stand up for Tribes in their States--to stand up for basic humanity and common sense--are also real. We are talking about people's lives and the fundamental obligation of our Nation to honor its commitment to Native Americans. It is really that simple. We all know how pressing these problems are. The impacts of the Trump shutdown are far and wide. There are thousands of stories across the Nation. Let me tell you another from my home State of New Mexico. A local Santa Fe small business--a construction company, Sarcon Construction Corporation--is ready to begin an $8.4 million project to build two new hangars at the Santa Fe Municipal Airport. This 32,000- square-foot project will generate $650,000 in local tax revenue and will employ 75 to 100 people. Many of those people are literally unemployed now while waiting for this project to begin. This project is a big deal for my home city of Santa Fe. Do you know why the project is stalled? Sarcon can't get the necessary approval from the Federal Aviation Administration because of the Trump shutdown, as the FAA personnel who are responsible for its approval are furloughed. This shutdown has real consequences for real people, especially for people like those unemployed New Mexicans who are ready and eager to work but who are unable to because of our President's tantrum. The President says he can ``relate'' to Federal workers who can't pay bills during the shutdown, but in the next breath, he blithely assumes they will ``make adjustments'' and be fine. As he has demonstrated time and again, this President cannot and does not relate to the struggles of everyday Americans who are hurt by his policies. He cannot and does not relate to Federal employees who live paycheck to paycheck or to Santa Fe construction workers who wait anxiously to get back to work. He has shown us time and again that his policies and behavior are heartless and that he is unfit for the office he holds. I will say it again. The President told the American people on camera that he is ``proud to shut down the government.'' The responsibility falls squarely on him and now on his Republican collaborators in the Senate. The impacts reach every corner of our Nation. His shutdown has already had real impacts on our Nation's public lands, including our most iconic national parks. Many national parks, such as Bandelier National Monument and Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico, remain closed. Restrooms have been closed for 2 weeks, trash has accumulated, and roads have not been plowed. For 2 weeks, we have heard horror stories of poor sanitation and public safety issues at national parks because of the shutdown, including overflowing toilets, vandalism, and other resource damage. In Big Bend National Park, because of the lack of emergency services, Good Samaritans had to rescue a hiker who fell and broke his leg while hiking on Christmas Eve. In fact, the effects have been so devastating that, in a legally questionable move, this administration just made the unprecedented decision to dip into the park's entrance fees to fund basic services at a handful of parks across the country. These are fees that Congress authorizes the Park Service to collect to pay for deferred maintenance projects and other critical needs, not to take the place of appropriated funds. We still don't know which parks will be affected by the administration's decision, but I fully expect this bandaid approach to fall far short of protecting our treasured national resources or restoring services to the public in a meaningful way. It is merely a cynical attempt to get the problems caused by the President's shutdown off the front page of the newspaper. If we want to reopen the parks, there is a simple solution: Pass the Interior appropriations bill without delay, and we can reopen the entire National Park System. In the meantime, reopening some park sites but not others will not help many gateway communities that depend on parks and public lands to provide needed revenue and that are facing economic crisis as this shutdown wears on. The National Parks Conservation Association estimates that in January, visitors spent an average of $20 million per day in nearby communities. That is real and vital revenue. In New Mexico alone, national parks generated more than 1,700 jobs in 2017 and created more than $140 million in economic output for my State. I can tell you that New Mexico can't afford for these sites to be closed. It is not just the parks that are at risk. Fire prevention programs funded by the U.S. Forest Service are being deferred during the shutdown, despite a recordbreaking fire season. Environmental protection programs are suffering. EPA has halted most activities related to hazardous waste cleanups under its national Superfund Program. Enforcement activities against polluters have ground to a halt, as have Federal permitting efforts. States aren't receiving funds to operate their regulatory programs. Even our Nation's cherished national museums are shuttered. On January 2, the Smithsonian ran out of funds and closed its doors, preventing more than 110,000 visitors a day from accessing its prized collections. Its next-door neighbor, the National Gallery of Art, is also closed, leaving school groups, families, and everyday citizens out in the cold. Again, there is a simple solution to stop this damage. All we have to do is pass an appropriations bill and reopen the government. I want to end where I began. The President has nothing to be ``proud'' of here. President Trump needs to stop holding Federal programs hostage to his demands for a wasteful, ineffective, and destructive wall and end this shutdown now. We can do it easily. The Senate can immediately take up and pass H.R. 21--the appropriations bill passed by the House last week. This should cause no controversy. These are bills drafted by Republicans with broad bipartisan support. In fact, the Interior bill is the exact same legislation that was passed by this Chamber by a vote of 92 to 6 last August--a margin that would override a veto of the bill, I might add. I call on Leader McConnell and Members of his party to let us get to work. We need to do what is right and immediately take up and pass the House bill today. There is no reason this shutdown must go on one day longer. The lives and livelihoods of everyday Americans hang in the balance. As a final comment, I will say that I so much appreciate working with Senator Leahy, who is vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee and who I know feels, sees, and hears from all of his Appropriations members how concerning this situation is. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I rise on the Senate floor as a Senator from a border State--a State that borders with the country of Mexico--with a message from my State's proud border communities: We will not stand by as the President threatens to shut down the government in an act of political extortion, as the President tries to force the American people to pay for his border wall--a wall that would run right through New Mexico and through so many of the communities and ecosystems that define our State. I am joining with New Mexicans all along the border and all across our State who are calling on the President to stop playing politics with our border communities, with the Federal budget, and with taxpayer dollars. New Mexico and other border States have the most at stake in this fight, and we will be heard. Last week, we learned of a terrible tragedy along the border. On December 7, a 7-year-old girl from Guatemala, Jakelin Caal Maquin, died from septic shock, fever, and dehydration while in Customs and Border Protection custody. The sadness of the loss of this little girl coming to our country with her father in search of safety cannot be overstated. It is truly heartbreaking. I have called upon Secretary Nielsen, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner McAleenan, and the Office of Inspector General to immediately and thoroughly investigate the circumstances of Jakelin's death. All facts must be brought to light so that no families ever have this kind of tragedy again. Jakelin and her father turned themselves in to CBP near a remote port of entry in New Mexico. That port of entry, called Antelope Wells, was closed at the time. By the time Jakelin received adequate medical care, it was too late. Instead of demanding massive resources for an ineffective wall, the President should direct the Department of Homeland Security to provide border stations and CBP officers with the resources necessary to meet the basic needs of children and other vulnerable individuals. The Trump administration's cruel policy of delaying immigrants at commonly used ports of entry for weeks and months at a time inevitably results in asylum seekers taking more dangerous routes in remote areas. Instead of creating a humanitarian crisis at the border by refusing to process asylum seekers, the President should direct DHS to meet the spirit of the asylum laws and begin treating those fleeing persecution and violence with the dignity and respect they deserve. This administration has failed repeatedly to live up to our values as a nation when it comes to immigration. Sadly, there are tragic human consequences to the administration's inhumane immigration policies. This week, we in Congress find ourselves in a familiar position. Once again, the President says he will shutter the Federal Government unless we appropriate billions of dollars for his border wall. This obvious political ploy, aimed at his narrowing base, is the same tired and hateful refrain that he has used since the day he launched his campaign for President. The President's anti-immigrant attacks are now a staple in his political toolbox. They are no surprise, but Congress should not give in to the President's latest anti-immigration tantrum--a tantrum that is not based in reality and that fundamentally lacks the support of the American people. There has been a lot of talk about the border here in Washington--a lot of talk about what the border needs from a President that doesn't know the first thing about our border communities. I proudly represent a border State--a State that shares 180 miles of border with Mexico, a State that is in many ways defined by our border and immeasurably strengthened by our relationships with our southern neighbor, by our immigrant heritage, and by communities and ecosystems that dot every mile along the border. I know our border communities. I hear the hopes and concerns of New Mexico's families and businesses that form the fabric of those border communities. Let there be no equivocating. New Mexico's border communities emphatically reject the President's unnecessary, ineffective, and offensive wall. Thirty-six communities across New Mexico, California, Arizona, and Texas have passed resolutions opposing a wall along their borders. Poll after poll shows that the American people from coast to coast and from border to border do not support this wall. People in New Mexico and across the Nation want humane immigration policies, continued community ties and economic activity between Mexico and our Nation, and smart border security that will actually make us safer, not an unnecessary and ineffective wall and not insulting attacks on Mexicans and Central Americans. The American people reject the President's latest take-it-or-leave-it demand that they pay $5 billion for his wall--a wall he vowed during his campaign that Mexico would pay for, a wall that will not stop illegal immigration, a wall that would stand before all the world as a symbol of division, fear, and hostility. There is little disagreement in the Halls of Congress or among the American people that we want smart border security, that our immigration laws need to be reformed, and that we want to stop illegal drugs from coming into the country. But we do disagree--and strongly-- on how to effectively achieve those goals with limited taxpayer dollars. The President would have us believe that hordes of dangerous criminals have our borders under siege. This is one of his countless misrepresentations to the American people. The American people have had enough of misinformation and of blatant distortions. It is time for some facts. The fact is the numbers of border apprehensions are down significantly since the early 2000s. Southern border apprehensions have dropped 81 percent. In fact, the number of apprehensions at the end of fiscal year 2017 was the lowest it has been since 1971--the lowest it has been since 1971--and we have the lowest number of undocumented immigrants in our country that we have had in over a decade. The Pew Research Center released estimates just this month that the total number of undocumented immigrants residing in the United States is far less now than in 2004--a 14-year low, and the numbers from Mexico--people whom the President insults as rapists and criminals-- have decreased even more dramatically. So who are the people coming to our southern border? Apprehensions between ports of entry consist largely of family units turning themselves in for asylum, fleeing the terror in their home countries. They are crossing between ports in part because of DHS's obstacles to asylum at ports of entry, including inadequate resources for staffing and infrastructure at our ports, metering individuals trying to claim asylum, and the ever-increasing Trump-manufactured wait times. So given the number of southern border apprehensions is at an all- time low and the makeup of our southern border crossings, now is not the time to raid taxpayer-funded coffers for a boondoggle of a wall. Now is the time to begin talking across the aisle about how to meaningfully address the root causes of immigration from Central America--and not only that. Border walls have not been shown to effectively increase security or to reduce smuggling or improper entry. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office found that Customs and Border Protection could not demonstrate that border walls had any measurable impact on border security, finding--and this is from DHS-- that DHS had ``not developed metrics for this assessment.'' As former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said, ``show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.'' Walls are not only offensive; they are ineffective. While the effectiveness of the President's wall is in question, the extraordinary high costs are not. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the cost would be $21.6 billion. The Democratic staff of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee estimates $70 billion, and those costs are only to build the wall. Any wall would have to be maintained. Studies estimate maintenance costs would reach $100 to $150 million a year. Just as troubling, GAO concluded that DHS is not responsibly spending the funds already allocated for the wall. GAO reported that ``DHS faces an increased risk that the border wall system program will cost more than projected, take longer than planned, and not fully perform as expected.'' In fact, DHS blew past its September 19 deadline to submit a risk- based border security plan as the law requires. There is no accountability here. Worse yet, while the President ups his demanded to $5 billion for a wall, DHS hasn't even spent its funds for border barriers in the previous year's budget. DHS has only spent 6 percent of the funds provided on this boondoggle since 2017. It hasn't even obligated $900 million of its last $1.6 billion appropriation. The President ignores DHS's failure to spend the money it has been given while he demands $3.4 billion more than his own budget request. This is pure extortion. We should categorically reject the President's demand for $5 billion for the wall, and we should reject any proposal for a slush fund for the President to use to implement his anti- immigrant agenda. Of course, Americans are no longer surprised by this administration's utter hypocrisy when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but the President's demand for billions of unnecessary funds for his wall is a particularly galling and offensive example, and it should be called out. Budget after budget, the Trump administration says: We can't afford to provide for Americans' healthcare, to provide for environmental protection, to provide for quality education for our kids, to provide for those in society who are struggling the most. But the President says: We can afford to throw billions and billions of dollars on a symbolic and wasteful boondoggle of a wall. That is billions of dollars that could be spent on the priorities that New Mexicans and the American people actually value--like good jobs, good healthcare, and good education. ``Backward'' doesn't even begin to describe this administration's priorities. The Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives, but time and again they show themselves to be fictional conservatives. They want to spend billions on a wall that doesn't work. They pass tax relief for the wealthy, leaving working and middle-class Americans high and dry. And they create massive deficits the American taxpayer will be paying off in the years to come. This is not fiscal conservatism. This is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. But the wall isn't just wasteful and unnecessary. It would also do serious harm to the border region. While a border wall will not effectively address border security, it will disrupt border communities, hurt international trade, interfere with private property rights, and damage habitat and wildlife. Much of the land along the border is privately owned, and some for many generations. Approximately 4,900 parcels are at risk. The Trump administration is already seizing private property through eminent domain to build its wall. Homes could be confiscated, farms ruined, neighbors cut off from one another. To build the wall, DHS has waived almost 50 laws that protect the public and protect the environment, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, among others. This proposed funding targets the border along the Rio Grande, which is home to a biologically diverse and rich environment. I have traveled to this area. Last winter I canoed part of the wild and scenic Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park, along the Texas-New Mexico border. This month, I saw a new documentary called ``The River and the Wall,'' which showed the stunning Rio Grande Valley and part of our trip. Adding 65 miles of border barrier through the lower Rio Grande Valley would damage this area of profound environmental and ecological significance. A wall harms ecosystems, disrupts wildlife migration patterns, blocks vital wildlife access to food and water, and fragments wildlife communities. These photos show the problems posed to wildlife. This is wildlife blocked by a fence. Here is fencing that was previously here that allows the wildlife to get through. Animals can't get over or through the border wall. They are stopped in their tracks. For many animals, fragmented habitat has led to endangerment. Chopping up their territory pushes them closer to extinction. That is the conclusion of career biologists and wildlife managers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They warned, in a draft letter to CBP, that the wall threatens already endangered wildlife. According to them, a wall is vulnerable to ``catastrophic natural flood events, leaving wildlife trapped behind a wall to drown or starve.'' They recommend that CBP consider technology and other resources and mechanisms when possible instead of installing walls. The Washington Post reported last week that Secretary Zinke made it known that Fish and Wildlife needed to ``support the security border mission.'' So Fish and Wildlife higher-ups scrubbed the career scientists' wildlife recommendations in a final letter to CBP on the impacts of the wall. Science has a hard time competing with politics in the Trump administration. To sum it up, the President's border wall will not have any effect on the number of migrants showing up at our border daily. It will not deter migrants from making the dangerous journey to cross between our ports of entry when they are fleeing horrific violence and persecutions in their home countries. It is wildly expensive. The wall hurts the communities and economies along our borders. It takes away use and enjoyment of property from private landowners, and it jeopardizes the environment and wildlife. So why does the President want this wall? Its only discernible purpose is as a political symbol, an offensive and unpopular symbol, a symbol that America no longer welcomes the tired, poor, and huddled masses; that we close our doors to refugees and asylum seekers, that we fear the world and are shrinking from our position as a beacon of hope for people everywhere. Since the very beginning of his Presidency, when he issued his first executive order that banned Muslims from traveling to the United States, the President's immigration policies have been inhumane and cruel, and contrary to our fundamental values as a nation. The President's policy of separating children from their parents represented a new low in immigration policy. The images of children housed in cages, toddlers being taken from their mothers' arms, and parents' pleas for return of their children are unforgettable. The incompetence of how the administration directed the family separation policy is only matched by the sheer cruelty of the policy. They didn't know where parents and children were, could not match families. They deported parents without their children, making it all the more difficult for reunification to occur. The American people opposed this harsh policy by wide margins. While the courts stopped this illegal policy, we must not forget that there are still 147 families separated. This is unconscionable, and I will not rest until each and every family is reunited. The President's most recent immigration debacle is his call--just before the November 6 midterms--to send Active-Duty troops to the border. He wanted 15,000 troops to protect Customs and Border Protection officers and Border Patrol agents from migrants, including many women and children, seeking asylum. Retired military leaders have charged that the President's use of troops is ``wasteful.'' They worry that our military is being used for purely political purposes. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Colin Powell summed it up by saying, ``I see no threat requiring this kind of deployment.'' The President's made-up crisis takes our Active-Duty troops away from their missions and preparedness training and away from their families over the holidays. It is costing the American people. According to the Pentagon, this Presidential stunt will cost us at least $210 million by year's end for the 5,900 Active-Duty troops and 2,100 National Guard troops who have been there since April. DHS just requested their stay be extended through January. There is no President in my memory who has used division and fear as a political tool to the extent this President has--not even close. The President's playbook on immigration is predictable. Every several months he dreams up a new initiative to rile his base, making sure he still has their support, but his policies are wrong-headed, unpopular, and ineffective. His latest stunt--to shut down the Federal government unless he gets his wall--is a replay. It didn't work the first time. There is no art in a take-it-or-leave-it deal that shuts down the Federal government, that leaves millions of workers without paychecks just before the holidays, and that shutters critical services that protect the public's welfare and contribute to the economy. It is not artful. It is inept. It is clear from the President's public eruption last week, meeting with Leaders Schumer and Pelosi, that he will not engage in good-faith negotiation with Democrats and that he is ``proud to shut down the government.'' Recently, the Nation came together to honor a statesman and an advocate for immigration reform. As President, George H.W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990 into law. He called it ``the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws in 66 years.'' The act increased the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States, and it established the Diversity Visa Program and family-based visas-- two programs our current President disparages. Of our immigrant community, President Bush said: ``Our nation is the enduring dream of every immigrant who ever sets foot on these shores, and the millions still struggling to be free . . . this idea called America was and always will be a new world.'' President Trump's wall is a symbol of division and hostility. It is wholly contrary to our ``idea called America,'' as the late President put it. We must move beyond the political jockeying of government shutdown threats. The American people don't want the President to shut down essential services--especially over a border wall that will not work, they don't support, and doesn't represent the goodness of our ``idea called America.'' Take it from a border State like New Mexico. We can't afford a government shutdown, and we don't need the President's wall. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I think all of us here watching Senator Heitkamp today give her farewell address were tremendously moved. I come away, first of all, with, this is a person of character, a person we have served with who cares about doing the right thing, a person who cares deeply about the issues that are before this august body and someone we will miss very much. By the evidence of the Republicans who turned out to listen here on the floor--and I am sure many others were listening in their offices--I think they may miss her more than Democrats because she worked with them so much. She cared about reaching across the aisle. She wasn't worried that it was going to hurt her back home because she was going to be solving problems. One of the things I think of when I think of Heidi Heitkamp is that I have known Heidi--she is my friend. She reminds me: Don't call me your oldest friend in the Senate. But she is my longest standing friend. I go back to the early 1990s with Heidi, when we were attorneys general together from two small States--New Mexico and North Dakota--and we have been very, very good friends since then. Heidi is a leader of principle. She wants to do the right thing, no matter what. That is pretty special in this institution we are in. She wants to do what is right by North Dakota and do what is right by our country. She always follows her conscience, and she gives the citizens of her State and this great country her very best judgment. That is really the spirit of a true public servant--to do what is right and let the chips fall where they may. A couple issues we have had recently are good examples, and I will talk about one back when we were attorneys general together. The Kavanaugh vote was a big vote for the Senate. I think it was probably a tough vote for Heidi, but I think she came to it with the idea that she was going to do the right thing. She had the courage to stand up for victims--victims of sexual assault, victims of sexual harassment, all of the permutations of that. I know that for the better part of her career--whether she was an attorney general, whether she was a U.S. Senator, or whether she was working in other capacities both in and out of government--she was always working for victims. I think one of the things that helped Heidi understand that so well was that her mother was sexually assaulted as a teenager. Knowing that--Heidi learned from that. She learned about the prevalence of it, that it was out there and it was deep and it was hidden in a lot of ways. So I saw early on, as a State attorney general, that she was a champion--a real champion--for victims. Shifting from the example I just gave with the vote on the Supreme Court, another example of her persistence to do what is right--nobody had ever taken on the tobacco industry, this huge industry. People talked a little bit and would say: It is so bad that people are addicted to smoking. But the attorneys general of our country in the 1990s filed a lawsuit against the tobacco companies because they were targeting our children. We found research that showed tobacco companies knew that if you get young people addicted at a very young age, they are going to smoke for life. For them, it was all a profit motive. If you get a young person addicted, you know you are going to have a smoker for life; you know you will have somebody who is going to buy cigarettes for life. We knew that. She was one of the leaders in the attorneys general's effort to bring this horrible, horrible scourge under control. We filed our lawsuit. The tobacco companies saw what was coming. We did our discovery. They didn't want this case in court--there was no way. They were going to lose big. So we had what was the biggest civil settlement in the history of the country. After we knew we were going to have a settlement, the smaller States knew we had to have a tough negotiator to represent us because we were afraid that larger States--California, New York, and others--would get more of the money than we would. We all felt we had participated equally. So whom did we select? We selected Heidi Heitkamp to be our negotiator, and, boy, did she do a good job for the smaller States. Just to remind everybody, this year, $34 million from that settlement flows to the State of North Dakota. It was settled several decades ago, but the money is still coming in to do prevention, to help out with tobacco addiction, and to do what is really important there. The other quality I want to mention--and I know we are going over in terms of where we are supposed to be in our caucuses--there is a remarkable trait--and we saw this today, with everyone who turned out, and our staff knows this--Heidi Heitkamp is one of the most well-liked U.S. Senators by both sides of the aisle. She was so well-liked that President Trump--convinced he needed somebody in his Cabinet who was well-liked and respected--recruited Heidi Heitkamp to be his Secretary of Agriculture. I really think what the President was doing cozying up to her was trying to make friends in the Senate. He figured that if he got her, she was going to make a real difference, and he was hoping that her popularity would rub off on him. I will never forget when President Trump invited her up on the stage at one of his political rallies in September of 2017. He invited her up to the stage and said: Everybody's saying, ``What's she doing up here?'' But I'll tell you what: Good woman. ``Good woman.'' Do you know what I say? No, Mr. President. She is a great woman. She is a great woman. I could go on forever, but I just want to comment--and Heidi commented about her commitment to Native communities, to Native women and to Native children. She worked as a State attorney general, she worked in the Senate, and she worked in other elected offices on this. She didn't give up. She is working in the Senate until the very end to make sure we get Savanna's Act passed, which is going to protect missing and indigenous women. We have already passed it through the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and she is intent on making sure it gets passed this session, and I am going to work with her on that. She has worked on VAWA reauthorization. Heidi has always broadcast the core principles in our relations with Native communities--Tribal sovereignty, Tribal consultation, strong government-to-government relations--and she has always tried to make sure Senators who don't have Native communities understand the situation we are facing. My friendship with Heidi has made me a better public servant and a better person. Before we came here to serve, we had already known each other for many years--since the 1990's when we both served as State attorneys general. At that time, there was only a handful of women serving as their State's attorney general. Heidi herself was a trailblazer, serving as North Dakota's first female Attorney General. It was then I saw the first of the innumerable examples of her commitment to serving the people of North Dakota and the public interest. A number of attorneys general, including Heidi and I, initiated groundbreaking lawsuits against big tobacco. Those lawsuits were met with skepticism. The disease and terrible health impacts caused by tobacco products had cost States precious resources. The tobacco companies were working to lure underage youth to buy their harmful products through targeted advertising. Like so many other times in her life, Heidi's work helped us beat some long odds. Our lawsuits proved highly successful. North Dakota is still reaping the benefits, having received a $34 million tobacco settlement from those efforts just this year. In the years since, I have seen Heidi continue her dedication to public service and achieve great things, not least of which was 6 years ago when she became North Dakota's first woman elected to the U.S. Senate. Although she has come far from her humble beginnings, she has never forgotten her roots. She fights for the working people of North Dakota and across the Nation. While Heidi is highly accomplished, she remains plain spoken, straight shooting, and down to earth. I have been privileged to serve with Heidi on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs--a committee she knew from the get-go that she wanted to be on. She came to Washington ready to fight for Native communities in North Dakota, to make sure they weren't being left behind. She is a fierce defender of tribal sovereignty and demands that the federal government meet its treaty and trust responsibilities and engage in meaningful consultation with tribes when Federal action impacts tribal interests. Heidi has worked tirelessly on behalf of North Dakota's five tribes and all of Indian country. Just like when she was attorney general, I have seen her laser- focused on protecting and empowering those most in need of a champion-- like children and domestic violence survivors. The very first bill Heidi introduced was to tackle the systemic problems facing Native children by establishing a National Commission. With more than one in three Native American children living in poverty, suicide rates 2.5 times higher than the national average, and one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, she knew we must do more--much more--for our Native youth. It was no surprise to me that she got that bill passed in short order before the end of her first Congress. For decades, Heidi has been on the frontlines of protecting victims of domestic violence. As attorneys general, we worked to implement the Violence Against Women Act after it first got passed in 1994. We continued the fight together here in the Senate. In fact, one of the first things we worked on was to help pass the 2013 VAWA reauthorization. That reauthorization was hard fought. We wanted to protect key provisions that restored tribal jurisdiction to domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians on reservations. Those cases were falling through the cracks. At the time, opponents claimed that tribes didn't have the resources or expertise to enforce the Act. Thanks to the tireless work of Heidi and many of my colleagues on the Indian Affairs Committee, the provisions remained in the bill, and President Obama signed it into law in March 2013. Five years later, we know for a fact that those opponents were wrong. According to a report this year from the National Congress of American Indians, since VAWA of 2013 was enacted, 18 tribes have once again begun exercising jurisdiction over domestic violence crimes. NCAI is collaborating with 50 other tribes to develop best practices. There have been 143 arrests of 128 non-Indian abusers, with 74 convictions. Heidi has always prided herself on working across the aisle to get things done--whether she is tackling domestic violence or working to improve public safety. She partnered with my good friend John McCain to make sure that Indian Country is part of the AMBER Alert child abduction warning system. That bill was signed into law last April. Just last week, the full Senate unanimously passed one of Heidi's bills--Savanna's Act. Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind--a member of the Spirit Lake tribe, 22 years old, and 8 months pregnant--was brutally murdered in Fargo last year. The sad truth is, reportedly more than 80 percent of Native women will experience violence in their lifetime. Heidi is determined to do something about that. Her bill would improve law enforcement tracking of and response to the growing crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women. Heidi has been an incredible voice combatting this crisis--working to make sure these women are not invisible. I have been touched by her commitment to this fight. I am inspired by Heidi's work for Indian Country and am committed to carrying on her work so that tribes in North Dakota and across Indian Country know that. Even if one of their strongest defenders is moving on to the next chapter, her mission will not be lost. The list of all Heidi's accomplishments is as long as her heart is big. She has worked for the people of North Dakota for decades. She has been an independent voice in the Senate, not tied to party or ideology but committed to doing what is right for the people of her State. She will always roll up her sleeves and work with all sides to solve problems. She will always fight for the little guy. On a personal note, she is one of the most loyal friends anyone could ask for. She never shied away from the hard votes--approaching every single one with conscience and courage. I admire Heidi for her conviction. All of us here will miss Heidi tremendously. I know that her work is not done--not even close. Like so many here, I look forward to her next challenge and to seeing what more she accomplishes for her State and the Nation and the countless lives she is sure to touch. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Supreme Court nomination before us is of historic importance. We have a nominee whose nomination is clouded with credible allegations of sexual assault, whose truthfulness before Congress is questionable, and who showed himself as partisan and lacking in judicial temperament before this body in his supplemental hearing. As of today, more than 2,400 law professors throughout the country are on record that Judge Kavanaugh's display of lack of judicial restraint during that hearing is disqualifying. The growing list includes professors from all political stripes and professors who had previously supported his nomination. Indeed, former Justice John Paul Stevens, a highly respected jurist, has taken the unusual step of publicly opining the same. Yesterday, I spoke on the Senate floor about why Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed in light of the allegations swirling around him, his lack of candor with this body, and his demeanor during the supplemental hearing. But, Mr. President, on the merits as well, Judge Kavanaugh has not shown himself deserving of elevation to our highest Court. Let's start with his overly expansive view of Executive power--a view that could shield our current President from being held to account for potential crimes and misdeeds. Judge Kavanaugh has written and spoken extensively about the need to shield the President from criminal investigation while in office. He is on record that, in his opinion, the President has authority under the Constitution to terminate an independent counsel at will. Indeed, there is probably no other viable candidate to the seat who has argued more strenuously in favor of Presidential immunity and the President's absolute authority to fire a special prosecutor. It is no coincidence, then, that this President, who is under criminal investigation by a special counsel, selected Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Court. Judge Kavanaugh is clear that, as a matter of policy, Presidents should be completely immunized from criminal and civil suit while in office. He writes that ``the President should be free from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship.'' For Judge Kavanaugh, freeing the President of ``burdens'' the rest of us must bear takes precedence over ensuring the President follows the law. Judge Kavanaugh's supporters point out that his writings in support of broad Presidential immunity represent his policy views, not his constitutional analysis. But his writings do not tell us that he would uphold Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, nor would he tell us during his confirmation hearing that he would hold the President to account for any crimes. In my view, the ``burdens'' of a criminal investigation do not outweigh the dangers of a criminal occupying the Oval Office. There is nothing in the Constitution that immunizes a President from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office. The drafters knew how to immunize public officials if they wanted. Members of Congress, for example, have express immunity ``from arrest or interrogation for any speech or debate entered into during a legislative session.'' The speech and debate immunity for Congress is narrowly tailored. The drafters gave no immunity--narrow or broad--to the President or members of his Cabinet. While Judge Kavanaugh claims to be a strict constructionist, I have no confidence he would stick to the text of the Constitution and not grant the President immunity. There is evidence in the public record that close associates and even family of the President may have conspired with Russia, and we have the President's own inexplicable behavior cozying up to and trying to curry favor with Vladmir Putin. There is abundant evidence in the public record that the President has worked to undermine the investigation into Russian interference in our election and investigation into himself. And we have sworn testimony from the President's former personal lawyer that the President directed commission of two campaign- related felonies. If the President has committed crimes, he should be held responsible, just like the rest of us. Judge Kavanaugh has said he would ``put the final nail in'' Morrison v. Olson. Morrison v. Olson is the 1988, 8-to-1 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist that upheld the Independent Counsel Act. That act was passed in the aftermath of Watergate to curb Executive abuse and mitigate the obvious conflict of interest the U.S. Department of Justice would have investigating the President. Judge Kavanaugh sides with the lone dissent in that case and with the idea that the President should be able to fire the person who is investigating him--with no check. If the constitutionality of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation comes before the Supreme Court--and it is likely that it will--there is every reason to believe Justice Kavanaugh would have his chance to hammer in that nail. Judge Kavanaugh espouses a ``unitary executive'' theory of the separation of powers. Hidden behind this legalese is a simple and dangerous idea: that the President holds absolute power over the executive branch. Under his theory, President Trump could actually fire Special Counsel Mueller because he uncovered wrongdoing by the President. In plain terms, he would let the fox raid the henhouse. Judge Kavanaugh's theory that the Constitution requires no checks on the President's authority strains that document to the point of breaking. Our entire constitutional system of separation of powers is built on the principle of checks and balances--so that one branch of government does not accumulate and exercise an inordinate amount of power. Under DOJ regulations, the Attorney General, or Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is recused, may only appoint a special counsel if it is warranted and there is a conflict with the Department or other ``extraordinary circumstances.'' Only the Attorney General-- not the President--may remove a special counsel. And the Attorney General--or in the case of Special Counsel Mueller, the Deputy Attorney General--may only do so for ``misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.'' The DOJ regulations provide appropriate and constitutionally sound checks on the executive's authority. The American people deserve to know the truth about Russia's attack on our democracy. They deserve to know whether Candidate Trump or his campaign was part of the attack. And they deserve to know all the facts behind the President's efforts to stop DOJ's investigation into Russian interference and any Trump collusion. The President should not be able to hide the truth and the facts by firing Special Counsel Mueller. And that is not all. There is open speculation that the President may pardon close associates. His family. Even himself. The new Justice may be called upon to determine the scope of the President's power to pardon and whether that power may be exercised for corrupt purpose. Given Judge Kavanaugh's overly expansive view of Executive authority, I am concerned he would set no limits on the President's power to pardon and would allow a Presidential pardon even if wielded to obstruct justice. At this point in our history, with so many questions whether the President, his family, or others close to him committed crimes, the American public must be assured that the new Justice will provide a check on the President. And not give him a blank check to commit crimes. I am proud that New Mexico is a majority minority State, but I am really worried that a Justice Kavanaugh will not protect minority rights. Ten percent of our State's population is Native American. Judge Kavanaugh, however, has shown a distinct hostility to indigenous people's rights. For example, in Rice v. Cayetano, he argued in the Supreme Court against a voting system limited to Native Hawaiians, arguing they should not be treated like Tribes even though Native Hawaiians and Tribes share a history of forced assimilation. In that case, he represented the Center for Equal Opportunity--a fervently anti-affirmative action group. While the case was pending, he authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that ``any racial group with creative reasoning can qualify as an Indian tribe.'' He called the voting system a ``naked-racial spoils system.'' Such an offensive view demonstrates a level of misunderstanding--perhaps even willful ignorance unworthy of a nominee to our highest Court. While the Court ultimately struck down the voting system, it did not do so on Mr. Kavanaugh's claimed grounds. Recently disclosed emails that Judge Kavanaugh wrote as a White House lawyer confirm he is a threat to indigenous communities. In his view, if Native peoples are not organized into Tribes and live on reservations, they are not entitled to any special recognition under the law. But not all Tribes are alike. Not all indigenous peoples are organized the same way. Alaska Natives, for example, are organized as Tribes, villages, and regional corporations. Alaska Natives are rightfully concerned whether he will protect their rights. Bottom line: Judge Kavanaugh questions the constitutionality of programs specifically dedicated to Native Americans--a view that could upend decades of progress for Indian Country on everything from housing to government contracting. As ranking member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I wrote to the chair of the Judiciary Committee in August asking for all of Judge Kavanaugh's documents related to Native issues. The Chair refused my request. So we don't even know if we have the full extent of emails and memos from Judge Kavanaugh disparaging Native rights. But we do know that Judge Kavanaugh is hostile to affirmative action programs. When he was a White House lawyer, he called Department of Transportation regulations designed to remedy past and present discrimination ``a naked racial set-aside.'' But those regulations, which favored ``socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,'' were upheld by the Federal courts under established equal protection principles. While Judge Kavanaugh advocates strongly for ``race neutrality'' when it comes to distribution of government benefits, he is not so quick to embrace race-neutral policies when it comes to racial profiling. In the aftermath of 9/11, in a series of White House emails labeled ``racial profiling,'' the idea of long-term use of racial profiling at airports and by law enforcement was raised. Mr. Kavanaugh responded that ``the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple--and grapple now--with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.'' In other words, maybe we use racial profiling in the interim because coming up with a race-neutral system is so hard. In New Mexico, almost 49 percent of our population is Hispanic--the largest percentage of any State. If we were to accept racial profiling in New Mexico--coupled with our Native population and other minority groups--over 62 percent of our population would be targeted. That would be wholly unacceptable, as would be doing away with Federal and State programs intended to redress past and present discrimination. One of the most critical roles the courts play is protecting minority rights, but Judge Kavanaugh's record does not demonstrate he will fulfill this role. He simply doesn't appear to understand or to appreciate the discrimination, oppression, the assault that Native peoples, Hispanics, African Americans, and other groups have faced over time and continue to face. Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence is informed by this history. Whether it is affirmative action, voting rights, or redistricting, we must have a Justice on the Court who protects minority rights, and Judge Kavanaugh has not shown himself to be that Justice. The same is true for women's reproductive rights. Trump the candidate promised only to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Potential Supreme Court candidates can only make it onto the Federalist Society list if they will vote to overturn Roe. Judge Kavanaugh's record does not bode well for women's rights. He tried to stand in the way of a 17-year-old pregnant girl, an immigrant held in Federal detention, who wanted an abortion. He would have required her to find a ``sponsor'' in the United States who would provide housing for her and allow her to terminate her pregnancy. And if the Federal Government couldn't find a sponsor, the young woman could return to the district court in 2 weeks. Of course, the longer a pregnancy continues, the greater the risk to the woman's health and safety. Judge Kavanaugh did not believe these onerous, bureaucratic requirements represented an ``undue burden'' on the young woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. Fortunately, however, the full DC Court of Appeals did. They quickly overturned the decision and allowed the young woman to immediately exercise her right. The American public--Democrats, Republicans, and independents-- support a woman's right to choose. If Judge Kavanaugh would have this country go back to the days of back-alley abortions, he should have said so during his confirmation hearings, but he would not. I cannot vote for a nominee who is not willing to affirm a woman's right to choose. A woman's reproductive right is not the only health care right at risk with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Our entire system of health care rights and benefits under the Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy. A group of Republican attorney General and Governors has filed suit to gut critical ACA protections. They want to take away protections from the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions and allow insurance companies to discriminate on this basis again. They want to take away the prohibition against lifetime limits on benefits, and go back to the days when you could get booted off insurance because you have high medical expenses. They want to take away the right to cover children up to age 26, to get free preventive care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. And they want to eviscerate Medicaid expansion, which has given 11 million Americans healthcare they didn't have before. The Trump administration has sided with the Republican attorney Generals and Governors who want to decimate our health care system despite the President's repeated campaign promises to cover everyone, protect people with preexisting illnesses, and cover children up to age 26. This case is now before a Federal court in Texas and will likely make its way to the Supreme Court. We do not want a Justice who sides with corporate interests over consumers, who is willing to throw statutory language and constitutional principles aside to get the results he wants. I am concerned that a Justice Kavanaugh would do the President's bidding and gut critical health care rights that Congress has enacted and that the American people overwhelmingly stand by. But there is more at stake. In his legal opinions, Judge Kavanaugh inevitably sides with business and against the environment, workers, and consumers. His environmental record deserves a spotlight. Interpreting environmental statutes, Judge Kavanaugh will veer far from the legal text he claims to honor to reach the result he wants. For example, Judge Kavanaugh once blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting ``downwind'' states from nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide coming from ``upwind'' States under the ``Good Neighbor Provision'' of the Clean Air Act. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide develop into ozone and cause respiratory illnesses and other health problems. However, the Supreme Court reversed Judge Kavanaugh. In a 6- to-2 decision that included justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts in the majority, the Court found that Judge Kavanaugh ``rewrites a decades-old statute whose plain text and structure'' are clear. In case after case, whether in dissent or the majority, Judge Kavanaugh votes against the environment and with industry. He voted to invalidate EPA rules to regulate emission of greenhouse gasses by plants and factories, to overturn EPA's mercury and air toxics standards limiting hazardous emissions from powerplants, to allow EPA to delay implementation of its methane control rule, to overturn an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, to overturn an EPA decision to revoke a coal company permit that would harm the environment. This is not the record the American people want from a Justice likely to rule for decades on the most important environmental law cases. His record on matters addressing climate change is especially troubling. Climate change can hit minorities and low-income communities the hardest. In New Mexico, traditional land grant and acequia communities depend on the land to sustain their families. The climate change-induced drought we are experiencing in New Mexico and the Southwest threatens our way of life. If we are looking for a Justice who will put balance back into our campaign finance system, Judge Kavanaugh is not a likely candidate. He has been clear that he believes that money equals free speech. So it is a good bet he will not scrutinize Citizens United or the other Supreme Court cases that now allow unlimited, dark money to run roughshod over our campaigns and tear at the fabric of our democracy. Our campaign finance system is broken beyond repair. Unless we change the rules-- either through Supreme Court decision or congressional action and constitutional amendment--we will continue to see the kinds of perverse results we now see where a few superwealthy individuals and big corporations drown out the many. But we are pretty much assured that a Justice Kavanaugh will not change the rules that now allow unfettered dark money to pollute our elections. It is hard to overstate the importance of the Supreme Court nomination before the Senate. New Mexicans and the American people want a nominee who has been 100 percent honest, whose nomination is not tainted by credible allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. New Mexicans and the American people want a nominee who will act as a check on the powerful, but President Trump chose this nominee to do the opposite. At this critical point in our Nation's history--when we have a President who is under DOJ investigation for conspiracy with Russia to undermine our national election and obstruction of justice, who may have broken campaign finance laws to win the Presidency--we must have Justices on the Court who believe in the rule of law, who believe that no one is above the law, even the President. At this historic juncture, the American people must have assurance that any judicial nominee will hold the President true to our laws, true to our Constitution, but Judge Kavanaugh cannot give the American people this assurance, and I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, first let me begin by saying this: I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Her raw courage in coming forward will change the national culture and discussion. She has given voice to millions of women and men who are survivors of sexual assault, who are afraid to tell their stories, who felt powerless. Some of these women have contacted my office with their own stories. I have read them and they are heart-wrenching. At its core, sexual assault is a crime of power. Dr. Ford has confronted some of the most powerful in our Nation and told the truth. I thank her for her courage in coming forward and for empowering other survivors to do the same. At this point, with so much unknown, there are serious consequences to elevating Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. We the Senate need to continue our search for the truth about this nominee, his background, and his record, and, hopefully, we can do that in a bipartisan way. Yet everything about the nomination process for this nominee has been deeply flawed, from the President's outsourcing the nomination to the Federalist Society, to the majority leader's violating his own new rule to delay consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until after an upcoming election, to a highly partisan lawyer's screening Judge Kavanaugh's documents for public disclosure instead of the nonpartisan National Archives staff, to the Judiciary chair's rush to hearings, even though only 7 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record is in the public domain. What are they trying to hide? I think we have a pretty good idea. Finally, and most disturbing, are the President's and the majority's inexcusable treatment of the brave women who have come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee. The Republican leaders claim to want to hear the allegations of sexual assault has been nothing but a cynical show for public consumption. The #MeToo movement forced them to open the floor to Dr. Ford, but her testimony was never really going to matter to President Trump and the Republican leadership. The majority leader made that clear when he bragged to an audience of the religious right before her hearing: ``In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Republican leaders questioned why the allegations did not come forward sooner. Yet the reasons survivors of sexual assault often don't come forward are well documented and well understood, and they did everything they could to undermine getting to the truth of Dr. Ford's allegations--from refusing to honor her request for an FBI investigation prior to her hearing to severely limiting the Democrats' time for questions of Judge Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to refusing to call other key witnesses, like Mark Judge, Deborah Ramirez, and others, and to put them under oath. It is absolutely stunning that all 11 Republicans on the committee abdicated their responsibilities and ducked public scrutiny by bringing in a female prosecutor to do their job and question Dr. Ford. It is just plain political cowardice, and women in New Mexico and around the country are watching. Again, after hearing her testimony and reviewing the record, I believe Dr. Ford. It is worth noting that no Republican Senator has said she is not credible. Not a single one has said she is not credible. The majority whip stated: ``I found no reason to find her not credible.'' The President found her testimony ``very compelling'' and that she was a ``very credible witness.'' Although, true to form, the President changed political course and insulted and mocked her in front of a laughing crowd and television cameras--yet another shameful new low for the President's treatment of women. Dr. Ford's testimony was all the more compelling because she was able to expertly explain how the memory of the assault was seared in her hippocampus by neurotransmitters that were released in response to the attack. Her memory of her assailant is fully intact. It insults Dr. Ford and survivors generally to say, like Republicans have, that they believe something happened to her but that it was not Brett Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford is not mixed up, and contrary to what the Republicans would tell you, there is strong corroborating evidence behind her allegations. Years before this nomination, she had told her husband, a therapist, and friends of the attack, and her polygraph examination supports her truthfulness. Her story even matches an entry in Judge Kavanaugh's calendar in a number of ways, identifying the attendees she would have no reason to know. There is a narrow window in which it is possible that both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are telling the truth, and that is if Judge Kavanaugh does not remember it as a result of his consumption of alcohol that evening. Yet Judge Kavanaugh's performance during the supplemental hearing, while loud and angry, was not convincing. You can't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible and, at the same time, push to put Judge Kavanaugh on the Court. The burden of proof for a lifetime appointment to our highest Court is not ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The Senate and the American people must have a high degree of certainty that there was no sexual assault and that the nominee didn't lie about it under oath. We have no certainty on either count. The supplemental hearing brought Judge Kavanaugh's overall credibility even further into question. While he denied reports of heavy alcohol use during high school and college, there are abundant reports in the press and statements from many eyewitnesses to the contrary. Numerous acquaintances, even friends, have come forward with information that he often drank to excess during these years. His own yearbook quotes allude to--brag about--heavy drinking and exploits with girls. With all of these accounts of heavy drinking from an array of different credible sources who have nothing to gain by coming forward, it is hard to believe there is no truth to them. Evidence of excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior as a teenager and young adult is not disqualifying in and of itself, but misleading Congress and the American people about it is. Most troubling is that there was already evidence before us that Judge Kavanaugh was not being fully truthful. We know that when Judge Kavanaugh worked as a White House lawyer under George W. Bush, Senate Republican Judiciary staff stole confidential information from Democratic Senators and staff and gave some of that stolen information to him. Under oath, Judge Kavanaugh denied that he knew the information was stolen, but if you read the email correspondence, it is nearly impossible to believe a sophisticated political operative, like Brett Kavanaugh was, would not have understood that the information had been obtained surreptitiously. There are also valid concerns that Judge Kavanaugh, during his 2004 confirmation hearing, misrepresented his involvement with the George W. Bush torture policy and with certain judicial nominations he handled as White House Counsel. His sworn testimony in 2004 and in the two recent hearings leaves me highly skeptical that Judge Kavanaugh has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth before Congress. I cannot support a nominee to the Supreme Court without there being a high degree of certainty that he or she has been 100-percent honest under oath. The integrity and reputation of the Supreme Court demand nothing less. The rushed Judiciary hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh was designed to appease and not to make sure the American people had all of the facts. Senator Flake was right to stop the process and call for an FBI investigation. He is right that this nomination is tearing the country apart. The American people needed to know the truth. All relevant evidence should have been gathered and put before us. Senator Flake is a friend, and I commend him for having stood up for what he thought was right, but an artificially limited FBI investigation will do nothing to bring this country back together. Justice could have only been served by having a full investigation, with the FBI being allowed to have done its job as it knows how to do it. With the results in of the FBI investigation, it is clear that the President, with the Senate leadership in full support, imposed arbitrary limits on the scope and length of the investigation. Dr. Ford was not spoken to. Her corroborating witnesses were not contacted. Her corroborating documents were not reviewed. There was no meaningful inquiry as to whether Judge Kavanaugh misrepresented his past alcohol use, which also corroborates Dr. Ford's story. Up to 40 witnesses tried to come forward, but FBI agents did not contact or interview them. While we can all read their statements in the newspapers, their information will not form part of the FBI's investigation record. There was no bipartisan briefing at which Senators could ask FBI leaders about the adequacy of the investigation. The FBI's investigation was not allowed to be a real investigation. Given what is in the public record but was kept away from the FBI, it by no means exonerates Judge Kavanaugh. Without having had a real investigation, the cloud of credible allegations remains. The President and Republican leaders were, simply, not on a search for the truth, only on a mad dash to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed at any cost to the country. Folks, it is 2018. We are 27 years beyond Clarence Thomas' hearings. Yet credible claims of sexual assault against a nominee to the Supreme Court are not taken seriously by the President of the United States or by the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The roughshod process orchestrated by the Senate majority and the President delegitimizes the claims of a woman who has been subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault, and it only serves to drive survivors underground. The kangaroo court-type process orchestrated by the Senate majority and the President delegitimizes the Supreme Court and will for decades to come. During the supplemental hearing, Judge Kavanaugh showed himself as partisan, belligerent, even paranoid, and lacking in judicial temperament. He rudely shot back at Senators, asking them about their drinking habits. He accused Members of the minority of misdeeds for which he had no evidence. He blamed ``revenge'' by the Clintons for the predicament he was in. He lacked self-control, dignity, and the temperament of a Supreme Court Justice. His partisanship and lack of political independence were on full display. I have never seen a nominee to a Federal court, let alone the Supreme Court, behave in such an injudicious manner before the Senate. Under pressure, Judge Kavanaugh did not show himself worthy to appointment to the highest Court. This is not a partisan conspiracy as Judge Kavanaugh claimed. We saw no such allegations for Judge Gorsuch's nomination--a judicial candidate who shared a similar judicial philosophy to Judge Kavanaugh's and who, coincidentally, went to the same high school. There were no unsavory allegations against Judge Scalia or Judge Alito--two judges whom most Democrats vociferously opposed based on their rightwing, pro- dark money ideology. Elevation to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is not a right. It is a privilege. While the Republicans take great umbrage that Judge Kavanaugh's reputation is at stake, the fact is we have before us credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and justice demands that he be called to answer to those allegations. He should not get a pass. I have reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's decisions, writings, speeches, all of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the meager set of documents made available when he served as a White House lawyer and as part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. On the merits, this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial thought. He is on the extreme edge. The American people want a Justice whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a Justice who is not on the far end of the ideological spectrum and who will not put his or her personal beliefs before the text of the statute or the constitutional provision at issue. Even before the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, the American people opposed this nomination in unprecedented numbers. I, like the American people, have no confidence that this nominee will uphold our rights of privacy, a woman's right to choose, and each individual's right to marry whomever he or she wants. I have no confidence that this nominee will uphold Americans' rights to healthcare, consumers' rights to a fair deal, or laws that protect our environment and combat climate change. I have no confidence that this nominee will protect minorities' rights and the rights of Native peoples, in particular, or will uphold voting rights, will strike down gerrymandered voting districts, which undermine the principle of ``one person, one vote,'' or will rein in dark money, which erodes our democracy, all while the Nation faces the distinct possibility that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation will find evidence that the President or his campaign conspired with Russia to undermine the 2016 Presidential election, evidence that the President obstructed the Special Counsel's investigation, or evidence of other crimes. I have absolutely no confidence that this nomination will hold the President to account if called to do so. Judge Kavanaugh is on record saying that, as a matter of policy, he believes a sitting President should be immune from criminal investigation while in office, no matter the crime. He has refused to tell the Senate and the American people whether he believes that, as a matter of constitutional law, a sitting President may be investigated and indicted. I, for one, believe that under the Constitution, if a President commits a crime, the rule of law still stands and that the Constitution gives no immunity to a President who is a criminal. This nomination will shape the course of the Supreme Court--and American law and lives--for decades. We must have a nominee who has been fully vetted, who does not stand credibly accused of sexual assault, whose honesty before the Senate and the American people cannot be questioned, whose judicial record fits within mainstream jurisprudence, and who believes that no one--not even the President--is above the law. Judge Kavanaugh is not that nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I just want to tell you how proud I am to join Senator Whitehouse today on the floor. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for continuing to bring the urgency of combating climate change to the attention of this body. I admire his passion and intellectual clout, which he has brought specifically to climate change a number of times here on the Senate floor. He has been a great advocate for his State of Rhode Island, where we all know there are going to be very serious impacts--sea level rise is one of the major ones, but there are many others--as a result of how climate change and global warming are playing out. Let's state several things here that are clear. One is that the science is clear. The Earth's atmosphere is warming at an alarming rate, and human activity is the principle cause. What we see every day with our own eyes--extreme weather events around the globe--is clearer and clearer. But worse and most clear is the harm being done to millions of Americans and people all around the world as a result of the destructive effects of climate change. People are losing their homes, their lands, and their farms. We now have a new kind of refugee--climate refugees--who are displaced from their homes by catastrophic weather disasters, including drought and floods. In 2017 roughly 68.5 million people were climate refugees, and that number is expected to double to over 140 million by 2050. Hundreds of thousands are losing their lives. The official death toll in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria is now 2,975, and there are even higher estimates of losses. Climate change is the most pressing moral issue of our time. As the people in Puerto Rico know all too well, as the people of Rhode Island know well, as the people of New Mexico know well, and as all of our States and territories know well, it is an existential threat. Yet in the words of the late, great John McCain--as the Presiding Officer knows, he was always an outspoken gentleman--``we are getting nothing done, my friends. We're getting nothing done.'' I know that Senator Whitehouse was an honorary pallbearer at Senator McCain's ceremony at the National Cathedral. We had 4 days of celebrating the John McCain that spoke up about core issues that America really faced. As I mentioned, John gave us that deserved chewing-out on the Senate floor on July 25 of last year for not working together, for not working in a bipartisan fashion, and for not reaching across the aisle. On climate change, we certainly are not getting anything done, and we are not working across the aisle, as John told us to do. The West that John McCain so loved and worked to protect is getting hit hard. We have less precipitation and less snowpack, and the snowpack we have is melting earlier. Rivers and reservoirs are running at historic lows, and some river segments are drying. We now have abnormally dry conditions in every Western State. We have extreme drought weather in parts of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Colorado, and even Oregon. In my home State of New Mexico, every single county is in abnormally dry or drought conditions. Here are the drought maps of the West from last week and from the same time of the year in 2000, when the Federal Government first began keeping track. This map here is from 2000, when the Federal Government first began keeping track. Let's look at the contrast, which is very, very stark. On the first map, we didn't see the extreme form and exceptional drought at all, but we can see a very, very stark contrast 18 years later. These dry conditions are creating more wildfires that are burning more acreage and threatening more homes and threatening more lives. The Mendocino Complex fire in California is the largest fire that State has ever experienced. Since it began in late July, it has burned over 450,000 acres, taken one firefighter's life, and destroyed 157 homes. After 2 months, it is still not fully contained. In my home State of New Mexico, about 20 miles of the Rio Grande, south of Albuquerque and through the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, we are already dry in May, months earlier than in typical years. Two weeks ago, farmers in the Middle Rio Grande area in my State started getting notified that the water stored for their crops was almost gone--months before irrigation season's end in October. As of 2 days ago, Elephant Butte Reservoir was only 4.6 percent full--4.6 percent. Back in the 1990s, the reservoir was 27 miles in length. Today, it is about 10 miles. Here are the aerial maps of the Elephant Butte from 1994 and 2013. These photographs show that climate change is here and now. You can see Elephant Butte here in 1994, and in 2013 you see a very dramatically shrunken Elephant Butte. Elephant Butte provides water to over 90,000 acres of farmland in southern New Mexico and western Texas. It is an economic engine for Sierra County, the rural county where it is located. We can't afford for this reservoir to be at 4.6 percent. John McCain's beloved Arizona is in its 21st year of drought. We have measured the Animas River in Colorado for 106 years. Two weeks ago, in Durango, it was at its lowest measured point for this time of year, ever--ever. Utah's temperature has warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. The State's $1.3 billion ski industry has seen warmer winters, less snowpack, and less powder. Ski resorts that never had to make snow have to make it now. Alaska is under singular threat. A warmer atmosphere is rapidly melting the Arctic's snowpack and glaciers. The seas are rising to unprecedented levels. Animals such as the polar bears and the walruses, which depend on ice to survive, are struggling to survive. The iconic polar bear has been listed as a threaten species since 2008--a direct result of climate warming. During the last past century, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the global average. Native villages along the sea are under siege. There are at least 31 Alaskan towns and cities at imminent risk of destruction. Two Native villages have voted to relocate. Newtok, a Native village along the river that feeds to the Bering Sea, is literally collapsing into the water and is already relocating. Their relocation will cost $100 million. Congress gave them $15 million this year toward that effort. The fact is that Native Americans and other marginalized populations are more vulnerable to the devastation of climate change, but no one is immune from this. I could recite 1,000 statistics that show how climate change is hurting the American West, its people, and its lands. The statistics are there. The science is there. The American people are there. Congress needs to get there. The New York Times Magazine recently ran its longest article ever. It was on climate change, entitled ``Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.'' The article showed that between 1979 and 1989, we came to understand the causes and dangers of the greenhouse effect. During that decade, we had the opportunity to take action to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, but we failed. In 1998, one of the leading climate scientists then and now, James Hansen, working for NASA, told Congress that it was 99 percent certain that the global warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He told Congress 30 years ago that climate change was here--here and now. During that decade, there was more opportunity for consensus than today. The oil and gas industry was more receptive to taking action. Politicians' views weren't as set in concrete. But that generation failed to act on the science and failed to protect present and future generations. There was another opportunity in the early 2000s for Congress to act. John McCain wanted us to act, but we didn't. As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, he held groundbreaking hearings in 2000 on climate change. He brought the science of climate change to light in the halls of the Senate. Then, he and Senator Joel Lieberman crafted the first major, bipartisan climate change legislation--cap-and-trade legislation-- modeled after similar and successful legislation to curb pollution from acid rain. Senators McCain and Lieberman forced a vote on the floor of the Senate on their legislation in 2003. John began his speech on the floor in support of his bill, quoting from Hemingway's ``The Snows of Kilimanjaro": Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain 19,710 feet high, and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western summit is called . . . the House of God. John warned then, in 2003, all too presciently, that the snow on Kilimanjaro may someday be relegated to the realm of fiction. Some Senators who sit today voted on the McCain-Lieberman bill. The bill had a chance to succeed, but failed 43 to 55. Kilimanjaro's glaciers, in fact, have receded dramatically since that vote. The ice sheets depend on snowfall, which is affected by Indian Ocean currents. The Indian Ocean's warming, due to climate change, has changed moisture delivery to Kilimanjaro, and Hemingway's snow is disappearing. Congress has had a few more bipartisan efforts at addressing climate change, including my own cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives with Republican Representative Tom Petri. But after the McCain-Lieberman bill and those efforts failed, we turned to the Obama administration to take on climate change in earnest. The Obama administration passed the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from powerplants and put the brakes on new coal-fired powerplants; passed regulations to control methane, a super potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas operations; and joined with 190 countries in executing the Paris Agreement. All of these initiatives are now under assault by the Trump administration and industry. The United States is alone as the only country in the world that walked away from the Paris Accord. Turning our backs on climate change means ignoring the national security threat it represents. Large groups of displaced people and scarce resources create conflict. The U.S. military--especially the Navy--recognizes the threat. That is why they created the MEDEA Program in the early 1990s to analyze the security threats of climate change, and that is one reason John McCain once worked toward a bipartisan solution to climate change. Neither party can claim they have done enough to tackle global warming, but climate action demands that Republicans step up as Senator McCain once did. The destruction to property and lives wrought by global warming does not distinguish between parties. This is a bipartisan problem that demands bipartisan solutions, and demands them now. The West is right in the bull's-eye of climate change, but the West has great potential to be part of the solution. The West's potential to generate renewable clean energy through solar, wind, and geothermal is immense. New Mexico, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada have some of the highest potential for solar generation in the country, and virtually all the Western States have immense potential for geothermal power. We should be harnessing this potential, creating sustainable jobs, and growing our rural Western economies and industries that are the future--industries that will help tackle the greatest challenge humanity faces. The American people want Congress to meet the challenges of climate change. They want to protect future generations, their children, and their grandchildren. We can do this, but we must do it now. And we must, as our late and very great colleague from Arizona urged us, do this on a bipartisan basis. Let all of us show the courage, resolve, and independence of John McCain and do right by today's generation and future generations. Let us all commit to doing what it takes to reduce our carbon emissions, to meet the goals of the world of nations, to increase renewable energy to its fullest potential, and, most importantly, to do right by our children, our grandchildren, and beyond. I yield the floor. Remembering John McCain

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Olubukola Adebayo and Christina Youn, congressional fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.