Tom Udall

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you very much for the recognition. I say to Chairman Murkowski, thank you for those very kind words. It is, once again, always a pleasure to say we have worked with each other. I know there are issues sometimes we disagree on, but we listen to each other, we work through the issues, and we always come back to try to reach a financial result, and I think that is what the American people and what Alaskans and New Mexicans want us to do. As the ranking member of the Interior Department's Appropriations subcommittee, I thank my colleagues for being part of a remarkable process on the floor this last week, and I want to again thank my chairman, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and commend her for managing the bill in the way she has managed it and the leadership she has shown in this. I am particularly proud that we have moved this bill without the addition of contentious authorizing matters or poison pills, which is quite an accomplishment. What we really want is the appropriations process to work the way it has worked and let the authorizing process work. Senator Murkowski has been involved in both of those things-- authorizing and appropriations--as I have been. Unfortunately, there are still some poison pill riders in the House bill. By voting to send the Senate Interior bill to the conference without adding controversial items, we are, as a body, telling the House we will reject these poison pills once again. That message is important because the funding in this bill is critical to meet wildland firefighting needs, it is important for supporting National Parks and Public Lands, and to continue the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We need to pass a final bill to fund the Environmental Protection Agency, support arts and cultural institutions, and meet our Nation's trust and treaty responsibilities with our Nation's Tribes. As Senator Murkowski well knows, she has a very large number of Tribes in Alaska, and I have a significant number of Tribes in New Mexico. We try to work very closely on those Tribal issues to see that Tribes are included, and we take care of those consultation, government-to-government, sovereignty issues. There are other important issues to work through, including a proposal by the Department of the Interior to begin a major reorganization of the agency. Last week, the Department notified the subcommittee it plans to move forward during this fiscal year with efforts to change its regional boundaries, with more changes expected in fiscal year 2019. While this request is only the first step, I want to note that I have been asking Secretary Zinke for months for information about the Department's plans, and I have yet to get answers to my questions. We have submitted very specific questions to him; we haven't gotten answers. I hope Chairman Murkowski will work with me to ensure that no changes are made without bipartisan agreement from Congress, Tribes, States, and stakeholders. This is one of the many issues this subcommittee has on our very full plate as we move to reconcile the House and Senate Interior bills. I hope to be back on the floor of the Senate very soon with a conference report we can pass with broad support. As I conclude, I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for providing outstanding leadership through this process. We wouldn't be here without the excellent work of the Appropriations full committee staff, including Shannon Hines, Chuck Kieffer, and Chanda Betourney, as well as my own subcommittee staff, Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, and Melissa Zimmerman, and the excellent majority staff as well, led by Leif Fonnesbeck. I would also like to thank Senator Merkley, who serves on the Appropriations Committee with me, and I believe on my subcommittee, for his courtesies today to allow us to appear, talking to each other and having a colloquy. Let me also say that Senator Merkley is a very important member of the Appropriations Committee. He stands up for all of these issues I talked about, and I thank him so much for that. Mr. President, again I want to thank my colleagues for being part of a remarkable collaborative process on the Interior appropriations bill, as well as the other appropriations bills we have had on the floor this past week. I believe that with the amendments we have voted on and included, we have improved this bill and made it a stronger, bipartisan product. I want to, again, thank my Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and commend her and her very fine staff for managing this bill on the floor, and for working with me throughout the appropriations process. I want to remind everyone that this bill came out of Committee on an affirmative vote of 31 to zero. I hope that it receives the same unanimous support when we pass it here in a short while. While I believe this goes for all four bills, the Interior bill is filled with bipartisan priorities that all sides can and should support. I can't emphasize enough just how important the funding in this bill is for my home State of New Mexico and for so many States across the West. Given how important this bill is, I am particularly proud that we have done all this without the addition of contentious authorizing matters or poison pill riders. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the House have not followed suit. There are nearly three dozen riders in the House-passed bill, the majority of which are outright poison pills. For the most part, we have seen iterations of them over the last 8 years. By voting to send the Senate appropriations bill to conference without adding controversial items, we are, as a body, telling the House that we will reject these poison pill riders once again. So I look forward to having the opportunity to conference this bill and to work to pass a clean appropriations bill on a bipartisan basis. After all, we have so many important issues that we need to address, and we especially want to address them by the beginning of the fiscal year. We must ensure that firefighting needs are met. We must work to pass a bill that supports the core work that the Environmental Protection Agency does to protect human health and the environment. We must work to meet our Nation's trust and treaty responsibilities by increasing funding for Tribal priorities, including healthcare, education, public safety, and social services. We must fund our national parks and other public lands, protect our treasured landscapes through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and ensure that our Nation's arts and cultural institutions are supported with strong funding levels. Finally, we must work through other important issues--including a proposal by the Department of the Interior to begin a major reorganization of the agency. Last week, the Department notified the subcommittee that it plans to move forward with efforts to change the regional boundaries of its bureaus as part of a multiyear effort to reorganize the agency this fiscal year, starting in late August. Our subcommittee is now reviewing the Department's request through its reprogramming process, which allows us 30 days to review and approve reprogramming proposals. I am cognizant that this request sets the stage for the Department to make other changes to agency operations as proposed in its fiscal year 2019 budget. I have been asking Secretary Zinke for months for more information-- basic information--about the Department's plans and how the reorganization will affect work on the ground with States, Tribes, and other partners. I want to know what happens to the Federal jobs that are currently located in New Mexico and other Western States. So far, I have yet to get answers to my questions, and I have real concerns that the Department is intent to move forward with this first step before the agency has completed Tribal consultations, or fully answered the questions of states, Tribes, and Stakeholders about the big picture. My questions are the same I would ask any administration: What is the cost-benefit analysis? Who will be moved and where? What are expected impacts to services? And what will the new structure and organizational chart be? I hope my Chairman, Senator Murkowski, will work with me as we try to get answers during the conference process and will work with me to ensure that no organizational changes are made without a clear plan and without bipartisan agreement from Congress. This is one of the many issues that this subcommittee has on our very full plate as we go about reconciling the House and Senate Interior bills, but I hope to be back here on the floor of the Senate very soon with a conference report we can pass with broad support. As I conclude, I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for providing outstanding leadership that has culminated in this bill being ready for the Senate today. Passage of this bill is quite an achievement. We wouldn't be here without the hard work of the full committee staff members, led by staff director Shannon Hines for the majority, and the lead staffers for the minority, staff director Chuck Kieffer and deputy staff director Chanda Betourney. I want to again highlight the excellent work of the staff members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, whom I have already thanked in the record. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Merkley.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the late Las Cruces City councilor Olga Pedroza, a champion for justice. Ms. Pedroza passed away February 9, 2018, in Las Cruces, NM. Ms. Pedroza was born in a small town in Mexico, San Luis Ayucan, on September 28, 1942. Her parents Celia and Jesus came to Chicago in the 1940s, where she attended Catholic school for elementary through high school. She graduated from Mundelein College in 1963 with a bachelor's degree in sociology and minors in elementary education and theology. Ms. Pedroza then set off and worked on behalf of her community the rest of her life. She worked as a teacher for many years and, in 1980, moved to New Mexico with her then-husband and three children. By then, she had earned a master's in education. Ms. Pedroza decided she wanted to use the law to promote her social justice goals. She entered the University of New Mexico Law School and graduated in 1985, in her early 40s. Ms. Pedroza began working for Centro Legal Campesino, the legal aid farmer worker unit, in Las Cruces in 1990. She was there over 15 years, primarily as the managing attorney. During that time, she filed over 50 Federal lawsuits representing farmworkers in their fight for fair wages and other rights. Ms. Pedroza began her third career in 2009 when she was elected to the Las Cruces City Council District 3 seat, which covers central and southeast Las Cruces. Ms. Pedroza believed in change and often said, ``City Council could be a place to start.'' She served two terms before retiring. During her tenure, she fought for a living-wage ordinance and always prioritized the needs of those overlooked by society. Among other community needs, she advocated for community gardens and improved tennis facilities. Ms. Pedroza was a great tennis enthusiast and even competed in the Senior Olympics. She was active in the community, serving on the board of directors of the Women's Intercultural Center in Anthony, as cochair of the local women's bar association, and on the board of the court appointed special advocates. Ms. Pedroza worked throughout her life to change the world for the better. Her compassion, warmth, and sense of humor will be missed by her children, grandchildren, and community. I honor her work and unflagging commitment to social justice.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3414, as modified with the changes that are at the desk.

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Heinrich for being down here and talking about what this really means. I know Senator Moran is also on the floor. Amtrak is designed to connect our communities. Whether we live in Raton, NM, Dodge City, KS, or Los Angeles, CA, it connects our communities. I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friends from Kansas and Colorado because the Southwest Chief connects our communities, and we will continue to work together to support this national service. There is no doubt we will have a strong bipartisan vote to support our long-distance rail lines. If Amtrak thinks that replacing railcars with buses will solve its problems, well, that is no way to run a railroad. I hope Amtrak's leadership appreciates that we will not back down in our support of our rail network and that we can work together to find solutions to their problems. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to honor the first Tribal college established in the United States, Dine College, on its 50th anniversary. The college was founded in 1968 by the Navajo Nation as Navajo Community College. That year marked the centennial anniversary of the Treaty of 1868 in which the Navajo people negotiated return of their homeland after their forced relocation by the U.S. government on the brutal ``Long Walk'' to Fort Sumner, NM. In Fort Sumner, they had endured inhumane conditions for 5 years, and many had perished. The treaty was an important historical milestone, but it also contained certain harsh terms, requiring the Navajo people to send their children to government and missionary schools where they were forced to abandon their cultural practices and identity. This tragic and brutal practice by the U.S. Government threatened the survival of Navajo and other Native American languages and cultures. Our Nation finally moved away from forced assimilation by the middle of the last century, and the Navajo Nation took a historic step toward educational self-determination when it established Navajo Community College. As the first tribally chartered and operated postsecondary institution, Navajo Community College's educational philosophy was grounded in Navajo cultural traditions. Its mission was to support the social and economic development of the Tribe. In 1976, the college was the first Tribal 2-year institution to receive accreditation. In 1998, it awarded its first baccalaureate degrees under the Dine Teacher Education Program. In 1994, Navajo Community College joined 29 other Tribal colleges to become a Land Grant Institution under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act. In 1997, the board of regents changed its name to Dine College. The college's educational principles are based on Sa'ah Naaghai Bik'eh Hozhoon--the Dine traditional living system--which places human life in harmony with the natural world and universe. Four principles undergird the education: Nitsahakees or thinking, Nahat'a or planning, Iina or living, and Sihasin or assuring. Culturally relevant education makes a tremendous difference for Native students. The kids are engaged. They stay in school. They gain access to opportunities that otherwise might be out of reach. Dine College's curriculum is replete with Navajo language and culture classes. It awards certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor degrees in a wide range of fields, from fine arts to environment science to business administration to elementary and secondary education, and many more. With approximately 1,300 students, Dine College is one of the largest Tribal colleges in the United States. The school's six campuses serve the 27,000-square-mile Navajo Reservation. Importantly, Dine College has played a critical role revitalizing Navajo culture and language, preparing thousands of young adults to contribute to their communities, States, Tribe, and the U.S. as a whole. Dine College's legacy, however, reaches far beyond its own students. What was once an unassuming community college--with an entering population of 309 students--ignited a nationwide movement of Tribes founding their own colleges and universities. The network of Tribal colleges and universities built up over the last half century has made significant progress helping Native students break down barriers. Today, 36 Tribal colleges and universities all across the Nation educate tens of thousands of Native students. These institutions have been instrumental in attracting and keeping Native students in college and helping students maintain and grow ties with their cultures, languages, and traditional values. I extend my whole-hearted congratulations to Dine College on its 50th anniversary. I thank the college and Navajo Nation for all the good they have accomplished over the years, and I wish them the absolute best in their next five decades.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to honor George B. Willie, Sr., one of our last surviving Navajo code talkers, who passed away at age 92 on December 5, 2017. Mr. Willie was a humble man who never bragged and rarely talked about his uncommon feat. Mr. Willie was born near Sawmill, AZ. He was To Dich'iinii--Bitter Water--and born for Tabaaha--Near The Water Edge--and resided near Leupp when he passed away. Mr. Willie only had a seventh-grade education. He tried to enlist in 1941, but was too young. He was finally able to join the Marines 2 years later, when he was 17 years old. He served the Second Marine Division, 10th Battalion, from 1943 until 1946. As a marine, Mr. Willie was one of the 421 code talkers from the Navajo Nation. The original 29 Navajo code talkers developed a code based on their native language. At that time, there was no written language, and only about 30 persons outside of Tribal members understood Navajo. The code talkers were required to quickly and accurately translate and transmit messages about troop movements, tactics, and the like through telephone and radio. At first skeptical, military leaders quickly learned to appreciate their skill and tremendous value to the war effort. The Japanese never broke their code. While the Federal Government relied on the Navajo language for military success, back home, it continued the longstanding policy of forbidding Native students from speaking their languages at Federal boarding schools. Mr. Willie served in the Battle of Okinawa, one of the last and deadliest battles of the war. In June 1945, the Americans and the British Pacific Fleet took the island after 82 days of battle. It was their last stop before the planned attempt to take the Island of Japan, which was preempted when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6. After coming home, Mr. Willie married Emma Gean Willie, and they had 10 children. The code talker program was secret, and the code talkers were sworn not to tell anyone about their work. Even after the Federal Government declassified the program in 1968, Mr. Willie continued to honor his promise and did not tell family members he was a code talker until almost 30 years later. In 2001, Mr. Willie and his fellow code talkers were awarded the Silver Congressional Medal of Honor. Today I honor Mr. Willie, a true American hero.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Interior Department appropriations bill, which the Senate is currently debating. Before Senator Murkowski leaves the floor, I want to thank her so much. It has been such a pleasure working with her on this and doing it in a bipartisan way, and I am going to talk a little bit about the historic nature of this; that we have accomplished something that hasn't been done in 10 years. This is something I think we are both very proud of and that I think the Appropriations Committee members are very proud of. I begin by thanking her for the important work she has undertaken to ensure that this bill arrived on the Senate floor with strong bipartisan support. We all know the Interior bill is not an easy bill, and there is no doubt we faced contentious issues putting it together. It is extraordinary that working together under her leadership, we have produced a bill that was unanimously reported by the Appropriations Committee. I also recognize Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for clearing the path for us to bring this bill to the floor. Their shared commitment to reestablishing regular order for the Appropriations Committee is why the Interior bill is on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. For the first time in nearly a decade, I salute them as well on this. The bill funds the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs and provides resources for new healthcare facilities in schools for Tribes across the country that are working to improve health and education outcomes. This funding helps fulfill our trust and treaty responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This bill includes strong levels of funding for conservation programs that preserve and protect our Nation's most special places, including our public lands. It fully funds wildfire suppression needs, providing more than $2 billion to protect communities and natural resources in New Mexico and across the West. The Interior bill supports our Nation's arts and culture programs from national institutions here in Washington, from the Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center, and the National Gallery of Art to local arts and humanities and programs in small towns across the United States. This funding creates jobs and supports economic vitality in our communities. Over the last week, we have seen the administration claim that the legislation sent over by the House has too much funding for these and other priorities. I strongly disagree. It is Congress's responsibility to safeguard the environment, protect our air and water, fulfill our trust and treaty responsibilities, and conserve public lands the Federal Government holds on behalf of the American people. These responsibilities require a reliable stream of resources to carry that out. This Senate bill accomplishes those goals and, in doing so, remains faithful to the bipartisan budget agreement this Congress passed and the President signed early this year. We reject the shameful and inexcusable cuts proposed by the Trump administration to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and to most Federal land management agencies, cuts that would put our environment at risk and prevent us from providing core services to Tribal communities. In addition to rejecting these cuts, Senator Murkowski and I worked together to satisfy requests from our colleagues to increase funding levels where we could, given our allocation. We also followed the chairman and vice chairman's direction to keep out extraneous authorizing matters and any item considered a poison pill. We all know one Senator's poison pill is another Senator's antidote. We couldn't please everyone because the tough issues that have impeded this bill from floor consideration in the last decade have not gone away, but we did the best we could. Now, this bill is not perfect. It includes several troubling provisions rolling over from prior years, including provisions relating to the listing status of the sage grouse, the lead content of ammunition, biomass energy policy, and certain Clean Air Act exemptions. While I cannot endorse these provisions individually, they are ones we have carried previously to move this bill across the finish line. What the Appropriations Committee has brought to the full Senate is an Interior Department appropriations bill that is almost exclusively appropriations. I am proud that we propose for fiscal year 2020, proud that we propose for fiscal year 2019. In addition to the programs I have already highlighted, let me tell you about a few more accomplishments in this bill. This bill rejects the administration's elimination of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and instead provides $425 million equal to the enacted level. These funds will improve recreational access through our Federal lands, protect iconic landscapes, deliver grants to States and local governments to create and protect urban parks and open spaces, preserve the battlefields of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and give farmers and ranchers easements so they can steward their private lands in the face of development pressures. Rather than following the administration's misguided proposal to eliminate funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, this bill actually provides an increase of $2 million for each endowment, bringing the total to $155 million for each. I am particularly proud that these funds will expand arts and humanities programs, create jobs, and support cultural institutions in every State. The bill includes a 4-percent increase for the Indian Health Service and includes $10 million in new grant funds to help Tribes address opioid addiction and substance abuse challenges in Indian Country, as Chairman Murkowski talked about a little bit in her speech. This bill fully funds the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program to assist local governments to improve their schools and roads and pay for public safety and law enforcement. This bill maintains funding for the EPA at the fiscal year 2018- enacted level to protect our environment and public health. We have taken a strong position rejecting the devastating cuts the President has proposed for the third year in a row. Our bipartisan track record on EPA funding makes it loud and clear that such extreme proposals will continue to be viewed in Congress as dead on arrival. Now, I feel strongly that keeping EPA funding flat year after year is insufficient to meet the true needs of EPA's clean water programs, clean air programs, State and Tribal assistance grants, environmental enforcement, and a score of other critical public health and environmental programs. While I recognize the bill before us is a compromise, I will continue to pursue increased funding for these critical EPA programs in future years. I recognize there is always room for improvement, and I welcome all of our colleagues to speak with me or Chairman Murkowski if you have an idea on how to improve funding in this bill. As I conclude, I want to emphasize how tremendous it has been to work with Chairman Murkowski on this bipartisan bill. Even when we disagree, we have open discussions and listen to one another. That is the way Congress is supposed to work, and I am proud to be Senator Murkowski's partner on this bill. I look forward to working with our colleagues on this bill over this week so we can pass an interior appropriations bill that the American people can be proud of. As Chairman Murkowski talked about, we have had the assistance of a very able staff on both sides--on the minority side, headed up by Rachael Taylor. The whole staff on both sides is very capable and very able. My side was headed up by Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, Melissa Zimmerman, and Teri Curtin. Over on the majority side, we thank Leif Fonnesbeck, Emy Lesofski, Nona McCoy, Chris Tomassi, and LaShawnda Smith. They work night and day, and when we run into problems, as we know, they can be invaluable in helping us find the solutions to the problems we all face when we get into some of the contentious issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Teddy Draper, Sr.--a brave Navajo code talker and a beloved teacher who has helped keep the Navajo language alive. Mr. Draper was born in Canyon del Muerto--a beautiful and ancient canyon within the Canyon del Chelly National Monument--near Chinle, AZ. Mr. Draper was a longtime and popular Chinle resident and passed away December 14, 2017, at age 96. He was one of the last Navajo code talker survivors. As a young boy, Mr. Draper grew up speaking Navajo and helping his family raise cattle, sheep, and turkeys in Canyon del Muerto. He didn't attend school until age 14. ``I barely knew a word of English,'' he said. At that time, the reservation's U.S. Government-run boarding school in Fort Wingate, NM, punished students for speaking Navajo. Time after time, ``I had to kneel in the corner,'' he said, and he tried to run away. The Marines recruited Mr. Draper from high school to join the Navajo code talkers. He served in the Fifth Marine Division and fought at Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was a critically strategic battle for the Allies. The island served as a Japanese air base and safe haven for naval units, and the Allies wanted to secure it to support bombing missions and emergency air landings. During the first 2 days of the 36-day battle, six Navajo code talkers worked around the clock, sending and receiving more than 800 messages--all without error. According to Marine division signal officer Major Howard Connor, ``Were it not for the Navajo, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' During the battle, a bomb on Mount Suribachi killed two of his fellow soldiers and cost Mr. Draper most of his hearing. Atop that same mount, Mr. Draper radioed, on February 25, 1945, ``We have raised the flag; we have taken the hill.'' The ``first raising of the flag'' on Mount Suribachi is famously memorialized in a wartime photograph and by the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, VA. After the war, Mr. Draper volunteered for occupation duty, and became so fluent in Japanese that he served as an interpreter. Mr. Draper said, ``When I was going to boarding school, the U.S. government told us not to speak Navajo, but during the war, they wanted us to speak it!'' During combat, he determined that ``if I can get back to the reservation safely, I want to become a Navajo language teacher and educate young Navajos.'' That is exactly what he did. Mr. Draper dedicated himself to preserving the Navajo language--Dine bizaad-- teaching many years at Rough Rock Community High School. He lacked teaching materials, and so he created his own, producing a curriculum and two workbooks that continue to be the staple of many Navajo language classes today. Despite his loss of hearing from the war, Mr. Draper was not awarded the Purple Heart until 2004, after years of appeals. In 2001, he received the Congressional Silver Medal, along with other Navajo code talkers. In 2013, he received the Arizona Indian Living Treasures Award. Mr. Draper leaves 12 children, 57 grandchildren, and more than 20 great-grandchildren. Mr. Draper also leaves a remarkable legacy of commitment to country and community, and I honor his life today.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to honor David Earl Patterson, Sr., a man who gave selflessly to his family, the Navajo Nation, and his country. Mr. Patterson was born November 11, 1922. He was Tachil'nii--Red Running Into the Water People Clan, born for Kinlichii'nii--the Red House People Clan. He attended Catholic school in Shiprock NM, and remained a devout Catholic his entire life. Mr. Patterson entered the U.S. Marine Corps in 1943 and was one of about 400 Navajo code talkers trained on radio communications. He served in the Marshall Islands, the islets of Roi and Namur, the Kwajalein Atoll, Saipan, and Iwo Jima. Navajo code talkers played a critical role in the Battle of Iwo Jima. During the first 2 days of the battle, the marines had six Navajo code talkers who worked around the clock during the first 2 days of the battle. They sent and received over 800 messages, all without error. Their marine commander said later, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Mr. Patterson received an honorable discharge in 1945. Mr. Patterson was humble about his wartime contribution to our Nation and did not talk much about his World War II experience. The United States honored him and his fellow Navajo code talkers with the Congressional Silver Medal of Honor in 2001. After the war, Mr. Patterson married Marion Patterson, and they raised seven children. He was a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. He attended college in Oklahoma and New Mexico and became a social worker for the Navajo Nation until his retirement in 1987, working decades for the welfare of his people. Even after retirement, he served until 2012 as a foster parent in the Shiprock schools until 2012. Mr. Patterson was a passionate bowler, a baseball aficionado, and a bingo player. Bowling at every New Mexico bowling center was on his bucket list, and he found time to coach Little League Baseball and Softball in Shiprock. Mr. Patterson lived a full and generous life until his passing on October 8, 2017 at age 94. He was one of the last surviving Navajo code talkers. I am honored to pay tribute to Mr. Patterson, a family man and a hero who never stopped giving to his community and people.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Pedro Gonzalez--a brave World War II veteran who endured the Bataan Death March and 3\1/2\ years in captivity in the Philippines and in Japan. Mr. Gonzalez passed away January 6, 2018, at the age of 96. Mr. Gonzalez was born in Las Cruces, NM, and later moved to Los Lunas, where he graduated from high school. Shortly after graduation, in 1940, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps. He was assigned to the 19th Bombardment Group in the Philippines. On December 8, 1941--7 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor-- Japanese bombers attacked U.S. military stations in the Philippines. Mr. Gonzalez had learned earlier that they had attacked Hawaii, and, when he first heard planes that morning, he thought there were U.S. reinforcements. They were not. Mr. Gonzalez and American troops fought valiantly to defend the Philippines, but they ran low on ammunitions, supplies, food, and manpower and were forced to surrender in April 1942. Fifteen thousand Americans and 60,000 Filipinos were taken prisoner. These prisoners of war then began the 60-mile long Bataan Death March. Mr. Gonzalez was only 20 years old. He recalled they had ``no food, no water,'' that men were beaten and beheaded, and bodies were strewn in the road. During the march, one of his commanding officers told him, ``Pete, you keep that smile on your face and you're gonna make it back.'' During part of the journey, the men were hauled in box cars, packed as tight as could be. Mr. Gonzalez stood right at the edge of the door and survived, but it was said that five to six of the men in his boxcar died. Mr. Gonzalez suffered cerebral malaria, dengue, beriberi, shrapnel wounds, a broken back, a dislocated knee, and broken fingers but he survived the years of captivity. After he returned home, he was awarded a Silver Star for valor in combat and two Purple Hearts for his injuries. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Gonzalez during filming of a local Public Broadcasting Corporation documentary honoring the 70th anniversary of the Bataan fall. He was a gentle, soft-spoken man who was humble about the bravery and fortitude he exhibited during those harsh years. After the war, Mr. Gonzalez moved to Albuquerque, began a family, and worked at what was then called Sandia Base, which later merged with Kirtland Air Force Base. After, he worked for the Department of Defense as an inventory specialist for nuclear weapons and as a financial officer for different branches of the military, retiring in the 1980s. After retirement, he stayed involved with veterans' organizations and served as local commander of a chapter of former prisoners of war. Mr. Gonzalez is preceded in death by his wife and is survived by two sons and their spouses. Mr. Gonzalez is part of American and New Mexico history. He fought for his country and, through bravery, determination, and grit, survived the brutality of the Bataan Death March and captivity. I honor all that Pedro Gonzalez achieved and experienced to preserve international peace and stability.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, today, Justice Kennedy has announced he is retiring. I had some very strong disagreements with his rulings, especially on campaign finance reform, but I thank him for his service. He was a thoughtful Justice. I am very concerned with the process to replace him. The majority leader is trying to eliminate advice and consent from the process. We should wait until after the upcoming election. That will be a shorter time than Leader McConnell waited in 2016, the last election year. I am very concerned with the President's process. He is picking from an ideological list, with a history of personally attacking judges he disagrees with, while demanding loyalty from his appointees. At the same time, this administration is undermining due process across the board--along the border, for minority races or religions, for a woman's right to choose. The Constitution requires a real advice-and-consent process. The majority leader needs to ensure one. If the McConnell rule was in place in the 2016 election year, it should be in place for 2018. Given the President's attacks on due process and rule of law, we should let the people speak before we consider his next Supreme Court nominee. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the immigration crisis that this President has generated. The Nation has seen images of children trapped behind wire fencing and children sleeping on concrete floors. We have seen the tents hurriedly set up to house children separated from their parents. We have seen the video of Jessica, who doesn't know where her mother is and wants to talk to her. We have heard the audio of young children crying out for their mothers and fathers. We have heard the audio of a detention facility staff person telling the kids not to talk to the press, claiming it will hurt their immigration case. As of June 12, on American soil, over 100 babies under the age of 1 year are being held in detention by the American Government. We think this can't be happening in the United States of America, but it is. Last Friday, Senators Heinrich, Blumenthal, and I visited President Trump's tent city in Tornillo, TX, and we toured a Border Patrol station in Clint and El Paso and a port of entry in El Paso. We were turned away from Tornillo on Friday, so I went back Saturday and got inside to see the children. We all went to these government facilities to get answers, but we came up short. Most pressing, we still don't know when or how all the thousands of children taken from their parents will be reunited. We don't know how children whose parents have already been deported will be reunited. We have parents scared that they will never see their children again. The confusion, chaos, and incompetence with which the President's zero tolerance policy was executed is only outmatched by the confusion, chaos, and incompetence with which reunification is being handled. The immediate priority must be to get these children back to their parents as soon as possible. We know we are doing damage to these children every day that they are not with their families. We know this. Pediatric and mental health professionals all agree. The American Academy of Pediatrics condemned the administration because those doctors know that separating families can result in ``irreparable harm.'' That is a quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics-- ``irreparable harm'' to separated children. Last weekend, I saw children detained in the tents in Tornillo who were able to talk to their parents only twice a week for 10 minutes. I saw astounding young children--children 3 to 10 years old--who had crossed the border without their parents. I saw families from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, fleeing violence and persecution, locked in detention at Border Patrol. I met Jade Gabriela, who is not even 2, and her father, detained in El Paso, both of them trying to escape the brutality and gangs in Honduras. President Trump claims there is a border crisis, but communities on the border dispute this. I am a Senator from a border State, and I dispute this. I represent border communities, and I have been to the border many, many times recently and over the years. President Trump has not. He should come see for himself and see the humanitarian crisis he has created. Detention facilities for children are overwhelmed. We have heard from a whistleblower in New York that there is not enough staffing at her facility because of all the young children coming in. These internment camp-like facilities--as former First Lady Laura Bush has compared them to--are costing Americans and American taxpayers millions of dollars. The Tornillo tent city costs $400,000 every day. The President's poorly conceived Executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to set up even more family detention facilities on military bases. Zero tolerance has overwhelmed the U.S. attorney's offices on the border. Now, instead of prosecuting violent criminals for serious crimes, Federal prosecutors are wasting resources, focusing instead on criminally prosecuting mothers and fathers for misdemeanor improper- entry violations. There is a call to take military JAG lawyers away from their more important duties to handle the flood of immigration cases and recall prosecutors from their posts in Indian Country, where they are so sorely needed. All systems are bursting at the seams thanks to the President's made-up crisis, cruelty, and bureaucratic incompetence. As of today, there is no clear path forward to reunite families. There is no timeline. Tuesday, Secretary Azar of Health and Human Services admitted in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee that there is no timeline. The Department of Health and Human Services is prohibited under the Flores case from reuniting children with parents who are in detention. The President wants to keep zero tolerance in place and continue to prosecute and keep parents in detention with their children. Not only is this cruel and un-American, but I think the Federal judge in Flores is going to reject the President's request to allow children to be jailed with their parents longer than 20 days. The President has doubled down on zero tolerance. Like many of his policies that are hastily implemented and borne of his divisive agenda, there is no plan B if the court refuses, as it should, to allow children to be jailed with their parents. There is an obvious solution. Successful alternatives to detention have demonstrated compliance rates of 99 percent with court appearances and ICE appointments. These programs are both effective and cost a fraction of what it takes to detain families. Why doesn't the President use these programs and save taxpayers millions of dollars? Because he thinks it doesn't appear tough and takes away his bargaining chip of detained children that he thinks he can use to get his wall. In the President's rush to gain political traction, he has created a humanitarian and moral crisis within our own borders, the likes of which we have not seen since we interned families of Japanese heritage during World War II. I can tell you that I will not back down from this fight. More importantly, I can tell you that the American people and New Mexicans are with me. It is the voices of the American people that forced the President to retreat from his brutal family separation policy, and it is those voices that will prevail in the end. The administration is trying its hardest to hide what is going on from the American people, but the American people are demanding answers. We all must continue to speak out until we have policies in place that make sure families stay together, lawfully and humanely. We need alternatives to detention, and we need to stand up for due process. As Americans see images of separated children and family detention camps, they turn to Congress, and they turn to the judicial system as well. A Federal judge recently issued a ruling barring family detention and ordering reunification within 30 days, but the Trump administration may fight this ruling--just like they are fighting to overturn Flores, which came out of a Supreme Court case.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I will focus, as Senator Markey has and several of my colleagues before me, on this web of deceit we have been talking about here today--the Koch brothers' web of dark money, lobbyists, and infiltration into the Trump administration that truly threatens our democracy. The influence of their hundreds of millions of dollars is pervasive, pernicious, and hidden. I applaud Senator Whitehouse's work that focuses the public's attention on this threat. Thank you to my colleagues for shining a spotlight on the murky tentacles of the Koch influence empire here in Washington, especially its influence on the swamp that is the Trump administration. We must keep fighting for comprehensive campaign finance and electoral reform to get dark money like the Koch brothers' out of our politics. The Koch family business started in oil, and Koch Industries is still heavily invested in petroleum and petroleum products. Its subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, owns three oil refineries. The Koch Pipeline Company owns and operates 4,000 miles of pipeline that transports oil, refined petroleum, and natural gas throughout six States. Koch Industries is the largest foreign and American leaseholder in Canada's oil sands, possibly leasing up to 2 million acres. As well, each year, Koch Industries markets, trades, and manages logistics for tons of coal and petroleum coke. Koch Industries makes billions from oil, gas, and coal, and it is no secret it is willing to spend millions to keep it that way. Two organizations formed through the Koch brothers' vast wealth are the Institute for Energy Research and its lobbying arm, the American Energy Alliance. Both Koch-funded groups are anti-renewable, pro-fossil fuel, and climate change deniers. The Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization that was formed in 1989 from a predecessor directed by Charles Koch and Robert Bradley, Jr. Mr. Bradley led public policy for Enron before its scandal and bankruptcy. He founded the Institute and remains its CEO. He is also affiliated with the Koch-funded Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Alliance is the Institute's political arm, a 501(c)(4) organization, founded in 2008. The 501(c)(4)s are political organizations. They don't have to disclose their donors. They can engage in all sorts of politicking and lobbying, and they can spend unlimited amounts of money. The Alliance shares office space and staff--including a president--with the Institute. Their joint president is Thomas Pyle, who had previously lobbied for Koch Industries. They receive funding directly and not so directly from the Koch brothers. Since 2008, one or the other has received funding from the Charles Koch Institute, an anti-government group formed from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; Freedom Partners, called the Koch brothers' ``secret'' bank--a 501(c)(6) organization that gives tens of millions of dollars to extreme causes; the Wellspring Committee, Inc., funded with the Koch brothers' help; DonorsTrust, a pass-through organization for the Koch brothers and other ultrawealthy donors trying to hide contributions; and many other like-minded anti-renewable, pro-fossil fuel groups that the Koch brothers fund or are tied to. Between 2010 and 2014, the Institute and Alliance received more than $5 million in Koch-related funding. The Institute and Alliance are in the business of discrediting renewable energy, promoting fossil fuels, and denying climate science under the guise of providing independent analysis. Their staffs have appeared before State regulatory commissions giving ``expert'' testimony, claiming that renewable energy is too expensive and unreliable and that States should not increase their renewable portfolio requirements and that fossil fuels--even coal--are more economical. In 2013, for example, their director of regulatory and State affairs, Daniel Simmons, claimed in a Michigan regulatory hearing that the electricity rates of States with renewable requirements are 27 percent higher than States without a renewable standard. That same year, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the incremental rate of renewable portfolio standards was 2 percent, and a report by the Michigan Public Service Commission found that the cost of renewable sources is declining and is cheaper than the new coal-fired generation. Also in 2013, Mr. Simmons attacked a Federal clean energy standard bill introduced by my fellow New Mexican, Senator Jeff Bingaman, which I cosponsored. Mr. Simmons had the audacity to claim that carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants should not be counted as pollutants, arguing ``that carbon dioxide itself is not dirty.'' Mr. Simmons' cynical attack on climate science is frightening. In 2015, the Alliance called on Congress to eliminate the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. The office's mission is to support transitioning to ``a global clean energy economy,'' something that we know is supported by many, many people. That year, both Koch brothers' organizations received $3 million from the web of Koch donors. Although the Institute and Alliance were fringe, the Trump administration placed their staff in key energy positions, beginning with appointing their president to lead the energy transition team. Before that appointment, Mr. Pyle had sent a fundraising letter touting the new administration's positions. He predicted the Trump administration would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, repeal the Clean Power Plan, move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline, increase oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, lift the moratorium on coal leasing on Federal lands, and turn back protection of our rivers and streams--among other initiatives. Mr. Pyle's policy predictions have sadly come to pass. My home State of New Mexico is right in the bull's-eye of climate change. Snowpack was at a low point this year. Parts of the Rio Grande are dry. We have a methane cloud in the Four Corners area the size of Delaware. Pressing ``stop'' on tackling climate change hurts New Mexicans. Meanwhile, Institute/Alliance staff landed three plum positions within the Department of Energy. Last May, Mr. Simmons, whom we have already heard about, was actually placed to lead the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy--the same office the Alliance advocated to eliminate. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop. An Institute/Alliance policy analyst, Alex Fitzsimmons, was also placed in the same office as a senior adviser. He has steadily beat the Koch brothers' drum against wind and solar energy, writing numerous articles about their alleged unreliability and high costs. How can he possibly contribute to the office's mission of transitioning to a clean energy economy? Predictably, the President proposed slashing the office's budget for 2018 by 69 percent. Congress did not do his bidding. He now seeks to cut over 70 percent of its budget in 2019, including fully eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. According to DOE, since 2010, New Mexico has received $10.4 million from these two programs. These investments resulted in weatherizing 1,300 homes, creating or retaining 340 jobs, training 19,500 New Mexicans in energy efficiency, and retrofitting 240,000 square feet of building space. These two programs aid my State in the global battle against climate change and should not be on the chopping block. Another Institute/Alliance policy analyst, Travis Fisher, was tapped by DOE to oversee an evaluation on whether renewables are hurting coal and nuclear power and increasing grid unreliability. Mr. Fisher had also authored many pieces on the evils of renewables--even calling clean energy policies ``the single greatest emerging threat'' to the power grid. There was wide concern the report would be politically skewed. However, a draft of the report, prepared by an independent contractor and DOE career staff, got out. That draft concluded renewable energy had not decreased grid reliability. The final report then concluded the same. Mr. Fisher has since left DOE. The good news is that the American people continue to support renewable energy. A Pew Research Center poll found 83 percent of Americans think expanding renewables is a ``top'' or ``important'' national priority. Wind and solar are expanding exponentially and their costs have decreased dramatically. Twenty-nine States, Washington, DC, and three territories have renewable portfolio standards, and eight States and one territory have renewable goals. A clean energy economy is the future, but the Trump administration is fighting against the tide. Before the Trump administration, the Institute and Alliance were small fringe organizations promoted by the Koch brothers' web of secret organizations and veiled allies. They now sit at the center of our government. At the bottom of the Koch labyrinth of 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(6)s, and their wealth of accomplices is their ability to hide their contributions and actions from public view. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision cloaks these networks under the guise of the First Amendment. Citizens United has damaged our democracy by allowing unlimited campaign contributions, PACs, and nonprofit organizations to secretly influence government decisions at the highest levels. I have been fighting to overturn Citizens United and for Congress to enact campaign finance reform for years now. My constitutional amendment would not only overturn Citizens United but all the previous bad decisions going back to Buckley v. Valeo. It would end the misguided belief that spending money to elect politicians is the same thing as free speech--a belief that gives the Koch brothers a lot more speech than the average American. Last fall, I reintroduced the We the People Democracy Reform Act, which would enact comprehensive electoral reform. The dark influence of the Koch brothers in this administration only underscores the pressing need for this legislation to right our democracy and restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our political system. I yield the floor.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer for the recognition. Madam President, I rise today as the ranking member on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. In our parlance on the committee, it is called the vice chair. Normally, our committee is very bipartisan. It was not so in this case today. In the debate, it was mentioned that this was a negotiated package. It was not. I was not asked for input as the vice chair of the committee. Nothing about this bill sent over from the House was negotiated with me. For the first time in 10 years, this body has just considered a bill from the Committee on Indian Affairs using a cloture filing and valuable floor time. Let me repeat that. For the first time in 10 years, this Chamber just debated an Indian Affairs bill using valuable floor time and not unanimous consent. For a Senate majority, floor time and cloture filings are the coin of the realm, and this is the first time in 10 years that it is being spent on a Tribal issue. Over this decade, during which both Democrats and Republicans have held a majority, Indian Country has seen its priorities sidelined. Important legislation that touches the lives of Native veterans, Native families, and Native communities--from Maine to Hawaii, from Florida to Alaska--makes it out of the Indian Affairs Committee only to die waiting on the Senate legislative calendar, often due to objections by one or a small handful of Senators--legislation, for example, like the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act, the Esther Martinez Native Languages Preservation Act, the PROGRESS for Indian Tribes Act, and the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2017. These are all broadly supported bipartisan bills that have gotten stuck in the legislative process for 5, 10, or even 15 years--all broadly supported bipartisan bills that Indian Country needs. They address pressing issues like homelessness, language loss, and economic development, and all of these broadly supported bipartisan bills are central to fulfilling our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities. My colleague, the senior Senator from Montana, tells the same story about his fight to gain Federal recognition for the Little Shell Tribe. This legislation is important to Montanans and Tribes he represents. This bill has been fighting for a day on the floor since 2008. My distinguished colleagues from Washington first took up the fight to get the Spokane Tribe settlement act signed into law back in 2003. I am honored to work with so many colleagues who dedicate themselves each and every day to fighting for Indian Country. But we can't do that if Indian Affairs legislation is not given equal weight to other bills. It is shameful that this full body does not consider and resolve these and other important issues facing Indian Country. It is shameful that when the Senate gives Indian Country its first shot in 10 years, Republicans closed the debate to prevent consideration of other pressing pieces of Indian Affairs legislation. I am amazed that there will be no time for amendments, that there will be no time for this body to do what it is supposed to do--deliberate, deliberate. That is what we are supposed to do here. Instead, the majority leader limits consideration to one issue, chosen specifically to amplify partisan rancor. We should be working together for Indian Country. The majority isn't doing that. It is using a wedge issue to pit people against each other in an attempt to score political points. When Republicans were in the minority, Senator McConnell lamented the lack of debate. He complained that legislation was ``dropped on the floor with little or no opportunities for members to participate in the amendment process, virtually guaranteeing a fight.'' As the majority leader said, simply and eloquently: Bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated. . . . This is the Senate. . . . Let the Senate work its will, and that means bringing bills to the floor. It means having a free and open amendment process. That is legislating. I couldn't agree more. We came here to craft legislation. We came here to take tough votes. That process may take more time, more work, and more cooperation, but it would lead to better outcomes for everyone, and, most importantly in this case, it would lead to better outcomes for Indian Country. Let there be no mistake. Indian Country loses when we give in to partisan rancor. We have seen this play out before. When the trillion- dollar tax cut was rammed through this Chamber without any input from my Democratic colleagues, what happened? Indian Country and Indian Tribes were entirely left out in the cold. There was not a single provision for Indian Tribes in a trillion-dollar package. On the other hand, we know what happens when bipartisanship prevails. Senator Murkowski, my chairman on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I were able to deliver big wins for Indian Country in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. We increased funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $204 million, and we increased funding for the Indian health programs by another $500 million--that is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars--because Democrats and Republicans decided it was better to work for Indian Country instead of against each other. As anyone in Indian Country will tell you, Indian affairs issues transcend partisan politics. Native policy issues go to the core of the trust responsibility, to the government-to-government relationships enshrined in our Constitution and countless treaties. Sadly, that is not true today. I wanted a better deal for Indian Country. Indian Country had to wait 10 years for today's vote. We should have had a full opportunity to bring other issues onto the table and to be added onto the bill in the form of amendments. Housing, public safety, self-determination, and self-governance are equally deserving of the Senate's consideration. We could have considered legislation that would do more to unite us than divide us, like the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act, which expired in 2013. This important program benefits Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives. In my home State of New Mexico, as in most of Indian Country, NAHASDA is the primary source of funding for Tribal housing needs and development. For instance, in Isleta Pueblo, 44 percent of households are low-income. Without NAHASDA funding, the Pueblo would be unable to address this crippling need. Reauthorizing NAHASDA would provide Tribes like Isleta the certainty they require to meet current and future housing needs. Instead, we only voted on one Tribal priority, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. I voted yes on cloture. As a longtime advocate for Indian Country, I understand and respect how integral Tribal sovereignty is to Tribal governance, and I am and always will be an unwavering supporter of Tribal sovereignty. I am also a supporter of strong labor protections and the working families they protect in New Mexico and around the country. I support collective bargaining and am against right-to-work laws that are being pushed around the country. The tough issue here is that for decades Tribes were treated as States and local governments and not subject to the National Labor Relations Board. Recent Board and court decisions have changed that in some parts of the country but not others, resulting in a patchwork of regulations. The previous administration proposed a compromise approach, but neither side embraced it. I hope that changes. But no matter the outcome today, I will continue to fight for Indian Country and seek new opportunities to enact longstanding Tribal legislative priorities. I close with past advice from my colleague, the majority leader: ``If you want fewer fights, give the other side a say.'' I couldn't agree more, and I urge the majority leader to give us and Indian Country a say.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a little bit about Scott Pruitt and his administration over at the EPA as well as the current pending nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Administrator. The Environmental Protection Agency is in crisis. Scott Pruitt has thrown the Agency into turmoil by gutting its mission to protect public health and the environment and by violating ethics and the taxpayers' trust. I believe Scott Pruitt must resign. Many of our colleagues have said the same. Even the President is questioning whether Mr. Pruitt should stay, and that is exactly why I am concerned that the Senate is not giving the Deputy Administrator nominee the scrutiny he should have. Andrew Wheeler could become the EPA Administrator if Scott Pruitt is forced out or resigns. He should be vetted as if he were the nominee--and there are many reasons to question whether he belongs at the EPA at all. Just like Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Wheeler has spent his entire political career fighting EPA regulations that protect the environment and protect public health. He has lobbied for many years on behalf of polluters that the EPA regulates. The American people support clean air and clean water. Mr. Wheeler is out of step with the values and principles of the American taxpayers. I know many Republicans who support environmental protection. We have had many decades of bipartisan support for public health, environmental protection, clean air, and clean water. Folks don't want their kids to have toxic chemicals in their blood or in their bodies. So there is a lot of support by Republicans in this area, and it has been a bipartisan issue. I call on my Republican friends to press the pause button on Andrew Wheeler's nomination to be Deputy Administrator of the EPA. Let us join together and demand that the President withdraw this nomination and nominate someone who supports the basic mission of the EPA. It is absolutely clear that Administrator Pruitt does not support the mission of the EPA. In fact, as State Attorney General, he prided himself in fighting everything EPA was doing and filing a number of lawsuits against the EPA. We need a person at EPA who respects science and understands that climate change is here and now and must be addressed for the sake of our children and grandchildren, a person who is not hostile to environmental regulation in all forms, and a person who is not beholden to special interests. We are supposed to act as a check on the executive, so let's do our job. When I mention climate change, one of the very first things that Administrator Pruitt did when he got in was sabotage a climate change website. That website had been in place for 10 years. It had been bipartisan through several administrations. They were accumulating the best knowledge from scientists in this country and the best knowledge from scientists around the world to make it available to the public and to make it available to scientists and their researchers. When I asked Administrator Pruitt in front of the Appropriations subcommittee, ``Now, you have taken this website down. When are you going to put it back up,'' he said: ``Oh, we are just updating it. We are just updating it,'' and we continue to ask the EPA. Now, we are almost a year later--1 year later--and Scott Pruitt still refuses to put the website back up. So we really know where he is coming from on that issue. When Scott Pruitt came before the Senate for confirmation, I voted against him because I expected he would work to undermine environmental health and protections. Mr. Pruitt has met and far exceeded my worst expectations. He lobbied the President to leave the Paris Agreement. The United States is now the only country in the world that is not a signatory to the Paris Agreement. Mr. Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, our Nation's best effort to attack climate change. It is an important public health measure too. The EPA estimated that the Clean Power Plan could prevent 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. Mr. Pruitt stopped a ban on chlorpyrifos, a dangerous neurotoxic pesticide that EPA's own scientists say should be off the market because it is linked to brain damage in young children. Chlorpyrifos is an example where scientists--and this is what the EPA does--consult with scientists outside the Agency, study within the Agency, and try to come to conclusions with regard to public health. In the case of chlorpyrifos, scientists were increasingly questioning whether it should be out there as a pesticide, so they were restricting its use in homes, they were restricting its use near schools, and finally they decided this is such a dangerous neurotoxin and we should ban it outright. So all the work had been done over 30 years. Then, here it is, presented to the incoming Administrator--I would bet any other Administrator in the history of our country would have looked at the information, would have looked at what the science said, and they would have banned the chemical. What has Scott Pruitt done? Well, what he has done is, he has said we are going to take a look at it for another 5 years. That is what he posted on his website. There is no evidence that they are doing any review or anything. There is no evidence that chlorpyrifos isn't dangerous and should be banned, but that is the record he has at the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also tried to suspend methane and smog regulations on oil and gas wells. He tried to roll back mercury pollution rules for powerplants, and he wants to delay rules to protect against pesticide exposure and formaldehyde emissions. It is absolutely clear, Mr. Pruitt's actions have not respected the rule of law and, fortunately, they have been blocked by the courts. Now, Mr. Wheeler's environmental record is not much better. It gives no confidence that he will put health and safety first. Mr. Wheeler has called the Paris climate agreement a ``sweetheart deal'' for China. He has fought limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He is a longtime lobbyist for Murray Energy Corporation--one of the dirtiest coal companies in the country--which also has a terrible safety record. Murray Energy is the largest privately held coal company in the Nation. That raises big questions about conflicts of interest. The EPA is now moving to repeal the Clean Power Plan. It would be a big win for Big Coal at the expense of the American people. Mr. Wheeler opposed reducing poisonous mercury emissions from powerplants--regulations Scott Pruitt wants to gut. In fact, I don't see anything in Mr. Wheeler's background that indicates he will act as our Nation's top environmental protector. When Mr. Pruitt was confirmed, we knew he had no problem bending ethics rules. His claim to fame in Oklahoma was currying favor with moneyed interests and doing their bidding, but the number and extent of Mr. Pruitt's ethical lapses might surprise even the most cynical. The list of abuses grows daily: lavish first-class flights around the world; swanky hotel stays; billing the taxpayers for his personal trips home to Oklahoma; a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office; taking 30 EPA enforcement officers away from investigating polluters to serve as his round-the-clock personal security detail--something no other EPA Administrator has done; speeding down the streets of Washington with sirens and lights blaring to get to fancy restaurants; huge, unauthorized salary increases for his friends; and he even allowed a close aide to just not come to work for 3 months while still getting paid by the taxpayers; detailing EPA staff to find him a place to live. While he siphons hundreds of thousands of dollars off the taxpayers for special perks for himself, he tries to slash millions of dollars for health and safety programs for the American people. Even his own staff has balked at his extravagances, and the Administrator has met their resistance by retaliating against them, changing their duties, sidelining them. Mr. Pruitt has treated the EPA like his own little personal fiefdom, and EPA employees are like serfs who cater to his whims. Former EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, Christine Todd Whitman, recently called his spending ``absolutely ridiculous.'' That is what Christine Todd Whitman said, ``absolutely ridiculous.'' She charged that his conduct is part of ``an extraordinarily ethically tone deaf administration.'' It is time for Scott Pruitt's imperial tenure to end. It is time for him to resign and high time for the President to stop defending him and to demand his resignation. But Mr. Pruitt should not be replaced by someone who does not support the basic mission of the Agency--to protect the environment and public health. That is what the EPA Administrator should be focused on; it is absolutely clear. The EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, a Nixon appointee, has sounded warnings about what is going on at the EPA. He said: ``My principal concern is that Pruitt and the people he's hired to work with him don't fundamentally agree with the mission of the agency.'' The American people value that mission. They want clean air and clean water. They want the health of their children and our seniors protected. It is our responsibility to make sure the EPA protects the American people. I urge my friends and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do our job--to put the nomination of Andrew Wheeler on hold and to work together to demand that the President nominate a Deputy Administrator who will have the trust and confidence of the American people and to work to keep their air and water clean and their families safe and healthy. There are a couple of articles that I think show what has been happening over at the EPA. This article says that ``nearly a year into the Trump administration, mentions of climate change have been systemically removed, altered or played down on websites across the federal government.'' As I said earlier, they have taken down this huge, bipartisan project that was in place for 10 years, gotten rid of it and claim they are updating it, but they haven't done anything after a year. The article goes on to quote a report by Environmental Data & Governance Initiative: ``Removing information regarding climate from federal websites does not affect the reality of climate change, but may serve to obfuscate the subject and inject doubt regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the January 10, 2018, article by the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. A September 27, 2017, article by Reuters with regard to EPA workforce reductions describes EPA's workforce declining to levels not seen in decades. The article says: In June, the EPA unveiled a buyout program that would contribute to the biggest cuts of any federal agency in President Donald Trump's 2018 proposal. The EPA employs about 15,000 people. After buyouts and retirements, that number could drop to 14,428 by October, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said in an email. That would be below the fiscal 1988 level, when EPA staffing was 14,440, the official noted. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 27, 2017, article by Reuters with regard to EPA workforce reductions be printed in the Record.

Mr. UDALL. So here we have an attempt by Administrator Pruitt to emasculate the Agency by chasing off some of the best and brightest scientists, buying out people, doing everything he can to intimidate people to leave the Agency, and we are at a point in time where we have a staffing level equivalent to 1988. This is the Agency that protects our water and our air, makes sure the water and air are clean, and protects our children from toxic chemicals. This is a pretty remarkable record. I ask my Republican colleagues to reconsider the Wheeler nomination, to put a hold on it, to have the proper vetting, and let's find the kind of individual who is going to respect the mission of the Agency and move us forward in the direction of public health, protecting the environment and our air and water. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

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

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last Wednesday, in Arizona, at the Grand Canyon, a number of us gathered to honor Mo Udall and John McCain and their friendship and partnership, which made America a lot better. For months, John was looking forward to this gathering. He mentioned it to me several times last year. He was very excited. You could kind of see the sparkle in his eyes, but he was unable to attend because of the battle he is fighting. Looking back, the friendship between Mo and John was remarkable--how different they were but how well they got along. In 1982, Arizona could not have elected two more different Members to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mo Udall was elected to a 12th term. A third-generation Arizonan, Mo was a tall, lanky, Lincolnesque, one- eyed Mormon who tried to cheat his way into serving in World War II; self-effacing and humorous, a liberal Democrat in a conservative State who championed the environment and Native Americans and one of the most powerful and respected Members of the House, who chaired the Interior Committee critical to Arizona's welfare. And John McCain, an easterner and newcomer to Phoenix, having arrived only 2 years before running for Congress; a carpetbagger, some said; a stocky, handsome son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals who easily made his way into the U.S. Naval Academy, only to graduate 894 out of 899 in his class, due to his extreme rebelliousness. John is a man self-described as a ``freshman right-wing Nazi'' when he entered Congress but as a naval officer who could have been freed from imprisonment as a POW in Vietnam, yet refused to leave his men behind and instead suffered unimaginable torture and pain for over 5 years. Despite his novice as an Arizona politician, John McCain knew enough to beg to secure a place on the Interior Committee. At that point, Mo's decency and John's courage met. While John was new to Arizona politics and, by his own admission, could not tell a copper mine from a cotton field, he had promise, being elected president of his minority Republican class. Mo graciously, and with no political gain in sight that Mo could see, took John under his generous, broad wing. Mo taught John the power of consensus and bipartisanship, and, in turn, John had the guts to buck his own party. Together, they forged a remarkable partnership. Mo is marked by graciousness, humility, and humor; John by bombasity, independence, and courage. They were a perfect match. They sided together to protect the Grand Canyon. They sided together to protect Arizona wilderness. They sided together to improve the lives of our first Americans. They sided together to upend the campaign finance system, to try to make sure politicians are beholden to their constituents, not to special interests. John took these positions in sharp contrast to his party. After Mo retired from the House and John had entered the Senate, John continued to take fearless positions. He championed immigration reform. He supports curbing methane emissions. Many Americans will never forget--and I was standing right about here when this happened--when, on July 28, 2017, John McCain stepped into the well of the Senate and gave an unexpected thumbs down to his party's desperate attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. In 1982, Mo and John appeared to be worlds apart--Arizona politicians representing liberal Tucson and conservative Phoenix, who would necessarily be at odds, yet they shared so much. Both stood by their principles, but both believed in working across the aisle to get things done for the American people. Both put country over personal ambition, fame, and fortune. Both were men of integrity, and both were courageous. All of us can learn from their duty to country over selves, their commitment to working for all Americans, and their dedication to working with the party across the aisle to reach consensus. Morris King Udall and John Sidney McCain III were unlikely political allies and even more unlikely friends, but they were both, and both are true American heroes. Heroism is not born of words and bravado and bragging; heroism is born of silent deeds that help others. Mo and John accomplished much by deed. Both are true Arizonans, true Americans, and true heroes. I am privileged to have known both men--to have grown up with Uncle Mo, to have campaigned with him, and to have shared his stories and stolen his jokes and to have served in the Senate and to serve with John McCain. John and I have worked together on many issues. We have traveled internationally. Our work together on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has produced real results for Native Americans. After this Grand Canyon event I described in some of the remarks up there, I went to visit John at his ranch in Sedona. He is working hard to recover and wants to return to the Senate. His spirits are good. He was returning calls and working on statements while we visited. He was planning ranch projects right in front of us that had to do with the cottonwoods that were out in front of us as we were looking out at his place. His wonderful wife Cindy, a strong and talented woman in her own right, was at his side and working to make sure things were shipshape at the ranch. What a unique and loving partnership. John, we wish you and Cindy the very best and look forward to your speedy return. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. UDALL

Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I would like to say how glad I am to have Senator Menendez back in the saddle as our ranking member on Foreign Relations, and I thank him so much for his speech and for his leadership on our very important committee. I join my colleagues from the Foreign Relations Committee in their critique of President Trump's handling--or maybe we would call it mishandling--of foreign policy. I am most concerned about how U.S. power, prestige, and diplomacy have been weakened across the world as a direct result of this President. The United States has stood as a world leader of liberal democracy, the rule of law, and human values since the end of World War II. Our actions abroad have not always been perfect, but over the decades, we have earned the world's respect because we have acted on our principles. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, authoritarian regimes were in retreat. Today, authoritarianism is back on the march. The President himself even cheers them on, praising Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and others who fashion themselves President for life of one-party, repressive regimes. In this President's short but raucous and chaotic tenure, he has diminished our standing within the world community by grossly offending other nations and their leaders, including many of our closest allies, by abruptly changing foreign policy with no clear policy basis, and by denigrating countries and an entire continent with comments laced with racism. The President issues conflicting messages. World leaders and international diplomats cannot rely on his word or his tweets. He has plenty of criticism for our friends and allies but little for strongmen like Vladimir Putin. The world is alarmed. It is less stable under this Presidency. Secretary Tillerson had disagreements with the President, and early on, the President undercut and sidelined him. The day before Mr. Tillerson was shown the door, the Secretary broke with the White House by directly pointing the finger at Russia for using a chemical weapon on the ex-British spy in his homeland, and this incident shows that the President will not tolerate daylight between his own corrupt political beliefs and the views of his lieutenants. During confirmation hearings for Mr. Pompeo, our committee must find out whether he will hold fast to traditional American values or bend to the President's servility to Vladimir Putin and other autocrats around the world. The President's own diplomacy has been chaotic and dangerous. He has alienated one of our closest friends and biggest trading partners--the country of Mexico. He insists that Mexico will pay for this offensive wall that he says is necessary to keep out rapists and criminals. The President has imperiled our relationships with both Mexico and Canada with his threats to tear up NAFTA, which he seems to say over and over again. In my home State of New Mexico, border communities rely on the integrated border, and border communities rely on the economy that has been built up over the last 24 years. We have a trade surplus with Mexico. NAFTA negotiations continue, but there has been a chill on economic activity in States like New Mexico, Texas, California, and Arizona. The President has shaken the world with his grade-school taunts about nuclear weapons--a deadly serious subject. He chided Secretary Tillerson that talking to North Korea won't work, undercutting the Secretary once again, and then suddenly agreed to meet and even negotiate with Kim Jong Un without the careful diplomatic work needed to ensure success. I support diplomacy as the best solution, but rash diplomacy can easily lead to rash wars, and impulsive decisionmaking is extremely risky. I hope the President seriously studies the issues between now and any meeting, brings an experienced team, and sets realistic and achievable goals for any negotiation. He must understand that diplomatic failure is potentially catastrophic. A war would likely result in 20,000 casualties a day in the opening week, and Secretary Mattis has warned that there would be, in his words, ``the worst kind of fighting in people's lifetimes.'' I do not trust this President to follow the constitutional process required to go to war. That is why I am cosponsoring S. 2047, prohibiting any President from launching a preemptive strike on North Korea. Starting a war with North Korea would only undermine the security of the United States and our regional allies and should not be done without approval of the American people through the Congress. The President's attitude toward Russia and Vladimir Putin complicates our ability to gain support for our efforts overseas. Russia interfered with our democracy and continues to interfere in the affairs of our allies. There is no good explanation why he has not directed our Nation's security agencies to take all possible action in response to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, and increasingly we see in the special counsel's investigation how Russia is playing a bigger and bigger part. There is no reason why this administration took so long to begin to implement Congress's sanctions against Russia. Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has already produced indictments against Russians and key officials from President Trump's campaign, but the President himself does not send the message to deter future interference by Russia. The President's failure to fight back, his resistance to sanctioning the Russians, and his subservience to Putin betray the national trust. The President's hostility toward Iran's agreement to disarm its nuclear weapons program is mind-boggling. Director Pompeo reportedly shares this hostility. But just last week, the commander of U.S. Central Command, Army GEN Joseph Votel, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iran deal is in our national interest. Defense Secretary Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, also agree. Our close allies--also signatories to the deal--agree it is in the international community's interests. This is not the United States the world has come to know, rely upon, and believe in. The President's failure to protect our national interest weakens our position within the world community. Morale at the State Department is suffering as our foreign policy suffers. Any new Secretary of State must work to reverse this. This Congress and the world have watched as the President and the Secretary of State have hollowed out the State Department. Highly experienced and talented Foreign Service officers have been fired, pushed out, reassigned to menial tasks, and ignored. Many senior diplomats have just packed up and left. Nicholas Burns and Ryan Crocker, who served as Ambassadors in both Republican and Democratic administrations, have warned that ``we are witnessing the most significant departure of diplomatic talent in generations.'' On top of retirements, the number of people who took the Foreign Service exam dropped by more than half between 2016 and 2017. There is real concern that this will have a lasting and negative impact long after the Trump administration. Director Pompeo will need to answer tough questions during confirmation: Will he impose congressionally mandated sanctions on Russia? What actions will be taken to counter Russia's ongoing cyber warfare? We are on the razor's edge with North Korea. As chief diplomat, does he support a preemptive strike against North Korea? What will he do to avoid a disaster? Does he agree with our military leaders about staying in the Iran denuclearization deal? Will he certify Iranian compliance if the facts show compliance? Does he support the President's proposal to decimate the State Department's budget? Will he continue Secretary Tillerson's plan to decrease staff by 8 percent? What will he do to recover agency morale, which we hear over and over is at an alltime low? Will he stand up to this President when long-held American values are at stake? Director Pompeo will need to prove to the Senate that he will put the State Department and the U.S. standing in the world back on track. Our international partners do not view the United States as the reliable and strong partner they had in the past. Dictatorships and harsh regimes are emboldened by our lack of attention to free speech and human rights. President Ronald Reagan said at the Berlin Wall that ``the totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship.'' Dictators now smirk and echo our President, saying ``fake news'' about any news outlet that shines a light on their indiscretions. Leaders like Vladimir Putin are emboldened to continue to try to undermine our democracy and sow conflict and division within the American public. The world is less stable without a strong, principled United States to lead. It is imperative that the United States preserve and strengthen its diplomatic power, not sabotage it. With lack of leadership in the executive branch, Congress must step up, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I said at the beginning, I am so pleased that Senator Menendez is back to work with Senator Corker to try to assert the role that Congress should be playing in these very important issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.