Floor Statements

Mr. President, this is a looming financial crisis that everyone in this room knows is happening, and it is one that we can prevent, but every day we delay it gets harder.

This is a very reasonable approach, putting a bipartisan group together to bring us solutions.

I urge my colleagues to support this and hope we can pass this amendment by voice vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of morning business on Tuesday, February 2, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Calendar No. 5, Peter Buttigieg, of Indiana, to be Secretary of Transportation; further, that the time until 12 noon be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that at 12 noon, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, if you ask 100 Americans what qualities they want in a public servant, I would bet there are a few common words that would come up. Smart. Dedicated. Bipartisan. Honest. Trustworthy. Humble. Simply put, they will describe Chad Metzler--my legislative director for the past 8 years and one of the finest public servants I have ever met. That is why today I rise with a heavy heart to wish Chad well as he prepares to embark on a new adventure .

Each of us in this body understands that the Senate's work is not entrusted solely to Senators. Our names may be on the door, but we can't claim successes on our own. Our staffs play a critical role in our efforts to navigate the complex challenges facing the Nation and serve the American people. That is why hiring the right people is one of the most important decisions any Senator makes. If a Senator is lucky, they will find staffers who have extensive experience and knowledge of the legislative process; who aren't afraid to challenge their boss's preconceived notions in the pursuit of better policy; who are kind, level-headed public servants; who are generous colleagues; who understand the importance of the faith placed in us by the American people and work ever day to live up to this enormous responsibility. If a Senator is lucky, they will find staffers who check a few of those boxes. If they find someone who can do all of the above, they have hit the jackpot. When Chad Metzler joined my team as legislative director in 2013, I and the people of Maine hit the jackpot because he is all of those things and more.

Over the past 8 years, I have had the privilege to have Chad lead my legislative team. Sadly, good fortune only lasts for so long. As Chad transitions into a new, exciting opportunity, I am confident that he will continue to make vital contributions to the American people in his new role, but before he leaves us, I want to take a moment to reflect on all his contributions to the Senate and the country.

From my early days in the Senate, Chad's experience was invaluable. Prior to joining my office, he spent 17 years working for Senator Herb Kohl, from his home State of Wisconsin. Throughout that tenure, Chad spearheaded a number of important, varied responsibilities--from serving as the Senator's legislative director, to holding the position of staff director on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, to

managing Senator Kohl's portfolio on the Appropriations Committee. That combination of skills made Chad a rare breed--an experienced Senate staffer who possessed both a generalist's understanding of the big picture and a specialist's ability to get into the weeds of thorny policy issues.

Chad's background was invaluable in helping to bring me up to speed on the Senate's parliamentary procedures and the body's unique, frustrating quirks. As a former Governor, I faced the unenviable task of shifting from the executive role to being just 1 of 100. As an Independent used to relying on bipartisan coalitions, the Senate's often rigid partisanship presented its own challenges. Chad responded with creative thinking and dogged persistence, and the results were quickly apparent.

Just a few short months after I came to Washington, Chad helped me lead a bipartisan compromise on student loan rates that is projected to save taxpayers $715 million over the next 10 years and an estimated $30 billion for students over the following 4 years. That legislation set the tone for our office--a focus on rolling up our sleeves, bipartisan work, coalition building, and commonsense solutions to the problems that plague the American people.

In the years that followed, Chad and his legislative team helped to build on that mission through level-headed, analytical thinking. Among other successes, we have worked across the aisle to pass legislation that confronts the opioid epidemic sweeping our communities; improves America's insufficient cyber defenses; helps more working families access childcare; and addresses the $12 billion maintenance backlog at America's national parks. Each of these legislative successes came about through hard work and bipartisan discussions. More importantly, each made life better for our constituents.

Obviously, Chad is a talented legislative craftsman, but somehow, he was an even better leader and person. For the past 8 years, Chad has guided my legislative team with a steady hand, helping dozens of young public servants in my office grow and thrive. He treats everyone he meets with respect and kindness, never once talking down to someone with less experience or a different perspective. Just as important, his sense of humor has remained intact through a quarter century of Senate service, ensuring that even in the midst of serious work, we don't take ourselves too seriously.

When I was Governor, I said I always was looking for staff who demonstrate both competence and kindness. You can have some with one trait, some with the other, a few with neither, but when you find folks with both, you invite them onboard immediately. Chad doesn't just have those qualities; he personifies them.

As you can gather from my remarks, Chad is an irreplaceable part of my team, and the Senate is poorer for losing him. But, as Chad always does, I feel the need to take a step back and analyze the entire situation. In doing so, I find a few key reasons for gratitude.

I am grateful that even though Chad is moving on, he leaves behind a team that is well-educated in the Metzler School of Public Service. His years of mentorship have crafted our team into one of the sharpest, most dedicated staffs on Capitol Hill, and I know his influence and example will be felt in our office for years to come.

I am grateful that although our body is losing a dedicated public servant, the country is not. In the days ahead, Chad will begin a new opportunity that will put his skills to good use. This new role will allow him to continue fighting for pragmatic, principled solutions that move our country forward. Now more than ever, we need folks like him working on tough problems.

Finally, I am grateful that even though Chad will no longer be on my staff, he will forever remain a trusted adviser and friend. Chad's intellect, professionalism, and warmth are rare attributes; to possess all of these qualities, while still remaining humble and even-keeled, is even rarer. I consider myself extremely fortunate to know him and look forward to continuing that association.

Mr. President, I have a simple philosophy of leadership that has guided me throughout my life: Hire good people, and take credit for what they do. When I hired Chad Metzler, I made one of the smartest leadership decisions of my life--bringing on the ideal partner to break bipartisan logjams and make life better for the people of Maine. I am saddened to say goodbye to my adviser and friend today, but I know that his best is yet to come. I can't wait to see what is next.

Mr. President, Winston Churchill once said that he could do a 2-hour speech extemporaneously, but a 10-minute speech took immense preparation. I don't know what he would have said about a 4-minute speech.

We are a 240-year anomaly in world history. We think that what we have here in this country is the way it has always been.

It is a very unusual form of government. The normal form of government throughout world history is dictators, kings, czars, pharaohs, warlords, tyrants. And we thought 20 years ago the march of history was toward democracy, but it is in retreat in Hungary and Turkey--goodness knows, in Russia.

Democracy as we have practiced it is fragile. It is fragile, and it rests upon trust. It rests upon trust in facts. It rests upon trust in courts, in public officials, and, yes, in elections.

I don't sympathize or justify or in any way--in any way--support-- that is putting it mildly--what happened here today, but I understand it. I understand it because I saw those people interviewed today, and they said: We are here because this election has been stolen.

And the reason they said that is that their leader has been telling them that every day for 2 months.

We cannot afford to pull bricks out from the foundation of trust that underlies our entire system. And I agree with Governor Romney that the answer to this problem is to tell people the truth--is to tell them what happened.

It is easy to confront your opponents. It is hard to confront your friends.

It is hard to tell your supporters something they don't want to hear, but that is our obligation. That is why the word ``leader'' is applied to people in jobs like ours. It is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be something that we take on as a sacred obligation, and if people believe something that isn't true, it is our obligation to tell them: No, I am sorry, it isn't, just as Senator Portman just said, as Mike Lee just said: I am sorry we can't do this here. We don't want to do this here. This is a power reserved to the States, not to the Congress.

And I agree with the majority leader. I think this is one of the most important votes any of us will ever take.

On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln came to this building. He came to this building in the darkest days of the Civil War. He was trying to awaken the Congress to the crisis that we were facing, and he didn't feel that they were fully and effectively engaged. He ended his speech that day with words that I think have an eerie relevance tonight. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said:

Fellow-[Americans], we cannot escape history. We of this

Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite

of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance,

can spare one or another of us.

And here are his final words:

The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in

honor or dishonor to the latest generation.

The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I want to join so many of my colleagues and the majority leader in congratulating my individual colleague from the State of Maine on this extraordinary achievement.

I once was at a meeting with Senator Collins in Maine and had just gotten my voting record, and I think I missed two votes out of a couple thousand. I said to Senator Collins: Look, I am 99.2 percent on making all the votes. She paused for a moment and looked at me and smiled and said: You will never catch me. And she was absolutely correct that the math doesn't work.

To have made 7,000 consecutive votes is an extraordinary achievement, particularly given the logistics of this place--the logistics of getting back and forth to Maine. She and I travel back and forth to Maine frequently together. But to have achieved this is really something remarkable in the annals of the U.S. Senate.

In the 1980s and 1990s, I got to know one of her predecessors, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who was a legend in Maine. Senator Smith was not only legendary for making every vote but also for always wearing a red rose. Every day that she appeared in the Senate, Senator Smith wore a red rose. So I would like to conclude my remarks by taking a red rose to Senator Collins in recognition of her following in the footsteps of her illustrious predecessor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement Program, known as Project SHARE. SHARE has spent the last quarter of a century focused on river habitat restoration in Downeast Maine, specifically for Atlantic salmon. Thanks to SHARE and its many partners, hundreds of restoration projects have been completed, improving Maine's waterways for marine life.

Founded in 1994, SHARE was built on the recognition that, without direct action, Atlantic salmon would go extinct from habitat destruction and overfishing. SHARE's work has focused on improving Maine's streams and rivers, a crucial habitat for salmon, as they require freshwater to breed. The organization uses a diverse range of methods during their projects, from the addition of clamshells to the stream or river in order to balance pH levels, to adding open bottom arch culverts and bridges to more effectively spread nutrients and ease passage in the waterways. While the goal of these projects is to help Atlantic salmon, the rest of Maine's marine life benefit from the improved living conditions in our fresh-water streams and rivers.

A hallmark of SHARE's success has been its emphasis on building partnerships in order to achieve its goals. SHARE has valued these partners since the beginning, when a wide range of State agencies, land owners, research and conservation groups, and more signed on as charter members. Their focus on cooperation between public and private entities has clearly paid off, as they have completed more than 250 restoration projects in just the last 15 years. A key part of these partnerships is the work SHARE does with Maine's students. Including students from local schools and universities in their restoration projects has allowed SHARE to pass on the methods used to improve the safety and habitability of our waterways and the importance of Atlantic salmon to Maine and the rest of the country.

I would like to thank Project SHARE for their 25 years of commitment to improving Maine's waterways for Atlantic salmon and other marine life. Thanks to their hard work, 2,800 habitat units have been improved, with many more projects planned in the years to come. SHARE's dedication to protecting and restoring outdoor habitats ensures that Maine's wildlife will continue to thrive. Congratulations Project SHARE on reaching this impressive milestone, I look forward to seeing your work over the next 25 years.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the efforts of Dr. William Medd and his work with Western Maine Health and Stephen's Memorial Hospital. His dedicated work with MaineHealth, the largest health system in Maine, has improved the lives and health of many residents of western Maine.

Although Bill is originally from Long Island, he has proudly called Maine home for almost five decades. He studied and specialized in Internal Medicine at Wesleyan University and then at the University of Rochester School of Medicine. Following his medical residencies and 2 years of service in the Air Force, Bill and his family relocated to western Maine in the early 1970's.

Throughout his career, Bill has dedicated himself to improving the quality of healthcare in Maine, specifically in the rural area he has worked and lived. His efforts to achieve this goal have taken many forms, from serving as a trustee at Western Maine Health Care Corporation and MaineHealth to his 45 years as an internist in the Oxford Hills region. Perhaps one of the most symbolic aspects of Bill's hard work is the growth of the local hospital in Norway, ME. At first a small facility when Bill arrived, it is now a fully equipped, modern hospital known as Stephen's Memorial and provides quality healthcare to the rural region.

In early 2016, an expansion of Western Maine Health, was named the William L. Medd, MD, Health Center. This new facility integrated new models for delivering primary care and relocated other Western Maine Health units. For the last 3 years, Bill has had the unique opportunity to work out of the facility that bears his name.

On March 30 of this year, Bill was presented the Legacy Award at the Oxford Hills Chamber of Commerce annual dinner. Not only does this award embody Bill's commitment to healthcare in Maine, but speaks to other contributions he has made to his community, from fundraising for local scholarships to supporting youth programs in the region. His work in these fields outside the medical profession demonstrate Bill's commitment to more broadly improve his community.

I would like to thank Dr. Medd for his decade's long work in the State of Maine. Thanks to his determination and drive to make a difference, the future of healthcare in western Maine is bright. Dr. Medd's passion for his patients, community, and State sets an example for the medical professionals who will follow him.

Congratulations, Dr. Medd, on a successful career and happy retirement. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions to your community.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the town of Pittsfield, ME, which is celebrating its 200th anniversary this year. Throughout its long history, Pittsfield has continually displayed a rich heritage of hard work, entrepreneurship, innovation, community, and family spirit. Situated along the Sebasticook River in Somerset County, Pittsfield is home to roughly 4,200 residents who help make it a thriving Maine town.

Incorporated as Warsaw in 1819, the town became Pittsfield in 1824, named after one its prominent citizens, William Pitts. Early on, most of the town's occupants were farmers, growing so much corn and wheat that they used the grains to pay their taxes. Like many Maine towns, Pittsfield began to develop a strong mill industry that flourished along the Sebasticook River. This assortment of textile, saw, and grist mills created hundreds of new jobs and Pittsfield saw its population nearly double in just 40 years. Closures and relocation of many of the town's mills lead to some decline, but the citizens of Pittsfield helped reinvent the town, and today, Pittsfield is as vibrant as ever.

Maine Central Institute, an independent high school, opened in 1866 and continues to serve many of the town's residents and foreign students from such countries as South Korea, Spain, Guatemala, and many more. The school's Manson Essay contest continues to bring members of the community together every year to hear presentations by students on their university level research papers. Along with its high-level academics, MCI's impressive athletic program has produced a number of professional athletes, many of whom have gone on to play professional basketball.

A hallmark of Pittsfield's economy, Cianbro was founded by Carl Cianchette in 1946. Cianchette and his brothers would go on to grow this company into the largest construction company in Maine, providing thousands of jobs throughout the State. Now nationally recognized and 100 percent employee owned, with locations stretching into the mid- Atlantic region, Cianbro is still headquartered in Pittsfield.

It is an honor and a privilege to congratulate Pittsfield on this historic occasion. For 200 years the town and its residents have repeatedly demonstrated the hard work and community spirit found throughout Maine. I hope the residents of Pittsfield take the opportunity during this yearlong celebration to reflect on their rich history and strive to make the next 200 years as prosperous as the last. Happy 200th birthday, Pittsfield, and congratulations to all who have made this a vibrant Maine community.

Mr. President, I rise in sadness and somewhat perplexed because what we are doing in this colloquy is recreating a statement, a letter, as the Senator from Minnesota outlined, that was sent by six of our predecessors in December of 1986, warning about the dangers of climate change, warning about what this can do to our country and to our world, about costs, and about how we had to take action.

One of those Senators was George Mitchell of Maine, one of the great legislators of the 20th century. I am honored to be in the seat that once was occupied by George Mitchell and also by his predecessor, Edmund Muskie. I think the story of the major environmental legislation of the 20th century, sponsored principally at the beginning by Edmund Muskie, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, is worth mentioning, if only briefly.

The most important point is that the Clean Air Act, one of the most important and comprehensive environmental pieces of legislation in our Nation's history, passed this body unanimously. It passed this body unanimously.

It disturbs me that we couldn't agree on the time of day around here unanimously these days. I don't know when this issue became a partisan issue, but I deeply regret it because it is causing harm to our country.

What I would like to do is step into George Mitchell's shoes for a moment and read a statement that he himself wrote and made back in 1986, and you are not going to believe how prescient this statement is. It could have been written yesterday. Here are George Mitchell's words:

The problem of global warming is one of immense

significance. It is the most serious and more pressing than

anticipated. Previously, most of the models forecasting the

rate of global warming focused on the air pollutants produced

by the combustion of fossil fuels. More recent data suggest

that trace gases may also increase the rate of warming by a

factor of two. This means that warming may be increasing

twice as fast as previously thought.

The data produced to date suggests there may be an average

increase in temperature of 1 deg.C since the beginning of the

industrial revolution.

This was in 1986. We are now at about 1.5 degrees centigrade.

Considering how much warmer this June has been than

average, a 1 degree difference may appear to be

insignificant, but an average of 1 degree increase could be

devastating, so the experts tell us. A 1 degree increase in

the average global temperature would melt glaciers--

That is happening--

and such melting would increase the sea level.

That is happening.

There are uncertainties in predicting how much the sea

level would increase in a particular area. In some cases, it

could be an average increase of a few feet; in others, much

more. For a coastal State like Maine and to other States

along the coastline, such an increase would be devastating.

To deviate from George's words for a moment, this is what we see happening. We are now seeing what are called rainy day floods, flooding in areas of our country along the coast that were rare. Six-month events are now every high tide.

George Mitchell says:

An average of 1 degree increase in temperature could have

major impacts on agriculture. This country's Midwestern bread

basket could again become a dust bowl. More heat would mean

less water for crops and variations in growing seasons. It is

important to keep in mind that this average increase is

global in nature. It is not a national or regional problem.

If American farmers suffer for lack of water, so will farmers

all over the planet. If shorelines along our coasts are

flooded, so will shorelines everywhere in the world.

The enormity of this phenomenon is staggering, and we have

a responsibility to limit emissions of pollutants that trap

the heat in our atmosphere. As difficult, as immense, and as

seemingly remote as the problem is to our daily lives, we

cannot delay.

This was George Mitchell in 1986--we cannot delay.

There will be those who argue that more research is

necessary to completely understand the phenomenon and to

answer every scientific question.

We are still hearing that argument today--we need more science; we need more studies; we are not sure.

George goes on:

As in the case of acid rain, such complete understanding

will come only after we flounder in the weight of our

shortsighted policies. This is one more indication that the

benefits of industrialization carry with them the burden of

controlling pollutants. These pollutants threaten our lakes,

fish, health, and forests today in the form of acid

deposition.

We will hear today that these pollutants also threaten the

future of our planet, which cannot tolerate such a sudden and

dramatic increase in temperature and survive in a form

familiar to us.

In 1986 George Mitchell said:

Solutions are possible and available. The statement

released at the conclusion of the Villach Conference in

Austria last October--

This was in 1985--

addresses the common nature of some of our environmental

problems. That statement said in part that ``climate change

and sea level rises due to greenhouse gases are closely

linked with other major environmental issues, such as acid

deposition and threats to the Earth's ozone shield, mostly

due to changes in the composition of the atmosphere by human

activity.''

Reduction in coal and oil use and energy conservation

undertaken to reduce acid deposition will also lower

concentration of greenhouse gases. Reductions in emissions of

chlorofluorocarbons--

Which we achieved--

will help protect the ozone layer and will also slow the rate

of climate change. The rate and degree of future warming

could be profoundly affected by governmental policies on

energy conservation, use of fossil fuels, and the emission of

greenhouse gases.

Those words were written 32 years ago.

The rate and degree of future warming could be profoundly

affected by governmental policies on energy conservation, use

of fossil fuels, and the emission of greenhouse gases.

The testimony that they were intending to hear at the hearing that George is describing demonstrated ``that such governmental policies are needed . . . nationally and on a global basis.''

I pause on ``a global basis''--the tragedy of leaving the Paris climate accord, because the only solution to this problem has to be local, national, and global.

The testimony from Federal Agencies will be that the current government policy is to conduct more research, a familiar refrain on issues of this type. George Mitchell said:

What is missing in the Federal effort is action. The

problem of global warming brings another round of scientists

before us decrying the folly of waiting until it is too late

to

prevent irreversible damage. In the case of acid rain,

research has been offered as a substitute for much-needed

action. This policy has produced more bodies of water that

cannot sustain life, more trees that are dying, and more

people who find it hard to breathe.

The policy has produced more studies, not any meaningful

change in policy. I hope these two days of hearings will help

persuade the administration--

And the people of the country--

that inaction has its own costs, almost invariably higher

than the cost of action.

George Mitchell was right. The cost of inaction is invariably higher than the cost of action.

George concluded by saying:

I represent a State that already has been affected by acid

deposition. I want to do all I can to keep Maine, the rest of

our country, and our planet from facing potentially more

dramatic environmental damage from global warming. The best

way to avoid these undesirable outcomes is to begin taking

action now to prevent further damage rather than spending

twice as much time and later money repairing damage.

George Mitchell was right in 1986. Tragically, he is even more right today because we did not heed his call. We did not take action. We have avoided action.

I don't want to be the generation that our children and grandchildren look back on and say: Where were you and what did you do when the climate was deteriorating, when the glaciers were melting, when the ice sheets were melting, when the sea level was rising, when the storms were increasing in intensity, when the wildfires were burning our States? What did you do, Senator?

I, for one, want the answer to be ``I took action.'' The answer should be ``we took action.''

Today, this is a challenge even greater--significantly greater--than it was in 1986, but the very fact that people like Quentin Burdick, George Mitchell, John Chafee, Bob Stafford, and David Durenberger saw the future and predicted it so succinctly and profoundly should spur us to the type of action that is necessary to meet, confront, and overcome this most serious of challenges before us.

Thank you.

I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the town of Auburn, ME, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. Auburn might be a small city, but it features something for everyone, from recreation activities and parks and trails to cultural opportunities, a variety of restaurants, shopping, and public and private school options. Located along the banks of the Androscoggin River, Auburn is home to over 23,000 residents and is the county seat of Androscoggin County.

Auburn was first incorporated on February 22, 1869, and was created by annexing parts of the surrounding towns of Poland, Minot, and Danville, previously called Pejepscot. Auburn was the first city in Maine to adopt a council-manager form of government and grew into one of Maine's largest municipalities. In the early to mid-1800s, a new bridge across the Androscoggin River to Lewiston and the arrival of the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railroad helped spur development in Auburn. Like many Maine towns, Auburn developed into a mill town, and many of those mills were powered by the falls on the Androscoggin and Little Androscoggin

Rivers. Auburn was also the home to a number of other manufacturing plants, including shoes, cotton and woolen textiles, carriages, bricks, and furniture. The population of the city grew quickly through the end of the 1800s, mostly due to the influx of French-Canadian immigrants coming to the city to work at the shoe factories.

By the late 19th century, shoe manufacturing became the dominant industry in Auburn. In fact, the city seal depicts a spindle with different types of shoes at each outside point. In 1917, one factory in Auburn was producing 75 percent of the world's supply of white canvas shoes. Like many manufacturing towns, Auburn has had to reinvent itself in recent years, and they have shown their resiliency and grit. Today, Auburn is as vibrant as ever.

The city of Auburn has contributed to the energy, vitality, and commerce of the State of Maine and is poised to make the next 150 years some of the best years in its long and cherished history. I hope that the citizens of Auburn take the opportunity during this yearlong birthday celebration to reconnect to their roots, share their life stories, and remind current and future generations about the rich past and the bright future ahead of us all. Happy 150th birthday, Auburn, and congratulations to all the citizens of this great Maine community.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss for a few moments reflections upon the hearing we had this week in the Intelligence Committee on worldwide threats. This is an annual hearing and is in public, at least the first part. Then there is a closed session afterward with the heads of our intelligence Agencies--the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and, of course, with the Director of National Intelligence.

This is an important hearing because it basically outlines to the American people the threats we face and the seriousness of those threats. It is an opportunity for those of us on the committee and for Members of the Senate in general to understand the nature of the threats, what the intelligence is, and what the information is that we have to help us make good policy decisions.

Good intelligence is crucial to making good decisions. We live in an incredibly complex world, and my work on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees over the past 6 years has educated me as to just how complex and difficult a lot of these issues are. I remember a long discussion about the Middle East at one of the Intelligence Committee meetings, and one of the members on the committee said that this is a really hard, complicated subject. The witness that day, who was from the CIA, said: ``Welcome to the Middle East.''

These are very difficult issues, but in order to make rational, thoughtful, important, and very results-oriented decisions based upon the information from these hearings, we have to know the facts. We have to understand what the implications are and what the likely results are but also, more fundamentally, just what is going on, on the ground. Whether you look back 50 years, 100 years, or 150 years, often our worst foreign policy misadventures have been based on one of two things--either bad intelligence or intelligence that was somehow skewed in order to meet the desires of the policymakers. If we don't have good intelligence, we can't make good decisions.

A lot of attention has been paid to the people who were testifying at that hearing--as I mentioned, the heads of the FBI and the CIA and the Directors of National Intelligence, Defense Intelligence, and the National Security Agency. Yet those individuals were speaking on behalf of thousands of other people who are scattered around the world, who often risk their lives to gain the information they were sharing with us that day. It was not Dan Coats' opinion or Gina Haspel's opinion or Paul Nakasone's opinion. They were distilling and presenting to us the intelligence and the information that had been developed by their good people over the course of the past month, week, years to inform us and to inform the President of the best information available so we can make the best decisions.

After the hearing, what disturbed me was the reaction of the President of the United States. Instead of absorbing and listening to this information, he dismissed it. He not only dismissed the information, but he dismissed the messengers and said they had to go back to school or that they were being naive. Now, I don't want to be heard as having said that the intelligence community always gets it right. I know, in my having sat through hearings on Afghanistan and Syria and on many of the other difficult subjects we face, that there are mistakes made and that Dan Coats does not have a direct line to the Almighty in terms of the facts. They are not always right. Yet, if one is going to dismiss their findings, it should be based upon some additional set of facts or information from some source.

There were two things that bothered me about the President's reaction. One was he essentially dismissed the facts in a whole series of cases--of Iran and ISIS. Those were two we talked about. With regard to North Korea and Russia, basically, he said: I don't believe any of it. The problem with that is, it undermines the confidence you have in the decision-making authority at the highest level if facts don't matter. The information that is supplied is not by Dan Coats, not by Gina Haspel, not by Paul Nakasone but is the view--the distilled wisdom--of the thousands of people whose job it is, whose profession it is, to ferret out the truth.

At the beginning of the hearing, Dan Coats gave the best synopsis I have ever heard of the mission of the intelligence Agencies, of the mission of our intelligence community. It was very simple--to seek the truth and to speak the truth. That is exactly what they did at that hearing. They sought the truth through the auspices of these very professional, very thorough Agencies that are scattered throughout the world. Then they spoke the truth by telling us what they learned.

The second problem I have with the President's reaction is a little more subtle, and this goes to the heart of the relationship between the intelligence community and policymakers. The subtle message that was being sent was: Don't tell the boss things he doesn't want to hear. Don't give it to us unvarnished. Style the information; sly the information; amend the information in order to meet what is perceived to be what the boss wants to hear. Whether the boss is this President, a past President, or a future President, that is disastrous. The intelligence community has to deal in facts and information, not policy, but if the message is sent down through the ranks of ``don't give me an assessment that disagrees with where I started,'' that will start to happen.

Indeed, it is human nature. All of us want to be in the good graces of the boss. All of us want to give our superiors information they want to get. I was in law school over 50 years ago and had a friend who had been a captain in Vietnam. He told the story of being on the ground in Vietnam. There was a skirmish in which a half a dozen Viet Cong were killed. He filed his report. His report went to the division. At that point, half a dozen became 15. It went to headquarters where 15 became 50. It then went to Washington where 50 became 150. That is because Washington wanted to see higher counts. That was the perception that corrupted the process, not because people were being corrupt in the sense of being evil or of wanting to do wrong but because they were doing what is human nature, which is ``I want to please the person above me in the chain of command.''

If the President of the United States is not so subtly telling the intelligence community what he wants to hear, that will inevitably affect the quality of the product he receives, which, indeed, will also inevitably affect the quality of decisions he makes.

Again, I am not saying the intelligence community is always right. I certainly believe the President or any other policymaker, including Members of Congress who receive this information, need to review it critically--ask questions, probe and prod--and try to be sure the information is correct, but to dismiss it out of hand in a tweet, it seems to me, is dangerous. It is dangerous because it undermines the Executive's authority to make good decisions based upon the facts, and it is dangerous because it has the potential for skewing the information itself in the future. Either one of those things is a danger to national security.

If the President has facts that are different than those that are presented by the intelligence community, he should at least present them and say: This isn't consistent with what I learned at ``such and such'' a conference or what I am hearing from the State Department or from what I am hearing from Homeland Security. Yet to simply say they are naive, that they don't know what they are doing, and they should go back to school denigrates the work of thousands of loyal, patriotic Americans who are doing their level best to produce information upon which good decisions can be made.

I stand today not to say the intelligence community always gets it right but to say the intelligence community should at least get an honest hearing and that the information they present is important to this country. It is important to the President, and it is important to the Congress. The day we

start encouraging them to skew the information is the day the national security of this country is at risk.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it strikes me that there are really two problems before us--one we can resolve this evening or tomorrow morning or in the next 24 hours, and that is the shutdown. At least we could resolve it for a limited period of time and then start talking about the second problem, which is border security.

I think one of the unfortunate realities of what has happened in the last month is the assumption on the part of some that there was no good faith on border security and no interest in dealing with border security from this side of the aisle. That is a misunderstanding. I voted in 2013 for the largest border security provision that I think has ever come before the U.S. Senate. So did virtually every Member of this caucus and a third or more of the other caucus. Two-thirds of the Senate voted for that bill with a very important border security provision.

I want to be very clear. I am very supportive of border security and of increasing border security. There also may be cases in which there may be parts of the border at which some kind of barrier makes sense and is cost-effective; whereas, there are other areas of the border at which it doesn't make sense. What I am interested in is a thorough discussion with the experts about what the most cost-effective way is to protect our citizens and secure the border. I believe this proposal today gives us the breathing space to have that discussion.

I remind my colleagues that this administration submitted a border security proposal to the Congress last February with its budget of $1.6 billion. Lo and behold, it was approved by the Appropriations Committee and by this body. That is an indication to me that there is good faith.

I think the important thing to communicate now is to not complicate this with conditions. Let's take the awful hammer away--and I don't have to reiterate all that has been said today about the devastating effect of this shutdown on people in all of our States and on people who are working for no pay, which is fundamentally wrong--and then spend the next 3 weeks finding a solution, which I believe we can do. I have had enough discussions with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think there is a solution to be had that will satisfy the President, the two bodies of Congress, and, most importantly, the American people in terms of the protection we can provide.

I am happy to join my colleague today in supporting this message and, importantly, to join my colleagues across the aisle. Give us breathing space. Take the problem of the shutdown away. Then we can have a discussion and a debate and find a solution through a process, which is the way it ought to be, not with a shutdown hanging over everyone. That is not the way we should be governing.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on finding a creative, cost-effective, and safe solution to this issue of border security to protect this country.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Ted Ames, of Stonington, ME, as he retires from the board of directors for Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries, MCCF. Ted has been a lifelong member of the Maine fishing community, and his knowledge and expertise will be missed by the board of MCCF. Maine fishing communities and our entire State are proud of Ted's work and we wish him all the best in his retirement.

Ted was born and raised on Vinalhaven, one of the many vibrant island communities off the coast of Maine. Like so many before him, Ted has the ocean in his blood; he spent more than three decades as the captain of two boats, the F/V Mary Elizabeth and F/V Dorothy M., fishing for groundfish, scallops, and lobster. Ted was an early member of the Stonington Fisheries Alliance and then founded and served on the board of the Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington, which is now the Maine Center for Coastal Fisheries. Ted also founded and directed the Zone C Lobster Hatchery in Stonington. He is the former executive director of the Maine Gillnetters Association and a member of the Maine Marine Resources Committee to Establish a Lobster Zone Management Plan.

Not only did Ted have a long career as a fisherman, but he also taught at the University of Maine and Mt. Desert Island High School, educating the next generation about chemistry, biochemistry, and environmental science. Ted has a M.S. in biochemistry with a specialty in tissue culture and 6 years of research experience; he has won numerous recognitions including the 2005 MacArthur Foundation's Genius Award, Monmouth University's 2007 ``Champion of the Oceans'' Award, and was named a visiting coastal studies scholar at Bowdoin College in 2010. In 2007, he was the Geddes W. Simpson Distinguished Lecturer at the University of Maine for his work at the intersection of science and history.

Ted's career clearly shows his passion for ensuring that the tradition of fishing is preserved for generations to come. Ted has worked to restore cod, haddock, and flounder in the eastern Gulf of Maine, working with the Maine Department of Marine Resources to conduct interviews with retired fishermen, map historical stock distributions, and publish a paper that helped provide the scientific evidence that would explain the depletion of the fish in the area.

Ted has served his community and the State of Maine for many years in so many ways, and we are lucky to call him one of our own. While we will miss Ted's wisdom, knowledge, and work ethic at MCCF, we wish him and his wife Robin Alden nothing but the best in this new chapter.

Mr. President, I first want to make a single declarative sentence:

There is no one in this body who is for open borders.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this debate that has been framed, particularly by this administration, is that you are either for the wall or for open borders. That is not true. In 2013, two-thirds of us voted for a very strong border security provision as part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed this body--as I say, by two-thirds. It was never taken up in the House. Had it been taken up in the House, it likely would have passed; the President would have signed it; and a lot of these issues would have been behind us.

All of us--everyone here on both sides of the aisle--support border security. What we support is cost-effective, sensible border security, not border security that really doesn't fit the nature of the problem we face and that so far, anyway, is undefined in terms of location, design, cost, and all of the other characteristics of any major construction project that is submitted to this Congress for its approval.

Again, one of the problems with this whole discussion is what does the President mean when he says ``wall''? Is it 30 feet high? Is it 20 feet high? Is it steel? Is it concrete? This has evolved over time. The biggest question is where and how long. Is he talking about a wall that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to Southern California, to the Pacific Ocean? That is about 2,000 miles. Is that what he is talking about? If so, we should know that. Then we can debate it as it relates to other potential options for securing the border along that distance.

It also should be noted that there already is a wall, by anybody's definition, along portions of that border. I have seen it. I have been to McAllen, TX, where the President was yesterday, and I have seen the wall--a wall. Yet the questions are, How big is it? Where is it going to go? How is it going to be designed and paid for?

One of the reasons the wall is really not the right solution for the current problems of immigration starts with the fact that about 50 percent of the illegal immigrants--of the undocumented immigrants--in this country today are here on overstayed legal visas. A wall has nothing to do with these people. These are people who came in through airports and all other ports of entry all over the country into the United States, and 50 percent are here on overstayed visas. The wall has zero effect on that issue.

The other principal issue we are facing at the wall--and this has also been confused in the news coverage of the caravans and in the fear that has been spread--is that the vast majority of the people who come to the border today are not looking to sneak across; they are looking for a port of entry at which to give themselves up as asylum seekers. They are not illegal immigrants; they are availing themselves of American law. Once they get to this country, with their having credible fears of prosecution or of persecution or of danger in their home countries, they have a right to have it be determined whether they are legitimate asylum seekers.

That is who we are dealing with. That is who all of those people are. When you see the pictures of the caravans, they are not headed for a blank place in the Arizona desert. They want to go. They want to be captured. They want to be taken into custody. Then they can have their asylum claims adjudicated. The wall has nothing to do with them. The wall is a response to a problem that is decades old but that has grossly, drastically diminished over the last 10 or 15 years. For the problem of people literally sneaking across the border--entering the country illegally--all of the data is that the number is down. It is down about 85 percent from the number of people who entered the country illegally in 2007, over the past 10 or 11 years.

By the way, all of the data can be found in a fascinating document that was produced in September of 2017, about a year ago, by the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security. I can't remember the exact title, but it is something like the ``Status of Illegal Immigration at the Southern Border.'' It is a long report that is full of graphs. I like graphs, but I don't need to hold them up because all of the graphs have a downward slope in terms of illegal entries, of the people who get away, of the number of people who come in who are recidivists, who have been here before. They are all down. So to argue that we are somehow in a crisis today, when all of the indicators are moving in the right direction, is really hard to reconcile with the reality.

The issue I am trying to illustrate is that the wall is the wrong solution to the current problem. It may have been a rational solution in 1985 or even in 2005 or in 2006, when the Congress passed a major fence law and did increase border security substantially, but we are dealing with a different set of problems today that the wall--a wall-- whatever it is--doesn't address.

I said at the beginning that nobody here is against border security and that there may be places where a wall is part of that. Yet one of the secondary problems we have is, we have never been told what this thing--the wall--is. How long will it be? How big will it be? How much will it cost? Is it going to be on private land or Federal land? We don't have a plan for what it is that is actually being proposed that the government is being held hostage over.

We don't know what the President wants. To say ``I want a wall'' doesn't tell you much. Is it 2,000 miles long or 100 miles long? Is it 20 feet high, is it a fence, is it a 30-foot high concrete wall or something with steel slats, which seems to be the design of the day?

We don't really know what it is. If the mayor of Bangor, ME, went to the city council and said ``I want to build a new school, but I am not going to tell you how many students are going to be in it; I am not going to tell you where we are going to build it, and I am not going to tell you what it is going to cost; just give me a blank check to build that school,'' the city counsel of Bangor would laugh Her Honor out of the hall. It wouldn't even think about doing something like that. No city in America would do something like that. Yet that is what we are being asked to do here today.

We are essentially being asked for a blank check--well, it is a check for $5.7 billion, but that is a downpayment. The real estimate is for what they think the President wants, which is more in the $20- to $25- billion amount.

That gets me to my final point before I talk about the impact of this in Maine. Let's say that we could settle this, this week. We could negotiate with the White House--which is not easy to do because their position changes day to day--and say: OK, it is going to be 100 miles of wall; this will be the size; this will be the design; this is the agreed-upon cost. Let's say we could do that. If we do that in the context of the government being shut down, we are inviting this to happen again.

Next year, we will just have more budgets. We have a debt ceiling debate coming that is very important for the future of the country, for the economics of the country, for the soundness of our economy. We have budgets coming next September. If this works, if this shutdown that has been initiated by the President works as a tactic to get a portion of his wall, he will do it next time. That is why the age-old principle is, you don't negotiate with hostage-takers. Why? Because if you do, the next time, they will do it again. Then this will become a normal and routine tactic between this President and, perhaps, future Presidents and the Congress that puts us in a position of being totally--where we have to choose between a government shutdown and the pet project of whatever and whoever that President is. That is a very dangerous path for us as a deliberative body, particularly as a coequal branch of the U.S. Government.

I have talked in sort of global terms, but this is hurting Main Street America. We have heard today and we have heard on the news and we hear all the time about the effects on the furloughed Federal workers, which are very real. Today is the day that they don't get their check. Here is the problem: You can shut down and stop people's checks from coming, but you can't stop their bills from coming--their mortgage payment, their childcare payment, their automobile insurance, their homeowners insurance, their heating bill, their medication, their food. All of that has to be paid for.

We can say: Well, we know they will make adjustments. That is a pretty

hard path to put people on. That is a heartless path. These people are being used as pawns, as hostages, in a policy debate that has nothing to do with them.

One of the easiest solutions would be for us to pass the six bills that the House has passed and that we passed, which funds 90 percent of the government. Why should the Department of Agriculture be caught in the crossfire of a debate over a wall in Texas? Why should park rangers be caught in that? Why should the Coast Guard be caught in that?

This is having a real effect. Aside from those Federal workers, of whom there are about 1,000 in Maine on furlough right now, there are all the contractors that serve these government Agencies. We passed a bill last night that is going to ensure that the furloughed Federal employees will eventually be paid. That doesn't say anything about what they are going to have to do about penalties on late mortgages and those kinds of things that they can't pay now. But there is no help for the contractors that are going to lose total income during this period, and some of them will be threatened with going out of business.

It is not just the 800,000 workers nationwide; it is thousands and thousands--tens of thousands--of people who depend on those Agencies for the work that they do, that they provide to the Federal Government.

Let's talk about effects in hometown, Main Street America--in places all over Maine. In Portland, for example--I will chuckle because it sounds like ``Oh, this is no big deal''--one of our most growing industries in Maine is beer. We have over 1,000 people employed in the craft brewing industry. It has been a growth industry. Yet many of the brewers are being stymied because they can't ship their beer across State lines without approval of their labels from the Food and Drug Administration. That is held up.

We have a merger or an expansion of a brewery in Southern Maine that is held up because they can't get their permission from the tax and trade bureau, from the ATF. These are the kinds of things--the services that should be provided--that aren't occurring. The Portland Press Herald reported on the breweries.

The Portland Press Herald also reported on a developer who has a project to develop a real estate project in Maine and can't get an SBA loan. The SBA is shut down. That is going to hold up the project and could even cause the deal to fall through.

The Bangor Daily News reports that a family is stuck in the middle; they have moved out of their house, anticipating a closing on a new house with an Agriculture Department loan guarantee that is now stuck, stranded. There is no action, nobody to answer the phone. They are living out of boxes. They are caught in the middle.

These aren't Federal employees. These are good Maine people who relied upon the daily activities of the Federal Government occurring, which ought to be just simple common sense. Yet they are caught without a place to live.

The Ellsworth American newspaper in Ellsworth, ME, an award-winning weekly newspaper, reports about a smokehouse that does smoked salmon. They were getting ready to reopen and hire people. They got people on staff, and, all of a sudden, they are dead-stopped because the Food and Drug Administration can't act to approve their licenses.

You can say: OK, this little smokehouse can survive. The family will find a place to live, but if you multiply these examples by thousands and millions, you are talking about a really substantial effect on real people's lives, and there is no excuse for it.

If this were over some major life-or-death policy issue, it would be somewhat understandable, but this is an eminently negotiable problem. It is not a crisis but a problem. I don't argue that it is not a problem and that the southern border doesn't need to be secure--again, that is where I started--but the question is, How do you do it right? How do you do it in a way that makes sense to the American taxpayer?

There may be places where we need a wall, but the wall is $200 million a mile. There may be ways to do it for a fraction of that and provide equal security. There also are ways--for example, with better screening devices at the ports of entry--to deal with drugs.

By the way, all of the data from the DEA, the current administration's Drug Enforcement Agency, is that the principal source of drugs coming across the southern border is at ports of entry, hidden in cars, hidden in trucks, not over, through, and around some place in the middle of the desert. That is where the drugs are coming through. That is where we ought to be concentrating. That is where we ought to be putting the technology--more dogs, more technology that can detect this type of thing, not building a wall that doesn't address the current problem. It is a solution, but it is going after the wrong problem.

These are real-life impacts. It doesn't need to be this way. If this were a project being proposed by the military--a new BOQ at Fort Benning--it would come to this Congress. It would go to the authorization committee. The plans would go to the Appropriations Committee. We would review it, question the sponsors, determine if it were an appropriate expenditure of public funds, and either approve it or deny it or suggest some alteration. This wall has never gone through that process. We are basically abdicating to the administration a major decision, particularly about public expenditure, without meeting our responsibilities.

One really simple way to get out of this would be for us to vote by two-thirds to pass the budget that we voted on 98 to 2 several weeks ago. It has $1.6 billion in it for border security, by the way. We could pass that and then sit down and talk with the administration about just what it is that they want and what is reasonable and how do we do it in a sensible way, and then we can get this thing done.

What worries me is the posture that the Senate is in today is adding a provision that isn't in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the President can veto a bill. What we are saying here, now, through our inability or unwillingness to bring a bill to the floor is that the President can stop a bill simply by saying he doesn't like it. That is not what the Constitution says. It doesn't say that the President has the right to stop a bill he doesn't like. It says that he has to veto it. If he is going to veto it, fine. Then we can discuss it, debate it, and determine whether that is an appropriate veto. But by avoiding the responsibility of considering this legislation, we are essentially handing the President a massive power that I don't believe Presidents should have.

This is an important issue. It is one that should be considered. It is one that should be debated. I would like to see the administration given the opportunity to make its case for the specifics, not the case generally about criminals or drugs--many of those claims have been refuted--but a specific case: Here is what we want to do; here is the effect of it; here is what it will cost; and here is why this is the best solution, as opposed to other solutions, like a fence or more Border Patrol agents or more technology or drones or sensors or whatever. We are not being given that opportunity.

I am perfectly willing to debate that in good faith. I don't dismiss out of hand that a wall may make sense in certain areas, but I am not prepared to give this administration a blank check for some construction project when I don't know what it is they want to build.

I am also very reluctant to concede anything in the context of a hostage situation where the U.S. Government is being held hostage because of a project that the President wants to build. If we do this, this will become the go-to tactic for this administration and probably for future administrations. We will have established a precedent that will haunt this institution for years to come. That is one of the reasons I think it is just imperative that we not cave in to this kind of attempted intimidation and express our good-faith willingness to look at, work on, and try to establish the right role for all parts of border security, not put all of our chips in one area that I believe will be both ineffective--not cost-effective--and damaging to our other efforts to actually secure the border and protect the American people.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for just a short comment?

I can't leave the floor without complimenting the Senator from Alaska for her usual thoughtful analysis and constructive approach to dealing with this issue. I am proud to serve with the Senator on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She has brought the same wisdom to the floor today that she does to the work of our committee. I simply wanted to acknowledge that and thank her for her comments.