Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today following our colleague Senator Tillis to join him in talking about the importance of NATO and expressing our deep appreciation for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Senator Tillis and I are the cochairs of the newly established Senate NATO Observer Group, which builds on the effort that was started back in the 1990s, by Tom Daschle and Trent Lott, to address the expansion of NATO, following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our task is not just to shepherd through the Senate any changes in NATO that require Senate approval, but it is also to remind all of us and to remind the American public just how important NATO is.

Over the last seven decades, the NATO alliance has stood by its members in the darkest hours, including in Afghanistan, after the United States was attacked on September 11.

As Secretary General Stoltenberg reminded us yesterday, the only time article 5, the mutual aid clause of the NATO charter, has been invoked was after September 11, after the United States was attacked by terrorists.

Our Transatlantic bond has been critical to the United States and NATO, and, in particular, it has sustained a period of unprecedented global security and stability. While people may not recognize it, every day the United States sees the benefit of NATO. Whether we need to use NATO bases to evacuate American troops from conflict or to ensure that American goods and people travel safely across the Atlantic Ocean, NATO plays a critical role.

As NATO marks its 70th anniversary--today, in fact--the fact is that the alliance makes us stronger around the world and safer at home. So it is no wonder that Americans are very supportive of this organization. Any implication that Americans don't like or understand NATO is just simply wrong.

This week the Pew Research Center unveiled research to show that nearly 8 in 10 Americans, or 77 percent of Americans, including large majorities in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, agree that being a member of NATO is good for the United States.

We have also seen that the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has recorded a steady increase in NATO favorability across generations of Americans. Even the millennials, the generation born between 1981 and 1996, which are now the largest voting bloc in the United States, value our alliances, and 72 percent back the United States' contribution to

Madam President, I am here this afternoon to support the resolution that would terminate the President's unconstitutional emergency declaration. It is a declaration that would take money away from critical military construction projects to fund a costly and ineffective border wall.

Congress did not provide these funds for a border wall that President Trump promised Mexico would pay for; rather, we specifically allocated these resources that are being talked about to be used by the President for the wall to ensure that our military is ready and capable and that our servicemembers receive the support they deserve.

The President's attempt to circumvent Congress by making the military pay for his border wall jeopardizes our national security and does a disservice to our men and women in uniform. That is why the House passed the legislation on the Senate floor today and why I introduced legislation with my colleagues in the Senate to terminate the emergency declaration.

The resources Congress has provided support military construction projects in New Hampshire and across the country. Those projects often provide necessary infrastructure improvements that enable our servicemembers to accomplish their mission.

Several of those projects that, I think, are potentially being reviewed for being added to the list of projects to have money taken from are at the Portsmouth Naval shipyard. It is one of the many installations that faces potential cuts in funding if this emergency declaration is executed. Congress has already approved funding for several projects at the shipyard and at our public shipyards around the country that support critical submarine maintenance, and any disruption to funding of those projects could lead to costly delays and to a reduction in military readiness because they would derail carefully laid plans to upgrade aging infrastructure. Delays in projects that support the shipyard's mission threaten to exacerbate the Navy's already high demand for submarine maintenance and the projected submarine shortfall in the coming years.

I recently sent a letter to President Trump and spoke with the leaders at DOD urging them to protect these important projects at the shipyard, but the only way to ensure that these projects move forward is to terminate the emergency declaration.

In addition to projects at the shipyard, the emergency declaration could also impact New Hampshire's National Guard readiness centers, which are in desperate need of modernization. A 2014 report from the Army National Guard ranked the condition of New Hampshire's National Guard facilities 51 out of 54 States and territories.

Our National Guard has been forced to shoulder an enormous burden since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Servicemembers have often faced multiple deployments, and they still had to respond to national disasters at home and to other personal crises. The New Hampshire National Guard can't afford further delays to the readiness center improvements because of President Trump's emergency declaration.

These military construction projects in New Hampshire are at risk because President Trump wants to score political points by building a wall rather than focusing on the border security proposals that actually work. I was disappointed to hear my colleague from Texas accusing Democrats of not supporting border security because, in fact, virtually everyone here has supported significant border security proposals in the past, including targeted fencing in vulnerable areas where we know fencing or barriers can make a difference. We have supported more Border Patrol agents, better surveillance and screening technologies, and increased security at the ports of entry.

Coming from a State where we have a huge challenge with the opioid epidemic, where we understand the impact of having cocaine and fentanyl and other drugs come across our border, I also know the best way to interdict those drugs is through the ports of entry. That is where most of them are coming from.

In a recent bipartisan budget agreement Congress provided, I supported, along with the majority of this Senate, nearly $15 billion for Customs and Border Protection, including $1.3 billion for physical infrastructure in vulnerable areas along the southern border. The reality at our borders is, the vast majority of drugs and contraband come through the ports of entry. They don't come through the areas between the ports of entry.

In the past 2 months alone, law enforcement officials have made the largest cocaine seizure in the past 25 years at Newark, NJ, and the largest fentanyl seizure ever at any port of entry in the U.S. in Arizona. Despite this reality, President Trump insists on having our military bear the burden to fulfill his campaign promise.

His insistence that the situation at the border requires the military to pay for his wall runs counter to what I have heard in the Senate Armed Services Committee from our military leaders. In a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, General O'Shaughnessy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, testified that the threats to our Nation on our southern border are not military in nature, and he has never advised the President that a border wall is necessary to support his mission. Just this morning, we heard testimony at our SASC hearing with Secretary Shanahan and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dunford that we have more troops on our southern border with Mexico than we have in all of Europe, on Europe's eastern border with Russia, and we have almost as many on our southern border, and one-quarter as many as we have on the DMZ on the border with North Korea. By any measure, North Korea and Russia pose a greater threat to our national security than Mexico. It is a policy that does not make sense. Yet we have more troops on the southern border now than we do in Eastern Europe and in Syria.

The fact is, the men and women at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and at the New Hampshire National Guard

and men and women serving in our military across this country should not be forced to sacrifice readiness for an unnecessary border wall that takes funding away from projects that this Congress has already approved that are going forward.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect Congress's constitutional authority and defend our national security by supporting the resolution to terminate President Trump's emergency declaration.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon with mixed emotions--mixed emotions because I feel a tremendous sense of gratitude but also sadness because at the end of this month, tomorrow, after more than a decade of working together, my chief of staff, Maura Keefe, will leave to start a new adventure.

Maura is here on the floor today with my new chief of staff, Chad Kreikemeier, and most of our staff here in DC are in the Gallery watching. Everyone is here because we think so much of Maura, and we are so sad that she is leaving but wish her Godspeed in everything she does. She has been an incredible asset as we worked together to improve the lives of Granite Staters.

I must thank her for her service and share some of the memories from the past 10 years. In New Hampshire, where we are the home of the first primary State, public service and political engagement are part of our culture. It is a culture that is epitomized by Maura and her family.

Maura helped me get elected in 2008. Actually, she helped me before that--in 2002, when I didn't win the election. Despite our loss, she came back and she worked with me in 2008, and then when we won, she set up the office. She had already accumulated several careers by that time in political campaigns and nonprofits and in the private sector. At each and every step along the way, Maura made new friendships, and she blazed a trail of accomplishments. Her time with us has certainly been no different.

I remember right after that election, she and a small group of people were working to set up the office. She showed me the files of people who were interested in working on the staff. I was down here for orientation, and she and the woman who would become the deputy chief of staff spent the whole weekend--while I was running around doing fun things, they were working into the night to go through those resumes to hire the best possible people to open the office.

Maura's father, who served as chief of staff to New Hampshire Senator Tom McIntyre, whose seat I now hold, would be very proud of everything she has done and all of her accomplishments.

I will never be able to thank her enough for building our wonderful team, for hiring a staff of dedicated public servants who work hard for the people of New Hampshire.

Those of us who have had the pleasure to work with Maura know her sense of humor. She does great birthday cards that are very funny. Every month when we do birthdays in the office, she does farewell cards that are sort of testimonials but more roasts--or equally roast and testimonial. Her sense of humanity is also what makes her special. I have certainly benefited from both of these over the last 10 years.

Maura is going to be missed, not just in our offices here in Washington and in New Hampshire but throughout the Senate because for the last several years, she has played an important leadership role among the Democratic chiefs of staff and among the women chiefs of staff. She has made a positive difference for all of our offices, and she has made important and constructive inroads with Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle. Her presence will be missed by so many people in this institution.

Of course she is going to be missed for forging important consensus on the golf course as well. Our office does a golf outing every summer, and Maura is always the one who comes out on top in those golf outings. She has two holes in one, and she displays the plaques for those holes in one on the wall that is between our two offices. They are a reminder that from the Capitol to the tee box and everywhere in between, Maura is a fierce competitor.

Over the last 10 years, there have been real historic moments. I hope those moments will be the cornerstone of Maura's memories from the Senate--the passage of healthcare reform that was decades in the making, ushering in the first bipartisan energy efficiency legislation in a generation, working to put a woman on the twenty-dollar bill, increasing funding and resources to combat the opioid crisis, expanding critical investments for the Office on Violence Against Women, and so many other critical infrastructure projects, changes in New Hampshire that have meant jobs and that have improved the lives of so many of our citizens.

Perhaps the most succinct description of Maura can be credited to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, for whom Maura worked as chief of staff in the 1990s. Congresswoman DeLauro once told a reporter aptly that Maura is ``someone who doesn't mince words.'' I can attest to that. When I do things that she thinks are not quite what I ought to be doing, she doesn't mince words; she lets me have it.

I am going to greatly miss her daily doses of wisdom and wit. Her supporting counsel has always been invaluable to me. I can't thank her enough for her dedicated service.

Thank you, Maura. We are all going to miss you but me, most of all.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the legislation that the Presiding Officer has authored. It would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, and it would pose new obstacles to a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.

Regardless of what the intent of the legislation is, the fact is, the way it is written, it intimidates doctors with the threat of criminal liability for performing safe and legal abortions. It will have a chilling effect on the ability of women to access the services they need in the United States.

We must always remember that abortions that are performed later in pregnancy are most often done as the result of severe fetal diagnoses and the serious risks that pregnancy poses to the life of the mother.

And let's be very clear: This isn't a decision that any women or family wants to be in a position to make. It is tragic and it is heartbreaking, and efforts to politicize the trauma of women and families who have been forced to make this decision are really shameful, and it sets a dangerous precedent for women's comprehensive healthcare.

By installing new uncertainty and risk of criminal liability into the process for late-term abortions, this legislation increases the risk that women will not be able to get the medical care they need when their pregnancy poses a risk to their lives. This bill ignores those important realities in what appears to be an attempt to score political points with anti-choice groups.

Again and again, at every turn, we have seen this administration and our Republican colleagues push forward policies intended to threaten access to abortion care. Just last week, the Trump administration cut off critical family planning resources for family planning clinics that offer information and referrals for women seeking to obtain legal abortions. If you want to prevent abortions, you want to make sure families have access to family planning. We know that is an important way to reduce the number of abortions in this country.

So we are seeing that this bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women's health. Now more than ever, we need to stand up and help protect women's healthcare and make certain that abortions remain safe and legal.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and its consideration on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we hope to vote on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that will fully fund the government and provide additional measures to strengthen our border security.

I want to applaud all of the members of the conference committee who worked on this agreement. I particularly want to recognize those Senate Members, led by Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, for negotiating a bipartisan compromise that will keep the government's doors open. Neither side got everything they wanted--that is why it is called a compromise--but in the end, fully funding the government and keeping it open is what is best for the American people.

What we saw during the 35-day government shutdown was that it took a terrible toll on our Federal workers, and it cost the U.S. economy $11 billion--including $3 billion that is gone forever, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Across the country, Federal workers have been very anxiously waiting to see if we were going to come to an agreement, if they were going to be

able to pay their mortgages, afford groceries, and get their prescriptions. Well, today, hopefully we can put their minds at ease. We can pass this legislation, and hopefully the President will sign it, because failure to do so would once again deprive Americans of important government services and throw our economy into a tailspin.

I urge all of our colleagues in Congress to take up this funding legislation, to pass it, and the President to sign it as soon as it reaches his desk.

Protecting our borders should not be an exercise in partisanship, and I am glad to see that this bill supports commonsense investments that focus on the technology, infrastructure, and personnel that are needed at the southern and northern borders to provide actual security that works.

The bill provides $1.375 billion for targeted fencing in vulnerable areas along the southern border and more than $800 million for Border Patrol agents, better surveillance and screening technologies, and increased security at our ports of entry. When resourced and deployed appropriately, these types of smart investments are far more likely to interrupt the flow of narcotics than a costly and ineffective border wall.

Importantly, the legislation also includes $77 million for opioid equipment and staffing to interdict fentanyl and other synthetic opioids that are shipped through international mail and express consignment facilities. This is particularly important to States like mine, New Hampshire, where we have the second highest overdose death rate from opioids in the country. So many of those deaths are caused by the synthetic fentanyl. The opioid epidemic is a true national emergency, and Federal investments like these are needed to stop the illegal flow of these drugs into the country.

When Congress takes up and passes this deal, it will not only pass the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security but also six other appropriations bills that have unfortunately been waylaid by our shutdown. This appropriations package supports critical Federal investments across all government Agencies, and I want to highlight just a few of those, starting with the programs funded in the bipartisan Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019.

As ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee, I worked closely with my colleague Senator Moran from Kansas, who chairs the subcommittee, and we crafted what I believe is a truly bipartisan bill that will promote the economy, protect the American people, and secure our Nation's leadership in science and innovation.

For example, the fiscal year 2019 CJS bill provides $468 million in dedicated Justice Department grant programs to tackle the opioid epidemic. The legislation will provide funding to State and local governments and those organizations working on the frontlines-- providing a balanced approach of law enforcement, treatment, and recovery resources to help our communities that are dealing with opioid and fentanyl deaths. This amount is $21 million higher than the fiscal year 2018 level and $336 million higher than the President's budget request. For communities desperately fighting opioid addiction, any further delay in funding is dangerous and could be deadly, so it is critical that we pass this bill today.

Importantly, the legislation also contains the highest funding level ever for the Office on Violence Against Women--$497.5 million for critical programs that provide training for police officers and prosecutors, rape prevention programs, and funding for women's shelters.

While I am glad that the appropriations package provides funding for these Violence Against Women Act programs, more work needs to be done to better support survivors of domestic and sexual violence. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the complex issue of domestic violence.

The appropriations package also supports investments in our national infrastructure and provides more than $49 billion to the Federal Highway Administration to modernize our highways and repair our bridges.

This legislation would also provide a $1.3 billion increase for housing programs like rental assistance and homeless support services. For us in New Hampshire, that means that 9,500 low-income households will continue to have a place they can call home.

I am pleased that the appropriations package includes a 1.9-percent pay increase for Federal civilian employees. This is a cost-of-living increase that is long overdue.

During the shutdown, I had a chance to meet with a number of our Federal workers, and one of the things that impressed me the most was the dedication those workers had to their jobs and to serving the people of this country. They were going to work without getting paid and without knowing when they were going to get paid. Yet they showed up every day because of their commitment to the people of this country.

In addition to passing this appropriations package, Congress should take further action to provide financial security to Federal employees and contractors. We just heard our colleague Tina Smith talking about the importance of providing the pay to those people who so far are not slated to get backpay. I have cosponsored legislation to secure backpay for the Federal contractor employees, including janitorial, food, and security service workers who were furloughed or forced to accept reduced work hours as a result of the shutdown. I hope we in Congress will take up and pass the bills Senator Smith outlined as soon as possible.

I know you know this, Mr. President, because we have talked about it, but Americans are tired of partisanship. They expect their elected officials to work together to come to a bipartisan compromise and to do what is good for the country, and I couldn't agree more.

The Senate will soon consider an appropriations package to supply Federal investments for programs that support national defense, small businesses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low- income families, and so much more. This package also includes compromised proposals to improve our border security.

I hope that we will pass this package this afternoon and that the President will sign this legislation into law as soon as it passes the House.

Federal workers are dedicated to serving the American people, and they have families to care for. They should never again be used as pawns. We should never again use shutting down the Federal Government as an excuse over disagreements over policy issues. It is time for our elected leaders to move away from the partisan politics and to live up to the expectations of our constituents. Let's fund the government, and let's do it today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, after the longest shutdown in government history, Federal employees across the country are finally returning to work. National parks are reopening, grant programs are up and running again, and those who depend on essential government services are now being helped by our Nation's public servants.

One of the things that impressed me the most during the shutdown was, as I met with our Federal employees who were affected, their dedication to their jobs and to the services they were providing to the American people. Like the rest of the Members of Congress and people in this country, I was thrilled when we were able to end that shutdown last week, and I was especially pleased to work with my colleagues to make sure government operations would return to normal. This shutdown should never have happened.

For 35 days, partisan gamesmanship forced government Agencies to close their doors, and more than 380,000 Federal workers were furloughed and another 450,000 employees worked without pay.

These Federal workers, some of whom live paycheck to paycheck, were forced to have very difficult conversations with their families on what bills will not be paid this month and how to make ends meet. I remember I was at the Coast Guard station in New Hampshire last week meeting with members of our Coast Guard who were talking about the Coast Guard cutter that is stationed there--the Reliance--heading out that morning and the families of those Coast Guard members who were on the Reliance not having any idea when they would again be paid.

Thankfully, these 800,000 employees and thousands more Federal contractors are returning to work. Unfortunately, the prolonged economic effect of the shutdown and the morale of the Federal workforce is going to last much longer.

A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office found that during the shutdown, the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 billion that is gone forever, which we are never going to be able to recover. When people aren't paid, they don't shop. They don't travel. They miss payments. They default on loans. They can't participate in our economy if they have nothing in the bank.

Although the shutdown has ended, some Federal employees who have gone without a paycheck for over a month still may not get paid until the end of this week. I know everybody is trying to make sure those paychecks go out as soon as possible. They can't go out soon enough for those workers who have missed their paychecks.

As the President continues to threaten another shutdown in the coming weeks, Congress needs to take additional action to protect Federal workers. I am cosponsoring three bills that would provide some financial security to those employees. These bills would eliminate penalties for Federal workers who make early withdrawals from their savings plans, require the government to pay back all Federal employees with interest, just as the private sector does, and they would ensure that excepted Federal employees are eligible for unemployment insurance compensation.

What we know happened during the shutdown is that those people who were working couldn't collect unemployment because they were working, even though they weren't getting paid. That is something we would never allow the private sector to do.

I was very disappointed to hear the President and White House officials say over the weekend that if the President doesn't get what he wants, he is going to shut down the government again. The American people, our economy, can't afford another partisan shutdown that jeopardizes our Federal workforce and does nothing to increase border security. Our focus now needs to be on working together to pass bipartisan legislation that secures our borders and funds our government.

Protecting our borders shouldn't be an exercise in partisanship. In the past, in the Senate, we have been able to garner support from across the ideological spectrum to fund commonsense proposals that provide effective security.

If we look at this chart that traces appropriations for Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2018, we can see that Congress has consistently increased funding for Customs and Border Protection each of the past 5 fiscal years, providing nearly $60 billion for the Agency. In 2014, we provided $10.6 billion; 2015, $10.7 billion; 2016, $11.2 billion; 2017, $12.1 billion; and 2018, $14 billion. It is consistently increasing the dollars that are available.

Just last year, Congress provided $1.3 billion for border fencing on our southern border--$1.3 billion last year. I am not sure everyone in the administration knows that is how much money we have provided. The money has yet to be spent on the actual construction of proposed fencing projects.

As we are thinking about how we spend our money on border security, we need to be spending it in a way that is smart. We should not be putting aside money we can't spend yet when there are other needs we have for those dollars.

We need to build on these proposals moving forward. We need to focus on technology, on infrastructure, and we need to focus on the personnel who are needed at the southern and northern borders to provide actual security that works. We need to make targeted investments and innovative technologies that provide comprehensive surveillance at our borders and ports of entry, along with increasing personnel and physical infrastructure where necessary.

As a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds Homeland Security, I have supported these investments in the past and so has the majority of the members of the committee. We have worked in a bipartisan manner to secure our borders.

I have supported funding for targeted fencing in vulnerable areas, funding for more Border Patrol agents, for better surveillance, for screening technologies, and for increased security at ports of entry. I intend to continue to support commonsense efforts such as these.

Unfortunately, providing billions of dollars to fulfill a campaign promise to build a wall that has no plan that has been presented for how to do that is really not a serious proposal. It is unlikely to solve the problems it seeks to address.

Our efforts to secure the border should focus on solutions that will stem the flow of opioids, fentanyl, and other drugs that have decimated our communities. Last year, New Hampshire had the second highest rate of

overdose deaths due to opioids, primarily fentanyl.

Physical infrastructure and some fencing in high-risk areas can help to disrupt drug trafficking across our borders, but it should be done in conjunction with and not at the expense of other technologies that allow law enforcement to identify and disrupt criminal activity.

Several years ago, Senator Hoeven and I--when he was chair and I was ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee-- visited the southern border. We had a chance to talk to Customs and Border Protection officials, to immigration officials at the border. They talked about the drugs that come across at the ports of entry. In Laredo, we saw dogs and CBP agents looking in a pickup truck for an area in front of the gas tank where they thought drugs were being secreted.

We are not going to intercept those drugs that are affecting our States and communities by building a wall. We have to have new screening technologies at our ports of entry, new technologies that utilize artificial intelligence and advanced imaging so they can assist in identifying contraband and weapons that are hidden in commercial cargo.

Sensor technologies and other surveillance techniques, such as unmanned aerial systems, or drones, allow our border agents to expand their region and respond immediately to illegal activity at our borders. When resourced and deployed appropriately, these types of smart investments are far more likely to interrupt the flow of narcotics than a costly and ineffective border wall.

It is also important to remember that the United States and Canada share the longest international border in the world, and the northern border may not face the same threats as those posed at the southern border, but transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors still attempt to exploit vulnerabilities and enter the country illegally through our northern border.

Coming from a State that shares a small portion of our border with Canada, I have heard from law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. Our law enforcement officials face unique challenges with enforcement and security. These challenges include a lack of broadband in highly rural areas that impedes law enforcement activities. If we see somebody coming across the border in northern New Hampshire from Canada, we can't pick up a cellphone and call law enforcement because we don't have cell service in northern New Hampshire along our border.

Truly comprehensive border security must recognize the threat at our northern border and invest in technologies to address the unique challenges that law enforcement faces there. We need broadband access in northern New Hampshire and all along our northern border.

We also need to improve the functioning of our immigration port system. We really need comprehensive immigration reform, but we are not going to get there, I don't think, by the February 15 deadline. We can look at what is slowing down our immigration court system and help support those efforts to adjudicate immigration cases fairly and expeditiously and reduce the enormous immigration court case backlog.

Again, as a ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Department of Justice, I have supported strong funding to increase the number of immigration judges, including an increase of $59 million for fiscal year 2019. This increased amount is, in fact, the President's request that would support new immigration judge teams. We already put that money into the 2019 budget, if we are allowed to go forward with what the Appropriations Committee in the Senate agreed to.

Our immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 800,000 cases waiting to be heard, and the shutdown exacerbated this problem by forcing more than 80,000--80,000--court hearings to be canceled. The average wait time to hear an immigration case is already longer than 2 years, and these unnecessarily canceled hearings will be rescheduled into 2020 and beyond.

This shutdown-caused delay means years longer that people who should be deported, who may pose a threat in this country, will be able to stay here and years longer that the people who may deserve relief, who should be allowed to stay in the United States, will have to wait in limbo.

Now that the shutdown has ended, now that cooler heads can prevail, and we can look at what makes sense to secure our borders, look at what we have already done, how we can build on that and how we can address legitimate concerns about what is going on at our borders, it is time for all of us--Republicans and Democrats--to put aside gamesmanship and to support commonsense proposals.

It is my hope that the conference committee that has already been appointed to negotiate funding for the Department of Homeland Security will focus on the solutions that work rather than proposals that score political points. This shutdown took an enormous economic and emotional toll not only on our Federal workforce but on everyone who accesses government services.

As we craft a bipartisan proposal to fund the government and secure our borders, let's not forget the impact that has had on the people we serve and on the potential impact if we don't get this resolved by February 15.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I join my colleagues this morning to share the stories of the people in New Hampshire who are currently enduring hardships because of this Trump shutdown--a shutdown that has been termed by a number of my colleagues as the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

I have here a picture of Andre and his wife Maria and their three beautiful children, from Derry, NH. Andre is an air traffic controller who works at the Boston Terminal Radar Approach Control facility in Merrimack, NH. It is sounds like it would be in Boston, but it is not. It is in New Hampshire, where we have hundreds of air traffic controllers and FAA personnel.

Andre works at the center to keep the airways safe for passengers who are flying over the Granite State. He also represents and talks to a number of other air traffic controllers in the New England region to hear what they have to say.

With what he is hearing right now regarding the shutdown, Andre writes:

Air traffic controllers have remained on the job, dedicated

to the safety of every flight, but we don't know when we will

receive our next paycheck. My colleagues and

I have suffered the sudden loss of our income due to the

government shutdown. It's going to be hard for me to meet all

of my financial obligations.

What I am most impressed by with regard to the Federal workers with whom I have met is their dedication to their jobs. All of those air traffic controllers understand that the safety of the skies in the United States depends on them, and they are there. They are not getting paid. They are experiencing hardships like Andre is talking about, but they are there and are doing everything they can to make sure that the American public can fly safely.

In addition to Andre's story, I have heard from nearly 100 other air traffic controllers in New Hampshire who are all calling for an end to the shutdown--air traffic controllers who are protecting our safety and who are working without pay.

I want to read an excerpt from a letter that I received from Jamie in Auburn, NH, because I think it so exemplifies where we are and how the American people are feeling about this government shutdown.

Jamie writes:

Dear Senator Shaheen, there are many stories to be told

regarding the effects of the government shutdown on Federal

employees--the stress of financial uncertainty, the inability

to take necessary time from work to care for our families,

and the continued degradation of FAA resources. . . . These

are but a few examples shared amongst us, but there is

something that tears at the very fabric of who we are. We

take deep pride in serving our country and providing the

safest and most efficient air traffic control system in the

world. We do so with an unwavering sense of duty and a deep

understanding of the trust bestowed on us by the American

people. To be used as pawns in a political chess match not

only disrespects us as dedicated Federal employees, but it

serves to weaken our democracy. A government that must hold

hostage the livelihood of its citizens is the very definition

of a failed democracy.

Sadly, that is what President Donald Trump is doing. He is holding hostage hundreds of thousands of Federal workers, and he is being enabled in this effort by the Republican leadership in this Senate who is unwilling to bring forward the bills that would open the government today. We could pass them today.

These are just two examples that I think articulate the very real impact this shutdown is having on many hard-working Americans and their families.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters that I have received from air traffic controllers.

I know every Member of the Senate has heard from constituents who are facing significant hardships as a result of the shutdown. I know every Member wants this shutdown to end. Unfortunately, President Trump doesn't seem to want this shutdown to end.

The House has already passed appropriations bills that would reopen the government. This appropriations legislation is not partisan. In fact, they are bills that have already had bipartisan support in the Senate. So I urge President Trump, Majority Leader McConnell, and our Republican colleagues to take up these bills to reopen the government. I believe we should reopen the government. Let's do our jobs so the rest of America can do theirs.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kaine and so many others who are here on the floor today to talk about the hardship that has been created for so many Americans by this government shutdown--a government shutdown that is wasteful, unnecessary, and totally about politics.

Today is the 17th day since this partisan brinkmanship shut down 9 out of 15 Departments and dozens of government Agencies that we depend on to protect our health and safety.

We could reopen the government's doors today if Senate Republicans take up the bills that were passed by the House--bills that were written and overwhelmingly approved by the Republican-controlled Senate just a few weeks ago.

If there is bipartisan and bicameral agreement on the appropriations bills, then why has the government shut down? Sadly, it is because the President wants to force American taxpayers to foot the bill for an ineffective and costly wall on the southern border--a wall which the President promised Mexico would pay for and which is opposed by the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, the men and women who work in Agencies that protect the American people and who protect our borders are either not working or on the job but not getting paid. In total, more than 380,000 Federal employees have been furloughed, and more than 450,000 are working without pay.

This shutdown affects the entire country, including New Hampshire. It is not just the thousands of Federal workers who are affected by the shutdown; it is also harming millions of Americans who depend on essential services provided by the affected Agencies, people like those Senator Kaine described.

Last Friday, I had a chance to meet with farmers in New Hampshire who are affected by the ongoing closure of the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. They are not receiving the essential services and loans they need to prepare for spring planting.

Many dairy farmers, who have been under extreme hardship anyway because of the tariffs with China and falling dairy prices, talked about the impact on them. Last year, New Hampshire dairy farmers lost $1 million because of the tariffs, and our farmers tell me they are in danger of losing several million more this coming year. So they can't afford to have another hit.

The fact that this new dairy safety net program, which was passed in the farm bill--and congratulations to Senator Stabenow, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. She and Senator Roberts did a great job providing help for the first time for so many dairy farmers. Even though they are hurting because of the tariffs, those farmers can't benefit from that right now because the program's implementation has been delayed. They don't know how long they will be able to hold on before they are able to get help.

Furloughs have also slowed work at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the programs it oversees that are integral to New Hampshire's effort to fight the deadly opioid epidemic. Everybody who is getting ready to speak has seen the effects in their States because of the delays in these programs. Last year, New Hampshire had the second highest rate of deaths due to opioid-related drug overdoses. Continued delays from the Agency will pull the rug out from under our first responders, who rely on ONDCP resources and critical Federal opioid response efforts. Just as we are beginning to see some progress in fighting the opioid epidemic because of the work of Congress, we are seeing steps taken that move us backward.

Of course, there are the air traffic controllers. Last Friday, I visited with New Hampshire's air traffic controllers to discuss how the shutdown is affecting their operations and safety at our airports. I have received 38 handwritten letters from New Hampshire air traffic controllers who are opposed to the shutdown.

(Mr. DAINES assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Air traffic controllers keep our airways safe, but, as we all know, they are being asked to work long shifts without being sure they are going to get paid for that work. One air traffic controller I heard from was recently transferred to the Boston area, which is covered in New Hampshire. She is the sole provider to her mother. Now she is paying not only her mortgage but her mother's mortgage.

In a letter she addressed to my office, she wrote:

As a sole source of income to my household, the foreseeable

future of this shutdown is detrimental. . . . [It has

created] a substantial burden on not just me but the

thousands of federal employees it's impacting.

Sadly, the shutdown also stands to affect the safety of air travel-- not because our air traffic controllers aren't on the job. They are on the job. They are doing the work even though they are not getting paid. But the fact is, men and women who provide administrative and maintenance functions on the runway--those people who fix equipment when it stops working, who are in the control tower and at airport facilities--they will not be at work to support our air traffic controllers. So when a runway or taxiway light goes dark, it is going to go unrepaired. That jeopardizes the safety and the efficiency of aviation operations.

Then there are the impacts to those Agencies that are funded by the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. I understand this particularly well as the ranking member on the CJS Subcommittee of Appropriations. I know what a devastating effect this shutdown is having on these Agencies.

More than 41,000 law enforcement agents of the Department of Justice--including agents within the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Prisons--are working for IOUs. We are hearing this directly in New Hampshire, where every staff member at the Federal Correctional Institution in Berlin, NH, which is in northern New Hampshire, is excepted. That means they are required to report for work, and they are not being paid.

I would like to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Chris Allen. Chris is the president of the union at FCI Berlin, which represents 180 staff members. He highlighted the kinds of choices staff members are being forced to make. He said:

While some staff members can call and potentially have a

mortgage or a car payment excused if they are missing only

one source of income, even buying simple groceries or paying

for childcare becomes difficult for a family when all sources

of income have been stopped and you are required to continue

working.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Chris's letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, because of the shutdown, the Department of Commerce is not processing U.S. companies' requests to be excluded from the President's steel and aluminum tariffs. That delay will cost companies millions of dollars and will increase economic uncertainty. The shutdown is also preventing the Department of Commerce from assessing new anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases that help ensure our companies are competing on a level playing field.

Finally, this shutdown, like all shutdowns, is going to put a lasting burden on the economy. The 16-day shutdown in 2013 cost the government $2.5 billion in pay and benefits, and it lowered fourth-quarter gross domestic product for the country by about $3 billion in lost output.

The 2018 Trump shutdown has furloughed about 380,000 employees, nearly half of the number furloughed in 2013. So it is fair to say that the shutdown has already cost the government at least $1 billion, and the number is growing every day. The toll this shutdown is taking on the American people was completely avoidable. That is what is so frustrating, and I know it is frustrating to everybody in this Chamber.

Last week, the House passed legislation to reopen the government that is virtually identical to legislation that passed the Senate or was reported by the Appropriations Committee with strong bipartisan margins. In fact, here, as we remember, that continuing resolution to allow us to keep negotiating passed by a voice vote.

I urge Senator McConnell to bring these bills to the floor. Let President Trump decide to sign them or not sign them. He can make that choice as President, but we are a separate branch of government, and it is up to us to make the determination to end the shutdown immediately and to do what is right for the American people. We need to ensure that all government employees affected by the shutdown receive the pay they deserve. I know there is legislation, led by Senators Cardin and Collins, to do that. I urge Congress to take up and pass this critical legislation as soon as possible.

One of the most fundamental constitutional duties of Congress is the appropriations process--to supply annual funds for Federal programs that support national defense, transportation, small businesses, food assistance for low-income families, research and development, and so much more. Right now, by refusing to allow legislation to reopen the government, this Senate--this Congress--is failing, and millions of Americans are suffering as a result.

I urge President Trump, Senator McConnell, and congressional Republicans to reopen the government and allow Americans to get back to work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his compelling remarks. In fact, for the last several hours, we have heard compelling remarks from a number of our colleagues. I thank Senator Kaine from Virginia for helping to organize this effort and all of those who have come to the floor to talk about the lasting and negative effects of this senseless shutdown--a shutdown that is all about President Trump yielding to Rush Limbaugh and the rightwing commentators who told them he wasn't being tough enough.

Senators Casey and Markey reminded us how we got here, that we had an agreement we thought the President had committed to sign. His Vice President, his Acting Chief of Staff, told us he was going to sign it. It passed the Senate on a voice vote.

What is so ironic, as Senator Markey said, is that what is happening now is actually making us less safe. The idea that we have all of these people on our southern border, all of these TSA agents, people who are working, 800,000 employees, 400,000 who are furloughed, 380,000 who are working without pay--that is actually making us less safe.

As Senator Durbin pointed out, a wall across our southern border wouldn't do anything to interdict the fentanyl that is coming across from China. That is the biggest killer of people in New Hampshire from overdoses; it is the fentanyl. As Senator Jones pointed out, the Coast Guard's role in interdiction is what is significant. It is not a wall that is going to keep out those vehicles that are going to come through our ports of entry.

Senator Stabenow reminded us that there are 38 million people who depend on food assistance, and a quarter of the people in New Mexico, as Senator Heinrich told us, depend on food assistance. He quoted his constituent Kathy, who pointed out that the President is holding us hostage. She said: Federal employees are being held hostage. We are now being held hostage in the Senate because the majority is unwilling to act on the legislation that has passed the House and previously passed the Senate.

Senator Bennet talked about China landing on the dark side of the Moon last week. It is a reminder that we have to compete in this world, that we can't assume that America is going to be No. 1 in everything again. Yet, while China was landing on the dark side of the Moon, our government was shut down. Thousands of researchers weren't doing their jobs at NASA, the Department of Agriculture, and so many other places because we were shut down.

The cost to the economy as a whole, as Senator Hassan pointed out-- there are craft breweries in New Hampshire, small businesses that can't get their businesses started because government is shut down.

Senator Klobuchar pointed out that the cost to the economy, according to the President's own advisers, is $10 billion a week. At a time when the stock market is going up and down, when we have people losing billions of dollars because of fluctuations in the stock market, $10 billion a week contributes to that uncertainty.

Then, of course, Senator Van Hollen and Senator Merkley and virtually everybody here talked about the impact on ordinary Americans from this government shutdown. We are going to hear from President Trump in about 5 minutes. He is going to speak to the country. I will bet he doesn't talk about the impact on ordinary Americans of this government shutdown. I will bet he doesn't talk about the cost to the economy or what he promised to sign when this Congress passed funding bills. I will bet he doesn't talk about the future of America and what is going to happen if we don't continue to invest in research and if we don't continue to invest in our people and instead get involved in these partisan fights. No. I think what he is going to do is tell Americans a made-up story about the emergency at our southern border--an emergency that we saw from Senator Durbin and Senator Merkley is not real. We have gone from 1.6 million people coming across our southern border and being arrested down to about 200,000 in the last year.

This is not a crisis that is affecting America. We need to address border security. Everybody here believes that. All of the people who spoke tonight said we need to address border security. We need to do it in a way that is thoughtful and that spends taxpayer dollars wisely.

It is time for us to act in the Senate. It is time for Congress to fund this government, to get it back open. I very much appreciate Senator Kaine's work here tonight as we talk about the impacts on this country of this government shutdown.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield to my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. President, I am in distress to be on the floor of the Senate today with my colleague, Senator Graham, to express our deep and profound disappointment in President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria.

We had the opportunity to visit Syria this summer, and we saw what a difference our troops had made there in the fight against ISIS in stabilizing Syria along the northern Turkish border. We saw the response from the Syrians we talked to, both the Kurds and Arabs, as we drove along the road. We saw children and people in the area flashing a victory sign at our troops, and you can see from this map the land that is controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces, our partners in Syria, so this is the United States and Syrian Democratic Forces.

We have a significant piece of Syria that is now peaceful and stabilized and ISIS has been thrown out of that part of Syria, but the President's decision--which was announced by a tweet--is dangerous, premature, and wholly inconsistent with the facts on the ground in Syria and our own military's advice.

I was listening to Senator Rubio earlier today talking about what is the plan? What is the plan if we withdraw? Well, I will tell you what the plan is. There is no plan. There is no follow-on to what we are going to do if we withdraw from Syria. What we know is, the work of our combined joint task force, Operation Inherent Resolve, and its partner forces, the Syrian Democratic Forces, is truly remarkable. Again, we can see it. We can see it in this brown section of the country where we have control and there is peace and stability.

Senator Graham and I, when we visited this summer, we went to Manbij, which was controlled by ISIS for 3 years. We walked through the market in Manbij without any body armor, with no guards. We talked to people in that community about what life was like under ISIS.

I talked to one woman who told me she did not go out of her house the entire time ISIS controlled Manbij, for 3 years. She went out of her house once to visit the doctor.

We saw women strolling through the market. We saw children playing. We saw people who were happy to be back in their own communities. They said to us: Please stay. We are worried about what will happen if the Americans leave Manbij.

We also flew over Kobane, right here on the Turkish border. I remember all of the TV coverage of the fight for Kobane and what it looked like.

We could see it was being rebuilt, not with money from the United States but with money from the region. We could see all the building going on. We flew over a center where they were holding some of the most dangerous foreign fighters who had been captured in the fight against ISIS, being held right here in Kobane. Then we went down to Ayn Issa, where we saw, directly, the difference certain forces had made in helping to guard our outposts where our troops were stationed. We saw detention facilities where they were holding, again, fighters from Syria who had fought for ISIS.

We then went over to Al-Hasakah where we saw a prison that was being built to hold the most dangerous of the foreign fighters. Those foreign fighters who--we don't know what will happen if we withdraw our troops. There will be nobody there to support the Syrian Democratic Forces that are holding hundreds of those fighters. What happens? Do they get released?

Do they come back to the United States and to Europe where they can engineer terrorist attacks? Do they go back into the villages and restart another terrorist group? There is no--we don't know what is going to happen there because there is no follow-on plan.

Again, we heard from people everywhere we went how important it was to have American troops stationed in Syria--about 2,000 American troops who have made such a huge difference there. They serve a vital shield against ISIS cells that are still operating in Northeast Syria. While the President claims that the threat of ISIS within Syria has dissipated, the conditions on the ground paint a very different picture. So working with our partners we have achieved gains against ISIS because we have partnered with the Syrian Democratic Forces that are partly Kurd and partly Arab. If those Syrian Democratic Forces lose the support of the United States, we run the risk of a resurgence of ISIS and the possible capitulation or all-out destruction of Kurdish resistance in the region.

What does that mean? That means those ISIS elements are emboldened. They may go underground, but they may reemerge. If we don't remember history, we are destined to repeat it. That is what happened in Iraq. We left al-Qaida, moved to Syria, and they reemerged as an even bigger threat. If we leave, it is not at all clear what is going to happen.

These are hard-fought gains that are critical to ensuring that we win the fight against terrorism in the Middle East. If we leave, we are going to cede influence in that region to Russia, to Iran, to Assad. In fact, just moments after this decision was announced this morning, we heard the chair of Russia's State Duma, the chair of the Defense Committee, Vladimir Shamanov said: ``U.S. plans in Syria had failed,'' and he added that we, the United States, had decided to make this knight's move in order to avoid a ``shameful end.''

Make no mistake. They are celebrating in Moscow tonight after the President's announcement, just like they are celebrating in Tehran tonight because of the President's announcement because we are going to leave the field in Syria to those countries that are aggressors against the United States.

I urge President Trump to listen to his military and diplomatic advisers before he goes any further on this shortsighted decision.

It is important to understand that U.S. leadership is essential to completely defeating ISIS and to bringing an end to the violence in Syria. It is also important to reassure our allies that America keeps its word; that when partnering with us, we are there to support you. If we leave now, what does that say to anybody else in the future who may want to partner with the United States on any conflict? It says: You can't count on the United States because we may just pull out on you tomorrow if the President suddenly thinks it is in his interests--not in the interests of the United States but in his interest to withdraw.

This is a reckless decision, and it is undoubtedly going to have consequences for years to come for our military and for our ability to partner with others internationally. The only ones who are going to benefit from this decision are our enemies.

So I am pleased to partner with Senator Graham on a resolution that would express the sense of the Senate that we should not be withdrawing our troops from Syria, that there is too much at stake here for us to take this reckless action and send the wrong message to our partners in the rest of the world.

I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Graham, and we will do everything we can to urge the President to reverse this reckless decision.

Absolutely not. In fact, they talked about how pleased they were with the gains we had made, with the partnership, with the SDF, with what they were seeing in terms of stabilizing those communities, people coming back to their homes, rebuilding, and how important it was for us to stay there.

Without a doubt, and we saw that firsthand, as you remember. When we saw them guarding our outposts, when we saw them in the communities, when we saw them in the detention facilities, trying to abide by international standards with respect to the foreign fighters they were guarding, it was very impressive.

Not at all. In fact, if you look at this map, you can see this orange color. That is one of the pockets that remains of ISIS. Right here. We have not yet eradicated ISIS, and that does not account for some of the cells that exist throughout this area.

Absolutely, and it is what we saw in Iraq.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

You talk about those 700 prisoners. A number of them are foreign fighters. A number of them are ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq. What do you think will happen to those detainees who are being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces if we withdraw and there is no support for what they are doing?

Madam President, we will soon be voting in this Chamber on S. Res. 64, which is a Congressional Review Act resolution looking at a Treasury Department rule that I believe will promote dark money in politics.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, our political system has been flooded--absolutely flooded--with money from special interest groups. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, independent expenditures on campaigns went from $203 million in 2010 to $1.48 billion less than 10 years later, in 2016. So it went from $203 million in 2010, after the Citizens United decision, to $1.48 billion in 2016.

This massive influx of money into our elections undermines the confidence of the American people in our political system. It creates an environment that is ripe for corruption and inappropriate influence. It sows further disenchantment among the electorate and impacts participation in our democracy. It allows voters to believe that their votes are less important than businesses with a bigger checkbook.

That is why it is so important that we ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing through robust disclosure requirements and oversight.

Unfortunately, instead of making it easier to identify individuals and organizations who are funding campaigns, the Treasury Department has issued a rule that will increase the amount of dark money in the political process. That is money that comes in, and we have no idea where it comes from and who is behind it. This ill-advised rule change from the Treasury Department will eliminate the requirement that social welfare organizations, or 501(c)(4)s, and business leagues, or 501(c)(6)s, report donor information to the IRS. That basically gives a blank check for anyone to come in and spend any amount of money, and we are not going to know who it is or who is behind the money.

The change risks impeding law enforcement efforts to track money laundering in our political system, and it makes it more likely that foreign money will illegally influence our elections. Under this new rule, organizations that made over $197 million in independent expenditures during the 2016 election cycle would now be totally exempt from disclosing who those donors were to the IRS.

The door will now be open to hundreds of millions more in dark money from secret groups with hidden agendas, trying to buy an election with money and influence. These dark money groups have increased in size and scope since the Citizens United decision, as they recognize the opportunity to influence elections with no accountability.

Malicious actors at home and abroad will likely exploit the increased secrecy in this process, and the proliferation of these dark money groups will further influence our political system.

This Congress has a duty to ensure the integrity and security of our electoral process. We have to eliminate dark money contributions as we do this. Dark money has a corrosive influence on our Democratic process because it erodes trust in our institutions, it distorts the motives of our elected representatives, and, perhaps most importantly, the American people have a right to know if the candidates they choose to represent them are supported by foreign groups and shady special interests.

For these reasons, I strongly support attempts to stop the Trump administration's misguided attempt to allow more dark money into our political process, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that will be coming up shortly.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you to my colleagues Senator Markey and Senator Whitehouse. I am pleased to join both of you, who have done such a tremendous job in leading on this issue of trying to get everyone to wake up to the challenges that we face in climate change and what that is going to mean, not just for us in New England but for people across this country and across the globe.

Maybe the reason we feel so passionate about this is because we see it. We already see it happening in New England, as my colleagues detailed so well. We are on the cutting edge of these changes. You don't have to have lived in New Hampshire for very long to have seen what is happening as a result of climate change.

Last week, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released its fourth National Climate Assessment, and that details the profound effect climate change is having and is going to continue to have on the environment, on the economy, and on our public health. The report makes it abundantly clear that every American--every American--is affected by climate change and that the threat it poses will get worse unless we take action.

As I said, people in my State of New Hampshire have no doubt about the reality of climate change because we have been seeing it for years now. We have been experiencing it.

The steady increase in temperatures and the rise in annual precipitation are already affecting New Hampshire's tourism and outdoor recreation economy. Each year, hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and wildlife watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our mountains, our lakes, and all of our beautiful natural resources. The outdoor economy--hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation--contributes more than $4 billion to New Hampshire's economy each year, but this is threatened now because rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, and they are negatively affecting our snow- and ice- related winter recreation activities. That includes skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobiling. The New Hampshire ski industry employs 17,000 Granite Staters, and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services warns that these jobs are threatened by climate change.

New Hampshire's--in fact, all of New England's fall foliage is at risk. This is climate modeling by the Union of Concerned Scientists that shows that by the end of this century, New Hampshire's summers will feel like present-day summers in North Carolina, 700 miles to our south. While the Presiding Officer certainly understands that this works great for North Carolina, it changes dramatically what happens in New Hampshire.

What this shows is that--this red color, which are the maple and beech and birch trees--the maple trees in particular that produce our maple syrup--that make such a difference in our fall foliage--those are going to be gone by 2070--by the end of this century. All of this red that we are seeing throughout--from Pennsylvania, New York, across Northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine--that will all be gone by the end of this century.

Again, this underscores that if we fail to act on climate change, we are going to see a steep loss of jobs and revenue. That is going to affect our outdoor recreation industry, and it is going to affect our traditional maple syrup industry.

New Hampshire produces more than 100,000 gallons of maple syrup annually. That makes it the third largest maple syrup producer in the United States. Maple syrup is entirely dependent on weather conditions. We are already seeing the impact these changes are having because as we get into spring, the temperatures are not getting cold enough at night to make the sap run in the maple trees, and during the day, we are not seeing the fluctuation in temperatures that allows maple syrup to be produced.

The National Climate Assessment notes that the changing climate is putting more and more stress on sugar maples. If we fail to act on climate change, this could destroy New Hampshire's multimillion-dollar maple syrup industry.

Now, it is also affecting our wildlife. It is affecting their habitats.

Probably one of the most iconic symbols of New Hampshire is our moose. Yet they are being threatened. Because

of milder winters due to climate change, ticks and other insects aren't dying off, which leads to infestation on our wildlife and on our trees. According to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the estimated moose population in New Hampshire has decreased by more than 50 percent since the mid-1990s.

That story is even worse for moose calves. A recent study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire found that winter ticks are the primary cause of an unprecedented 70-percent death rate of calves over a 3-year period. On average--and we can see this dramatically in these photos--47,000 ticks were found on each calf that was monitored during this study.

To quote Dr. Peter Pekins, a professor at UNH who is a lead author on the study, ``the iconic moose is rapidly becoming the new poster child for climate change in parts of the Northeast.''

We are going to see moose totally disappearing from the Northeast--in fact, from all of the northern part of the United States, if we don't take action.

As my colleagues have said, global warming is also impacting our fishing industry. New Hampshire may have a small coast--18 miles of coastline--but we have an important commercial fishing industry that contributes $106 million to the State and supports 5,000 jobs. Unfortunately, because of climate change, the average annual temperatures in the waters off of southern New England have increased by about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1970s. This change in temperature is driving some of New England's most iconic fisheries northward and further out to sea.

Lobsters, for example, have migrated 40 miles northward to the Gulf of Maine in the last decade. As we can see from this illustration, it shows the red areas where we used to have lobster until the 1970s. They have totally disappeared, and those lobsters have moved north of Cape Cod. They are moving into northern Maine and up into Canada. They are totally gone from the New England Sound. That is devastating to Southern New Hampshire fishing communities where lobster is their livelihood.

Ironically, as I think Senator Markey said so well, the lobster migration has contributed to an overabundance in the Gulf of Maine, and that has caused price volatility in the lobster market. So we have seen dramatic fluctuations which have also affected our fishermen.

Of course, the impacts on human health have been dramatic because people are suffering from the impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures increase the number of air pollution action days. They increase pollen and mold levels, and they increase allergies. All of these things are dangerous to some of our most vulnerable populations, including children. In New Hampshire we have one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country because of air pollution that has been moving primarily from the Midwest but now is being exacerbated by climate change.

The elderly are affected, as well as those with allergies and those with chronic respiratory conditions.

Rising temperatures also facilitate the spread of insectborne illnesses, such as Lyme disease, which have been a huge factor for people in New Hampshire and across New England.

Now, because New Hampshire and the Northeastern States and New England have been experiencing major negative impacts from climate change, we have been working to reduce carbon emissions to try and transition to a more energy-efficient and clean-energy economy. New Hampshire is one of nine Northeastern States that participates in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, since the program launched in 2009. Massachusetts and Rhode Island are also participants. But carbon emissions in RGGI States have fallen by 51 percent. So in less than a decade, because of RGGI, we have seen a 51-percent reduction in carbon emissions.

In addition, customers in RGGI States have saved an estimated $773 million on their energy bills, and billions more are expected. That is thanks not just to renewables but to energy efficiency. I am a big believer that energy efficiency is also one of the most important ways we can reduce our carbon emissions. Also, the wholesale price of energy has fallen. So we can see on average 6.4 percent and $773 million in energy savings.

So climate change--as everyone who has spoken about this evening has pointed out--is probably the greatest environmental challenge the world has ever faced, but we can do something about it if we take action. Through smart energy policies and through thoughtful conservation measures, we can stop climate change from reaching dangerous, irreversible levels, but we have to act now.

So I urge my colleagues and I urge this administration to recognize the economic and environmental imperative of addressing climate change before it is too late.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse, not just for those kind words but for all of the work he has done and continues to do. For the last 6 years, Senator Whitehouse has come to the floor of this Senate week after week, every week, to talk about climate change and to talk about its effects throughout the United States and around the globe and our need to take action to address this crisis.

Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, for your leadership.

Climate change is real, and it is a present threat to our planet. Senator Whitehouse talked about some of the science involved with that. It is very clear to anybody who has looked at the science who doesn't have a political agenda that this is real. It is a threat, and we need to address it.

In New Hampshire, we are already seeing the impacts of climate change in so many ways. Rising temperatures

are shortening our fall foliage season, they are disrupting our maple syrup production, and they are shortening our ski seasons and our snowmobiling. Ice-out occurs earlier each year on our lakes. They are causing sea level rise that can imperil businesses and homes along our seacoast.

The strains on our fisheries and the increases of insect-borne diseases that endanger our wildlife can all be tied to the effects of climate change.

I have here a photo that I think it is important for people to see. Moose have been one of New Hampshire's iconic wildlife representatives, to put it, I guess, the easiest way. The moose are something that we are very proud of in New Hampshire. We have seen them in the wildest parts of our State, some even as far south as where I live in southern New Hampshire. What we are seeing as the result of climate change is a 40-percent reduction in the moose in New Hampshire. As I said, that is happening because of increases in insect-borne diseases.

If we look very closely at this picture, it looks like there are little round balls on this moose. Those are ticks. Those are ticks that have been able to attach to the moose and, in so many cases, kill the moose. They are there because it is not getting cold enough in our winters to kill off those ticks, so they multiply in such numbers that they attach to the moose and they kill them. You can see this is a distressed moose that has been affected by those ticks. She shouldn't look like this, but it is the ticks. Those insect-borne diseases are also responsible for something called brain worm that affects moose as well.

So for our hunters and the people who enjoy the outdoors and wildlife viewing, that is being threatened now because of climate change.

The beautiful maples that produce maple syrup and that produce such beautiful colors in our fall foliage are being threatened because of climate change. The estimate is that in several decades, we will no longer see either moose or maple trees in New Hampshire because they will have been forced out because the warming temperatures will mean they can no longer survive.

Climate change is also affecting the public health of New Hampshire citizens. Rising temperatures increase smog levels. They heighten the effects of allergy season. They increase the number of children with asthma. New Hampshire has one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country, and that has gotten worse because of climate change.

Scientists have proven without a doubt that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary culprits for the climate changes that we are seeing and that human activity has increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases.

If we are going to stop global warming, the United States must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in every sector, starting with how we produce and consume energy.

One of the things that I have learned since my days as Governor is that the easiest, fastest way to reduce our energy use is through energy efficiency. It is without a doubt America's largest energy resource. It has contributed more to our Nation's energy needs over the last 40 years than any other fuel source. Without the economy-wide improvements in energy efficiency that have occurred since 1973, it is estimated that today's economy would require 60 percent more energy than we are now consuming. In fact, savings from energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our national energy bill by an estimated $800 billion--with a ``b''--all while growing and expanding our economy. Put another way, in the last 40 years, we have saved more energy through energy efficiency than we have produced through fossil fuels and nuclear power combined. So think about that. Think about the potential of energy efficiency in addressing our energy needs.

Energy efficiency is also the largest sector within the U.S. clean energy economy. It employs nearly 2.25 million Americans nationwide, and the majority of those people work in our small businesses. We know that small businesses create about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. They are overwhelmingly responsible for innovation. Sixteen times more patents are produced by small businesses. So this is where innovation is going on, and it is going on in energy efficiency.

Just to reiterate, energy efficiency measures have proven time and time again to be the easiest and most cost-effective way to address climate change, while reducing energy costs and creating private sector jobs.

The thing that I like about energy efficiency is that you don't have to live in a certain part of the country and you don't have to be a proponent of other types of fuel sources to appreciate and to support energy efficiency. Everyone benefits from energy efficiency.

Unfortunately, since he took office, President Trump and his administration have proposed policies that seek to undermine America's clean energy economy and delay our progress toward addressing climate change. The administration has proposed rollbacks to clean car standards that will force Americans to pay more at the gas pump and harm our environment.

Here is a chart that shows very clearly what rolling back CAFE standards--the vehicle emissions requirements--would do. By 2035, the rollback would add at least 158 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. It would increase U.S. fuel consumption by 13.9 billion gallons per year. This is according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. If we think about that in terms of fossil fuels--this fuel consumption--that is more fuel than we import from Iraq or Venezuela each year. Think about what that will mean for increased consumption.

The administration has also proposed to replace the Clean Power Plan with regulations that would relax standards for powerplants at the expense and well-being of current and future generations. Appliance efficiency standards have been frozen in place. After four decades with energy efficiency as a bipartisan cornerstone of Federal energy policy, the President has once again proposed profound cuts to energy efficiency and to renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy.

For those of us who support energy efficiency, there can be only one response to these rollbacks: We must address them head-on, and we must redouble our efforts to keep America on the right track.

As a result of bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate--as I said, energy efficiency is one thing that we can get behind, Republicans and Democrats--last month the President signed into law a spending bill that includes increased investments for clean energy programs at the Department of Energy--something that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

In addition to increasing those investments, this appropriations bill marks the first time since 2009--so the first time since I have been in the Senate--that the Department of Energy will secure its funding before the start of a fiscal year. This financial certainty will strengthen these programs and the industries they support.

The passage of the Energy and Water appropriations bill that we did today demonstrates that Congress remains committed to advancing commonsense, bipartisan policies that will strengthen our Nation's energy efficiency.

Just last week, this Senate adopted a bipartisan resolution that was sponsored by Senator Portman of Ohio and me, along with 19 of our colleagues, that recognizes the economic and environmental benefits that energy efficiency has contributed to this country. Senator Portman and I are also committed to advancing our legislation to spur energy efficiency innovation and other initiatives across the most energy- intensive sectors of our economy. Senator Whitehouse talked about the efforts that we have engaged in over the last 7 years. We have introduced our bill into Congress in each Congress over the past 7 years. Each time, we are getting a little more momentum in getting this through. We have gotten certain provisions of the bill through in the last two Congresses.

It has been far too long since Congress passed a comprehensive energy bill, so it is time for us to work together to pass an energy bill that includes energy efficiency. This is bipartisan legislation. If it were brought to the floor today, I guarantee you it would pass overwhelmingly, and it would improve our Nation's energy policies and help to grow the economy.

We have some great examples of what is being done, and Senator Whitehouse talked about some of what is being done around the country to address energy efficiency and reduce our energy use.

New Hampshire, like Rhode Island, is one of the States that are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. At the State, local, and grassroots levels, individuals, businesses, and governments are rising to the challenge by intensifying their efforts to advance energy efficiency and clean energy.

This chart shows what has happened in the States that have been part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Carbon pollution has gone down 51 percent, and electricity prices are down 6.4 percent. For us in New England, where we have very high energy costs, that is very positive. So if you don't support energy efficiency for any other reason, you should support it because it reduces costs. Look at how much in energy savings to consumers: $773 million.

Since 2009, the nine States in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative have outperformed the national average in terms of all of these measures. Because the majority of proceeds are invested in energy efficiency, they have allowed electricity prices to fall, and they have saved consumers millions on their energy bills. As we look in the outyears, billions more are expected in savings, thanks to those investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

In August of 2017, RGGI's nine States agreed to strengthen their program by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 30 percent more by 2030. New Hampshire and other RGGI States have shown the Nation that States can make smart clean energy choices that benefit the environment while strengthening the economy. For those who say we need a market- driven approach to addressing climate change, this is a perfect example of that.

Climate change represents an enormous challenge, but solutions are within reach if we put into place policies that will allow for swift action. We have a responsibility to help protect our children and grandchildren from the severe consequences of global warming. We have to start now, and we have to start with energy efficiency.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note that my allergies are a result of that climate change.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor to join so many of my colleagues in expressing my opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

As the highest Court in the land, the Justices on the Supreme Court are tasked with the enormous responsibility of interpreting and protecting the fundamental constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all Americans. Its decisions are not abstract legal principles that are reserved for a few. Its decisions affect the rights of all of us. They touch on issues that affect all of our daily lives--from the healthcare we receive to the person we can marry, to the air we breathe. These are significant stakes that we face when considering any nominee to serve on the Supreme Court.

Weeks ago, I announced my opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination based on concerns I had with his record. Even though--as Senator Markey pointed out so eloquently--we haven't gotten to see a lot of that record, we have enough to know that I have very serious concerns about Judge Kavanaugh. I want to talk about a couple of those and actually highlight three concerns.

First is his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. I believe all Americans in this country--everyone in this country--should have access to healthcare, healthcare they can afford so they don't have to worry when they take their kids to the doctor, so they don't have to worry about being bankrupt because they can't afford the costs, and so they don't have to worry if they develop a serious illness. Yet Judge Kavanaugh dissented in a decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, and as

a result of that decision, he puts critical protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions at risk.

It is particularly concerning now, when we know there is a court case in Texas which the Government of the United States has declined to continue to defend that puts at risk the requirement that insurance companies cover those with preexisting conditions.

You can talk about trying to bandaid over that any way you want, but the fact is, unless we have a real healthcare program, as we have under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are not going to cover people with preexisting conditions, and they are going to charge you more if they do cover you.

Second, I am very concerned about his opposition to women's reproductive rights. Judge Kavanaugh has praised Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees women's rights to make their own reproductive decisions. I believe that is one of the most basic and fundamental rights we have, not just as women but that families have. Women should be able to make that decision in consultation with their families, with their physicians, according to their religious beliefs, and this should not be something the government dictates. Yet Brett Kavanaugh suggests this fundamental basic right is up for consideration.

Finally, I have a serious concern about Judge Kavanaugh's view of executive branch power that could place the President above the law.

Judge Kavanaugh has said that sitting Presidents can't be indicted, can't be prosecuted, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. Well, with the Mueller investigation, with so many concerns that have been raised about this President's manipulation of laws that have allowed him to enrich himself and his company, where he has been suggesting that he may fire the Attorney General because he is not willing to do his bidding at the Justice Department--I just don't see how we can put somebody on the Supreme Court who thinks that the President is above the law.

As I have learned American history and our Constitution and our values and principles, I believe that nobody is above the law in our democracy, including the President of the United States, and I think we need a Supreme Court Justice who believes the same thing. Yet what we have heard from Judge Kavanaugh suggests that he thinks the President is above the law.

At the time I announced my opposition to the nominee, we had not heard the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. In the weeks since those allegations have come out, this Senate, this country, have been rocked by those allegations. I was one of the many millions of Americans throughout the country who tuned in to closely watch that hearing when Christine Blasey Ford shared her story. Her testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee was sincere and credible, and I believe her.

The impact of Dr. Ford's testimony is very telling about the pervasiveness of sexual violence in our culture. The allegations made by Christine Ford and others were serious and trustworthy, and I believe they should have been thoroughly and impartially investigated, and they were not.

But on the positive side, Dr. Ford's bravery has given so many women in this country the courage to tell their stories. She gave others courage, and we have seen an outpouring from survivors who now feel as though they, too, can come forward.

Senator Markey talked about the number of people that he has heard from in his office, and I have heard that same story time and again from so many of my colleagues. We are certainly seeing this in New Hampshire. The Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention Program, which is also called SHARP--a program at the University of New Hampshire that provides services and support to sexual assault survivors--reported an increase in people reaching out for help. I have heard from crisis centers across the Granite State that have fielded an influx of calls from survivors who can relate to Dr. Ford's testimony and who feel compelled to speak out.

On Tuesday, I spoke with the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, which told me that they have seen similar reactions with survivors who are now stepping forward--women and men whose trauma of sexual assaults has been revived by Christine Ford's testimony.

Like my colleagues, I have received letters from sexual assault survivors who have been deeply affected by Dr. Ford's testimony and whose courage has given them the strength to share their own stories. What has been amazing to me as I have read them, when I have heard from people who have contacted our office, is that some of them are in their seventies and eighties, and they reveal decades-old sexual assaults for the very first time.

These wounds are real. The wounds are raw. And it is incumbent on all of us in this body--regardless of where you stand on Brett Kavanaugh-- it is incumbent on all of us to not deepen those scars by diminishing the pain of these women as political theater. This is not political theater, and it should not be viewed through a partisan lens.

In those emotional emails and calls and letters from dozens of women and a few men--I think sometimes we forget that sexual assault doesn't just happen to women; it happens to men--they have described their sexual assaults and how they have been affected by the events of Christine Ford's testimony and the hearing with Judge Kavanaugh. In so many of those letters and emails, they talk about the details of what they experienced in those sexual assaults--how it has affected them; how it has affected their lives; the fact that, in most cases, they didn't tell anybody because they didn't feel they would be believed or they thought they would be demeaned or they thought it was their fault.

What has been interesting to me in those letters and emails has been that so many of the people we have heard from have not just told their personal stories, but they have expressed their concerns about the country as part of writing in--concerns that we are so divided, that we are so angry, that we are so uncivil to one another. Sadly, they are right, based on what they have seen over the last couple of weeks. We have seen that at political rallies over the past few years, and we have seen it in this building. We must do better. The disunity that we model here is hurting the country. The scorched-earth politics that have been practiced here are deepening our divide.

I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, and I continue to hope that something may happen at the eleventh hour; I know that is not likely. But I also will encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think about this moment, to reflect on our obligations to the American people, to the U.S. Senate, and to considering future Supreme Court nominees. So many people have said that this process has undermined the faith of the American people in the ability of the Supreme Court to be an objective arbiter of cases that come before them. This process has inflamed existing divides within our country and within Congress, and we can't let this become the status quo. As an institution, as a legislative body, we must be better than this.

I have always been told that when we are standing at the edge of an abyss, the best step is always backward. So I hope all of us can take a step back. I hope we can take a step back when we are past this nomination, that we can return to a more civil discourse. I hope that we can better try to understand each other's points of view and that we can see each other's humanity. I hope that we can be better stewards of our democracy because this country demands it.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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