Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I rise today to object on behalf of my colleague from California Senator Padilla and my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee does have a long tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation when it comes to passing very local and oftentimes very parochial land bills. Typically, this is negotiated in a package rather than the piecemeal approach that we are seeing today--for many reasons but in part because we have literally hundreds of bills within our committee's jurisdiction that need action, including the ones that my colleague is talking about today, with most representing very important local priorities in our States.

Unfortunately, attempting to pass individual bills through unanimous consent in this manner tends to favor one party or one Chamber's priorities and is often ineffective at actually getting legislation signed into law.

Senator Padilla, Senator Bennet, and I are happy to sit down with my colleague from Alaska and with the chairman to make sure that both our Chambers--both our parties' priorities can be put together in a way that we see them reach the finish line. Therefore, in support of my colleague from California and my colleague from Colorado, I must object at this time.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, there is a national monument in New Mexico that is extremely important to me and our community. It is called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. It has rocky spires that jut into the sky and preside over bustling communities in southern New Mexico.

It is also home to nearly 250 archaeological sites, including some of the earliest Native American heritage sites in North America, and places like Shelter Cave, Conkling Cavern, and Aden Lava Flow Wilderness.

This January, the Bureau of Land Management issued its most recent monument management plan for Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. It sets out in this plan how the land will be used over the coming decades, and it came after years--years--of engagement with public land users. From comment periods to public meetings to feedback sessions, input from public land users is the heart of how we administer our public lands across the country. In the end, land use plans like this one take time and are the result of hundreds, even thousands, of people's work--work that deserves respect.

And that is why I am here. Beginning this week, the Senate is voting on three resolutions of disapproval on resource management plans prepared by the Bureau of Land Management.

Now, resource management plans are a pretty simple idea. Every decade or two, public land managers look at a region as a whole and figure out how to balance all the competing different uses of public land across that landscape. They figure out where recreation should be prioritized and where prime game habitats should be protected. They figure out what lands should be available for uses like grazing or oil and gas production. They identify important cultural sites and historic resources that deserve our protection. They also determine which land use requirements can be eased for things like pipelines or transmission lines. They do all of this with the input of local communities, recreation businesses, public land users, Tribal governments, energy developers, and more.

But I am here now because Republicans want to rescind these land use plans through the Congressional Review Act. By doing that, they brush away all of the local voices and community input that went into making these plans.

Imagine telling Tribal communities that their opinion no longer matters on their ancestral lands, telling hunters that their opinion no longer matters on the lands they use to fill their families' freezers, telling hikers that their opinion no longer matters on the routes that they know like the back of their hand, telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance--telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that are our American birthright.

And here is the thing: They are doing it across the board--on every resource management plan since 1996--without even admitting it. So let me walk you through what they are hoping that you won't notice.

First, it is important to understand that resource management plans affect nearly every use on public land, from bird watching to coal mining. These plans get a whole rewrite every few decades, but, in between, smaller amendments are made to address specific places and specific uses that need to be updated. These amendments have been the normal way for new administrations to change plans that they have disagreed with, until today.

Now, instead of using the usual amendment process, which involves all of those same stakeholders, Congress is voting to outright overturn and repeal these plans. Until today, Congress had never ever used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration has ever considered these land use plans to be ``rules'' under Federal statute. Let me say that again. No administration--none--since the Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 has ever treated land use plans as rules.

So here is what that means legally: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, a legal requirement for rules. It has never happened. Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress-- and no administration has ever submitted one--then every land use plan after 1996 never legally went into effect. And if they never went into effect, then all of the leases and permits and rights-of-way that flow from those plans may not be legally valid. That means that every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreation permit, outfitter guide permit, timber sale, and even oil and gas leases issued under a plan finalized after 1996 could be litigated--every single one.

That is bad and not just because it is unprecedented but because the actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating.

For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on public lands. One of the resolutions under consideration this week is for a land use plan in Alaska. A vote for that resolution would mean that the Ambler industrial corridor will be built. This is a 211-mile, private access road that would destroy some of Alaska's wildest habitat and waterways to produce minerals--all for a foreign company.

As someone from American Hunters and Anglers said, in using slightly more colorful language that I will leave out, this move obliterates ``years of public input from hunters and anglers,'' and uses taxpayer dollars to prop up--I will say it again--a foreign-owned mining company.

The headline describing this road in ``Outdoor Life'' magazine reads:

The Ambler Road Project Would Jeopardize One of the Last

Great Wilderness Hunts in America.

Now, I have been fortunate enough to hunt caribou in Alaska, and I have to say I doubt that my grandchildren will ever have that opportunity.

What is even more concerning to me is the impact the Ambler industrial corridor will have on subsistence hunting and fishing. This private industrial mining corridor will carve its way, in addition, through Gates of the Arctic National Park. You heard me right. We are sacrificing one of our most spectacular national parks to enrich a foreign mining company.

I have to think that Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave.

The damage will be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to one of the largest caribou herds in Alaska and the communities that depend on that herd.

Imagine sweeping away years and years of input and conversations not just about the public lands on one landscape but about public lands across this country, all because you--what?--found a quicker, easier way, one where you didn't have to listen to anyone? one where some Senators in Washington, DC, get to override and replace the opinions of every single American who contributed to those plans? That is nuts.

Even if you don't care about how land is used by hunters or hikers or Tribes or cattle growers or energy producers--if all you care about is how our lands are used to produce fossil fuels--then look no further than my State. Look at the Bureau of Land Management leases that have been issued in the Permian Basin. Know that, when you vote for these resolutions, when you turn these resource management plans into so- called rules, you call into question those leases--all of them. Know that what you are choosing may be easier, but it is wrong, and it is destabilizing.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no on all of these resolutions of disapproval.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor today to say what every New Mexican I know can easily tell you: Americans are reeling from an affordability crisis. It doesn't matter if you are talking about the price of groceries or rent or healthcare, everybody is stretched thin.

They need help and they need it now and they need it from Congress and the President. But help is not what the President and his administration are delivering. Instead of working to lower healthcare and energy costs for American families, the President, his administration, and Republicans in Congress are choosing to drive those costs through the roof.

They repeal energy tax credits making it harder and more expensive to build and deliver energy to the grid or even just to put solar panels on your own roof. They made it more expensive to make your home energy efficient. They imposed steep tariffs on steel and aluminum, driving up energy costs, infrastructure costs, and they are blocking energy from coming onto the grid.

Now, if it feels chaotic, it is probably because it is. They are trying to sow chaos. While all of the numbers and

projects and policies float around in the headlines, the real story, the real impact is in your budget. It is in your electric bill.

According to the Energy Information Administration, residential electricity bills have already increased by almost 10 percent since President Trump took office. Household energy costs are expected to increase by another $170 annually by 2035 thanks to tax credit repeals and tariffs.

And when it comes to the impacts on energy supply, it is the same story. As of August, clean power estimated that 25,000 megawatts--that is like 25 gigawatts, it is 25 nuclear powerplants' worth of energy-- 25,000 megawatts of planned energy generation have been lost to projects being canceled or delayed since the President's election.

That is more than enough power for 8.4 million homes in the United States. And I have bad news: It is about to get a whole lot worse. That is because President Trump is strangling the energy supply we badly need to drive down costs for everyone.

From canceling energy projects to withholding energy permits, to issuing illegal stop work orders on fully permitted generation projects, President Trump is waging a war on affordable, American-made energy. Most recently, that came in the form of canceled energy projects. Last week, the Trump administration unlawfully canceled nearly $8 billion in Federal investments in 223 energy projects across 21 States, including 10 in the State of New Mexico.

In Albuquerque, two projects by the same company were targeted. They have already had to make their first round of layoffs. If these awards are not restored in the next 45 days, they will be forced to lay off 50 percent of their workforce. These are people's lives we are talking about.

And their local partners and collaborators who were anticipating growth opportunities because of the investment are being left in the cold. In Socorro, NM, one technical university lost funding for four projects--$67 million in total. One project alone will impact 36 student researchers, all of whom now have to search for new funding or lose their research roles altogether.

In Fruitland, NM, another canceled project could have unlocked the key to keeping 600 people working. In Taos, NM, more chaos is playing out. Funding for Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's project to provide a battery energy storage system and microgrids to rural communities, canceled.

This project would have directly improved reliability in Picuris Pueblo, the Taos Ski Valley, and El Rito West. Millions of dollars have already been expended, and countless New Mexicans were depending on that project. Now they are all left wondering whether those funds will ever be reimbursed or if New Mexicans will simply be left to pay the price and pick up the pieces.

But it looks like cancellations may just be getting started. This morning there was another article about rumors of even more cancellations coming.

According to reports, this next round of cancellations could involve another 260 awards and $13 billion in revoked funds. Whether that happens or not, I can tell you, without a doubt, that the harm done from the first round will be irreparable.

The cancellations will mean lost jobs for Americans, lost educational opportunities for students. It will mean higher energy bills for households and businesses across this country.

It will make it even harder for folks who are already struggling to make ends meet because of the affordability crisis instigated by this administration's tariffs and economic policies.

It will mean less domestic manufacturing and innovation, all while diminishing America's competitive leadership globally, and it will make it harder for impacted developers and utilities to secure their financing.

That is not just true for the now-canceled projects but also for any future opportunities that depend on the stability of things like government permits and regulatory structure, investments, grants because that is another casualty of this administration's war on American-made affordable energy: the reliability of the permitting process.

In January, on his first day in office, President Trump paused all new leasing and permitting of wind energy projects on public lands.

In February, the Army Corps of Engineers singled out and delayed 168 energy projects on private land.

In March, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew the permit for Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind.

In April, the Department of the Interior imposed a stop-work order on the Empire Wind 1 project.

In July, the Interior Department released a directive requiring the Secretary's personal review and approval of every wind and solar energy project on public lands--a move that will undoubtedly cause long delays.

In August, the Department of the Interior issued an illegal stop-work order on Revolution Wind's offshore wind project--a project that was already 80 percent done. It was fully permitted, and it was 80 percent complete, and they told people to go home. They said: Your job doesn't matter.

In September, the Trump administration asked a court to cancel the permit on a wind farm off of Ocean City, MD. It is a project that would generate 2.2 gigawatts of energy--enough to power 718,000 homes and, just as importantly, support almost 2,700 jobs every year over the next 7 years.

That is just among the ones that have actually been in the news. I have heard from companies across the Nation about delays and difficulties getting their projects permitted.

So let's be clear. Spending your time canceling ready-to-go energy projects isn't doing anything to address the energy crisis.

Instead of fixing any of this, President Trump's Executive order makes it worse. Here is what his order actually does: hikes energy costs for millions of Americans by doubling down on expensive fossil fuels when it makes no economic sense, sends hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas as other countries continue to develop their next-generation energy sources, decreases our American-made domestic energy supplies, forces us to be more reliant on foreign energy sources, and erodes our economic competitiveness and energy dominance.

It does not have to be this way. The last time we faced an energy crisis in the United States, it was the 1970s. Energy prices were skyrocketing because of the 1973 oil crisis, when barrels of oil--then, our most in-demand energy source--quadrupled in price. U.S. energy production could not meet domestic demand, and the country saw blackouts and brownouts.

With an energy crisis on its hands, Congress actually acted. In a bipartisan effort, Congress created the Department of Energy. It funded significant research around the country to explore new ways to power things--solar, geothermal, nuclear--including the Energy Research and Development Administration. It worked on advancing transmission systems to create more competitive energy markets, saving money for everyone.

Congress met the moment and defined our energy future for decades to come. As part of that, in 1976, construction began on a 5-megawatt thermal solar test facility at the Energy Research and Development Administration's Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. Before it was even complete, the facility became the largest operational solar installation in the world. This solar test facility was just one small example of the huge bipartisan effort to meet that moment.

Today, we are at a similar crossroads. Demand for new technology has once again outpaced available power reserves. Infrastructure is aging. Across the country, utility prices are rising as demand for energy rises too.

Again, Congress can meet this moment. We cannot do that by doubling down on expensive fossil energy or generation sources that take 5, 6, 7, even 10 years to build. If you order a gas turbine today, it would take you 5 to 7 years just to receive it, and its price is going through the roof because of the tariffs that the President has put on things like aluminum and steel. That is not going to solve the rising costs we are dealing with right now.

In contrast, solar, wind, and battery are modular, faster to permit, and easier to construct with fewer supply chain restraints. That is especially true when they are--or were--already permitted, with shovels in the ground, workers ready to build.

Instead of accepting this reality, President Trump and congressional Republicans are flailing, and it is leaving everyday Americans to shoulder the costs.

By eliminating energy sources instead of adding more, this administration is raising your energy prices, raising your electricity bill, not lowering it. The impacts are real, and they are far-reaching.

For many households, the choice to pay hundreds more in energy costs means the choice to not pay for other things--groceries, doctor's bills, school supplies. That is not a choice you should have to make. You shouldn't be a pawn in President Trump's political games.

Senator Kaine and I introduced S.J. Res. 71 to put an end to Trump's war on American-made, affordable energy, to bring down costs for American families, to save jobs that American families rely on, and to call out this administration for its chaos and its incompetence and the fact that it doesn't seem to care about the impacts on everyday Americans.

So I call on all of my colleagues here in the Senate to join us. Vote yes on S.J. Res. 71. Do not make American families pay the price for Trump's war on affordable American energy.

Mr. President, on October 6, 2025, I was unavoidably absent for the following rollcall votes. My absence was due to an unavoidable conflict.

For rollcall vote No. 544, On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to S. 2882), a bill making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, I would have voted yea.

For rollcall vote No. 545, On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 5371), a bill making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2026, and for other purposes I would have voted nay.

For rollcall vote No. 546, On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: En bloc Nominations Provided for

Under the Provisions of S. Res. 412), I would have voted nay.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, what is the status of the floor?

I would ask unanimous consent to offer remarks as if in morning business.

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

Mr. President, when I draw a hunting tag, especially for elk, one of the first things that I do is to look at a map of the unit where I drew. I do that for a couple of reasons. I look to see where the public land is, and I also look to see where the roads are because the vast majority of time, that is where the elk aren't.

Elk need habitat security. If there is food and water and a place to securely bed on national forest land in New Mexico, and that spot is a couple of miles or more from an open road, the odds that elk live there are really, really high. So it is almost like the roadless rule was written for elk country because, in fact, it was.

And if you like to catch wild trout that have never seen the inside of a hatchery, you are probably familiar with some of the roadless refuges where these fish still thrive. In fact, 70 percent of the roadless areas in the Nation provide crucial habitat for native trout. So it is almost like the roadless rule was written by fishermen-- because it was.

In fact, it was written by many hunters and fisherman, actually. One of them is, today, the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited, who served as the senior policy and communication advisor to the chief of the Forest Service when this rule was crafted back in 2001.

When my friends draw a coveted Coues deer tag in the Bootheel of New Mexico in what is a famous unit, Unit 27, where are they hunting? Chances are, they are hiking deep into inventoried roadless areas to glass for these deer that Jack O'Connor made famous when he referred to them in his writings as ``the gray ghost.''

So when the Trump administration advocates for eliminating the roadless rule, they are talking about endangering some of the last great wild game habitat on our national forests. These are the back- country places where we sit around a campfire under a sea of stars and pass our traditions down to the next generation of sports men and women.

Finalized in 2001, the roadless rule protects nearly 45 million acres of national forest land that belongs to each and every American. From the hazy blue peaks of the Appalachian Mountains to the imposing spires of the Rockies, from the saltwater estuaries of the Croatan National Forest in North Carolina to the towering Ponderosa Pines of the Santa Fe National Forest in my home State, across the country, many people's favorite hunting spots, their favorite hiking trails and biking routes, ATV trails, and fishing streams are in these protected roadless areas.

When the Nation debated the merits of the roadless rule 24 years ago, the Forest Service held 600 public meetings around the country. These were attended by tens of thousands of Americans. I should know, I attended one of them. The Forest Service received more than 1.6 million comments, and over 95 percent of those were in favor of these roadless protections. You could ask a group of Americans about apple pie, and you wouldn't get a number that high. At the time, this was the largest response to a public comment request ever--ever--that any Agency had ever seen.

Fast-forward 2\1/2\ decades to today, and the Trump administration is threatening to throw the roadless rule into the dustbin of history, except this time, the process looks very different.

The administration opened the public comment period on August 19 and will close it Friday. Now, I know how slow and deliberate government can sometimes be, but there should be no shortcut to public engagement and to the democratic process. Yet a shortcut--or maybe more accurately a short circuit--is exactly what this administration has chosen.

With an underresourced and understaffed Forest Service, I know for a fact that the resource professionals and the scientists at the Forest Service do not support eliminating the roadless rule. This is being imposed upon them by people in the White House who, frankly, have never harvested a bull elk or released a native trout or otherwise experienced the wonder of God's creation in the very lands that represent the anvil on which our Nation's character was forged.

The truth is that the roadless rule protects us from wildfires; it ensures clean drinking water for communities; and it sustains wildlife habitat for wildlife and for sportsmen.

Wildfire prevention is at the heart of why the roadless rule is so important. Eighty-eight percent of wildfires are started by human activity, and 95 percent of human-caused fires begin within a half mile of a road. You can imagine why. It is not complicated. Cars backfire. Cigarette butts get thrown out a window. Trailer chains can spark on a rock. Sometimes campfires get mismanaged. These things happen where we can get with a car or a truck, so roads vastly increase the probability of wildfires rather than reducing them.

The roadless rule specifically allows for the removal of fuels that promote unnaturally intense wildfire. This helps to create a healthier forest and reduce wildfire risk.

The bottom line is that when we build new roads in protected areas, we risk more fires, not fewer.

In States like Idaho and Utah, more than 35 percent of roadless lands have had work done to help reduce fire in those roadless areas. In Montana, almost 30 percent of roadless areas have had similar treatments.

The idea that the roadless rule somehow prevents us from taking steps to lessen wildfire risk and from affecting human communities is patently wrong and inaccurate. The reality is that the Federal Government should be spending its scarce resources to focus on protecting communities closer to roads because that is where the people, homes, and towns are.

Can I talk for just a minute about the economics of building roads in roadless areas? The Forest Service maintains a more than $8.6 billion-- with a ``b''--backlog on maintenance of its existing infrastructure and roads. Why would we countenance building new roads in back-country areas with low timber values and extremely high costs when we can't even take care of the existing roads that we already have?

Beyond wildfire prevention, the roadless rule protects the water sources that sustain our communities. Many people don't know that large cities like Atlanta and Denver and Los Angeles rely on water supplies from our national forests. In fact, some 180 million people--over 68,000 communities, large and small--rely on forested lands to capture and filter drinking water. That means that the Forest Service lands are the largest source of municipal water supply in the Nation, serving over 60 million people across 33 different States.

Roadless areas actually protect the headwaters of many municipal watersheds, and that includes places like the water supply for the city of Santa Fe, in my home State. When they rescind the roadless rule, it threatens access to clean water for millions of Americans.

Now, finally, the roadless rule preserves the fish and wildlife habitat and sustains the hunting, fishing, and recreation economy. Every year, I and millions of other hunters rely on public lands to feed our souls and to feed our families. The Sportsmen's Alliance estimates that in 2022, recreational hunters alone generated $133 billion in economic output, created 1.3 million jobs, and supported more than $80 billion in wages alone. And this is part of a larger pattern. The Bureau of Economic Analysis calculated that the economic output of outdoor recreation in 2023 was over $1 trillion.

If the administration builds roads in these places, we not only lose these experiences, but our economies lose their customers. It is not just me saying this; constituents across my State are saying it to me too. Michael writes from Albuquerque. He says:

[T]his seems to be rushed without full considerations of

the ramifications. I do not want the health and solitude of

our forests compromised by opening the door to unwanted

development.

Diane from Taos writes:

Please vote to stop the plan to rescind the Roadless Rule.

I lead herb identification walks in the Taos area . . . so

many people come to this state to enjoy the beauty of

untrammeled forest. We need to . . . stop Trump and his abuse

of our public lands.

Hannah writes from Santa Fe:

Our forests need our help now more than ever. It's hard to

feel so hopeless to help them these days, and I hope you will

defend our forests.

So I stand here today, supported by my own experiences and supported by

the voices of constituents, to defend these forests. But I am not only defending our forests. In fighting for the roadless rule, we are fighting for protections for our roadless areas and against putting special interests first. We are fighting for stronger local economies for all and against industrial development for a wealthy few.

Gifford Pinchot was the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, and he once said:

The vast possibilities of our great future will become

realities only when we make ourselves responsible for that

future.

We are responsible for that future, and the actions that we take today will reverberate for generations to come. I am fighting for the roadless rule, and I urge you to join me.

To my colleagues in the Forest Service, I ask that you extend the public comment period for the public so that we can hear their voices.

To the American people and my constituents in New Mexico, I urge you to engage in the public commenting process and make sure that your voices are heard.

Mr. President, thank you to Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray.

The legislative branch bill is the smallest of the bills produced by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but it is really one of the most important because it helps to make sure that the legislature maintains its role as a separate and equal branch of government. It is no secret that this balance of power enshrined by the Founders in the Constitution could not be more important than it is today.

To be an effective check and balance to the executive branch, Congress and our support Agencies need adequate resources to carry out our responsibilities. This bill allocates those resources, allowing us to do the jobs that we were elected to do for the people of this Nation. Like most bills, each side got some of what they wanted and some of what they didn't, but like any good legislation, we continued to find common ground across the aisle on so many important points. This includes a continued focus on investments, constituent services and security, oversight, and campus operation.

It also includes placeholders for several important, security-related activities that Chair Mullin and I have collectively agreed to further develop and appropriately fund in conference based on additional information that we expect to receive from the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police.

I want to especially thank Chair Mullin and his clerk Molly McCarty for their incredible work with us on the Legislative Branch bill and report and demonstrating their commitment to continuing to work with me to provide the resources necessary to protect all of us. I also want to thank Richard Braddock and my team for their work to develop this bipartisan bill.

I believe this legislation provides a bipartisan package supporting our most critical needs, and I would really urge all of our colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. President, on May 21, 2025, I was unavoidably absent for the following rollcall votes. My absence was due to familial obligations that presented an unavoidable conflict.

For rollcall Vote No. 265, had I been present, I would have voted yea.

For rollcall vote No. 266 had I been present, I would have voted nay.

For rollcall Vote No. 267 had I been present, I would have voted yea. For rollcall Vote No. 268, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For rollcall Vote No. 269, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For rollcall Vote No. 270, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For rollcall Vote No. 271, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For rollcall Vote No. 272, had I been present, I would have voted yea.

For rollcall vote No. 273 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 274 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 275 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 276 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 277 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 278 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 279 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 280 had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote No. 281 had I been present, I would have voted nay.

On July 8, 2025, I was unavoidably absent for the following rollcall votes. My absence was due to a weather delay in my flight arrival, which created an unavoidable conflict.

For rollcall Vote No. 373, had I been present, I would have voted nay. For rollcall Vote No. 374, had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, in New Mexico, we practice querencia. Querencia is a deep, even spiritual, connection to the land--a love of place that demands that we care for what has been passed down to us and protect it so we can pass it along to future generations.

Today, I stand on the Senate floor to pay tribute to a man who literally embodied this idea. His name was Ralph Vigil. And Ralph grew up along the Pecos River, at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, in Northern New Mexico.

With family roots extending hundreds of years, Ralph often called himself ``a twelfth-generation Hispano in a state of Nuevomexicanos.'' He took pride in his Hispanic and indigenous heritage, and every aspect of Ralph's life was really a testament to his commitment and connection to our State and its people.

A parciante of his local acequia, Ralph often brought people in to share acequia traditions, and this included Mark Allison, the executive director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance.

One year, Ralph and his family invited Mark for an annual acequia spring cleaning. So all day, they shoveled and raked and cleared the way for the water to be able to nourish the fields.

Once they were done, they went up and opened up the headgate. Ralph's dad moved a few rocks, and Mark and Ralph stood and watched the water come down to water the fields.

As mayordomo of the Acequia del Molino, Ralph determined the allocation of water for each family like he did everything else, with the resounding belief that in the acequia, as in life, everyone is equal, bound together by water, by land, by tradition.

So Ralph carried these principles of equality and justice and interconnectivity to literally everything he did. As chairman of the New Mexico Acequia Commission for 19 years, Ralph fought to protect the water and the needs of local communities.

In the words of Juan Sanchez, who worked alongside Ralph at the commission, ``Ralph . . . helped communities who didn't really have a voice, keep a voice.''

And when extensive mining proposals threatened the traditional way of life along the Pecos River, Ralph stepped into action, helping to form the Stop Terrero Mine Coalition.

This is where I really got to know Ralph, as we worked together to craft and introduce legislation, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act-- legislation to defend our watersheds and designate over 11,000 acres of national forestland as the Thompson Peak Wilderness Area.

At the Federal and State level, Ralph was a community leader in every sense of the phrase, committed to protecting and nurturing the people and places of New Mexico. He was also a farmer, a father, a skateboarder, a mariachi, and a friend--one who let others know how much they meant to him.

As described by one of his close friends and colleague he worked with, Garrett VeneKlasen, ``Ralph was an old soul and a sage'' who ``radiated goodness and grace.''

His friend Robert Apodaca put it similarly:

Ralph . . . loved with his whole heart and soul. . . . [And

his] legacy lives on in every life he touched and every cause

he stood for.

Julie and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Ralph's family, friends, colleagues, and community. And I know that we will all think of Ralph every time we see the Pecos River.

May we all honor Ralph's memory by carrying on our own querencia for the places and waters that have sustained our way of life, traditions, and forged our communities.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for bringing this resolution to the floor.

And it was a little less than a year ago, I met with workers at several manufacturing facilities in New Mexico. These are the workers who are making the solar and wind technologies that are generating record quantities of clean, affordable, American-made energy. And at a groundbreaking ceremony for Array Technologies, at their factory in Albuquerque, I met with over a dozen New Mexicans, and they told me about the impact of our investments on their lives, their abilities to support their families.

I talked with folks like Ramon Romero, who joined Array Technologies as an entry-level machinist, worked his way up to have a career as a production manager.

I met with Daniel Beltran, who explained how Array's expansion has created new job opportunities for himself and many others in his community. He told me that the company's growth has been ``life- changing'' for him.

And I met with Ray Muddaluri, who spoke about how significant a role Array has played in supporting her growth as a young professional and her ability to serve her community.

Here is what every one of those New Mexicans had in common: They were able to create better lives for themselves, better lives for their families, because of the jobs that were available for them. This is what I mean when I say these industries, these clean industries, are creating careers that New Mexicans and other Americans can build their families around in their home communities.

And thanks to the investments that Democrats made in the last few years, we have seen record growth in new American manufacturing facilities. More than 400,000 new jobs have been announced across the country as a part of this ``Made in America'' clean and affordable energy manufacturing boom. In New Mexico, we celebrated the first wind towers coming off the line at Arcosa Wind Towers, a new factory in Belen. It was a shuttered plastics factory. And now Arcosa's workers are creating the huge steel towers. They are heading straight to the SunZia Wind and Transmission Project, a 3\1/2\ gigawatt project. That project, SunZia, brought in more than $20 billion to States like New Mexico and Arizona in capital.

And when it comes online, it is going to generate more clean power with its wind turbines than the Hoover Dam. It is the largest ever built clean energy project in the Western Hemisphere. America is actually building big things again. So these projects have enormous scope.

But our affordable, American-made energy boom is already under threat because of the uncertainty that President Trump has foisted on the energy sector.

And if you are thinking about opening a new factory, like Array or Arcosa did in my State, you don't know what your tax structure will be after the Republicans take up their Trump tax bill. If you are trying to site and build a new transmission line, the Federal Agencies and the staff that you work with just had their expert staff sacked, making it hard to get a permit when no one is on the other end of the phone.

And thanks to Trump's so-called national energy emergency, many of the lowest cost, 100-percent clean additions to our grid can't get permits.

Make no mistake, Americans' electric bills are going to go up. I am going to say that again: Americans' electric bills are going to go up because Trump and his loyal Republicans are picking winners and losers on the power grid.

That is why I am joining my friend and colleague Senator Kaine to force a vote to put an end to all of this before any more damage is done.

And I want to be clear about something, and certainly Senator Kaine raised this point, but America is the world's leading energy producer. And before Trump injected all of this uncertainty, our country was producing record quantities of both conventional and clean advanced energy. There is no energy emergency. It was made up to skirt the law. It was made up to favor some sources and not others.

But if Trump gets his way, his faux declaration may very well create a real emergency, an energy emergency and an economic emergency.

I also want to be clear to my colleagues across the aisle that this clean energy phenomenon has created 400,000 jobs around the country. But most of them--most of them--are in Republican-led States. This is not a red States or a blue States issue. This is about good-paying, blue-collar, skilled jobs in all of our States.

So what is at risk because of all of this? Let's take a look. In North Carolina, there is a new nearly $13 billion--with a ``b''--$13 billion Toyota battery plant, which will employ 5,000 workers.

Where are we getting our batteries now? We are getting them from China. This is progress. This is putting Americans to work to make batteries here.

In Louisiana, First Solar announced a billion dollars for a new solar energy project that is projected to create 700 new jobs, making that technology here, not being dependent on China.

In Kentucky, Ford is building a new battery plant, which will employ another 5,000 workers and manufacture batteries here instead of China.

In Georgia, an estimated billion dollars in projects to modernize the power grid--and our power grid needs a heck of a lot of modernization. We are going to have more and more demands on this grid in coming years, especially with the growth of data centers and AI--a billion dollars sidelined to upgrade that power grid in Georgia.

Do we really want all these jobs to disappear because President Trump

wants to create a war on affordable, American-made, clean energy? Do we want to import more batteries from China? I don't because that is what is going to happen if we turn our backs on these factories and these energy sources.

And among other things, Trump's so-called national energy emergency declaration would allow his administration to use eminent domain, one of the most controversial powers that a government can have, to take private land for oil and gas infrastructure at the expense of our American jobs and livelihoods.

As we speak, President Trump's chaos and incompetence are jeopardizing and fueling the real energy emergency in our country. Trump's plans to eliminate dozens of advanced energy tax credits, those have unleashed more than $165 billion in private sector capital, moving into over 1,000 factories and expansions across the country.

The President has also halted many of the Department of Energy's loan guarantees, which will further jeopardize the U.S. energy manufacturing expansion and will lead to higher energy bills for millions of Americans.

This is blatant hypocrisy, as Trump's favorite billionaire ``bro'' Elon Musk actually took a $465 million Federal loan guarantee from that same Department that literally saved Tesla from bankruptcy in 2010.

And when these massive, multibillion-dollar construction projects stall, it is not Trump's billionaire friends who will suffer; it is everyday Americans who work in these factories. It is all the families who will be stuck with higher electric bills.

I want to emphasize something that my colleague from Virginia raised. More than 90 percent of the electricity generation projects currently in line to connect to the grid all across this Nation--in red States and in blue States--waiting interconnection are clean energy projects. They are wind, solar, storage, nuclear.

Just last year, 93 percent--93 percent--of new electricity generation was carbon-free. That is a record. We added 52 gigawatts--50 nuclear power generating station quantities' worth--of solar, wind, and storage to the grid in the last year alone. There is a reason for that. In addition to being clean and carbon-free--and many of the big companies that procure energy care about that--these power sources are cheaper, they are faster, they are less capital-intensive than older technologies, like coal-fired plants or gas turbines.

Put simply, clean energy is the cheapest electricity on the grid. You can see it right here. Onshore wind and solar are by far the cheapest. We have combined cycle natural gas.

Guess what? You can't get a gas turbine these days. If you order a combined cycle natural gas turbine today, you are going to wait 3, 4, 5 years before that is actually delivered, without permitting.

Nuclear is great. I hope we build more of it, but we have to get the cost down. It is 18 cents a kilowatt hour, average.

If we don't plug these clean sources into the grid, especially at a time of surging demand, the outcome is obvious: Prices will go up. And it is not physically possible to stand up enough costly gas plants to keep growing power demands and keep prices down. As I said, the wait times to just get a turbine is 4 or 5 years.

If Trump has his way and he keeps blocking American-made clean energy projects, we know that significantly higher energy and electricity costs are on the way. Is that what we want to do? We want to impose on working families that are already struggling to pay for eggs--if they haven't crossed that off their grocery list already--the rising cost of milk, groceries going through the roof, rent payments going up--we are going increase their electric rates because that is what this fake emergency is going to do.

A couple of weeks ago, an Alabama utility company sent a letter to customers saying: Sorry, you owe us another $100 because what we credited you based on the law is no longer valid. Trump's EO took that away, so pony up. Write us another $100 in your electric bill this month.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Advanced groups who do the analysis, folks like the Rhodium Group, have looked at what his crusade will mean regarding American clean energy investments and electricity costs. And they say that, on average, American families' electricity bills could go up by nearly $500 a year as a result of these actions.

Trump's war on American-made clean energy is going to kill thousands of jobs in the skilled trades. Huge construction projects are going to get stalled. The biggest winner in all of this is going to be China. China wants to become even more dominant in the global renewable energy marketplace. They will happily take the private investment that could have gone to the United States and take those jobs back overseas. The biggest loser from this is our economic competitiveness, our national security, our families.

Trump has claimed that his so-called natural energy emergency order is needed to unleash more American fossil fuel development. He is also wrong about that. Not only is our production--13 million barrels a day on average; a little over that--not a record-producing number, but oil and gas executives will tell you the truth.

Look at what ConocoPhillips' CEO said in response to a question about this: Would he really increase production with the gloves coming off? He said, ``Not really.'' Why is that? Because American oil and gas production is already at a record high, and it is not economically advantageous to push production further. I know this firsthand because we are producing more oil and gas in New Mexico than most other States combined, with the exception of one.

Clearly, we need to put an end to this stuff that will fuel a real energy emergency, kill thousands of jobs, and raise electricity costs on American families. The most important decision of our energy future--worth hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector investment, factories, thousands of high-quality jobs--remains in the hands of our Senate Republican colleagues.

If you want to have an ``all of the above'' approach, if you want to continue to bring down energy costs, if you want to protect jobs for hard-working Americans in our States, and to help America remain the global leader in energy production, I would urge you to vote in support of this resolution and against higher electricity bills.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 11, which would repeal a policy that helps protect archeological sites in the ocean when oil and gas development is planned in the area.

I want to be clear that this policy does not prevent any oil and gas development. It simply requires that companies take a good look at the ocean floor with sonar where they are planning to drill a well and see what historic and prehistoric resources are there.

The Outer Continental Shelf, where these wells are typically drilled, is home to one-of-a-kind cultural resources, from incredible historic shipwrecks to old maritime infrastructure, even evidence of human settlements on land that used to be on dry ground but is now on the sea floor.

This policy is a small change, and it simply brings offshore oil and gas up to the exact same standard that we already apply to offshore wind projects. It is entirely reasonable to require energy developers to identify archeological sites and other cultural resources on the ocean floor, just as they do when they produce energy on land.

In fact, in my home State of New Mexico, energy companies routinely work with Tribal representatives, State agencies, and other experts to identify cultural resources in an area proposed for development and to make a plan to limit the impact of development on those resources. It is reasonable for us to expect the same of offshore energy developers.

This policy was supported by two federally recognized Tribes, the Chickahominy and the Rappahannock. Passage of this resolution means not only that this would be repealed but that any similar policy could never be put back in place.

Our cultural resources are too valuable to let them go unprotected just because they are on the ocean floor, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment to support grants for survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Over the last several weeks, I have heard from thousands of New Mexicans about how Donald Trump and Elon Musk have thrown their lives and communities into chaos. That includes Alexandria Taylor and her New Mexico Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs. She called me about President Trump's blockade on Federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act. These grants do two things: They support survivors of rape and sexual assault, sexual abuse, and domestic violence; and they help law enforcement hold predators and abusers accountable.

These are not woke ideas. These are American values. If you support survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence, if you support law enforcement holding abusers and predators accountable, I hope you will support this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 101

Mr. President, just over 5 years ago, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., traveled to the Pacific island Samoa. Mr. Kennedy was on a mission to spread baseless and debunked conspiracy theories about the safety and efficacy of children's vaccines.

Trading in his esteemed family name and peddling himself as some sort of expert, Mr. Kennedy discouraged parents in Samoa from vaccinating their children. The impact of Mr. Kennedy's visit was undeniable. Health providers in Samoa reported that anti-vaccine voices ``got louder'' after his visit, and the rate of measles vaccinations for eligible 1-year-olds in Samoa fell to under 33 percent--well below herd immunity.

Five months after Mr. Kennedy's visit, Samoa had a massive measles outbreak, with 5,000 of its citizens contracting the disease and 83 Samoans dying, the vast majority of whom were children under the age of 5.

During his recent Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Kennedy doubled down on his denialism, claiming, ``We don't know what was killing'' those children in Samoa.

Mr. Kennedy also claimed in written responses to Senate questions that ``my words had nothing to do with vaccine uptake in Samoa or with the 2019 epidemic.'' But the current top health official in Samoa has denounced Mr. Kennedy's characterization of the measles outbreak in his country and Mr. Kennedy's role in it as ``an outright lie'' and ``a total fabrication.''

As someone with a background in science but more importantly, just as a father of two young men, I am horrified by this story. The measles vaccine has been one of the most successful public health and science stories of the last century. One vaccine administered in two doses now provides protection against four devastating diseases: measles, mumps, rubella, and chickenpox.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, nearly twice as many young people died from measles as from polio. Thanks to incredible scientific research and medical advances, we now have a vaccine that is proven to be safe and effective at protecting our kids from these deadly diseases. This vaccine has largely eradicated the measles outbreaks that used to result in the devastating loss of babies and young children--that is, until anti-vaccine crusaders like Mr. Kennedy started promoting phony science and conspiracy theories in places like Samoa.

Over the last two decades, thanks in large part to Mr. Kennedy, this anti-science movement has moved from the darkest corners of the internet into the mainstream. The Samoan story provides us a heartbreaking example of just what is at stake if we give this movement's leader a national platform to spread his junk science.

I hope all of my colleagues take seriously what it would mean to confirm this anti-vaccine, anti-science, snake oil salesman as our next Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As the leader of the largest anti-vaccine organization in the country, the so-called ``Children's Defense Fund''--and I use air quotes for a reason--Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly pushed junk science studies to spread fear and skepticism of vaccines. And it is not limited to the measles. Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly and falsely alleged that safe and effective vaccines for tetanus, for the flu, for COVID, for HPV are dangerous to human health.

Mr. Kennedy has even promoted the completely discredited conspiracy theory that vaccines lead to autism. I want to be really clear that decades of extensive, peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found no connection--zero connection--between vaccines and autism. When he was pressed about this during his confirmation hearings, Mr. Kennedy continued to promote junk science studies rather than walk back his misinformation.

In response to Mr. Kennedy's words in his confirmation hearing, Christopher Banks, the president and CEO of the Autism Society of America, said:

The Autism community deserves leadership that prioritizes

evidence-based policies and respects the lived experiences of

Autistic individuals and their families. The continued

promotion of debunked vaccine theories only serves as a

distraction from the critical research needed to better

understand Autism and provide support for the Autism

community today.

I completely agree with Mr. Banks.

Financial disclosures from his confirmation process have also revealed that Mr. Kennedy has made millions of dollars in referral fees from law firms suing vaccine manufacturers based on baseless conspiracy theories. If confirmed, his own personal financial interests could still be tied to these anti-vaccine lawsuits.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic that led to more than a million deaths in the United States alone, Mr. Kennedy campaigned to end the nationwide vaccination effort that helped us save millions more lives. He continued his well-worn and, again, completely evidence-free message that no vaccine is safe and effective. And just like with all vaccines, the COVID vaccines went through independent review and extensive trials to ensure they were safe and effective. If Mr. Kennedy had had his way, we might still be losing thousands and thousands of our family members and neighbors to that virus.

Mr. Kennedy has, again, without any sound evidence also pushed conspiracy theories claiming that antidepressant medications cause mass shootings and chemicals in our water make children gay. If those claims sound nuts, it is because they are.

Mr. Kennedy has said that he is opposed to promoting prescription medications to treat chronic diseases, including anti-obesity medications like Ozempic that are currently used by millions of Americans.

Mr. Kennedy has said that he would eliminate the entire nutrition department at the Food and Drug Administration, jeopardizing the safety of our Nation's food supplies.

Mr. Kennedy has said that he supports gutting the National Institutes of Health, which supports the development of medicines to treat diseases and delivers untold resources to healthcare institutions in New Mexico and every other State in this country.

During his confirmation process, Mr. Kennedy also reportedly made commitments to my Republican colleagues to support restrictions on mifepristone, a medication abortion and miscarriage management drug. Mifepristone has been approved by the FDA for 25 years.

It is true that Mr. Kennedy has made a number of conflicting statements in the past about his personal views on women's reproductive healthcare, but during his confirmation process, Mr. Kennedy signaled to Republican Senators that he will go along with whatever President Trump wants to further roll back women's reproductive rights.

Mr. Kennedy is not who any of us should want to put in charge of our Nation's health and food safety. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees health coverage programs that serve half--half--of all Americans. HHS plays a critical role in overseeing Medicare, overseeing Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. HHS also supports the medical research that helps us to develop the next vaccines, prevent the next pandemic, and find cures for cancer and chronic diseases like diabetes.

We have already seen President Trump, Elon Musk, and his DOGE minions target scientific and medical research at Agencies like the National Institutes of Health. Just last week, we saw them announce an estimated $4 billion cut for health research at universities across the Nation, including

an estimated $17 million impact at the University of New Mexico alone. And just like many of the unilateral and illegal actions of this emboldened Trump administration, this one received a temporary halt from a Federal judge 2 days ago.

But whether this particular attack holds up in court or not, the Trump administration's intention is clear: dramatic cuts to medical research into treatments and cures that countless Americans are depending upon to save their lives. Mr. Kennedy plans to lead this effort and even to expand on it.

Mr. Kennedy is not who my constituents in New Mexico want to see leading our Nation's health Agency. In fact, New Mexicans have raised their concerns in letters and emails and phone calls day in and day out, and I am going to take a few minutes to read to you from some of these New Mexicans who are terrified about the danger that Mr. Kennedy would pose as our Nation's healthcare Agency leader.

Melissa from Albuquerque is concerned that Mr. Kennedy's past of promoting misinformation about vaccines and his lack of experience will endanger Americans.

Melissa said:

This role demands a leader who relies on evidence-based

decision-making, upholds public trust, and prioritizes the

health and safety of all Americans. RFK Jr.'s history of

promoting conspiracy theories makes him fundamentally unfit

for this critical position. If RFK Jr. were confirmed to head

HHS, millions of American lives would be put at risk. His

policies would jeopardize public health and undermine efforts

to protect our communities from preventable diseases and

health crises.

William from Albuquerque, a retired University of New Mexico health communications professor and longtime NIH principal investigator, knows that Mr. Kennedy's harmful rhetoric and lies will hurt public health efforts and lead to unnecessary deaths.

William said:

My research team and I have had to continually battle anti-

vax misinformation. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is often at the

center of that misinformation. I urge you in the strongest

possible terms to oppose his nomination as Secretary of HHS.

The damage he would do will take decades to undo and will

lead undoubtedly to US morbidity and mortality increasing due

to infectious diseases.

Jane from Albuquerque is concerned that Mr. Kennedy's lack of experience will negatively impact the health of New Mexicans.

She said:

The administration has nominated manifestly unqualified

individuals and those openly hostile to evidence to head the

Department of Health and Human Services and the individual

agencies that are charged with protecting the health of

everyone in the U.S. This abdication of responsibility will

undoubtedly impact vulnerable populations most profoundly,

including those living in New Mexico.

Mark from Albuquerque, a survivor of polio, knows that the polio vaccine effectively eradicated this relentless and deadly disease. He is worried that Mr. Kennedy's confirmation could stifle future vaccinations like the one that saved his life.

Mark said:

I am a polio survivor. I know that I was very fortunate in

my recovery and I also know that the vaccines effectively

eradicated this relentless and deadly disease. So, I ask that

you do whatever you can to prevent RFK Jr. from overseeing

the healthcare of all Americans!

Lori from Las Cruces is also worried that Mr. Kennedy's history of spreading misinformation could harm Americans.

Lori said:

If the Senate confirms RFK Jr. to lead the Department of

Health and Human Services, Americans' health care will be put

at risk and we'll be ill-prepared for another public health

catastrophe. We need to push for a qualified, trustworthy

nominee to lead America's health policy.

Meghan from Albuquerque, a primary care physician, is worried that Mr. Kennedy's lack of experience and disregard for evidence-based medicine pose a danger to Americans.

Meghan said:

As a primary care physician in New Mexico, I am also very

worried about the possibility of RFK Jr. being confirmed as

HHS Secretary. His past actions have shown that he has little

regard for research, evidence based medicine or the expertise

of scientists and physicians. He is dangerous to the American

people.

I agree with these New Mexicans that Mr. Kennedy is unprepared, he is unqualified, and he is dangerously unfit to be confirmed as our next Health Secretary--unfit to protect our kids' health from debunked conspiracy theories, unfit to defend women's reproductive rights, unfit to safeguard the future of Medicare and Medicaid, and unfit to continue lifesaving medical research and medical care in my State and across the country.

For all of these reasons, I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting no on confirming Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Mr. President, every one of us remembers where we were when the first plane struck the World Trade Center the morning of September 11, 2001. On that day, we watched in horror as the North and South Towers fell, terrifying debris clouds flooding the ground beneath them. We witnessed the Pentagon, the heart of our national defense, engulfed in flames as a hijacked plane crashed into it head-on, taking the lives of all the people aboard that flight and over 125 employees in the building itself. Our hearts broke as we saw yet another plane go down in an open field in Pennsylvania, after brave Americans decided to fight back and regain control of the aircraft before it reached its intended target here in this very Capitol building.

From that day forward, we pledged to never forget the nearly 3,000 Americans who lost their lives that day and the thousands more who were first responders that have died since. That pledge led us to immediately establish a bipartisan commission devoted to understanding how our Nation's intelligence Agencies could have left us vulnerable to this attack.

And the 9/11 Commission discovered that our intelligence community had received warnings about the dangers posed by al-Qaida but that a systemic lack of communication and coordination between intelligence Agencies that were effectively stovepiped off from one another had left glaring blindspots at the highest levels of our government. And to fix this, the Commission recommended that our government establish a new Cabinet-level position called the Director of National Intelligence, the DNI.

The DNI is specifically dedicated to coordinating all of our intelligence-gathering operations that protect the safety and security of the American people. For the last two decades, the Director of National Intelligence has played a vital role in every administration as the leader of our intelligence community overseen in coordinating 18 of our intelligence Agencies.

The Director of National Intelligence is also one of the main voices that any President hears from, literally, each and every day. That is because the DNI serves not only as the coordinator of our intelligence community but as the compiler and presenter of the President's daily brief. This is the daily high-level, highly classified briefing on the most pressing and sensitive national security matters. This is where all of our Presidents have gathered critical information needed to make incredibly difficult military or foreign policy decisions. And it is where our Presidents learn about potential threats from our adversaries, from nonstate terrorist organizations, and to think through how to combat those.

Put simply: Our national security depends on the person that we entrust in that role.

In fact, we need to implicitly trust that this person is relying on and providing incredible and accurate information so that our country's Commander in Chief can make the decisions that will determine our security as a nation. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the last 12 years, I do not say this lightly: I do not believe that Ms. Gabbard has demonstrated the judgment to merit our trust as Director of National Intelligence.

Ms. Gabbard's statements and actions leading up to and during the confirmation process should make all of us question her qualifications for this essential national security role, and they should make us seriously question her basic judgment.

Time and again, Ms. Gabbard has elevated conspiracy theories, parroted

dictator's talking points, and repeatedly undermined our country's national security.

Let me give you some specific examples of her statements and her legislative track record. In 2017, while she was still serving in the House of Representatives, Ms. Gabbard exercised seriously questionable judgment in scheduling a foreign trip into Bashar al-Assad's pariah state of Syria. This was after Assad had committed well-documented crimes against his own people, including the use of chemical weapons, and plummeted his country into a bloody civil war and devastating humanitarian crisis.

Both before and after this trip, Ms. Gabbard undermined U.S. intelligence and echoed Russian and Syrian disinformation regarding Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people. She has made statements that appear to defend Assad.

For example, on February 6, 2019, Ms. Gabbard claimed in an interview that:

Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria

does not pose a direct threat to the United States.

This is a shockingly narrow view of threats to U.S. national security. During the course of Syria's civil war, Assad used chemical weapons more than 300 times against his own people, killing and wounding thousands. To this day, Syria has still not accounted for this.

The U.S. has also described Syria as being in ``flagrant noncompliance'' with the Chemical Weapons Convention. And there is no question that Assad's regime posed a serious threat to international peace and security.

It is mystifying to me how Ms. Gabbard could not understand this then and still, apparently, doesn't understand it today.

Ms. Gabbard's 2020 Presidential campaign website stated that she remains ``skeptical'' about two particular chemical weapons attacks in Syria in 2017 and 2018. Her website wrongly stated that:

Both attacks occurred in towns under the control of al-

Qaeda-linked opposition forces. Both attacks resulted in

multiple civilian casualties, and both were immediately

blamed on the Assad government. However, there is evidence to

suggest that the attacks may have been staged by opposition

forces for the purpose of drawing the United States and the

West deeper into the war.

Of course, there never was such evidence.

Disturbingly, Ms. Gabbard decided to take the views of a discredited professor, who was himself taken in by a Syrian Australian YouTube influencer, that somehow the opposition forces had staged these chemical weapons attacks.

As a Member of Congress, she could have taken the time to read the summary of a declassified U.S. intelligence report released the week after the 2017 attack, warning that claims shifting blame to rebel groups reflected the ``false narratives'' spread by Syria and its patron state, Russia.

Instead of looking to the intelligence community for answers, Gabbard sought out fake intelligence, demonstrating her distrust in the very intelligence Agencies that she could soon coordinate and oversee.

Her trip to Syria and her visit with Assad himself should be alarming to all of us. Normally, if any Member of Congress goes on a foreign fact-finding trip like this, we take precautions to not jeopardize our vital national security interests. We coordinate with the State Department. We coordinate with the Pentagon. We carefully account for our schedules. And we sure as hell make sure we are not giving a platform to state-sponsors of terrorism or terrorist leaders.

Ms. Gabbard did none of these things on this rogue trip into Assad's Syria. In fact, she sat down for an unscheduled meeting with Assad himself, not once but twice. She also met with the Grand Mufti of Syria. The Grand Mufti was appointed in 2005 to be Syria's most senior Sunni Muslim cleric. In 2011, he threatened Western countries, including the United States, against taking military actions in Syria. And he said in his speech:

I say to all of Europe, I say to America, we will set up

suicide bombers who are now in your countries.

During her confirmation hearing last month, I asked Ms. Gabbard directly about this meeting with the Grand Mufti, Mr. Hassoun. She claimed that this was the first she had ever heard about Mr. Hassoun's threats to set up some suicide bombers to target America and our European allies. However, records from her congressional office suggest that almost immediately after returning from her controversial trip, she was fully aware that she had met with a leader with direct ties to terrorism.

According to recent reporting in the Washington Post that helped to unearth these records right after she returned from Syria, Ms. Gabbard and her congressional staff worked feverishly to account for her meetings and official paperwork and to contain the political fallout. In the documents that the Post reviewed, Ms. Gabbard's staff asked her:

Did you know you were meeting with people with direct ties

to terrorist organizations?

And her response in those documents:

Is this question re the Mufti?

I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that Ms. Gabbard endorsed or endorses the despicable views or actions of this particular Syrian terrorist leader. What I am suggesting is that Ms. Gabbard's false denial to me in her confirmation hearing of any prior knowledge of this terrorist leader whom she personally met with should be evidence enough that we cannot trust her. And in the position that we are being asked to confirm her for, telling the whole truth accurately is the whole point.

On top of this, Ms. Gabbard has repeatedly made public statements that echo Russian justification for Putin's unjustified, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. She has blamed our NATO allies for failing to recognize Russia's ``legitimate security concerns.''

Those are literally her words. And she has amplified Russia and Putin's disinformation campaigns alleging Ukraine's development of bioweapons.

On February 23, 2022, Ms. Gabbard echoed Russian talking points blaming Putin's invasion of Ukraine on the Biden administration. Specifically, she tweeted:

This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if

Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate

security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of

NATO, which would mean U.S./NATO forces right on Russia's

border.

As my colleague Senator Bennet said so powerfully as he pointed out at Ms. Gabbard's confirmation hearing, she sent this tweet at the very moment that Russian tanks were rolling over Ukraine's border, essentially saying that Vladimir Putin was justified invading the free nation of Ukraine.

Then-Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio tweeted in response saying, this is ``simply not true,'' noting that the week before the invasion, Putin once again demanded NATO leave every country that joined after 1997, including Bulgaria, Romania, and 12 others.

Ms. Gabbard chose not to listen to the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee or the intelligence community itself, which had issued a declassified threat assessment two weeks prior. Ms. Gabbard decided, instead, to give the benefit of the doubt to Vladimir Putin. How can we trust that she won't do that again?

Ms. Gabbard has also repeatedly praised Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who fled to China and then to Russia after he was charged in 2013 with illegally exposing government surveillance methods and classified information.

Ms. Gabbard has called him a ``brave whistleblower'' and even went so far as to introduce legislation in the House of Representatives to pardon Edward Snowden.

In 2016, the House Intelligence Committee issued a declassified, scathing report that found Snowden leaked secrets that caused tremendous damage to U.S. national security. This included leaking secrets that protect American troops and American personnel overseas. As that report made clear, Snowden was not a whistleblower; he was and is a traitor to this Nation.

Ms. Gabbard and anyone who is interested in understanding the impact of the leaked secrets has access to the declassified House Intelligence Committee report and many other public sources of information explaining the damage that Snowden caused to our national security. Yet she continues to

believe her own sources of information instead and to this day will not say that Snowden betrayed this country.

Let me be clear. Edward Snowden is not a whistleblower; he is a traitor. Ms. Gabbard should know this full well.

If we confirm her as our next Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard will be responsible for transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to Congress. Her past statements on Snowden reveal a deficient understanding of our Nation's whistleblower laws that should be patently disqualifying for any Director of National Intelligence, much less any national security appointee.

When my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee pressed Ms. Gabbard during her confirmation hearing about whether her views had changed and if she would acknowledge that Mr. Snowden were a traitor, she refused. This is who we want to lead our intelligence community--someone who outright refuses to condemn the actions of someone who jeopardized our national security and put the lives of many members of our intelligence community and national security community at risk? It is hard to believe that we could be so reckless.

Finally, Ms. Gabbard has also advocated for a full repeal of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Section 702 is one of our intelligence community's most important tools to effectively fight terrorism, disrupt foreign cyber attacks, impede drug trafficking, and protect U.S. troops serving abroad. Ms. Gabbard introduced a bill in the House that would have completely repealed section 702.

I will be the first to say that there are reforms to section 702 that we should make to ensure that this law always focuses on the communications of foreign targets abroad and is never inadvertently used in a way that threatens the privacy of innocent Americans. In the past, including just last year, I worked closely with my colleagues to advance some of these reforms. A wholesale repeal of section 702, however, is a wildly out-of-step and dangerous proposal.

Do we really want to confirm a Director of National Intelligence who has advocated for the dismantling of such a foundational source of foreign intelligence to protect our national security?

Any number of Ms. Gabbard's statements or actions would be disqualifying for a nominee to lead our intelligence community and keep our President accurately informed on pressing national security matters. But I am not alone in raising concerns about this nomination. As with many of President Trump's unqualified nominees, I have heard from many New Mexicans--from many constituents in my own State--in opposition to Ms. Gabbard's nomination, and I want to take a moment to read to you from some of these letters that I have received.

Addie from Mountainair wrote to me to share her concern about Ms. Gabbard's lack of experience to safeguard our Nation.

Addie said:

Running the DNI requires an unwavering commitment to

evidence-based decisionmaking, national security, and

independence from political or foreign influence. Tulsi

Gabbard has none of that. She is completely unfit for this

position.

A constituent and former intelligence officer from Santa Fe who wished to remain anonymous is concerned how Ms. Gabbard's background will impact operations critical to defending the United States from foreign threats.

This individual told me:

As a retired intelligence officer, I urge you to do

everything you can to keep Tulsi Gabbard from becoming the

next [DNI]. Our allies will be reluctant to share

intelligence with her, as will our own intelligence

professionals, given her past support for Putin and for other

dictators. This is a job that needs to be filled by a serious

expert in intelligence and national security policy.

Katy from Tularosa is troubled by Ms. Gabbard's past association with dictators and tyrants.

Katy wrote to me:

Tulsi Gabbard is known to have had sympathies for Russia

and has met with Bashar al-Assad, the unrepentant dictator

and war criminal. Her appointment threatens U.S. national

security.

Gary, also from Tularosa, is a retired intelligence officer. Gary is worried about Ms. Gabbard's lack of national security experience and how it will affect efforts to safeguard the United States.

Gary wrote:

As a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, I urge

you to use all [of] your influence to block Tulsi Gabbard as

the next Director of National Intelligence. She is absolutely

unqualified to assume this key position in the Intelligence

Community. To serve our nation, the DNI must have a deep

understanding of the strengths and limitations of the broad

array of civilian and military intelligence agencies. Only

then can the DNI lead effectively and offer unbiased counsel

to the President. Tulsi Gabbard has none of these

qualifications or experience.

Walter from Santa Fe is a veteran who served as an intelligence officer as well. He wrote to me to convey his disgust with President Trump in putting individual loyalty over national security with his nomination.

Walter said:

I am appalled at President Trump putting individual loyalty

above competency in his appointments. While Ms. Gabbard is a

veteran, she lacks experience in the field of national

security, and her playing with conspiracy theories lacking

valid documentation raises serious questions about her

judgment.

I agree with my constituents in New Mexico.

Ms. Gabbard's poor judgment and lack of national security experience make her wholly unqualified to serve as our next Director of National Intelligence. Confirming her to this role will make our Nation less safe. For all of these reasons, I will not be supporting Ms. Gabbard's confirmation.