Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Supreme Court nomination before us is of historic importance. We have a nominee whose nomination is clouded with credible allegations of sexual assault, whose truthfulness before Congress is questionable, and who showed himself as partisan and lacking in judicial temperament before this body in his supplemental hearing.

As of today, more than 2,400 law professors throughout the country are on record that Judge Kavanaugh's display of lack of judicial restraint during that hearing is disqualifying. The growing list includes professors from all political stripes and professors who had previously supported his nomination. Indeed, former Justice John Paul Stevens, a highly respected jurist, has taken the unusual step of publicly opining the same.

Yesterday, I spoke on the Senate floor about why Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed in light of the allegations swirling around him, his lack of candor with this body, and his demeanor during the supplemental hearing. But, Mr. President, on the merits as well, Judge Kavanaugh has not shown himself deserving of elevation to our highest Court.

Let's start with his overly expansive view of Executive power--a view that could shield our current President from being held to account for potential crimes and misdeeds.

Judge Kavanaugh has written and spoken extensively about the need to shield the President from criminal investigation while in office. He is on record that, in his opinion, the President has authority under the Constitution to terminate an independent counsel at will. Indeed, there is probably no other viable candidate to the seat who has argued more strenuously in favor of Presidential immunity and the President's absolute authority to fire a special prosecutor. It is no coincidence, then, that this President, who is under criminal investigation by a special counsel, selected Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the Court.

Judge Kavanaugh is clear that, as a matter of policy, Presidents should be completely immunized from criminal and civil suit while in office. He writes that ``the President should be free from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship.'' For Judge Kavanaugh, freeing the President of ``burdens'' the rest of us must bear takes precedence over ensuring the President follows the law.

Judge Kavanaugh's supporters point out that his writings in support of broad Presidential immunity represent his policy views, not his constitutional analysis. But his writings do not tell us that he would uphold Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, nor would he tell us during his confirmation hearing that he would hold the President to account for any crimes. In my view, the ``burdens'' of a criminal investigation do not outweigh the dangers of a criminal occupying the Oval Office.

There is nothing in the Constitution that immunizes a President from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office. The drafters knew how to immunize public officials if they wanted. Members of Congress, for example, have express immunity ``from arrest or interrogation for any speech or debate entered into during a legislative session.'' The speech and debate immunity for Congress is narrowly tailored. The drafters gave no immunity--narrow or broad--to the President or members of his Cabinet. While Judge Kavanaugh claims to be a strict constructionist, I have no confidence he would stick to the text of the Constitution and not grant the President immunity.

There is evidence in the public record that close associates and even family of the President may have conspired with Russia, and we have the President's own inexplicable behavior cozying up to and trying to curry favor with Vladmir Putin. There is abundant evidence in the public record that the President has worked to undermine the investigation into Russian interference in our election and investigation into himself. And we have sworn testimony from the President's former personal lawyer that the President directed commission of two campaign- related felonies. If the President has committed crimes, he should be held responsible, just like the rest of us.

Judge Kavanaugh has said he would ``put the final nail in'' Morrison v. Olson. Morrison v. Olson is the 1988, 8-to-1 decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist that upheld the Independent Counsel Act. That act was passed in the aftermath of Watergate to curb Executive abuse and mitigate the obvious conflict of interest the U.S. Department of Justice would have investigating the President. Judge Kavanaugh sides with the lone dissent in that case and with the idea that the President should be able to fire the person who is investigating him--with no check. If the constitutionality of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation comes before the Supreme Court--and it is likely that it will--there is every reason to believe Justice Kavanaugh would have his chance to hammer in that nail.

Judge Kavanaugh espouses a ``unitary executive'' theory of the separation of powers. Hidden behind this legalese is a simple and dangerous idea: that the President holds absolute power over the executive branch. Under his theory, President Trump could actually fire Special Counsel Mueller because he uncovered wrongdoing by the President. In plain terms, he would let the fox raid the henhouse.

Judge Kavanaugh's theory that the Constitution requires no checks on the President's authority strains that document to the point of breaking. Our entire constitutional system of separation of powers is built on the principle of checks and balances--so that one branch of government does not accumulate and exercise an inordinate amount of power.

Under DOJ regulations, the Attorney General, or Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is recused, may only appoint a special counsel if it is warranted and there is a conflict with the Department or other ``extraordinary circumstances.'' Only the Attorney General-- not the President--may remove a special counsel. And the Attorney General--or in the case of Special Counsel Mueller, the Deputy Attorney General--may only do so for ``misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.'' The DOJ regulations provide appropriate and constitutionally sound checks on the executive's authority.

The American people deserve to know the truth about Russia's attack on our democracy. They deserve to know whether Candidate Trump or his campaign was part of the attack. And they deserve to know all the facts behind the President's efforts to stop DOJ's investigation into Russian interference and any Trump collusion. The President should not be able to hide the truth and the facts by firing Special Counsel Mueller.

And that is not all. There is open speculation that the President may pardon close associates. His family. Even himself. The new Justice may be called upon to determine the scope of the President's power to pardon and whether that power may be exercised for corrupt purpose. Given Judge Kavanaugh's overly expansive view of Executive authority, I am concerned he would set no limits on the President's power to pardon and would allow a Presidential pardon even if wielded to obstruct justice.

At this point in our history, with so many questions whether the President, his family, or others close to him committed crimes, the American public must be assured that the new Justice will provide a check on the President. And not give him a blank check to commit crimes.

I am proud that New Mexico is a majority minority State, but I am really worried that a Justice Kavanaugh will not protect minority rights. Ten percent of our State's population is Native American. Judge Kavanaugh, however,

has shown a distinct hostility to indigenous people's rights. For example, in Rice v. Cayetano, he argued in the Supreme Court against a voting system limited to Native Hawaiians, arguing they should not be treated like Tribes even though Native Hawaiians and Tribes share a history of forced assimilation. In that case, he represented the Center for Equal Opportunity--a fervently anti-affirmative action group. While the case was pending, he authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that ``any racial group with creative reasoning can qualify as an Indian tribe.'' He called the voting system a ``naked-racial spoils system.'' Such an offensive view demonstrates a level of misunderstanding--perhaps even willful ignorance unworthy of a nominee to our highest Court. While the Court ultimately struck down the voting system, it did not do so on Mr. Kavanaugh's claimed grounds.

Recently disclosed emails that Judge Kavanaugh wrote as a White House lawyer confirm he is a threat to indigenous communities. In his view, if Native peoples are not organized into Tribes and live on reservations, they are not entitled to any special recognition under the law. But not all Tribes are alike. Not all indigenous peoples are organized the same way. Alaska Natives, for example, are organized as Tribes, villages, and regional corporations. Alaska Natives are rightfully concerned whether he will protect their rights.

Bottom line: Judge Kavanaugh questions the constitutionality of programs specifically dedicated to Native Americans--a view that could upend decades of progress for Indian Country on everything from housing to government contracting.

As ranking member of the Committee on Indian Affairs, I wrote to the chair of the Judiciary Committee in August asking for all of Judge Kavanaugh's documents related to Native issues. The Chair refused my request. So we don't even know if we have the full extent of emails and memos from Judge Kavanaugh disparaging Native rights.

But we do know that Judge Kavanaugh is hostile to affirmative action programs. When he was a White House lawyer, he called Department of Transportation regulations designed to remedy past and present discrimination ``a naked racial set-aside.'' But those regulations, which favored ``socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,'' were upheld by the Federal courts under established equal protection principles.

While Judge Kavanaugh advocates strongly for ``race neutrality'' when it comes to distribution of government benefits, he is not so quick to embrace race-neutral policies when it comes to racial profiling. In the aftermath of 9/11, in a series of White House emails labeled ``racial profiling,'' the idea of long-term use of racial profiling at airports and by law enforcement was raised. Mr. Kavanaugh responded that ``the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple--and grapple now--with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.'' In other words, maybe we use racial profiling in the interim because coming up with a race-neutral system is so hard.

In New Mexico, almost 49 percent of our population is Hispanic--the largest percentage of any State. If we were to accept racial profiling in New Mexico--coupled with our Native population and other minority groups--over 62 percent of our population would be targeted. That would be wholly unacceptable, as would be doing away with Federal and State programs intended to redress past and present discrimination.

One of the most critical roles the courts play is protecting minority rights, but Judge Kavanaugh's record does not demonstrate he will fulfill this role. He simply doesn't appear to understand or to appreciate the discrimination, oppression, the assault that Native peoples, Hispanics, African Americans, and other groups have faced over time and continue to face. Supreme Court equal protection jurisprudence is informed by this history.

Whether it is affirmative action, voting rights, or redistricting, we must have a Justice on the Court who protects minority rights, and Judge Kavanaugh has not shown himself to be that Justice.

The same is true for women's reproductive rights. Trump the candidate promised only to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Potential Supreme Court candidates can only make it onto the Federalist Society list if they will vote to overturn Roe.

Judge Kavanaugh's record does not bode well for women's rights. He tried to stand in the way of a 17-year-old pregnant girl, an immigrant held in Federal detention, who wanted an abortion. He would have required her to find a ``sponsor'' in the United States who would provide housing for her and allow her to terminate her pregnancy. And if the Federal Government couldn't find a sponsor, the young woman could return to the district court in 2 weeks. Of course, the longer a pregnancy continues, the greater the risk to the woman's health and safety.

Judge Kavanaugh did not believe these onerous, bureaucratic requirements represented an ``undue burden'' on the young woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy. Fortunately, however, the full DC Court of Appeals did. They quickly overturned the decision and allowed the young woman to immediately exercise her right.

The American public--Democrats, Republicans, and independents-- support a woman's right to choose. If Judge Kavanaugh would have this country go back to the days of back-alley abortions, he should have said so during his confirmation hearings, but he would not. I cannot vote for a nominee who is not willing to affirm a woman's right to choose.

A woman's reproductive right is not the only health care right at risk with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Our entire system of health care rights and benefits under the Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy. A group of Republican attorney General and Governors has filed suit to gut critical ACA protections. They want to take away protections from the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions and allow insurance companies to discriminate on this basis again. They want to take away the prohibition against lifetime limits on benefits, and go back to the days when you could get booted off insurance because you have high medical expenses. They want to take away the right to cover children up to age 26, to get free preventive care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. And they want to eviscerate Medicaid expansion, which has given 11 million Americans healthcare they didn't have before.

The Trump administration has sided with the Republican attorney Generals and Governors who want to decimate our health care system despite the President's repeated campaign promises to cover everyone, protect people with preexisting illnesses, and cover children up to age 26.

This case is now before a Federal court in Texas and will likely make its way to the Supreme Court. We do not want a Justice who sides with corporate interests over consumers, who is willing to throw statutory language and constitutional principles aside to get the results he wants. I am concerned that a Justice Kavanaugh would do the President's bidding and gut critical health care rights that Congress has enacted and that the American people overwhelmingly stand by.

But there is more at stake. In his legal opinions, Judge Kavanaugh inevitably sides with business and against the environment, workers, and consumers. His environmental record deserves a spotlight. Interpreting environmental statutes, Judge Kavanaugh will veer far from the legal text he claims to honor to reach the result he wants. For example, Judge Kavanaugh once blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting ``downwind'' states from nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide coming from ``upwind'' States under the ``Good Neighbor Provision'' of the Clean Air Act. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide develop into ozone and cause respiratory illnesses and other health problems. However, the Supreme Court reversed Judge Kavanaugh. In a 6- to-2 decision that included justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts in the majority, the Court found that Judge Kavanaugh ``rewrites a decades-old statute whose plain text and structure'' are clear.

In case after case, whether in dissent or the majority, Judge Kavanaugh votes against the environment and with industry. He voted to invalidate EPA rules to regulate emission of greenhouse gasses by plants and factories, to overturn EPA's mercury and air toxics standards limiting hazardous emissions from powerplants, to allow EPA to delay implementation of its methane control rule, to overturn an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, to overturn an EPA decision to revoke a coal company permit that would harm the environment. This is not the record the American people want from a Justice likely to rule for decades on the most important environmental law cases.

His record on matters addressing climate change is especially troubling. Climate change can hit minorities and low-income communities the hardest. In New Mexico, traditional land grant and acequia communities depend on the land to sustain their families. The climate change-induced drought we are experiencing in New Mexico and the Southwest threatens our way of life.

If we are looking for a Justice who will put balance back into our campaign finance system, Judge Kavanaugh is not a likely candidate. He has been clear that he believes that money equals free speech. So it is a good bet he will not scrutinize Citizens United or the other Supreme Court cases that now allow unlimited, dark money to run roughshod over our campaigns and tear at the fabric of our democracy. Our campaign finance system is broken beyond repair. Unless we change the rules-- either through Supreme Court decision or congressional action and constitutional amendment--we will continue to see the kinds of perverse results we now see where a few superwealthy individuals and big corporations drown out the many. But we are pretty much assured that a Justice Kavanaugh will not change the rules that now allow unfettered dark money to pollute our elections.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the Supreme Court nomination before the Senate. New Mexicans and the American people want a nominee who has been 100 percent honest, whose nomination is not tainted by credible allegations of sexual assault and misconduct. New Mexicans and the American people want a nominee who will act as a check on the powerful, but President Trump chose this nominee to do the opposite.

At this critical point in our Nation's history--when we have a President who is under DOJ investigation for conspiracy with Russia to undermine our national election and obstruction of justice, who may have broken campaign finance laws to win the Presidency--we must have Justices on the Court who believe in the rule of law, who believe that no one is above the law, even the President. At this historic juncture, the American people must have assurance that any judicial nominee will hold the President true to our laws, true to our Constitution, but Judge Kavanaugh cannot give the American people this assurance, and I cannot support his nomination.

Mr. President, first let me begin by saying this: I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Her raw courage in coming forward will change the national culture and discussion. She has given voice to millions of women and men who are survivors of sexual assault, who are afraid to tell their stories, who felt powerless. Some of these women have contacted my office with their own stories. I have read them and they are heart-wrenching.

At its core, sexual assault is a crime of power. Dr. Ford has confronted some of the most powerful in our Nation and told the truth. I thank her for her courage in coming forward and for empowering other survivors to do the same.

At this point, with so much unknown, there are serious consequences to elevating Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

We the Senate need to continue our search for the truth about this nominee, his background, and his record, and, hopefully, we can do that in a bipartisan way.

Yet everything about the nomination process for this nominee has been deeply flawed, from the President's outsourcing the nomination to the Federalist Society, to the majority leader's violating his own new rule to delay consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until after an upcoming election, to a highly partisan lawyer's screening Judge Kavanaugh's documents for public disclosure instead of the nonpartisan National Archives staff, to the Judiciary chair's rush to hearings, even though only 7 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record is in the public domain.

What are they trying to hide? I think we have a pretty good idea.

Finally, and most disturbing, are the President's and the majority's inexcusable treatment of the brave women who have come forward with allegations of sexual assault and misconduct against the nominee. The Republican leaders claim to want to hear the allegations of sexual assault has been nothing but a cynical show for public consumption.

The #MeToo movement forced them to open the floor to Dr. Ford, but her testimony was never really going to matter to President Trump and the Republican leadership. The majority leader made that clear when he bragged to an audience of the religious right before her hearing: ``In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court.''

Republican leaders questioned why the allegations did not come forward sooner. Yet the reasons survivors of sexual assault often don't come forward are well documented and well understood, and they did everything they could to undermine getting to the truth of Dr. Ford's allegations--from refusing to honor her request for an FBI investigation prior to her hearing to severely limiting the Democrats' time for questions of Judge Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to refusing to call other key witnesses, like Mark Judge, Deborah Ramirez, and others, and to put them under oath. It is absolutely stunning that all 11 Republicans on the committee abdicated their responsibilities and ducked public scrutiny by bringing in a female prosecutor to do their job and question Dr. Ford. It is just plain political cowardice, and women in New Mexico and around the country are watching.

Again, after hearing her testimony and reviewing the record, I believe Dr. Ford. It is worth noting that no Republican Senator has said she is not credible. Not a single one has said she is not credible. The majority whip stated: ``I found no reason to find her not credible.''

The President found her testimony ``very compelling'' and that she was a ``very credible witness.'' Although, true to form, the President changed political course and insulted and mocked her in front of a laughing crowd and television cameras--yet another shameful new low for the President's treatment of women.

Dr. Ford's testimony was all the more compelling because she was able to expertly explain how the memory of the assault was seared in her hippocampus by neurotransmitters that were released in response to the attack. Her memory of her assailant is fully intact. It insults Dr. Ford and survivors generally to say, like Republicans have, that they believe something happened to her but that it was not Brett Kavanaugh.

Dr. Ford is not mixed up, and contrary to what the Republicans would tell you, there is strong corroborating evidence behind her allegations. Years before this nomination, she had told her husband, a therapist, and friends of the attack, and her polygraph examination supports her truthfulness. Her story even matches an entry in Judge Kavanaugh's calendar in a number of ways, identifying the attendees she would have no reason to know.

There is a narrow window in which it is possible that both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are telling the truth, and that is if Judge Kavanaugh does not remember it as a result of his consumption of alcohol that evening. Yet Judge Kavanaugh's performance during the supplemental hearing, while loud and angry, was not convincing. You can't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible and, at the same time, push to put Judge Kavanaugh on the Court.

The burden of proof for a lifetime appointment to our highest Court is not ``beyond a reasonable doubt.'' The Senate and the American people must have a high degree of certainty that there was no sexual assault and that the nominee didn't lie about it under oath. We have no certainty on either count.

The supplemental hearing brought Judge Kavanaugh's overall credibility even further into question. While he denied reports of heavy alcohol use during high school and college, there are abundant reports in the press and statements from many eyewitnesses to the contrary. Numerous acquaintances, even friends, have come forward with information that he often drank to excess during these years. His own yearbook quotes allude to--brag about--heavy drinking and exploits with girls. With all of these accounts of heavy drinking from an array of different credible sources who have nothing to gain by coming forward, it is hard to believe there is no truth to them.

Evidence of excessive drinking and inappropriate behavior as a teenager and young adult is not disqualifying in and of itself, but misleading Congress and the American people about it is. Most troubling is that there was already evidence before us that Judge Kavanaugh was not being fully truthful.

We know that when Judge Kavanaugh worked as a White House lawyer under George W. Bush, Senate Republican Judiciary staff stole confidential information from Democratic Senators and staff and gave some of that stolen information to him. Under oath, Judge Kavanaugh denied that he knew the information was stolen, but if you read the email correspondence, it is nearly impossible to believe a sophisticated political operative, like Brett Kavanaugh was, would not have understood that the information had been obtained surreptitiously.

There are also valid concerns that Judge Kavanaugh, during his 2004 confirmation hearing, misrepresented his involvement with the George W. Bush torture policy and with certain judicial nominations he handled as White House Counsel. His sworn testimony in 2004 and in the two recent hearings leaves me highly skeptical that Judge Kavanaugh has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth before Congress. I cannot support a nominee to the Supreme Court without there being a high degree of certainty that he or she has been 100-percent honest under oath. The integrity and reputation of the Supreme Court demand nothing less.

The rushed Judiciary hearing with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh was designed to appease and not to make sure the American people had all of the facts. Senator Flake was right to stop the process and call for an FBI investigation. He is right that this nomination is tearing the country apart. The American people needed to know the truth. All relevant evidence should have been gathered and put before us. Senator Flake is a friend, and I commend him for having stood up for what he thought was right, but an artificially limited FBI investigation will do nothing to bring this country back together. Justice could have only been served by having a full investigation, with the FBI being allowed to have done its job as it knows how to do it.

With the results in of the FBI investigation, it is clear that the President, with the Senate leadership in full support, imposed arbitrary limits on the scope and length of the investigation. Dr. Ford was not spoken to. Her corroborating witnesses were not contacted. Her corroborating documents were not reviewed. There was no meaningful inquiry as to whether Judge Kavanaugh misrepresented his past alcohol use, which also corroborates Dr. Ford's story. Up to 40 witnesses tried to come forward, but FBI agents did not contact or interview them. While we can all read their statements in the newspapers, their information will not form part of the FBI's investigation record.

There was no bipartisan briefing at which Senators could ask FBI leaders about the adequacy of the investigation. The FBI's investigation was not allowed to be a real investigation. Given what is in the public record but was kept away from the FBI, it by no means exonerates Judge Kavanaugh. Without having had a real investigation, the cloud of credible allegations remains. The President and Republican leaders were, simply, not on a search for the truth, only on a mad dash to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed at any cost to the country.

Folks, it is 2018. We are 27 years beyond Clarence Thomas' hearings. Yet credible claims of sexual assault against a nominee to the Supreme Court are not taken seriously by the President of the United States or by the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The roughshod process orchestrated by the Senate majority and the President delegitimizes the claims of a woman who has been subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault, and it only serves to drive survivors underground. The kangaroo court-type process orchestrated by the Senate majority and the President delegitimizes the Supreme Court and will for decades to come.

During the supplemental hearing, Judge Kavanaugh showed himself as partisan, belligerent, even paranoid, and lacking in judicial temperament. He rudely shot back at Senators, asking them about their drinking habits. He accused Members of the minority of misdeeds for which he had no evidence. He blamed ``revenge'' by the Clintons for the predicament he was in. He lacked self-control, dignity, and the temperament of a Supreme Court Justice. His partisanship and lack of political independence were on full display.

I have never seen a nominee to a Federal court, let alone the Supreme Court, behave in such an injudicious manner before the Senate. Under pressure, Judge Kavanaugh did not show himself worthy to appointment to the highest Court.

This is not a partisan conspiracy as Judge Kavanaugh claimed. We saw no such allegations for Judge Gorsuch's nomination--a judicial candidate who shared a similar judicial philosophy to Judge Kavanaugh's and who, coincidentally, went to the same high school. There were no unsavory allegations against Judge Scalia or Judge Alito--two judges whom most Democrats vociferously opposed based on their rightwing, pro- dark money ideology.

Elevation to the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment is not a right. It is a privilege. While the Republicans take great umbrage that Judge Kavanaugh's reputation is at stake, the fact is we have before us credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and justice demands that he be called to answer to those allegations. He should not get a pass.

I have reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's decisions, writings, speeches, all of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the meager set of documents made available when he served as a White House lawyer and as part of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation. On the merits, this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial thought. He is on the extreme edge. The American people want a Justice whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a Justice who is not on the far end of the ideological spectrum and who will not put his or her personal beliefs before the text of the statute or the constitutional provision at issue.

Even before the allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, the American people opposed this nomination in unprecedented numbers. I, like the American people, have no confidence that this nominee will uphold our rights of privacy, a woman's right to choose, and each individual's right to marry whomever he or she wants. I have no confidence that this nominee will uphold Americans' rights to healthcare, consumers' rights to a fair deal, or laws that protect our environment and combat climate change.

I have no confidence that this nominee will protect minorities' rights and the rights of Native peoples, in particular, or will uphold voting rights, will strike down gerrymandered voting districts, which undermine the principle of ``one person, one vote,'' or will

rein in dark money, which erodes our democracy, all while the Nation faces the distinct possibility that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation will find evidence that the President or his campaign conspired with Russia to undermine the 2016 Presidential election, evidence that the President obstructed the Special Counsel's investigation, or evidence of other crimes. I have absolutely no confidence that this nomination will hold the President to account if called to do so.

Judge Kavanaugh is on record saying that, as a matter of policy, he believes a sitting President should be immune from criminal investigation while in office, no matter the crime. He has refused to tell the Senate and the American people whether he believes that, as a matter of constitutional law, a sitting President may be investigated and indicted.

I, for one, believe that under the Constitution, if a President commits a crime, the rule of law still stands and that the Constitution gives no immunity to a President who is a criminal.

This nomination will shape the course of the Supreme Court--and American law and lives--for decades. We must have a nominee who has been fully vetted, who does not stand credibly accused of sexual assault, whose honesty before the Senate and the American people cannot be questioned, whose judicial record fits within mainstream jurisprudence, and who believes that no one--not even the President--is above the law.

Judge Kavanaugh is not that nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, thank you for the recognition.

Mr. President, I just want to tell you how proud I am to join Senator Whitehouse today on the floor. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for continuing to bring the urgency of combating climate change to the attention of this body. I admire his passion and intellectual clout, which he has brought specifically to climate change a number of times here on the Senate floor. He has been a great advocate for his State of Rhode Island, where we all know there are going to be very serious impacts--sea level rise is one of the major ones, but there are many others--as a result of how climate change and global warming are playing out.

Let's state several things here that are clear. One is that the science is clear. The Earth's atmosphere is warming at an alarming rate, and human activity is the principle cause. What we see every day with our own eyes--extreme weather events around the globe--is clearer and clearer. But worse and most clear is the harm being done to millions of Americans and people all around the world as a result of the destructive effects of climate change.

People are losing their homes, their lands, and their farms. We now have a new kind of refugee--climate refugees--who are displaced from their homes by catastrophic weather disasters, including drought and floods. In 2017 roughly 68.5 million people were climate refugees, and that number is expected to double to over 140 million by 2050.

Hundreds of thousands are losing their lives. The official death toll in Puerto Rico from Hurricane Maria is now 2,975, and there are even higher estimates of losses.

Climate change is the most pressing moral issue of our time. As the people in Puerto Rico know all too well, as the people of Rhode Island know well, as the people of New Mexico know well, and as all of our States and territories know well, it is an existential threat. Yet in the words of the late, great John McCain--as the Presiding Officer knows, he was always an outspoken gentleman--``we are getting nothing done, my friends. We're getting nothing done.''

I know that Senator Whitehouse was an honorary pallbearer at Senator McCain's ceremony at the National Cathedral. We had 4 days of celebrating the John McCain that spoke up about core issues that America really faced. As I mentioned, John gave us that deserved chewing-out on the Senate floor on July 25 of last year for not working together, for not working in a bipartisan fashion, and for not reaching across the aisle. On climate change, we certainly are not getting anything done, and we are not working across the aisle, as John told us to do.

The West that John McCain so loved and worked to protect is getting hit hard. We have less precipitation and less snowpack, and the snowpack we have is melting earlier. Rivers and reservoirs are running at historic lows, and some river segments are drying. We now have abnormally dry conditions in every Western State. We have extreme drought weather in parts of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Colorado, and even Oregon. In my

home State of New Mexico, every single county is in abnormally dry or drought conditions.

Here are the drought maps of the West from last week and from the same time of the year in 2000, when the Federal Government first began keeping track. This map here is from 2000, when the Federal Government first began keeping track. Let's look at the contrast, which is very, very stark.

On the first map, we didn't see the extreme form and exceptional drought at all, but we can see a very, very stark contrast 18 years later.

These dry conditions are creating more wildfires that are burning more acreage and threatening more homes and threatening more lives.

The Mendocino Complex fire in California is the largest fire that State has ever experienced. Since it began in late July, it has burned over 450,000 acres, taken one firefighter's life, and destroyed 157 homes. After 2 months, it is still not fully contained.

In my home State of New Mexico, about 20 miles of the Rio Grande, south of Albuquerque and through the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, we are already dry in May, months earlier than in typical years. Two weeks ago, farmers in the Middle Rio Grande area in my State started getting notified that the water stored for their crops was almost gone--months before irrigation season's end in October. As of 2 days ago, Elephant Butte Reservoir was only 4.6 percent full--4.6 percent. Back in the 1990s, the reservoir was 27 miles in length. Today, it is about 10 miles.

Here are the aerial maps of the Elephant Butte from 1994 and 2013. These photographs show that climate change is here and now. You can see Elephant Butte here in 1994, and in 2013 you see a very dramatically shrunken Elephant Butte.

Elephant Butte provides water to over 90,000 acres of farmland in southern New Mexico and western Texas. It is an economic engine for Sierra County, the rural county where it is located. We can't afford for this reservoir to be at 4.6 percent.

John McCain's beloved Arizona is in its 21st year of drought. We have measured the Animas River in Colorado for 106 years. Two weeks ago, in Durango, it was at its lowest measured point for this time of year, ever--ever.

Utah's temperature has warmed 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. The State's $1.3 billion ski industry has seen warmer winters, less snowpack, and less powder. Ski resorts that never had to make snow have to make it now.

Alaska is under singular threat. A warmer atmosphere is rapidly melting the Arctic's snowpack and glaciers. The seas are rising to unprecedented levels. Animals such as the polar bears and the walruses, which depend on ice to survive, are struggling to survive. The iconic polar bear has been listed as a threaten species since 2008--a direct result of climate warming.

During the last past century, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the global average. Native villages along the sea are under siege. There are at least 31 Alaskan towns and cities at imminent risk of destruction. Two Native villages have voted to relocate. Newtok, a Native village along the river that feeds to the Bering Sea, is literally collapsing into the water and is already relocating. Their relocation will cost $100 million. Congress gave them $15 million this year toward that effort.

The fact is that Native Americans and other marginalized populations are more vulnerable to the devastation of climate change, but no one is immune from this. I could recite 1,000 statistics that show how climate change is hurting the American West, its people, and its lands. The statistics are there. The science is there. The American people are there. Congress needs to get there.

The New York Times Magazine recently ran its longest article ever. It was on climate change, entitled ``Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.''

The article showed that between 1979 and 1989, we came to understand the causes and dangers of the greenhouse effect. During that decade, we had the opportunity to take action to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, but we failed.

In 1998, one of the leading climate scientists then and now, James Hansen, working for NASA, told Congress that it was 99 percent certain that the global warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He told Congress 30 years ago that climate change was here--here and now.

During that decade, there was more opportunity for consensus than today. The oil and gas industry was more receptive to taking action. Politicians' views weren't as set in concrete. But that generation failed to act on the science and failed to protect present and future generations.

There was another opportunity in the early 2000s for Congress to act. John McCain wanted us to act, but we didn't.

As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, he held groundbreaking hearings in 2000 on climate change. He brought the science of climate change to light in the halls of the Senate.

Then, he and Senator Joel Lieberman crafted the first major, bipartisan climate change legislation--cap-and-trade legislation-- modeled after similar and successful legislation to curb pollution from acid rain.

Senators McCain and Lieberman forced a vote on the floor of the Senate on their legislation in 2003.

John began his speech on the floor in support of his bill, quoting from Hemingway's ``The Snows of Kilimanjaro":

Kilimanjaro is a snow-covered mountain 19,710 feet high,

and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western

summit is called . . . the House of God.

John warned then, in 2003, all too presciently, that the snow on Kilimanjaro may someday be relegated to the realm of fiction.

Some Senators who sit today voted on the McCain-Lieberman bill. The bill had a chance to succeed, but failed 43 to 55. Kilimanjaro's glaciers, in fact, have receded dramatically since that vote. The ice sheets depend on snowfall, which is affected by Indian Ocean currents. The Indian Ocean's warming, due to climate change, has changed moisture delivery to Kilimanjaro, and Hemingway's snow is disappearing.

Congress has had a few more bipartisan efforts at addressing climate change, including my own cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives with Republican Representative Tom Petri. But after the McCain-Lieberman bill and those efforts failed, we turned to the Obama administration to take on climate change in earnest.

The Obama administration passed the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon emissions from powerplants and put the brakes on new coal-fired powerplants; passed regulations to control methane, a super potent greenhouse gas from oil and gas operations; and joined with 190 countries in executing the Paris Agreement. All of these initiatives are now under assault by the Trump administration and industry. The United States is alone as the only country in the world that walked away from the Paris Accord.

Turning our backs on climate change means ignoring the national security threat it represents. Large groups of displaced people and scarce resources create conflict. The U.S. military--especially the Navy--recognizes the threat. That is why they created the MEDEA Program in the early 1990s to analyze the security threats of climate change, and that is one reason John McCain once worked toward a bipartisan solution to climate change.

Neither party can claim they have done enough to tackle global warming, but climate action demands that Republicans step up as Senator McCain once did.

The destruction to property and lives wrought by global warming does not distinguish between parties. This is a bipartisan problem that demands bipartisan solutions, and demands them now.

The West is right in the bull's-eye of climate change, but the West has great potential to be part of the solution. The West's potential to generate renewable clean energy through solar, wind, and geothermal is immense. New Mexico, California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada have some of the highest potential for solar generation in the country, and virtually all the Western States have immense potential for geothermal power. We should be harnessing this potential, creating sustainable jobs, and growing our rural Western economies and industries that are the future--industries that will help tackle the greatest challenge humanity faces.

The American people want Congress to meet the challenges of climate change. They want to protect future generations, their children, and their grandchildren.

We can do this, but we must do it now. And we must, as our late and very great colleague from Arizona urged us, do this on a bipartisan basis.

Let all of us show the courage, resolve, and independence of John McCain and do right by today's generation and future generations. Let us all commit to doing what it takes to reduce our carbon emissions, to meet the goals of the world of nations, to increase renewable energy to its fullest potential, and, most importantly, to do right by our children, our grandchildren, and beyond.

I yield the floor.

Remembering John McCain

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

Mr. President, thank you very much for the recognition.

I say to Chairman Murkowski, thank you for those very kind words. It is, once again, always a pleasure to say we have worked with each other. I know there are issues sometimes we disagree on, but we listen to each other, we work through the issues, and we always come back to try to reach a financial result, and I think that is what the American people and what Alaskans and New Mexicans want us to do.

As the ranking member of the Interior Department's Appropriations subcommittee, I thank my colleagues for being part of a remarkable process on the floor this last week, and I want to again thank my chairman, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and commend her for managing the bill in the way she has managed it and the leadership she has shown in this.

I am particularly proud that we have moved this bill without the addition of contentious authorizing matters or poison pills, which is quite an accomplishment. What we really want is the appropriations process to work the way it has worked and let the authorizing process work. Senator Murkowski has been involved in both of those things-- authorizing and appropriations--as I have been.

Unfortunately, there are still some poison pill riders in the House bill. By voting to send the Senate Interior bill to the conference without adding controversial items, we are, as a body, telling the House we will reject these poison pills once again. That message is important because the funding in this bill is critical to meet wildland firefighting needs, it is important for supporting National Parks and Public Lands, and to continue the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

We need to pass a final bill to fund the Environmental Protection Agency, support arts and cultural institutions, and meet our Nation's trust and treaty responsibilities with our Nation's Tribes. As Senator Murkowski well knows, she has a very large number of Tribes in Alaska, and I have a significant number of Tribes in New Mexico. We try to work very closely on those Tribal issues to see that Tribes are included, and we take care of those consultation, government-to-government, sovereignty issues.

There are other important issues to work through, including a proposal by the Department of the Interior to begin a major reorganization of the agency. Last week, the Department notified the subcommittee it plans to move forward during this fiscal year with efforts to change its regional boundaries, with more changes expected in fiscal year 2019.

While this request is only the first step, I want to note that I have been asking Secretary Zinke for months for information about the Department's plans, and I have yet to get answers to my questions. We have submitted very specific questions to him; we haven't gotten answers. I hope Chairman Murkowski will work with me to ensure that no changes are made without bipartisan agreement from Congress, Tribes, States, and stakeholders.

This is one of the many issues this subcommittee has on our very full plate as we move to reconcile the House and Senate Interior bills. I hope to be back on the floor of the Senate very soon with a conference report we can pass with broad support.

As I conclude, I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for providing outstanding leadership through this process. We wouldn't be here without the excellent work of the Appropriations full committee staff, including Shannon Hines, Chuck Kieffer, and Chanda Betourney, as well as my own subcommittee staff, Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, and Melissa Zimmerman, and the excellent majority staff as well, led by Leif Fonnesbeck.

I would also like to thank Senator Merkley, who serves on the Appropriations Committee with me, and I believe on my subcommittee, for his courtesies today to allow us to appear, talking to each other and having a colloquy.

Let me also say that Senator Merkley is a very important member of the Appropriations Committee. He stands up for all of these issues I talked about, and I thank him so much for that.

Mr. President, again I want to thank my colleagues for being part of a remarkable collaborative process on the Interior appropriations bill, as well as the other appropriations bills we have had on the floor this past week. I believe that with the amendments we have voted on and included, we have improved this bill and made it a stronger, bipartisan product.

I want to, again, thank my Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and commend her and her very fine staff for managing this bill on the floor, and for working with me throughout the appropriations process.

I want to remind everyone that this bill came out of Committee on an affirmative vote of 31 to zero. I hope that it receives the same unanimous support when we pass it here in a short while.

While I believe this goes for all four bills, the Interior bill is filled with bipartisan priorities that all sides can and should support. I can't emphasize enough just how important the funding in this bill is for my home State of New Mexico and for so many States across the West.

Given how important this bill is, I am particularly proud that we have done all this without the addition of contentious authorizing matters or poison pill riders.

Unfortunately, our colleagues in the House have not followed suit. There are nearly three dozen riders in the House-passed bill, the majority of which are outright poison pills. For the most part, we have seen iterations of them over the last 8 years.

By voting to send the Senate appropriations bill to conference without

adding controversial items, we are, as a body, telling the House that we will reject these poison pill riders once again.

So I look forward to having the opportunity to conference this bill and to work to pass a clean appropriations bill on a bipartisan basis.

After all, we have so many important issues that we need to address, and we especially want to address them by the beginning of the fiscal year.

We must ensure that firefighting needs are met.

We must work to pass a bill that supports the core work that the Environmental Protection Agency does to protect human health and the environment.

We must work to meet our Nation's trust and treaty responsibilities by increasing funding for Tribal priorities, including healthcare, education, public safety, and social services.

We must fund our national parks and other public lands, protect our treasured landscapes through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and ensure that our Nation's arts and cultural institutions are supported with strong funding levels.

Finally, we must work through other important issues--including a proposal by the Department of the Interior to begin a major reorganization of the agency.

Last week, the Department notified the subcommittee that it plans to move forward with efforts to change the regional boundaries of its bureaus as part of a multiyear effort to reorganize the agency this fiscal year, starting in late August.

Our subcommittee is now reviewing the Department's request through its reprogramming process, which allows us 30 days to review and approve reprogramming proposals. I am cognizant that this request sets the stage for the Department to make other changes to agency operations as proposed in its fiscal year 2019 budget.

I have been asking Secretary Zinke for months for more information-- basic information--about the Department's plans and how the reorganization will affect work on the ground with States, Tribes, and other partners. I want to know what happens to the Federal jobs that are currently located in New Mexico and other Western States.

So far, I have yet to get answers to my questions, and I have real concerns that the Department is intent to move forward with this first step before the agency has completed Tribal consultations, or fully answered the questions of states, Tribes, and Stakeholders about the big picture.

My questions are the same I would ask any administration: What is the cost-benefit analysis? Who will be moved and where? What are expected impacts to services? And what will the new structure and organizational chart be?

I hope my Chairman, Senator Murkowski, will work with me as we try to get answers during the conference process and will work with me to ensure that no organizational changes are made without a clear plan and without bipartisan agreement from Congress.

This is one of the many issues that this subcommittee has on our very full plate as we go about reconciling the House and Senate Interior bills, but I hope to be back here on the floor of the Senate very soon with a conference report we can pass with broad support.

As I conclude, I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for providing outstanding leadership that has culminated in this bill being ready for the Senate today. Passage of this bill is quite an achievement.

We wouldn't be here without the hard work of the full committee staff members, led by staff director Shannon Hines for the majority, and the lead staffers for the minority, staff director Chuck Kieffer and deputy staff director Chanda Betourney. I want to again highlight the excellent work of the staff members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, whom I have already thanked in the record.

Mr. President, I yield to Senator Merkley.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the late Las Cruces City councilor Olga Pedroza, a champion for justice. Ms. Pedroza passed away February 9, 2018, in Las Cruces, NM.

Ms. Pedroza was born in a small town in Mexico, San Luis Ayucan, on September 28, 1942. Her parents Celia and Jesus came to Chicago in the 1940s, where she attended Catholic school for elementary through high school. She graduated from Mundelein College in 1963 with a bachelor's degree in sociology and minors in elementary education and theology.

Ms. Pedroza then set off and worked on behalf of her community the rest of her life. She worked as a teacher for many years and, in 1980, moved to New Mexico with her then-husband and three children. By then, she had earned a master's in education. Ms. Pedroza decided she wanted to use the law to promote her social justice goals. She entered the University of New Mexico Law School and graduated in 1985, in her early 40s.

Ms. Pedroza began working for Centro Legal Campesino, the legal aid farmer worker unit, in Las Cruces in 1990. She was there over 15 years, primarily as the managing attorney. During that time, she filed over 50 Federal lawsuits representing farmworkers in their fight for fair wages and other rights.

Ms. Pedroza began her third career in 2009 when she was elected to the Las Cruces City Council District 3 seat, which covers central and southeast Las Cruces. Ms. Pedroza believed in change and often said, ``City Council could be a place to start.'' She served two terms before retiring. During her tenure, she fought for a living-wage ordinance and always prioritized the needs of those overlooked by society. Among other community needs, she advocated for community gardens and improved tennis facilities. Ms. Pedroza was a great tennis enthusiast and even competed in the Senior Olympics.

She was active in the community, serving on the board of directors of the Women's Intercultural Center in Anthony, as cochair of the local women's bar association, and on the board of the court appointed special advocates.

Ms. Pedroza worked throughout her life to change the world for the better. Her compassion, warmth, and sense of humor will be missed by her children, grandchildren, and community. I honor her work and unflagging commitment to social justice.

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

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

Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Heinrich for being down here and talking about what this really means. I know Senator Moran is also on the floor.

Amtrak is designed to connect our communities. Whether we live in Raton, NM, Dodge City, KS, or Los Angeles, CA, it connects our communities. I am pleased to offer this amendment with my friends from Kansas and Colorado because the Southwest Chief connects our communities, and we will continue to work together to support this national service.

There is no doubt we will have a strong bipartisan vote to support our long-distance rail lines. If Amtrak thinks that replacing railcars with buses will solve its problems, well, that is no way to run a railroad. I hope Amtrak's leadership appreciates that we will not back down in our support of our rail network and that we can work together to find solutions to their problems.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the first Tribal college established in the United States, Dine College, on its 50th anniversary.

The college was founded in 1968 by the Navajo Nation as Navajo Community College. That year marked the centennial anniversary of the Treaty of 1868 in which the Navajo people negotiated return of their homeland after their forced relocation by the U.S. government on the brutal ``Long Walk'' to Fort Sumner, NM. In Fort Sumner, they had endured inhumane conditions for 5 years, and many had perished. The treaty was an important historical milestone, but it also contained certain harsh terms, requiring the Navajo people to send their children to government and missionary schools where they were forced to abandon their cultural practices and identity. This tragic and brutal practice by the U.S. Government threatened the survival of Navajo and other Native American languages and cultures.

Our Nation finally moved away from forced assimilation by the middle of the last century, and the Navajo Nation took a historic step toward educational self-determination when it established Navajo Community College. As the first tribally chartered and operated postsecondary institution, Navajo Community College's educational philosophy was grounded in Navajo cultural traditions. Its mission was to support the social and economic development of the Tribe.

In 1976, the college was the first Tribal 2-year institution to receive accreditation. In 1998, it awarded its first baccalaureate degrees under the Dine Teacher Education Program. In 1994, Navajo Community College joined 29 other Tribal colleges to become a Land Grant Institution under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act. In 1997, the board of regents changed its name to Dine College.

The college's educational principles are based on Sa'ah Naaghai Bik'eh Hozhoon--the Dine traditional living system--which places human life in harmony with the natural world and universe. Four principles undergird the education: Nitsahakees or thinking, Nahat'a or planning, Iina or living, and Sihasin or assuring.

Culturally relevant education makes a tremendous difference for Native students. The kids are engaged. They stay in school. They gain access to opportunities that otherwise might be out of reach. Dine College's curriculum is replete with Navajo language and culture classes. It awards certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor degrees in a wide range of fields, from fine arts to environment science to business administration to elementary and secondary education, and many more.

With approximately 1,300 students, Dine College is one of the largest Tribal colleges in the United States. The school's six campuses serve the 27,000-square-mile Navajo Reservation. Importantly, Dine College has played a critical role revitalizing Navajo culture and language, preparing thousands of young adults to contribute to their communities, States, Tribe, and the U.S. as a whole.

Dine College's legacy, however, reaches far beyond its own students. What was once an unassuming community college--with an entering population of 309 students--ignited a nationwide movement of Tribes founding their own colleges and universities. The network of Tribal colleges and universities built up over the last half century has made significant progress helping Native students break down barriers. Today, 36 Tribal colleges and universities all across the Nation educate tens of thousands of Native students. These institutions have been instrumental in attracting and keeping Native students in college and helping students maintain and grow ties with their cultures, languages, and traditional values.

I extend my whole-hearted congratulations to Dine College on its 50th anniversary. I thank the college and Navajo Nation for all the good they have accomplished over the years, and I wish them the absolute best in their next five decades.

Mr. President, I rise to honor George B. Willie, Sr., one of our last surviving Navajo code talkers, who passed away at age 92 on December 5, 2017. Mr. Willie was a humble man who never bragged and rarely talked about his uncommon feat.

Mr. Willie was born near Sawmill, AZ. He was To Dich'iinii--Bitter Water--and born for Tabaaha--Near The Water Edge--and resided near Leupp when he passed away.

Mr. Willie only had a seventh-grade education. He tried to enlist in 1941, but was too young. He was finally able to join the Marines 2 years later, when he was 17 years old. He served the Second Marine Division, 10th Battalion, from 1943 until 1946.

As a marine, Mr. Willie was one of the 421 code talkers from the Navajo Nation. The original 29 Navajo code talkers developed a code based on their native language. At that time, there was no written language, and only about 30 persons outside of Tribal members understood Navajo. The code talkers were required to quickly and accurately translate and transmit messages about troop movements, tactics,

and the like through telephone and radio. At first skeptical, military leaders quickly learned to appreciate their skill and tremendous value to the war effort. The Japanese never broke their code.

While the Federal Government relied on the Navajo language for military success, back home, it continued the longstanding policy of forbidding Native students from speaking their languages at Federal boarding schools.

Mr. Willie served in the Battle of Okinawa, one of the last and deadliest battles of the war. In June 1945, the Americans and the British Pacific Fleet took the island after 82 days of battle. It was their last stop before the planned attempt to take the Island of Japan, which was preempted when the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6.

After coming home, Mr. Willie married Emma Gean Willie, and they had 10 children. The code talker program was secret, and the code talkers were sworn not to tell anyone about their work. Even after the Federal Government declassified the program in 1968, Mr. Willie continued to honor his promise and did not tell family members he was a code talker until almost 30 years later. In 2001, Mr. Willie and his fellow code talkers were awarded the Silver Congressional Medal of Honor.

Today I honor Mr. Willie, a true American hero.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Interior Department appropriations bill, which the Senate is currently debating.

Before Senator Murkowski leaves the floor, I want to thank her so much. It has been such a pleasure working with her on this and doing it in a bipartisan way, and I am going to talk a little bit about the historic nature of this; that we have accomplished something that hasn't been done in 10 years. This is something I think we are both very proud of and that I think the Appropriations Committee members are very proud of. I begin by thanking her for the important work she has undertaken to ensure that this bill arrived on the Senate floor with strong bipartisan support.

We all know the Interior bill is not an easy bill, and there is no doubt we faced contentious issues putting it together. It is extraordinary that working together under her leadership, we have produced a bill that was unanimously reported by the Appropriations Committee.

I also recognize Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for clearing the path for us to bring this bill to the floor. Their shared commitment to reestablishing regular order for the Appropriations Committee is why the Interior bill is on the floor of the U.S. Senate today. For the first time in nearly a decade, I salute them as well on this.

The bill funds the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs and provides resources for new healthcare facilities in schools for Tribes across the country that are working to improve health and education outcomes. This funding helps fulfill our trust and treaty responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives.

This bill includes strong levels of funding for conservation programs that preserve and protect our Nation's most special places, including our public lands. It fully funds wildfire suppression needs, providing more than $2 billion to protect communities and natural resources in New Mexico and across the West.

The Interior bill supports our Nation's arts and culture programs from national institutions here in Washington, from the Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center, and the National Gallery of Art to local arts and humanities and programs in small towns across the United States. This funding creates jobs and supports economic vitality in our communities.

Over the last week, we have seen the administration claim that the legislation sent over by the House has too much funding for these and other priorities. I strongly disagree. It is Congress's responsibility to safeguard the environment, protect our air and water, fulfill our trust and treaty responsibilities, and conserve public lands the Federal Government holds on behalf of the American people.

These responsibilities require a reliable stream of resources to carry that out. This Senate bill accomplishes those goals and, in doing so, remains faithful to the bipartisan budget agreement this Congress passed and the President signed early this year.

We reject the shameful and inexcusable cuts proposed by the Trump administration to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian Education, and to most Federal land management agencies, cuts that would put our environment at risk and prevent us from providing core services to Tribal communities.

In addition to rejecting these cuts, Senator Murkowski and I worked together to satisfy requests from our colleagues to increase funding levels where we could, given our allocation. We also followed the chairman and vice chairman's direction to keep out extraneous authorizing matters and any item considered a poison pill. We all know one Senator's poison pill is another Senator's antidote. We couldn't please everyone because the tough issues that have impeded this bill from floor consideration in the last decade have not gone away, but we did the best we could.

Now, this bill is not perfect. It includes several troubling provisions rolling over from prior years, including provisions relating to the listing status of the sage grouse, the lead content of ammunition, biomass energy policy, and certain Clean Air Act exemptions.

While I cannot endorse these provisions individually, they are ones we have carried previously to move this bill across the finish line.

What the Appropriations Committee has brought to the full Senate is an Interior Department appropriations bill that is almost exclusively appropriations.

I am proud that we propose for fiscal year 2020, proud that we propose for fiscal year 2019. In addition to the programs I have already highlighted, let me tell you about a few more accomplishments in this bill.

This bill rejects the administration's elimination of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and instead provides $425 million equal to the enacted level. These funds will improve recreational access through our Federal lands, protect iconic landscapes, deliver grants to States and local governments to create and protect urban parks and open spaces, preserve the battlefields of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and give farmers and ranchers easements so they can steward their private lands in the face of development pressures.

Rather than following the administration's misguided proposal to eliminate funding for the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, this bill actually provides an increase of $2 million for each endowment, bringing the total to $155 million for each. I am particularly proud that these funds will expand arts and humanities programs, create jobs, and support cultural institutions in every State.

The bill includes a 4-percent increase for the Indian Health Service and includes $10 million in new grant funds to help Tribes address opioid addiction and substance abuse challenges in Indian Country, as Chairman Murkowski talked about a little bit in her speech.

This bill fully funds the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program to assist local governments to improve their schools and roads and pay for public safety and law enforcement.

This bill maintains funding for the EPA at the fiscal year 2018- enacted level to protect our environment and public health. We have taken a strong position rejecting the devastating cuts the President has proposed for the third year in a row. Our bipartisan track record on EPA funding makes it loud and clear that such extreme proposals will continue to be viewed in Congress as dead on arrival.

Now, I feel strongly that keeping EPA funding flat year after year is insufficient to meet the true needs of EPA's clean water programs, clean air programs, State and Tribal assistance grants, environmental enforcement, and a score of other critical public health and environmental programs. While I recognize the bill before us is a compromise, I will continue to pursue increased funding for these critical EPA programs in future years.

I recognize there is always room for improvement, and I welcome all of our colleagues to speak with me or Chairman Murkowski if you have an idea on how to improve funding in this bill.

As I conclude, I want to emphasize how tremendous it has been to work with Chairman Murkowski on this bipartisan bill. Even when we disagree, we have open discussions and listen to one another. That is the way Congress is supposed to work, and I am proud to be Senator Murkowski's partner on this bill.

I look forward to working with our colleagues on this bill over this week so we can pass an interior appropriations bill that the American people can be proud of.

As Chairman Murkowski talked about, we have had the assistance of a very able staff on both sides--on the minority side, headed up by Rachael Taylor. The whole staff on both sides is very capable and very able. My side was headed up by Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, Melissa Zimmerman, and Teri Curtin. Over on the majority side, we thank Leif Fonnesbeck, Emy Lesofski, Nona McCoy, Chris Tomassi, and LaShawnda Smith.

They work night and day, and when we run into problems, as we know, they can be invaluable in helping us find the solutions to the problems we all face when we get into some of the contentious issues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Teddy Draper, Sr.--a brave Navajo code talker and a beloved teacher who has helped keep the Navajo language alive.

Mr. Draper was born in Canyon del Muerto--a beautiful and ancient canyon within the Canyon del Chelly National Monument--near Chinle, AZ. Mr. Draper was a longtime and popular Chinle resident and passed away December 14, 2017, at age 96. He was one of the last Navajo code talker survivors.

As a young boy, Mr. Draper grew up speaking Navajo and helping his family

raise cattle, sheep, and turkeys in Canyon del Muerto. He didn't attend school until age 14. ``I barely knew a word of English,'' he said. At that time, the reservation's U.S. Government-run boarding school in Fort Wingate, NM, punished students for speaking Navajo. Time after time, ``I had to kneel in the corner,'' he said, and he tried to run away.

The Marines recruited Mr. Draper from high school to join the Navajo code talkers. He served in the Fifth Marine Division and fought at Iwo Jima.

Iwo Jima was a critically strategic battle for the Allies. The island served as a Japanese air base and safe haven for naval units, and the Allies wanted to secure it to support bombing missions and emergency air landings. During the first 2 days of the 36-day battle, six Navajo code talkers worked around the clock, sending and receiving more than 800 messages--all without error. According to Marine division signal officer Major Howard Connor, ``Were it not for the Navajo, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.''

During the battle, a bomb on Mount Suribachi killed two of his fellow soldiers and cost Mr. Draper most of his hearing. Atop that same mount, Mr. Draper radioed, on February 25, 1945, ``We have raised the flag; we have taken the hill.'' The ``first raising of the flag'' on Mount Suribachi is famously memorialized in a wartime photograph and by the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, VA.

After the war, Mr. Draper volunteered for occupation duty, and became so fluent in Japanese that he served as an interpreter. Mr. Draper said, ``When I was going to boarding school, the U.S. government told us not to speak Navajo, but during the war, they wanted us to speak it!'' During combat, he determined that ``if I can get back to the reservation safely, I want to become a Navajo language teacher and educate young Navajos.'' That is exactly what he did. Mr. Draper dedicated himself to preserving the Navajo language--Dine bizaad-- teaching many years at Rough Rock Community High School. He lacked teaching materials, and so he created his own, producing a curriculum and two workbooks that continue to be the staple of many Navajo language classes today.

Despite his loss of hearing from the war, Mr. Draper was not awarded the Purple Heart until 2004, after years of appeals. In 2001, he received the Congressional Silver Medal, along with other Navajo code talkers. In 2013, he received the Arizona Indian Living Treasures Award.

Mr. Draper leaves 12 children, 57 grandchildren, and more than 20 great-grandchildren. Mr. Draper also leaves a remarkable legacy of commitment to country and community, and I honor his life today.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Pedro Gonzalez--a brave World War II veteran who endured the Bataan Death March and 3\1/2\ years in captivity in the Philippines and in Japan. Mr. Gonzalez passed away January 6, 2018, at the age of 96.

Mr. Gonzalez was born in Las Cruces, NM, and later moved to Los Lunas, where he graduated from high school. Shortly after graduation, in 1940, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps. He was assigned to the 19th Bombardment Group in the Philippines.

On December 8, 1941--7 hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor-- Japanese bombers attacked U.S. military stations in the Philippines. Mr. Gonzalez had learned earlier that they had attacked Hawaii, and, when he first heard planes that morning, he thought there were U.S. reinforcements. They were not.

Mr. Gonzalez and American troops fought valiantly to defend the Philippines, but they ran low on ammunitions, supplies, food, and manpower and were forced to surrender in April 1942. Fifteen thousand Americans and 60,000 Filipinos were taken prisoner.

These prisoners of war then began the 60-mile long Bataan Death March. Mr. Gonzalez was only 20 years old. He recalled they had ``no food, no water,'' that men were beaten and beheaded, and bodies were strewn in the road. During the march, one of his commanding officers told him, ``Pete, you keep that smile on your face and you're gonna make it back.'' During part of the journey, the men were hauled in box cars, packed as tight as could be. Mr. Gonzalez stood right at the edge of the door and survived, but it was said that five to six of the men in his boxcar died.

Mr. Gonzalez suffered cerebral malaria, dengue, beriberi, shrapnel wounds, a broken back, a dislocated knee, and broken fingers but he survived the years of captivity. After he returned home, he was awarded a Silver Star for valor in combat and two Purple Hearts for his injuries.

I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Gonzalez during filming of a local Public Broadcasting Corporation documentary honoring the 70th anniversary of the Bataan fall. He was a gentle, soft-spoken man who was humble about the bravery and fortitude he exhibited during those harsh years.

After the war, Mr. Gonzalez moved to Albuquerque, began a family, and worked at what was then called Sandia Base, which later merged with Kirtland Air Force Base. After, he worked for the Department of Defense as an inventory specialist for nuclear weapons and as a financial officer for different branches of the military, retiring in the 1980s. After retirement, he stayed involved with veterans' organizations and served as local commander of a chapter of former prisoners of war.

Mr. Gonzalez is preceded in death by his wife and is survived by two sons and their spouses.

Mr. Gonzalez is part of American and New Mexico history. He fought for his country and, through bravery, determination, and grit, survived the brutality of the Bataan Death March and captivity. I honor all that Pedro Gonzalez achieved and experienced to preserve international peace and stability.

Mr. President, I wish to honor David Earl Patterson, Sr., a man who gave selflessly to his family, the Navajo Nation, and his country.

Mr. Patterson was born November 11, 1922. He was Tachil'nii--Red Running Into the Water People Clan, born for Kinlichii'nii--the Red House People Clan. He attended Catholic school in Shiprock NM, and remained a devout Catholic his entire life.

Mr. Patterson entered the U.S. Marine Corps in 1943 and was one of about 400 Navajo code talkers trained on radio communications. He served in the Marshall Islands, the islets of Roi and Namur, the Kwajalein Atoll, Saipan, and Iwo Jima. Navajo code talkers played a critical role in the Battle of Iwo Jima. During the first 2 days of the battle, the marines had six Navajo code talkers who worked around the clock during the first 2 days of the battle. They sent and received over 800 messages, all without error. Their marine commander said later, ``Were it not for the Navajos, the Marines would never have taken Iwo Jima.'' Mr. Patterson received an honorable discharge in 1945.

Mr. Patterson was humble about his wartime contribution to our Nation and did not talk much about his World War II experience. The United States honored him and his fellow Navajo code talkers with the Congressional Silver Medal of Honor in 2001.

After the war, Mr. Patterson married Marion Patterson, and they raised seven children. He was a beloved husband, father, and grandfather.

He attended college in Oklahoma and New Mexico and became a social worker for the Navajo Nation until his retirement in 1987, working decades for the welfare of his people. Even after retirement, he served until 2012 as a foster parent in the Shiprock schools until 2012.

Mr. Patterson was a passionate bowler, a baseball aficionado, and a bingo player. Bowling at every New Mexico bowling center was on his bucket list, and he found time to coach Little League Baseball and Softball in Shiprock.

Mr. Patterson lived a full and generous life until his passing on October 8, 2017 at age 94. He was one of the last surviving Navajo code talkers.

I am honored to pay tribute to Mr. Patterson, a family man and a hero who never stopped giving to his community and people.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the immigration crisis that this President has generated.

The Nation has seen images of children trapped behind wire fencing and children sleeping on concrete floors. We have seen the tents hurriedly set up to house children separated from their parents. We have seen the video of Jessica, who doesn't know where her mother is and wants to talk to her. We have heard the audio of young children crying out for their mothers and fathers. We have heard the audio of a detention facility staff person telling the kids not to talk to the press, claiming it will hurt their immigration case.

As of June 12, on American soil, over 100 babies under the age of 1 year are being held in detention by the American Government. We think this can't be happening in the United States of America, but it is.

Last Friday, Senators Heinrich, Blumenthal, and I visited President Trump's tent city in Tornillo, TX, and we toured a Border Patrol station in Clint and El Paso and a port of entry in El Paso. We were turned away from Tornillo on Friday, so I went back Saturday and got inside to see the children. We all went to these government facilities to get answers, but we came up short.

Most pressing, we still don't know when or how all the thousands of children taken from their parents will be reunited. We don't know how children whose parents have already been deported will be reunited. We have parents scared that they will never see their children again.

The confusion, chaos, and incompetence with which the President's zero tolerance policy was executed is only outmatched by the confusion, chaos, and incompetence with which reunification is being handled.

The immediate priority must be to get these children back to their parents as soon as possible. We know we are doing damage to these children every day that they are not with their families. We know this. Pediatric and mental health professionals all agree. The American Academy of Pediatrics condemned the administration because those doctors know that separating families can result in ``irreparable harm.'' That is a quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics-- ``irreparable harm'' to separated children.

Last weekend, I saw children detained in the tents in Tornillo who were able to talk to their parents only twice a week for 10 minutes. I saw astounding young children--children 3 to 10 years old--who had crossed the border without their parents. I saw families from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, fleeing violence and persecution, locked in detention at Border Patrol. I met Jade Gabriela, who is not even 2, and her father, detained in El Paso, both of them trying to escape the brutality and gangs in Honduras.

President Trump claims there is a border crisis, but communities on the border dispute this. I am a Senator from a border State, and I dispute this. I represent border communities, and I have been to the border many, many times recently and over the years. President Trump has not. He should come see for himself and see the humanitarian crisis he has created.

Detention facilities for children are overwhelmed. We have heard from a whistleblower in New York that there is not enough staffing at her facility because of all the young children coming in. These internment camp-like facilities--as former First Lady Laura Bush has compared them to--are costing Americans and American taxpayers millions of dollars. The Tornillo tent city costs $400,000 every day. The President's poorly conceived Executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to set up even more family detention facilities on military bases.

Zero tolerance has overwhelmed the U.S. attorney's offices on the border. Now, instead of prosecuting violent criminals for serious crimes, Federal prosecutors are wasting resources, focusing instead on criminally prosecuting mothers and fathers for misdemeanor improper- entry violations. There is a call to take military JAG lawyers away from their more important duties to handle the flood of immigration cases and recall prosecutors from their posts in Indian Country, where they are so sorely needed. All systems are bursting at the seams thanks to the President's made-up crisis, cruelty, and bureaucratic incompetence.

As of today, there is no clear path forward to reunite families. There is no timeline. Tuesday, Secretary Azar of Health and Human Services admitted in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee that there is no timeline. The Department of Health and Human Services is prohibited under the Flores case from reuniting children with parents who are in detention.

The President wants to keep zero tolerance in place and continue to prosecute and keep parents in detention with their children. Not only is this cruel and un-American, but I think the Federal judge in Flores is going to reject the President's request to allow children to be jailed with their parents longer than 20 days.

The President has doubled down on zero tolerance. Like many of his policies that are hastily implemented and borne of his divisive agenda, there is no plan B if the court refuses, as it should, to allow children to be jailed with their parents.

There is an obvious solution. Successful alternatives to detention have demonstrated compliance rates of 99 percent with court appearances and ICE appointments. These programs are both effective and cost a fraction of what it takes to detain families. Why doesn't the President use these programs and save taxpayers millions of dollars? Because he thinks it doesn't appear tough and takes away his bargaining chip of detained children that he thinks he can use to get his wall.

In the President's rush to gain political traction, he has created a humanitarian and moral crisis within our own borders, the likes of which we have not seen since we interned families of Japanese heritage during World War II.

I can tell you that I will not back down from this fight. More importantly, I can tell you that the American people and New Mexicans are with me. It is the voices of the American people that forced the President to retreat from his brutal family separation policy, and it is those voices that will prevail in the end.

The administration is trying its hardest to hide what is going on from the American people, but the American people are demanding answers. We all must continue to speak out until we have policies in place that make sure families stay together, lawfully and humanely. We need alternatives to detention, and we need to stand up for due process.

As Americans see images of separated children and family detention camps, they turn to Congress, and they turn to the judicial system as well. A Federal judge recently issued a ruling barring family detention and ordering reunification within 30 days, but the Trump administration may fight this ruling--just like they are fighting to overturn Flores, which came out of a Supreme Court case.