Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, Justice Kennedy has announced he is retiring. I had some very strong disagreements with his rulings, especially on campaign finance reform, but I thank him for his service. He was a thoughtful Justice. I am very concerned with the process to replace him.

The majority leader is trying to eliminate advice and consent from the process. We should wait until after the upcoming election. That will be a shorter time than Leader McConnell waited in 2016, the last election year.

I am very concerned with the President's process. He is picking from an ideological list, with a history of personally attacking judges he disagrees with, while demanding loyalty from his appointees. At the same time, this administration is undermining due process across the board--along the border, for minority races or religions, for a woman's right to choose.

The Constitution requires a real advice-and-consent process. The majority leader needs to ensure one. If the McConnell rule was in place in the 2016 election year, it should be in place for 2018.

Given the President's attacks on due process and rule of law, we should let the people speak before we consider his next Supreme Court nominee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will focus, as Senator Markey has and several of my colleagues before me, on this web of deceit we have been talking about here today--the Koch brothers' web of dark money, lobbyists, and infiltration into the Trump administration that truly threatens our democracy. The influence of their hundreds of millions of dollars is pervasive, pernicious, and hidden.

I applaud Senator Whitehouse's work that focuses the public's attention on this threat. Thank you to my colleagues for shining a spotlight on the murky tentacles of the Koch influence empire here in Washington, especially its influence on the swamp that is the Trump administration. We must keep fighting for comprehensive campaign finance and electoral reform to get dark money like the Koch brothers' out of our politics.

The Koch family business started in oil, and Koch Industries is still heavily invested in petroleum and petroleum products. Its subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, owns three oil refineries. The Koch Pipeline Company owns and operates 4,000 miles of pipeline that transports oil, refined petroleum, and natural gas throughout six States. Koch Industries is the largest foreign and American leaseholder in Canada's oil sands, possibly leasing up to 2 million acres.

As well, each year, Koch Industries markets, trades, and manages logistics for tons of coal and petroleum coke. Koch Industries makes billions from oil, gas, and coal, and it is no secret it is willing to spend millions to keep it that way. Two organizations formed through the Koch brothers' vast wealth are the Institute for Energy Research and its lobbying arm, the American Energy Alliance. Both Koch-funded groups are anti-renewable, pro-fossil fuel, and climate change deniers.

The Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization that was formed in 1989 from a predecessor directed by Charles Koch and Robert Bradley, Jr. Mr. Bradley led public policy for Enron before its scandal and bankruptcy. He founded the Institute and remains its CEO. He is also affiliated with the Koch-funded Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Alliance is the Institute's political arm, a 501(c)(4) organization, founded in 2008. The 501(c)(4)s are political organizations. They don't have to disclose their donors. They can engage in all sorts of politicking and lobbying, and they can spend unlimited amounts of money. The Alliance shares office space and staff--including a president--with the Institute. Their joint president is Thomas Pyle, who had previously lobbied for Koch Industries. They receive funding directly and not so directly from the Koch brothers. Since 2008, one or the other has received funding from the Charles Koch Institute, an anti-government group formed from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; Freedom Partners, called the Koch brothers' ``secret'' bank--a 501(c)(6) organization that gives tens of millions of dollars to extreme causes; the Wellspring Committee, Inc., funded with the Koch brothers' help; DonorsTrust, a pass-through organization for the Koch brothers and other ultrawealthy donors trying to hide contributions; and many other like-minded anti-renewable, pro-fossil fuel groups that the Koch brothers fund or are tied to.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Institute and Alliance received more than $5 million in Koch-related funding. The Institute and Alliance are in the business of discrediting renewable energy, promoting fossil fuels, and denying climate science under the guise of providing independent analysis. Their staffs have appeared before State regulatory commissions giving ``expert'' testimony, claiming that renewable energy is too expensive and unreliable and that States should not increase their renewable portfolio requirements and that fossil fuels--even coal--are more economical.

In 2013, for example, their director of regulatory and State affairs, Daniel Simmons, claimed in a Michigan regulatory hearing that the electricity rates of States with renewable requirements are 27 percent higher than States without a renewable standard. That same year, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the incremental rate of renewable portfolio standards was 2 percent, and a report by the Michigan Public Service Commission found that the cost of renewable sources is declining and is cheaper than the new coal-fired generation.

Also in 2013, Mr. Simmons attacked a Federal clean energy standard bill introduced by my fellow New Mexican, Senator Jeff Bingaman, which I cosponsored. Mr. Simmons had the audacity to claim that carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants should not be counted as pollutants, arguing ``that carbon dioxide itself is not dirty.'' Mr. Simmons' cynical attack on climate science is frightening.

In 2015, the Alliance called on Congress to eliminate the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. The office's mission is to support transitioning to ``a global clean energy economy,'' something that we know is supported by many, many people. That year, both Koch brothers' organizations received $3 million from the web of Koch donors.

Although the Institute and Alliance were fringe, the Trump administration placed their staff in key energy positions, beginning with appointing their president to lead the energy transition team. Before that appointment, Mr. Pyle had sent a fundraising letter touting the new administration's positions. He predicted the Trump administration would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, repeal the Clean Power Plan, move forward with the Keystone XL Pipeline, increase oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, lift the moratorium on coal leasing on Federal lands, and turn back protection of our rivers and streams--among other initiatives. Mr. Pyle's policy predictions have sadly come to pass.

My home State of New Mexico is right in the bull's-eye of climate change. Snowpack was at a low point this year. Parts of the Rio Grande are dry. We have a methane cloud in the Four Corners area the size of Delaware. Pressing ``stop'' on tackling climate change hurts New Mexicans.

Meanwhile, Institute/Alliance staff landed three plum positions within the Department of Energy. Last May, Mr. Simmons, whom we have already heard about, was actually placed to lead the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy--the same office the

Alliance advocated to eliminate. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop.

An Institute/Alliance policy analyst, Alex Fitzsimmons, was also placed in the same office as a senior adviser. He has steadily beat the Koch brothers' drum against wind and solar energy, writing numerous articles about their alleged unreliability and high costs. How can he possibly contribute to the office's mission of transitioning to a clean energy economy?

Predictably, the President proposed slashing the office's budget for 2018 by 69 percent. Congress did not do his bidding. He now seeks to cut over 70 percent of its budget in 2019, including fully eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. According to DOE, since 2010, New Mexico has received $10.4 million from these two programs. These investments resulted in weatherizing 1,300 homes, creating or retaining 340 jobs, training 19,500 New Mexicans in energy efficiency, and retrofitting 240,000 square feet of building space. These two programs aid my State in the global battle against climate change and should not be on the chopping block.

Another Institute/Alliance policy analyst, Travis Fisher, was tapped by DOE to oversee an evaluation on whether renewables are hurting coal and nuclear power and increasing grid unreliability. Mr. Fisher had also authored many pieces on the evils of renewables--even calling clean energy policies ``the single greatest emerging threat'' to the power grid. There was wide concern the report would be politically skewed.

However, a draft of the report, prepared by an independent contractor and DOE career staff, got out. That draft concluded renewable energy had not decreased grid reliability. The final report then concluded the same. Mr. Fisher has since left DOE.

The good news is that the American people continue to support renewable energy. A Pew Research Center poll found 83 percent of Americans think expanding renewables is a ``top'' or ``important'' national priority.

Wind and solar are expanding exponentially and their costs have decreased dramatically. Twenty-nine States, Washington, DC, and three territories have renewable portfolio standards, and eight States and one territory have renewable goals.

A clean energy economy is the future, but the Trump administration is fighting against the tide. Before the Trump administration, the Institute and Alliance were small fringe organizations promoted by the Koch brothers' web of secret organizations and veiled allies. They now sit at the center of our government.

At the bottom of the Koch labyrinth of 501(c)(3)s, 501(c)(4)s, 501(c)(6)s, and their wealth of accomplices is their ability to hide their contributions and actions from public view. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision cloaks these networks under the guise of the First Amendment. Citizens United has damaged our democracy by allowing unlimited campaign contributions, PACs, and nonprofit organizations to secretly influence government decisions at the highest levels.

I have been fighting to overturn Citizens United and for Congress to enact campaign finance reform for years now. My constitutional amendment would not only overturn Citizens United but all the previous bad decisions going back to Buckley v. Valeo. It would end the misguided belief that spending money to elect politicians is the same thing as free speech--a belief that gives the Koch brothers a lot more speech than the average American.

Last fall, I reintroduced the We the People Democracy Reform Act, which would enact comprehensive electoral reform. The dark influence of the Koch brothers in this administration only underscores the pressing need for this legislation to right our democracy and restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our political system.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the recognition.

Madam President, I rise today as the ranking member on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. In our parlance on the committee, it is called the vice chair. Normally, our committee is very bipartisan. It was not so in this case today. In the debate, it was mentioned that this was a negotiated package. It was not. I was not asked for input as the vice chair of the committee. Nothing about this bill sent over from the House was negotiated with me.

For the first time in 10 years, this body has just considered a bill from the Committee on Indian Affairs using a cloture filing and valuable floor time. Let me repeat that. For the first time in 10 years, this Chamber just debated an Indian Affairs bill using valuable floor time and not unanimous consent.

For a Senate majority, floor time and cloture filings are the coin of the realm, and this is the first time in 10 years that it is being spent on a Tribal issue.

Over this decade, during which both Democrats and Republicans have held a majority, Indian Country has seen its priorities sidelined. Important legislation that touches the lives of Native veterans, Native families, and Native communities--from Maine to Hawaii, from Florida to Alaska--makes it out of the Indian Affairs Committee only to die waiting on the Senate legislative calendar, often due to objections by one or a small handful of Senators--legislation, for example, like the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act, the Esther Martinez Native Languages Preservation Act, the PROGRESS for Indian Tribes Act, and the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2017.

These are all broadly supported bipartisan bills that have gotten stuck in the legislative process for 5, 10, or even 15 years--all broadly supported bipartisan bills that Indian Country needs. They address pressing issues like homelessness, language loss, and economic development, and all of these broadly supported bipartisan bills are central to fulfilling our solemn trust and treaty responsibilities.

My colleague, the senior Senator from Montana, tells the same story about his fight to gain Federal recognition for the Little Shell Tribe. This legislation is important to Montanans and Tribes he represents. This bill has been fighting for a day on the floor since 2008.

My distinguished colleagues from Washington first took up the fight to get the Spokane Tribe settlement act signed into law back in 2003.

I am honored to work with so many colleagues who dedicate themselves each and every day to fighting for Indian Country. But we can't do that if Indian Affairs legislation is not given equal weight to other bills.

It is shameful that this full body does not consider and resolve these and other important issues facing Indian Country. It is shameful that when the Senate gives Indian Country its first shot in 10 years, Republicans closed the debate to prevent consideration of other pressing pieces of Indian Affairs legislation. I am amazed that there will be no time for amendments, that there will be no time for this body to do what it is supposed to do--deliberate, deliberate. That is what we are supposed to do here.

Instead, the majority leader limits consideration to one issue, chosen specifically to amplify partisan rancor. We should be working together for Indian Country. The majority isn't doing that. It is using a wedge issue to pit people against each other in an attempt to score political points.

When Republicans were in the minority, Senator McConnell lamented the lack of debate. He complained that legislation was ``dropped on the floor with little or no opportunities for members to participate in the amendment process, virtually guaranteeing a fight.''

As the majority leader said, simply and eloquently:

Bills should come to the floor and be thoroughly debated. .

. . This is the Senate. . . . Let the Senate work its will,

and that means

bringing bills to the floor. It means having a free and open

amendment process. That is legislating.

I couldn't agree more. We came here to craft legislation. We came here to take tough votes. That process may take more time, more work, and more cooperation, but it would lead to better outcomes for everyone, and, most importantly in this case, it would lead to better outcomes for Indian Country.

Let there be no mistake. Indian Country loses when we give in to partisan rancor. We have seen this play out before. When the trillion- dollar tax cut was rammed through this Chamber without any input from my Democratic colleagues, what happened? Indian Country and Indian Tribes were entirely left out in the cold. There was not a single provision for Indian Tribes in a trillion-dollar package.

On the other hand, we know what happens when bipartisanship prevails. Senator Murkowski, my chairman on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I were able to deliver big wins for Indian Country in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. We increased funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $204 million, and we increased funding for the Indian health programs by another $500 million--that is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars--because Democrats and Republicans decided it was better to work for Indian Country instead of against each other.

As anyone in Indian Country will tell you, Indian affairs issues transcend partisan politics. Native policy issues go to the core of the trust responsibility, to the government-to-government relationships enshrined in our Constitution and countless treaties. Sadly, that is not true today.

I wanted a better deal for Indian Country. Indian Country had to wait 10 years for today's vote. We should have had a full opportunity to bring other issues onto the table and to be added onto the bill in the form of amendments. Housing, public safety, self-determination, and self-governance are equally deserving of the Senate's consideration. We could have considered legislation that would do more to unite us than divide us, like the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act, which expired in 2013. This important program benefits Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives.

In my home State of New Mexico, as in most of Indian Country, NAHASDA is the primary source of funding for Tribal housing needs and development. For instance, in Isleta Pueblo, 44 percent of households are low-income. Without NAHASDA funding, the Pueblo would be unable to address this crippling need. Reauthorizing NAHASDA would provide Tribes like Isleta the certainty they require to meet current and future housing needs. Instead, we only voted on one Tribal priority, the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act. I voted yes on cloture. As a longtime advocate for Indian Country, I understand and respect how integral Tribal sovereignty is to Tribal governance, and I am and always will be an unwavering supporter of Tribal sovereignty.

I am also a supporter of strong labor protections and the working families they protect in New Mexico and around the country. I support collective bargaining and am against right-to-work laws that are being pushed around the country.

The tough issue here is that for decades Tribes were treated as States and local governments and not subject to the National Labor Relations Board. Recent Board and court decisions have changed that in some parts of the country but not others, resulting in a patchwork of regulations. The previous administration proposed a compromise approach, but neither side embraced it. I hope that changes. But no matter the outcome today, I will continue to fight for Indian Country and seek new opportunities to enact longstanding Tribal legislative priorities.

I close with past advice from my colleague, the majority leader: ``If you want fewer fights, give the other side a say.'' I couldn't agree more, and I urge the majority leader to give us and Indian Country a say.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a little bit about Scott Pruitt and his administration over at the EPA as well as the current pending nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Administrator.

The Environmental Protection Agency is in crisis. Scott Pruitt has thrown the Agency into turmoil by gutting its mission to protect public health and the environment and by violating ethics and the taxpayers' trust. I believe Scott Pruitt must resign. Many of our colleagues have said the same. Even the President is questioning whether Mr. Pruitt should stay, and that is exactly why I am concerned that the Senate is not giving the Deputy Administrator nominee the scrutiny he should have. Andrew Wheeler could become the EPA Administrator if Scott Pruitt is forced out or resigns. He should be vetted as if he were the nominee--and there are many reasons to question whether he belongs at the EPA at all.

Just like Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Wheeler has spent his entire political career fighting EPA regulations that protect the environment and protect public health. He has lobbied for many years on behalf of polluters that the EPA regulates. The American people support clean air and clean water. Mr. Wheeler is out of step with the values and principles of the American taxpayers.

I know many Republicans who support environmental protection. We have had many decades of bipartisan support for public health, environmental protection, clean air, and clean water. Folks don't want their kids to have toxic chemicals in their blood or in their bodies. So there is a lot of support by Republicans in this area, and it has been a bipartisan issue.

I call on my Republican friends to press the pause button on Andrew Wheeler's nomination to be Deputy Administrator of the EPA. Let us join together and demand that the President withdraw this nomination and nominate someone who supports the basic mission of the EPA.

It is absolutely clear that Administrator Pruitt does not support the mission of the EPA. In fact, as State Attorney General, he prided himself in fighting everything EPA was doing and filing a number of lawsuits against the EPA.

We need a person at EPA who respects science and understands that climate change is here and now and must be addressed for the sake of our children and grandchildren, a person who is not hostile to environmental regulation in all forms, and a person who is not beholden to special interests. We are supposed to act as a check on the executive, so let's do our job.

When I mention climate change, one of the very first things that Administrator Pruitt did when he got in was sabotage a climate change website. That website had been in place for 10 years. It had been bipartisan through several administrations. They were accumulating the best knowledge from scientists in this country and the best knowledge from scientists around the world to make it available to the public and to make it available to scientists and their researchers.

When I asked Administrator Pruitt in front of the Appropriations subcommittee, ``Now, you have taken this website down. When are you going to put it back up,'' he said: ``Oh, we are just updating it. We are just updating it,'' and we continue to ask the EPA.

Now, we are almost a year later--1 year later--and Scott Pruitt still refuses to put the website back up. So we really know where he is coming from on that issue.

When Scott Pruitt came before the Senate for confirmation, I voted against him because I expected he would work to undermine environmental health and protections. Mr. Pruitt has met and far exceeded my worst expectations. He lobbied the President to leave the Paris Agreement. The United States is now the only country in the world that is not a signatory to the Paris Agreement.

Mr. Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, our Nation's best effort to attack climate change. It is an important public health measure too. The EPA estimated that the Clean Power Plan could prevent 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.

Mr. Pruitt stopped a ban on chlorpyrifos, a dangerous neurotoxic pesticide that EPA's own scientists say should be off the market because it is linked to brain damage in young children. Chlorpyrifos is an example where scientists--and this is what the EPA does--consult with scientists outside the Agency, study within the Agency, and try to come to conclusions with regard to public health. In the case of chlorpyrifos, scientists were increasingly questioning whether it should be out there as a pesticide, so they were restricting its use in homes, they were restricting its use near schools, and finally they decided this is such a dangerous neurotoxin and we should ban it outright. So all the work had been done over 30 years.

Then, here it is, presented to the incoming Administrator--I would bet any other Administrator in the history of our country would have looked at the information, would have looked at what the science said, and they would have banned the chemical. What has Scott Pruitt done? Well, what he has done is, he has said we are going to take a look at it for another 5 years. That is what he posted on his website. There is no evidence that they are doing any review or anything. There is no evidence that chlorpyrifos isn't dangerous and should be banned, but that is the record he has at the Environmental Protection Agency.

He has also tried to suspend methane and smog regulations on oil and gas wells. He tried to roll back mercury

pollution rules for powerplants, and he wants to delay rules to protect against pesticide exposure and formaldehyde emissions. It is absolutely clear, Mr. Pruitt's actions have not respected the rule of law and, fortunately, they have been blocked by the courts.

Now, Mr. Wheeler's environmental record is not much better. It gives no confidence that he will put health and safety first.

Mr. Wheeler has called the Paris climate agreement a ``sweetheart deal'' for China.

He has fought limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

He is a longtime lobbyist for Murray Energy Corporation--one of the dirtiest coal companies in the country--which also has a terrible safety record. Murray Energy is the largest privately held coal company in the Nation. That raises big questions about conflicts of interest. The EPA is now moving to repeal the Clean Power Plan. It would be a big win for Big Coal at the expense of the American people.

Mr. Wheeler opposed reducing poisonous mercury emissions from powerplants--regulations Scott Pruitt wants to gut. In fact, I don't see anything in Mr. Wheeler's background that indicates he will act as our Nation's top environmental protector.

When Mr. Pruitt was confirmed, we knew he had no problem bending ethics rules. His claim to fame in Oklahoma was currying favor with moneyed interests and doing their bidding, but the number and extent of Mr. Pruitt's ethical lapses might surprise even the most cynical.

The list of abuses grows daily: lavish first-class flights around the world; swanky hotel stays; billing the taxpayers for his personal trips home to Oklahoma; a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office; taking 30 EPA enforcement officers away from investigating polluters to serve as his round-the-clock personal security detail--something no other EPA Administrator has done; speeding down the streets of Washington with sirens and lights blaring to get to fancy restaurants; huge, unauthorized salary increases for his friends; and he even allowed a close aide to just not come to work for 3 months while still getting paid by the taxpayers; detailing EPA staff to find him a place to live. While he siphons hundreds of thousands of dollars off the taxpayers for special perks for himself, he tries to slash millions of dollars for health and safety programs for the American people.

Even his own staff has balked at his extravagances, and the Administrator has met their resistance by retaliating against them, changing their duties, sidelining them. Mr. Pruitt has treated the EPA like his own little personal fiefdom, and EPA employees are like serfs who cater to his whims.

Former EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, Christine Todd Whitman, recently called his spending ``absolutely ridiculous.'' That is what Christine Todd Whitman said, ``absolutely ridiculous.'' She charged that his conduct is part of ``an extraordinarily ethically tone deaf administration.''

It is time for Scott Pruitt's imperial tenure to end. It is time for him to resign and high time for the President to stop defending him and to demand his resignation. But Mr. Pruitt should not be replaced by someone who does not support the basic mission of the Agency--to protect the environment and public health. That is what the EPA Administrator should be focused on; it is absolutely clear.

The EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, a Nixon appointee, has sounded warnings about what is going on at the EPA. He said: ``My principal concern is that Pruitt and the people he's hired to work with him don't fundamentally agree with the mission of the agency.''

The American people value that mission. They want clean air and clean water. They want the health of their children and our seniors protected. It is our responsibility to make sure the EPA protects the American people.

I urge my friends and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do our job--to put the nomination of Andrew Wheeler on hold and to work together to demand that the President nominate a Deputy Administrator who will have the trust and confidence of the American people and to work to keep their air and water clean and their families safe and healthy.

There are a couple of articles that I think show what has been happening over at the EPA.

This article says that ``nearly a year into the Trump administration, mentions of climate change have been systemically removed, altered or played down on websites across the federal government.'' As I said earlier, they have taken down this huge, bipartisan project that was in place for 10 years, gotten rid of it and claim they are updating it, but they haven't done anything after a year.

The article goes on to quote a report by Environmental Data & Governance Initiative: ``Removing information regarding climate from federal websites does not affect the reality of climate change, but may serve to obfuscate the subject and inject doubt regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the January 10, 2018, article by the New York Times be printed in the Record.

A September 27, 2017, article by Reuters with regard to EPA workforce reductions describes EPA's workforce declining to levels not seen in decades. The article says:

In June, the EPA unveiled a buyout program that would

contribute to the biggest cuts of any federal agency in

President Donald Trump's 2018 proposal. The EPA employs about

15,000 people.

After buyouts and retirements, that number could drop to

14,428 by October, the official, who spoke on condition of

anonymity, said in an email.

That would be below the fiscal 1988 level, when EPA

staffing was 14,440, the official noted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 27, 2017, article by Reuters with regard to EPA workforce reductions be printed in the Record.

So here we have an attempt by Administrator Pruitt to emasculate the Agency by chasing off some of the best and brightest scientists, buying out people, doing everything he can to intimidate people to leave the Agency, and we are at a point in time where we have a staffing level equivalent to 1988. This is the Agency that protects our water and our air, makes sure the water and air are clean, and protects our children from toxic chemicals. This is a pretty remarkable record.

I ask my Republican colleagues to reconsider the Wheeler nomination, to put a hold on it, to have the proper vetting, and let's find the kind of individual who is going to respect the mission of the Agency and move us forward in the direction of public health, protecting the environment and our air and water.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last Wednesday, in Arizona, at the Grand Canyon, a number of us gathered to honor Mo Udall and John McCain and their friendship and partnership, which made America a lot better.

For months, John was looking forward to this gathering. He mentioned it to me several times last year. He was very excited. You could kind of see the sparkle in his eyes, but he was unable to attend because of the battle he is fighting. Looking back, the friendship between Mo and John was remarkable--how different they were but how well they got along.

In 1982, Arizona could not have elected two more different Members to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mo Udall was elected to a 12th term. A third-generation Arizonan, Mo was a tall, lanky, Lincolnesque, one- eyed Mormon who tried to cheat his way into serving in World War II; self-effacing and humorous, a liberal Democrat in a conservative State who championed the environment and Native Americans and one of the most powerful and respected Members of the House, who chaired the Interior Committee critical to Arizona's welfare.

And John McCain, an easterner and newcomer to Phoenix, having arrived only 2 years before running for Congress; a carpetbagger, some said; a stocky, handsome son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals who easily made his way into the U.S. Naval Academy, only to graduate 894 out of 899 in his class, due to his extreme rebelliousness. John is a man self-described as a ``freshman right-wing Nazi'' when he entered Congress but as a naval officer who could have been freed from imprisonment as a POW in Vietnam, yet refused to leave his men behind and instead suffered unimaginable torture and pain for over 5 years.

Despite his novice as an Arizona politician, John McCain knew enough to beg to secure a place on the Interior Committee. At that point, Mo's decency and John's courage met. While John was new to Arizona politics and, by his own admission, could not tell a copper mine from a cotton field, he had promise, being elected president of his minority Republican class.

Mo graciously, and with no political gain in sight that Mo could see, took John under his generous, broad wing. Mo taught John the power of consensus and bipartisanship, and, in turn, John had the guts to buck his own party. Together, they forged a remarkable partnership.

Mo is marked by graciousness, humility, and humor; John by bombasity, independence, and courage. They were a perfect match. They sided together to protect the Grand Canyon. They sided together to protect Arizona wilderness. They sided together to improve the lives of our first Americans. They sided together to upend the campaign finance system, to try to make sure politicians are beholden to their constituents, not to special interests.

John took these positions in sharp contrast to his party. After Mo retired from the House and John had entered the Senate, John continued to take fearless positions. He championed immigration reform. He supports curbing methane emissions.

Many Americans will never forget--and I was standing right about here when this happened--when, on July 28, 2017, John McCain stepped into the well of the Senate and gave an unexpected thumbs down to his party's desperate attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

In 1982, Mo and John appeared to be worlds apart--Arizona politicians representing liberal Tucson and conservative Phoenix, who would necessarily be at odds, yet they shared so much. Both stood by their principles, but both believed in working across the aisle to get things done for the American people. Both put country over personal ambition, fame, and fortune. Both were men of integrity, and both were courageous. All of us can learn from their duty to country over selves, their commitment to working for all Americans, and their dedication to working with the party across the aisle to reach consensus.

Morris King Udall and John Sidney McCain III were unlikely political allies and even more unlikely friends, but they were both, and both are true American heroes.

Heroism is not born of words and bravado and bragging; heroism is born of silent deeds that help others. Mo and John accomplished much by deed. Both are true Arizonans, true Americans, and true heroes.

I am privileged to have known both men--to have grown up with Uncle Mo, to have campaigned with him, and to have shared his stories and stolen his jokes and to have served in the Senate and to serve with John McCain.

John and I have worked together on many issues. We have traveled internationally. Our work together on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee has produced real results for Native Americans.

After this Grand Canyon event I described in some of the remarks up there, I went to visit John at his ranch in Sedona. He is working hard to recover and wants to return to the Senate. His spirits are good. He was returning calls and working on statements while we visited. He was planning ranch projects right in front of us that had to do with the cottonwoods that were out in front of us as we were looking out at his place. His wonderful wife Cindy, a strong and talented woman in her own right, was at his side and working to make sure things were shipshape at the ranch. What a unique and loving partnership.

John, we wish you and Cindy the very best and look forward to your speedy return.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to say how glad I am to have Senator Menendez back in the saddle as our ranking member on Foreign Relations, and I thank him so much for his speech and for his leadership on our very important committee.

I join my colleagues from the Foreign Relations Committee in their critique of President Trump's handling--or maybe we would call it mishandling--of foreign policy. I am most concerned about how U.S. power, prestige, and diplomacy have been weakened across the world as a direct result of this President. The United States has stood as a world leader of liberal democracy, the rule of law, and human values since the end of World War II. Our actions abroad have not always been perfect, but over the decades, we have earned the world's respect because we have acted on our principles.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, authoritarian regimes were in retreat. Today, authoritarianism is back on the march. The President himself even cheers them on, praising Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and others who fashion themselves President for life of one-party, repressive regimes.

In this President's short but raucous and chaotic tenure, he has diminished our standing within the world community by grossly offending other nations and their leaders, including many of our closest allies, by abruptly changing foreign policy with no clear policy basis, and by denigrating countries and an entire continent with comments laced with racism. The President issues conflicting messages. World leaders and international diplomats cannot rely on his word or his tweets. He has plenty of criticism for our friends and allies but little for strongmen like Vladimir Putin. The world is alarmed. It is less stable under this Presidency.

Secretary Tillerson had disagreements with the President, and early on, the President undercut and sidelined him. The day before Mr. Tillerson was shown the door, the Secretary broke with the White House by directly pointing the finger at Russia for using a chemical weapon on the ex-British spy in his homeland, and this incident shows that the President will not tolerate daylight between his own corrupt

political beliefs and the views of his lieutenants.

During confirmation hearings for Mr. Pompeo, our committee must find out whether he will hold fast to traditional American values or bend to the President's servility to Vladimir Putin and other autocrats around the world.

The President's own diplomacy has been chaotic and dangerous. He has alienated one of our closest friends and biggest trading partners--the country of Mexico. He insists that Mexico will pay for this offensive wall that he says is necessary to keep out rapists and criminals.

The President has imperiled our relationships with both Mexico and Canada with his threats to tear up NAFTA, which he seems to say over and over again. In my home State of New Mexico, border communities rely on the integrated border, and border communities rely on the economy that has been built up over the last 24 years. We have a trade surplus with Mexico. NAFTA negotiations continue, but there has been a chill on economic activity in States like New Mexico, Texas, California, and Arizona.

The President has shaken the world with his grade-school taunts about nuclear weapons--a deadly serious subject. He chided Secretary Tillerson that talking to North Korea won't work, undercutting the Secretary once again, and then suddenly agreed to meet and even negotiate with Kim Jong Un without the careful diplomatic work needed to ensure success. I support diplomacy as the best solution, but rash diplomacy can easily lead to rash wars, and impulsive decisionmaking is extremely risky.

I hope the President seriously studies the issues between now and any meeting, brings an experienced team, and sets realistic and achievable goals for any negotiation. He must understand that diplomatic failure is potentially catastrophic. A war would likely result in 20,000 casualties a day in the opening week, and Secretary Mattis has warned that there would be, in his words, ``the worst kind of fighting in people's lifetimes.''

I do not trust this President to follow the constitutional process required to go to war. That is why I am cosponsoring S. 2047, prohibiting any President from launching a preemptive strike on North Korea. Starting a war with North Korea would only undermine the security of the United States and our regional allies and should not be done without approval of the American people through the Congress.

The President's attitude toward Russia and Vladimir Putin complicates our ability to gain support for our efforts overseas. Russia interfered with our democracy and continues to interfere in the affairs of our allies.

There is no good explanation why he has not directed our Nation's security agencies to take all possible action in response to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, and increasingly we see in the special counsel's investigation how Russia is playing a bigger and bigger part. There is no reason why this administration took so long to begin to implement Congress's sanctions against Russia. Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has already produced indictments against Russians and key officials from President Trump's campaign, but the President himself does not send the message to deter future interference by Russia. The President's failure to fight back, his resistance to sanctioning the Russians, and his subservience to Putin betray the national trust.

The President's hostility toward Iran's agreement to disarm its nuclear weapons program is mind-boggling. Director Pompeo reportedly shares this hostility. But just last week, the commander of U.S. Central Command, Army GEN Joseph Votel, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iran deal is in our national interest. Defense Secretary Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford, also agree. Our close allies--also signatories to the deal--agree it is in the international community's interests.

This is not the United States the world has come to know, rely upon, and believe in. The President's failure to protect our national interest weakens our position within the world community.

Morale at the State Department is suffering as our foreign policy suffers. Any new Secretary of State must work to reverse this. This Congress and the world have watched as the President and the Secretary of State have hollowed out the State Department.

Highly experienced and talented Foreign Service officers have been fired, pushed out, reassigned to menial tasks, and ignored. Many senior diplomats have just packed up and left. Nicholas Burns and Ryan Crocker, who served as Ambassadors in both Republican and Democratic administrations, have warned that ``we are witnessing the most significant departure of diplomatic talent in generations.'' On top of retirements, the number of people who took the Foreign Service exam dropped by more than half between 2016 and 2017. There is real concern that this will have a lasting and negative impact long after the Trump administration.

Director Pompeo will need to answer tough questions during confirmation: Will he impose congressionally mandated sanctions on Russia? What actions will be taken to counter Russia's ongoing cyber warfare? We are on the razor's edge with North Korea. As chief diplomat, does he support a preemptive strike against North Korea? What will he do to avoid a disaster? Does he agree with our military leaders about staying in the Iran denuclearization deal? Will he certify Iranian compliance if the facts show compliance? Does he support the President's proposal to decimate the State Department's budget? Will he continue Secretary Tillerson's plan to decrease staff by 8 percent? What will he do to recover agency morale, which we hear over and over is at an alltime low? Will he stand up to this President when long-held American values are at stake?

Director Pompeo will need to prove to the Senate that he will put the State Department and the U.S. standing in the world back on track. Our international partners do not view the United States as the reliable and strong partner they had in the past. Dictatorships and harsh regimes are emboldened by our lack of attention to free speech and human rights.

President Ronald Reagan said at the Berlin Wall that ``the totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship.''

Dictators now smirk and echo our President, saying ``fake news'' about any news outlet that shines a light on their indiscretions. Leaders like Vladimir Putin are emboldened to continue to try to undermine our democracy and sow conflict and division within the American public.

The world is less stable without a strong, principled United States to lead. It is imperative that the United States preserve and strengthen its diplomatic power, not sabotage it.

With lack of leadership in the executive branch, Congress must step up, particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As I said at the beginning, I am so pleased that Senator Menendez is back to work with Senator Corker to try to assert the role that Congress should be playing in these very important issues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me.

Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer hasn't been here the whole time, but many Senators have been speaking about climate change. We see in the Presiding Officer's State, in Glacier National Park-- which I think kind of tells it all--a national park created around glaciers, and they are disappearing rapidly.

I come to the floor, first of all, to thank Sheldon Whitehouse for his remarkable leadership on the issue of climate change. His weekly wake-up call speeches have inspired a lot of us. Articles have covered his effort on this. This one is titled, ``A Climate `Wake Up' for the 200th Time.'' He has been down here religiously taking on this issue.

In this article, a major leader in the environmental movement said about Sheldon's speeches, ``[His] speeches have been critically important in drawing attention to the need for climate action.'' She also said, ``Demand for climate action is only growing, and certainly we give him credit for his leadership in that effort.'' Very true.

I remember traveling with Sheldon Whitehouse to Paris, when all of us were very much enthused to see the world come together and sign the Paris climate agreement. We were all very excited. This effort had been going on for 40 years, and here the countries in the world were finally getting together. I watched Sheldon making those arguments over there. He argued his case persuasively, and he wins converts easily. So we all are here to thank him for his leadership.

In particular, I would also like to talk about climate change, its impact on the Southwest, and where we are headed in my home State of New Mexico and the Greater Southwest. Climate change is here and now. I want to talk about that impact in the Southwest, which is severe. My home State of New Mexico is right in the bull's-eye.

Our Nation and our Earth cannot afford for us to sit back and do nothing for the next 3 years, but this is precisely what is happening under this administration and this Congress. Our executive and legislative branches are not only sitting on their hands in the face of climate change disruption and devastation; they are aggressively halting all progress we are making.

I was so discouraged when I saw the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency take down a climate change website that had gone from a Republican administration to a Democratic administration. I think it had been going on for almost 10 years. This was covered in the Washington Post. Administrator Pruitt, on taking office, took it down and said: We are going to update it. Here we are, more than a year, and if you try to look at that website, it just says: We are in the process of updating it. I don't think we are ever going to see it again, would be my guess.

Let's look at some of the reasons and how the progress is being halted here. There are a number of reasons for this, but I think the biggest and most insidious is money--billions of dollars in campaign contributions.

The President and congressional majority are delaying, suspending, and stopping policies and programs that combat climate change because of the dark money in politics. Oil and gas, coal, power companies, and other special interests feed their campaign and PAC coffers while the clear public interest is ignored. We must reform our campaign finance system or our climate and the American people will pay a greater and greater price.

Sheldon Whitehouse has made a contribution there with his book, ``Captured,'' where he talks about this dark money indepth. That is another piece of scholarship that really adds to what is happening on this campaign finance front.

While the President, his EPA Administrator, and his Interior Secretary are openly hostile to climate change science, career government scientists and professionals are still hard at work doing their jobs evaluating climate impacts.

Last November, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, consisting of 13 Federal agencies, issued volume I of the ``Fourth National Climate Assessment.'' It is the most authoritative Federal Government resource on climate change.

It concludes, ``This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization'' with ``record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes,'' and human activities--especially greenhouse gas emissions-- are the ``extremely likely'' ``dominant cause.'' A pretty strong statement from the scientists.

With climate change, the Southwest is expected to get hotter and much drier, especially in the southern half of the region. In the last 18 years, New Mexico has seen one reprieve from drought, and the trend is unmistakable. We are seeing less snowpack, earlier melting, and less runoff. Even when we do get snow, new research shows we are getting less runoff from it. Our scarce water resources are even more strained.

Here is a drought map of New Mexico from just last week, March 6. Virtually the entire State faces drier conditions. We can see it here, talking about the northern part of the State with extreme drought, most of the middle and northern part of the State in severe drought, and then the southern part of the State in moderate drought. Virtually, the entire State of New Mexico is in a very serious drought situation.

Some experts are saying we need to stop thinking about this phenomenon as a drought but instead as a dry region becoming permanently drier. This is a direct threat to our way of life in New Mexico and the Southwest.

Elephant Butte Reservoir is our biggest reservoir in New Mexico. It was built close to 100 years ago for flood control and irrigation. Its supply comes from the Rio Grande, our largest river in New Mexico and, as we know, a 1,900-mile river that flows through several States. It is a border for close to 1,000 miles or more, and it flows into the Gulf of Mexico, but for the decade ending 2010, on the Rio Grande, flows in the Rio Grande decreased 23 percent--almost one-quarter--from the 20th century average.

Here are photos of Elephant Butte Reservoir from 1994 and 2013. These photos were taken from a satellite. This top photo is from 1994, and we can see a remarkable reservoir and how deep and extended that reservoir is. Now we jump forward about 20 years, and here is Elephant Butte Reservoir in 2013. The picture says a thousand words: The reservoir is rapidly, rapidly disappearing. We can see the dramatic decrease in supply over that short time. Our farmers and ranchers depend on this supply, and they are struggling. This year, the snowpack in the Upper Rio Grande is half of what it should be, and that will force the reservoir even lower.

Across the Southwest, the average annual temperature has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. The last decade, from 2001 to 2010, was the warmest in over a century. Now, New Mexico is really feeling the heat. We are the sixth fastest warming State in the Nation. Since 1970, our average annual temperature increased about 0.6 degrees per decade-- or about 2.7 degrees over 45 years--and it is not over. Average annual temperatures are projected to rise 3.5 to 8.5 degrees by 2100.

Difficult-to-control wildfires have multiplied because of dry conditions killing trees and other vegetation, threatening lives, destroying homes, and costing billions of dollars. New Mexico experienced its largest wildfire in 2012--the Whitewater-Baldy Complex fire--that burned almost 290,000 acres. The fire burned in the southwestern part of the State but caused air pollution hundreds of miles away in Las Cruces to the east and Santa Fe to the northeast.

Agriculture is a mainstay for the Southwest's economy. We produce more than half of the Nation's high-value specialty crops, and crop development is threatened by warming and extreme weather events.

Likewise, another key economic sector--tourism and recreation--is threatened by reduced streamflow and a shorter snow season. Ski Santa Fe used to always open Thanksgiving weekend. That hardly ever happens anymore. Reduced snow and higher temperatures have been an economic disaster for the slopes all over New Mexico.

The Southwest's 182 federally recognized Tribes are particularly vulnerable to climate changes such as high temperatures, drought, and severe storms. Tribes may lose traditional foods, medicines, and water supplies.

Similarly, our border communities are in greater jeopardy because they don't have the financial resources to protect against climate change impacts. They are vulnerable to health and safety risks like air pollution, erosion, and flooding.

The President and his administration have taken aim at Federal programs that would address all these impacts to my State and the Southwest. The President unilaterally withdrew from the Paris Agreement. EPA put the Clean Power Plan on hold. Secretary Zinke has done all he can to halt BLM's methane waste prevention rule. Public lands are open for coal and oil and gas drilling. The President's budget slashed climate science funding. The list goes on and on. This is not what the American people want. They believe science, they understand that human activity is causing climate change, and they want robust policies in response.

Climate change presents the greatest threat our Nation and world now confront. It is the moral test of our age. We will be judged by future generations by how we respond now. We owe it to our children, our grandchildren, and beyond to meet this challenge head-on. I call upon my colleagues across the aisle to listen to the science and the American people and to work with us to take action.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I believe Senator Whitehouse's colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, is here to speak next.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak a little bit about the rule of law and President Trump's approach to what has happened as far as the Mueller investigation.

The rule of law has protected our Nation's democracy, institutions, and citizens for over 200 years. It means that no one person is above the law--no one--not even the President.

President Trump does not seem to respect the rule of law. He acts as if the law doesn't apply to him. He believes that he can steer the wheels of justice in whichever direction he wants to shield himself from lawful investigation.

This President is willing to risk national security, to defy the judgment of the FBI Director and his team, and to release classified material for his own political purposes. Think about that. The President of the United States just declassified a top-secret document, and he did it with the clear intent to undermine the investigation into Russian interference in our election. His actions should end any doubt about his willingness to obstruct justice.

After he declassified the Nunes memo, President Trump said: ``A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves. It's a disgrace, what's happened in our country.'' This is one of the rare times I have agreed with President Trump. It is a disgrace, what has happened in our country, but not for the reasons the President gives.

Russia's cyber attacks and other potential operations during the 2016 election represented a direct strike at our democracy. I cannot think of a time when our national interest has been so threatened and the President of the United States has ignored the threat. Not only has this President turned a blind eye to Russia's interference, but he has done nothing to prevent future attacks. He ignores the threat even though the CIA Director says Russia will try to interfere in our elections again. Instead, he has done everything he can to curry favor with Vladimir Putin. He should be ashamed of himself.

Unfortunately, he has demonstrated time and time again that he is incapable of shame. But he is not alone. Many members of his party should be ashamed for enabling the President to undermine the special counsel investigation, for enabling his defamation of career public servants, and for remaining silent in the face of a growing crisis.

The President has made clear that he does not like Special Counsel Mueller's and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's independence and commitment to the rule of law, and he has had an eye on getting rid of them for quite a while. We learned he considered firing them last June, and we have known for many months, from the President's own admission, that he fired FBI Director James Comey to stop the Russia investigation. These men have dedicated their lives to serving our country. Mr. Mueller served as a Federal prosecutor and a Department of Justice lawyer for much of his career, and he was appointed as FBI Director in 2001 by

President Bush. Mr. Rosenstein is also a career Federal prosecutor and was appointed as a U.S. attorney by President George W. Bush.

The President has said many times: ``There was no collusion.'' If that is true, why does the President go to such great lengths to undermine the investigation?

The President's intentions are transparent and dangerous. He fails to accept that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein swore an oath to the Constitution. Because they will not pledge their loyalty to him, he is bound and determined to stop the investigation into his potential wrongdoing.

But the Republican leader has delayed bringing forward bipartisan legislation to protect Mr. Mueller from arbitrary dismissal. In light of recent events, Congress must act. The special counsel needs protection to do his job. He shouldn't have interference from the President and his partisan supporters.

In the Senate appropriations bill for the Department of Justice, I included language directing the Department of Justice to abide by its current regulations for the special counsel, but it is clear to me that we must do a lot more.

During the Watergate investigation, Eugene McCarthy said: ``This is the time for all good [people] not to go to the aid of their party, but to come to the aid of their country.''

It is time for all Members of Congress to come to the aid of our country and ensure that Mr. Mueller and his team are able to gather the facts and draw their conclusions without obstruction.

It is astonishing that President Trump still calls the Russia investigation a ``witch hunt.'' Our government's 17 law enforcement and national security agencies all reached the conclusion that Russia actively interfered with our Presidential election through hacking national party computers, leaking information, and spreading disinformation over media and social media outlets. The President's continued refusal to address this threat is unconscionable, and it betrays our national interests. Mr. Mueller's investigation into Russian interference is justified by the evidence, and it is imperative.

We also have abundant evidence that the President tried to interfere with the Department of Justice and FBI investigation. The President's firing of FBI Director James Comey because of ``the Russian thing'' is what landed him with a special counsel in the first place.

Why did the President want a pledge of personal loyalty from Mr. Comey and Mr. Rosenstein? Why did he ask Mr. Comey to drop the investigation of Mr. Flynn?

Why is the President so angry at Attorney General Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation, and why did the President need the Attorney General to not recuse to ``protect'' him?

The evidence of interference with an ongoing investigation is enough reason to investigate. We all remember that President Nixon's chief transgression was the coverup. Despite a constant refrain of denials from the President that his campaign had any connection with Russia, we know there were many connections.

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his December 22, 2016, conversation with the Russian Ambassador about relieving U.S. sanctions imposed for Russia's interference. Campaign foreign adviser George Papadopoulos pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with people connected to the Russian Government. Former campaign manager Paul Manafort was charged in a Federal indictment with acting as a foreign agent for the pro- Russian Ukraine Government. The President's son, Donald Trump, Jr., and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Mr. Manafort all met with Russian operatives to gather dirt on Hillary Clinton. Then, the President personally dictated a press statement misrepresenting the nature of the meeting. These are just a few of the connections.

Mr. President, I refer to a November 13, 2017, article from the Washington Post. It chronicles many of the meetings between the Trump campaign officials and the Russians during the campaign and is too long to go into here.

But neither the compelling evidence justifying investigation nor Mr. Mueller's credentials have stopped the President and his friends in Congress from attacking both. Representative Nunes nominally recused himself from the Trump collusion investigation in the House Intelligence Committee, but he and his colleagues on the committee have now released a memo based on incomplete and misleading information, with the President's full backing. This is despite a warning from the FBI against its release, and the Speaker will do nothing to rein in him or his committee members.

The President's attacks on the independence of our Nation's premier law enforcement agency mirror his attacks on our other foundational institutions. He has maligned the judiciary. He has maligned the press. He attacks and disrespects our foundational principles--separation of powers, freedom of speech and religion, and equality under the law. This is in addition to the President's regular assault on the truth. The Washington Post counted at least 2,000 times where this President departed from the truth in his first year in office.

The White House and its allies in Congress must stop their baseless attacks on Mr. Mueller and his team. They must let them do their job and find the facts. We must ensure the independence of prosecutors so we can ensure that investigations and outcomes are fair and impartial.

Why is the President going to such lengths to fight this investigation? We do not know. But we do know that a foreign power-- Russia--interfered in our last election, and we do know that the President and his team have had significant business links to Russian financial interests.

The President's family business continues today, but it does so while concealing his tax returns and keeping their business partners secret. On top of that, the Trump administration has become much more accommodating of Russian interests. Are these things connected in some way? We need to know. That is why the special counsel's investigation is so important.

Now is the time for every Member of Congress to put the country ahead of politics. Special Counsel Mueller must be able to do his job, to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and to draw his conclusions. Congress must pass legislation to protect the special counsel from being arbitrarily fired, not serve as the President's lieutenants in an unprecedented assault on the rule of law.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you for the recognition. I rise also to talk about the tax issue and this horrible tax cut, but I can't help but mention a little bit about what I went through the last hour or so with some wonderful young people in my office.

First of all, there are 7,000 Dreamers in my home State of New Mexico. Here is one of them, shown in this picture. This is Carlos. Carlos was brought to New Mexico from Mexico when he was less than 1 year old, and New Mexico is the only place that Carlos has known as his home. I had the opportunity to visit with a number of young people who are very much like Carlos. They have gotten in a bus, they have come to Washington, they call themselves the New Mexico dream team, and it is a remarkable story. They told many stories to me about their situations that sounded very much like Carlos's story. They urge us to protect them. They are fearful, they are emotional, but they are also strong and courageous. Let's remember these are some of our very best and brightest young people. We cannot lose them. We must continue to fight for a clean Dream Act--no doubt about it--and we need to remember the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are here in the United States and strive and fight for true immigration reform.

Mr. President, working families in New Mexico want good jobs and good wages. They want affordable healthcare and retirement security. They want a job and educational opportunities for their children, but the Republican's latest tax plan does nothing for regular families in New Mexico or across the country. It will not create good-paying jobs, not now nor for our children. It will kick 13 million people off healthcare and raise insurance premiums. Their plan threatens Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and it does nothing to improve public education or bring down the high cost of college.

The Republican tax plan overwhelmingly benefits the rich by giving huge tax breaks to their campaign donors, to the superwealthy, big corporations, multinational businesses, and hedge funds. One of the biggest problems is, the Republican plan will drive up the debt by $1.5 trillion, and that means they will have to take a hatchet to programs working families rely on. This is not a responsible or a fair tax plan. It is a hocus-pocus tax sham, and I oppose it.

I have to reflect a little on this first year that we have seen under President Trump and the Republican majority--what a year of lost opportunities. If the Republicans had worked with us during this year, we could have had at least two big bipartisan achievements. We could have had a bipartisan improvement on healthcare, built on the successes of the Affordable Care Act, and we could have had a fair tax bill for all Americans. How sad partisanship and politics got the upper hand.

The Senate and the House majority are pushing this tax scam as fast as they can to hide it from the American people. We have not had proper hearings. We have not heard from expert witnesses or had adequate independent analysis. Even the Republicans don't know what is in it. My office has met with many New Mexicans raising red flags on the unintended consequences of this bill. No Member of Congress--no Democrats or Republicans--has had enough time to digest and understand this plan.

When it comes to legislation this important, we must follow the regular order. We must see a full analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. We must hear from the best tax experts in the country. The American people must understand the plan, and every Member of Congress must fully understand its impacts. We are not there.

Republicans and the President are not being straight about what this plan will mean for the average American. They aren't talking about how it will affect the President's own personal taxes. He touts it as a tax cut for the middle class and working Americans, but not one single objective analysis says it is designated to help the middle class, and his Treasury Department's one-page so-called analysis predicting a $300 billion surplus is built on unrealistic growth assumptions that no serious economist accepts. Even Republicans have said the bill is about helping their donors and cutting taxes for big corporations.

The American people are not blind. They aren't fooled by the administration's fake numbers, and they oppose this plan. Recent polling, as recent as December 13, shows that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the bill. Sixty-five percent say the wealthy benefit the most, and almost all pollsters come out somewhere in that range.

Now, let's look at some of the hard, cold numbers. First, we know the Republicans propose adding $1.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. This chart shows the difference between the Federal deficit under current law and the massive increase in the deficit under the Senate Republicans' plan. Current law is in blue, as you can see here, and the Republicans' plan is in red. It is pretty dramatic--pretty dramatic. Republicans represent themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, but incurring this amount of debt to give big tax breaks to the rich is patently irresponsible.

To pay for this debt, the government will have to borrow by selling Treasury bills, notes, bonds, securities, and savings bonds. Based on estimates from the JTC and the CBO, the government's cost to borrow to pay for this debt will be over $40 billion over the next 10 years and even more after that unless we pay off the debt. The American people will be on the hook for $1.5 trillion. That is $12,742 for each and every American household today. My colleagues have come to the floor saying this tax bill will provide an average tax cut of around $2,000 for 1 year in 2019. What they aren't telling you is, they are also opening a line of credit on you and your family of $12,000.

This is the new Federal debt that would be taken out in every American's name every year by the GOP. So much additional borrowing by the Federal Government can also drive up interest rates. Higher interest rates mean higher costs for the government to borrow. The Congressional Budget

Office estimates that if interest rates are 1 percent higher annually than projected through 2027, the debt will be $1.5 trillion higher-- that is 6 percent of gross domestic product--and the amount each American owes on their new forced Federal credit card would go up even more.

Increased Federal interest rates have real consequences for the average American. A rise in rates can price out a first-time home buyer; it can determine whether a young person can afford to buy a car. The average American consumer does not want to see interest rates go up. Increased government borrowing and interest rates can take up the economy's lending capacity and discourage the very private investment Republicans say they want to encourage.

Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy also will force massive cuts in revenue coming into the Federal Government. When I first arrived in the Senate, Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota was chair of the Budget Committee. He was a master on the Federal deficit and on the Federal budget, and he understood the danger of racking up huge deficits. In 2011, the Budget Committee was concerned that the debt threatened the national security. The committee majority developed a budget framework that Senator Conrad presented on the floor that July. He showed us many charts that day. One showed that the government had a budget surplus for only 5 of the last 50 years--that was in 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In those years, revenues were close to 20 percent of gross domestic product.

Around the same time, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission concluded that the Federal Government needed revenue equal to 21 percent, but the Republicans' current tax cut legislation would leave the Federal Government with revenue of only 17 percent of GDP.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers sounded alarm bells in an op- ed in the Washington Post on December 10, and Larry Summers isn't alone. Bruce Bartlett was an economic adviser to Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. In a September Washington Post op-ed, he freely acknowledged that he ``had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth.'' He is referring to the myth that tax cuts lead to robust economic growth. Mr. Bartlett now says: ``Republican rhetoric around tax cutting'' is ``wishful thinking. . . . In reality, there's no evidence that a tax cut would spur growth.''

In other words, tax cuts will not spur economic growth. They will create more debt, squeeze consumers, and mean steep cuts to vital government programs. So why is the majority pushing so hard for them? Why do they want this tax cut bill so badly?

There is really only one reason--for their donors. Representative Chris Collins of New York was honest about why he has to deliver tax cuts. He said, ``My donors''--and this is his quote, Congressman Collins--``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.' ''

Making the superrich even richer doesn't justify burdening our kids with huge government debt. It doesn't excuse threatening American healthcare, retirement security, and other vital programs, but cutting vital Federal programs is exactly the price the middle class and working Americans will be expected to pay under the Republicans' tax sham. Their plan calls for $500 billion worth of cuts, and Speaker Ryan is already talking about where they will cut. He said:

We are going to have to get back next year at entitlement

reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.

Frankly, it's the healthcare entitlements that are the big

drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on healthcare

entitlements--because that is really where the problem lies,

fiscally speaking.

He wants to starve the Treasury to benefit the wealthy, and then he wants to slash critical programs that create jobs, support innovation, secure our Nation, and help people pay for housing, food, and medicine.

I want to support tax cuts for middle-class families. I want to help make sure that working people can take home more of their pay. I also want to make sure we can pay for roads, bridges, schools, scientific research, and national defense. This bill doesn't do that; it does exactly the opposite. It takes money from the middle-class families and gives it to the ultrarich. Then it leaves us with little to support our communities, little for infrastructure, little to make the United States of America continue to lead the world in innovation, science, and economic might, and little to ensure that we take care of those in need.

This bill also fails Indian Country. While giving billions of dollars of tax breaks to corporations, this bill does nothing to spur economic growth or attract investments in our Native communities--not even basic, low-cost provisions to ensure that Tribes receive the same tax benefits as other governments, like State governments. Once again, Tribes have been overlooked by the majority, despite early and vocal Tribal input on tax parity in Indian Country.

I am prepared to roll up my sleeves and work with Republicans on tax reform that is fair, simplifies the Tax Code, and keeps American businesses competitive, but I cannot support tax cuts that lopsidedly benefit the ultrarich, hurt working families, neglect Indian Country, and balloon the Federal deficit.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition.

Mr. President, the President of the United States terminated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, otherwise known as DACA, 3 months ago. He gave Congress 6 months to act. We are no closer today to helping our Dreamers than the day the President so callously canceled the program.

We have almost 800,000 young people whose lives, dreams, and futures hang in the balance. They are scared. Their families are scared. Everything they have worked for is at risk.

Dreamers represent some of our very best and brightest. They are going to school, holding down jobs, volunteering in our communities. They want to be doctors, lawyers, engineers. They want to start businesses.

They came here as children, and they are American through and through. They love our country as much as any of us, and they want to stay and contribute.

We have almost 7,000 Dreamers in my home State of New Mexico. Carlos is one of them. Carlos was brought to New Mexico from Mexico when he was less than 1 year old. New Mexico is the only home Carlos has ever known.

Because of Carlos's immigration status, his opportunities were limited. He couldn't play sports in school, and he couldn't go on field trips, even though he pledged allegiance to the United States, just like his classmates.

Carlos registered with DACA 2 years ago, and in his words, he was given ``wings.'' He is now a full-time student at New Mexico State University, studying to be a mechanical engineer. He volunteers as a firefighter. He works as a server at a local restaurant, and he began a drive to help Hurricane Harvey victims.

Carlos says: ``We, as Dreamers, have proven ourselves to be worthy of being here in the United States.''

Carlos's story can be told hundreds of thousands of times over. Congress must act, and we must act now. We owe it to these young people. We must give Carlos and all other Dreamers their wings.

Passing the Dream Act is the morally right thing to do, but it is also the economically smart thing to do. Dreamers' contributions to the U.S. economy are astounding. Their jobs span the spectrum. They work in health, education, nonprofits, wholesale, retail, business, and hold professional jobs. Most of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ Dreamers, and that is why more than 400 CEOs of major U.S. companies have urged Congress to pass the Dream Act.

If Congress fails to act, it will cost us 700,000 jobs--as many as 30,000 jobs a month--causing chaos for employers, and we could see a $460 billion decrease in economic output over a decade. Social Security and Medicare contributions could drop by $39.3 billion over the same period.

In my State, New Mexico would lose nearly 6,000 DACA workers and take a $385 million hit. We simply cannot afford it.

We have a bipartisan Dream Act before us. Senator Durbin is working with our Republican colleagues, Republican friends, to get us over the finish line. Let's do the right thing by these young people, and let's do it now so Carlos can become an engineer and so hundreds of thousands of Dreamers can stop living in fear and move forward with their lives. It is our moral obligation to do this.

We also must do right by the 11 million immigrants in our Nation who are working, raising families, contributing to our economy, and helping in our communities. Congress must stop kicking the can down the road. We must do our job. We must debate and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Law-abiding immigrants who are contributing to our Nation should be given a pathway to citizenship.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, with the support of Senators Wyden, Bennet, Feinstein, and Klobuchar, that the text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the recognition.

Mr. President, the Republicans' tax bill is a disaster for the American people. It would give the ultrawealthy a tax cut and make middle-class families pay for it. I can't tell you how strongly I am opposed to it.

We have heard a lot from the President and the Republicans about how their tax cuts will be a rising tide to lift all boats, but this claim just doesn't hold water. Look carefully. On top of $1.5 trillion in new deficits, they are hiding where more than $5 trillion of cuts over the next 10 years will come from and just who will actually benefit. The Republican budget would force steep cuts in healthcare, education, and other programs that working and middle-class families rely on.

It is a terrible plan for my home State of New Mexico, where a lot of families already have a hard time getting by. Plain and simple, the Republicans' plan is a massive redistribution of wealth. Listen to who it is taking money from and where they are giving it to. It would take money from working families, seniors, children, the sick and disabled, rural families, and the poor, and give it to the very top 1 percent. They propose it at a time when the gap between the very rich and everyone else is already growing. We now have greater income inequality in the United States than at the height of the Gilded Age over 100 years ago.

I want to highlight for my colleagues across the aisle another big problem with the Republicans' bill. It has not been talked about enough, but it is important to my home State of New Mexico and to many Western States. The Republicans' deficit-creating tax cuts are going to cause automatic sequestration, and this will cut several mandatory programs under the Pay-as-You-Go Act. Some of those are the mineral royalties from oil and gas drilling and coal mining on public lands that the Federal Government shares with States. New Mexico's royalty share is projected to be $437 million next year. Other States count on these payments for millions of dollars in their budgets too. Colorado received over $80 million in 2016. All of that will be at risk. Wyoming received over $660 million last year. Its State budget cannot afford to lose that kind of money. Utah, Montana, and North Dakota received tens of millions in mineral payments last year as well. These are royalties that New Mexico and the States are entitled to.

In New Mexico we mainly use this money for public schools. Other States use it for vital government programs like healthcare, roads, and police.

Our State legislature has struggled the last couple of years to balance the budget. The chair and vice chair of the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee wrote just this week to our entire delegation. They warn that losing so much revenue ``would have a devastating impact on the State's budget and would wipe out the reserves our State has struggled to rebuild.''

New Mexico school kids just can't afford to take a $437 million hit. I know it is possible for Congress to pass legislation sometime in the future to take mineral royalties out of sequestration, but there is no guarantee at all of that ever happening, and I am not willing to take chances with the education of New Mexico's school children.

The Republicans' tax cuts will also hit Medicare hard. That is also another

concern for New Mexico families. Tax cuts for the superwealthy and big corporations will mean New Mexico could lose out on about $178 million of Federal Medicare payments every year. I am opposed to trading off seniors' health just so the rich can get richer, but the Republicans seem bound and determined to take away America's healthcare, even though the American people have spoken loud and clear. They want their current healthcare rights fully protected. Republicans want to do away with the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act. But we also know that will mean millions of Americans will lose coverage, and we know that premiums will go up because the insurance companies will be covering a sicker population. I am opposed to trading off the American people's health just so the rich can get richer.

The majority's bill is a bad idea for basically everyone in New Mexico and across the country, except for the very wealthy individuals, multinational corporations, private equity and hedge funds. These are the folks who are being helped--the very wealthy, multinational corporations, private equity and hedge funds.

Let's instead get down to the business of governing on behalf of the American people, not just the top 1 percent

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit, made with the support of Senator Heinrich, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit, made with the support of Senator Heitkamp, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.