Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Best Buy. Best Buy's innovation and leadership has turned a once small, Minnesota company into the successful and responsible multinational corporation it is today. They are a vital component of the Minnesota economy and integral to our communities, and in celebration of their anniversary, I would like to take some time to recognize their important work to tackle one of the most pressing issues facing our society today: climate change. Climate change is a very serious threat to our planet, and Best Buy has risen to the challenge by taking proactive steps to reduce their carbon footprint. They have joined with other major American companies in signing the White House's American Business Act on Climate Pledge. As part of the pledge, Best Buy has committed to reducing carbon emissions in their operations by 45 percent of 2009 levels by 2020, which builds on the 26 percent emissions reduction they have already achieved. As a company committed to delivering sustainable technology solutions, Best Buy also committed to continue offering an assortment of energy-efficient products to help consumers reduce their carbon footprint, too. Best Buy's pledge represents a collaboration between government and industry to address climate change and take serious action now. They have also taken steps to protect our environment by helping consumers responsibly dispose of their electronic goods. Their recycling program has grown into the largest retail recycling program in the nation and, to date, has processed over 1 billion pounds of consumer electronic devices and appliances. Their dedication to sustainable practices has a meaningful impact on the future of our planet. Best Buy's continued excellence serves as a model to other businesses throughout the State and across the Nation, and I congratulate them on 50 years of business.

Mr. FRANKEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, as our Nation confronts what increasingly feels like a weakening of the bond between law enforcement and the communities they serve, I rise to urge all of my colleagues to examine the relationship between police and communities of color. One year ago, I joined the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in urging our colleagues to convene hearings on this critical issue. The Justice Department had recently made public the, frankly, shocking findings on its investigation into the Ferguson Police Department, which found that the city engaged in a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. But the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over matters relating to civil liberties and criminal proceedings, and entire subcommittees devoted exclusively to matters of crime and to the protection of constitutional rights held no hearings on the broader issue. No proposals were debated by the whole committee, no testimony heard. We had already lost Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Freddie Gray. And rather than honor our obligation to confront this problem head-on, rather than engage in difficult conversations about race and about persistent inequality, we allowed these problems to be met with silence. It must be said that we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave officers who worked tirelessly to keep us safe from harm. Every day, they put their lives on the line to protect our safety and that of our families. But we are doing a disservice to the noble men and women of that profession and to the communities they serve by turning away from unpleasant facts and by refusing to talk about them. That silence carries a terrible price. Last week, a 32-year-old man named Philando Castile was pulled over for driving with a broken taillight in Falcon Heights, MN. It was the 53rd time he had been pulled over in just a few short years. His girlfriend Diamond was beside him. Her 4-year-old daughter Dae'Anna was in the back seat. We don't know precisely what happened as Philando spoke to the officer who approached the car. We don't know what the two men said to each other, but we know how that encounter ended. Philando died after suffering multiple gunshot wounds. Philando's community--our community--in Minnesota is devastated. That community includes Philando's family, his loved ones, and his friends. It also includes the staff and the children in the elementary school where Philando worked; he knew them all by name. And it includes the parents of those children, many of whom began the morning after his death by explaining to their kids that Phil wouldn't be at school anymore. The impact of Philando's death has been felt far beyond those who knew him. In Dallas, as people seeking justice for Philando and his family gathered in a peaceful protest, a deeply troubled man murdered five members of a police force shielding demonstrators from gunfire. And over the weekend, protests in St. Paul took a vicious turn as protesters pelted police with rocks and chunks of concrete. Such violence does not honor the lives of those we have lost. It does not advance the cause of justice. Rather, violence makes it more difficult for our communities to begin the long and difficult healing process. From the suburbs of St. Paul to downtown Dallas, our communities are in pain, and it is our responsibility as lawmakers to do something about it. We cannot take the steps necessary to confront this challenge if we fear acknowledging that it exists. We cannot solve this problem without coming together as a nation to address and dismantle the systemic racial injustices that lead to far too many of these deaths and to identify solutions. We cannot solve this problem if we run away from it. But running from it is precisely what this body will do. In just a few short days, the Senate will adjourn for 7 weeks. During that time, our communities will continue to endure anguish, heartache, and pain. I hope every Senator uses this time to meet with people who have been touched by these events and to better understand the challenges that we face and they face. I urge them to join me in working to address them. When asked about her son's death, Philando's mother said: ``All we want is justice.'' And she deserves nothing less. Zika Virus Funding Mr. President, I wish to turn to another important issue: the Zika virus outbreak, its devastating impact on families, and--I hate to say this--the Republican obstructionism that is preventing us from taking meaningful action to address this outbreak. As you know, the Zika virus is transmitted to people primarily through the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be transmitted through sexual contact, through blood transfusions, or from mother to child. While it typically causes no symptoms or mild illness in adults, we now know that a Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause microcephaly and other severe birth defects. In fact, the World Health Organization has declared this outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. In some countries, Zika virus transmission is so high that public health officials have asked women to delay their pregnancies. While other countries are feeling the brunt of this outbreak, Zika is also affecting us here at home. So far, there have been over 1,100 people in the continental United States who have been affected by the Zika virus while traveling to endemic countries. This includes 320 who are currently pregnant. We are already seeing local transmission in U.S. territories, where 2,500 additional people have been infected, and these are just the confirmed cases. The actual number of those infected is likely to be much, much higher. This is why over 140 days ago President Obama asked Congress for emergency funds to respond to the Zika virus outbreak. His request, drawing on the expertise of public health experts, sought funds for things such as mosquito control, vaccine and drug development, and diagnostics so that more people can get tested and receive their results faster. After weeks of deliberation, the Senate eventually reached a bipartisan compromise. Although we didn't get all the money we need to fight the virus, we did get $1.1 billion. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate negotiated in good faith and got a bipartisan package that included important provisions to combat the Zika virus. That is why 68 Members of the U.S. Senate, including 22 Republicans, voted for the Senate bill. Unfortunately, that bipartisan spirit has not prevailed. As it turned out, Republicans in the House of Representatives delayed and then derailed the funding request. Even though the Senate passed a bipartisan compromise, House Republicans, with support from Republican Senate negotiators, sent back a partisan package packed with ideological poison pill provisions. These included provisions that deliberately block funds from going to family planning clinics, take away money from the continuing fight against Ebola, and even erode provisions in the Clean Water Act. Let me explain some of these provisions in more detail. The bill the House and Senate Republican negotiators sent back to us limits women's access to contraceptive services. Imagine that. At a time when many women have decided to delay their pregnancies out of fear of the Zika virus, my Republican colleagues are actively working to keep birth control out of reach. Such provisions disproportionately harm low- income women who turn to safety net clinics such as Planned Parenthood for birth control and for education on family planning. Two weeks ago, one of my Republican colleagues addressed this issue on the floor of the Senate. Standing next to a photo of a baby girl with microcephaly, he argued that Democratic objections to the bill were ``fanciful and imagined.'' That is what he said--``fanciful and imagined.'' He dismissed the idea that Planned Parenthood was deliberately targeted in this legislation since it was not mentioned by name in the text. But it is actually that intention that is fanciful. Because of the way the legislation is crafted, it excludes family planning clinics such as Planned Parenthood from receiving funds. This is particularly harmful in places like Puerto Rico, where infection rates are rising rapidly and high numbers of uninsured women need access to information about the virus, as well as effective birth control. This kind of tactic is deeply counterproductive. To combat this virus, we must rely on the strength of our entire medical system and not sideline the country's most experienced family planning providers. Second, Republicans have criticized Democrats for asking for more money, describing our vote against their bipartisan package as ``disgraceful.'' Let me describe what is disgraceful. This Republican bill, unlike any other recent emergency spending bill, actually takes money away from efforts to control Ebola outbreaks--which are still active in Africa--in order to pay for Zika. I would like to remind my colleagues that a short time ago Ebola ravaged West Africa, infecting more than 28,000 people and killing over 11,000, making it the deadliest Ebola outbreak on record. While research is under way, we do not yet have a vaccine against this virus. Ebola is still an active threat. In fact, since the 2014 outbreak, there have been several new clusters of Ebola virus due to the virus's persistence in survivors. Public health experts warn that this virus will return; the question is whether we will be ready. At this juncture it would be irresponsible to cut funding from Ebola research, surveillance, and public health infrastructure. The Republican strategy to fight the Zika virus would do just that.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. Finally--see, I was going to say ``finally'' anyway. Finally, the bill even waives permitting requirements when it comes to applying pesticides near bodies of water. This clean water requirement was intended to protect people from toxic substances, particularly pregnant women, children, and other vulnerable populations. But my colleagues are mischaracterizing our objection to this rider. In fact, one of my colleagues went to the Senate floor recently and accused the Democrats of being ``more focused on protecting the mosquito than they are protecting people.'' That is just absurd. To sum up, my Democratic colleagues and I supported the Senate bill to fund the fight against a devastating disease, and Republicans decided to politicize this issue by sending back a conference report that was filled with partisan policy riders. Every day that we don't act, this virus continues to spread. And, in the meantime, the Republican leader has not given any indications that he plans to change course. In fact, he said he plans to bring up the same exact partisan bill that was defeated last week. The President has already threatened to veto this bill, so another vote would be useless. I urge my Republican colleagues: Please, please stop playing partisan politics, and let's pass something meaningful to address this crisis. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to expose those who continue to deny the science of climate change and try to deceive the American people. This is important because climate change is an existential threat to our planet and to future generations. By denying climate science and lobbying against efforts to address climate change, these deniers are subjecting the planet and everybody on it to great risk. Climate change will have significant adverse impacts on all of our States, including my State of Minnesota. Just look at our agriculture sector, which is responsible for one out of every five jobs in Minnesota. Warmer temperatures and more intensive droughts are going to negatively impact this important rural economic engine. In fact, a recent study estimates that with no adaptation efforts against climate change, Midwest crop production could decrease by more than 60 percent by the end of the century. Climate change will also impact our waters, and that is important to my State--the Land of 10,000 Lakes--which includes Lake Superior. Lake Superior alone contains about 10 percent of the world's fresh surface water, and it is warming by two degrees per decade. Because of this warming, we are seeing more evaporation and lower water levels in the lake. Plus, rising temperatures allow for more favorable conditions for invasive species and hazardous algal blooms. Warmer temperatures could also have severe consequences for fish like walleye pike and trout that are so important to Minnesota fisheries and ecosystems. And let's not forget the threat of climate change to our forests. As in our lakes, warmer temperatures elevate the threat of invasive species such as the emerald ash borer and gypsy moth that are rapidly changing the composition of our forests--or the bark beetle in Colorado, the State the Presiding Officer represents. They destroy trees and cost economies and money and jobs. So we can see that climate change poses a very serious threat to Minnesota and to our country. I believe it is the defining issue of our generation--an issue that demands immediate action. But, unfortunately, there are some groups that have been trying to prevent action. These groups have spent many millions of dollars muddying the water, distorting the science, deceiving the American people, and, ultimately, delaying the response that we desperately need. Over the last two days, my colleagues have come to the floor to expose this web of denial--the extensive network of groups and individuals who are spreading lies about climate change--and I am here today to expose one of the worst actors of all: the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a rightwing ideological organization known for advocating for discriminatory social and economic policy--things like attacking voting rights, privatizing Social Security, and favoring tax breaks for the rich to the detriment of the middle class. They are also a mouthpiece for climate denial. If you go to the Heritage Foundation web site, you will find that it says that climate change is ``used too often as a vehicle to advance special interests and politically driven agendas.'' That is rich, coming from an ideological organization devoted to promoting a partisan agenda. No one can deny that. The Heritage Foundation is notorious for trying to undermine the science on climate change. Their favorite claim is that ``the only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.'' Even as recently as April, a report that the Heritage Foundation issued referred to climate scientists as ``a field that is a mere few decades old'' and that ``no overwhelming consensus exists among climatologists.'' While these statements may grab headlines, they are utterly false. Climate change science actually dates back to the 1800s--before Henry Ford sold his first car, before Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, and even before the first oil well was drilled in the United States. In 1824, French scientist Joseph Fourier proposed that the atmosphere keeps the Earth warm--what we know today as the greenhouse effect. In 1859, an Irish scientist, John Tyndall, attributed this warming to several gases, including carbon dioxide. In 1896, a Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius published the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the more than 100 years since, scientists all around the world have studied, debated, and researched different aspects of the issue. So when staff from the Heritage Foundation, none of whom actually have advanced scientific degrees, write a report that claims climate science is a new field that has little scientific consensus, they are ignoring the nearly 200 years of research--a scientific body of research that has led to 97 percent of climate scientists agreeing that humans are causing global warming. But every now and then, even the Heritage Foundation admits that climate change is in fact real. But when they admit it, they pretend that climate change isn't a big deal and that it is not worth our time to combat it. In 2010, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation--with a degree in law, not climate science, mind you-- declared that ``none of the scary stuff about global warming is true, and what is true about global warming, what the science actually tells us about man's role in changing the climate, is far from terrifying.'' Now all of this science denial and false propaganda might not be such a big deal if climate change wasn't such a serious problem, but when you look at the scope of the problem you quickly realize how the Heritage Foundation is acting in an incredibly and deliberately irresponsible way. Last year, I traveled to the climate change conference in Paris and met with a delegation of leaders from Bangladesh, a country that has contributed little to industrial air pollution but is one of the most vulnerable to the negative impacts of climate change. It is estimated that unless we act, rising sea levels will inundate 17 percent of Bangladesh, displacing about 18 million people in this low-lying nation by the end of this century. Even now, rising sea levels are impacting Bangladesh through salt water intrusion, reducing agricultural yields and ruining drinking water supplies. It is already having a profound effect. We are talking about a very poor country that doesn't have the resources to deal with climate change. Bangladeshis will be uprooted and turned into climate refugees without a home. I would bet these individuals would disagree with the Heritage Foundation that the impacts of climate change are ``far from terrifying.'' If you think the Syrian refugee crisis is difficult to deal with, just think of the magnitude of what we will see if we do not address climate change. For a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation to make this claim is not only irresponsible but, frankly, dangerous to the welfare of people around the world. These are just a few examples of the falsehoods that the Heritage Foundation spreads about climate change. If I had the time, I could go on for hours--maybe, even, days--quoting more of those lies. In fact, from 1998 to 2013, the Heritage Foundation published more than 1,600 documents contributing to climate skepticism, and they have published many more since. So I think we can say the Heritage Foundation is deliberate and unwavering in its fraud and deceit. One might ask: Why would the Heritage Foundation work to deceive the American people in such a way? What do they get out of it? Well, I will tell you. It is because they are being paid to do so by self-interested fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and people with major investments in fossil fuel companies, like the Koch brothers. Perhaps you have heard of them. The Heritage Foundation's work to espouse lies and prevent action on climate change directly benefits the bottom line of the companies and brothers who are funding them. We know this because over the past two decades ExxonMobil donated nearly $1 million to the Heritage Foundation; and the Koch brothers, the owners of the fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries, contributed nearly $6 million. These companies and brothers are worried that if people knew what their products were doing to the planet, they would stop buying their products or transition to other renewable energy or public policy would drive the markets away from their products. So in order to protect their bottom line, they set out to misinform the public. That is what they do for a living, and Heritage and many other similar organizations, are helping them to spread their falsehoods. That is what they do at the Heritage Foundation for a living. The money paid to Heritage goes to supposed experts whose jobs are to release thousands of bogus reports about climate change. These experts are not climate scientists. They are lawyers and economists serving as puppets for the fossil fuel industry. These same so-called experts publish op-eds and do interviews in media outlets around the country-- talk radio--helping to spread disinformation or misinformation or what we sometimes call lies. They also brief Congress and serve as trusted authorities for staff in many Republican offices. So it shouldn't surprise us that my Republican colleagues deny climate change when they rely on these experts. Despite the best efforts of the Koch brothers, the Heritage Foundation, and other deniers, people around the country are not fooled. In Minnesota we are seeing changes to our crops, lakes, and forests. Instead of sticking their heads in the sand, Minnesotans are taking action. In 2007, under a Republican Governor, my home State established a renewable energy standard to produce 25 percent of our power from renewable sources by 2025. That same year, Minnesota passed an energy efficiency standard to require utilities to become a little more efficient every year. To top things off, Minnesota established an aggressive goal to reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050. These are the kinds of policies that we need to combat climate change, and these are also the kinds of policies that the Heritage Foundation is fighting tooth and nail to prevent. It is not just the Minnesota legislature that is taking action. Minnesota businesses also recognize the importance of fighting climate change. Last year I joined Dave MacLennan, the CEO of Cargill, in penning an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune to highlight the threat of climate change to agriculture, especially considering that global population will reach 9 billion by midcentury. As the CEO of a food company focused on agriculture, Dave is concerned about what climate change is going to do to our food supply. He is not alone. We have businesses all over our State that are installing wind turbines and solar panels and manufacturing cutting-edge energy efficiency technologies. Minnesotans aren't fooled by the Heritage Foundation. On the contrary, to them, climate change represents a Sputnik moment--an opportunity to rise to the challenge and defeat that threat. In response to Sputnik, we ended up not just winning the space race and sending a man to the moon, we did all sorts of good things for the American economy and society. We did it before, and we can do it again. By rising to the challenge of climate change, we will not just clean our air, but also drive innovation and create jobs, and not only in the clean energy sector. I have two grandchildren, and I am expecting my third later this year. God willing, they will live through this century and into the next, and in 50 years I don't want my grandson Joe to turn to me and say: Grandpa, you were in the Senate, and you knew about the severity of climate change. Why didn't you do anything to stop it? And also, why are you still alive? You are 115 years old. I will say it was all investments we made in our age. I want my grandson to know that when we had the opportunity to put the planet on a safer path, we seized the moment. So let's not allow the Heritage Foundation and all of these different members of this web to slow us down. Let's not let the selfish motivations of shadowy donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry prevent us from making the planet a safer and more habitable place for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations. It really is time to stand up to ignorance and denial. It is time for all of us on both sides of the aisle to do what is right for future generations. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my health policy fellow, Rachel Cumberbatch, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for everything he is doing today on the floor. My question for the Senator is whether he is aware that a GAO report requested by Senator Feinstein was released yesterday and provides updated data on background checks involving terrorist watch list records.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, allow me to briefly share some of the key data points from this, and then I will pose another question. The report provides that during the calendar year of 2015, the FBI's data demonstrates that individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in firearm-related background checks 244 times. The report further provides that of those 244 times, 233 of the transactions were allowed to proceed and only 21 were denied. GAO helpfully points out that this means that potential terrorists were permitted to buy guns 91 percent of the time in 2015. Further, GAO provides that since the FBI began checking background checks against terrorist watch lists in 2004, individuals on such watch lists were permitted to purchase weapons 2,265 times out of 2,477 requests or, again, 91 percent of the time. I ask my friend from Connecticut: If we are allowing over 90 percent of people on the terrorist watch list to purchase deadly weapons here at home, does that not suggest that we aren't even coming close to doing everything in our power to combat terrorism and address gun violence?

Mr. FRANKEN. My last question for Senator Murphy concerns Senator Feinstein's legislation. As has been discussed, Senator Feinstein's terror gap legislation would give the Attorney General the discretion necessary to deny known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms or explosives so long as there is a reasonable belief that such a purchase would be used in terrorist-related activities. I am a strong supporter of this legislation as a commonsense measure to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists and to take a significant step toward keeping our communities safer. So my last question is whether the Senator believes this legislation would be likely to make a real and significant difference in preventing those on the terrorist watch list from getting guns they could use in acts of mass violence?

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise to address the tragic events in Orlando, FL. In the early hours of Sunday, a gunman walked into Pulse, a popular, crowded LGBT nightclub, on Latin night and opened fire, taking the lives of 49 people and wounding 53 more in an act of terror that has been called the worst mass shooting in American history. It was also the deadliest attack on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community that our Nation has ever known. State and Federal authorities are continuing their investigation into the assailant and what his motives were that night. I believe 44 of the surnames of those who died were Latino. According to the FBI, the shooter had previously been investigated for potential ties to terrorist organizations, and during the attack, the shooter called authorities and pledged his allegiance to ISIL. We must do everything in our power to eradicate this evil, combat recruitment and radicalization, and we must make sure our efforts and our rhetoric do not scapegoat an entire community based on the actions of a single sick individual. The investigation is ongoing, and many details are still emerging, but we know this: The 49 men and women who lost their lives on Sunday night were murdered by a man with hate in his heart--perhaps even hate directed within--and an assault weapon in his hand. Following each and every tragic shooting, one thought haunts me, and that is that we in Congress are failing the American people. We have failed to answer their repeated calls to address gun violence in this country. We have failed to take steps necessary to make our communities safer, and as a result we are complicit in creating the circumstances that give rise to these events. We can't pretend this part isn't on us. Our State of Minnesota has a proud tradition of responsible gun ownership. Generations of Minnesotans have learned to hunt from their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends and neighbors, but when I speak to constituents on this issue, the message is clear: Minnesotans want Congress to take commonsense steps to reduce gun violence and ensure their family's safety. There is a balance to be struck here, and I strongly believe that we are capable of striking that balance. The Second Amendment doesn't protect the rights of everyone to carry whatever weapon he likes in any place he wishes for whatever purpose he wants. The Second Amendment does not entitle criminals, potential terrorists, or people with serious mental illness to carry guns. It does not entitle Americans to own guns designed to slaughter scores of people in seconds. We can't turn back time. We can't bring back the lives we have lost. But, for God's sake, what is it going to take? How many tragedies like this does this Nation have to endure before we find the moral conviction to do something about gun violence? It is important for us to acknowledge not just how this atrocity was committed but who the gunman targeted, and where. In his remarks on Sunday, President Obama rightly drew the Nation's attention to the site of this most recent tragedy--to Pulse, a gay nightclub that Barbara Poma opened to honor the memory of her brother John, whom she lost to AIDS years earlier. Barbara explained that her family was strict and had a strong sense of tradition. Being gay was frowned upon. Coming out could not have been easy for John, but when he did, his family welcomed him with acceptance and love. Pulse was named for John's heartbeat, and it was a place, according to his sister, where he was ``kept alive in the eyes of his friends and his family.'' In describing the shooting, President Obama explained that ``the place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub--it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.'' But it is also important to note that, like so many of the bars and nightclubs serving the LGBT community, Pulse was a place where people have come together to feel safe. Like the historic Stonewall Inn in New York City, the birthplace of the gay rights movement, and Bar 19, a pub in Loring Park that has served Minneapolis's gay community since 1952, Pulse was a sanctuary. Not everyone is welcomed by their family and their friends with acceptance and love. Even today, not everyone is able to walk down the street holding the hand of their loved one without fear. For those in search of solidarity in their communities, and for those in search of safety, Pulse provided refuge. Regrettably, even today, that refuge is sorely needed. Despite long overdue victories, leaders in the LGBT movement have perceived an increase in violence directed against their community. LGBT Americans continue to face threats, intimidation, and violence--on the street, in the workplace, and at school. By and large, they remain vulnerable to discrimination. As Americans come together in the days and weeks ahead, as we seek comfort and community at pride celebrations and candlelight vigils, it is incumbent upon all of us, but most especially policymakers, to do everything in our power to change the culture of hate and to pursue a more equal union. It is simply unacceptable that in 28 States, including Florida, there are no protections to prevent a survivor of the Orlando attack from being fired just because he is gay. In 28 States, including Florida, there are no protections to prohibit a homeless shelter from turning away a survivor of the Orlando attack because she is a lesbian. In 29 States, including Florida, there are no protections to prevent a business from refusing service to a survivor of the Orlando attack because she is transgender. That isn't right. This is not who we are as a country, and it must change. Congress must take up and pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act to protect our children--our children--in our schools. And Congress must take up and pass the Equality Act to make clear that discrimination and hate have no place in our workplaces and in our homes. I was around 10 years old at the height of the civil rights movement. My family used to eat dinner watching TV on plates on tray tables, and we would watch the news. And I remember seeing footage of police in the South siccing dogs on Black civil rights demonstrators, going after them with firehoses and billy clubs. I never will forget my dad pointing at our television screen and saying to me and my brother, ``No Jew can be for that.'' No Jew can be for that. It was obvious to him, as it should be to all of us, that when some members of our communities face injustice, we all do. In the face of that pervasive discrimination, that stain on our values and our history, our Nation recognized then, as it should recognize now, that some problems demand a national solution. We must take action to make our communities safe--all of our communities safe. We must engage in these difficult conversations about persistent inequality and about gun violence. And we must dedicate ourselves to securing real change. I implore my colleagues: Let us make our laws our sanctuaries. Let us honor the memory of those lost on Sunday and the lives of those who survived by recognizing our obligation to take action. No Member of Congress can be for this. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank my good friend from Delaware. Nomination of Merrick Garland Mr. President, I rise today to address the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today marks 84 days since President Obama nominated Judge Garland to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court bench. In that time the consequences of permitting that vacancy to persist have become clear. The eight-member Court has now deadlocked four times, and in two cases where the Court found itself evenly divided and unable to reach consensus it punted, sending cases back to the lower courts. There is no denying that the Senate's refusal to do its job, to take up the business of filling that vacancy, means that in some cases the Court is not able to fulfill its core function, meaning in some cases the Court does not resolve circuit splits and cannot serve as the final arbiter of the law. That is not just my view, that is an opinion shared by one of the Court's current members, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee back in 2013, Justice Kennedy described what happens when the Court is short- staffed. Although he is discussing the effect of recusals on the ability of the Court to do its job, his comments are no less relevant in the case of vacancies. This is what Justice Kennedy said: ``On our Court, if we recuse without absolutely finding it necessary to do so, then you might have a 4-4 Court, and everybody's time is wasted.'' Let me say that again. ``Everybody's time is wasted.'' Well, my Republican colleagues don't seem to be bothered by wasting everybody's time. Mr. President, 116 days ago, less than an hour after the news of Justice Scalia's death, the majority leader proclaimed that the Senate would not consider a replacement until after the Presidential election and said that ``the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.'' In the 116 days since the majority leader made that bold announcement, Republican Senator after Republican Senator has taken to the Senate floor to deliver variations on that theme. My good friend Senator Cornyn helpfully explained that Senate Republicans had made a decision to ``give the voters a voice on who makes the next lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.'' He said, ``I want to be clear that the American people do deserve a voice here and we will make sure that they are heard.'' We have been through this before. We agree. The American people should have a voice in this process. They did. They elected Barack Obama to be President of the United States. By my read of the Constitution--article II, section 1, to be exact--the President shall ``hold his office during the term of 4 years''--a term which has not yet expired. It seems clear to me that in the text of our founding documents, our democracy was designed to ensure that its citizens have a voice in this process. President Ronald Reagan made this point quite eloquently when he presided over the swearing in of not just William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but also one Antonin Scalia as Associate Justice. President Reagan explained that ``the Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the American people.'' Of course, President Reagan was right. The Founding Fathers recognized that the very purpose of the Constitution was to embody the spirit and the voice of the American people. I find it preposterous when my Republican colleagues, who purport to revere the Constitution and the Framer's original intent, insist that the only way to guarantee that the people's voice is heard is to delay filling the vacancy, because, after all, the Founding Fathers did not just contemplate such a situation, they actually experienced it. When President John Adams--himself a Founding Father and a drafter of the Declaration of Independence--was presented with the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, he himself was a lameduck President. The Chief Justice at the time, Oliver Ellsworth, resigned after the 1800 Presidential election--an election that President Adams lost. Nevertheless, Adams set about the work of selecting a replacement. When he eventually nominated John Marshall in January of 1801, more than 2 months after losing the election to a President of a different party--and the country still did not know who that would be because Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had tied, but they were not his political party. Despite an unresolved election and in the face of great uncertainty, Adams nominated Justice Marshall, and the Senate took up John Marshall's nomination and confirmed him to the post of Chief Justice on January 27, 1801, by voice vote. John Adams was by every definition of the term a lameduck President. The Senate could have refused to fill the vacancy. They could have left the Supreme Court short-staffed. Senators could have insisted that the seat not be filled until it was clear just exactly whom the American people had selected as their next President. But the Senate recognized that it had a constitutional obligation to confirm a replacement. That should come as no surprise because of the 32 Senators serving in the Sixth Congress, 5 of them had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention: Abraham Baldwin of Georgia; Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey; John Langdon of New Hampshire; Gouverneur Morris of New York, whose first name was Gouverneur, but he wasn't a Governor; his mother's maiden name was Gouverneur; and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. All of them are real Founding Fathers. If anyone should have known what the Constitution required in this situation, it was they. Now, picture them milling about the floor of the Old Senate Chamber on January 27, 1801, talking amongst themselves and their colleagues and whipping votes. At the time, the Senate's practice was to consider nominations in an executive session with the doors closed. Only Senators and certain staff were allowed in the Chamber and the proceedings were intended to be secret, so the Congressional Record contains no debate on John Marshall's nomination. We can only imagine what Senators said, but I suspect it went something like this: Well, John, Abraham, Gouverneur, I suppose we should vote now on the President's nomination to the Supreme Court. Why, yes, Jonathan, of course. I remember when we wrote into the Constitution that when a vacancies occurs, the President shall appoint a nominee to fill the vacancy and we Senators shall provided our advice and consent. Yes, John, I recall the day we wrote that. You were in a particularly good mood because your wife Betsy had arrived by carriage the night before from New Hampshire. Yes, Abraham, I recall that well. After all, it was only 13 years ago, and the next day we wrote the provisions about the Supreme Court. I remember very well how specific we were. The President appoints a nominee in the event of a vacancy and we in the Senate do our job by providing advice and consent. So by all means, let's vote. These men, these Founding Fathers set aside whatever reservations they may have had about the unique circumstances surrounding John Marshall's nomination and a lameduck President of a different party than the party that won the Presidential election. They allowed the Senate to hold a vote. These are the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. As a consequence, John Marshall went on to serve as our Nation's fourth Chief Justice, authoring opinions that make up the foundation of constitutional law. It was obvious to those Founding Fathers in the Senate, as it should be to all of us serving here today, that the Supreme Court is too important, too central to our democracy to ignore. I urge my colleagues--particularly those motivated by a fidelity to the Framers' original intent--to end their obstruction and grant the President's nominee full and fair consideration. Thank you.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the nomination of Merrick Garland to the United States Supreme Court and to urge my colleagues to grant timely consideration to the President's nominee. I recently had the pleasure of meeting Chief Judge Garland, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I encourage all Senators to meet the nominee because I suspect that they will find, as I did, that the rumors are true; he is an exceptionally qualified nominee. Since joining the DC Circuit, Chief Judge Garland has been recognized as one of the best appellate judges in the Nation. His reputation for working with colleagues to identify areas of agreement and to craft strong consensus decisions is well earned. After meeting Judge Garland and discussing the way that he approaches his role as a judge and as a chief judge, I am pleased to agree with my colleague and friend Senator Hatch, who described Judge Garland in 1997 in this way: I believe Mr. Garland is a fine nominee. . . . I know of his integrity. I know of his legal ability. I know of his honesty. I know of his acumen. And he belongs on the court. Senator Hatch is right. He was talking about, of course, the DC Circuit--the second court in the Nation, really. Before Judge Garland was nominated, the White House reached out to me and to many of my colleagues, especially those on the Judiciary Committee, to ask the type of nominee whom I hoped President Obama would put forward or whether I had any particular names in mind. I didn't. My only recommendation was that the President nominate someone whose intellect, experience, and demeanor would be apparent during a hearing and would cause the American people who watched the confirmation hearing to say: I want nine of those on the Supreme Court. This is what I told the White House. Now that I have met Judge Garland, I will set about the task of reviewing Judge Garland's full record and all of his opinions. I will set that aside, but the American people deserve to meet him and decide for themselves whether he is qualified to sit on the highest Court in the land. The American people deserve a hearing. In my view, confirmation hearings also serve a broader purpose. Hearings aren't just an opportunity for the public to get to know the nominee and discover how he or she views important issues; open, public hearings provide an opportunity for the American people to learn about the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and to demystify the Court's role in our democracy. Hearings also allow our constituents to see and judge for themselves how and whether their government is working, whether we are doing our jobs. Before any of us knew whom the President would nominate, Senate Republicans wasted no time in refusing to fill the vacancy until after the election. The majority leader said that ``this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'' The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee gathered behind closed doors and vowed to deny the eventual nominee a hearing. Many Republicans refused to even meet with the nominee. They said it didn't matter who the President nominated. This was about principle. This type of obstruction marks a historic dereliction of the Senate's constitutional duty. Since 1916--for the past 100 years--the Senate Judiciary Committee has fulfilled that duty by holding hearings. Nonetheless, Senate Republicans stood firm in their opposition. But within a day of Judge Garland's nomination being announced, some Republicans began to change their tune. Once they discovered that the President had nominated a consensus candidate--a judge who had earned the praise of so many Republican Senators during the course of his career--their calculus began to change. Now my Republican friends are tying themselves in knots trying to explain to the American people how they plan to move forward. Quite a few Republican Senators broke ranks and agreed to meet Judge Garland privately while nonetheless maintaining that the Senate should not grant the nominee an open, public hearing. It would seem that some of my colleagues believe they--not the public and not their constituents-- deserve the opportunity to meet and to question the nominee. A few Republicans said that they would consider Judge Garland and even vote to confirm him in the lameduck session--but only if Democrats win the White House. That is a very odd sense of what the principle is here. I guess the thinking behind that is the Republicans are afraid that should the election not go in the direction they prefer, then the people shouldn't decide. They should decide unless they decide the wrong thing. That is the odd principle that I have heard in the Judiciary Committee when we have had business meetings, where members come in and make a statement and then leave. I hear a lot of contradictory stuff. Obviously, the theory is that should a Democrat be elected to the White House, they might eventually face a nominee who hasn't earned quite as much bipartisan praise, so then we will do Garland. That is absurd. That has nothing to do with principle. This has nothing to do with principle, and it never did. This is about politics. The Supreme Court is too important, too central to our system of democracy to let it fall victim to partisan politics. It has been just over 1 month since President Obama nominated Judge Garland to fill the vacancy caused by the death of a Justice. During that month, the effect of allowing a vacancy to persist has been made clear. The eight-member Court has deadlocked twice, handing down two 4-to-4 decisions. Permitting a seat on the Supreme Court bench to remain vacant means that, in some cases, the Court is not able to fulfill its core function of resolving the splits among the courts of appeals and serve as a final arbiter of our laws. The Court isn't able to do its job. I think we have to go through our history and look at when Justice Marshall was appointed in the last weeks, I believe, of that administration. I hope my Republican colleagues are finally coming to the understanding that they have an obligation to fill this vacancy. Members of the Senate and of the Judiciary Committee in particular have an obligation to do our jobs, to get to work. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks today regarding climate change, I wish to say a few words about a Minnesota icon who passed away today. Prince was a phenomenal artist who was beloved by people all over the world, but as Minnesotans, we are particularly proud to call him one of our own. Prince got his start in a Minneapolis jazz band and went on to share his talent throughout Minnesota and all over the globe. His artistry, his innovation, and his unparalleled presence inspired and will continue to inspire millions of people. In Minneapolis, he put one of our most cherished venues, First Avenue, on the map. Up until just a few days ago, he was still performing, having held a concert in Atlanta. He is truly going to be missed. Someone once said: A brain isn't a mind, and a mind isn't a soul, and that is why we need the artists. I think the outpouring of appreciation we are seeing today for Prince has to do with that unique role artists play, and it speaks to the importance of the arts and to human beings. Paris Climate Agreement Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating the official signing of the Paris climate agreement. Tomorrow, more than 160 countries will send representatives to New York to sign onto this historic agreement. This gathering is set to become the most well-attended signing event in the history of the United Nations--highlighting the importance of this issue for people around the entire world. I think it is very fitting that this event is taking place on Earth Day. This agreement has been nearly 25 years in the making. International climate efforts date back to 1992, when governments met in Rio with the objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. Nations have met every year since then to further this goal. While some meetings have been more successful than others, most have been met with disappointment and lack of action. After all, climate change is a complex issue, and achieving consensus for any international issue is no small fete, which is why this agreement is truly, truly impressive. Last December, I traveled to Paris with nine of my colleagues. We met with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, and with our then top climate change negotiator Todd Stern. I would like to congratulate all of them for their stellar work. I would also like to thank Todd Stern for his service at the State Department and his dedication to combating climate change. Mr. Stern played a critical role in achieving a successful resolution in Paris, and I have no doubt that his successor, Dr. Jonathan Pershing, will effectively continue his work. Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and to future generations. My colleagues have been on the floor of the Senate today to talk about the impacts of climate change on their States and the need to address it. So I wish to take a minute to talk about how it is going to impact Minnesota. Minnesota is one of the top producing agricultural States in the country, where one out of five jobs is tied to agriculture. Climate change will have significant impact on our food system, both through warmer temperatures and more intense droughts. A recent study estimates that global crop production could decrease by more than 40 percent by the end of the century. That is why I joined Dave MacLennan, the CEO of Cargill--the largest privately owned company in the country--in penning an op-ed in the Minneapolis StarTribune to highlight this threat, especially considering that the global population will reach 9 billion by midcentury. As the CEO of a company focused on agriculture, David is concerned about what climate change is going to do to our food supply. Climate change will also impact our waters. Minnesota is the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Actually, it is about 14,000 lakes, including Lake Superior, which contains about 10 percent of the world's fresh surface water. Lake Superior has about 10 percent of the fresh surface water on Earth. Lake Superior is warming by 2 degrees per decade. We are seeing more evaporation and lower water levels in the lake. Plus, rising temperatures allow for more favorable conditions for invasive species and hazardous algal blooms. Warmer temperatures could also have severe consequences to fish like walleye and trout, which are so important to Minnesota fisheries and to our ecosystems. Let's not forget the threat of climate change to our forests. Like our lakes, warmer temperatures elevate the threat of invasive species-- invasive species such as the emerald ash borer and gypsy moth, which are rapidly changing the composition of our forests. In other parts of the country, we are seeing longer wildfire seasons--wildfires that are burning hotter, more intense, and bigger. The Forest Service is spending more and more fighting these fires--now more than half of its entire budget. So we can see that climate change poses a very serious threat to Minnesota, our country, and the world. The Paris Agreement that we will sign tomorrow marks an important step forward to address this threat. But, of course, our job is not done. We have to remain vigilant and build upon the success of the agreement. Internationally, we have to hold other nations accountable, ensure that they commit to stronger emission reduction targets over time, and make sure that those reductions are transparent and verifiable. Domestically, we have to build on the success of our cities and States--like Minnesota--that have been working hard for a long time now to become more energy efficient and reduce emissions. I have two grandchildren, and I am expecting a third later this year. God willing, they will live through this century and into the next. I want them to know that when we had the opportunity to put the Earth on a safer path, we seized the moment. Let's recognize the historic nature of this year's Earth Day, and let's celebrate this climate agreement because it is an important milestone. Let's build on it to make the planet a safer and more habitable place for our grandchildren, their children, and their grandchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3833.

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, Federal programs in Indian Country are chronically underfunded. I have served on the Indian Affairs Committee for the past 7 years, and I have been shocked by what I hear almost every week from tribal leaders about the challenges in Indian Country. Tribes struggle with crumbling schools, dilapidated roads, lack of housing, and lack of basic infrastructure. Many of the crises we hear about in Indian Country come from lack of opportunity, lack of hope. Indian youth have the highest rate of suicide among all ethnic groups in the United States. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Native youth aged 15 to 24. The Indian suicide rate is 62 percent higher than it is for the general population. Unemployment on Indian reservations averages 19 percent, and on some reservations it is above 50 percent. Senators Murkowski, Heitkamp, and Udall understand the dire needs of Indian Country, which is why they have cosponsored my amendment. Chairman Barrasso also understands the needs of Indian Country, and that is why he also supports this amendment. They understand that we have to support economic development for tribes whenever we can. My amendment sets aside $9 million, which can be leveraged into about $50 to $85 million worth of loans for energy projects in Indian Country. Developing tribal energy resources will help tribes bring power to the most remote parts of Indian Country--improving access to reliable and resilient energy and providing much needed jobs. That is why Congress authorized the loan program in the Energy Policy Act of 2005--to help tribes access the capital they need for energy projects. But this program has never received funding. My amendment doesn't cost anything. We are simply putting $9 million of already-appropriated money toward a new use. I thank Senators Heitkamp, Udall, and Murkowski for cosponsoring my amendment. I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Feinstein for their leadership. Finally, I thank Secretary Moniz, who has been a champion for this program. I urge my colleagues to support Franken amendment No. 3833 to bring jobs to Indian Country.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for the passage of the Energy Policy Modernization Act. I am pleased the Senate is considering and on the verge of passing legislation to update our Nation's energy policy. I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and their staffs for their hard work in getting this bill to the floor of the Senate. The Energy Policy Modernization Act is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. It is a compromised piece of legislation, and it does contain provisions I do not support, such as expediting the export of liquid natural gas, which I am concerned could raise domestic energy prices and harm steelworkers in northern Minnesota, but there are also a number of important provisions I do support. Congress has not passed a comprehensive energy bill since 2007, and a lot has changed in the energy sector since then. I believe comprehensive energy legislation needs to promote innovation, deploy clean energy technology, reduce greenhouse gases, and create good- paying jobs. The energy efficiency title of this bill will help produce electricity use, save consumers money, and increase our competitiveness through commonsense measures such as updating building codes. The bill permanently reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund to ensure that we preserve our natural resources for generations to come. It also invests billions of dollars in science and innovation through the reauthorization of ARPA-E and the DOE Office of Science. These are the types of investments we will need to transform our energy system, an energy system that has been powered by dirty fossil fuels but is increasingly powered by clean, renewable technologies. This bill also includes a provision I authored with Ranking Member Cantwell to invest $50 million per year in energy storage research and development. Energy storage will pay a crucial role in helping unlock substantial new renewable energy resources. As you know, the Sun shines during the day and the wind blows more at night. Balancing these intermittent resources can be a challenge for energy providers, and this is where I see storage playing a critical role in ensuring that our electricity generation meets our demand. While storage technology has been around for a long time, we need the next generation of technologies for cost-effective implementation at the grid scale. This investment will spur innovation at universities and in the private sector to help get us where we need to be. Investing in energy storage will also position the United States to lead in exporting these technologies to power-hungry countries around the world. Take India, for example. India's goal is to deploy 100 gigawatts of new solar power by 2022--a truly impressive target. As India and other countries build economies based on renewable energy, they will need storage technologies to turn intermittent solar energy into baseload power. I want America to develop and manufacture these storage technologies which will create jobs and lower emissions at the same time. Energy storage also has the benefit of making our grid more resilient. According to the Department of Energy's 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review, weather was responsible for half of the reported grid outages between 2011 and 2014 when customers went without power, and with the climate changing, it is essential we minimize the impact of weather-related grid outages on American households and businesses. Additional storage capacity will do just that--improving resilience to all types of grid disruption and allowing us to keep the lights on. I also worked on a provision in this bill to reauthorize the DOE Office of Indian Energy. This office provides education, training, technical assistance, and grants to American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages that are looking to develop energy projects. Since 2002, this office has provided $50 million for almost 200 renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects in Indian Country. We want to build on this momentum and continue this successful program. I am pleased we have extended the authorization of this office for another 10 years. This Friday more than 100 nations will come together in New York to sign the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. While commitments to reducing emissions are important, they must be followed by real action to reduce our carbon footprint. The Energy bill we are debating takes an important step forward in doing just that, but of course we cannot stop here. Climate change is an existential threat to our planet and future generations. As a country, we must continue to expand clean energy and reduce greenhouse gases. I hope we can continue to build on the bipartisan work we did with this bill to do just that. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the recent vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court and to urge my colleagues to grant swift consideration of the President's eventual nominee. Make no mistake, the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia came as a great shock. Although Justice Scalia and I did not share a common view of the Constitution or of the country, I recognized that he was a man of great conviction and, it should be said, a man of great humor. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, his friends, his clerks, and his colleagues. But we must now devote ourselves to the task of helping to select his successor. The Constitution--so beloved by Justice Scalia--provides that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.'' Let us all remember that each and every Senator serving in this body swore an oath to support and defend that same Constitution. It is our duty to move forward. We must fulfill our constitutional obligation to ensure that the highest Court in the land has a full complement of Justices. Unfortunately, it would seem that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree, and they wasted no time in making known their objections. Less than an hour after the news of Justice Scalia's death became public, the majority leader announced that the Senate would not take up the business of considering a replacement until after the Presidential elections. ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,'' he said. The only problem with the majority leader's reasoning is that the American people have spoken. Twice. President Barack Obama was elected and then reelected by a solid majority of the American people, who correctly understood that elections have consequences, not the least of which is that when a vacancy occurs, the President of the United States has the constitutional responsibility to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not set a time limit on the President's ability to fulfill this duty, nor, by my reading, does the Constitution set a date after which the President is no longer able to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief or to exercise his authority to, say, grant pardons or make treaties. It merely states that the President shall hold office for a term of 4 years, and by my count, there are in the neighborhood of 11 months left. If we were truly to subscribe to the majority leader's logic and extend it to the legislative branch, it would yield an absurd result. Senators would become ineffective in the last year of their terms. The 28 Senators who are now in the midst of their reelection campaigns and the 6 Senators who are stepping down should be precluded from casting votes in committee or on the Senate floor. Ten committee chairs and 19 subcommittee chairs should pass the gavel to a colleague who is not currently running for reelection or preparing for retirement. Bill introduction and indeed the cosponsorship of bills should be limited to those Senators who are not yet serving in the sixth year of their terms. If the majority leader sincerely believes the only way to ensure that the voice of the American people is heard is to lop off the last year of an elected official's term, I trust he will make these changes, but I suspect he does not. Rather, it seems to me that the majority leader believes the term of just one elected official in particular should be cut short, which begs the question, just how should it be cut? As I said, by my count, approximately 11 months remains in Barack Obama's Presidency. Now, 11 months is a considerable amount of time. It is sizeable. It has heft, but I wouldn't call it vast. Then again, there is a certain arbitrariness to settling on 11 months. After all, it is just shy of a full year. Perhaps, in order to simplify matters, an entire year would be proper or maybe just 6 months, half a year. It is a difficult decision. If only the American people had a voice in selecting precisely how much time we should shave off the President's term. Of course, now that I mention it, there is a way to give the American people a voice in this decision. The majority leader could propose a constitutional amendment. It would, of course, have to pass both Houses of Congress with a two-thirds majority, but that is not an insurmountable obstacle. Provided it clears Congress, the amendment would then bypass the President--which, in this case, would be very apt--and be sent to the States for their ratification. So if the majority leader truly wants the voters to decide how best to proceed, our founding document provides a way forward. Suggesting that the Senate should refuse to consider a nominee during an election year stands as a cynical affront to our constitutional system, and it misrepresents our history. The Senate has a long tradition of working to confirm Supreme Court Justices in election years. One need look no further than sitting Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Supreme Court nominee appointed by a Republican President and confirmed by a Democratic Senate in 1988--President Reagan's last year in office--during an election year. So when I hear one of my colleagues say ``It's been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,'' I know that is not true. I am not the only one who knows that is not true. The fact-checking publication PolitiFact recently observed that ``[s]hould Republican lawmakers refuse to begin the process of confirming a . . . nomination, it would be the first time in modern history.'' SCOTUSblog, an indisputable authority on all matters related to the Court, confirmed that the ``historical record does not reveal any instances [in over a century] of the . . . Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential year because of the impending election.'' The fact is that there is a bipartisan tradition--a bipartisan tradition--of giving full and fair consideration to Supreme Court nominees. Since the Judiciary Committee began to hold hearings in 1916, every pending Supreme Court nominee, save nine, has received a hearing. And what happened to those nine nominees? They were confirmed within 11 days of being nominated. In 2001, during the first administration of President George W. Bush, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Hatch sent a letter to their Senate colleagues making clear that the committee would continue its longstanding, bipartisan practice of moving pending Supreme Court nominees to the full Senate, even when the nominees were opposed by a majority of the committee, but, regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are leaving that long tradition behind. Yesterday, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the majority leader vowing to deny a hearing to the President's eventual nominee. ``This committee,'' they wrote, ``will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20th, 2017.'' This marks a historic dereliction of the Senate's duty and a radical departure not just from the committee's past traditions but from its current practices. I know that my good friend Chairman Grassley cares a great deal about maintaining the legacy of the Judiciary Committee and the propriety of its proceedings. Under his leadership, we have seen the committee put country before party and move consensus, bipartisan proposals. I had hoped Chairman Grassley would approach the task of confirming our next Supreme Court Justice with the same sense of fairness and integrity. I still hope that. But I was very disappointed to learn that yesterday Chairman Grassley gathered only Republican committee members in a private meeting where they unilaterally decided behind closed doors to refuse consideration of a nominee. The decision to foreclose even holding a hearing for a nominee to our Nation's highest Court is shameful, and I suspect the American people share that view. The Supreme Court is a central pillar of our democracy. The women and men who sit on that bench make decisions that touch the lives of every single American, regardless of party or political persuasion. Now the Senate must do the same. We must honor our solemn duty to uphold the Constitution and to ensure that Americans seeking justice are able to have their day in court before a full bench of nine Justices. I urge my colleagues to reject the impulse to put politics before our sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor to my colleague from Utah.