Al Franken

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Would that be good for me and my career?

Mr. FRANKEN. Really?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our Nation's next Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General has a job like none other. Our Nation's top law enforcement officer doesn't enforce just the laws designed to protect national security and keep the public safe but also the laws designed to protect Americans' civil rights and civil liberties, the laws that guarantee each and every American access to the same opportunities and to participate fully in our democracy. I know Senator Sessions. He and I have served on the Judiciary Committee together since I joined the Senate back in 2009, and I have a good relationship with Senator Sessions. I respect him as a colleague. But as anyone who has observed Senator Sessions or me in a Judiciary Committee hearing could probably tell you, he and I have very different views about many of the issues that he stands to influence as Attorney General, particularly matters of equal justice. So once the President announced his nomination and after Senator Sessions submitted his material to the committee, I reviewed his background carefully, and I paid special attention to how he described his work on civil rights. I noticed some discrepancies in the way he described his involvement in civil rights cases filed during his time as U.S. attorney. Those discrepancies stood out to me, and they didn't just stand out because civil rights is an issue I care about personally or because it is an issue I know Senator Sessions and I have disagreed about in the past; the discrepancies caught my attention because the information seemed to misrepresent the nominee's record, and that is something Senator Sessions himself promised not to do. You see, back in 2009 when Senator Sessions became the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, he was interviewed about how he would approach the committee's work in general and nominations in specific. Senator Specter, who was serving as the ranking Republican at the time, had just changed his party affiliation to join the Democrats, and so the gavel passed to Senator Sessions. Some people, particularly on my side of the aisle, were anxious about how Senator Sessions would lead the committee's Republicans given his more conservative views, but during that interview with the National Review, Senator Sessions indicated that Democrats should expect him to be an honest broker, to be fair to the Democratic nominee. Senator Sessions cited his experience before the Judiciary Committee back in 1986 when President Reagan nominated him to serve on the Federal bench. The committee rejected his nomination then, and Senator Sessions felt that in doing so, the committee had distorted his record. He said: ``What I learned in that process is that we're not going to misrepresent any nominee's record, and we're not going to lie about it.'' Senator Sessions said, as ranking member, that nominees before the committee would be ``entitled to explain the charges against them. That doesn't mean I'll accept their explanation or agree with it.'' In my view, that seemed like a fair way to conduct the committee's business. When I set about the task of reviewing Senator Sessions' record and the materials that he provided to the committee, I expected that those materials would not misrepresent his record. I took him at his word. So when I noticed discrepancies regarding the nominee's record, I gave Senator Sessions an opportunity to explain them. I asked him about his claim to have filed 20 or 30 desegregation cases, a claim he made in that same 2009 National Review interview. In response, in the committee hearing Senator Sessions said: ``The records do not show that there were 20 or 30 actually filed cases.'' Of the claim, he said: ``The record does not justify it.'' I then moved on to question him about four cases he had listed on his committee questionnaire, which asked him to list the ``10 most significant litigated matters [he] personally handled.'' Among those 10 cases were three voting rights cases and a desegregation case. I know Senator Sessions, and I know his record on voting rights. He is no champion of voting rights. He has called the Voting Rights Act ``intrusive'' and complained about States with a history of discrimination being subject to preclearance. But here his questionnaire seemed to tout his personal involvement in three voting rights cases and one desegregation case. It seemed to me that, given his previous experience before this committee and given the concern the civil rights community had expressed about his nomination, perhaps the transition team or others managing Senator Sessions' nomination had attempted to revise some of his history and recast him as a civil rights champion. I questioned Senator Sessions about the questionnaire's claim of personally handling those four civil rights cases. I mentioned that the Department of Justice attorneys who had worked on three of those four cases wrote an op-ed stating that Senator Sessions had no substantive involvement in those cases. Two of those attorneys also submitted testimony to that effect, explaining that Senator Sessions had no personal involvement in some of the cases that he had listed among the top 10 matters that he had personally listed. I asked Senator Sessions about this. In my view, he deserved an opportunity to explain himself. I asked him whether these attorneys had distorted his record by stating that with regard to three of those four cases: ``We can state categorically that Sessions had no substantive involvement in any of them.'' Senator Sessions said: Yes, he believed they were distorting his record. He said that he had supported the attorneys, and he had signed the complaints they had brought. Senator Sessions' reply mirrored answers he provided in a supplement to his initial questionnaire. In that supplement, which he filed 2 weeks after his initial questionnaire, the nominee clarified that his role was to ``provide support for'' DOJ attorneys. He said he ``provided assistance and guidance'' and ``cooperated'' with DOJ lawyers--not quite ``personally handled,'' if you ask me. I suspect that is why he felt the need to file the supplement. It is also worth noting that all four of the civil rights cases at issue--the ones at issue here--had either concluded or were still active back when Senator Sessions first appeared before the Judiciary Committee in 1986. But 30 years ago, when he submitted his questionnaire, which also asked him to list the ``ten most significant litigated matters which [he] personally handled,'' Senator Sessions did not list a single one of these four cases--not a single one. I wonder what changed between 1986 and now that caused these four civil rights cases to take on new significance for the nominee. Look, the fact of the matter is that Senator Sessions simply did not personally handle the civil rights cases that his questionnaire indicates he personally handled. His questionnaire overstates his involvement in these cases and the supplement he filed makes that perfectly clear. As I said, in the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions would not have tolerated that kind of misrepresentation, and no Member of this body should either. Senator Sessions said in 2009: We're are not going to misrepresent any nominee's record. . . . They'll be entitled to explain the charges against them. That doesn't mean I'll accept their explanation or agree with it. And neither do I. The Senate has an important job to do. It requires that each and every one of us understand the nominee's record accurately. The duties and responsibilities of our Nation's top law enforcement officer demand that the President nominate an individual who puts country before party and who is willing to pursue justice for the most vulnerable among us. But I do not have confidence that a nominee whose submissions to the Judiciary Committee inflate and exaggerate his handling of the critical issues--issues such as protecting the right to vote--is, frankly, capable of pursuing equal justice under the law. I questioned Senator Sessions about voting rights during his hearing. I asked him about an extraordinary claim by the then President-elect. In late November, President-Elect Trump tweeted: ``In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.'' Let me repeat that: ``the millions of people who voted illegally.'' Let's be clear. President Trump lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes--the popular vote for the President. He is the President of the United States, but he lost the popular vote by 2.86 million votes. When he says, ``I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,'' he is saying that at least 2.86 million people voted illegally. That is a pretty extraordinary charge. During Senator Sessions' hearing, I asked, do you agree with the President-elect that millions of fraudulent votes had been cast? He responded: ``I don't know what the President-elect meant or was thinking when he made that comment, or what facts he may have had to justify his statement.'' Senator Sessions didn't say whether he agreed. I asked him whether he had talked to the President-elect about that issue. Senator Sessions said: ``I have not talked to him about that in any depth.'' Under the Attorney General's leadership and direction, the Department of Justice is tasked with protecting the right to vote and with prosecuting fraud. It seems unusual to me that the President-elect would make such an outrageous claim, backed with no evidence, asserting that a fraud of truly epic proportion had occurred and that he wouldn't bother to discuss it with the man nominated to lead the Justice Department nor that the man tasked to head the Justice Department wouldn't ask him about it and ask what his evidence was so that when he became Attorney General, he could prosecute this voter fraud. But, in my questioning, none of this seemed to bother Senator Sessions. I suppose that shouldn't come as a surprise, because another thing that didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions was the speed with which States previously covered by the Voting Rights Act, covered by preclearance, moved to restrict voting rights after the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision. He and I discussed this at his hearing. I pointed out that after Shelby County, States moved quickly to enact new restrictions, but he didn't seem concerned. We discussed North Carolina, which enacted restrictions that the Fourth Circuit eventually described as targeting African Americans with ``almost surgical precision''--targeting African Americans with almost surgical precision to make it harder for them to vote, to suppress their vote, which suppressed African-American votes in the 2014 election. So this had happened. But it didn't seem to bother Senator Sessions. All he said was ``every election needs to be managed closely and we need to ensure that there is integrity in it, and I do believe we regularly have fraudulent activities occur during election cycles.'' Now, let's be clear. Claims of apocryphal voter fraud are used to justify voter suppression. Claims of bogus fraud are exactly what States cite when they enact laws designed to keep certain people from voting. So understanding Senator Sessions' views on voting rights and understanding how he responded to the President-elect's outrageous claims of fraud--and is there anyone here in this body who doesn't believe that the President's claims are outrageous and, indeed, pernicious? Keeping Senator Sessions' views on voting rights in mind and understanding how he responded to the President's claims is important to helping us assess whether he is capable of filling one of the Attorney General's most important duties, protecting the right to vote. That is how we all got here. We won elections. That is how the Presiding Officer won an election in Alaska, fair and square. This is so basic. The Fourth Circuit ruled that North Carolina had surgically targeted African Americans, and because of the Shelby decision, the Justice Department couldn't review that, couldn't do preclearance, couldn't prevent African Americans from having their votes suppressed. That should bother us. That should bother every one of us. It really should. We are here. We had some arguments over the last evening. The ones having the arguments were all elected. Protecting the franchise is the most basic duty in a democracy. And whose job is that? That is the job of the Attorney General. Think about how basic and fundamental this is. It is all the words that are said here on the floor, they are said by people who won elections. I won an election by 312 votes. Every vote is important. To suppress votes, to surgically target a race of people, how fundamentally wrong is that? It should make us shiver. It should, I would hope, clarify to my colleagues why there is so much fear in this country, when a man who is President of the United States says there are 3 million to 5 million votes fraudulently cast. I wonder how he got 3 million. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.86 million? How did he bring that figure out of the air? What are the American people supposed to think when the President makes these laughable claims, faced with no facts whatsoever? He told the story about a German golfer in line in Florida. Do my colleagues remember this? He heard this story thirdhand. This is his proof to the congressional leadership. I believe Senator Cornyn was actually there. I think he was part of the group who went there as the leadership of the Senate. The President said that part of his evidence was this story that this German golfer in line had three Hispanic people in front of him and three in back. The President then went into conjecture about what Latin American countries they could be from. Then he said that none of them were pulled out of the line; only the German golfer, the famous German golfer. He has won some PGA tournaments. He is a great golfer. He is not registered to vote in the United States. The story was apocryphal. Doesn't this send a chill down the spine of every Member of this Senate who cares about the franchise? Think about it. This is the fundamental building block of our democracy--the franchise. Now, Senator Sessions said during his hearing that he believes we regularly have fraudulent activities during our election cycles. That might explain why he didn't talk with the President-elect in any depth about the now-President's claim that millions of fraudulent votes were cast. Perhaps Senator Sessions didn't find it alarming because he believes there is a kernel of truth in the claim. There is not. That claim has been fact-checked to death. Nearly 138 million votes were cast in the 2016 election. State officials found virtually no credible reports of fraud and no sign whatsoever of widespread fraud. In 2014, a comprehensive study examined elections over 14 years, during which more than 1 billion ballots were cast, and they found just 31 incidents of in-person fraud, but that didn't stop President Trump. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. He again claimed that he won the popular vote and continued to claim it and asked for an investigation. This is so profoundly disturbing. I ask my colleagues, doesn't it bother you? The President went on to tweet about this ``major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal, and even, those registered to vote who are dead, and then (and many for a long time).'' I know on my deathbed, which I hope is many, many years from now, surrounded by my family, my grandchildren, and hopefully my great- grandchildren, if they say: Grandpa, Great-grandpa, any last wishes, I would say: Yes, I want to, before I leave this world, ``slip my mortal coil,'' or whatever Shakespeare said; I want to make sure that I unregistered to vote because I was a U.S. Senator and I wouldn't want to commit voter fraud, so, please, somebody, call the county clerk. I am too weak to do that. But I want to unregister because clearly anyone who doesn't unregister to vote before they die is committing some kind of fraud, and clearly anyone who is registered to vote in two States is committing fraud--people like Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, the Press Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary designee, the President's daughter Tiffany, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. We really should investigate them. The President has said the administration would form a commission led by Vice President Pence to investigate this voter fraud. This raises serious concerns, not the least of which is whether such an order or commission would serve as a pretext for nationwide voter suppression. Before my colleagues vote on Senator Sessions' nomination, we deserve to know whether the President intends for the Attorney General or the Justice Department to lead or participate in these investigations. When the President of the United States lies about the existence of massive, widespread fraud, it is the job of the Attorney General to call him on it. It is the job of the Attorney General to call him on it. The Attorney General has an obligation to tell it like it is. Senator Sessions may have said it best himself. When Sally Yates was nominated to be the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Sessions questioned her during her confirmation hearing. He said: ``You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you will need to say no.'' Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that is improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: Well, he will appoint somebody who is going to execute his views. Well, what is wrong with that? But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no? Ms. Yates responded: Senator, I believe the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, to give their independent legal advice to the President. As everyone here should agree, that is exactly what Ms. Yates did last week--I think it was last week. These weeks seem long. This Nation owes her a debt of gratitude. She did exactly what Senator Sessions asked if she would do, but I fear Senator Sessions has not demonstrated that he is capable of fulfilling that obligation, and his record, as demonstrated by the fact that he did not discuss these claims with the President, suggests that he is simply not willing to speak truth to power. Now, Senator Sessions has a long record, not just during his time as U.S. attorney and as Alabama's attorney general but here in the U.S. Senate. But regardless of the posts he held, Senator Sessions has not exhibited what I would characterize as a commitment to equal justice. In my view, it is the obligation of elected officials, law enforcement officers to recognize injustice when they see it and stand in opposition to it, but on far too many occasions, it seems that Senator Sessions has not followed that obligation. In 2009, the Senate debated the Matthew Shepard and James Senator Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the bill that extended Federal hate crimes protections to people targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In the hearing on that bill, Senator Sessions said, ``I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it.'' Senator Sessions repeatedly opposed a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, the landmark law combating domestic sexual violence. The bill would have expanded the law to protect LGBT people, Native American women, and immigrant women, but he voted against it three times. He said that ``there are matters put on the bill that almost seem to invite opposition.'' I raised this with Senator Sessions prior to his hearing, and I pointed out that Native women experience an epidemic of sexual and domestic violence, much of it at the hands of non-Indians--most of it--a large majority of it. That is not a new development. But Senator Sessions said to me that at the time he voted on the issue, he didn't understand the gravity of the problem. He must not have seen it. In 2006, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, Senator Sessions said there is ``little present day evidence'' of State and local officials restricting access to the ballot box. He complained that the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement unfairly targeted certain States. He said, ``Alabama is proud of its accomplishments, but we have the right to ask why other areas of the country are not covered by it.'' Now, the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement forced States with a history of enacting discriminatory measures to get Federal approval before changing their voting practices. That is why Alabama was subject to preclearance, but he just didn't see it. During this hearing and in his responses to written questions, Senator Sessions has said that ``all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, no matter their background.'' He has said that, if confirmed, he would ``enforce the laws passed by Congress.'' But time and time again, Senator Sessions has demonstrated an inability to recognize injustice--whether it is discrimination faced by LGBT people, discriminatory barriers to the ballot box, or violence against women. If he can't see injustice, what assurance do we have that he will act to stop it? The communities we represent should be confident that the Nation's top law enforcement officer is capable of recognizing the challenges they face and will help them overcome those challenges. Before the Senate moves to confirm this nominee, it is important to understand whether Senator Sessions is able or willing to acknowledge those challenges and to take steps necessary to address them, not turn a blind eye. I am not confident that he is, and I will be voting against him. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. As Senators on opposite sides of the aisle, we have philosophical differences, but one thing I think we all agree on is that our Cabinet Secretaries must be qualified and up to the challenge of running an agency. Betsy DeVos has demonstrated that she is not qualified to run the Education Department. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you watched her confirmation hearing, you would know that. It was the most embarrassing confirmation hearing I have ever seen. She could not answer the most basic questions about education. So I ask my Republican colleagues, if Mrs. DeVos's performance in this hearing didn't convince you that she lacks qualifications for this job, what would have had to have happened in that hearing in order to convince you? If we cannot set aside party loyalty long enough to perform the essential duty of vetting the President's nominees, what are we even doing here? Let's do our job for the sake of the children and for the sake of our Nation's future. Thank you.

Mr. FRANKEN. Will Senator Murray yield for a question?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I rise this evening in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be our next Secretary of Education. This is one of the most important jobs in our government. The Department of Education bears responsibility for making sure that every child in America has the opportunity to fulfill his or her potential, which means that the Secretary of Education has an enormous amount of power to shape our Nation's future. This is not a job for amateurs. President Obama's first Secretary of Education was Arne Duncan, who had spent 7\1/2\ years building a record of accomplishment as CEO of Chicago's public school system, previous to which he had been director of a mentoring program and the founder of a charter school. When Secretary Duncan stepped down, he was replaced by Dr. John King, Jr., the recipient of a doctorate in education administrative practice. He had served as Deputy Secretary under Arne Duncan and was previously the education commissioner for the State of New York. Each brought to the job a background in public education that informed their understanding of what students, parents, teachers, and administrators need in order to succeed, which brings me to Betsy DeVos. There are reasons to be skeptical about Mrs. DeVos's nomination right off the bat. As my Republican colleague, Senator Collins of Maine, put it: ``The mission of the Department of Education is broad, but supporting public education is at its core.'' Well, in Mrs. DeVos, President Trump sent us a nominee with no experience in public education. Mrs. DeVos has never been a public school superintendent or a public school principal or a public schoolteacher. She has never attended a public school. She has never sent a child to a public school. Mrs. DeVos has no formal background in education, no classroom experience, and no demonstrated commitment to supporting public education whatsoever. In fact, Mrs. DeVos has a long history of actively undermining public education. She and her family have spent millions of dollars advocating for an ideology that would steal funds from public schools in order to fund private and religious education. Let's take a moment to talk about what that means. Mrs. DeVos ran a political action committee called ``All Children Matter,'' which spent millions in campaign contributions to promote the use of taxpayer dollars for school vouchers. The argument was that these vouchers would allow low-income students to leave the public school system and attend the private or religious school of their family's choice. Mrs. DeVos has described this as ``school choice,'' claiming that it would give parents a chance to choose the best school for their children, but that is not how it works. In reality, most school vouchers don't cover the whole cost of private school tuition, nor do they cover additional expenses like transportation, school uniforms, and other supplies, which means the vouchers don't create more choices for low-income families; they simply subsidize existing choices for families who could already afford to pay for private school. As it happens, we have a real-life test case that we can look at to determine whether Mrs. DeVos's argument holds water. Mrs. DeVos heads up a voucher program in the State of Indiana, and guess what happened. Today, more than half of the students in the Hoosier State who received vouchers never actually attended Indiana public schools in the first place, which means that their families were already in a position to pay for private school. Indeed, vouchers are going to families earning as much as $150,000 a year. I am sure these families appreciated the extra help, but as of 2015, nearly half of Indiana's children relied on free and reduced-price lunch programs. These are the kids Mrs. DeVos claims would be helped by school vouchers; instead, taxpayer dollars were taken away from public schools that remain the only choice for these low-income families and given to families who could already afford private school, who were already sending their kids to private school. That is the reality of school vouchers. That is why after Mrs. DeVos developed a similar proposal for a voucher program in Pennsylvania and an analysis projected that, just like in Indiana, the vouchers would mostly benefit kids already enrolled in private schools, voters rejected it on multiple occasions. Yet Mrs. DeVos and her family continued their fight for school vouchers. In fact, she has been such a fervent advocate that her political action committee, ``All Children Matter,'' received the largest fine for violating election law in Ohio's State history--a $5.3 million fine that nearly a decade later she still hasn't paid. Why do this? The evidence is clear that Mrs. DeVos's voucher obsession doesn't help low-income families. Quite to the contrary, it represents a serious threat to the public school system--a system that as many as 90 percent of the children rely on--but Mrs. DeVos describes as ``a dead end.'' The truth is that Mrs. DeVos's education advocacy isn't really about education at all. She describes her goal as follows: to advance God's kingdom. Now many families choose to send their children to religious schools, and many children receive an excellent education at religious schools, but it is the public school system that the Secretary of Education is supposed to focus on, and that is not the part that Mrs. DeVos and her family have put at the forefront of her advocacy. Mrs. DeVos spent a decade serving on the board of the Acton Institute, which seeks to infuse religion in public life, beginning with public education. She and her family have devoted millions to promote the institute's work, including promoting ideas like this: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Those are the words of Gary North, a Christian Dominionist for whom the Acton Institute serves as a forum. Of course, not everyone who believes in the potential of parochial schools shares his view, but this is the kind of stuff Mrs. DeVos and her family have spent millions and millions of dollars promoting. It is fine for someone to hold strong religious views and to advocate for those views and to spend their family fortune encouraging others to adopt, but it is entirely fair to ask whether the mission of building a Bible-based social, political, and religious order is compatible with the mission of the Department of Education. So, yes, based on Mrs. DeVos's radical ideology, I was skeptical when her nomination was sent to the Senate, but I understand that others in this body may not have shared my discomfort. Within this Chamber we have important differences when it comes to education policy and, for that matter, the appropriateness of using taxpayer funds to advance God's Kingdom. And do you know what? That is fine. But we all have the exact same responsibility when it comes to vetting the President's Cabinet nominees. Each of us is called upon to determine not just whether we agree with the nominee's ideology but whether that nominee is free from relevant conflicts of interest and, critically, whether the nominee is competent, whether he or she is capable of doing the job. Making that call is our job, and that is why we have the process that we have. It is why we ask to see the nominee's financial information. It is why we ask them to submit written answers to questionnaires about their experience and their record. And it is why we have them come to the Senate to sit in front of committees and to answer our questions. Unfortunately, during her hearing, Mrs. DeVos proved beyond a shadow of a doubt not only that her ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the mission of the Department of Education but that she is fundamentally incompetent to be its leader. Throughout the hearing, she was unable to answer basic questions about her views on important issues, she was unfamiliar with basic concepts of education policy, and she was unwilling to make basic commitments to continue the Department's work on behalf of our most vulnerable children. Let me give you one example of what I mean. During my 5 minutes of questioning, I asked Mrs. DeVos to weigh in on the debate about measuring growth versus measuring proficiency. I am going to take a few moments right now to make sure that everyone here and everyone watching at home understands what this debate is about and just how central it is to the future of education policy. The difference between the two approaches, proficiency and growth, is very easy to explain. Let's say a fifth grade teacher has a student who comes into the classroom reading at a second grade level. Over the course of the school year, the teacher brings the student up to a fourth grade level. If we are measuring growth, we would say: Well, that teacher brought that student up two grade levels in 1 year. That teacher is a hero. If we are measuring for proficiency, we would say: Well, that student is still reading below grade level. That teacher is a failure. That is the difference between measuring growth and measuring proficiency. It took me all of 30 seconds to explain that, but I could spend all night talking about what this debate means for students, teachers, school leaders, and our entire education system. Everyone agrees that there should be accountability in our education system--accountability for school systems, schools, teachers. We want to know we are getting results. That was the core idea behind all the standardized testing in No Child Left Behind. The problem was that No Child Left Behind set up a system in which we assessed student learning by measuring proficiency and only proficiency. As the law was implemented, all sorts of problems emerged from taking this approach. For example, teachers in Minnesota would tell me how measuring proficiency would lead to what they called ``a race to the middle.'' See, measuring proficiency only measures whether or not students are performing at grade level--at this line of proficiency, at grade level--and a teacher is measured by what percentage of her students or his students are above proficiency or at proficiency. A teacher does not get credit for helping kids who were already well above grade level to perform better, and they don't get credit for helping kids who are way below grade level start to catch up. So we had this race to the middle because it is a yes-or-no question: Did this student achieve proficiency or not? A teacher's entire career could depend on how many of his or her students met that arbitrary goal. So under this system, understand this, please. A teacher had a strong incentive to ignore all of the students at the top who were already going to meet proficiency. No matter what you did to that kid, that kid was going to beat proficiency in the No Child Left Behind test at the end of the year. They had a strong incentive to ignore all the kids at the bottom because, no matter what you did, that student wouldn't reach proficiency. The only thing--or one of the only things--I liked about No Child Left Behind was the name. And we were leaving behind the kids at the top and the kids at the bottom because of the insistence on proficiency. I can't overstate how central this issue is to education, and I can't tell my colleagues how important it is to educators across America. If you talk to any State education secretary, any district superintendent, any local school board member, any principal, any classroom teacher-- and, heck, parents--they will have an opinion on measuring growth versus measuring proficiency. So when Mrs. DeVos came before the HELP Committee, I asked for her opinion on this very basic--this extremely basic--extremely important question, and she had no idea what I was talking about. Let me be clear. She wasn't reluctant to declare her opinion. She wasn't trying to strike a middle ground. She did not know what I was talking about. We would not accept a Secretary of Defense who couldn't name the branches of the military. We would not accept a Secretary of State who couldn't identify Europe on a map. We would not accept a Treasury Secretary who doesn't understand multiplication. In fact, in nearly any circumstance, if a candidate for a job is asked a question that basic and that important and simply whiffs on it the way that Mrs. DeVos did, there is no second question. There is just a thank you for your time, and we will let you know, and will you please send in the next candidate. Earlier this year, the University of Minnesota hired a new head football coach. I wasn't there for the interview. But imagine if the first question for a candidate for football coach of your university was as follows: How many yards does it take to get a first down? And imagine if the candidate answers as follows: Thank you for your question, Mr. Athletic Director; I can pledge to you that I will work very hard to get as many first downs as possible to make sure, we hope, that we lead the team to touchdowns. This wasn't the question. The question was this: How many yards does it take to get a first down? Well, thank you again for the question. I can tell you this: I will look forward to working with you to prevent the other team from getting first downs also. Understand, that is how basic my question to Mrs. DeVos was, and that is how shocking it was that she simply didn't know enough about education policy to answer it. This inexplicable failure alone was enough for me to conclude that Mrs. DeVos lacked the knowledge and understanding that should be a bare minimum for anyone seeking the position. But the entire hearing--the entire hearing--was a showcase for her lack of qualifications. I would urge any of my colleagues who haven't had a chance to watch it. I urge you to do so before casting a vote for this nominee. It was one of the most embarrassing scenes I have witnessed during my time in the Senate. In fact, I believe it may have been one of the most embarrassing performances by a nominee in the history of the Senate. Asked about the right of children with disabilities to get a quality public education, she didn't know that this right is protected by a Federal law--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Asked about guns in schools, she suggested that maybe guns should be kept on hand in case grizzly bears attacked. This was in answer to a question from Senator Murphy, who in Congress represents Sandy Hook and who, as a Senator, represents those parents. That was her answer to him. Asked about whether she would hold private parochial schools that get taxpayer funding to the same standard of accountability as public schools, she couldn't or wouldn't say. Asked about a family foundation that has donated millions of dollars to an organization promoting conversion therapy for LGBT youth, she claimed she had no involvement, which is ridiculous. Even if Mrs. DeVos's own role as vice president of that foundation was a 13-year clerical error, as she now claims, she herself has donated approximately $75,000 to support that anti-LGBT organization's work. Now, understand that none of these were difficult questions. None of these were gotchas. All of these failures took place during a single 5- minute-per-Senator round of questioning, because after that first round, the hearing was cut off and our chairman refused to allow any further questions. By the way, I would like to say a word about that move to cut off questioning. I have great respect for the chairman of the HELP Committee, Lamar Alexander. We have worked together, and he worked with Senator Murray on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, changing it to ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act. I respect the chairman tremendously. But his decision to end that hearing was wrong, and his rationale was simply false. Our chairman insisted that because Secretary Duncan and Secretary King had been subject to only a single round of questions, there was a precedent to deny the minority a second round of questioning of Mrs. DeVos. That simply isn't so. First of all, as I discussed earlier, both Ernie Duncan and John King were experienced education professionals with long records of public service. Even if Republican Members had occasion to disagree with them on policy matters, there was no question that their backgrounds had prepared them for the job of Secretary of Education, and that is the bigger point here. There were no further questions. In both cases, committee members weren't denied the opportunity for a second round of questioning. They simply chose not to engage in one. Indeed, when I asked the Congressional Research Service, they confirmed that those hearings did not establish the precedent that our chairman claimed. Instead of allowing us to question Mrs. DeVos further, the chairman invited us to submit additional questions in writing, presumably so that she could get some help from her Trump administration handlers in answering them. Even so, her written responses only served to further expose her own lack of understanding of how education policy affects Americans. For example, I asked Mrs. DeVos in writing about the effects of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on education. This is a subject I have been interested in for a long time. A lot of kids in our country live in extreme poverty. Some may have a parent in prison or a parent who has passed away. These kids may also experience physical abuse or emotional abuse or neglect. There may be some drug or alcohol abuse taking place in the house. Some have witnessed domestic violence in their home or street violence in their neighborhood. Some have seen siblings shot and killed right in front of them. Decades of research have shown that the trauma that comes from such adverse childhood experiences actually changes a child's brain chemistry and affects their behavioral development, their mental and physical health, and their chances to succeed in school and in society longterm. But research has also shown that these challenges can be overcome and that the kids who do overcome them are the most resilient kids you have ever met. Our public education system was designed to give these kids a shot. Teachers and administrators often lack the resources they need to give these children the chance they deserve. Because Mrs. DeVos's crusade for school vouchers would further rob our public schools of these limited funds, I wanted to know her thoughts on this important issue. This is take-home. Her written answer was brief and superficial. She wrote that she had heard that children are impacted by trauma and that trauma can cause difficulties in a child's education. That was it. Was she unfamiliar with the literature? Was she unwilling to acknowledge that poor kids face special challenges? Would she be remotely interested in addressing these challenges as Secretary of Education? I guess we may never know. I also asked Mrs. DeVos in writing about her vision for education in rural communities. As the Presiding Officer knows--the Governor and now Senator from South Dakota--many of our children in America attend school in rural America, 10 million American kids, schools that struggle with teacher shortages and transportation challenges. I asked how would her school choice agenda help them. In her response, she pointed to online schools, which are often run by for-profit companies, many with questionable records. In fact, one of the country's biggest online schools recently agreed to a $168.5 million settlement in California for allegedly defrauding families--a $168.5 million settlement. But even online schools that aren't out to rip off students often wind up failing them. A 2015 Stanford study showed that, on average, kids in online schools lose the equivalent of 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in math, and that is for each 180-day school year, which means that kids in online schools can fall up to a year behind in math. Of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, many rural communities lack reliable broadband access. I have been on rural education tours where I find students who go to a McDonald's parking lot so they can get WiFi to read their public school assignment or get materials to study. This is another answer that wasn't an answer at all, yet another piece of evidence that Mrs. DeVos is simply not up to this job. Like many Americans, I have serious concerns about many aspects of the Trump administration's agenda. Still, I believe that as a United States Senator, it is my job to evaluate each nominee on his or her own merits. That is why I voted for nominees like Secretary Mattis and Secretary Chao, even though I disagree with them on important issues. General Mattis, for example, has nearly a half century of military service under his belt, he has earned the respect of leaders on both sides of the aisle, and I believe he will be a much needed voice of reason on the Trump administration's foreign policy. Ms. Chao has a lengthy background in public service, including as Secretary of Labor and Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I believe she will bring significant and valuable experience to her important role. I may well take issue with the decisions they make and the agenda they implement as members of President Trump's Cabinet, but at the very least, each illustrated during their confirmation hearings that they have a basic understanding of the issues they will be responsible for. Mrs. DeVos is different. I have heard from Minnesotans about many of President Trump's nominees, but the outcry over this nomination far surpasses anything else. As of a week ago, my office had received 3,000 calls about this nominee. A grand total of 12 were in favor of her confirmation. Additionally, we received more than 18,000 letters and emails, and again the overwhelming majority of them have urged me to oppose this nomination. For example, a woman from Brainerd, MN, wrote to say that she never contacted one of her representatives before and didn't consider herself very political--in fact, she was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but she has a daughter in second grade and a son beginning kindergarten in the fall, and she wanted me to vote against Betsy DeVos. ``How,'' she asked, ``is someone who has never had any experience in public education supposed to competently preside over it?'' A mother of two public school students in Faribault, MN, wrote of Mrs. DeVos: ``As I watched her during the hearing, I was in disbelief that she would be appointed to such an important position.'' Another constituent from Warren, MN, wrote: ``This woman is so unqualified, it's scary.'' Last week, I went to dinner with Vice President Walter Mondale at his favorite restaurant. Afterward, he took me into the kitchen to greet some of the men and women who worked at the restaurant. One of the guys in the kitchen--I am a little unclear of whether he was taking dishes to the dishwasher or he was washing dishes. He is not a teacher, he is not an education advocate, just a guy who works in the kitchen. He said: ``Please vote against DeVos.'' There is a reason why this nomination has been met with such overwhelming resistance on the part of the American people, and I know I am not the only one who has heard it. In fact, two of my Republican colleagues and fellow HELP Committee members who sat through that hearing, Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski, have stepped forward to announce they cannot vote for this nominee. They don't agree with me on every aspect of education policy, but, believe me, when we put ESSA-- Every Student Succeeds Act--together, the committee voted unanimously. There is a lot of agreement on education policy on our committee, but Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski saw the same hearing I did. Like me, they saw a nominee who simply does not understand the needs of the students our Secretary of Education is supposed to serve. I will let my colleagues speak for themselves as to the reasons why they will be joining me in voting against this nominee, but I would like to close by asking a few questions of my colleagues who are still considering a vote in her favor. If Mrs. DeVos's performance didn't convince you that she lacks the qualifications for this job, what would have had to have happened in that hearing in order to convince you? If you cannot bring yourself to vote against this nominee, is there anyone President Trump could nominate for any position that you could vote against? If we cannot set party loyalty aside long enough to perform the essential duty of vetting the President's nominees, what are we even doing here? The Constitution gives us the power to reject Cabinet nominations specifically so we can prevent fundamentally ill-equipped nominees like Betsy DeVos from assuming positions of power for which they are not qualified. Let's do our job. For the sake of our children, let's do our job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN.--on behalf of the more than 2.3 million Minnesotans who can no longer be discriminated against because of the ACA.

Mr. FRANKEN. I vote no--

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, like my colleagues here today, I rise to talk about the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I have been talking to a lot of people in Minnesota who have health insurance, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, or whose lives are changed by the protections in the ACA that benefit every American. Frankly, they are scared, hard-working people for whom this is literally life or death. If their health insurance is taken away, they do not know what they are going to do. Today, on their behalf, I have one request for my Republican colleagues: Show us your health care plan. You must have one. We would like to hear it. We would like to see it now. You can understand the question, right? If your child had cancer and the Affordable Care Act was the reason you could get health insurance, you wouldn't want to rip up the ACA before knowing what would replace it. I am not the only Senator with constituents whose lives are on the line here, so I know that you don't intend to rip up the Affordable Care Act and leave them with nothing. You have to have a plan, right? So let's just see it. Last week, President Obama said that if Republicans produce a plan that is ``demonstrably better than ObamaCare,'' he would support it, and so will I. Just show it to me. President-Elect Trump clearly has a plan. He laid it out, laid it all out during his campaign. His plan was, he said, to ``repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something terrific.'' That is what he said. Then he went into a little more detail and explained that ``something terrific'' would be ``so much better, so much better, so much better.'' Terrific. So much better. That sounds great. Let's see it. One of Trump's top advisers said on MSNBC: ``We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance.'' Great. Neither do we. Speaker Ryan said that there will ``be a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off.'' That is wonderful. No one being worse off is exactly what we want to see. I am sure Speaker Ryan's staff was mistaken when they later told a reporter that the ``no one worse off'' applied only to the transition period, not to the replacement period. Show me the plan, please. Please show me the plan that keeps coverage for the 20 million people who have gained coverage that would continue to bend the cost curve so the cost of the entire health care system continues to grow less quickly than it did before ACA was adopted, the plan that would ensure that nobody gets denied coverage when they need it or has to unfairly pay more than someone else because of their gender or a preexisting condition. Show me that plan. I know Republicans have put forward some different plans, a lot of different plans, but a lot of plans is not a plan. A lot of plans is not a plan. We want to see the plan, you know, the one you have been working on for 6 years. I was here in 2009 when we passed the ACA. I know how hard it was. If I could, let me offer you something. Some of your Republican friends actually did come up with a health care plan a while ago. It all started at the Heritage Foundation, which is a bona fide conservative think tank. Over at Heritage, they did not like the idea of single-payer health care insurance, where the government is everyone's insurer. So what they wanted to come up with was a way to use the magic of the marketplace to solve the problem of providing everyone access to insurance. Here is what they came up with, a three-legged stool. The first leg is, insurance companies can't deny coverage to people with a preexisting condition. They can't charge them more. We can all agree on that, right? President-Elect Trump and I agree on that, for sure. It is a great idea--great idea--but there is a catch. If you can not turn people down because of preexisting conditions, you cannot charge them more, well then everyone would just wait to buy health insurance until they get sick and need care. But the whole idea of health insurance is that at any given moment, most of the people paying premiums are healthy. So their premiums cover the cost of the people who are sick. If the only people with insurance are sick, the premiums will skyrocket. So you need a way to get healthy people into the system to bring the cost of insurance down, which brings us to leg No. 2. Everyone has to be insured, otherwise known as the individual mandate. Everyone has to be insured. The Heritage Foundation said that. They called it the free rider syndrome. They said, no, everyone has to be insured. This is what conservatives now say they hate; that the government says everyone has to buy insurance. But if you have to sell everyone insurance, then everyone has to buy it or the cost explodes. Now, look, if you have a better way to keep people covered and keep costs down, show me the plan. Show me the plan. But this is the best one the Heritage Foundation could come up with. But wait, what if someone can't afford that health insurance? That brings us to the third leg. The government will subsidize insurance for people who can't afford it. Voila. There you have it, the Heritage Foundation plan, which a Republican Governor then implemented in a State to huge success. Let me ask you, my Republican friends, is that your plan? Because if it is, it works for me. Guess what. Then we don't even have to repeal the Affordable Care Act in order to replace it with this plan because this plan was the model for the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Premiums went up a lot this fall for people buying insurance through the marketplace. It is often ignored that subsidies cover the cost increases for about 70 percent of those folks, but for many those increases genuinely hurt. That is a real problem. Then the solution to it is to recognize that subsidies don't provide enough help and don't go to enough people. Let's fix that. There are places where there is not enough competition. The best and most direct solution that I know of is to introduce a public option. If my Republican colleagues have another idea about how to address these costs and competition issues that would ensure that people don't lose their coverage, I am ready to roll up my sleeves and go to work. While we are honest about the shortcomings, let's not forget the bottom line. As a primary care doctor for Indiana University's Health Physicians said, ``I've been a registered Republican my whole life, but I support the Affordable Care Act because it allows patients to be taken care of.'' For 6 years, you have been blasting the ACA, promising to replace it with something better. Let's see what you have, but don't just tell me your plan. I want you to join me on a trip to Minnesota to see Dolly. Dolly is one of my constituents who wrote to me about her husband's pulmonary embolism. Before the ACA, she and her husband both had jobs that did not offer health insurance, but once the ACA passed, they were able to buy insurance and go to the doctor. The doctor discovered her husband's embolism and saved his life. I would like you to look Dolly in the eye and explain how your plan--your plan--will ensure that her husband's life will not be endangered. I would like you to join me in talking to Gina. Before the ACA became law, Gina's father was undergoing treatment for leukemia. Then one day he was told he had hit the lifetime maximum on his insurance coverage. From that point on, the family would have to pay for his treatment out of pocket, but they did not have the money so they stopped treatment. Gina's father died 3 days later. Since then, Gina's fiance was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. So I want you to explain to Gina how exactly under your plan Gina will not face the same kind of impossible financial situation with her future husband's condition that she did with her dad. Sit down with Gina and tell her that. Now, once you are done calming Gina's concerns about what your plan might do to her family, we will go over and talk to Leanna. Leanna's 3- year-old son Henry has been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. His treatment will last until at least April of 2018. He often needs around-the-clock care to manage his nausea, vomiting, pain, and sleepless nights. Little Henry's immune system is so compromised that he is not supposed to go to daycare. So Leanna has left her job to take care of him. They are supported by her spouse, but they could not pay for his treatment on one salary. Leanna says: It is because of the ACA that Henry gets proper health care. Henry can get therapy and the things he needs to maintain his health and work towards beating cancer. Henry is still with us because of the ACA. Let me say that again. ``Henry is still with us because of the ACA.'' I want you to sit down with Leanna, as she holds her precious 3-year- old son, and explain how Henry will still be with us under your plan. Show us your plan. Show us your plan. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, first I wish to associate myself with Members who came to the floor this evening to talk about the CR. I will be voting against it. This isn't about shutting the government down. This is about the House putting forward a bill really without consultation with Senate Democrats--there was some, but at first there was none--and then leaving town. I feel that we could easily do a very short-term CR to hash out a few of these matters--the health care for miners and their widows being foremost in my mind. That easily could have been done. It is not as if we worked in this body too many days this year, and I think we could have worked next week to iron this out, to hash this out. I will be voting no because if we really care about the working people in this country, we really ought to be protecting their pensions and their health care. Remembering Captain Luis Montalvan Mr. President, I rise today to honor a very special man and friend of mine, CPT Luis Montalvan, one of my personal heroes. On Monday I received the news that Luis had died last Friday. This has been a difficult week, and I am grieving Luis's death. Luis deserves to be honored because he dedicated his life to helping other veterans cope with the same struggles he faced after returning from war. I hope to do him justice because his story deserves to be told. I met Luis in January of 2009 at an IAVA event--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Luis was there with Tuesday, his service dog. I love dogs, and so I immediately went to Luis and to Tuesday. He told me that he could not have been there if it weren't for Tuesday. I asked him what Tuesday did for him. He told me he had severe PTSD, and he had been an agoraphobic, which is why he couldn't have been there without Tuesday. I asked him what Tuesday did for him. He said Tuesday could anticipate when he was going to have a panic attack by the smell of his perspiration or changes in his breathing pattern and that Tuesday would nuzzle him, and he wouldn't have the panic attack. Luis talked about how he had debilitating nightmares. If he started thrashing in his bed, Tuesday would jump on the bed, wake him up, and he wouldn't have to endure a debilitating nightmare. He said he was agoraphobic, so he didn't go out. He got Tuesday as a service dog. He had been drinking very heavily, alcoholically, and he was offered this opportunity--this chance to have a service dog, to be paired with this service dog. He was trained with Tuesday. Tuesday had been trained a couple of years beforehand, including by a prisoner who had been serving a sentence for second-degree murder and had been a big part of Tuesday's training. That man was released from prison and now trains dogs for a living. He has a business doing it. He brought Tuesday back to his apartment in Brooklyn, a small apartment that he couldn't leave. He said he learned something about having a dog. You have to take a dog out at least twice a day. He learned something else, which is that people don't go up to scruffy- looking wounded vets--he walked with a cane because of part of his wounds in Iraq--but they will go up to a scruffy-looking wounded vet with a beautiful dog. Having Tuesday broke his isolation. He got out of his apartment, into life, and starting attending Columbia University School of Journalism. I was so inspired by meeting Luis and Tuesday that, while I was waiting for my election to the Senate to be resolved in 2009, which took about 6 more months--I met him in January of 2009--I spent a lot of that time during my recount and then the legal actions after that researching service dogs and the benefits they bring to their owners. When I got to the Senate, the first piece of legislation I introduced was quickly passed into law. Johnny Isakson of Georgia was my lead cosponsor. The bill was designed to increase the number of service dogs for veterans. Luis inspired that. In 2011, after graduating from journalism school, Luis turned his story into a book entitled: ``Until Tuesday: A Wounded Warrior and the Dog Who Saved Him,'' which chronicled his journey after returning from Iraq. It was a very candid and deeply moving account of his struggle. I have always admired the bravery it took for Luis to share his story. In the year since the book came out, he had been traveling around the country, sharing his story with lots of people, giving speeches and interviews about his experience. He even had the chance to appear on the David Letterman Show with Tuesday. It was something I know Luis really enjoyed. Luis wrote two children's books about Tuesday. His book ``Tuesday Takes Me There: The Healing Journey of a Veteran and his Service Dog'' is one of my grandson Joe's favorite books. Luis wrote these children's books so kids could learn about how Tuesday changed his life and helped him by helping him through his daily activities. This year had been a difficult year for Luis. Despite Tuesday's steadying presence, Luis was still feeling pain in his leg when he walked. Sometimes that made it difficult to get around. To ease the pain, he had his leg amputated a few months ago, and he was in an intensive therapy program to relearn to walk with a prosthetic. He had other physical difficulties though. I talked to Luis's parents this week to call them and tell them how sorry I was for their profound loss, and they told me that among other health difficulties, he was suffering from very severe heart problems. So he was going through a difficult period. I wish to celebrate the legacy he leaves behind, his legacy of helping veterans cope with life after combat. Because of Luis, more veterans are now able to access service dogs. Let me tell you something about these amazing dogs. Obviously, a service dog can't do everything, but they do a lot to help. Service dogs raise their master's sense of well-being. They help reduce depression. They ward off panic attacks--as they did with Luis. They assist when their owner needs help standing back up after falling. They do so many things--and not just for veterans. They do it for diabetics. They can smell when the blood sugar is too low. They can be companions for autistic kids. The parents had told me that they could take their child to the mall now because they won't act out because they are taking care of their service dog while their service dog is taking care of them. For veterans living with service-related injuries, these dogs can make a tremendous difference between veterans having a very good life-- a decent life--and a very difficult one. My bill was a step in the direction to make sure that all veterans who need a service dog are able to get one. Still, we must realize that so many of our veterans still struggle mightily, sometimes years and decades after they come home. The hard truth is that in many ways we are family--our vets. The VA estimates that upwards of 20 percent of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan suffer from PTSD. Twelve percent of gulf veterans and 30 percent of Vietnam veterans have suffered PTSDs during their lifetime. These statistics should serve as a sobering reminder of the pain that so many veterans live with. It should remind us that unless you yourself have seen combat--which I have not--there is really no way to ever fully understand what they have gone through. I know I certainly don't, but I do know that these men and women put themselves in harm's way in service to our country, and it is our obligation to do everything we can to help them when they come back. As Members of Congress, it is our responsibility--more than anyone else's in this country--to do right by them. I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I do know we can do better. Luis was my friend. He was a good man who loved his country and wanted nothing more than to help ease the pain that so many of his fellow veterans experienced. I don't have the words to describe the sadness I feel knowing Luis is gone. There is a lot to learn from Luis's book about what these men and women endure when they come back from war, but learning about the relationship between Luis and Tuesday is really one of my favorite parts. Here is one of my favorite passages. And remember that one of the things Tuesday could do for Luis is anticipate panic attacks. Here is the quote, and this is from his book. Tuesday quietly crossed our apartment as I read a book and, after a nudge against my arm, put his head on my lap. As always, I immediately checked my mental state, trying to assess what was wrong. I knew a change in my biorhythms had brought Tuesday over, because he was always monitoring me, but I couldn't figure out what it was. Breathing? Okay. Pulse? Normal. Was I glazed or distracted? Was I lost in Iraq? Was a dark period descending? I didn't think so, but I knew something must be wrong, and I was starting to worry . . . until I looked into Tuesday's eyes. They were staring at me softly from under those big eyebrows, and there was nothing in them but love. Luis, I want you to know that while you are not with us anymore, I am so proud of you. I am so proud that you were brave enough to serve your country for 17 years, and then brave enough to share the story of the hardship you faced afterward. I am so proud of you for giving hope to other veterans who faced the same struggles you did. Your book sits on my Senate desk still and always will. It will stay there as a reminder of the man I am proud to have called my friend. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN

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

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, as we enter the holiday season, today should be a special day for 4.2 million working Americans, including 75,000 Minnesotans. That is because today was supposed to be the day that the overtime rule would go into effect to ensure that workers are paid overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Instead, the rule has been blocked, meaning that many of these working people will not be able to benefit from this rule, which is especially unfortunate given that the holidays are coming upon us. Right now, these 4.2 million employees don't have to be paid at all for overtime work they perform. That is what we are trying to change. As you know, we had a big election in which working people sent the clear message they are hurting. Yet less than a month later, Republicans have decided to attack a rule that would ensure that American workers are paid for every hour they work. This is exactly the type of policy we should all be able to agree on to help working people across the country. During the campaign, President-Elect Trump repeatedly said he was for working people. One important action he could take immediately would be to go on his twitter account and express support for the overtime rule. Here is why this rule matters so much. As our economy has changed in the past couple of decades, the rule on overtime pay has not kept pace at all. The last meaningful improvement for workers covered by this rule came in 1975, when the rule made 62 percent of so-called administrative and professional employees eligible for overtime pay. As a result of failing to keep the rule up-to-date and current with the rate of inflation, right now only 7 percent of employees in that category must be paid overtime. The Obama administration's update to the overtime rule was intended to change the fact that under the standard right now, employers aren't required to pay overtime to these employees unless the employees earn less than $23,000 a year. If you are paid on a salary basis and earn more than $23,000 a year, your employer can make you work more than 40 hours a week and not pay you anything at all for your extra hours. Twenty-three thousand dollars is simply too low of a threshold. A salary of $23,000 a year is below the poverty line for a family of four. I believe workers and their families deserve better. That is why the Obama administration instituted an update to the overtime rule, to lift the salary threshold to $47,000 a year, bringing it closer to the original standard in place in 1975. It still wouldn't be as high as the comparable level in 1975, but it would be a vast improvement, and it would mean that 4.2 million more workers across the United States would qualify for overtime pay. Consider a retail manager making a salary of $40,000 a year at a big box store or fast-food chain. Right now, many employers are legally allowed to require such an employee to work 50, 60 or more hours in a week without paying him or her anything extra. This new rule would mean the employee would be paid extra when they work more than 40 hours a week. Similarly, the rule would make sure a trucking dispatcher earning $45,000 a year would not be forced to work late at night without compensation. The rule encourages his or her employer to send employees home to his or her family on time or else the employer will pay them for the overtime he or she works. This is very important for working men and women in America. That is why many of my colleagues and I have been strong supporters of this rule. That is why it has been very disappointing to see so many of my Republican colleagues attack and ultimately try to dismantle this rule. They have been attacking the rule ever since it was proposed. They have set out on a campaign to delay, to water down, or to block the rule entirely. In the Senate, 45 Republicans have signed on to a bill to block it. In the House, 202 Members have signed on to a companion measure to that bill. House Speaker Paul Ryan claims the rule is an ``absolute disaster,'' and Senator Vitter claims the rule will ``reduce worker's opportunity for long-term advancement and increased pay.'' Despite their attacks on this updated rule in the House and in the Senate, Republicans weren't able to block it through the legislative process. So they took their fight to the courts, where they used their old tactic of forum shopping, where they file a suit in the court they think is most likely to be favorable for their arguments. As a result, 9 days ago, they convinced a Texas judge to put the updated overtime rule on hold. The 4.2 million workers who today were scheduled to be paid for every hour they work above the 40 could continue to be forced to work overtime without the additional compensation they deserve. As our economy has continued to recover from the Great Recession, too much of the wealth in the last few years has accrued to the top 1 percent in this country and often the top one-tenth of 1 percent. While new data suggests the economy has improved a bit for middle-class workers since last year, the median household income in the United States remains lower than it was in the year 2000 in real dollars. Updating our overtime pay rule is one of the most effective steps we can take to put working people back on a more level economic playing field. I hope my colleagues will join me today in pledging to fight in Congress, the executive branch, and the courts for a fairer system for all workers and for updating this incredibly outdated overtime rule. Let's hope that the postponement of the new rule today will be temporary. Let's join forces on behalf of American workers to stand strong in support of a fair overtime rule and to work together to build a stronger American middle class. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the President- elect's selection of Stephen Bannon, a divisive figure and former head of the alt-right Web site Breitbart to serve as Chief Strategist and Senior Counsel to the President. In the early hours of November 9, after it became clear that he had officially won the race for the White House, President-Elect Trump appeared before his supporters to deliver a victory speech. He said, ``Now it's time for America to bind the wounds of division. . . . To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this Nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.'' After a long and contentious campaign, it seemed to me that the President-elect implicitly acknowledged that some of the rhetoric he had used during the race had alienated and offended many of our communities. He said, ``I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be the President for all Americans.'' It is no secret that I did not support President-Elect Trump during the campaign, but despite the fact that I disagreed passionately with our President-elect about the best way to approach many if not most of the challenges facing our Nation, I truly believe that there are places where we can find some common ground. We both understand the need to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and to send Americans back to work repairing our roads, bridges, and schools. Both President- Elect Trump and I support closing the carried interest loophole, which allows private equity and hedge fund managers to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. These are issues on which I look forward to working with the next administration, so one can understand why I was encouraged by President-Elect Trump's call for unity. Once an election is over and the heat of the campaign has subsided, the American people expect our leaders to come together to find common cause and get to work solving our Nation's problems. I was disappointed when, just a few days later, I learned that the President-elect had selected former Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon to serve as his Chief Strategist and Senior Counsel, a position the President-elect described as an ``equal partner'' to his incoming White House Chief of Staff. The selection of Mr. Bannon to serve at the very highest level of our government does not signal a willingness to set aside our differences and embrace unity--far from it. Before Mr. Bannon joined the Trump campaign, where he was widely credited as the chief architect of its most corrosive tactics, Mr. Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart News. Breitbart News, for those who are not familiar with it, is a conservative Web site founded by the late Andrew Breitbart. Even from its inception, Breitbart was a bastion of far-right ideology whose writers and editorial editors unapologetically courted controversy. But the site took a darker turn shortly after Mr. Bannon took it over in 2012. ``I think anger is a good thing,'' Mr. Bannon is quoted as telling a gathering of conservative activists, and it shows. Mr. Bannon guided Breitbart away from more mainstream conservative opinion to instead traffic in an ideology of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. Even a former Breitbart editor, who has lamented the site's hard shift to the extreme right, described its comment section as ``turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers.'' This Senator thinks it is important for the public to understand exactly how Mr. Bannon's Breitbart describes its fellow citizens. Here are just a few articles that Breitbart published under Mr. Bannon's direction. ``Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield.'' Included in this article is the line, ``Giffords is their human shield--the gun control representative who could do and say what she wanted without facing any real pressure to prove her claims were true.'' Two weeks to the day after nine people were murdered at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, Breitbart published, ``Hoist it High and Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims a Glorious Heritage.'' In the article, the writer asks: ``Barack, you might just want to remind us again which state of the Union, north or south, your ancestors resided in during the traumatic years 1861-1865? Or did Kenya not have a dog in that fight?'' In ``Political Correctness Protects Muslim Rape Culture,'' the author describes cases of sexual assault in Europe, but warns that ``you won't hear much about it in U.S. mainstream media because the epidemic is a byproduct of the influx into Europe of a million, mostly Muslim, migrants.'' ``Mexico is Sending us Colonists, Not Immigrants'' is a story in which readers are warned that ``Mexico sees Mexicans in the United States as strategic assets in every sense of that word. They are seen as extensions of the Mexican state and partners in Mexico's plan.'' This is nasty stuff. This is vile. It comes all the way from the top, from Mr. Bannon himself. In July, Mr. Bannon wrote a piece for Breitbart, in which he accused his political opponents of a ``plot to take down America'' by focusing on the need to improve the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. That was the plot to take down America. The article opened with Mr. Bannon explicitly and baselessly linking the man responsible for shooting police officers in Dallas, TX, to the Black Lives Matter movement. Mr. Bannon wrote: ``Five police officers are murdered in Dallas by a [hashtag] Black Lives Matter-type activist- turned-sniper.'' There is no question that the Dallas shooter was a troubled man who harbored hate in his heart, a man whom investigators determined was himself motivated by racist ideologies, but there is no evidence suggesting that the shooter was a member of Black Lives Matter, a movement born in opposition to violence and hate. He was not an ``activist-turned-sniper,'' a turn of phrase Mr. Bannon crafted to suggest that two roles exist along a continuum, to suggest that it is only a matter of time before the peaceful protesters take up arms. It is bad enough that Mr. Bannon sought to fan the flames of fear, anxiety, and turn our communities against Americans peacefully exercising their first amendment rights. Mr. Bannon's article did not stop at impugning activists who protest officer-involved shootings. No. Mr. Bannon proceeded to cast suspicion upon an entire race. He wrote: Here's a thought: What if the people getting shot by the cops did things to deserve it? There are, after all, in this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and violent. Wild conspiracy theories aside, there is a name for that kind of tactic. It is called a dog whistle. To some, such rhetoric may not appear overtly racist, and make no mistake, that is by design. Not every person who hears that kind of language understands that by saying that ``some people are naturally aggressive and violent,'' Mr. Bannon is suggesting that Black people--after all the ones who were shot by the police--are naturally aggressive and violent. But to the alt-right, to those who read his Web site, Mr. Bannon's meaning is all too clear. Now, Mr. Bannon does not always attempt to cloak his views. At times, connecting lines he draws are much clearer. In the very same article, Mr. Bannon suggested that efforts by the Obama administration to pursue gun safety measures in the wake of the Orlando shooting are nothing more than an effort to divert attention away from refugees. Never mind that refugees were not involved in the incident. Let's all remember that the tragedy at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, a shooting in which 49 people were murdered, and 53 others were wounded, was carried out by an American-born U.S. citizen. Nonetheless, Mr. Bannon wrote: ``In the wake of Orlando, the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton cheering it on, intoned against guns and `hate,' and is now back to importing more hating Muslims.'' To suggest that members of a peaceful protest movement like Black Lives Matter were in league with a cold-blooded killer, that the sympathies of the President of the United States lie not with the victims of gun violence but instead with those who would seek to do us harm, to pit members of vulnerable communities against one another-- LGBT people against refugees, peaceful protesters against the cops who rushed to shield them from gunfire--is abhorrent. Regrettably, we have no reason to believe Mr. Bannon would not seek to deploy such tactics from the White House. After all, they featured prominently in the Trump campaign's final television ad. In the spot, the President-elect's voice warns that ``those who control the levers of power in Washington'' and ``global special interests'' don't have America's best interests at heart. At the same time, images of George Soros, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein--all prominent Jews-- flash on the screen. To those who may not know better, such an ad could seem innocuous, but, to me, its message is obvious. The ad's anti- Semitic overtones, which draw on an old and hateful conspiracy theory about Jews controlling banks and financial markets, were obvious to me. I called it a German shepherd whistle designed to be heard in some of the darkest remaining corners of our country and our world. Politics that rely on this type of innuendo--Stephen Bannon's brand of politics--has no place in a modern Presidential campaign, and it certainly has no place in the White House. Let's be clear. The use of racially charged rhetoric and innuendo is repulsive. The very purpose of deploying dog-whistle politics in the context of a campaign is to attract the support of people who harbor hateful ideologies without offending the sensibilities of more mainstream voters. Every Member of this body should condemn rhetoric that sows the seeds of discourse. It is our obligation, not just as Senators but as Americans, to stand up to Mr. Bannon's hateful, decisive brand of politics and reject it. We cannot change the fact that such strategy has played a role in this campaign, but moving forward, it is imperative that we not allow these corrosive tactics to become normalized. We cannot allow them to become a regular part of our politics. If President-Elect Trump truly meant what he said during his victory speech, if he truly hopes to be President for all Americans, he will recognize that such tactics stand in the way of that goal and he will renounce them. The women and men the leader chooses to surround himself with show the public what kind of leader he will be. President-Elect Trump has a choice: Will he truly attempt to ``bind the wounds of division'' or will our next President seek counsel from a man who proudly traffics in hatred, half-truths, and pernicious innuendo? Will President-Elect Trump's administration open its doors to all people or will it seek to govern from exploiting old prejudices and pitting us against one another? The campaign is over, but the wounds inflicted during a long battle remain raw. It is time to set about the work of healing them. I urge President-Elect Trump to begin that work by surrounding himself with people equal to the task. Mr. Bannon is not one of them. He should not serve in the next administration. I call on President- Elect Trump to appeal to America's better angels and to reject the dark politics represented by Stephen Bannon.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the 30th anniversary of post-secondary enrollment options for high school students and the former Governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, who founded this program. Mr. Perpich was the longest serving Governor of Minnesota and a proud member of the Democratic farm and labor party in our great State. Since 1986, Minnesota's high school juniors and seniors have had the opportunity to participate in courses at the college level for dual credit and at no cost to the student or their family. The program has even grown now to allow sophomores to participate. This has made the transition between high school and college so much easier and affordable for our students. I have been honored to continue this effort in the Senate as we reformed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Schools across the country can now invest in accelerated learning programs, including dual enrollment programs, like post- secondary enrollment options, as part of their efforts to provide students with a well-rounded education. In 2014, more than 9,000 Minnesota students took advantage of post- secondary enrollment option courses. With the growing cost of college, it is more important than ever that we continue to champion opportunities for students to save. Today I would like to honor Governor Rudy Perpich for investing in the education of our children and working to make higher education more accessible and affordable for all students.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today, on behalf of all Minnesotans, I rise to thank my good friend--and a real jewel in the crown of Minnesota agriculture--Doug Peterson, as he retires as president of the Minnesota Farmers Union after 14 years of leading that important organization. To say family farming is important to Minnesota is an understatement. One in five jobs in our State is connected to agriculture, and as Doug often told me, when Minnesota farmers and ranchers succeed, prosperity follows. In all, Doug spent four decades as an influential voice on farm policy, as a family farmer, a State legislator, and, since 2002, as head of the Minnesota Farmers Union. It is fair to say that a great many national, State, and local leaders have looked to Doug not only for advice and counsel, but also to publicly lead the fight on behalf of our family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. And I have to tell you, after going through the last farm bill debate, he is one hell of a fighter, and our State and our farmers have reaped the benefits of his work many times over. For me, as a Senator, Doug was an important mentor. He helped teach me what it takes to put crops in the ground and to get that same crop to market. He also invited me to visit farms across the State to see firsthand the time, expense, and hard work required to raise a bushel of corn or soybeans, a ton of sugar beets, or to produce a gallon of milk. Those lessons have been important to me as I have fought for Minnesota producers in the Senate. Doug has always known how important our farmers and ranchers are to our Nation's food security and, thus, our national security. And he worked hard to ensure that people in Minnesota and across the country knew how critical our producers are to feeding a world with a growing population. As our Nation increasingly comes to grips with the causes and seriousness of climate change, it is important to point out that Doug was on the leading edge of Minnesota's clean energy transition for several decades. As a State legislator, he was instrumental in making Minnesota a national leader in ethanol production. As a champion for renewable energy, his priority was not only to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and to cut our use of fossil fuels, but also to create badly needed jobs and economic development in rural communities across Minnesota. Doug has always been a tireless fighter for family farmers, and he pushed hard against the excessive concentration of foreign and corporate power in U.S. agriculture because those forces were pushing food prices up for American consumers. He knew that our Nation's network of family farms have always delivered a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply to the American people, while receiving just 18 cents of every dollar spent on food in this country. That is a pretty good deal by any measure and one that more Americans should appreciate. So, to Doug, I say a heartfelt thank you for your years of important work, your friendship, and for teaching us all about how important Minnesota farming is to our State, to our Nation, and to the world. Your service has made a positive difference to a generation of Minnesota producers, and the work you have done will continue to serve our State well, long into the future. I wish you and your wife, Elly, your two sons, and your entire family the best of luck in the future, and I hope you continue to thrive in your well-earned retirement.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Central States Pension Fund crisis and a proposal to address that, but before I do, I want to take a moment to talk about the horrific events that unfolded in St. Cloud, MN, this past weekend. The investigation is ongoing, but we know that last Saturday evening a man dressed in a security guard uniform took to the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, MN, and senselessly stabbed nine people. Fortunately, they have all been treated and discharged. This was a heinous attack, and I hope that all the victims and their families know that Minnesotans are thinking of them. Mr. President, I also want to commend the actions of Jason Falconer, the off-duty police officer who bravely stopped the attacker before he could hurt anybody else. If it weren't for him, we could have seen many more injuries and even the loss of life. I also want to thank the St. Cloud police force and the police chief, William Blair Anderson, who set an example of how to lead during a crisis. I also thank the first responders and the doctors and the nurses for taking care of the victims. This event has shaken the city of St. Cloud and our entire State. Such senseless and hate-filled acts have no place in our society. Minnesota law enforcement and the FBI are investigating this event to see whether there were connections between the suspect and terrorist groups and what the motivations of the attacker were. We are going to get to the bottom of what happened. Central States Pension Fund Now, Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues to highlight a very important issue, the multiemployer pension system, which is facing severe funding shortfalls, and what that means for hundreds of thousands of retirees who will get their pensions cut if these funds fail. Over the last year, a number of my colleagues came to the Senate floor to talk about protecting the pensions of the United Mine Workers of America, the miners who toiled for years in dark, dirty, and dangerous mines to power our country. I am pleased the Committee on Finance has now taken action to begin moving a bill to address that issue. But today we are here to talk about another group of retirees who face drastic pension cuts. The Central States Pension Fund provides pensions for 22,000 blue-collar workers in Minnesota and nearly 400,000 nationwide. However, it faces a funding shortfall that means those retirees, including elderly workers and widows and the disabled, could face draconian cuts in less than a decade if Congress fails to act. Mr. President, those who work hard and are promised retirement security ought to be able to retire with dignity. That is a promise Congress made in 1974 when it enacted a law that guaranteed pensions would not be reduced, and that is what workers thought they could count on after years of hard work. But now that promise may be broken. If we break that promise, workers like Ken Petersen of South St. Paul, MN, will face spending the rest of their lives in poverty. Ken spent 30 years driving trucks as a Teamster before he retired in 2003. If the Central States fund is allowed to fail, Ken and his wife's retirement plans will be shattered and they will face financial uncertainty for the rest of their lives. It is wrong for us to abandon the blue-collar Americans who earned a modest retirement after a lifetime of work, and I am not going to stand idly by while those workers have their retirement and their dignity taken away from them. My approach would be to close a tax loophole that no one defends. It is called carried interest and allows Wall Street bankers and private equity fund managers to pay lower tax rates than most of the Central States Pension Fund members who drive trucks for a living pay. Again, to be clear, no one defends this loophole--not Democrats, not Republicans, and neither of their Presidential candidates. And closing it is one way we could help make sure our retirees get the pensions they have earned. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this loophole will cost taxpayers $15.9 billion over the next 10 years. That is enough to make sure Central States' retirees are able to have a secure retirement, and I think is a much better use of that money than giving an indefensible tax break to a relatively small group of already very wealthy people. Here is how carried interest works. When most workers, such as those in the Central States fund, earn a paycheck, their income is subject to tax at ordinary income tax rates. But private equity fund managers have been claiming their income is different simply because their job involves managing money. As a result, they pay taxes at the special low rate reserved for capital gains even if they are risking no money of their own. The same is true for managers of hedge funds if, say, a stock their fund has held for a year--stock bought with their investors' money--is sold for a profit. The manager gets a percentage of the profit, but they pay capital gains on that income even though they didn't risk any of their money. People who worked hard--like those truck drivers--were guaranteed their pensions would be there. It is up to us to keep faith with those people by closing this loophole. Again, no one defends this. Let's not forget what happened on Wall Street less than a decade ago. Risky bets by hedge funds, private equity funds, and big banks caused the biggest financial crisis of our lifetimes. And when that happened, Congress bailed out the banks with $700 billion of taxpayer money. Today, those banks and private equity funds are back to business as usual, but retirees from funds like Central States, which was fully funded before the financial crisis, haven't received the same support. Instead, they are going to be facing devastating cuts at times in their lives when they can least afford them. The hypocrisy is clear, but so far, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't been willing to propose real solutions to fix the pension crisis. Instead, they are offering paper solutions that put the burden entirely on beneficiaries or simply kick the can down the road. We need a real solution, and that is going to require us to take a good look at our priorities. Do we want to continue to subsidize Wall Street or do we want to help the hard-working men and women who dedicated their lives to driving our trucks, keeping us safe, and maintaining our roads? I think we need to acknowledge that Federal funds are going to be needed to keep the promises made to our retirees. Our Tax Code is riddled with loopholes that could be closed to fix this problem, but let's start with the most obvious and absurd tax loophole. We should close the carried interest loophole that helps private equity fund managers and hedge fund managers, and invest that money in the hardworking Americans whose retirement is being threatened. I yield to Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democrats control the next 30 minutes and the Republicans control the following 30 minutes.

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murphy, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee for their leadership on this very important issue. Since the Saudi-led coalition started a bombing campaign in Yemen in 2015, there has been an average of 13 civilian casualties each day, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This means that thousands of civilians have been killed or wounded in the U.S.-backed war in Yemen. This is unacceptable. People all across this country have been outraged at how the Saudis have conducted this war and believe that the United States should not acquiesce or support such conduct. Over the last decade, the United States has sold the Saudis over $100 billion in arms. The United States has also supported the Saudi-led coalition with air-to-air refueling sorties, intelligence sharing, and military advisory assistance. That kind of support should not go along with acceptance of the Saudi disregard for innocent human lives and innocent civilian lives. The legislation we will be voting on later today is a disapproval resolution regarding a $1.15 billion arms sale. The very fact that we are voting on it today sends a very important message to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that we are watching their actions closely and that the United States is not going to turn a blind eye to the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. Again, I would like to thank Senators Murphy, Paul, and Lee for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRANKEN

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize three outstanding Minnesota police officers. The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, the largest association representing Minnesota's rank-and-file police officers, met earlier this year for their annual conference and named Officer Sayareth Toy Vixayvong of the St. Paul Police Department ``Police Officer of the Year'' and gave ``Honorable Mention Awards'' to Officer Tony Holter of the St. Paul Police Department and Detective Bryan Bye of the Burnsville Police Department. Officer Vixayvong is a 15-year veteran of the St. Paul Police Department and, until recently, was assigned to the FBI Safe Streets Task Force, where he worked tirelessly to make St. Paul a safer place to live and work. Officer Vixayvong has spent his career fighting drug trafficking and has put numerous high-profile criminals behind bars and worked to prevent others from becoming involved in the illegal drug trade. Working undercover with the task force, he put his life on the line repeatedly to protect and serve his community of St. Paul. St. Paul Police Officer Tony Holter is a dedicated member of the St. Paul Police Department. He has served for 15 years and is currently the senior investigator in the Ramsey County Violent Crime Enforcement Team. Throughout the past year, Officer Holter has served as the primary undercover officer in a number of narcotic investigations focusing on members of international drug cartels and other dangerous drug dealers and gang members. Since 2002, Burnsville Detective Bryan Bye has loyally served his community as a member of the Burnsville Police Department. His work with Burnsville's Emergency Action Group tactical team has earned him five distinguished service awards for his tactical response. In 2015, the Burnsville Police Department named Detective Bye ``Police Officer of the Year.'' I join with the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association and all of my fellow Minnesotans in applauding these three distinguished public servants. I would also like to thank not only these three individuals, but all of Minnesota's brave law enforcement officers who work tirelessly to keep our communities safe from harm. They put their lives on the line to protect our safety and that of our families every day.