Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DISCLOSE Act and the need to take action to get secret money out of our elections. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this legislation--and testimony at the Rules Committee hearing I held on it this summer--as well as Leader Schumer for holding this vote. Senator Whitehouse has championed this bill since 2012, and I have been proud to support it alongside him in every Congress. This vote could not come at a more important time, as we are seeing an unprecedented flood of money into our elections. Over $14 billion was spent during the 2020 elections, the most expensive in our country's history. As we approach the general election in November, with 48 days left, this is already the most expensive midterm election ever. One estimate expects that nearly $10 billion will be spent just on political advertising this election cycle, more than double the $4 billion in the 2018 midterm elections. As spending on elections increases, the sources of the spending are less accountable than ever before. One investigation found that more than $1 billion was spent on the 2020 elections by groups that do not disclose their donors at all. Americans know there is way too much money in our elections, and--for our democracy to work--we need to know where this money is coming from. But since the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United opened up the flood of outside money, no significant improvements have been made to our disclosure laws or regulations. Unlimited, anonymous spending in our elections doesn't encourage free speech; it drowns out the voices of the American people who are seeking to participate. And this unrelenting secret spending will continue unless we take action to address it, which is why we need to pass the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act would address this tidal wave of secret money by requiring outside groups that spend in our elections to disclose their large donors--those that contribute more than $10,000--to the public. Importantly, the bill also makes it harder for wealthy special interests to hide their contributions or cloak the identity of donors; and it cracks down on the use of shell companies to conceal donations from foreign nationals. I held a hearing on the bill in the Rules Committee this summer, where we heard about the effects that secret money is having on our democracy--and why we need to pass this legislation. Senator Whitehouse testified at that hearing, and he spoke powerfully about the impact that secret money is having on our government-- affecting all aspects of our lives, from the makeup of our courts to people's healthcare decisions to addressing climate change. We also heard from Montana's Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan, who told us how his State's version of the DISCLOSE Act passed in 2015 with bipartisan support. I couldn't agree more that transparency in our democracy should not be a partisan issue, and regardless of political party, we should know who is spending in our elections. The American people know what is at stake, so it is no surprise that campaign finance disclosure laws have overwhelming support. One recent poll found that in swing States, 91 percent of likely voters-- Republicans and Democrats--support full transparency of campaign contributions and spending in our elections. Another poll from 2019 found that, across America, 83 percent of likely voters support public disclosure of contributions to groups involved in elections. There is also a long history of bipartisan support for reducing the influence of money in our democracy. In fact, the very first limits on corporate campaign contributions in 1907, the landmark Federal Election Campaign Act in 1972, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002-- which my friends and former colleagues Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold joined together to champion--were all passed on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by Republican Presidents. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia--never one to hide his opinions--was also a staunch supporter of campaign finance disclosure. In a 2010 case, Doe v. Reed, he wrote: ``For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously . . . hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.'' Ensuring the transparency of our elections has been--and should continue to be--a bipartisan value. These issues are at the very heart of our democracy, and this commonsense bill would protect the right of voters to make informed choices and know who has been trying to influence our elections. While we are here today to vote on legislation to counter the flood of secret money in our elections, there is so much more we must do to safeguard our democracy, and I continue to support this and the other reforms in the Freedom to Vote Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these measures that are so fundamental to our system of government and voting to advance this legislation.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from the great State of Ohio, Senator Portman, to share with the Senate and the country some of the things that we learned from our recent trip to Ukraine. I first want to thank Senator Portman. He comes to the floor every week--never gives up, whether things are good or bad--to talk about what is happening in Ukraine. President Zelenskyy was incredibly grateful--that was the first thing he wanted us to report back to the Senate and to the country-- incredibly grateful for all America has done to stand with Ukraine. We know that this is a country that has given its all. Sometimes we wonder in our own country: What would we put on the line for democracy? Are we going to vote? Or things like that. The people in this country have put their very lives on the line every single day: ballerinas donning camo and going to the frontline; exhausted workers at a nuclear plant trying to protect not just Ukraine but all of Europe in what is the biggest nuclear powerplant in Europe and which supplies 20 percent of Ukrainian energy; the cellist playing beautiful melodies in the bombed-out remnants of a town square to remind people that no matter what Vladimir Putin did to their country, no matter what he did with his inhumane barbarism, culture and love is there in Ukraine, and it is not going away. Senator Portman and I visited the mass grave in Bucha, and in Irpin we saw many, many apartment buildings that were completely blown apart from the bombs. We saw firsthand the strength of the Ukrainian people and their leaders. But just as Vladimir Putin has shown his true colors with the bombing and the shelling near a nuclear powerplant, the people of Ukraine have shown their colors in a brilliant yellow and blue. Over the past 6 months since the invasion, their bravery and humanity consistently shine through. We had, together, traveled to Ukraine. And the last group of Senators who visited before the war started was Senators Shaheen, Murphy, Blumenthal, Cramer, and Wicker. We witnessed the incredible resolve of the people back then, and it has only grown stronger. In our meeting with President Zelenskyy for over an hour and with Defense Minister Reznikov and the President's Chief of Staff, we heard, time and time again: the helpfulness of the HIMARS. In fact, the Embassy staff told us that they went to a takeout place in Ukraine and that the people who worked in the restaurant didn't even know they were with our Embassy but knew they were American, and they gave them their bag of food, and on the bag was written the words ``Thanks for the HIMARS.'' That is how the people of Ukraine are focused day in and day out on what is happening in their region. We also, of course, talk about the counteroffensive, and I know Senator Portman will talk in detail about what is happening. And we know the fight is not over. Russia has retaliated by striking infrastructure just in the last few days, and Ukraine is still on the move. But, if anything, this is certainly a sign that our aid--our humanitarian aid, our economic aid, and our military aid--has been very helpful. The situation, of course, remains dangerous, especially in the Zaporizhzhia region, where the nuclear powerplant is located. We have a situation where the Russians have been bombing and shelling around that plant, where several times Ukrainians have lost power for the power that powers that plant. But also, of course, that plant provides energy. All of it is dangerous. We called for the IAEA when we were there--they visited literally the next day--to be able to inspect that plant. They were able to--14 inspectors, with 2 being allowed to stay on indefinitely. And, of course, we have called for a demilitarized zone, as has our government. We also got to meet with the 101st Airborne in Poland, and they, again, underscored our commitment to our NATO allies, the work they have been doing, including helping the Ukrainians remotely to make repairs on various missiles and various weapons and the like. It is an incredible story. Last week, our administration reported that Moscow is in the process of purchasing rockets and artillery shells from North Korea. It shows how much trouble they are in. This Senate voted nearly unanimously to allow Finland and Sweden to join NATO. That must happen as quickly as possible because we want to see a united front. As Senator Portman pointed out many times on our trip, there are over 40 nations that are aiding in this effort; it is not America alone. I always think of that viral video that President Zelenskyy did. He knew the importance of staying in his country and not abandoning his post when the Russians invaded. If you think back to that day, if he had done that, if he had left for a safer location, we would never be where we are today, standing up for democracy. But what he said that night was simply this: We are here. He said: We are here. From that moment on, he and his people inspired the world. Now it is our time to ensure the Ukrainians--as we move forward with our next continuing resolution and supplemental with the budget--that we are here for them; that we know what they are up against, and it is evil, and we stand with their democracy. Again, I want to thank Senator Portman for his incredible leadership in working with our leadership, our military, but also the Ukrainian leadership. They know him well.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to report back from a trip that Senator Portman and I took to Ukraine last week. And the No. 1 thing I would like to report is that President Zelenskyy personally asked us--and I know that Senator Portman addressed the Senate last night and reported this--but he personally asked us to thank the U.S. Senate, to thank the people of this country for the generous and unending continuing help that the Senate has given to Ukraine in their fight for democracy. This is a country that has given it all. Sometimes we wonder, in our own country, what are we going to put on the line for our democracy? Are we going to go over and vote today? How much do we care? There, the people of Ukraine are putting their lives on the line every single day. The ballerina who puts on camo and goes to the front lines, the exhausted workers at the nuclear plant trying to protect not just the country of Ukraine, but surrounding countries because it is the biggest nuclear plant in all of Europe, supplying 20 percent of the electricity to the people of Ukraine. They go to work every day, under incredible stress and pressure that we can't imagine, trying to keep their country safe while surrounded by 500 Russian troops. We think of the cellist playing beautiful melodies on the front steps of bombed-out remnants of a town square to remind people that culture and love still exist in this country. I think of the mass grave that we visited in Bucha, in Irpin, the apartment buildings after apartment buildings burned out, but Ukraine goes on. We saw firsthand the strength of the Ukrainian people in the face of Vladimir Putin's inhuman barbarism. But just as Putin has shown his true colors, so have the people of Ukraine in brilliant blue and yellow. Over the past 6 months since the invasion, their bravery and humanity has consistently shone through. When Senator Portman and I went to Ukraine last January as part of a group of Senators--we were the last group which went in before the war started, with Senators Shaheen and Murphy and Senator Blumenthal and Senator Wicker and Senator Cramer--we witnessed the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people. Last week, we saw up close a nation defending its homeland in a way that few expected would even be possible. We had an excellent hour-long meeting with President Zelenskyy and Defense Minister Reznikov and the President's chief of staff. Our country has helped them so much. We heard the story of how our employees at the Embassy--we now have people located in Kyiv--went to get some takeout food from a Ukrainian restaurant, and when they got the food back, got the bag back, someone, not even knowing who they were or where they worked but thinking they were American, had written on it: ``Thanks for the HIMARS.'' Along with at least 42 other nations, from Japan to South Korea, to Poland, we have stood with democracy. We have stood with Ukraine. We also discussed with President Zelenskyy the counteroffensive Ukraine is making to reclaim its territory in the Kherson region. This was one of the first cities Ukraine lost when the war began, but we have seen some initial signs of success. Ukrainians have also announced that they have recaptured some villages and knocked out weapons and radar stations and a pontoon bridge the Russians had built. We are working closely with the Ukrainians to tailor our security assistance to meet their immediate needs on the frontlines of the conflict, something that was more difficult to do at the beginning. Now we actually have people back in Kyiv, and we also have clear lines of communication with the Ukrainian leadership. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, the situation on the ground remains incredibly dangerous, especially in the Zaporizhzhia region, home to the largest nuclear plant in Europe, which was a central issue that we raised in our discussions with Ukrainian leadership. The plant, which, as I noted, previously provided Ukraine with 20 percent of its power, is at significant risk because of Russian shelling. Just today, Ukraine announced that they may have to shut the plant down for fear of a nuclear disaster, as this skeleton crew constantly has to reconnect the lines that have been shelled to not only get the power out to Ukrainians, which Russians are trying to divert to their territories--to Russian-held territories--to making sure they have the power to keep the reactor going and safe. We called on Russia to establish a demilitarized zone around the plant and to allow the team from the IAEA to inspect the plant. We were glad when the team of 14 inspectors visited the plant. Two inspectors will remain there indefinitely. This is all happening as we speak. The IAEA released its report yesterday and said: While the ongoing shelling has not yet triggered a nuclear emergency, it continues to represent a constant threat of nuclear safety and security. The agency, which is full of nuclear safety experts from around the world, noted extensive safety concerns. They urged an immediate stop to fighting on site and in the vicinity. I continue to call for that demilitarized zone around the plant. We know that this nuclear incident wouldn't be just an incident; it would be a catastrophe. We all know this is a hard fight, but America must continue to stand with Ukraine. If Vladimir Putin had been allowed just to enter their country, take over an entire democracy, he would never have stopped there. We also held a meeting with U.S. military leaders at the 101st Airborne Division in Poland, who are there to underscore our commitment to our NATO allies and the defense of Europe. They affirmed that the Ukrainians are making great use of the weapons we have supplied in their fight against Russia. In addition to the direct support we are providing to Ukraine, we are also seeing that sanctions are working in Russia, as just yesterday, the administration reported--our administration--that Moscow is in the process of purchasing rockets and artillery shells from North Korea. It shows how much trouble Russia is in when they are purchasing military equipment from the country of North Korea. This type of desperate purchase says a lot about the state of Russia's supply chain. In fact, we have seen that as Russia has attacked Ukraine, its actions have been met with almost universal condemnation. It was a key factor in Finland and Sweden's decision to pursue NATO membership, a measure we here in the Senate supported on the floor with a resounding 95-to-1 vote. The United States has provided economic, military, and humanitarian aid since the invasion. Our leadership has brought and continues to bring other nations to the table and has allowed Ukraine to continue to fight for its freedom. We remember that moment after the invasion began when President Zelenskyy stood in Kyiv and said the simple words: ``We are here.'' ``We are here.'' That video went viral. ``We are here.'' From that moment on, he and his people inspired the world--a living symbol of courage. So now it is our time to assure the Ukrainians, knowing that they are up against the evil of Vladimir Putin, with the simple words: ``We are here.'' I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of Finland and Sweden's application to join NATO. I give my strong support to this application. I disagree heartily with our colleague from Missouri. I know you know, Madam President, having worked on this issue, as I have--having visited these countries, we know how important they are to Minnesota and Wisconsin. Minnesota has a special bond with the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Finland, and at the core of this bond, at the core of the bond between our country and these countries, is shared values--values of democracy, values of freedom. Yes, we have challenges--of course we do--in Asia, but I happen to believe that when you are a great power like the United States of America, you can do two things at once. Let's look at what these countries add to our security by joining NATO. First of all, Finland is over 2 percent of their budget on military. Sweden is increasing their budget on military. Both nations have professional militaries. They have strong and transparent economies, and mostly they believe in human rights--in freedom, in liberty, and equality. They believe in democracy. I will note specifically that Finland has added an extra $2.2 billion in defense spending this year. Greece and Poland and Lithuania and Latvia and Estonia and Slovakia and Croatia and the United Kingdom-- above 2 percent. So let's get the facts straight here, and let's talk about what these countries will add to our security. We are at an unparalleled moment in history. Since Vladimir Putin's cruel, unjustified invasion of Ukraine, people all over the world have been waking up out of a 2-year plague, out of a slumber, to realize just how fragile our democracy is. We realized it here in this building when, not so long along, insurrectionists invaded this Chamber. We didn't just sit back and say: Well, there goes our democracy. We stood up. We stood up, Democrats and Republicans, in this very Chamber. When President Zelenskyy of Ukraine took to the streets the minute that this invasion started and looked at a video camera and said: We are here, he was saying that to his own people to give them the courage to stand up against the inhuman barbarism of a dictator, but he was also saying it to the rest of the world. We see it on Ukraine's frontlines, where everyday people took up arms and are taking up arms to protect their country. It sent a warning shot to tyrants around the world who believe that free democracies are just up for grabs. Ukrainians have shown their true colors in bright blue and yellow, which just happen to be the colors of Sweden. They have shown their true colors, and they are showing the world what courage is all about. Having been in the last group of Senators from this Chamber who met with leaders in Ukraine just a few weeks before the war started, I can tell you this: The people of Ukraine want to choose their own destiny, and the moral flame they have lit across the world will not be doused. Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine has changed how we think about the world's security. That is why I strongly support the decision of these two great democracies, Sweden and Finland, to join the most important and defensive alliance in the world--NATO. When President Biden met in May with Finnish and Swedish leaders about their application to join NATO, he said the people of Sweden and Finland--he said to them that they ``have the full, total, and complete backing of the United States of America.'' We supported that. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations echoed its support with an overwhelming bipartisan vote just last month. Our leaders support this pact. By joining NATO, allies made a sacred commitment to one another that an attack on one is an attack on all. The only time in history this has been invoked was after 9/11, when the United States was attacked, and all our allies rallied to our side. As Americans, we have never and will never forget that. In June, we celebrated the anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. NATO was formed in the wreckage of World War II. When President Truman signed the North Atlantic Treaty, he expressed the goal of its founders ``to preserve their present peaceful situation and to protect it in the future.'' And for decades, it has been crucial to upholding that peace. Now, 73 years later, NATO is as important as ever, and the recent decisions made by our great friends, the great countries of Sweden and Finland, are a testament to the continued promise of this alliance. As Swedish Prime Minister Andersson said in May: With Sweden and Finland as members, NATO will also be stronger. We are security providers with sophisticated defense capabilities. That is correct. And we are champions of freedom, democracy, and human rights. That is correct. As Finland's leaders, President Niinisto and Prime Minister Marin, also said: NATO membership would strengthen Finland's security. As a member of NATO, Finland would strengthen the entire defense alliance. I had the honor of being on a panel at the Munich Security Conference with President Niinisto, and I saw firsthand his commitment to the democracy in Finland and to the democracy all over the world. Finland and Sweden are already among our closest partners on a range of issues. They are already important contributors to the international community, including in the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and other international organizations. Finnish and Swedish troops have already served shoulder to shoulder with U.S. and NATO forces in Kosovo, in Bosnia. In 1994, Sweden and Finland joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program, strengthening our official relationship and coming one step closer to being a full-fledged NATO member. NATO, Finland, and Sweden have partnered together on securing the Baltic Sea region through regular conversations and exercises--a practice that will be even more important now. In 2018, Finland, Sweden, and the United States signed a trilateral agreement to deepen defense cooperation and promote security in Northern Europe. Both Finland and Sweden are already working in coordination with the United States and other allies and partners to support brave Ukrainians standing up to Vladimir Putin. Sweden has responded to Russia's bombing of maternity hospitals with millions of dollars of support and helmets and body shields, as well as billions for the refugees flowing from Ukraine. Finland has sent military aid, including thousands of assault rifles and 70,000 ration packages, and has offered millions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Both nations also have the potential, as I noted, to bring huge assets to this alliance, not, as my colleague from Missouri implied, to somehow make things harder. Are you kidding? Maybe he hasn't seen these countries. I have. Finland, after fighting its own territorial wars with the Soviet Union, has a reserve force of 900,000 strong. Sweden has built its own fighter jets. Both countries recently announced upcoming expansion and reform of their militaries. As the Arctic region, which holds increasing importance for U.S. and European security, sees encroachments from Russia and China--may I add to my colleague from Missouri--Sweden and Finland are poised to help NATO confront these challenges. I am here to give my full support for Sweden and Finland entering NATO. As we made clear, we stand with Sweden, we stand with Finland, and we stand with democracy. Russia's war in Ukraine--a full-scale, unprovoked, and premeditated war against a sovereign and democratic country--has changed Europe and the world, but it has also demonstrated the importance and resilience of our transatlantic alliance. We have all witnessed the bravery of the Ukrainian people as they fight for their lives, and we are proud to stand with them. This is about the future of political freedom, economic freedom, technological freedom, and, yes, democratic freedom. Finland and Sweden taking the step of NATO membership will not only strengthen their own security but the cause of freedom in Europe and around the world. I would say, when things are tough, we keep our friends closer, and I believe that this strong NATO and the inclusion of Sweden and Finland will actually help us with the rest of the world, not just with this conflict in Ukraine. So I ask my colleague from Missouri, who is not here right now, to consider that as we look at our alliances and how we deal with China. We must strengthen our trade alliances. We must strengthen our military alliances. Certainly, including Finland and Sweden as a member of NATO is one big positive step. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act. I am honored to be here with the Senator from Nevada, Senator Rosen. She is one of the sponsors of this bill, along with Senator Murray and Senator Padilla, who is also here, and Senator Ben Ray Lujan and myself in addition to over 20 of our colleagues. We must pass this bill today. Almost 6 weeks ago--that is all the time it has been. It seems like it has been a lot longer. It has been only 6 weeks since the Supreme Court issued a rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent of protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now, because of that decision to shred 50 years of precedent, women are at the mercy of State laws or new State laws or Governors. They literally ran to the State capitols--a number of legislators--to see who could get there first to introduce and pass the most extreme bill. Literally, women are at the mercy of State laws that are a patchwork across the country and that, in many cases, leave them with fewer rights than their mothers or their grandmothers had. This is in spite of what the American people want, as 70 to 80 percent of Americans believe that it is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor and not by politicians--not by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They don't want them making their decisions for them. They want to make their decisions with their doctors. As if it were not proof enough, after having come here every single week since the Dobbs decision was issued to remind people of where the actual public is out there, look at what happened last night. We heard the majority loud and clear in the Sunflower State of Kansas. The people of Kansas, in a record turnout--doubling the number of Kansans who voted in the last midterm election--voted 59 to 41 percent to protect reproductive freedom. That is more than 530,000 Kansans who showed up at an odd election time. In the middle of the summer, on a hot day in August, they showed up to protect women's rights. For context, fewer than 460,000 Kansans even cast a ballot in the 2018 primary. That is what we are dealing with; yet we now have 530,000 who showed up to vote on one side to say: A woman's right should be protected in their State. This is a wake-up call to my colleagues who have been resisting action when it comes to allowing women to travel, when it comes to allowing women to be able to make a choice about even contraception, when it comes to, in this bill, letting doctors provide reproductive healthcare. This doesn't come down to red States or blue States, my friends. People across the country, as I have argued vociferously before--and now I have my proof point--whether they be Independents, Democrats, or moderate Republicans, when they show up, women's rights are protected. And guess what. They are showing up. Since this decision came down, I have come to the floor of the Senate again and again with my colleagues to push for commonsense bills to protect women in this post-Roe world. We have tried to preserve a woman's right to travel to other States; that was Senator Cortez Masto's bill. We brought a bill to the floor to give women reliable access to family planning services; that was my colleague Senator Tina Smith's bill. We tried to pass legislation to make sure everyone could access contraception as well as accurate information about contraception. We thank all our colleagues for their work on these bills, and I want to specifically mention Senator Murray for her work. We are not giving up, not when so much is on the line. Many of the biggest fights for reproductive freedom are happening on State and local levels. Women as well as their doctors are now in the crosshairs. Republican State lawmakers are drafting legislation that would make it a crime to provide abortion care to a patient in another State where it is legal. Let's get this straight. They would make it a crime, where you can't get an abortion--like that little 10-year-old girl couldn't get an abortion, when she was raped, in her own State. She goes to another State, and now we have legislators in certain States who are trying to make it a crime for her to do that. State legislators in Texas and Arkansas have indicated they are considering these kinds of laws, and the Governor of South Dakota, which shares a border with my State, refused to rule out a similar law. Doctors in Minnesota, where reproductive rights are firmly protected, could be prosecuted for providing completely legal medical procedures for people in maybe North Dakota or South Dakota or Iowa who come to the great State of Minnesota. The Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act is a straightforward solution. It protects doctors giving abortion care in States where it is legal and stops extreme attempts to investigate or punish them for doing their job. Women and the providers who help them are already facing so much uncertainty because of the Dobbs decision. We should all be able to agree that, at the very least, States shouldn't be able to target, punish, or arrest out-of-State doctors who are following their own State laws. Today, each and every one of my colleagues has the opportunity to make clear where they stand. They did that in Kansas last night; they were able to vote. Now, let's have a real vote on this--not stop the vote, actually get it done. I see my friend Senator Blumenthal, who has been such a leader on this issue, out of the State of Connecticut is here as well as Senator Padilla. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of the Right to Contraception Act. Thirty-three days ago, the Supreme Court issued a rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now women, as we have seen over the last weeks, are at the mercy--are at the mercy--of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and their grandmas. So now a woman in Minnesota has different rights when it comes to her reproductive care than a woman in Missouri, and a woman in North Dakota has different rights than a woman in Indiana. That is what we are dealing with right now. Two weeks ago, I joined several of my Democratic colleagues on the floor to push for legislation to preserve a woman's right to travel to other States to access reproductive care, led by Senator Cortez Masto. Unfortunately, Republicans on the other side of the aisle blocked us from that vote. So we came back last week to push for legislation, led by my colleague Senator Tina Smith, to protect and expand funding for a program created under a Republican administration, a Republican Presidential administration, to fund clinics that support maternal care, conduct cancer screenings, and provide contraception, but, again, that vote failed because we were not allowed to move forward with it. So we came back to the floor today because if the Supreme Court won't protect people's fundamental rights--that is why we have three branches of government. That was the concept of our Founding Fathers. So if the Supreme Court isn't going to protect people's fundamental rights, then everyone in this Chamber has to decide whether or not they are going to do it, and that includes making sure everyone can access contraception. I am concerned that the worse is yet to come. Right now, State and local legislators are literally racing, along with Governors, to be the first to say: Which State can limit rights the most first? Which rights can we take away? Sadly, it is not too hard to guess. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Justice Thomas actually laid out a roadmap with clear directions for how the Court could overturn the right to contraception. He said that the Supreme Court ``should reconsider''--``should reconsider,'' those two words--whether the Constitution protects the right to access contraception, as well as the right to marry whomever you love. Why? Because he talked about looking at other cases with regard to the right to privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to access contraception for more than 57 years, but the conservative Justices on the Supreme Court have shown they won't hesitate to overturn decades-old precedent no matter what they say at their Supreme Court hearings. This threat is not hypothetical. Last year, the Missouri State Legislature tried to cut off public funding for widely used contraceptives, like IUDs and Plan B. Mississippi's Governor has refused to rule out banning contraception. A bill was introduced in Louisiana this spring that could be used to make IUDs illegal. These radical proposals don't just hurt those in the States that implement the bans. Since the Dobbs decision, we have now seen how State bans create an uncertain legal environment for doctors and strain resources at clinics in States like Minnesota because the North Dakota clinic had to literally start a GoFundMe page to be able to get the costs paid for--the costs, of course, of moving the clinic from Fargo, ND, to Moorehead. That is what is happening right now in my State. We cannot settle for a situation, as I noted, where people in my State have different rights than women in Mississippi or Missouri. And with so many extreme politicians out there racing to State capitals to be the first to take people's rights away, we need to explicitly protect the right to access contraception and information about contraception. I will note that more than 80 percent of Americans support access to contraception. That is why I joined with Senators Markey, Hirono, Murray, and Duckworth in cosponsoring this bill to protect the right to access contraception and information about contraceptives. This bill safeguards a patient's ability to seek contraceptives and a healthcare provider's ability to provide those critical services. The right to contraception can't just be an empty promise. That is why the bill gives the Department of Justice, as well as patients and doctors, the power to make sure that we don't infringe on the right to contraception. I am proud to join my colleagues, and for the last 33 days I have been thinking about all the women in this country facing an unacceptably uncertain future. Today, each and every one of my colleagues had the opportunity to make clear where they stand, but, when given the opportunity, some seized the opportunity to protect the right to contraception, some did not. I hope that some of our colleagues will change their minds and we can move forward with this and put in place these laws protecting the right to travel; protecting the right to contraception; and, of course, in the end, protecting a woman's fundamental right to make her own reproductive decisions about abortion. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, just as I did last week, and I will continue to do until we take action. Now, I want to start out speaking briefly about one part of competition policy that is very important, and that has to do with prescription drugs. As we all know, brand-name prescription drugs in the U.S. are more than 250 percent of those in other industrialized countries. In many cases, Americans pay the highest prices in the world for these drugs. Yet it is our country, our taxpayers, that have put in the money for the research. The high price of prescription drugs has put treatments out of reach for many Americans, even those with insurance, and driven up the tab for taxpayers. Examples: One of my constituents, Ramae, from Bemidji, was diagnosed in 2018 with an incurable blood cancer, multiple myeloma. She relies on a drug called Revlimid that costs about 15,000 a year. Ramae depleted her life savings, cashed out her 401(k), and sold her house in order to afford this drug she needs to survive. Actually, nearly 20 percent of older adults have reported not taking their medicines as prescribed because of the cost. The good news--and this gets to competition. Years and years ago, as you know, Mr. President, the pharmaceutical industry installed in law a provision that said Medicare was banned from negotiating less expensive prices for drugs--banned from negotiating. Yet, we know from the VA, which is allowed to negotiate on behalf of our Nation's patriotic veterans, that we can get much less expensive but as high quality drugs for our veterans. Our 46 million seniors deserve the same kind of deal. That is what we are coming into in this next week, finally. And I have led the bill that has over 30 cosponsors in the Senate to allow for negotiation of prescription drugs for a long, long time. Finally, we are going to get this done. It is not going to cover all the drugs as I would, but it is a big beginning. We have enough votes in the Senate to pass a bill to fix that. Democratic votes--all Democratic votes. But it is the fight worth fighting. You see the Pharma ads running against this bill. They have got every incentive to stop this. Why? Well, it is going to save taxpayers 288 billion over 10 years. Taxpayers are going to be able to get that money, instead of the prescription drug companies. That is why this is so important. It is going to allow Medicare to finally negotiate prices under Medicare Part D. In addition to that, it will stop drug companies from price gouging drugs that are already on the market, stop price hikes, and make sure the price of your drugs doesn't increase more than the rate of inflation. As I said, we have the votes in the Senate--all Democratic votes--to make life easier for so many people. We stand with AARP. We stand with the seniors of this country to finally allow Medicare to negotiate less expensive drugs for our seniors. So that is one part of competition policy. That means allowing negotiation. That is part of what competition is. But there is something else we need to do, and last week I talked about what is happening with the tech companies. I talked about the fact that for years and years, in the beginning of this Nation's inception, our country has always believed in capitalism and in a free market, and we have always understood that you have got to have antitrust laws in place, which I explained the history last week. Antitrust laws, at the time, it got that name because it was about breaking up trusts. Trusts--steel trusts, copper trusts--trusts that controlled the economy, brought up prices, made it hard for individual small businesses to compete. And over time, this Senate, this Chamber right here, the Senators-- they finally stopped just doing everything these trusts want. They stopped just giving in to the Big Money, and they actually did something to protect capitalism. That is when they passed the Sherman Act. Senator Sherman was a Republican from Ohio. They passed the Clayton Act. Through history, rose to the occasion. We are at another moment in history right now, and that is a moment focused on too much consolidation in our economy. What is at stake is the very idea that drives our economy forward--competitive markets. Today, too many areas of our economy are highly concentrated and controlled by a few corporations. These are the corporations of old. These are the trusts of old, but we have our modern-day ones as well. So when this happens, you have a lot of problems, and one of them is corporations stop competitors from moving ahead and from innovating and finding better ways to serve customers because they have all the customers, so they don't have the incentive. We have seen consolidation in everything from cat food to caskets. Our digital markets are now controlled by a few Big Tech titans that have grown into the largest corporations the world has ever known. It is well past time to put some rules of the road in place to make sure that these dominant digital platforms work for consumers and allow American small businesses to innovate and compete. That is why I have been working across the aisle with Senator Chuck Grassley, the Republican lead of this bill, and a bipartisan group of Senators that Samantha Bee once called an ``Oceans 11 of cosponsors,'' including Senators Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, and Sheldon Whitehouse--are all cosponsors of this bill. There are many, many other Senators who are going to support it as well. It is why, as the chair of the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, I have held a series of hearings with Senator Lee about online markets and abuses of power by the largest digital platform. Senator Lee and I have a number of other bills together on this subject. We have heard about how the small number of extraordinarily large digital platforms--based on the 18 months of House hearings--18 months of House hearings--still, we have passed nothing in this Congress, not one bill since the dawn of the internet involving internet competition and competition policy. What we have learned is they act as gatekeepers that control how smaller companies reach their customers. As a result, online marketplaces lack the hallmarks of robust competition, fierce price competition, game-changing new products, and customers switching back and forth among products. Instead, we have what started as exciting when everyone started accessing Amazon, Google; but the market is becoming increasingly calcified, one where the biggest gatekeepers have little or even no fear of competitive threats, one where they feel no pressure, where they can put themselves at the top of the search results regardless of quality or price. That is what we have right now--no rules in place. So when you look at Amazon, you see all these Amazon products at the top. You look at Google when this all started out, they didn't have their own products. Well, now they do--Google products at the top. Apple products at the top. They can extract monopoly profits from consumers, and the small businesses rely on them because there is really no other way to access their own market. If we don't act now, we will entrench those companies further, making it even more difficult for innovators to bring new products to market and for small and medium-size companies across America to grow online. Let me be clear. We have monopoly problems that go far beyond digital giants like Facebook and Google, and there is more that we need to do to restore competition to markets throughout the economy. We have a big task in front of us to rein in unchecked power and bring the benefits of consumer competition to all. Last Tuesday, I talked about the cost of inaction, how other countries are attacking this problem way before us, how the European Parliament has just passed a major bill that is much more aggressive than anything that we are looking at here. Great Britain, what they are doing. Australia, what they just did. There are many examples throughout history, of course, where Congress stepped in and didn't bow to the bloated monopolies but actually did something to further competition and rejuvenate the competitive market. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world, with armies of lobbyists and lawyers, with thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. They are everywhere--in every corner of this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues that they don't even know, sometimes, when someone is trying to influence them because they think they are just talking to a friend because they have hired everyone they can see. But once they start talking about antitrust and Big Tech, I tell them they should at least ask the person if they are being paid by the tech company or if they are on one of the boards of one of the groups that supports the tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. The tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with ``astroturf'' campaigning and dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to our online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will somehow cede our national security or outlaw Amazon Prime--something for which Senator Grassley and I came to the floor of the Senate because it was such a lie. Together, we noted that their own lobbyists had said that it wasn't true. Their own lobbyists for Google had said, Yes, the bill wouldn't really get rid of Amazon Prime. But that is what they are running ads for. Then, of course, is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in the States where people are in tough races. That is what they are doing. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here. We can hurt you. We may not be putting your name in these ads right now, but we can do it. We have got the money to do it because we are the dominant monopolies. By the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have some momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook--now known as Meta-- Amazon, Alphabet--which is Google--and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. In just 1 recent week in May--1 week--one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million in 1 week on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week, and the numbers keep getting worse. Since I last took to the floor to discuss this issue, it was reported that Amazon reached an alltime high in lobbying spending in the last quarter, and that is only what the company spent directly. It doesn't include what Big Tech directed others to spend, using contributions to spread misinformation about the bill. So that is what we are up against. And there is me, and there is this poster. There is our lawyer--one lawyer, Keagan. We have another lawyer, Avery. We have a third person. That is it. That is our team. Of course, Senator Grassley and the other Senators involved in this have great attorneys. We have the endorsement of the Justice Department. That is a whole lot of lawyers. We have support from Secretary Raimondo over in Commerce and their team in doing this bill because they get that this is about competition moving forward. I would like to share two examples of the misinformation campaign against this bill. Just a few months ago, you may have read a letter from people outside of the Senate who were criticizing the bipartisan bill that Senator Grassley and I had worked on. It was signed on by a little-known group--actually, it was not that little-known if you watch TV because it is in the disclaimers on the ads--called American Edge. Here is what the Washington Post wrote about American Edge: Backed by millions from Facebook-parent company Meta, American Edge has launched a full-throated campaign to combat antitrust legislation in Washington, placing op-eds in regional papers throughout the country, commissioning studies, and collaborating with a surprising array of partners, including minority business associations, conservative think tanks, and former national security officials. This is The Washington Post talking. It's a political playbook more common to other industries, including pharmaceuticals [and] tobacco. . . . This is the playbook we have seen time and time again: Distort the truth, and distract people from the key issues by raising sideline potential concerns that aren't even in the bill's scope. Look over here, not at the real problems we face with real solutions to address them. Amazon tried something similar, but they didn't get away with it because small business owners are too savvy to fall for silly tricks. As CNBC wrote in an article last month, Amazon is so worried that Congress will finally do something, not to get rid of Amazon and not to stop Amazon Prime, but to simply say, when you do your searches on Amazon, at least you should have a fair shake at getting whatever are the most affordable or best products in what you are looking for at the top and not just what Amazon wants you to see because that is what they own. They placed a senior executive in charge, we now know, to recruit third-party sellers to oppose the bill, the small businesses. The Amazon executive posted to a forum used by sellers and directed them to a website that included a form to contact their Senators with a prewritten email opposing the legislation. But get this: They weren't fooled. These sellers knew the power that Amazon had to affect their businesses. They are monopolies, right? According to the CNBC report, hundreds of sellers replied to the post and actually expressed their support for the legislation. I am not sure this would have happened 10 years ago, honestly, but now they have realized what the game is, what the rig is, what is really happening. Here are some examples of what the small businesses posted. This is after the request from the Amazon executive to write letters to people like me and the Presiding Officer opposing the bill. Here is what someone wrote: Any informed seller is going to support massive action taken against Amazon in the antitrust arena. I am personally sick of the condescending posts by Amazon management directed at us. We are not morons and know how to read and think for ourselves. That one got more than 100 likes in the forum. Here is another one: Yes, I'm going to oppose that Amazon will be prohibited from undercutting, manipulating the Buy Box, and instituting restrictions on certain listings that unfairly bar me from selling an item. Yup, writing to my senator right now. We will call that a sarcastic post. Others got straight to the point: Thanks for the reminder! One seller wrote: I've asked my senators to support the bill. Another wrote: If Amazon is against the Bill, it must be good! And my favorite: I'm highly allergic to corporate propaganda and fear mongering. Therefore, for the sake of my health, I will be encouraging my senators to fully support this legislation. I think these are pretty good examples of how resilient and clever our American small businesses actually are. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-based industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here right now on the Senate floor and telling you the truth--the people who are watching at home-- since there are actually no other Senators out here right now except the Presiding Officer. We cannot let these companies use their monopoly profits to scare the Congress from doing its job. Some have said that this is the biggest political fight that Big Tech has ever fought. The truth is that they are not fighting on terms that anyone would think are fair. They are not fighting with truthful representations or factually grounded arguments. They are spending millions and millions of dollars on ads that distort the truth because they are scared. They are scared about what is going to happen if we have honest, robust, American style competition. ``It's better to buy than compete.'' ``It's better to buy than compete.'' Do you know who said those words? That is what Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a 2008 email around the time of the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions. Facing competition from new upstarts, Facebook decided to take them out--to stop them from innovating in ways that might win over users from Facebook. It makes sense, right? Who knows what Instagram would have developed for their bells and whistles in terms of privacy and other things if they had been able to fairly compete? When the FTC sued Facebook, it wrote on--by the way, that was under the Trump administration and now continues on through the Biden administration. It wrote on page one of its antitrust complaint: Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or cannot acquire. As another Facebook employee wrote, quoted in the FTC's complaint: We're scared that we can't compete on our own merits. As of last week, we have new evidence showing the same from other companies from documents that were obtained by Chairman David Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, over in the House, during their bipartisan investigation into Big Tech. One of the documents quotes an Amazon executive discussing the potential threat from Ring, a video doorbell company it later bought for $1 billion. The executive said: I'm supportive of Ring. I don't know how we can get big fast without acquiring someone. In the same email chain from another Amazon executive: There's a lot of overlap with what we want to do . . . and very little that we don't want to do. There it is in black and white. They wanted to enter the market, but they couldn't innovate fast enough, so they just bought up the competition. That is what they have been doing. The dominant platforms will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. We see the campaign to try to torpedo this bill for what it is: an obvious effort to protect their market power and monopoly profits. Adam Smith--the godfather of capitalism, the guy who talked about the invisible hand--loved capitalism, but he always said this: Always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. And that is why, over time, we have developed law that allows us to ensure that the big guys don't always control the marketplace--so that you can have new forms of competition developed. I want to be clear on this point. These are highly successful companies that have given us incredible innovations. I don't want these companies or their innovations or their beneficial products or services they offer to go away, and they won't go away with this bill. What we will do is make sure that they are creating the conditions on their dominant platforms--because that is what we are dealing with, four different ones--for the next new thing to be developed and to thrive. That is why we have antitrust laws. As Senator Sherman--a Republican from Ohio and for whom our central antitrust law, the Sherman Act, was named--famously said: If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life. Let me speak specifically about antitrust and innovation. There is a persistent myth out there that antitrust law is about prices and nothing else. That is not true. Although prices are, of course, an extraordinarily important component of competition policy and analysis--and by the way, you are seeing more and more small businesses so concerned about what is going on--and big businesses because these platforms are charging them more and more and more just for the pleasure of being on the platform or for getting their names up at the top or for using their services, but it isn't all about pricing; it is also about innovation. Through competition and innovation, there are new products, services, apps, and ideas that are hard for us to even fathom that will be developed by clever engineers, smart business people, and thoughtful marketers. Innovation is part of the American spirit. Innovation generates new opportunities and new hopes for businesses. Breakthroughs in science and technology have given us the vaccines that are getting us through this pandemic and driving the development of clean energy solutions. Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence are driving innovation across our country. I think the Presiding Officer from the great State of Michigan knows a little bit about innovation there with what we have seen as its emergent. When everyone was writing off the American car companies, they innovated and moved ahead. Of course, some of our economy's largest companies began as startups with new innovation, and some of these companies--now small and large-- are starting to say: Wait a minute. These four Big Tech companies can buy anything they want. There are no rules of the road. They can put their stuff at the top. Yet this is where customers go and buy things. We just need an even playing field in the marketplace. Innovation that is vital to our American economy cannot thrive without open, competitive markets. It is competition that pressures manufacturers to invest in research and development and to constantly innovate to improve their products and introduce new products. It is competition that provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to develop new ideas and to start new businesses. This topic is so important that I held a hearing with Senator Lee last December on innovation. In his opening remarks, Senator Lee shared his thoughts about this important topic, noting that when competition suffers, so does innovation. One might say that competition is itself the mother of innovation. Competition really can't occur without a lot of innovation. As one of our witnesses at the hearing, Dr. Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, testified, dominant firms face fewer economic incentives to innovate. It is one thing to create new products that can win over customers from a rival. It is another to create new products that might undermine your existing business. When you have got all of the customers, let's say, in the App Store-- all Apple phones have one kind of app, and all other phones have another kind of app, Google--they are a duopoly. There you go. So they can do what they want. That is why they are charging 30 percent to Spotify--just for the pleasure of competing against Apple Music. That is what is happening. The path to future innovations is through the crucible of competition. What makes companies innovate is not just a desire to please their customers but also the healthy fear that others might please them instead and win customers in the competitive landscape. If the largest digital gatekeepers do not face any meaningful competition, they will continue to extract monopoly profits from customers and the small businesses that depend on them to reach their customers. If the largest digital gatekeepers have the power to avoid competition, we should expect that they will not innovate at the same pace as when they face stiff competition. So to my colleagues I say, as I did last week: Yes, you can love the products. You can love the CEOs, if you want. You can love the companies. But you also have to love competition and understand the unique place of the U.S. Senate to take on what has happened time and time again in history: the bloated monopolies that sometimes come up. You don't get rid of steel or copper. Of course, we didn't. We created a more competitive marketplace. That former chairman of AT&T said himself, after the breakup of AT&T, when we saw long distance rates go down through Democratic and Republican leadership, when we saw the cell phone industry, which had been nothing, when cell phones were the weight of bricks and this big in your briefcase--we saw all that changed, and he actually said we are a stronger company because of what happened. Here are the facts today. Here are our new bloated situations: Google--pretend that is now Google--has a 90-percent market share in search engines. In Australia, when the Australian Government was taking them on and said you have got to charge a fair rate for media links, Google--and Facebook, by the way--literally said: OK, we are going to leave your country. We are going to leave an industrialized nation. Then, there was so much pressure on the world that they backed down and negotiated rates. A 90-percent market share--that is what you get to do. Great product, OK. If we are going to tolerate that, I guess the Justice Department will look at it. That is not what our bill does. It doesn't break them up. It doesn't do anything. It is just that when we have a 90-percent gatekeeper, at least we have some rules of the road for what they put on there. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones. Together, Apple and Google, as I noted, have a duopoly on app distribution on all smartphones. Three out of every four social media users--there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. What do they do with that power? As the New York Times reported a few years ago, back in 2018, if you opened up the App Store on an iPhone in May of 2018 and typed the word ``podcast'' in the search box, the first result, after an ad, would have been an app made by Apple: Apple Podcasts. The next result would have been Apple's Compass app, then Apple's Find My Friends app. Amazon does the same thing. ProPublica reported: We looked at 250 frequently purchased products over several weeks to see which ones were selected for the most prominent placement on Amazon's virtual shelves--the so-called ``buy box'' that pops up first. . . . And so many of us have had that experience, right? You are in a hurry. You want to buy something. What pops up first? About three-quarters of the time, Amazon placed its own products and those of companies that pay for its services in that position, even when there were substantially cheaper offers available from others. This obviously puts small businesses in a bind. The need for action is clear. All they have to do is treat people fairly, have a reason to put people up first, and treat the people who are advertising on their sites fairly. The way our bill works, if they do that, they stay out of trouble. If they don't do it, the Justice Department, the FTC, and the State AG can look into doing something about it. They are, obviously, not going to bring some big case over one mistake. We are talking about a consistent effort here, which is exactly what they have been doing to make more money by putting their stuff at the top. Since the founding of this country, people across the country and across the political spectrum have recognized and taken on the issue of monopoly power. That is why we have worked across the aisle--Senator Grassley and myself--to build bipartisan support for this bill, the bipartisan solution to the problem of anti-competitive self- preferencing by dominant digital gatekeepers. That is how we found our common ground. That is how Ken Buck, a conservative Republican out of Colorado, found common ground with Representative Cicilline, a liberal progressive Congressman from Rhode Island. Our bill creates the rules of the road for these platforms so they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, examples are that Amazon won't be able to misuse small business data in order to copy their products. The best example of that is the Wall Street Journal reporting about a four-person luggage company out of Brooklyn, NY, advertising innocently, giving them the data they need to advertise, and, bam, a few months later, Amazon has the identical product in Amazon Basics. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms, and Google won't be able to bias their platform search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. These platforms will no longer be able to put their own products and services automatically first. That is what we are talking about. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. In those new House Judiciary documents that I mentioned earlier, there is one from a Google executive that illustrates this point as well. It is an email about Amazon saying: Amazon has a built-in incentive to partner with Alexa, since they will pull you from their store if you don't support it. Again, that is an amazingly honest statement of the situation where rampant self-preferencing is allowed: A product might be great for consumers, but if it doesn't ``partner with Alexa''--forget it. They will pull it from the store to solidify their emerging power in voice assistants. Second, the world's largest and most powerful platform shouldn't be allowed to copy small businesses' private data that they get from their sellers, as I just mentioned, to create knock-off products. Third, in the bill, platforms shouldn't require companies, especially small companies, to buy a bunch of stuff from the monopolies, like ads or distribution services, in order to be listed at the top. They can offer those services. They can sell those services. But the only way you get to the top, so that when our pages here, sitting in the Chamber, are trying to look at the best deal for a fan, if they don't have air conditioning in their room--it was really hot in Washington, DC. Well, the best product should come up or the least expensive product. That is what should come up, not just something that Amazon Basics can make money off of. That is what the bill does. It is not a breakup bill. It is not a ban on mergers, but it would put some commonsense rules of the road in place. If we can get these reforms in place, we will ensure a fairer, more competitive marketplace for small and medium businesses. This bill gives them more options, more flexibility, and more access to the markets. Just today, the National Federation of Independence Businesses wrote to Senator Grassley and me to say that 84 percent of their members support Congress taking action--that is about the kind of numbers I would like to see around here, 84 percent--``to control unfair and anticompetitive practices of large tech companies.'' That is why they are formally endorsing the bill, writing: Most small businesses have no choice but to rely in some capacity on these large technology companies for a variety of business needs, ranging from driving business traffic through search to online advertising to accessing key digital marketplaces. For small business sellers using marketplace platforms, competition between the operator's own products and third- party sellers creates conflicts of interest and has been shown to lead to unfair business practices. By the way, it is not just small business. There are a whole bunch of big businesses supporting it, too, only because they are not going to compete against the big titans. A lot of them don't want to say it out loud because they don't want to be punished. They just call us and tell us. That is what you deal with when you deal with monopolies. You are not going to out people who don't want it out there. But the truth is, there are a whole bunch of businesses that support this bill, in addition to a whole bunch of working people, in addition to my colleagues from all sides of the political spectrum. What did the Justice Department say? They said: Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets-- And that is very key here-- the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow. . . . That is what we are seeing right now with the small business rebellion. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. That is the business group. Now, I will go to the consumer group. The Justice Department you just heard. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: We need to incentivize more competition and more innovation. A group of legal scholars said: It is an appropriate expression of democracy for Congress to enact pro-competitive statutes to maintain the vibrancy of the online economy. Monopoly power, consumer choice, reduced innovation--these aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed the bill. In fact, we got it out of committee 16 to 6, the first time since the advent of the internet, in a highly polarized, at times, Senate Judiciary Committee, for anyone who watched the Supreme Court hearings. We got that bill out 16 to 6, the first bill to advance to the Senate floor--the competition bill--since the advent of the internet. We cannot stand by and do nothing while digital giants entrench their power to gobble up more businesses, gobble up bigger and bigger slices of the economy. I guess we can. I guess we can turn into this situation. But even these Senators, way back--they were all in here, unlike what I see right now. But they were all here, and they actually got something done. And this is our moment right now. I urge my colleagues to bring this bill to the floor. I have gotten the commitment to get a vote on this bill. We have got to get this bill on a vote. I appreciate Senator Grassley's patience and bipartisan support, but we know that we are up against a lot. But if they think that I am going to get scared by that, think again. I am ready to roll. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, thank you so much. I join my colleagues. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your on-point remarks and, of course, Senator Murray, for her incredible leadership, not only of the committee but on taking this issue on and making clear to the State of Washington, yes, but also to the country that this should be a woman's decision, a woman and her doctor, family's decision, and not a decision made by politicians. And part of this is making sure there is access to family planning. Since this decision has come out, I could not believe the number of women that have come up to me at home or in airports, flight attendants, saying things like: Is this really happening? You mean, I am going to have to go to another State just to get reproductive healthcare? So how about contraception? There are people talking about contraception. People all over the country have realized how extreme this decision is. And one of the people who has been leading this fight--and, in fact, has been leading this proposal on expanding access to family planning is my colleague Tina Smith. And she is here in spirit today. She has a mild case of COVID. I know she is watching right now because she has been fighting for the rights of women to make their own decisions about their healthcare her entire life. She is the only Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate that actually worked at Planned Parenthood and has a firm understanding and has shown so much leadership in this area. So we thank her. I am speaking for my constituents, of course, to thank Tina Smith for her work and her leadership. As I noted, 26 days ago, the Supreme Court issued this rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now women are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and their grandmas. Last week, Senator Murray and I joined several of our Democratic colleagues, including Senator Cortez Masto, who led this bill to preserve a woman's right to travel to other States to access reproductive care. Republicans blocked us. So we are back today because if the Supreme Court won't protect a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, if Congress can agree to put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law, then everyone in this Chamber has to decide whether they will protect women's healthcare or not. And that includes making sure women have a right to abortion services, but it includes having reliable access to family planning services. Let's start by passing the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act to protect and expand funding for title X clinics, which support maternal health, cancer screening, contraception, and other essential healthcare. In 2020 alone--get this number--1.5 million Americans received services through title X. But currently, Federal funding is not enough to serve the number of people who need care. And in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling attacking the freedom and the autonomy of women, it is likely that there will be even more demand in the years ahead. That is why Expanding Access to Family Planning Act gives title X the funding needed to serve women and families for the next 10 years. This legislation is far from radical. The title X program was actually created under a Republican administration. And the original bill passed with broad bipartisan support. This is about making sure women have a way to take care of themselves, especially when they are pregnant. Right now, I am thinking about all the women in this country facing an unacceptably uncertain future. We should all be able to agree that, at the very least, we should make sure that they have access to the basic health services that title X provides--a provision that passed during a Republican administration, created under a Republican administration, that understood that women should be able to access to healthcare. There is a better path forward: We pass this bill, fund family planning, and save women's lives. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting this necessary and completely pragmatic and sensible legislation for the women of this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says-- ``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company-- that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers-- thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But the point is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self- preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square- foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16- to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act--something that Senator Cortez Masto, our colleague from Nevada, is leading. I do want to take a moment, however, to note that there are many things we need to do to reduce costs. I appreciated the words of my colleague from the neighboring State of South Dakota, and I think he is well aware that pharmaceutical prices are No. 1 on the minds of people in many of our States. I ask Republicans to join us in pushing Medicare to finally negotiate lifting the ban so we can negotiate less expensive drugs under Medicare Part D--something that every Democrat is committed to in our caucus and we hope to get done in the next month. I also note that the President recently came out for E15--something Senator Thune and I have worked together on for years, and that is now in place as one competitive fuel that should help--not alleviate everything but be a major help--and the release of the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and so many other areas where we are working together. I don't think anyone thought we could emerge from a 2-year pandemic and everything was going to be the same. Obviously, there is work left together for the country to bring down costs, and that is on all of our minds. Madam President, also on our minds is what has recently happened with the Supreme Court and the decision in the Dobbs case. Twenty days ago-- only 20 days ago, and you can see everything that has happened since that time--the Supreme Court issued a ruling shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. Now women are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and their grandmas. In just 20 days, over 20 States have laws in place that could be used to restrict access to abortion. Twenty-five States in total are expected to ban abortion in the days and the weeks ahead. But, colleagues, I am afraid the worst is yet to come. Legislation was introduced in Missouri to allow private citizens to act as vigilantes and sue people who help women cross State lines for reproductive care--vigilantes, just like we saw in Texas. In Texas, legislators are working on a bill to criminalize businesses that provide resources simply to help their workers obtain abortion services in other States. These proposals don't just hurt those in need of care; they are also creating an uncertain environment for doctors and straining resources at clinics in States like Minnesota where reproductive rights are protected, two major States in the Midwest--that is it--Illinois and Minnesota. I spoke on the phone with the head of the Red River Women's Clinic out of Fargo, ND, who had to resort to a GoFundMe page to get the money she needs to move her clinic across the river to Minnesota to a safe place. Planned Parenthood in Moorhead, MN--I met with them only a week ago about the services and the work they are doing right now. In Montana, clinics have already begun requiring proof of residency from women seeking abortion pills because they are afraid they might be pursued by out-of-State prosecutors. Of course, we should never settle for a situation where women in Minnesota have different rights than women in Missouri or where women in Illinois have different rights than women in Texas, but with so many extreme Republicans racing to State capitals to be the first to take away women's rights, it is clear we must explicitly protect the right to travel to other States to access reproductive care. We don't have to imagine why this might matter. We don't need to conjure up hypotheticals. We already know what has happened. Think about the heartbreaking, enraging story about the 10-year-old girl in Ohio who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion after she was impregnated by her rapist. When that story came out last week, some people doubted it. Now, in clear print in the criminal complaint out of the State of Ohio, we saw yesterday that, yes, this happened. This man raped a 10-year-old girl, and she got pregnant, and then she couldn't even get the care she needed--at age 10--to get an abortion. She had to go across State lines to the State of Indiana just to get her care. Should the next little 10-year-old's right or 12-year-old's right or 14-year-old's right to get the care that she desperately needs be put in jeopardy? What about her mom? What about her doctor? Where will this end? That is why we must not just codify Roe v. Wade into law with the bill that we voted on just last month, but we must also pass the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act by unanimous consent right now. That is a bill that our great colleague Senator Cortez Masto is leading. Our bill protects women and girls from being punished for traveling to another State to access abortion services. It also ensures doctors won't be punished for providing reproductive care outside their home States. As clinics across the country struggle to navigate this post- Roe nightmare landscape, they should not have to add to their list of worries whether they will be criminally prosecuted for serving patients in a nearby State. This is an issue, as I noted, that hits close to home because of Minnesota being in the neighborhood that includes the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, all of which have various issues with reproductive healthcare. The freedom to travel cannot be an empty promise. That is why the bill gives the Department of Justice, as well as women and doctors, the power to sue people who infringe on the right to travel for healthcare. Women in States with abortion bans already face enough obstacles to care. We can't wait to see what anti-choice State legislators criminalize next. We have to act now. All of this comes down to one question: Who should get to make the personal decisions for a woman or for a 10-year-old girl? Should it be her family? Should it be a woman herself? Or should it be politicians, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who supported these Justices, put them in place in the Supreme Court, and got us to where we are right now? I think the answer is clear. Today, each and every one of my colleagues has the opportunity to show where they stand. Will we come together to protect this essential right to seek healthcare across State lines for the sake of the women and, yes, the young girls across this country? I hope we do. I thank Senator Cortez Masto for her leadership. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Senator Cornyn, for the work you are doing and working with Senator Murphy and so many other Senators. You and I have done so many bills together, including the historic Save Our Stages bill, which made such a difference. And I am very pleased that we are finally advancing gun safety legislation. And a lot of these provisions are things that we have been working across the aisle on for many years, the boyfriend loophole--something that I introduced in 2013, 10 years ago--to close the boyfriend loophole. That is a part of this negotiation, part of the framework. We have so many women killed, 1 every 14 hours, from domestic partners--1 every 14 hours from domestic partners--with guns in this country. And, sadly, half of those involve dating partners, people who aren't married to someone, but they are in a romantic relationship with them in some way. And the way the law works in all but 19 States where it is fully closed, in many of these States, you get convicted of domestic abuse, and you can still go out and buy a gun the next day. So I am really pleased that we are moving forward on this provision. This isn't the first time we have heard the call to action from America when it comes to guns. We heard it after 23 people were killed at a Walmart in El Paso; after 17 people were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland; after 59 people were killed at a country music festival, just out there on a beautiful evening enjoying the music; after 59 people dead in Las Vegas; and after 49 people were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Today, we hear calls for action because of more tragedies: a White supremacist murdering 10 people who are simply shopping for groceries; one guy out buying a cake for his little boy, a birthday cake for his son, who never returned; 10 people killed. The American people are demanding that we do something after the senseless murder of 19 children and 2 teachers who died putting their very lives up to protect those children in Uvalde, TX. We have seen the pictures of those kids in their confirmation-communion dresses, in their sports uniforms, the Converse green sneakers, the glasses, the smiles. In some photos, they were actually holding awards they had won just that morning. But today, after too many of these tragedies to name, I rise with renewed hope that we are finally working together to help keep Americans safe from gun violence. While there is so much more work to be done, reforms outlined in the bipartisan framework, like encouraging States to enact risk protection orders, which are also known as red flag laws, expanding access to mental health services, and supporting school violence prevention--Senator Grassley and I led that bill after Parkland that we passed with significant funding for schools. Clearly, more must be done. As I noted, I am particularly pleased to see that the framework will include my bill to finally close the boyfriend loophole. Every year, more than 600 American women are shot to death by intimate partners. We understandably focus on the horror of these mass shootings, but think of those numbers: 600 women shot every year by intimate partners. We know that preventing convicted domestic abusers from getting guns saves lives. We know that because we have seen the numbers in the States that have the laws in place. Currently, Federal law only prohibits domestic abusers from buying a gun if they are currently or formerly married--think about that: currently or formerly married--or if they have ever lived together or if they have a child. That is despite the fact, as I noted, that half of these homicides--half of the women killed are killed by dating partners. That is why in 2013 I introduced this bill to close this dangerous loophole, and now, I am so pleased that there is growing bipartisan support for the bill. By the way, we have shown that support in the past. It was part of the Violence Against Women Act that passed in the House, and it had 29 Republicans vote for it. That included an even more broad version of the bill, which also included stalking and was broader than what we are going to see in this bill. Obviously, I support my original bill, but the fact that we are making progress to close the loophole in the States that so far have not gotten to where the other 19 are is incredibly positive. It did not pass last time when we passed the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate. Sadly, it didn't make it in there. But, again, it got 29 Republican votes in the House, and that just shows the kind of growing momentum we have for this. I come from a State with a proud tradition of hunting and fishing, like yours. I always think about my Uncle Dick and his deer stand, and I always ask, when I look at these proposals--from closing the boyfriend loophole to putting in better background checks, to doing something about better checking the records of 18- to 21 year olds--I think, does that hurt my Uncle Dick and his deer stand? Of course, the answer is, it does not. This is our moment to act. It is not just one killing, and we all know that. It has happened in every single community. Every single Senator in this Chamber knows of a moment where they thought ``How could this happen in my community?'' when they meet with a family. What I remember the most, actually, is a case involving a police officer out of Lake City, MN. He was a good cop doing his job. He was called to a domestic violence incident. What people don't often know is that for police officers, these domestic violence calls can be some of the most dangerous because you have someone who is very angry, and you don't know what you are walking into. It is in the moment. He gets there to the door. He has his bulletproof vest on, but the perpetrator--clearly mentally ill--who had been beating up his young, young, young girlfriend, meets him with a gun, shoots him in his head, and he dies. I was there for that funeral. There was an outpouring of support from the community. The funeral was held in the very same church where the officer and his wife and their three little kids had gathered for the nativity play just a few weeks before for Christmas, those two little boys and a little girl. The father had sat in the front row to watch his boys in that nativity play only a few weeks before, and the next time the family is in that church, it is the widow, the two little boys, and this little tiny girl in a dress with blue stars on it walking down the aisle of that church at his funeral. That is a moment I won't forget. I just shows you how domestic abuse and those kinds of cases--yes, there is one immediate victim--most likely the woman--but it is a whole family who is the victim. Kids who witness domestic abuse through their lives are so much more likely to get into crime themselves. Statistics have shown it. But it is even more than the family, it is the whole community, as that family who lost their dad and lost their husband would tell you if they were standing in here right now. So I am so pleased we are finally moving on this. I thank Senator Murphy. I thank Senator Cornyn and all those involved. I am also so grateful that my 10 years of work leading this bill with Representative Debbie Dingell in the House has not gone for naught. We kept it moving. It is probably a sign for anyone that perseverance matters in this place. I am very pleased that it is part of the final negotiations, and it will make such a difference for saving lives. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of 9 million Americans who directly benefited from very important health insurance credits in the American Rescue Plan--credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. I don't believe enough attention has been focused on this issue. Last year, in March of 2021, we came to this very Chamber and passed the American Rescue Plan, which provided a crucial lifeline for so many families. We eliminated health insurance premiums for low-wage workers making less than 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, expanded eligibility for health insurance tax credits to middle-class families, and guaranteed that health coverage would not cost more than 8.5 percent of a person's income. The American Rescue Plan also increased the size of the tax credit for all eligible income brackets, putting more money in workers' pockets. As a result, ACA health insurance premiums were brought down by an average of $50 per person per month, and people in both New Mexico and in Minnesota took great advantage of that. As a result, a record number of Americans--14.5 million Americans--are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act health insurance plans. That is 2.5 million more people who signed up in a single year than ever before. In my home State, that translated to a record-low uninsured rate of just 4 percent. That means 96 percent of Minnesotans have health insurance, which is a great improvement over where it was. Millions more Minnesotans and Americans now have the peace of mind that comes with affordable, quality health coverage. Eligible households in Minnesota have an annual average ACA tax credit of $3,600. That is $3,600 freed up for housing, gas, and groceries, while maintaining access to healthcare. But unless Congress acts to make the enhanced, family-friendly tax credits currently set to expire at the end of 2022 permanent, millions of Americans will have the rug pulled out from under them, likely seeing a double-digit hike on their health insurance premiums. Karen Tumulty, a columnist for the Washington Post, called it a ``ticking time bomb.'' If these tax credits are not made permanent, 70,000 Minnesotans--or 61 percent of Minnesota families--purchasing health insurance on their own could see a 35- to 41-percent increase in their health insurance premiums, and over 10,000 Minnesotans could lose their health insurance tax credits in 2023 unless Congress acts. In my State, Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 would be most affected, and you think about this with cost issues and inflation and all the things people are already facing. Right now, a 60-year-old Minnesota couple with a household income of $75,000 is saving $773 in monthly premiums. Taking away those tax credits would increase their annual health spending by at least $9,000. That is like taking away multiple paychecks. It is no wonder that Americans overwhelmingly support making these tax credits permanent. Doctors and patients have called on us to protect these historic gains in affordability, coverage, and equity. Families can't afford to go back to paying upwards of 20 percent or more of their monthly income toward healthcare premiums. This is important for patients, and it is also important for providers. We know--hearing when we are back home--that many hospitals are stretched thin right now, and putting millions of Americans' healthcare in jeopardy is going to create a lot of volatility as patients are forced to disrupt their care and cancel procedures. At a time when so many families are struggling to make ends meet, we just can't sit back and let those ACA tax credits expire. More Americans insured is good for patients, good for families, good for communities, and good for our country. I would note one other thing I would do when it comes to healthcare, and that is making sure that we allow Medicare to negotiate prices under Medicare Part D for pharmaceuticals. While our communities are facing the potential of this--what the Washington Post called a ``ticking time bomb''--we also must act when it comes to pharmaceuticals because those prices are also going up. I have just presented two really straightforward ways that we can help families with costs when it comes to healthcare. One is making sure we keep in place the tax credits that protect middle-class families in this country, and the second is to make sure we allow Medicare to negotiate better prices under Medicare Part D because when you look at what is happening right now, we continue to see major drugs--major drugs--go up, doubling, go up 200 percent, 300 percent, to the point where we are already paying double what they pay in Canada for a significant number of drugs. For Minnesota, that is right across the border. We must allow, in my mind, reimportation of less expensive drugs, but the biggest game changer would be to lift the ban that the pharmaceutical companies got in place in law that says Medicare, representing tens of millions of seniors, is not allowed to negotiate cheaper prices. That is what the VA does, and it has been really good for our veterans. We should allow the same help for 46 million seniors. It will be good for all Americans because it will bring down the taxpayer expense in part of the payment of drugs, and it will be good for individual consumers. So let's get these two things done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today, I am proud to stand with my colleague, Senator Smith, to recognize an organization that has meant so much to the people of Minnesota. On June 4, 2022, the Minnesota YMCA Youth in Government Program celebrates its 75th anniversary. The Minnesota YMCA Youth in Government Program is a youth-led, nonpartisan, experiential learning program that develops and promotes lifelong, active, responsible citizenship in our youth. Annually, the program brings middle and high school students from across Minnesota to create a mock State government in the State capitol, complete with legislative branches for upper and lower classmen, a court, an executive branch, lobbyists, and a press corps. The program has been developing tomorrow's leaders since 1946 and, since that time, has served over 54,000 middle school and high school students. Today, the Minnesota YMCA Youth in Government program stands as one of the largest and longest running Youth in Government programs in the Nation. Through Youth in Government, students learn to write bills, debate issues, argue court cases, elect their own leaders, and actively participate in an authentic model of real-life legislative, executive, and judicial processes and structures. Youth in Government students learn about the importance of accountability, responsibility, and the value of getting involved in civic affairs while developing self- confidence and learning their voices matter and need to be heard within the State's--and Nation's--policy and decision-making process. This vital program creates an environment for students to have meaningful and respectful conversations where students can learn from each other about today's issues while fully acknowledging that each student brings a different life experience to the table, a skill that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. It is through this experience that Youth in Government teaches young people that they have an important and immediate stake in the decisions that shape the future of not only the State of Minnesota, but of their Nation and the world. The program motto for Minnesota Youth in Government is ``Democracy must be learned by each generation,'' which is more important today than ever. I ask that my colleagues join Ms. Smith and myself in honoring the Minnesota YMCA Youth in Government Program.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dara Lindenbaum's nomination to be a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission--FEC--the independent agency responsible for enforcing Federal campaign finance laws. Ms. Lindenbaum is an experienced nominee who is respected on both sides of the aisle; that is why earlier this month her nomination was reported out of the Rules Committee with bipartisan support, including from Ranking Member Blunt. I hope more of my Republican colleagues will join us in supporting her nomination today. I would also like to note that the last time the Senate considered the nomination of FEC Commissioners in December 2020, we confirmed two Republicans and one Democrat, who--importantly--restored a quorum to the Commission. Ms. Lindenbaum's confirmation will simply maintain the Commission's current partisan balance, since she has been nominated to fill the seat being vacated by Commissioner Walther after many years of service. The FEC is charged with a critical role in ensuring accountability in our system of government, and it was established by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal to restore the public's faith in our electoral processes, to make it clear that, in America, politicians must play by the rules, so that the votes of the people decide our elections. Now, 47 years later, the work of the FEC is as important as ever. The 2020 election cycle was the most expensive in history. Total spending was over $14 billion with $8 billion spent on political advertisements alone. And too many voters feel like their voices are being drowned out. At the same time, the Commission is facing the challenges that arise given rapidly evolving technologies and the ongoing threat of foreign interference in our elections. It is a big and important job, but Dara Lindenbaum is more than capable of taking it on. Ms. Lindenbaum has extensive experience in election and campaign finance law, with years of experience working for a civil rights nonprofit and in private practice. She also has firsthand experience at the FEC where she worked as a law clerk early in her legal career, and her work representing clients before the FEC will allow her to bring an important perspective to the Commission. Throughout the confirmation process, Ms. Lindenbaum has shown that she will be a fair and effective Commissioner. In her testimony, she stated that ``[t]he consideration of the facts and the law in front of me will be my guideposts as I seek to provide clarity to the regulated community, increase transparency, and collaborate with my fellow Commissioners[.]'' She is both well qualified and well respected. Before Ms. Lindenbaum's nomination hearing, the Rules Committee received a letter from 30 of the Nation's top campaign finance lawyers. The letter ``enthusiastically'' recommends Ms. Lindenbaum's confirmation, and it is signed by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, including Lee Goodman, a former Republican Chairman of the FEC, and Karl Sandstrom, a former Democratic Commissioner. In the letter--and these are their words, not mine--these attorneys praise her as a ``thoughtful and conscientious advocate'' and ``a genial and inclusive colleague.'' I agree with their conclusion that she would be ``an excellent addition to the Commission.'' The fact that Ms. Lindenbaum has support from top campaign finance attorneys in both parties is no surprise, since she learned about getting along across the aisle at a young age--from her own family. Growing up, her parents supported different political parties, and so every election day, she would take two trips to their polling place, one to watch her mom vote and then another with her dad. Her parents' example will serve her well on the Commission, which in recent years has often suffered from partisan divides and stalemate. As we know, no more than three Commissioners can be from the same political party, but it requires four votes to take most actions. So when votes consistently fall along party lines, very little gets done. For example, the FEC has not enacted any major disclosure rules or internet regulations in over a decade. Hundreds of enforcement cases have been left unresolved. This is not fair to candidates or to the public. While I continue to urge my colleagues to pass legislation to address some of these issues, it is also up to the Commissioners to figure out ways to work across party lines and find bipartisan agreement. I know that Ms. Lindenbaum is up to the task and that she will work to find common ground with her fellow Commissioners on these difficult issues. Our Nation was founded on the ideals of democracy, and we have seen for ourselves in this building how we can't afford to take that for granted. We are reminded every day, as we see the people of Ukraine putting their lives on the line to stand up for their democracy, that it is up to all of us to protect our system of government here at home. At its core, that is the job of the FEC, to ensure the agency fulfills its mission to ``protect the integrity of the Federal campaign finance process'' and, in doing so, to keep our democracy strong. I am confident that Dara Lindenbaum is up to this challenge, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture and support her confirmation. Vote on Lindenbaum Nomination

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support today of Mary Boyle, the nominee to serve as Commissioner at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Mary will bring to this role more than a decade of experience on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where she previously served as general counsel and currently serves as the Executive Director. She is deeply knowledgeable about consumer product safety and the functioning of the CPSC. I have every confidence that she will be ready to lead on day one. But it is not just her professional background that makes her perfect for this role. As a mom who raised three kids, she knows firsthand how important it is for parents to be able to trust the products they use every day. She understands the stakes and the devastating consequences of unsafe products. Just yesterday, the Commerce Committee took an important step forward toward protecting kids and infants by passing the STURDY Act, which will prevent harmful and ultimately heartbreaking furniture tip-overs. Senators Casey and Blumenthal and I have been working on this for quite a while. It resulted in the largest furniture recall ever in the history of America with IKEA. But we need standards in place across the board. I know that we can count on Mary to be another critical partner in preventing unsafe products from hurting our kids. Mary is clear-eyed about the responsibility of the CPSC. In her words, it provides a safety net for the public, and in order to carry out that crucial task, it needs a full roster of Commissioners. Currently, four of the five slots are filled. To truly address pressing product safety issues, we have to fill that fifth seat. We can't afford to play politics here. This is about everything from the hazards posed by crib bumper pads to the use of toxic chemicals in everyday consumer products. I got involved in this way, way back before I was a Senator, when we had a young child swallow a charm that he got with a pair of tennis shoes. It was a giveaway. He didn't die because he choked on that charm; he died over a period of days because the lead in that charm, which was from a foreign country, got into his system, and he died in just a few days. That is how I got involved in the lead standards on foreign toys, that is how I started working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and that is when I saw the difference it can make. We passed a bipartisan bill named after Jim Baker's granddaughter-- the Virginia Graeme Baker pool safety bill--after a young kid named Abigail Taylor in Minnesota was in a kiddy swimming pool and her intestines were ripped out just sitting in the pool because there were so many faulty drains in this country. I went and visited her in the hospital, and she said: I don't want this to happen to any other kid. She lived for a year, and during that time, we worked together. Then Ted Stevens and I passed a much stronger pool safety bill. And I know that the last time I heard testimony from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, over a period of a decade, after we lost a number of kids every year, not one kid had died because of a simple change to how the pool drains worked. That is what the Consumer Product Safety Commission can do at its best--make sure it doesn't happen to any other kid again. The American people are counting on us to get this right, and with Mary, we have the opportunity to do just that. As Mary said in her testimony, consumers need to be able to go about their daily lives without worrying that products they interact with every day--washing machines, cell phones, batteries, toys, and treadmills, to name just a few--do not injure, maim, or kill them. Throughout her impressive career, Mary Boyle has shown that she is wholeheartedly dedicated to that mission. I am voting in support of her, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, my friend and colleague Senator Lee is well aware that I am supportive of this bill. We worked together. I am a lead Democrat on this bill to get it through the committee. I simply believe that this bill must go hand in hand with another bill that would look at this issue in a much bigger way; that, yes, this is about allowing State attorneys general to do their jobs and enforce the law, and that is why he and I have joined forces on this bill. But it is also about putting some rules of the road in place on a Federal basis. We are very close to having a vote on Senator Grassley's and my bill, with a broad range of authors and support, which would be the only and first Federal competition response to tech monopolies since the advent of the internet. I have been watching this movie for way too long. We have hearings, we throw popcorn at CEOs, we get sound bites on TV, but we don't do anything on a Federal basis. We had the Facebook whistleblower come forward, tell of the horror, the American people are with us, and we dither and do nothing. This is actually the first time that we have a coalition across the aisle of people who are ready to move forward on a Federal response. So my view of this is that, as we work to get our enforcers more funds--that is a part of it; Senator Grassley and I have a merger fee bill that is moving as part of the competition bill, which is currently in conference committee--and as we work on Senator Lee's very worthy legislation to focus on allowing the State attorneys general to keep their cases in their own jurisdictions, we simply cannot pretend that we don't have some role in this. If Members don't know about it, maybe they have talked to one of the 2,700 lobbyists whom the tech companies have hired or maybe they have been subject to the $70 million effort on the Federal level. And this is not Senator Lee that I am talking about; he is a true maverick and is willing to take on special interests. But what I believe is going on in this building is that there are a lot of people trying to wait this one out and hope we don't have a vote on this bill. I appreciate Senator Schumer working with me and leadership on the Democratic and Republican sides of the Judiciary Committee to make sure that we get this vote. So Senator Lee will have a vote on this bill. I would certainly not concede at this moment giving tech something they want in this bill when we can't even have a vote on the Federal legislation, but we will have a vote on Senator Lee's bill. I just believe they have to go hand in hand. I think he is well aware of Senators doing all kinds of things procedurally to be able to get votes, but I think it is really important that we don't have a State-only approach when it comes to what is going on with tech. To again remind my colleagues and those watching this, what our bill--this big, bipartisan, important bill--does, it doesn't tear apart the company. It doesn't even take on the fact that they are all monopolies--and they are monopolies. Google has a 90-percent market share. Apple and Google basically, when it comes to app stores, are duopolies in dominating the market. While Europe is set to vote on their own digital market bill on Monday and move this ahead--I was just speaking with them--while Australia has taken on the issue of the news organizations, while Great Britain is moving ahead, we sit back. It is time to at least take on one issue. As the Justice Department looks at what is a monopoly, is it a monopoly when you have 90 percent market share? The very least we can do is put some rules of the road in place. What Senator Grassley's and my bill does--and we have taken several comments from Members and made changes to that bill--what the bill simply does is it says: Hey, monopolies or gatekeeper companies, if you own your own companies--which they are increasingly doing--you can't use your monopoly status to self-preference your own products in front of other products. No. 2, you can't copy nonpublic data that you have because of the virtue of the fact that you are the gatekeeper and then rip it off and make your own products. That is exactly what Amazon did, as the Wall Street Journal reported, with a four-employee luggage organizer firm when they gave them the data. The next thing you know, it shows up on Amazon Basics. The third thing you can't do is make companies, small businesses, buy a bunch of stuff just to put yourself at the top of the platform. The American people are with us on this, poll after poll, including a poll that Google accidentally--accidentally--put out there before they were able to pull it back that showed 68 percent of people want to use the antitrust laws--68 percent of people in their own polling--to be able to rein in this problem. This is a uniquely American approach, but it must be done hand in hand with State enforcement. So, all I am asking my friend and colleague to do here--and we wouldn't be here if we could have reached an agreement on this--is, I will assure him that we will have a vote on his bill; but we must also have a vote and finally move ahead on what is only a slice of what we could be doing. We are not doing some of the things I would want to do, which is look back at some of these mergers, which is actually take that email that Mark Zuckerberg wrote that said I'd rather ``buy than compete'' and look at what they bought in their zest to be able to avoid competition. Right now, that is going on with the Justice Department and the FTC. But we are simply trying to set some rules of the road, and it is more than overdue after an 8-month investigation in the House of Representatives--an 8-month investigation. What Federal bills have we passed that would put any checks and balances on these companies? They just keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And I am so pleased that some of the State attorneys general are taking this on. I am eager to get Senator Lee's bill and my bill up for a vote, but it will come close to when the vote on the actual Federal rules takes place. For these reasons, I object.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, I look forward to working with Senator Lee to pass this bill, and I also look forward to passing a bill on the Federal basis and not just deciding that this should be in the province of 50 different States, and I thoroughly plan to work with him to pass this bill, and I hope it will be soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Senator Blunt for his statement. I join him in opposing this resolution. As chair of the Rules Committee, with oversight of the Sergeant at Arms who helps manage the Senate Page Program, I know, like Senator Blunt does and everyone here does--I see Senator Leahy is here, the Presiding Officer, and Senator Paul--how hard the dedicated pages, who come from States across the country, work to help us do our jobs here on the Senate floor. We are so excited when we have someone from our States come and join us as a page. They are, too, as are their families. As we continue to reopen the Capitol, which I strongly support, we must also take into account the health and safety of everyone who works and visits here, including our pages. This resolution would reverse the Page Program's--as Senator Blunt noted--current policy and prohibit any requirement for pages to be vaccinated against COVID-19. It would also prohibit requiring pages to undergo COVID testing or wear a mask regardless of guidance from the Office of the Attending Physician or the CDC. This includes reversing the policy that all pages must wear a mask if one tests positive--a commonplace rule to protect healthy pages, who all live in the same dormitory, which, I think, is the defining part of this. In light of recent events, we know that staff, Senators, as well as pages, have tested positive in the past few weeks. In light of these recent events, the Attending Physician, Dr. Monahan, has recommended that all pages wear masks. I believe in science. I believe we should listen to Dr. Monahan. Local public health officials have also decided, by the way, to require vaccines for certain eligible students in Washington, DC, including those attending our page school here in the Senate. I agree with Senator Blunt in that the Page Program needs flexibility to set its own policies to protect the health and safety of pages. We should not put these young people who have come here to work in the heart of our democracy at risk unnecessarily. We all know that the vaccine helps greatly if someone gets sick. I know that because my husband got really sick before there was a vaccine. He is healthy, and he ended up in the hospital for a week on oxygen. That might shape my response here, but I believe that if he had had the vaccine, we wouldn't have come that close to losing him. I believe in science. And so I join Senator Blunt in this objection. And we look forward to seeing these pages and many pages serve us well in the coming years; therefore, I object. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Albert Lea Fire Lieutenant Brett Thomas Boss, who passed away on February 5, 2022, at the age of 38 after a decade-long battle with stage 4 Ewing's Sarcoma. Brett was born to Karen Boss on November 30, 1983, in Fargo, ND, and was later adopted by Todd Boss in 1992. From a young age, he demonstrated a clear drive to help others. In high school, he participated in the local Fire Explorers program, which gave him both the skills to save lives in his community and a dedication to public service that guided his entire life. Brett's 17-year firefighting career was nothing short of extraordinary. As an EMT, a hazmat technician, a fire investigator, and a firefighter instructor, he worked every day to keep the people of Albert Lea safe. Deputy Fire Chief Jeff Laskowske put it best: Brett was a true hero. Brett's heroism only became clearer following his diagnosis. In the words of his loving family, he ``fought cancer like a boss.'' But Brett didn't just fight for himself; following an alarming string of cancer cases among firefighters in Albert Lea and Austin, he became a fierce advocate for his brothers and sisters in the field. He played a key role in passing State legislation that secured funding for equipment to keep firefighters safe from carcinogens as well as a grant program for firefighters living with cancer or heart disease. In 2018, we held an event together in support of legislation to create a national firefighter cancer registry, and days later, the President signed it into law. Brett also collaborated with the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, a group of firefighters that worked to provide resources, support, and education to first responders in need. While Brett had a lot to be proud of in his career, he was even prouder of his family. He married his wife Danielle in 2006, and they went on to have two great kids, Jaelyn and Aiden. Brett could often be found cheering them on from the sidelines of sporting events or sharing with them his love of camping and fishing. While it is hard not to feel like Brett's life was cut short, his legacy as an incredible firefighter, advocate, son, husband, and dad will last forever. He changed lives; he saved lives; and he made the world a better place.