Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Chief Justice, I submit a question to the desk directed to the House managers.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, today I rise with a heavy heart to honor and pay tribute to three exemplary National Guard Members from my home State of Minnesota. On Thursday, December 5, SGT Kort M. Plantenberg, CW2 James A. Rogers, Jr., and CW2 Charles P. Nord lost their lives when their Black Hawk UH-60 helicopter went down southwest of St. Cloud, MN, during a routine maintenance flight. They had just returned home from the Middle East in May after a 9- month deployment conducting medical evacuations. Once back in Minnesota, they had continued serving our Nation by ensuring that our Forces would be prepared to respond the moment they were needed. After this tragic loss, Governor Walz, a Minnesota National Guardsman for nearly 25 years, remarked that ``we will forever be in the debt of these warriors.'' I couldn't agree more. Today, I would like to honor these brave men for giving what President Lincoln called, ``the last full measure of devotion.'' We are forever grateful for heroes like Sergeant Plantenberg, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Rogers, and Chief Warrant Officer 2 Nord. Some who knew these extraordinary men described Sergeant Plantenberg as ``one of the most professional individuals . . . [who] had unlimited potential.'' Chief Warrant Officer 2 Rogers was said to be a ``calming presence'' who could always make those around him laugh. Chief Warrant Officer 2 Nord was described as ``lighthearted--and kind-hearted.'' Like many who serve this country, these men all had so many gifts, and our Nation is better today because of their service and sacrifice. During this time of unimaginable grief, I would also like to offer my prayers and condolences to the families of these fallen heroes. I hope they take comfort in the fact that their lives weren't lost in vain but in support of their common goal: to serve the Nation they loved. They will be missed, but never forgotten, as their service has inspired us all. So now, it is up to us to preserve their memory and support all of our brave men and women who make such an immense sacrifice to keep our Nation strong. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and loved ones and with the entire Minnesota National Guard community, at home and overseas. There is no limit to the respect they have earned, no cap to the honor they are due, and no time when we will not be in their debt. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to my good friend Senator Johnny Isakson on his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Throughout the years, I have gotten to know Johnny as a colleague but more importantly as a friend. Together, we cochaired the National Prayer Breakfast and attended the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast. I always came away from those breakfasts thankful for colleagues like Johnny, who reminded me that we all share a common purpose and a common humanity and that, with faith and forgiveness, we can start anew. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Johnny was always a tireless champion for our Nation's veterans--leading on issues that face all of our brave men and women who have stepped up and served our country. Without Johnny, important legislation like the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act--also known as the Forever GI Bill--to increase the number of veterans who can access benefits under the post-9-11 GI bill, would not have been signed into law in 2017. And whether it was his work on the Finance, Foreign Relations, or Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committees, Johnny exemplified a fighting spirit and an enduring commitment to service. Not long after I was elected to the Senate, Johnny and I began working together on legislation that was later signed into law to advance research on muscular dystrophy and help strengthen a program that provides information and education for people battling this disease. I will always appreciate his willingness to put partisanship aside in an effort to work toward a bipartisan proposal that would protect Dreamers last year. Beyond just our legislative work together, I will always think fondly of Johnny as someone who is decent, caring, and kind. He even hosts a prerecess barbeque that has everything from pulled pork to brisket to mac and cheese and sweet tea and pecan pie. One year, you could smell the hickory-smoked meats in the halls of the Senate for days--and I loved it. As we take this opportunity to honor Johnny, I also want to thank his wife Dianne and their three children and eight grandchildren for sharing so much of their beloved husband, father, and grandfather with the U.S. Senate. As much as I will miss Johnny's company in the Senate next year, I know that this isn't his final chapter. He will continue to do good work for the people of Georgia, and I am lucky to count him as a friend. Thank you Johnny.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to express my opposition to the nomination of Steven Menashi to U.S. circuit judge for the Second Circuit. I am disappointed that Mr. Menashi's nomination has moved forward even though he lacks the support of his home State senators. In the rush to confirm judges like Mr. Menashi, the Senate has chipped away at the traditions that allow us to properly advise and consent on nominations, which is our responsibility under the Constitution. Today, we are considering a nominee whose record has raised several concerning issues. While working as Principal Deputy General Counsel and as Acting General Counsel at the Department of Education, Menashi advised Secretary DeVos on the Department's efforts to withhold debt relief for students who were defrauded by their colleges, reverse the Obama administration's regulations on campus sexual assault, and delay the enforcement of rules designed to ensure that students of color with disabilities are treated fairly. And while at the White House Counsel's Office, Mr. Menashi has advised on the administration's efforts to end the deferred enforced departure program for Liberians and to restrict access to asylum. I am also concerned that, despite a request from all of the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Menashi has refused to provide information about his knowledge or involvement in the events related to the telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25, 2019. It is for these reasons that I am unable to support Mr. Menashi's confirmation. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in expressing my opposition to the language in the fiscal year 2020 Interior appropriations bill related to the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to issue small refinery waivers under the renewable fuel standard without taking into account the Department of Energy's recommendations. The Trump administration continues to undermine the renewable fuel standard by granting small refinery waivers to multi-billion-dollar oil companies. Since the beginning of the administration, a total of 85 waivers have been issued, reducing demand for more than 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel. That is why I have repeatedly called on the Trump administration to stop issuing any further waivers, immediately reallocate the remaining gallons, and make public the information regarding any recipients of these exemptions. We need more transparency and openness about the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, use of small refinery waivers--who is applying for and receiving them, how are they documenting their economic hardship, and how is EPA considering that hardship in the context of interagency recommendations. The ``small refinery relief'' provision in the appropriations bill will allow EPA to avoid answering these questions and continue issuing waivers without providing evidence of hardship. It is for this reason that I am opposed to the ``small refinery relief'' language in the fiscal year 2020 Interior appropriations bill. While the administration must cease issuing any further improper refinery exemptions, as I have been calling for since these abuses began, we can start supporting our farmers and rural communities by removing this harmful provision from the Interior appropriations bill during conference negotiations. Especially at a time when they are facing trade uncertainty, low prices, and difficult weather, our farmers deserve better.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to my good friend Senator Kay Hagan. When I think of Kay, I will always think of joy, as reflected by the bright colors she used to love wearing. Regardless of how things could get at times, her wonderful spirit would make it all seem better. You could always count on Kay to look out for people, whether it was restoring a program to pay tuition for Active-Duty servicemembers, establishing stronger protections for victims of domestic violence, or passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to stop pay discrimination. Kay made history. She was the first woman Democratic Senator from North Carolina and the State's second woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. I have always thought that the women of the Senate work harder, work together, and get things done. Kay was definitely one of those women. In fact Kay, in her inimitable way, summed it up best when she said, ``There are only two types of senators: those who'd spend all day on their hair . . . and the women senators.'' Kay loved to swim, and when she arrived as a new Senator in 2009, she went down to the Senate pool only to find a sign outside that said ``Men Only''--a fact that she mentioned during one of her first speeches as a Senator without realizing media was present. When the press started calling around to various offices asking about the ``men only'' Senate pool, some were quick to push back on Kay's claim, so Kay asked them to meet her down at the pool to see for themselves. Within a day, the sign was changed to ``Co-Ed Aquatic Facility: Please Dress Appropriately.'' As it turned out, four male Senators had been swimming naked. But because of Kay Hagan, now all Senators can enjoy the pool, and everyone wears ``appropriate attire''. That is what I loved about working with Kay. She always looked out for her colleagues. And so when Kay left the Senate, the women Senators had a special farewell party for her next to the pool. Kay's drive to get things done came in part from her family. Born in Shelby, NC, as the second of three children and the only daughter, Kay once remarked ``being the girl in the middle . . . I had to fight for everything I got.'' And fight she did, rising from an internship in the U.S. Capitol in the 1970s, where she operated the elevators for U.S. Senators, to eventually becoming a Senator herself. In between, Kay served as State senator for 10 years and was named as one of North Carolina's ``Ten Most Effective Senators'' three terms in a row. My friend, former Vice President Walter Mondale, once told me that when elected officials gain power, they ``either grow or they swell.'' Kay was a Senator who grew. Kay was one bright yellow ray of sunshine for everyone she touched-- the Senate, her beloved State of North Carolina, her friends, and her family. As she struggled with her illness the last few years, her loving husband, Chip, and their family were always at her side. I encourage everyone to look up at the Sun and think of Kay.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to be here with Senator Warner and Senator Wyden, both leaders on this election security issue. This is the second time I have come to the floor this week to urge the Senate to take action on election security legislation. It has been 1,006 days since Russia attacked us in 2016, something that has been confirmed by all of President Trump's top intelligence agents. In fact, former Director Coats actually said they are getting bolder. The next major elections are just 377 days away. We must take action now to secure our elections. I know Senator Wyden will be addressing the actual hacking of our election equipment, which is so important, as well as other issues, but I am focused on this propaganda issue, this disinformation campaign that we have seen from the Russians. The Honest Ads Act, which is part of the bill that I will be asking for unanimous consent on, the SHIELD Act, which is going to be passed by the House today, includes a number of measures that would close loopholes to stop foreign spending on issue ads in our elections. It would boost disclosure and transparency requirements, and it would help to stop bad actors from using deceptive practices to mislead voters. All that may sound like a list of policy issues that seem very removed, but let me make it very specific. Here is one example of, literally, millions. In the last election, an ad was discovered that was paid for in rubles. It had been paid for in rubles before the election. It happened, but we did not know about it until long after the election. It was the face of an African- American woman, an innocent woman, in Chicago. She later called our office and said: I don't know where they got my face. They put her face on a Facebook ad that went to African-American Facebook pages in swing States. This is what the Russians did. Her picture was there, and it said: Don't wait in line to vote for Hillary Clinton. You can text your vote at--and it gave a five-digit number, like 86153. That is a crime. That is a crime. They are suppressing the vote. They are telling a voter to vote illegally in a way that will not register their vote. That is what we are talking about here--propaganda. Yes, it hurt one side in this 2016 election, but the next time it could be someone else on the other side of the aisle. Fundamental to our democracy and our Founding Fathers was the simple idea that we would determine our faith in America and that we would not let foreign powers influence our elections. That is what this is about. It is about protecting our election hardware and infrastructure, and it is also about protecting us from this disinformation campaign and all of this really bad stuff. I don't think my colleagues are interested in protecting--I hope this isn't their goal--the big social media companies. I hope their goal is to protect Americans so they can determine their own faith in an election. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2669, the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act, otherwise known as the SHIELD Act, which was introduced earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. That is very unfortunate, given how soon the elections are and what a difference we could make, especially with the disinformation campaigns. I hope my colleagues change their minds. The Honest Ads Act is a bipartisan bill with Senator Graham, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee. We must act. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge the Senate to take action on election security legislation immediately. It has been 1,005 days since Russia attacked our elections in 2016, and we have yet to pass any kind of comprehensive election security reform. The next major elections are just 378 days away, so the clock is ticking. We must take action now to secure our elections from foreign threats. Let's review what happened. In 2016, Russia invaded our democracy. They didn't use bombs, jets, or tanks. Instead, they spent years planning a cyber mission to undermine the foundation of our democratic system. This mission has been called ``sweeping'' and ``systematic'' by many, including Special Counsel Mueller. Our military and intelligence officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations, as well as Special Counsel Mueller, made clear and confirmed over and over again that Russia launched sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks that were authorized by President Putin. This includes former Director Coats, President Trump's former intelligence head; Director Wray, the head of the FBI; and the head of Homeland Security. One by one, officials in the Trump administration have confirmed that this happened. What exactly did Russia do? They conducted research and reconnaissance against election networks in every single State. We used to think it was just 21 States, but this year, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security under the Trump administration issued a report that confirmed that all 50 States were targeted. Russia was successful in hacking into databases in Illinois. The Chicago board of elections reported that names, addresses, birth dates, and other sensitive information on thousands of registered voters were exposed. Russia launched cyber attacks against U.S. companies that made the software we use to vote, and they tried to hack into the email of local officials who have elections in their purview. Investigations are ongoing, but we know Russia hacked into election systems in the Presiding Officer's home State of Florida. Senator Rubio has publicly confirmed that Russian hackers not only accessed voting systems in Florida but were in a position to change voter rolls. These are just the attacks on our election infrastructure. So we should look at it this way: No. 1, they tried to get into the infrastructure. No. 2, we know they spread propaganda about things. One of the main ways they did that was through social media. This month, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report detailing Russia's widespread social media campaign to spread disinformation and divide our country. Remember, you have hacking into things at the local level and at the State levels, and then you have this disinformation campaign. These are two things with the same intent--to interfere in our democracy. Think about what I just described. A foreign country attacked our democracy in multiple ways. Our military leaders and law enforcement officials all say that Russia hasn't paid a sufficient price for the attack, so they are now ``emboldened,'' in the words of former Director Dan Coats--a former Republican Senator--in continuing efforts to undermine our political system. Congress hasn't passed a law--aside from providing election equipment funding with no strings attached--to address the problem. This isn't just wrong; this is legislative malpractice. We have a common set of facts about what happened. Now we need commonsense solutions to make sure it doesn't happen again. This week, a number of us are coming to the floor to urge the Republican leader to bring election security legislation to a vote. That must happen, but much more must happen as well. Today, I am going to focus on the need to improve transparency and accountability for online platforms like Facebook and Twitter, but before I turn to that, I would like to take a moment to describe why it is imperative that we update our election infrastructure. Right now, the majority of States rely on electronic voting systems that are at least 10 years old. In 2020, voters in eight States will cast their ballots on machines with no paper trail, so there will be no reliable record to go back and audit the election results. So if something goes wrong, if they hack in, there will be no paper ballots to back up what actually happened. Problems for that State or that county? Yes. Well, how about problems for our national Presidential election? By the way, am I telling any secrets? No. Russia knows exactly which States and counties don't have backup paper ballots. Sixteen States have no statewide audit requirement to confirm the results of the election. These statistics are alarming because experts agree that paper ballots and audits are the baseline of what we need to secure our election system. FBI Director Wray recently testified in the Senate. I asked him whether he thinks having things like paper ballots makes sense in the event that Russia--or any other foreign country, for that matter-- decides to go at us again. He said, yes, that would be a good thing. Maybe we should think of listening to the head of the FBI and figure out what we can do to make this better. Even the President has expressed his support for paper ballots. But I think we need more than words; I think we need action. We need this body to say to those States: It is time to get your act together now and get those backup paper ballots. I have introduced multiple pieces of legislation--some of them bipartisan--that would secure our election by requiring paper ballots, mandating postelection audits, and modernizing our election infrastructure. One of those bills, the Secure Election Act, is cosponsored by my colleague Senator Lankford and also by the head of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Burr, and Senator Warner, the ranking member, as well as Senator Graham, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Harris is also a cosponsor. In spite of all of these leaders being on this bill, it was blocked last year by Senator McConnell, who made calls, along with the White House general counsel, to Republican Senators asking them not to support the bill. This is wrong. I am glad that my colleagues Senators Wyden and Durbin will be coming to the floor this week urging the Senate to take up the bills, such as the bills I introduced, the SAFE Act and the Election Security Act, that would modernize our election infrastructure. Remember, Russia didn't just try to hack into our elections system; they also launched an extended and sophisticated information war designed to divide our country and destroy America's confidence in our political system. Russia also knew that our social media platforms would be easily exploited for that purpose. I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass this bill, which is a bipartisan bill that I lead along with Senator Graham, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, and that is also cosponsored by Senator Warner, the ranking leader on the Intelligence Committee. Why are we doing this bill about the social media platforms? Well, the place where Russia was most successful in undermining our democracy was right there in front of you on your Facebook page. We know that some of the brightest minds in our country built remarkable platforms where people can share information, like Twitter, Google, and Facebook. Unfortunately, these platforms failed to build adequate protections against the bad guys, kind of like building a bank but not putting any locks on the doors, and our democracy is worse because of it. Our social media platforms are not well regulated. In fact, they are hardly regulated at all and are ripe for exploitation. Countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China are taking advantage of that as we speak. The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner, recently released its second report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. This wasn't a partisan report. No one could call it that at all. The first report details attacks and threats to election infrastructure. This second report details the sophisticated disinformation campaign Russia used to pit Americans against each other, and the committee found that Russia's targeting of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election was ``part of a broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign designed to sow discord in American politics and society.'' The report notes that Russia conducted ``a vastly more complex and strategic assault on the United States than was initially understood.'' What did they do? They hired trolls. They hired buildings full of people to go online and pretend to be Americans and then submit things and buy things and buy ads that ended up on your Facebook pages and your Twitter feed. Russia specifically focused on hot-button issues and used falsified stories and memes to foster distrust of our democratic institutions. So maybe they would target a conservative person and put up a bunch of things that would make that person mad, but they were fake or maybe they would target a liberal person, and they would put up a bunch of ads about rallies and about things like that which were actually fake. They targeted African-Americans more than any other group through individual posts, location targeting, Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, and Twitter. Their internet research agency focused on stoking divisions around race. One of my best examples is an ad that they bought in rubles. Facebook let them buy it in rubles. It was an ad that we didn't even see until months after the election. It had an innocent woman's face on it. I know because she called our office later when it came out in Judiciary. She was just a woman. They found her face--an African-American woman-- and put it on the ad. The ad reads: Why wait in line on election day? You can text your vote for Hillary Clinton. They gave the text number. That is a lie. It is more than a lie. It is a crime. They are trying to suppress people's votes and make them not go vote, and instead, text to a fake number. That is a crime. People have gone to jail for simply jamming the lines on election day. That is what this is. It is a high- tech version of a crime. No one was prosecuted because we didn't even know the ad existed that was targeting African-American Facebook pages in swing States until way after the election. They could do the same thing on the conservative side of the aisle. That is why I am simply asking for some solution, because one time it is going to be one side, and the next time it will be the other. Why would the people in this Chamber let this go on? Why would we do that? We have sworn and taken an oath--an obligation--to stand up for our country. That is what this is about. It continues. Intelligence officials are once again sounding the alarm that adversaries are using social media to undermine the upcoming elections. Just yesterday, Facebook announced that it removed a network of Russian-backed accounts posing as locals weighing in on political issues in swing States. It never ends. Russia has a playbook, and they are using it to attack us. We have to stop them. How do we do that? Well, I have a very good solution. It is not the only solution. There are a lot of other bills we can do too. But this is called the Honest Ads Act, which I am leading with Senator Graham. I want to thank Senator Warner for all the work he did on this bill as well. The goal is simple: Bring our laws into the 21st century to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our political system. Right now, the political ads that are sold on TV, radio, and newspapers are disclosed so that the public knows what they are. They are actually kept in an archive so campaigns and reporters can go over and see what they are. They can actually figure out what this ad is and why somebody was putting this ad against me. I believe in the competitiveness of our election system, and if you disclose things, then, you are going to get more information about what is wrong with those things. The ads also have to say who paid for them. That is why you see those little disclaimers at the bottom or you see elected officials or their challengers saying who paid for this ad: My name is this; I paid for this ad. That is what that is. Guess what. If those things go on radio, TV, or newspaper, you have to follow all those rules. If they end up on Facebook or Twitter or another large social media platform, there are no rules in play. Sure, a few of those companies right now are voluntarily disclosing it, but there are no actual rules in place about how it should be done. When I asked them why they wouldn't favor the bill, some of them have since changed their minds and do favor it, but when I asked at the beginning, they said they couldn't figure out what an issue of Federal legislative importance is. That is what the standard is. It is about candidate ads and the issue ads that you see on TV that bug you all the time. When asked about ads and why they couldn't do it, they said they couldn't figure out what that was. I said: Really? My radio station in Deep River Falls, MN, can figure it out. These are some of the biggest companies in the world. Please tell me you don't have the expertise to figure that out. That is why it is important that we pass this bill. It is about issue ads, and it is also about candidate ads. All it does is this. As we look at where the money is going to go in advertising, in the last 2016 Presidential election, $1.4 billion was spent online on these kinds of ads. It is supposed to go to $3 billion or $4 billion in 2020, and there are no rules of the road. It is not only unfair, but it is criminal if this continues. It is so easy to do. This is something we could fix right away. This is why John McCain led this bill with me. When we introduced it, he said: I have long fought to increase transparency and end the corrupting influence of special interests in political campaigns, and I am confident the Honest Ads Act will modernize existing law to safeguard the integrity of our election system. This Congress, as I mentioned, Senator Graham took his place. It is time to get this done. There are many other bills that I will come back and discuss in the next few weeks that would help on foreign influence in our elections, but, today, I want to focus on this one because election security is national security, and it is well past time that we take action. The American people should expect nothing less from us. We should be able to get this done.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate the words from my colleague from South Dakota. I point out that the act is a bipartisan bill, with the other cosponsor being the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, and I think we should be focused on election security instead of protecting these social media companies. I think we should be protecting the American people. We need to be a united front. I appreciate his words, and I look forward to working with him to get this bill to the floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss S.J. Res. 53, the resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act on the Environmental Protection Agency's Affordable Clean Energy, ACE rule. I fully support passage of the resolution. Every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage climate change is causing to our environment and economy. Increasing floods, heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes, and snowstorms have wreaked havoc on communities across the country. We cannot continue to ignore that climate change is already happening all around us. We must take immediate action. The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan established Federal standards for emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-fired power plants. The plan set achievable carbon emissions reduction targets of 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 to be reached by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants, shifting energy generation from fossil fuels to renewable sources, and promoting energy conservation. The Clean Power Plan not only helped drive the transition of our energy generation to cleaner sources, it also served as the centerpiece of U.S. efforts to lead the world in addressing climate change through the Paris Climate Agreement. The administration's rule would take us backward by repealing the emissions reduction targets in the Clean Power Plan and replacing them with less ambitious targets based on narrow energy efficiency improvements that also wholly exempt natural gas-fired power plants. It is clear that the new rules will likely result in more carbon pollution, halt the accelerated trends toward low- and zero-carbon energy, and have dire implications for our air quality and public health. For these reasons, I oppose the administration's rule and support passage of Senator Cardin's resolution--S.J. Res. 53--to disapprove of it. Thank you. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, I rise to acknowledge the passing of a longtime advocate, mayor, and friend, International Falls Mayor Bob Anderson, who died unexpectedly on September 20, 2019. Described by those who knew him as the ``voice and face of International Falls,'' Bob spent five decades in public service to the hometown and community he loved. A lifelong resident of International Falls and graduate of Rainy River Community College, Bob spent 51 years working for the local Boise paper mill, including 25 as the public affairs manager for the Boise Cascade Corporation. Bob was passionate about his community, and his love was reflected in his years of dedication to the airport, hospital, Highway 53 Task Force, the county, anything and everything connected to his beloved International Falls. He truly left his mark on his beloved hometown from his seats on the city council, the chamber of commerce, and as its devoted mayor--serving first from 1968 to 1986 and then elected again in 2013. And he still wasn't done; he had made clear that he was fully intending to seek another term next year. Bob was also dedicated to improving communities across Minnesota through decades of service on numerous statewide committees and advocacy organizations, including as a president of the League of Minnesota Cities, as a member of the Minnesota Forestry Association, and as chairman of our Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council. He also chaired the International Falls-Koochiching County Airport Commission for over 30 years, helping to secure Federal grant money for the airport that serves as a major corridor between the ``icebox of the Nation'' and those who flock to the area to hunt, fish, and enjoy the beauty of northern Minnesota. Earlier this year and in large part due to Bob's efforts, the International Falls Airport opened a brand new terminal. The airport was just one of the many legacies Bob leaves behind. In the words of Representative Rob Ecklund of International Falls, ``You can't go anywhere in northern Minnesota without seeing his fingerprint on it, from airports to roads. He left a tremendous lasting imprint.'' We are thankful we were able to work with Bob on so many of these projects--from economic development initiatives to youth programs--and will always remember him as a tireless champion for small towns and the outdoors. In his final state of the city address, delivered just weeks ago, Bob summed up progress in his community, saying ``There is a lot of sunshine and a few dark clouds, but overall it's positive.'' We hope during this time of loss for both our State and Bob's family, his wife Carol, three children, and five grandchildren will take solace in remembering all the sunshine Bob blessed us with.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in calling on Leader McConnell to immediately bring to the floor commonsense gun violence prevention legislation that is supported by the majority of the American people. We must take action in response to the tragedies that have touched too many communities across the country, including in Gilroy, El Paso, Dayton, Midland, and Odessa just this summer. Time and again, we saw the American people respond with courage--the courage of a mother who shielded her child from gun fire, the courage of first responders who ran into the line of fire to save lives. It is time for the United States Senate to find the resolve to act with courage; the American people cannot afford any more inaction. There are three bipartisan bills sitting on Leader McConnell's desk that will help to save lives: the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which requires a background check for the sale of all guns; the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which closes the Charleston loophole and gives law enforcement more time to complete a background check; and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which includes a provision based on my bill, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, to keep domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from buying or owning a gun. We should also take action to ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and encourage States to enact extreme risk protection order laws to allow law enforcement or family members to intervene when a person is a danger to themselves or others. In a nation plagued by gun violence, passing these commonsense provisions will help save lives. There are more shootings and more tragic losses all too often, and every time, we hear expressions of sympathy, but we have yet to see votes or action. The time has come to act, and we must act now. Thank you.

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 this Chamber, once referred to as the greatest deliberative body, must take action. We have people all over the country who want to see action, people who want to see change, people who are crying out for their leaders in Washington to do their jobs. These days, the U.S. Senate has become a place where legislation goes to die and the important issues of the day go ignored, in addition to inaction--major, major issues, significant issues, like climate change and infrastructure and immigration reform. Today I will focus on three things that are right before us--three bills in the gun legislation area that right now are on the leader's desk--and two other areas, election protection and bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, where we could literally take action immediately. I focus on these because they all involve bills that have passed the House, and the Senate could literally act today. I focus on these because, in all three cases, the timing is urgent. I am talking about inaction in the wake of terrible tragedies in Dayton and El Paso and in Midland-Odessa, all in just the last month; inaction in protecting our elections and making it easier for people to vote; inaction in response to serious issues of healthcare costs, particularly prescription drug prices. First, I will speak about gun safety. Think about the courage--the incredible courage--of the people who were in Dayton and in El Paso and in Midland-Odessa, of the mom who literally shielded her baby from death as she herself perished from gunshot wounds, but she kept that baby alive. Or how about the grandpa who died shielding his wife and granddaughter or the off-duty soldier who carried children away to safety? All of that happened in that store. As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I think also about the first responders in all of these mass shootings. Those in Dayton, OH, got there in 1 minute--1 minute--but, still, we lost nine people in 30 seconds. But they were there in 1 minute and saved so many lives. That is courage. That is the courage of ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and I believe in this place of extraordinary power that their courage must be matched. The courage must be matched to that mom, to that grandpa, to that soldier, to those first responders. These are ordinary citizens who stepped up and saved lives. It is the least we can do to match their courage. The American people can't afford more inaction. But over the past few years, to me, it seems we have lost our resolve. Today, I implore my colleagues, I implore the Republican leadership to find the resolve once again and act with courage just as those men and women did in El Paso, in Dayton, in Midland and Odessa and Gilroy and Parkland and Newtown and Charleston and Orlando. How about all of those families who lose a loved one every single day to gun violence in homes, to gun violence on the streets? There are 1,300 children who die from gunshot wounds each year. That is a classroom of kids every single week. Yes, we are back today. Congress is back. I believe we should have come back sooner. We were in recess for mere hours when the gunman in El Paso claimed the lives of 22 people and for only a few hours more when the gunman in Dayton claimed 9 lives. I was among those who immediately called for the Senate to come back from recess so that we could vote on gun safety measures--gun safety measures that had passed the House of Representatives with some Republican support. I said that we should come back for that vote back then on background checks. By the way, 9 out of 10 Americans support sensible background checks; the majority of hunters support sensible background checks; the majority of voters who voted for President Trump support sensible background checks. I know the history here. As the lead sponsor of the bill to prevent perpetrators of domestic violence--perpetrators, people who have been convicted of serious domestic violence and stalking--from possessing a gun and as a longtime supporter of universal background checks, as well as the assault weapon ban and limits on magazines, I was invited to the White House right after Parkland, right after all of those kids died in that school, and I thought: Well, this is a moment when we can act. I was seated across from the President of the United States, and I had a piece of paper that I saved, and I wrote down with hash marks how many times he said that we should pass the bill for universal background checks and stop that gun show loophole. Nine times he said it--nine times. I was seated next to the Vice President and across from the President. I told the President that I come from a proud hunting State and that when I look at proposals like this, I say to myself: Do they hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand? Do they do anything to hurt our hunting tradition in our State? They don't. That is why the vast majority of hunters support universal background checks and a lot of these other measures we talked about that day in that conference room in the White House. It was on TV, so people can see it. There is a video of it. There is evidence of it. I thought it was a done deal. But then what happened? The President, the next day, met with the NRA, and he folded. He folded, despite the fact that on TV in front of the Nation, in front of those kids, those surviving kids from Parkland, in front of the families of the kids who had died, he made a promise that he didn't keep. That is the history I know and I have lived. But it doesn't end there. I go back in time. I go back to the saddest day in the U.S. Senate for me. That was the morning of the vote on background checks. That was years before. That was after the Sandy Hook shooting. Those families were there, and I had been working with some of the Senators who were leading that bill, and I had to tell those parents that morning who had lost their kids--their elementary school- age kids in that school--that we didn't have enough votes to pass that bill. I remember one of the moms said to me: You know, I will never forget that day. I will never forget the last time I saw my son alive. He had severe autism, so he really couldn't speak. But every morning he would point at the picture of the school aide, whom he loved so much, who would never leave his side. He loved her, and he would point at her picture on our refrigerator. That is what happened that last day she saw him alive. Then he went to school, and then, just a few hours later, she was waiting in that firehouse with all of those parents. One by one, those children came into that firehouse, and pretty soon, the parents who were left knew that they would never see their babies again. As she was sobbing in that firehouse, she had this fleeting moment where she thought of that school aide, and she knew at that moment that the school aide would never leave the side of her little boy. When they found them both, shot to death, that school aide had her arms around that little boy. That mom was in my office that morning, and she had the courage to advocate for something she knew wouldn't have saved her kid because of the particular circumstances of how that guy got that gun. But what she knew about the background checks was that they would save more lives than a lot of these other measures. Why? Because the States that have them have reduced rates of domestic homicide. Yes, and they help with suicide as well. It probably would have helped in Midland-Odessa. We don't know all of the facts, but what we do know is that one time that guy failed a background check, and then somehow he was able to get a gun. Those parents had the courage to do that. Then, a few hours later, this place didn't have the courage to pass that bill. That is the history I have had with this issue, but it goes back even further. It goes back to when I was a prosecutor and we had cases all the time of everyday gun violence. We had officers killed; we had children killed; we had women killed in their homes. But the case I most remember actually happened after I left that job, and I was in the Senate, and we had a shooting of a police officer in a small town. He was just doing his job. He showed up for a domestic violence call, which maybe sounds regular to a lot of people but not to officers because they know how dangerous those calls are. It was a young woman, the victim of domestic violence, 17. The guy was in the house, and the officer went to the door, just doing his job. He opened the door, and the guy shot him in the head. He was wearing a bulletproof vest, but it didn't protect him. The widow told me--because I was there for that funeral--the last time they had been in that church was for the Nativity play that the kids were in. After Christmas, the next time they were in that church, she was walking--a widow--down that aisle with her little children, with a little toddler in her arms in a blue dress covered with stars. That is gun violence. It is not just about one family; it is not just about one victim; it is not even just about that police officer and that family who will never be the same. It is about our entire community. That is my history with this issue. So when I come back here and I think of the courage of all of those people and all of those survivors and I think about those mass shootings and how, one by one, if we had passed these sensible bills, we could have prevented some of this from happening, I don't know what our excuse is anymore. The leader on the Republican side said that ``if the President took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes, I would be happy to put it on the floor.'' Then the President said: ``Congress is going to be reporting back to me with ideas.'' The time for ideas is done. The ideas passed in the House of Representatives--not all of the ideas that I would like put into law, but some really good things got passed that would prevent a lot of violence, including the background checks, including closing the Charleston loophole, when that White nationalist went into that church and gunned down those parishioners only because a background check hadn't been completed. It just gives a few more days--that is what that bill does--so police officers can do their job and complete the background checks. How about my bill, which is a bill that is sitting on Leader McConnell's desk? It closes the boyfriend loophole. What is the status of the law right now? Well, if you get convicted of a serious offense of domestic violence against your husband or wife--most of the time it is wives--or against someone who lives in your house, then you can't go out and get an AK-47. You can't go out and get a gun. That is the law right now. But if you get convicted of the same crime against a boyfriend or a girlfriend--usually a girlfriend--you could go out and get that gun. We have had hearing after hearing about this bill. We have had hearings because it is so sensible to close that loophole. Why? Because half of those domestic homicides involve girlfriends. I remember the one we had a few years ago. We heard from the sheriff from Racine County in Wisconsin. He described himself as a conservative. He said this: Dangerous boyfriends can be just as scary as dangerous husbands. They hit just as hard and they fire their guns with the same deadly force. That bill is in the Violence Against Women Act right now and is sitting on Leader McConnell's desk. That bill passed with 33 Republican votes in the House of Representatives. There is absolutely no reason we should stop a vote on the entire Violence Against Women Act simply because it includes this commonsense provision. Those are the three bills right now, soon to be joined by a bill on limits on magazines. Why that bill? Because in 30 seconds, nine innocent people were killed in Dayton, OH. The cops did everything they possibly could. They were there in 1 minute, and still nine people died. Those are the bills--background checks and closing the loopholes--so the cops have time to simply finish their vetting. Why would you want to cut off their days at 3? Third, closing the boyfriend loophole to help in cases of stalking and domestic violence, and fourth, magazines. These are commonsense bills. Would I like to do more with the assault weapon ban? Yes, I would. But right now, we could get these done. What do we hear instead? We hear this: The President took a position on a bill, so then we can wait to see if we can have serial votes, and then we put it on the floor. The President is saying: Congress is going to report back to me with ideas. This is a dangerous game of whack-a-mole that has to stop. People are dying while leaders are pointing fingers. We could point our fingers and vote yes or no, and we could do that today. We ask that those bills be called up immediately. But it doesn't end there. There are other very important bills we should be voting on right now. Election security. We know a foreign country invaded our election. We know that because we heard it from President Trump's top intelligence officials. In fact, Dan Coats, the Director of Intelligence back then, said that they were getting bolder. We know that. We know what happened. We know they did it in multiple ways. They did it by trying to hack into elections and election equipment in all 50 States. We found that out. In Illinois, they got as close as the voter files. We also know they tried to do it with social media, and there, they were more successful. They ran a bunch of ads--paid for them in rubles--to try to suppress the vote. I will never forget the one shown at our Judiciary hearing, paid for in rubles. It was a Facebook ad that went on African-Americans' Facebook pages in swing districts. It was a picture of a woman--an innocent woman; they had just taken the face of someone from Chicago--and it said: Why wait in line to vote for Hillary? You can text your vote. And they gave a number, something like 86513. That is illegal. That is a crime. If we had known about that ad and found the perpetrators, they would have gone to jail. But that kind of activity by a foreign country was allowed to run rampant, and when the President was asked about it at the G20, standing with Vladimir Putin, he made a joke about it, looked at Vladimir Putin, and they laughed. Do you know what I thought? I thought to myself, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield fighting for democracy in our own country and around the world. I thought of the four little innocent girls in a church in Birmingham who lost their lives in the fight for civil rights, in the fight for democracy, in the fight to vote. And he made a joke about it. This isn't a joke. We have an opportunity. We have several bills on this that I am leading, to push for backup paper ballots in the remaining States that don't have them and to push for funding for audits and funding to get the right election equipment. This isn't a joke. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent; this is about protecting our democracy from the invasion of a foreign country. That is why our Founding Fathers started this country--because they wanted to be independent and didn't want to have foreign influence. It is what we fought for in war after war--protecting freedom and democracy. This is the new ground for invasions. They didn't do it with missiles. They didn't do it with tanks. They are doing it with computers, and it is called cyber warfare. We have to be as sophisticated in our country as they are when they try to invade it. When we tried to call up one of these bills--and Senator Blunt had nicely called that hearing in the Rules Committee, of which I am ranking member--we got gut-punched--Senator Lankford and I and the other authors of the bill, Senator Burr, head of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner, Senator Harris, Senator Graham--because that got stopped by the White House--calls were made--and by the leader. It is time to bring back this bill or pass one of the many versions that are out there. The last area I am going to bring up--and there are many other things. I mentioned climate change and immigration reform, but the reason I am focusing on these things--gun safety for the obvious reason, as well as election security and prescription drugs--is because these are bills that have passed the House of Representatives. They are something we could do right now. What about prescription drugs? It feels like years ago now, but it was actually just last January when I went to the State of the Union with my guest Nicole Smith-Holt. Nicole's son Alec was 26 years old, a restaurant manager in the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul, and he had aged off his parents' insurance. Three days short of his payday, this hard-working kid--a pretty severe diabetic--wasn't able to afford his insulin, so he did what so many diabetics are doing right now because of the incredible cost of insulin: He started rationing it. He saved it. He took less than he was supposed to take. I have talked to seniors who literally keep the injectors with those precious drops of insulin so they can use them the next day. When Alec tried it, tragically, it didn't work. He died. This should never happen in the United States of America, not with as simple a drug as insulin, which has been around for nearly a century. I brought his mom with me to the State of the Union. She was sitting right up there looking down at the President while he claimed--of course many times--that he is going to do something about the prices of pharmaceuticals. I think those who are blocking and slow-walking bipartisan legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs should give Nicole a call. She is smart, she is pretty straightforward, and she is a nice person. Listen to her story. Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, and total drug spending accounts for over 15 percent of our Nation's healthcare costs, from consumers to hospitals and nursing homes. Between 2012 and 2016, the price of brand-name prescription drugs increased 110 percent. If we don't act now, that number will keep increasing as the profit margins for Big Pharma increase hand over fist. They have two lobbyists for every Member. For every desk in the Senate, pharma has two lobbyists. That is what Nicole looked down on when she saw the State of the Union. That number also applies to the House of Representatives, where we were that night. There are solutions on the table. I think what would make the biggest difference, because it involves so many people, would be to pass my bill that I have led for years that would harness the negotiating power of 43 million seniors and allow Medicare to negotiate to bring drug prices down. The VA does it. Medicaid does it. They have much less expensive drug prices because negotiation is allowed. I figure, with the power of 43 million seniors, we could get pretty good deals--43 million seniors--done through Medicare. But right now, it is locked in. Why would it help people who are not at the age to be on Medicare? It helps you because it is the biggest block of drug prices, and once it starts going down for Medicare, it will start going down for everyone. We can also pass my bill that I worked on for years with Senator Grassley to stop big, brand-name companies from paying off other drug manufacturers to keep less expensive products off the market. Let's think of what that means. What that means is pharma has a drug. A lot of times, they have a monopoly. Then someone comes along with another version of it that is less expensive. That would be great for us, especially when there are three or four competitive drugs. You always see those prices go down. Do you know what they do? They actually pay the generics to keep the product off the market. The big companies then have a monopoly. The new companies bringing the drug in, the generic, are fine; they get the money from Big Pharma. The only ones who get the short end of the stick are us, the consumers of this country. That is why Senator Grassley and I have worked across the aisle, and it is time to get that bill passed. The third one I would suggest is a bill I first introduced with Senator McCain--whom we all miss very much--that would allow Americans to bring in less expensive drugs from Canada and other countries as well. We know drug prices in Canada are so much less expensive than they are in the United States. Some States, like Maine, have tried to do this on their own, but they said: No; you have to have a Federal law to make this really work. Individuals have tried to do it. Bus tours of seniors go up there. We had bipartisan support for this in Minnesota-- former Governor Pawlenty supported changing this bill--but we couldn't do it as a State. It really has to be done at the Federal level. I am also pleased that Senator Grassley has now stepped into Senator McCain's shoes and is carrying this bill for me. He is the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to call this bill up for a vote. In conclusion, I started this speech by questioning whether this Chamber is even capable of action on big things anymore. I will end by asking a question that should be simple: Will the Senate respond to the needs of the American people? When Americans are shot in cold blood, their bodies littered on the floor of a Walmart, will we respond to their needs? Will we respond to their families? When their votes are threatened by attacks from a foreign country, will we respond to the citizens of this country? Will we respond when we know drug prices have gone completely out of control and we uniquely could do something about it? Today, what this Chamber needs are leaders. Leaders don't hesitate. They don't drag their feet or put politics over country. They don't block or obstruct progress. If my colleagues don't want to find common ground, at least we could show some common sense. It is time to live up to the promise of this esteemed body. Inaction won't do. The American people can't afford inaction in the wake of unprecedented attacks on our elections and our democracy. They can't afford inaction when people are actually dying because they can't afford common prescription drugs. They can't afford inaction when we have people being slaughtered on our streets, going to a festival in California, out on a weekend night with friends, going to a movie theater, or going shopping for school supplies. Historically, this Chamber has done great things. It is one of the reasons all of us who got elected to this office decided to do it. Our predecessors fought for and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the U.S. Senate. This place expanded voting rights the following year. This place helped provide a safety net for families, seniors, and kids across the country by passing Medicare and Medicaid. Guess what. When those things were passed, they weren't totally popular at the time, but now they are because they did the right thing. They were leaders. They didn't wait. They didn't hesitate. They led. We can and should come together and do great things now. That is the America we love. That is the America we know. That is the America we can be again. I ask that these commonsense measures come up for a vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his incredible work and leadership on this important bill, the Duty to Report Act, as well as for all of the other work that he has done. He gets it. He gets that we are about to adjourn this day without passing election security legislation. We had bipartisan election security legislation. We have had that for years. Yet it has been stopped in every step of the way. Russia invaded our democracy. Let's be clear about that. I don't like it when we use the word ``meddle'' because that is what I do when I call my daughter on a Saturday night to ask her what she is doing. This foreign country didn't just meddle in our election. They invaded it. They didn't use missiles or tanks. They used a new kind of modern warfare, which is cyber warfare, and they did it to invade our democracy. Think about this. Our Founders literally set up a country and a Constitution because they wanted to be independent of a foreign country. In this case, it was England. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield fighting for our democracy and democracies across the world. That is what World War I and World War II were about. They were fighting for democracies across the world and fighting for the simple right that people should be able to determine their own destiny and vote. Yet, in 2016, we know for a fact--we know it from President Trump's own intelligence advisers. Dan Coats, who was once a Senator in this very Chamber and who is someone we are going to miss, is leaving his position. Dan Coats made it clear. He said they are getting bolder. So this is something right in front of us right now, and we must respond to it. Yet we haven't passed a bill to address it. Yes, Senator Lankford and I, along with Senators Leahy, Coons, Shelby, and others have worked to get some money, over $200 million, into the States, which is important. We got that done, but it doesn't really end there because, actually, there were no strings attached to that in terms of what we want to have done in this country, and I will get to that in a minute. So let's first go back over the facts, because some people in this Chamber seem to have trouble with facts. Let's go over those. Special Counsel Mueller, under oath, just last week and in his report, concluded that Russian interference in our democracy was sweeping and systematic. Those were his words and not my words. We know that they are actively working again to undermine our democracy. In his words, when he was testifying under oath, ``they're doing it as we sit here.'' That is what he said under oath. The day before Special Counsel Mueller testified in the House, the FBI Director testified in front of the committee that I am on, the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was there and asked him questions. I asked him whether he thinks having things like paper ballots makes sense in the event that the Russian hacking happens again. He said: Yes, they would be a good thing. This is the FBI Director for the United States of America who was appointed by Donald Trump. Again, he was under oath. We have multiple pieces of legislation that would require backup paper ballots. There are different versions, but they all really do the same thing. Some of them have different kinds of audits, but the one thing they have in common is the paper ballots. I am leading one of these bills with Senator Warner and a number of my colleagues. One of them is a bill we have with Senator Wyden that is important, and then there is the work that Senator Lankford and I have done across the aisle, which is a bipartisan bill, which we continue to work on today. But what has happened? What do all of these bills have in common? They have been blocked by the leadership on the Republican side and opposed by the White House. That is right. They weren't vetoed because they never got to the White House but because the White House made the move of stopping them in their tracks before they could get to the White House. I know because I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, and our jurisdiction is elections. Our job was to get that bill through the committee to the Senate floor. It was actually scheduled for a markup, which means you get the bill all done, and you send it to the Senate floor, where I predict it would have gotten at least three-fourths of the Members working and voting for that bipartisan bill. What happened? The White House made calls. They made calls. The White House counsel actually called Senators on the committee and said that they didn't want it to advance. That is what we call ``smoking gun'' evidence. That happened. That happened. We know why this bill was blocked. In addition to that, Republican leadership, including the leader, made very clear that they did not want that bill to advance in the Senate. Our top intelligence officials and law enforcement officers are sounding the alarm about the fact that our elections are a target. Look at what they have done. They have blocked this, despite the best advice from the intelligence officials in the United States of America. And it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop there. As to other bills that they will not allow to advance, one of them involves social media. You all know what it is like, when you have your Facebook page or your Twitter feed or you are searching something on Google, something comes up, and an ad pops up. Sometimes it is scarily related to something you were searching for, but, yes, ads pop up. Well, you know what other kinds of ads pop up? Political ads pop up. Those ads are paid for by some kind of political entity. I see my friend Senator Warner is here on this floor. He is an expert on this, as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. As to the fact that actually some of these ads in 2016 were paid for in rubles, this is illegal. A foreign country cannot pay for ads on the internet, but they were doing that because there are no checks and balances. So what kind of ads are on there? Well, what would you do if you were on a campaign or an issue group and you want to put a bunch of dirty ads out there? Would you do it on TV? No, you wouldn't do it on TV. If you are a foreign country, would you do that? No, because there are rules in place for TV and newspaper and radio that they have to check those ads out, and they have to keep them so people can see them, and they have to show who has paid for them. There are no rules like that on social media. That is why I have formally introduced, with my friend Senator McCain and now with Senator Graham and Senator Warner, the Honest Ads Act, which simply puts those rules in place. Literally, if we pass that bill right now, today, before we left for the recess, well, they can get this done in the large platforms. Some of them are voluntarily doing it, but it is a mishmash, and some of them aren't doing it at all. We cannot go into this next election when last time over a billion was spent on them and next time it is $3 billion to $4 billion without any rules of the road. I go back to the same argument I made. Hundreds of thousands of people risked their lives and died on battlefields to protect that right to vote and to not be influenced by foreign countries. Why aren't we doing things to protect that democracy now in this modern age? Four little girls in a church in Birmingham lost their lives at the height of the civil rights movement. Why? Because people were trying to take away people's rights and because they didn't want them in on this democracy. That is the American history. And yes, these things we are talking about sound newfangled--cyber attacks and ads on social media-- but it is actually the same version of what our Founders fought for in the very beginning, and that is why we are making such a big deal out of protecting our democracy. Everyone remembers the 2000 election. We saw the hanging chads displayed on TVs across the country. That experience taught us that our election systems were outdated. What did Congress do back then? We passed the Help America Vote Act, landmark legislation that provided more than $3 billion to the States, helping them to update their election structure. That was 17 years ago, before the iPhone existed, and the Federal Government has not made a big investment to update our voting technology since. The Russians knew that when they attacked us in 2016. Well, we can't do it this way. We are not going to be able to use battleships. What way would work today? What is their big vulnerability? Let's go for the soft spot where they haven't been putting the money in to protect themselves. They conducted sophisticated influence operations, hacked political committees and campaigns, revealed the emails of the chairman of the Democratic candidate, targeted election administrators and even private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election systems. In Illinois, the names, addresses, birth dates, and partial Social Security numbers of thousands of registered voters were exposed. Just recently, we learned that the election systems in two Florida counties were hacked by the Russians. The Department of Homeland Security is conducting forensic analysis on computers used in North Carolina after it was revealed in the Mueller report that a voting software company was hacked by Russia. So we have a common set of facts about what has happened. What we need to do now is to address these facts with purpose. There must be an outcry about this from the American people. This must be done now, not after 2020. It has to be done now. We have a long way to go to make sure our election systems are resilient against attacks. Here are some more facts to consider. Forty States rely on electronic voting systems that are at least 10 years old. Eleven States have either no or partial backup paper ballots. Sixteen States have no statewide audit requirement. These are alarming statistics. I am not stating anything secret; the Russians know this today. That is why I have worked with my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate on legislation that would provide critical election security funding in the coming years, and mostly it would be tied to a requirement that they have backup paper ballots. Otherwise, what are we going to do if we don't have those backup paper ballots if there is a hack? It doesn't even matter if three counties in a swing State were hacked if we can't figure out the results. If it were just their State elections, that would be embarrassing or pathetic, but it is going to be a national Presidential election, and we cannot risk having counties or States hacked into because then we would have chaos and not know the results. Last week, my bill was offered by Senator Schumer on the floor. It could have gone to the President's desk that day. Instead, Leader McConnell objected. During his objection, he said that election legislation must be drafted with ``great care'' and on a bipartisan basis. We did that. Senator Warner is here. He worked on it. We did that with Senator Lankford, but we were blocked at the Rules Committee. We were blocked. That is a documented fact. The markup had been scheduled. It was ready to go. Senator Blunt had been willing to hold a markup on the bill, and it was stopped. I am going to tell that story every day until we advance this. I have an opportunity to do that, and I am going to do it because people need to know what is going on. This should not be about partisanship or about what benefits which party. What were the Founders thinking when they decided to declare independence from a foreign country? They were thinking of our country as one. A ramshackle group of those early Founders, farmers and small business people, came together and said: We love this land, and we don't want to have another country influencing us. That is exactly what this is about. Election security is national security. It is time we started acting like it. The Federal Government spends more money on military bands every year than it does on election security assistance to the States. I love military bands, but let's get real. In 2018, we fought to get $380 million in election funding. That was a first step. That is 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. Recently, 22 State attorneys general sent a letter asking us to take action to protect the integrity of our election structure, including the attorneys general from States such as Iowa and Mississippi. These are not blue States. They did not see this as a partisan issue. This is not about one election or one party; this is about our democracy and our national security. We need to be a united front, I say to my colleagues, a united front in fighting against those who interfere with our democracy. I am glad to see Senator Warner, someone who is on the frontlines every day in his very important position on the Intelligence Committee. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to again express my support for the Affordable Care Act, ACA. We must continue fighting to protect the safeguards that were put in place by the ACA, which prohibits abusive practices that previously kept healthcare out of reach for millions of Americans, like denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions. About half of all Americans have preexisting conditions and could be forced to pay significantly higher premiums or lose access to coverage altogether if the ACA is overturned. At least 21 million people could lose their health insurance if the ACA is struck down. In my State, Minnesotans would see a loss of $364 million in premium tax credits, and roughly 272,000 people would lose their coverage. Earlier this year, I came to the Senate floor to read 100 letters from people in my State and across the country who explained what the ACA has meant to them. These stories are just a small window into the positive impact of the ACA and how so many people would suffer if its protections were eliminated. Instead of striking down this landmark legislation, we should build on its strengths, defend the critical consumer protections that it provides for so many, and make it stronger. We cannot go back to a time when people who are sick can be denied health insurance coverage. This is not the time to look back and try to tear things down; we should look ahead and work to strengthen our healthcare system moving forward. It is for this reason that we must and will continue to fight against efforts to take away healthcare protections from millions of Americans.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I share our leader's outrage over what is going on right now at the border over these private facilities where these children are being housed and about the lack of an ability to bring amendments on the National Defense Authorization Act. As for the one that the leader mentioned, it is imperative that we go forward with this right now. We have a situation where the President tweets us closer to war each day, 10 minutes short. He got us out of an agreement that, while imperfect, would have prevented us from being in the situation that we are in. Congress must be a check and balance on this administration, and under the Constitution, we should have the ability to do this. I cannot stress how important this amendment is. Today, I am here to talk about another amendment that is also necessary to protect our democracy and protect our country, and that is about our elections--our very elections, a fundamental foundation of our democracy. We know one thing, and whom do we know it from? We know it from the President's own Director of National Intelligence. We know it from his FBI Director. We know it from all of his security leaders, and that is that Russia invaded our democracy. They didn't use bombs, jets, or tanks. Instead, they planned a sophisticated cyber mission to undermine our democratic system. Special Counsel Mueller also concluded that Russian interference in our democracy was ``sweeping and systematic.'' Our elections are less than 500 days away. We know that Russia is actively working to attack our democracy again, and our intelligence officials are again sounding alarms. President Trump's FBI Director said Russia's efforts to interfere in our 2018 election were just a ``dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.'' Has the administration worked with Congress to help craft legislation to make sure our election systems are fortified against future attacks? No, they actually stopped the bipartisan bill that was moving ahead at the end of last year. I see my colleague from Oklahoma here, Senator Lankford. He and I led that bill, and the cosponsors, including the head of the Intelligence Committee, as well as the ranking member. It was a bill that had significant support and still has significant support. But just as we are about to mark up that bill in the Rules Committee, the White House made some calls to Republican Senators. Leader McConnell made some calls to Republican Senators, and that bipartisan effort was stopped in its tracks, which would have paved the way to making sure that the Federal election money was given out to the States and that we would have had to have backup paper ballots. It would have paved the way for audits. Instead, it was stopped in its tracks, blocked by the White House. Earlier this month, the President invited more election interference when he said he would accept help from a foreign adversary once again. That happened. It is unprecedented, and it is wrong. At a time when the President is failing to do his job to protect our democracy, Congress must do its job. In fact, there is bipartisan legislation that has been introduced in the House right now that includes many of the things that I will be talking about today that includes additional funding. I do thank the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. He and I led the way, in addition to our colleagues in the Appropriations Committee--Senator Shelby, Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and others--to make sure that we got $380 million out to the States over a year ago. It is time to step up again. Everyone remembers what happened back in the 2000 election. We all saw those hanging chads displayed on TVs across the country. That experience taught America that we needed to update our election equipment. When we couldn't figure out who won for President of the United States, yes, maybe you need to update your election equipment. So what happened back then? Well, we passed the Help America Vote Act. I wasn't here then, but that is what they did. It was landmark legislation that provided more than $3 billion to States to help them update their election infrastructure. That was 17 years ago, before the iPhone even existed, and the Federal Government has not made a big major investment to update our election technology since. Russia knew that. What better way to upend our democracy than to try to break into our election equipment and to try to spread propaganda against campaigns and candidates in our election. That is what they did. They conducted sophisticated influence operations in 2016. Where do I learn this? I learn this from the Trump intelligence advisers. They hacked political committees and campaigns. They targeted election administrators and even private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election systems. In Illinois, the names, addresses, birth dates, and partial Social Security numbers of thousands of registered voters were exposed. Just recently, we learned that the election systems in two Florida counties were hacked by the Russians, and the Department of Homeland Security is conducting forensic analysis on computers used in North Carolina after it was revealed in the Mueller report that a voting software company was hacked by Russia. How much more do we need to know as we go into these 2020 elections? I don't think much more. We have a common set of facts about what happened, and we know that there is a continued threat against our democracy. What we need to do now is address these facts with a common purpose--to protect our democracy and to make sure that our election systems are resilient against future attacks. We have a long way to go when it comes to making sure our election systems are resilient. Right now, 40 States rely on electronic voting systems that are at least 10 years old. Do you think I am telling a surprise to Russia? No, they know this. Twelve States have no or partial paper ballot backups--12 states--and 16 States have no statewide audit requirement to figure out, after the fact, what happened and if their elections were secure. These statistics are alarming because experts agree that paper ballots and audits are the baseline of what we need to secure our election systems. Many election officials continue to sound the alarm that they lack the funding necessary to replace outdated equipment, hire cyber security experts, and make other much needed improvements to their election system. So maybe, as a country, we can just say: Well, States, if you are not doing this, it is not our problem. That is yours. No, this is a Presidential election before us, and if a few counties in one swing State or an entire State get hacked into and there is no backup paper ballot and we can't figure out what happened, the entire election will be called into question. No Democrat, no Republican, and no Independent can want that to happen, especially when we can prevent it from happening. The House bill includes the same amount of money as we did last time, and that is about 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. The bill that I am proposing now that we move forward to is about 8 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier, and that is to protect our entire democracy from the kind of modern warfare--not old-fashioned warfare but modern warfare--that we are seeing today, which is cyber warfare. Protecting our democracy from future attacks will require modernizing our election systems and building new safeguards to prevent cyber attacks, important steps that will require meaningful Federal assistance. Do you really think that the State of Arkansas or the State of Maine is supposed to be fully responsible for protecting us from a foreign power's cyber attack? I don't actually think so. If we could come together to quickly help States address things like those hanging chads back in 2000, which were in fact just a function of bad election equipment, we certainly must come together to protect ourselves from a cyber attack from a foreign power. By the way, the last time it was one foreign power. Maybe this time it will be another one. We must do the right thing for our country. That is why I have worked with my colleagues in the House and Senate, including Senator Lankford, on legislation that would provide critical election funding in the coming years. The bill before us today, our legislation, the Election Security Act, would also require States to use paper ballots, and it would provide funding for States to implement post-election audits. It would strengthen the Federal response to attacks on our election systems by requiring the President to issue a national security strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions from cyber attacks and influence operations, and it would establish a bipartisan commission to develop recommendations--drawing upon lessons learned from our European allies, who have also been repeatedly subject to attacks from Russia--to counter election interference. This is the kind of legislation that the American people elected us to pass. As I noted, the House is taking action. It will consider similar legislation this week. The Senate must take strong action on election security as well. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1540 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the work my colleague has done with me and others on this issue, but I do want to point out a few things. No. 1, I agree that this should not be a partisan issue, and, in fact, our bill was as bipartisan as it gets with the two of us leading the bill, with Senators Warner and Burr, the leaders of the Intelligence Committee, as cosponsors, and with Senator Graham and Senator Harris from the Judiciary Committee. It was a strong bill, and I would be glad to call that up with an amendment if he would be willing to do that. But one wonders, why wouldn't we be able to advance this bipartisan bill? It is because the White House made it decidedly partisan. They objected to its moving forward--our own bipartisan bill. Leader McConnell did not want that bill to move forward. He made it very clear. So let's be very precise about why we are having this discussion today, and that is that we could have done this bill with the backup paper ballots attached to the funding 1 year ago, but it was blocked by the Republicans. So now we are where we are. There is this idea that we just wait and every year say: It won't help the next election, and it won't help that next election. I believe in the importance and urgency of getting this done. Secondly, I am not trying to federalize our elections. In fact, this model, while there is more money attached to it, is very similar to the model that we have discussed and that is included in our bill. It is this idea that if the States are willing to do what they are supposed to do, then they get Federal money. It does not federalize elections. Third, the North Carolina example that I just brought up didn't just happen in 2016; it happened much more recently. So our concerns are based on the assessments that we have been given by the Trump security advisers based on what Trump's FBI Director said just last month. He didn't say it last year; he said last month that this is happening now and that Congress must do more to help defend our elections. I will repeat that election security is national security. We must remember this. Last week, 22 State attorneys general sent Congress a letter asking us to take action to protect the integrity of our election infrastructure. We have received similar letters from State election officials, and leading law enforcement officials in nearly half the country are begging us to take action. Think about that. While I have no doubt that there has been some progress and there is better communication, I tend to believe the people on the ground, the chief law enforcement officers in nearly half the States in this country. I tend to believe the FBI Director for President Trump himself, the National Intelligence Director for President Trump himself. The integrity of our election system is a cornerstone of our democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders and know with full confidence that those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections is something Americans have fought and died for since our country was founded. Going back to 1923, Stalin said to the Communist Party: Who votes? That may not matter. What matters is who counts the votes. History is repeating itself, and obstructing efforts to improve election security is an insult to those who have fought for our freedom and those who work every day to protect our democracy. This is not about one election or one party. That is why we worked so hard to have a bipartisan bill and I was willing to make compromises on that bill. We were gut punched by the White House. Senator Blunt had sent that Rules Committee markup. It was ready to go. I think if that bill were called up right now, 75 percent of the Senators right here in this Chamber would vote for it, but we were gut punched by the White House. They didn't want the backup paper ballots. They didn't want to have those options. They didn't want to have additional money for election security. So I don't want to hear about how this is a partisan effort to try to push this right now. This is not about one election or one party; it is about our democracy. We need to be a united front in fighting against those who interfere with our democracy, and we must do everything in our power to prevent foreign interference from ever happening again. This is a bill we should be on because it is the Defense Authorization Act, and it is about the security of our country and free and fair elections. That is the fundamental basis for the security of America. I look forward to working with my colleagues. I hope we will find some way to overcome these objections from the White House. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the passing of a true champion for good--former Congressman, Minneapolis mayor, and my friend and neighbor--Don Fraser, who died at the age of 95 on June 2, 2019. Those who knew him best described Don as thoughtful, decent, intelligent, tough, and absolutely wonderful. Don Fraser was born in Minneapolis, MN, in 1924. He fought in World War II and later studied law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He joined the law firm of Larson, Loevinger, Lindquist, Freeman, and Fraser before he was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 1954. In 1962, Don was elected to the House of Representatives, representing Minnesota's Fifth District, where he served for 16 years. Don went on to serve as mayor of Minneapolis from 1980 to 1994, making him the longest serving mayor in Minneapolis history. Don was married to Arvonne Skelton Fraser, who dedicated her life to improving the lives of women around the world. Together, they had six children: Thomas, Mary, John, Lois, Anne, and Jean. Known as the Quiet Crusader, Don was always ahead of his time. As a Congressman, he fought for the environment and human rights and exposed human rights abuses around the world. As mayor of Minneapolis--a job he believed was truly the most rewarding of his career--he advocated for early childhood education and put an end to the ingrained politics of the city's police department. Tom Fraser may have summed up his father's service best when he said, ``He persuaded people by the power of his argument, not the volume of his speech.'' Public service was Don's calling. My first job in Democratic politics was serving as the volunteer president of the DFL Education Foundation, a group Don Fraser founded. His mission? Ideas matter in politics. And he lived that. Don and Arvonne were the heart and soul of the group. In this era of sound bites and quick fixes to problems, Don and Arvonne yearned for something more substantial in the way they talked about issues. They worked to promote more citizen involvement in politics. I remember when Don used to introduce me at events during my run for Hennepin County attorney, and he used to say, ``I used to work for the city of Minneapolis.'' In reality, Don has never stopped working for Minneapolis and his country. Don was a great public servant and an outstanding mentor to the next generation. He understood that his public service didn't end with him. It has been said that it is lucky to have somebody who makes it hard to say goodbye. It is hard to say goodbye to Don Fraser, but I count myself lucky to have known him as a friend. My family and I greatly miss Don. We miss seeing him walking with Arvonne arm in arm in our neighborhood, and we miss their passion for public service and their love for their family and friends.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Capito from West Virginia, who, in the spirit of today, has allowed me to take her place, and she will go next. I rise to join my colleagues to celebrate the centennial anniversary of the 19th Amendment. I thank Senator Collins and Senator Feinstein for taking the lead in bringing us together today. Just think. One hundred years ago today, the Senate voted to guarantee and protect a woman's constitutional right to vote, marking an important milestone in our democracy. My home State of Minnesota was the 15th State to ratify the 19th Amendment, and women like Dr. Mary Jackman Colburn, Sarah Burger Stearns, Clara Ueland, and Sarah Tarleton Colvin fought to make it happen. By the way, on a historical note, when President Wilson refused at first to support a constitutional amendment to grant women equal voting rights, suffragists like Sarah Colvin of Minnesota chained themselves to the fence of the White House and burned an effigy of the President. After weeks of similar protest fires and intense pressure to support equal rights, he announced his support of a constitutional amendment. We also must remember, in addition to people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony, the African-American suffragists who were in the league--Harriet Tubman, Ida B. Wells, Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, and Margaret Murray Washington. The women's suffrage movement encountered strong opposition. It doesn't feel like that would have happened now, but it did back then, and those who opposed equality came up with creative reasons to keep women from voting. The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage was a real organization and published a pamphlet full of propaganda. The pamphlet read that if women were granted the right to vote, some States would be under ``petticoat rule.'' The pamphlet also provided a list of household cleaning tips for women, such as not needing a ballot to clean out your sink spout and that there is no method known by which a mud-stained reputation may be cleaned after bitter political campaigns. Posters were scattered across cities that depicted men at home taking care of babies and cooking and cleaning because they had been abandoned by their voting wives. One hundred years later, I think we can safely say that none of the dire warnings described in the propaganda came to pass and that the United States of America did not perish under the ``petticoat rule.'' What did happen is, in 1920, in the first Federal election in which women could vote, the total popular vote increased dramatically from 18.5 million to 26.8 million by 1920. When I arrived in the Senate, there were only 16 women, led by the dean of the women Senators, who is here with us today, Senator Barbara Mikulski. As noted by my colleagues, we now have 25 women Senators. That is an alltime high because, when you look at the history of the Senate, there have been nearly 2,000 male Senators and only 56 women. I was on the Trevor Noah show a few months ago, and he said that if a nightclub had that kind of ratio, they would shut it down. Yet, in fact, we are at an alltime high with 25 women Senators and with more to come. Someone once said that women should speak softly and carry a big statistic. Well, I don't agree with the ``speak softly'' part, but there is some merit to the big statistic. Maybe because it was harder for them to get where they are, I have found women Senators to be accountable, to say what they are going to do, and to get it done. There was actually a study from Harvard--the University of Minnesota of the East--that showed that it was, in fact, true. My colleagues have mentioned the challenges ahead. We have to make sure that more people can vote and that we don't suppress votes. We need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. We need to make sure that we have equal pay. There are many, many challenges ahead. We celebrate today because we all stand on the shoulders of those before us. In our case, we stand on the very broad shoulders of our friend Barbara Mikulski, who once said--and I still remember this--when we took up a woman's issue on the floor, to put on your suits, square your shoulders, put on your lipstick, and get ready for a revolution. I don't know what revolution she was talking about, but hers was the voice of those before us. We all stand on their shoulders, and we are happy to take up their torch. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for that personal story, and I am sorry for her loss of a former staff member. I think that story is a good place to start because this isn't just about an isolated bill passing in one State. This is actually part of a greater effort. As you look at what this administration has been trying to do since day one, defunding Planned Parenthood--OK, well, that is where one out of five women in their lifetime will go to seek healthcare for things like cancer screenings and for things like contraception. You look at the fact that over the span of the last administration, we actually reduced abortions to the lowest level in recorded history. That is a good thing. People who are personally opposed to abortion or people who are pro-choice can agree that that is a good thing. Why did that happen? Because contraception was available. Why did that happen? Because healthcare was available that allowed, with more ease, women to access contraception. So now what do we have? We have three things going on. These restrictive laws that literally put doctors in prison for 99 years is what I will talk about today. We have an effort to defund Planned Parenthood and to reduce access to contraception as a result. Then we have an effort--a major effort--to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act, which would allow women to be kicked off of their healthcare insurance if they have a preexisting condition. Before that act came into law, in eight States, being a victim of domestic abuse was considered a preexisting condition. So do not see these laws that were just passed in these States and are being considered in these States as isolated. Look at it as a complete package, and it is not a package that the women of this country want to get in the mail. I have always believed that a woman's most personal and difficult medical decisions should be made with her doctor and her family and that those decisions should not be undermined or politicized by Government officials. But that is exactly what we are seeing today. In the last few months, an alarming number of States have passed laws to limit a woman's ability to seek reproductive healthcare services. Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, and Georgia have all recently passed measures that basically amount to a ban on abortion. Just last week, Alabama passed a bill that effectively and in writing banned abortion completely. The bill which passed the Alabama State Senate--by the way, without a vote of a single woman senator--would allow a doctor who performed an abortion to be sent to jail for 99 years. The Alabama law's only exception is if a woman's life is at risk. It does not even include an exception for incidents of rape or incest. So what does this mean? Well, if your kid is in college and gets brutally raped, it means that she would not have a choice about whether or not she would carry a baby. That is what that law says in Alabama. And if a doctor intervened, if a doctor wanted to help in that State, he would be sent to prison for 99 years--or up to 99 years. This is not something I am making up or exaggerating; this is what this bill that passed one of the States and is similar to bills in other States actually says. What we are seeing, of course, is wrong and unconstitutional. These bills directly infringe on a woman's right to make her own medical decisions and the precedent that the Supreme Court set in Roe v. Wade, which has been affirmed many times over the last 46 years. You wonder where the public is on this? Seventy-three percent of Americans do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be reversed. In my State, I have people who are pro-choice, and I have people who are pro- life. I have people who personally believe they do not want to have an abortion; however, they don't think that their views should dictate what happens to their neighbors. That is the problem. That is the nub of the problem with what is going on in these States. The precedent in Roe is clear, but these lawmakers have decided that they want to take away a woman's basic right to make a personal healthcare decision. In fact, they are passing these bills with the hope that it goes to the Supreme Court where this administration has placed judges on that Court where there is a lot of hope, with the people who are passing these restrictive laws, that they are going to overturn Roe v. Wade. After signing the new abortion ban into law, the Governor of Alabama released a statement in which he said the sponsors of this bill believe it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about ``the best opportunity for this to occur.'' So don't tell me this is just one legislature deciding they are going to do something other people in this Chamber on the other side of the aisle don't agree with. No. No. No. This has been an effort that has been going on for years. This is an effort that is going on during an administration with a President that, in a townhall meeting in March of 2016, said that he thought women should be punished for making that decision. A few hours later, his campaign tries to dial it back with the statement: No, he meant that doctors should be punished. This is not just an isolated incident, which is why so many of my colleagues have taken to the floor today. We can have individual disagreements, and we can have our own personal beliefs, but as elected officials, we must follow the Constitution of the United States. Overturning Roe isn't just unconstitutional. As I said, it is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country. In the last few years, as I have noted, we have seen an assault on women's access to care. We have seen it with the attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, even though, during the Obama administration, we saw a historic decrease in abortions. According to a CDC study conducted between 2006 and 2015, abortion rates fell to historic lows near the end of the Obama administration. What should we be doing? Well, we should be providing more access to healthcare services, comprehensive health education, and contraception, not less. We should ensure that women are equipped with the knowledge and resources they need to make informed healthcare decisions. In the Senate, I have fought back against efforts to undermine the ability of a woman to make choices about her own health. I have cosponsored the Women's Health Protection Act, important legislation led by Senator Blumenthal, to prohibit laws intended to restrict women's access to reproductive health services, and I look forward to cosponsoring this bill again when it is reintroduced. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership over her many, many years in this area. It is our responsibility to treat women in every State in this Union with respect and dignity, instead of using them as political pawns. I join my colleagues in condemning these recent efforts to restrict women's access to healthcare services, and I will continue working to protect the health and lives of women across the country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. While we await for Senator Schumer, I want to mention just a few examples of what we are talking about here with drug prices--a woman named Paula. Paula has been prescribed a treatment for her multiple sclerosis. It costs over $5,000 a month. She has been getting copay assistance from a grant but does not know how she is going to afford it and whether she is going to be able to afford her lifesaving medication. Julie, another example, is covered under her husband's employer plan. She currently has to pay a $500 copay for a drug that she needs--the same drug that was once offered in a generic form for $50, a fraction of the new cost. The generic drug has been discontinued, creating an impossible choice between paying $500 or not filling her prescription. Because of the high cost, she goes without this drug. Diane--Diane has an EpiPen for bee stings and is unhappy with the high cost. She says: Now that I am retired, it is horrific how I have to buy them in a pack of two, and they cost more than before. The prices have just skyrocketed. Every year I throw away something that is so expensive that I cannot use. It is way overpriced. Angie, from Savage, MN, is a mother, a wife, and a teacher. In May of 2018, she was admitted to a hospital, where MRI scans showed brain lesions. She was eventually discharged from the hospital and was instructed to follow up with a neurologist. She received a multiple sclerosis diagnosis. She was prescribed a new medication that is also one of the most effective drugs available today for treating MS. Payment for the expensive drug was denied. These are just examples of the people we see every day. I yield the floor.