Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his thoughtful remarks and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, as well as Senator Smith, my colleague. The time for action is now. We have all cited numerous examples of people who, literally, are taking drugs that, in the case of insulin, was $17 a vial and is now $1,213 a month. That is simply outrageous. We have people who can't afford drugs that they used to just take as commonplace, and there were no changes made. So for me, a lot of this is what happens when you have monopolies, what happens when you don't have competition. So the answer is to look at all of the measures we could take to ensure that there is better price negotiation and more competition. One of them, as Senator Kaine mentioned, is Medicare negotiation, unleashing the power of 43 million Americans. That is a lot of people. Seniors are good at getting deals. That is 43 million people. Yet they are banned from negotiating with Medicare to get better deals for themselves. That should change. We need less expensive drugs from other countries--safe drugs. That would certainly create more competition. We had bipartisan support for a proposal like that. Senator Grassley and I have the bill that would take one country, Canada. In Minnesota and in the Presiding Officer's State of North Dakota we can see Canada from our porch. The point is that we see those less expensive drugs right across the border. We should be able to have that competition. Then, look at the CREATES Act and some of the other ways of stopping pay-for-delay and stopping, as Senator Blumenthal was describing, these patent abuses to try to make sure we have more competition. I think there is starting to be general agreement on this issue that we have to take on these pharmaceutical prices. The time for describing the problem is still here because it seems like some of our colleagues don't get it, but the time for action is certainly now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to express my opposition to recent nominees who have come before the Senate. First, I would like to express my opposition to the nomination of Janet Dhillon, who was confirmed to serve as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, by a party line vote yesterday. The EEOC has a critical mission to enforce the Federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against workers on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, or disability, and it was the first Federal agency to take the position that title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that Ms. Dhillon has refused to commit to uphold the EEOC's current interpretation of title VII as covering LGBTQ workers. I am also concerned by arguments that were made in legal briefs by the Retail Litigation Center under Ms. Dhillon's leadership, including arguments in support of policies to make it more difficult for employers to be held liable for harassment. It is for these reasons that I would not have voted in support of Ms. Dhillon' s nomination. I also want to comment on my opposition to Cheryl Stanton's nomination to serve as Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor. Before Ms. Stanton's nomination, she served as executive director of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, in which capacity she garnished wages to collect unemployment insurance overpayments and had a public dispute with a staff member who refused to institute a personnel action after raising ethical objections. I voted against invoking cloture on Ms. Stanton's nomination and would have voted against her confirmation. Finally, I want to address the nomination of Joseph Bianco for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which I opposed in the Judiciary Committee due to concerns regarding his record on such critical issues as privacy and civil liberties. I am also concerned that the Senate advanced Judge Bianco's nomination even though neither home State Senator returned a positive blue slip. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be cochairing the Entrepreneurship Caucus with the Senator from South Carolina. He is right that there are some great examples of people who want to get businesses started and who want to pursue their dreams, and we need to highlight those because we have a lot of people who right now have some great new ideas. If we are going to continue to be a country that is an incubator for those ideas, then, we have to promote those ideas and allow those people to follow their dreams.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the importance of upholding the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on nominations. Many people refer to the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body because the Senate is designed for the careful consideration and debate of proposed laws and nominations. That is why we have so many people sitting up in the Gallery today, because they are here to hear debate. How we deliberate is governed, of course, by a set of Senate rules. I am sure some of them seem archaic when our visitors hear about quorum calls being vitiated, but it is very important to have rules because rules stay in place no matter who is in charge and no matter what matter is before us. Rules create a sense of decorum and fairness not only in this Chamber but for our country. Only once in the history of the cloture process in the U.S. Senate has the Senate voted to permanently reduce the time we have to debate an issue. That happened in 1986, when we went from 100 hours of something that is called postcloture debate time to the current rule of 30 hours. That basically means there are 30 hours to debate something really important, such as the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, an ambassador, or who is going to be a Cabinet member. That is the way the rules are now. While there have been contemporary changes to the rules, we have not seen a permanent rule change since 1986. The resolution we are considering asks us to make a second permanent change. What is the backdrop? Last Congress, the Rules Committee considered a proposal from Senator Lankford to cut off debate on the Senate floor. The resolution before us is even more damaging because it would reduce debate time from 30 hours to 2 hours for about 80 percent of the nominees who come before the Senate--including Federal district court judges--giving only 2 hours on this floor to debate. We have time to debate these judges on the Judiciary Committee, but only a small percentage of the Senators are on that committee, right? Over 75 percent of the Senators aren't on that committee. We also know we have had some judges come before us, and we don't find out things about them until the debate on the floor occurs or Senators haven't decided how they are going to vote until they actually come to the floor. We have had judges who were thrown out--who were rejected, basically--before they came up for a vote because of things that were discussed among Senators when they were on the floor. Let's face it. Most Americans are understandably unfamiliar with the term ``postcloture'' debate. They don't exactly have the book on Senate procedures on their reading list, but the issue before us has a real impact on the daily lives of every person in this country, and we should be sounding the alarm bells about it. Healthcare--think of what we just learned this last week when suddenly the Justice Department for this administration announced they were going all out to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Well, for every American--not just Americans who are on the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act--for every American, it would mean they would lose their protection for preexisting conditions. It would mean, if someone has diabetes, if someone has a child with Down syndrome, if someone in their family had a preexisting condition, their healthcare coverage would be subjected to the whims of the insurance companies. Right now we have protections in place. What does this mean for the rule we are talking about? In the case that started in Texas, that was a Federal district court judge who made the decision on that case. The people who announced it out of the Justice Department at the higher levels actually went through confirmation on this Senate floor so people could debate whether they should be confirmed. The people implementing it at the Department of Health and Human Services, at the management levels, also go through this Senate for confirmation. Guess what, America. Now not only is this administration trying to ram through the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would mean you would lose your insurance if you have a preexisting condition, but now they are trying to ram through the people who would make the decision-- the people who would do the work. Instead of having 30 hours to debate a Federal district court judge just like the one who made the decision in Texas or instead of having 30 hours to debate employees at the Justice Department--managers who would make decisions or higher supervisors who would make the decisions--we would get 2 hours. To me, what is this about? It is about ramming nominations through just like they tried to ram the Affordable Care Act repeal through the justice system in that announcement last week. For every Congress, there are 1,200 to 1,400 positions in the executive branch requiring the Senate's advice and consent. Under this resolution, 277 of those would get the full 30 hours of debate, including the Supreme Court, circuit court, and the Cabinet-level positions, as well as some of the people who serve on the Securities and Exchange Commission and some of the Commissions we have. That accounts for 277, but that leaves many more--over 1,000--who would only get 2 hours of debate, 2 hours for what are lifetime appointments. Hundreds of these positions--hundreds of these positions--are lifetime appointments. I believe in this place, once called the world's greatest deliberative body, it is our constitutional duty to fully vet the most senior people in our government--the people who help ensure our air and water are clean, the people who lead our military, and the people who oversee our justice system. It is our constitutional duty to fully vet our Federal judges, those men and women who receive lifetime appointments to uphold the rule of law in America. On behalf of every American, it is our job to make sure the people nominated to the most senior positions in our government are competent and qualified. These roles are so important that the rules of the Senate are designed to ensure that Senators come to a bipartisan consensus. They don't always do that, but guess what. Sometimes we do. The purpose of these rules is to reject partisanship so we can get nominees who will put the good of the country before politics. If we eliminate this crucial check on our democracy, allowing the majority party to ram through these appointments, we will undermine our democracy and our government. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who are trying to push this through point to the fact that in 2013, the Senate voted 78 to 16 to temporarily change the postcloture rules on debate time, but it is very important to note that in 2013, the circumstances were very different from what they are today. Nominations required a 60-vote threshold. The blue-slip process for all judicial nominees was respected--unlike now, where it is no longer respected--for the highest courts in the land, such as the circuit courts. A thorough process--and this is important--to select qualified judicial nominees was in place but no longer. Have you seen the statistics that President Trump has had more unqualified nominees than past Presidents who have been rejected by this body? Despite all of this, important Federal positions remained unfilled, even though qualified nominees were waiting to be confirmed. To address the issue, a bipartisan supermajority of the Senate supported a temporary change in the rules, but that is not what is happening today. The idea that we are facing similar circumstances in this Congress is unsupported by the facts as well as statements made by some of my Republican colleagues. The truth is--as we have heard the majority leader of this body boast--nominees are getting confirmed, some at paces faster than we have seen in U.S. history. In 2017, Leader McConnell himself highlighted this fact. He said: ``Senate Republicans are closing in on the record for the most circuit court appointments in a president's first year in office.'' Last year, President Trump said: We have the best judges. We put on a tremendous amount of great federal district court judges. . . . We are setting records. He was right about setting records. In the first 2 years of his Presidency, President Trump had 85 judges confirmed. That is because they focused on getting them through, compared to just 62 for President Obama in the same time period. President Trump has had 30 circuit court nominees confirmed during his first 2 years in office. This is more circuit court nominees confirmed than any President in history. That is why they have talked about getting these nominees through like on a conveyor belt. So then the question becomes, why change the rules? Why change the rules? Why change the rules for lifetime appointments and give only 2 hours of debate? This change is not just unnecessary, it would allow fundamentally unqualified candidates, from judges to administration officials and Ambassadors, to be confirmed. The American Bar Association has rated six of the judicial nominees put forward by the administration as ``not qualified,'' including three who received that rating unanimously, two of whom were confirmed. In 2 years, more than 30 executive branch nominees and 5 Federal judges have been withdrawn after initial vetting. Because nominees are being rushed through the committee process, postcloture time is critical to our job of evaluating nominees and fulfilling our duty to advise and consent. For the 78 Senators who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee, this is a critical time to talk to colleagues and staff about a judicial nominee's record. Maybe we don't use the whole time debating them, but guess what happens when you are not marching through these 2 hour blocks of time. You have more time to talk about nominees to each other and evaluate their records. Last year, two nominees were withdrawn from consideration after their cloture votes had been taken--Thomas Farr, for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Ryan Bounds, for the Ninth Circuit, Oregon. The withdrawal of these nominees happened on a bipartisan basis. Senators Scott, Flake, and Rubio voiced their disapproval. Bounds' nomination failed and was withdrawn partly because Senator Rubio changed his mind during that postcloture debate time. These cases show how critical postcloture debate time is for considering nominations. He found out new information that he didn't know before. Nominees like these clearly demonstrate the importance of carefully and thoroughly considering nominees for executive branch positions and lifetime appointments to the bench. The American people deserve qualified nominees, and it is our job to ensure that we take the time and care necessary to confirm people who will serve their country with distinction. I appreciate Senator Lankford. We work together on many issues--most notably, on election security. But this legislation will remove important checks and balances on a permanent basis, not just on a temporary basis. It happens at a time when we have seen unprecedented numbers of judges confirmed on the circuit basis and a total number of judges much higher than we saw during the same first 2 years of the Obama administration. We also know that we are getting a slew of unqualified nominees. Finally, we know that this administration just keeps trying to push things through that I consider--and the courts have considered-- unconstitutional. Right now, we have the President going around Congress and the $1.3 billion of appropriated money that was given for security and saying: I am just going to take money away what this Congress has appropriated for other things and use it to build an $8 billion wall. Not only does that create legal and constitutional issues of eminent domain at the border, but it also creates constitutional issues about the separation of powers and the role of this Congress. We are at a time when this administration has decided to wreak havoc on people's healthcare by pushing for the repeal of not just part but of the entire Affordable Care Act, which I noted includes those provisions that protect people from being kicked off their insurance for preexisting conditions. The people who make these decisions at the highest levels--at that sub-Cabinet level, which is right under the Cabinet level, the judges who are making these decisions on the district court level, and the workers who are at the higher sub-Cabinet levels at the Justice Department and at Health and Human Services, who would make decisions directly about people's healthcare--are the ones we are talking about with this resolution. These are real issues for real people. While this may all sound esoteric, this is not a time in history to be permanently changing the rules and ramming through a bunch of nominees. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, if my Republican colleagues don't want to read the report and they want to rely on a summary, that is their right, and they can make requests in the future. I am sure they can get all of that in the future, but all I am simply asking for right now is that whether you agreed with this investigation or not, the public have the right to see the hundreds of pages that may well help us understand what Russia did. I believe our constitutional duty requires us to have the report and the American people do not deserve to be left in the dark about what the report says. I hope that it will be made public very soon, and I hope the Attorney General of the United States understands there are a number of us who would like to see a full unredacted report, and there are a whole lot of people who would like to see it as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss transparency in our democracy and security for our elections. It has been nearly a week since Special Counsel Mueller's report was completed and submitted to the Attorney General of the United States. We still have not seen the report. I have urged the Department of Justice to release the report, and the administration should not delay in producing the report to Congress. We know the American people want to know what is in the report. According to some public opinion polls, nearly 90 percent of them have said they want to know what is in the report. We also know that 420 Members of the House of Representatives voted that the report should be made public. We cannot get ourselves out of the mode of remembering that a foreign power invaded our election. Some people call it meddling. That is what I do when I call my daughter on a Saturday night and ask her what she is doing. I call it an invasion of our democracy. We have learned from the intelligence heads under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump, including former Senator Coats, who told us that this has happened, and, in fact, the Russians are getting even bolder. That is what he told us. That is why I think it is very important, putting everything else aside, that we find out the facts in this report. There have been indictments that have come out of this investigation--dozens of indictments. They made it clear that the unprecedented interference in the 2016 election was designed by the Kremlin with the goal of making Americans lose faith in our election system, whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. We know from the intelligence heads and from some of the indictments that have been made public that they did this in many ways. We have learned that the Russians tried to hack into the actual election equipment of 21 States and that in Illinois, they got as far as the voter files. What does that mean? If we could get more facts about that since that was actually--the hacking of the campaigns and elections was referenced in Attorney General Barr's four-page letter. Well, if we knew more facts, it might help Senator Lankford and me to pass our bill, the Secure Elections Act. We have the support of Senator Burr and Senator Warner, as well as Senator Harris and Senator Graham. Maybe it would help us convince the leader that we should have a vote on the simple concept of having backup paper ballots and audits. Maybe it would help us convince the public to put pressure on the White House not to block that bill. It doesn't matter what political party you are in--we all want to have secure elections. None of us want to have a situation where there is one county or one State in which elections get screwed up because someone hacked into them. The other thing that we learned and got confirmed in the four-page letter was that we know there was hacking into a political campaign, right? Well, we want to know the facts about that. Again, as people have noticed, there are a lot of people running for office--not just for President but for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives--and certainly the American people and the people who work in the Congress have the right to know exactly what happened. That was one of the major reasons we had this investigation in the first place. There was something else that was mentioned in the four-page letter that we all want to have more details about; that is, another way Russia tried to influence our election was through the spread of false propaganda on the internet, right? We have now seen the ads. We have seen them in sworn hearings. One of the ones that I will never forget is one that was Russian sponsored, which was a picture of an African- American woman, and it basically said--I am paraphrasing--``Why wait in line? You can text your vote for Hillary Clinton,'' with a texting number on it. That is a crime. That is illegal. That was one of the ads the Russians put into our system. We know that they put false issue ads out there to divide Americans-- sometimes from the left, trying to make it like they were looking from the left, and sometimes from the right. They were simply trying to sow discord in our great democracy. Our democracy is fragile. Our democracy is something that we cherish. Our democracy must be protected. That is why, if we could get this full report, that would help us greatly to perhaps step back and look at the Honest Ads Act. That is a bill which I had with Senator McCain and Senator Warner, and we have a number of Republicans who are actually cosponsoring it in the House of Representatives. I think getting more details here would help to make the case that before the 2020 election--we know that in 2016 alone, $1.4 billion was spent on internet advertising, on social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, and we didn't know who was paying for it. We later found out that some of it was in rubles. How obvious can you get? And then also we didn't even know what the ads were because they just vanished from the internet. So when we first proposed this bill, people said: Oh, you are trying to regulate. Well, guess what. Things changed after Cambridge Analytica, and we suddenly got growing support for this idea that the same rules that apply to newspaper and TV and radio should apply to internet platforms. Now, a number of the major platforms are doing it themselves, although they vary in what they do and it is a patchwork. Also, major CEOs of these companies are saying they now support this bill. The time has come--in fact, we are running out of time--to put the rules in place on issue ads and candidate ads. I believe it is not just selfishly what I want to get done; it is something that a lot of people in this Chamber want to get done, and that is, making sure our next election is protected from foreign influence on the propaganda side, on the election security side, and on the hacking side. Getting the full report will help us make the case. It will help us figure out exactly what happened. As I mentioned, there are many people--420 in the House of Representatives--who said they want to see it. Congress should be able to see the full, unredacted report without delay. We are a coequal branch of government and have received unredacted grand jury and classified information in the past. But more than Congress, the public should be able to see this. That is why the House voted 420 to 0--we don't get that kind of vote on a volleyball resolution--in support of publicly releasing the report. Members standing in the way of this report becoming public will have to explain why to the American people. We know we can do two things at once in this Chamber or maybe 20 things at once. We know the importance right now of making sure we don't repeal the Affordable Care Act, which is why 2 nights ago I was here at this very desk until late at night reading 100 letters from people who opposed repealing the Affordable Care Act because of the protection it gives them to not get kicked off their health insurance. We know how important it is to finally do something about prescription drugs. We know how important it is to work on advancing an optimistic economic agenda for the people of this country. At the same time, we also have to protect the public's right to know. We have to protect the security in many ways--security of our country abroad, our military-- and make sure we are protecting the very democracy that is at the core of this country. The way to do that is to make sure no foreign power messes with our election. There are hundreds of pages in this report. There are hundreds of people who were interviewed. All of us are a little in the dark, especially those people who are not on the committees that receive classified information. There are many people who would like to know exactly what went down. If I were the secretary of state in one of our States, whether it be the State of Arkansas or the State of Arizona, I would want to know what happened because I, if I am the secretary of state, am responsible for my State's election security. We urge the Attorney General to do everything he can to make this report public. Now that the special counsel has completed his investigation, we must see the report. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress, which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Reserving the right to object, I would simply point out that this entire investigation was started by the Justice Department under the Republican administration, and then, of course, guided by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by the President. I will note that this is a simple resolution to just get the report. We may not agree with the foundation of this investigation, but we are simply trying to get the fruits of the investigation, which I believe will be helpful to this Chamber to figure out what we should do to protect our national security. We are simply trying to adopt and consider the House resolution, which again was voted on 420 to 0, including all Republicans present. The House voted 420 to 0 to see the report. That is why I was simply hoping that we could do this on a bipartisan basis and try to see the report ourselves. Therefore, I object.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join again my colleagues to speak of the need for bipartisan action to address climate warming. Throughout the past year, we have received warning after warning about the warming and about the devastating consequences of climate change that are coming much sooner than some people actually expected. I remember when I first got to the Senate. I was part of the Environment Committee, and we had military leaders come to speak. We had scientists, and they basically predicted everything that we have seen coming, from the wildfires in the West to the rising ocean levels, to weird weather events like more tornadoes, to the type of flooding that we are seeing in the Midwest as we speak and the type of flooding we have seen in Florida as a result of hurricanes. They also talked about the economic consequences of this. I think it is really important that people don't see this as environment versus economics. If we do nothing, the economics are bad. If we do nothing, we are going to continue to see homeowners' insurance increase, like we have nationwide--a 50-percent increase in the last 10 years. If we do something and we do it right and we do it smartly, we are going to see a bunch of new jobs in the field of green energy. We are going to see more solar. We are going to see more wind. We are going to see a whole new industry of an electric grid and things that we need to do to bring down greenhouse gases and be a leader once again in energy for the world. Last October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a special report explaining the potential impact of climate change if the Earth warms 1.5 degrees Celsius above historic global temperature levels dating back to before the Industrial Revolution started. That report predicted that in just over 20 years, we could see even more of what we have seen this last year: persistent drought, food shortages, worsening wildfires, and increased flooding-- damage that could cost an estimated $54 trillion. Then, in November, the ``Fourth National Climate Assessment'' issued a special report that concluded that without significant global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will threaten the health and safety of people, will slow economic growth, will damage our Nation's infrastructure, which we are seeing right now in the Midwest, and will impede the production of energy and food. Finally, in January of this year, the U.S. Department of Defense released a report on the effects of a changing climate to U.S. military installations and their operational viability. All of these experts-- yes, scientists, and, yes, military leaders--have made it clear that inaction is not an option for our economy, for our environment, for our country, or for our world. Military and security experts have repeatedly reminded us that climate change is a threat to our national security. Look at the examples of refugees coming up from Africa--people who used to be subsistence farmers who no longer can make their livings. They used to eek by, which was not easy, but now they are moving up; they are moving to Europe. That is just one example of what we are seeing. I am from a State of refugees. Our refugees are a major part of our economy, but we know we want to have a sensible refugee policy and that we can't have sudden droves of people moving up because of environmental catastrophes that are going on in their countries. Yet we are going to see more and more and more of that. At some point, we have to realize, you know what, we want thriving economies in Africa; we want thriving economies throughout the world; and climate change is going to be an impediment to that. If you want to close your eyes to the rest of the world and pretend it is not happening, it is going to come knocking at your door. It is what is going to keep happening if we don't do something about climate change. There will be more severe weather--heat waves that could reduce our water supply, extreme rainfall that could damage critical infrastructure, a decrease in agricultural productivity that could threaten, in my State alone, a $20 billion ag industry, which ranks fifth in the Nation. We cannot close our eyes to climate change because it is happening right now around us. That is why it is all the more disappointing that the Senate has failed to seriously consider legislation that would address climate change. I have been here for these close calls. When I first came to the Senate, we were so close to getting a renewable electricity standard put in place nationwide. I had a bill that would have done that. It would have been combined with the renewable fuel standard, and I think it would have been a good way to have brought people in from both parties, from both sides of the aisle, and from all parts of the country. I remember standing in the back of this Chamber with Senator Cantwell, bemoaning the fact that we were just one vote short of getting it done. That was over a decade ago. Meanwhile, yes, States are taking action. With our having a Republican Governor at the time, Tim Pawlenty, my State was able to get a renewable electricity standard put in place--something like 20 to 25 percent by 2025--and we are making that. We wouldn't have made it if we had not set a goal, which, at that time, seemed bold, and we did it on a bipartisan basis--with Democrats, Republicans, and the legislature. We combined it politically with a renewable fuel standard so it would get some of our farmers and other people on board. We had two provisions in there--a strong renewable electricity standard and a strong renewable fuel standard, with a Republican Governor leading the way. Why? We could see ahead. We could see the effect climate change would have on our outdoor economy. We could see the effect it would have on hunting and fishing and recreation in our State. Here is what happened. We barely missed doing something on the renewable electricity standard. Then President Obama got elected, and we were in the middle of a downturn. I had actually hoped we would have moved on renewable electricity, but the decision was made to go with cap and trade. I supported cap and trade. In the end, despite its passing in the House, we couldn't get the votes in the Senate, in part, because we were in the middle of a downturn. Since then, we have done a few things on energy efficiency, which have been good, that Secretary Chu called the low-hanging fruit. We have done some things in the farm bill with conservation, with the sodsaver provision that I have with Senator Thune, but we haven't done anything that significantly makes a difference. Instead, the administration has taken us out of the international climate change agreement, which means we are the only country in the world that isn't in it. When the President first made his announcement, Syria and Nicaragua were not in it. Now they are. This is not what leadership is when we are the only country that is not part of this agreement. No, that is not what leadership is, and it certainly impedes our doing business around the world when it comes to green energy. Other countries can go in there and ask: Why are you going to do business with this country? It is the only one that hasn't signed on to the international climate change agreement? That happens. I have heard from businesspeople. That happens. That is one thing that happens. When it came to greenhouse gases, the standards we had in place at the EPA were a compromise that had been worked on over years. It is now on the cutting room floor because this administration went backward. The gas mileage standard is something else we could do. Again, we went backward. Instead of working on these things--coming up with more comprehensive legislation--unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided, yesterday, to play politics by bringing up the Green New Deal resolution with the explicit intention of trying to create a divide by voting it down. Do you know what? The resolution, as I have said, is aspirational. It sets out some audacious goals. We know we can't meet everything that is in that resolution in 10 years. Yet what has it done that I think is so good? It has reignited the debate on how the United States can lead the way in addressing global climate change while building a clean energy future that benefits American businesses, factories, and workers. We are a country that sets audacious goals. We put a man on the Moon, right? We won World War II. We are a country that sets audacious goals. Sometimes it takes us longer to meet them, which is OK. If we see a problem, we don't just put our heads down. We look ahead; we look at each other; and we figure out how we are going to meet the challenge. That is what we have to do with climate change. At the same time that our Republican colleagues brought up the Green New Deal resolution for a vote, they declined to consider the resolution that was offered by Senator Carper that simply says climate change is real, that human activity during the last century has been the dominant cause of the climate crisis, and that the United States and Congress should take immediate action to address the challenges of climate change. The challenges we face are too great to waste time on show votes and political stunts. For years, we have heard of the things we can do to make a difference. There is not one approach; it is an ``all of the above'' approach. We know--and I have seen the models--what we can do to start bringing the temperature down to an international goal, by the way, of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a lot, but our wanting to stay under that amount is actually a realistic goal right now. Instead of spending time debating these kinds of show resolutions, we should be taking real action to combat climate change. We need a comprehensive approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy-efficient technologies and homegrown energy resources. That is what we should do. When Senator McConnell brought up what was an aspirational resolution to bring people together, he did it as a show to divide people. That is not what we want to do here. We have people from all over the country who have some different views on this, and we should be coming together to figure out solutions. As I noted, I believe we must reinstate the Clean Power Plan rules and the gas mileage standards that the administration has reversed, which has rolled back the progress we have made. I also want to talk today about my home State's work on these issues. I am proud Minnesota has taken a proactive and innovative approach to energy use and sustainability, which is critical to addressing carbon emissions and climate change. As I noted, that 25-percent electricity standard would be met and is going to be met by 2025. This bipartisan bill was signed into law by Governor Pawlenty in 2007, and it passed the House back then. By the way, that was 2007, right? Since then, everything we have learned has reinforced what we know, which is that climate change is happening. Back in 2007, we had not seen this big push against doing something about it. We had not seen all of the dark money that went in to take care of not doing something about it and to back up this inertia we are seeing. Yet, somehow, back in 2007, in my State, I guess we got it through--we got around some of this--because that legislation that was signed by a Republican Governor received overwhelmingly bipartisan support. It passed the Minnesota House by a vote of 123 to 10 and passed the Minnesota Senate by 63 to 3. Earlier this month, our new Governor, Governor Walz, announced a proposal that would build on that earlier work by setting a goal of generating 100 percent of the State's energy from clean sources by 2050. We have also seen other Governors doing this across the country. I think that is great. Justice Brandeis once said that the States are laboratories of democracy, which is a good thing. We can't just sit there and expect States, on an individual basis, to change the national dialogue. Some of these things have to be done by us in this Chamber in Washington, DC. Once we set those goals, which started with the Republican Governor of Minnesota and then moved on to two Democratic Governors, what we saw was Xcel Energy--Minnesota's largest utility--as being the earliest supporter of the last administration's Clean Power Plan. This is an electric utility--the biggest one in our State--that recently announced plans to deliver 100-percent carbon-free electricity to its customers by 2050. As part of that pledge, it plans to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2030 in the eight States it serves. It is an electric company--a power utility--that has realized this is in its best long- term interest and that it is certainly in the best long-term interest of its customers. If energy utilities like Xcel understand the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and to embrace setting ambitious goals that will eventually get us to 100-percent clean renewable energy, then so should we and so should the administration. We know energy innovation can't really take root--not in any kind of serious way--without there being certainty, stability, and a clear path forward. Yes, some of that can happen in the States, and that is exciting. It can happen in our businesses and in businesses in Minnesota, like Cargill--the biggest private company in the country-- that looks at the world and sees what is going to happen to its investors and its employees if we don't do something about climate change. It has joined in an effort with major businesses to take this on. So, yes, States are doing things, and Governors are doing things. Yes, electric utilities are doing things. Some of our small electric utilities in Minnesota have actually started creating incentives for solar panels. One of the most innovative ones will give its customers-- this is a very small town in a small county--large water heaters that cost about $1,000 if, in exchange, they will get solar panels. Senator Hoeven and I worked on a bill to make sure people in this Chamber understood that these large water heaters were really helpful in the basements of farmhouses and that they were actually more energy efficient. Then this utility--a little electric co-op--took a step forward and actually offered a free water heater in exchange for buying a long-term interest in a solar panel. It is not as easy when you are a small electric co-op. I have a ton of them in my State, and I have worked with them extensively, but they, too, are starting to see the future and are starting to do their part. In my State, we have big businesses like Cargill, big electric utilities like Xcel, and little electric co-ops. We have our Governors. We have businesses that are not in the electric business but that see what is happening to their customers around the world. We have universities, nonprofits, churches, synagogues, and mosques that want to retrofit and make their places of worship more energy efficient, which is another bill I have with Senator Hoeven. When all of this is going on, how can we just sit here and do nothing and instead have negative show votes for no reason at all? We are going to keep talking about this and not let it go because what we need is action. We need policies that encourage reduction in greenhouse gasses. We must leave our children with a world that is as good as the one we got. There is an old Ojibwe saying--we have a lot of proud Indian Tribes in Minnesota--that says: You make decisions not for now but for seven generations from now. You know what. That is our duty. But guess what. With climate change, it is no longer just seven generations now; it is for the pages who are sitting right here, because this is happening right now. The predictions are dire. I was in Florida just a few weeks ago, and they predict that in a decade, 1 out of 10 of their homes is going to be flooded in their State--1 out of 10 of their homes. You see what is happening in Norfolk, VA. You look at these pages and you think: This is not just seven generations from now; this is 7 years from now or 70 years from now. That is what we are dealing with. It is upon us. So it is our duty, our constitutional duty as elected representatives, to do our job. It is our moral duty to do the right thing for this country. So let's get to work and get this done. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may consume.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in sharing my concerns and all of our concerns that we have--and really the concerns of a nation--about the announcement last night from a Department of Justice that works for this administration, which announced its plans to literally invalidate the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare coverage away from millions of Americans, including those with preexisting conditions. Before this time, it was a bit unclear, despite a court filing in Texas, what the intentions were. Some of our colleagues were saying, ``No, we don't really want to repeal the Affordable Care Act,'' but last night we learned the truth, and the truth was very clear. The Justice Department took a hardline approach that they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The President tweeted today that the Republican Party ``will soon be known as the party of health care.'' In fact, yesterday's filing--in which the administration changed its previous position and argued in support of affirming the decision of a district court judge in Texas-- ensures exactly the opposite; that this administration will break the promise it made to the American people that they can have healthcare insurance; that if they have a preexisting condition, they will not lose their healthcare. That was what the situation was before we had the protections in place in the Affordable Care Act, before you were able to keep your kids on your insurance until they were 26. That was a huge positive development. Then we also put in place protections that said you couldn't be kicked off your insurance for preexisting conditions. All over the last year, we had a debate about this in this Nation. I still remember being in a smalltown parade in Northern Minnesota, where a mom was pushing a stroller. She brought me over and pointed to her toddler in that stroller, to her young boy who had Down syndrome. She said: This is what a preexisting condition looks like, and I will do everything to protect my child. Guess what. Last night, the administration announced they wouldn't protect that child because they will do everything to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let's start with the absurd ruling the administration is basing its actions on. The Texas ruling last December came more than 6 years after the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Roberts, upheld the law's constitutionality, which also found that parts of the law can be severed from the rest of the legislation. It also came after the administration's refusal to defend the law. Instead of going in to put out the fire when the house was burning down, they just stood there. They just stood there and poured lighter fluid on, in terms of tweets and rhetoric. If this ruling takes effect, the consequences of just this ruling alone from Texas will be devastating. To start, protections for people with preexisting conditions will be gone. About half of all Americans have preexisting conditions. This isn't just rare diseases. It is much more common diseases, like diabetes and asthma. The ability to keep your kid on your insurance plan until they are 26 would be gone. The work we have done to close the Medicare doughnut hole coverage gap would be gone. The provisions that help people buy insurance on the healthcare exchanges would be gone. In my State, Minnesotans would see a loss of $364 million in premium tax credits, and roughly 272,000 people would lose their coverage. That is one State alone. We cannot allow this to happen. The decision from Texas should be overturned, and we need a President who believes the same thing. It is time to stop trying to reset the clock or start from scratch. This is not what the American people want. The vast majority of Americans support those protections in the Affordable Care Act. We know we can make improvements to the Affordable Care Act. I would like to see pharmaceutical prices go down. I would like to pass my bill to allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs. We could have a vote on that. I would love to see the bill I had with Senator McCain, and now Senator Grassley, come up for a vote that would allow less expensive drugs to be brought in from other countries that are safe, like Canada. I would like to see a vote on the bill that Senator Grassley and I have to stop pay-for-delay, where pharmaceuticals pay off generics to keep their products off the market. We have already seen what kind of healthcare proposal my Republican colleagues have put forward. We saw it just last year. The legislation we saw last Congress would have hurt people by kicking millions off of Medicaid, by letting insurance companies charge people more when they get sick, and by jacking up healthcare costs. Every major group you trust, when it comes to your health, was opposed--the largest groups of doctors, nurses, seniors, hospitals, people with cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes. Why were they opposed to repealing the Affordable Care Act? Because there was nothing good that was proposed to replace it. We cannot spend the next 2 years going backward and fighting old fights, as this administration announced they would do last night. We need to focus on building on the strengths of the Affordable Care Act, those protections, and making it even stronger by allowing seniors to negotiate for less expensive drug prices, for bringing in less expensive drugs from places like Canada, and for stopping pay-for- delay. We can also reduce premiums by passing the bipartisan bill that Senators Alexander and Murray have for reinsurance, by passing Senator Shaheen's cost-sharing bill, by moving on for a public option which could be supported with Medicaid, the bill that Senator Schatz has, or Medicare, which is another bill Senator Kaine has. I have always said the Affordable Care Act was a beginning and not an end, but guess what. Last night, we found out this administration truly wants to end it. What are real people saying about this who don't work in this place? What are people who actually have to depend on the protections of the Affordable Care Act saying? I am going to spend the rest of my time this evening telling some of those stories, reading from the letters that I and others have received about people who have been protected by the Affordable Care Act, the very act that this administration announced last night it wanted to repeal--not just partially repeal. They announced they want to repeal all of it. What would that do to people? Let's hear the stories. Let's read the letters. I am going to read 100 letters tonight, and I am starting, with the first letter, from my home State. Bruce from Minneapolis has diabetes. He was spending $1,000 a month for medical coverage before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Today, he pays $300. He was quoted saying: ``As an individual with pre-existing conditions, the ACA has helped save me thousands of dollars and given me a better lifestyle.'' Amy of St. Paul said she needs the Medicaid benefits she gained under the ACA. What happened to her? She slipped on an icy driveway, as many people in Northern States, in this past winter, have done. Sadly for her, she had a brain injury when that happened. The ACA Medicaid benefits helped to cover her medical costs. Delaney was able to access a mammogram screening to see if she carries the same genetic trait that predisposed several of her relatives to breast cancer. I have worked on the EARLY Act--passed this bill as part of the Affordable Care Act--that allowed us to do more to help especially people who have genetically tested to have the same gene, especially, by the way, certain women in African-American populations and certain women who are Jewish. We have found a prevailing gene that means they are more likely to get breast cancer when they are younger, but before we had the Affordable Care Act, none of this would have been covered. None of this would have been paid attention to. Delaney wrote that because of the bill, she was able to access a mammogram screening to see if she had that trait. Any threat to the ACA concerns her because the law mandated that healthcare plans cover recommended screenings. Story No. 4. Katherine of Minneapolis is trying to regain financial independence after diabetes forced her out of her job. For now, she is covered by a low-income government policy that would continue if the ACA stays in place but otherwise it goes away. She worries that any income from a part-time job would disqualify her for coverage and that she would struggle to find private insurance without the ACA's protections for people with preexisting conditions. I think this is really important for people to know because even if you are not using those exchanges because maybe you have employer insurance, which over half the people in this country have, the ACA helps you. Do you know why? It has those prohibitions that say your insurance can't kick you off just because you have a preexisting condition, just because you are born with diabetes, just because later in life you have breast cancer, or, as was the case before we passed the ACA in a number of States, if you were a victim of domestic violence, that was considered a preexisting condition because it could happen to you again. So as I read these letters and tell these stories, people need to understand that the people who have been protected are not just the people who are getting their insurance on the exchanges. There are a whole lot of people who are on private insurance but were protected because the Affordable Care Act made clear that they can't be kicked off their insurance. Story No. 5, letter No. 5. Amy qualifies for Medicaid only because the ACA raised the income limits to be eligible for the State program for those with disabilities. She had 73 doctor visits after she had this head injury, and she doubts she would have received that much care without good insurance. That is the same story we had here in the letter; it is the same person who slipped and had a brain jury. This is another piece of why this is so important, because she got a disability when she slipped, and that means she is concerned that because of the income limits, that could change. Story No. 6. Kate wrote to me and shared the following story: I call my son the baby that almost didn't happen. A bright, loving and entirely all-boy 4-year-old, Daniel was a gift to us after I battled cancer from 27 to 34 years old. Unable to find care for my cancer after it reoccurred, my only insurance option even denied my pap smears and lifesaving tests. Cancer dotted my cervix in an attempt to overtake me; I refused to allow it to win. Because of the ACA, I faced a future of hope--not only for myself, but for cancer sisters who were unable to receive other treatment and died. My best friend's cancer scans weren't covered by her insurance until 2015 and after battling for 3 years, she passed last year. Special provisions are now in place in the bill for women's health. Healthcare is going to be more affordable for people like me and my children for years to come. Being a woman should NOT be a pre-existing condition. Story No. 7. Abbey of Minneapolis was diagnosed with a parasitic infection at the age of 10 months old. Because of the ACA, she was still on her insurance throughout college when she had to have two brain surgeries and multiple eye surgeries. It also helps her pay for the only medicine that treats her disease. Story No 8. Mary Jo from Minnesota is struggling with the costs of sending three kids to college. She was able to provide health insurance for her middle daughter only because the ACA allowed her to be covered by her father's insurance. Mary Jo writes that a reversal of this legislation would ``be the last straw for us. Please don't take it away from us--we're hanging on by a fingernail.'' I think that is a good one to send to the White House: This would ``be the last straw for us.'' This is someone who is struggling to keep their kids in college and who needs the ACA to keep the kids on their healthcare. Tara is another one from outside of my State. Tara's young son would not be alive if it weren't for Medi-Cal. Tara was laid off from her job just prior to his birth, and there was an issue with transitioning to COBRA. Her husband is self-employed without insurance, so when her son Benjamin came, he was uninsured. Tara said: We were hard-working Americans, but that didn't matter when it came to insurance. Benjamin was uninsurable because of his heart. When Benjamin was 2 weeks old, he was taken to the emergency room, where they learned he had a congenital heart defect that was causing him to go into heart failure. As doctors rushed to save his life, Tara and her husband panicked, not knowing how they would afford any care. Tara's mom and sisters offered to sell their houses, and their extended family looked to liquidate whatever assets they had. At that point, someone at the hospital gave Tara the paperwork for California Children's Services. That is where they live. They found they were eligible, and Benjamin's coverage began shortly thereafter. For years, Tara and her family watched their income levels closely, keeping their income low, fearing that Medi-Cal would be terminated. She didn't return to work for years. She emphasizes that they never collected any other kind of assistance, but she was left with no choice, knowing that they would never be able to find other coverage for Benjamin. Her mom, who is retired, takes care of Benjamin and helps her. Tara eventually went back to work, but when she went back to work, her husband was diagnosed with hepatitis. He now joins the millions of Americans who have preexisting conditions. She wrote: If the ACA is repealed and I lose my job, and insurance, my husband and son will lose access to health insurance we can afford. No healthcare saving will cover the cost of their care, not on a teacher's salary. Benjamin will soon be an adult and unable to be covered on my health insurance. I pray he will be able to afford health insurance. She says this is what she wants lawmakers to know--that means us, right here, who work here: We never collected any other type of assistance, but we had no choice to accept the [healthcare] coverage. Please consider the effects of repealing this act on children like my son and our family. We are real people. We're not special. We're normal Americans. We work hard, with some extraordinary circumstances. We don't want a free ride; we just want help and for lawmakers to know we're not disposable. Letter No. 10. Kathy from Nevada says: Before the Affordable Care Act, there were times in my life when I had health insurance and other times when I did not. Some employers would offer me a plan, and then if I switched jobs, I'd lose it. By the way, I can't tell you how many times I heard this in my home State. She goes on: I tried to apply for coverage on the individual market-- This is before the Affordable Care Act-- but insurers would deny me when I admitted [and told the truth] that I had occasional migraines and sinus issues. In late 2013, I started to notice pain in my abdomen nearly every time I ate anything. . . . I drove myself to the nearest urgent care facility. Many tests and procedures followed, and by March I was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma, a rare form of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that's extremely aggressive. . . . The diagnosis came at the worst time imaginable. My mom died unexpectedly in January and a tree fell on my house in February. I found myself running away to escape because I was completely overwhelmed and terrified of chemotherapy. But after about a week, the cancer had weakened me to the point where I could barely walk from my car. . . . I went home to begin cancer treatment. Because Burkitt's lymphoma is so aggressive, I needed . . . infusions of chemotherapy for 5\1/2\ days during each round, for a total of six rounds. These infusions could only be administered in the hospital. When I finally finished treatment, I had amassed an astronomical amount of medical bills. . . . If I had not had medical insurance, I honestly don't know if I would have been able to continue. The gratitude I felt (and continue to feel) for the ACA and the fact that I have medical insurance, is off the charts! The thought of going back to the days of not having medical insurance is so frightening to me. It almost feels barbaric, for lack of a better term, for anyone to be denied the opportunity to take care of his or her health without the looming possibility of bankruptcy. She continues: It is truly inhumane. I recently moved to Nevada and enrolled in their exchange. I will require monitoring for the rest of my life. Now that the ACA is up in the air, I feel like I am fighting for my life again! Congress is trying to take away the one thing that continues to guarantee access to screenings and treatment. Because of my age and my cancer history, any plan that doesn't have those protections guarantees that I will be charged more and that I am at risk for being discriminated against. Thank you for listening to my story. Story No 11. Mendy in Virginia says: My family's whole world was turned upside down in September 2015 when my husband, Ed, survived a massive stroke. The stroke left Ed severely disabled. He lost the ability to verbally express himself, needed a wheelchair, and required help with all basic functions, including bathing and toileting. When the stroke hit, Ed was working for an insurance company and I was a stay-at-home mom. His employer was kind enough to keep us on their health insurance for as long as they could. But within a couple of months, it became apparent that the damage was too severe, and Ed's recovery would take too long. His employer had no choice but to let Ed go, and with that, we lost our health insurance. It was frightening--I knew that Ed needed help and that COBRA was too expensive at $600 a month. A friend recommended that we make an appointment with a navigator at the local health center. I had no idea help like that even existed, but we walked out of an appointment with a silver plan for $15 a month. . . . Our son was able to receive coverage through

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his leadership day in and day out on this issue. I rise to join him and my other colleagues to talk about this letter and to look back at that moment in time but really to do it to look forward because we know it is long past time for bipartisan action on climate change. As the Senator from Rhode Island has explained with a copy of that letter, back in 1986, a bipartisan group of Senators came together to voice their concerns about the future of our world. This forward-thinking group of our predecessors, who were from the same States as my colleagues who are here today, held 3 days of hearings on climate change. That sounds like a pretty good idea for something we should be doing right now. It was chaired by, of course, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. John Chafee. Minnesota Senator David Durenberger was among that group of Senators. He was born in St. Cloud. He earned his law degree from the University of Minnesota, was the top-rated cadet in his ROTC class, and served as a lieutenant in the Army Counter Intelligence Corps and as a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve. Senator Durenberger took over the seat left by Senator Humphrey, and during his 17 years of service in the Senate, Senator Durenberger proved time and again that he is a true believer in bipartisanship. He worked across the aisle to tackle big issues, and that included talking about climate change way back in 1986. I called Senator Durenberger this week to talk to him, and our staff did, to get some sense of where he was on climate change years later. He reported to us that, in his words, he wanted to remind Americans there was a time in our very recent history when the U.S. Senate made it its responsibility to define and address some of the critical national and international policy issues that threaten the security of our communities, our Nation, and the world. This is Senator Durenberger speaking in the year 2019. He said he could say ``without reservation that it was bipartisan Senate leadership that encouraged the four Presidents with whom [he] served-- Carter, Reagan, [George H.W.] Bush, and Clinton--to prioritize environmental problem definition and solution.'' He also recalled working with his colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to ``challenge''--and these are his words-- ``challenge the scientific community and the business community to work harder at reducing the impact [of greenhouse gases] and suggesting what policies best incentivize alternative fuels.'' It was in this bipartisan spirit that this group of Senators sent a letter to Dr. John Gibbons, who was then the executive director of the Office of Technology Assessment. In that letter, they talked about the need to meet ``the massive and, to some degree irrevocable, alterations in the stratosphere commonly referred to as the greenhouse effect.'' The letter goes on to discuss concerns about ``altered precipitation and storm patterns,'' something certainly the Senator from Rhode Island knows we are seeing right now. These Senators were ahead of their time--altered precipitation and storm patterns. ``[M]ore frequent and extreme weather events,'' they talked about that. Look at what we are seeing with the hurricanes, with the rising sea levels, and with the wildfires in Colorado and in California. ``[D]isruption of forest, crop, and ocean productivity.'' That letter may have been sent in 1986, but certainly those Democratic and Republican Senators were ahead of their time. Americans are now increasingly feeling the effects of changing climate patterns and extreme weather events. Farmers are already living through these disruptions to crop productivity. So what else did the letter say? Well, it said this: ``We are deeply troubled by the prospect of such a rapid and unprecedented change in the composition of the atmosphere and its implications for the human and natural worlds.'' It also stated that ``it may be necessary to act soon to at least slow these trends or, perhaps, halt them altogether.'' Think of those words way back in 1986 asking us to act soon. They were right back then, and they are still right today. The true tragedy is that the final paragraph of the letter notes that any analysis should be undertaken without delay ``due to the likelihood that legislation will be seriously considered by the Committee early in the next Congress.'' Well, the truth is, we are still waiting for that legislation to be seriously considered. The bipartisan call in that 1986 letter came in the 99th Congress, and we are now beginning the 116th. Just as troubling, we have lost some of the bipartisan spirit that guided David Durenberger and those 1986 lawmakers. Our inaction has outlasted even the Office of Technology Assessment itself. I ask my colleagues, in the spirit of bipartisanship--from back in 1986, my colleague Senator Durenberger, who I hope is listening today-- let us continue that spirit, and let's get some serious climate legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor and to express my opposition to the nomination of Eric Miller to be U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. I have already expressed that opposition in my vote in the Judiciary Committee, but I would like to explain this in more detail. There are several troubling aspects of Mr. Miller's background, particularly his consistent opposition to Tribal interests and women's reproductive rights. My State of Minnesota has a large and diverse Tribal population. I have always believed that our State history has been drawn from the culture and traditions of our Native Americans. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I know that Tribal sovereignty is a fundamental tenet of our laws. The Ninth Circuit is home to more federally recognized Tribes than any other circuit--more than 425. So many of the cases that come before the court involve Tribal issues. I am concerned that Mr. Miller has a history of representing interests that have sought to undermine Tribal sovereignty. For example, in a brief he filed before the Supreme Court, he urged the Court to adopt a standard that would have undermined the legitimacy of many federally recognized Tribal governments. The National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund have come out against his confirmation. I know the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, is here and understands the major concerns, since he is the ranking member of the Indian Affairs Committee, and how important that concern is. It is only the third time in the history of these two organizations--the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund--that they have opposed a judicial nominee. In their letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they wrote that Eric Miller ``chose to build a law practice on mounting repeated challenges to tribal sovereignty, lands, religious freedom, and the core attribute of Federal recognition of Tribal existence.'' I believe we need judges, particularly on the Ninth Circuit, who respect the history and contribution of Tribal nations, not one who seeks to undermine their sovereign status. Mr. Miller's record on women's reproductive rights is no less troubling. During his time at the Justice Department, he used ideological language in cases in which he advocated for restrictions on a woman's personal healthcare decisions. I am concerned about what this says about how Mr. Miller will approach these types of cases. Finally, it pains me to say that this is a historic moment for this body--for the Senate--because of how we came to be here today. It is not historic in a good sense of the word. It is historic in a bad sense of the word. We are voting on this nomination today because of an unprecedented disregard for the Senate's traditions when it comes to judicial nominations. According to the Congressional Research Service, no judge has ever been confirmed without having both blue slips returned by both home State Senators until now. We have had instances where one blue slip was returned, and the judge went on to be confirmed, but what we have here is not one blue slip from either of the home State Senators from the State of Washington was returned. Senator Cantwell, who also, by the way, has been a major leader when it comes to Tribal matters, did not return a blue slip for Mr. Miller. Senator Murray, a major leader when it comes to women's rights, did not return a blue slip for Mr. Miller. In the rush to confirm judges like Mr. Miller, the Judiciary Committee has chipped away at the traditions and rules that allow us to properly advise and consent on nominations, which is our responsibility specifically enumerated in the Constitution. This goes beyond disregarding the voices of home State Senators on judicial nominations. This nominee's hearing was held during a monthlong recess with no Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. Since this was an established work period at home, only two Republican Members were in attendance. Mr. Miller's questioning lasted for less than 5 minutes for a lifetime appointment. Why would you have this hearing at a time when we were scheduled to be working in our home States? That is what happened because it was rammed through the Senate without the support of either of the home State Senators. At a time when the American people see this body shirking its responsibilities to act as a check and balance on the executive branch, and when they see us divided on the basic question of whether Congress has the power of the purse, I am concerned about what message we are sending to the country and the world about the health of this Senate. This is a lifetime appointment. It should at least have had a normal hearing. We should have at least respected the views of the home State Senators as we have so many times in the past. There are no winners in a race to the bottom when it comes to process in the Senate--a democratic process, a process of advice and consent, a process of checks and balances set up by our Founders so no one branch of government would have all the power. What do we see happening now? We see judges being put forward without blue slips. What that simply means is, the home State Senators are OK with that nominee. We have had blue slips over the years in many administrations for judges who perhaps were not the first choice of the home State Senators, but they were someone they felt could be a judge out of their State who would have the right experience as well as be fair and impartial in the administrative law. What else do we have going on? We have a President who, after an agreement was reached in the Senate, which is run by his own political party, on how to do border security--and it was a widespread vote in both the Senate and the House--he then decided to declare an emergency to do something which I consider unconstitutional and has no respect for the balance of powers. He decided he would declare an emergency, when, in fact, those kinds of emergencies are things like Hurricane Sandy and the weather we saw, and the damage down in Florida, or the wildfires we saw in Colorado and in California. Those are emergencies. In addition to that, it raises eminent domain issues at the border. It also makes us question where the money is coming from. That is why you see these lawsuits. The money is coming from the military budget, military construction for our troops, and the like. While this may seem like a very different issue, it is not a different issue. It is the same issue. The Senate should be sticking up for the individual States we represent and the power of those States and the power of that balance that is so important to running this government and to the very Constitution that guides us. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues today in making some brief remarks on William Barr's nomination to serve as Attorney General of the United States. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Barr one-on-one in my office. We had a very good meeting, and we talked in some detail about securing our elections from foreign interference, something that is a major priority of mine, and we really are close in passing a bipartisan bill, which Senator Lankford and I have, called the Secure Elections Act. We just need a little help and support from the administration. We also talked about modernizing our antitrust enforcement to fit the challenges that we have today and to make our laws as sophisticated as the trillion-dollar companies we are now seeing and the mergers we are seeing all across the United States. So we had a good discussion about that. We also talked about his family and working in the Justice Department. During the hearing, I gave an opportunity for him to talk to those workers who were, through no fault of their own, furloughed or not getting paid, and he clearly showed respect for the people in the Justice Department. I appreciate all of that. I think that is important to have in an Attorney General. But I have some serious concerns about this nominee. I had already announced I was opposing him during our Judiciary Committee vote, but I have some serious concerns when you look at the context in which he has come before us. His nomination comes at a time when there are investigations by a special counsel and multiple U.S. attorney's offices in New York into campaign finance violations and an attempt, as we know, by a foreign adversary to interfere in our elections. This special counsel's investigation has led to indictments or guilty pleas from over 30 people and three companies, including seven former advisers to the President. These investigations, as we know, go to the heart of the integrity of our elections, our government, and our institutions, and it is why it is essential, first of all, that Special Counsel Mueller and the U.S. attorney's offices be allowed to finish their work free of political interference. The President, as we know, has made past statements and sent out tweets about Attorney General Sessions: I am critical of him for allowing these investigations to go forward. This is the context we are in. He has made it very clear as to what he is looking for in an Attorney General. He wants someone who will be his lawyer. He wants someone to use the Justice Department, in a way, to protect him. I think this should worry us because, yes, the Attorney General works for the President, but, more importantly, who the Attorney General really works for are the people, the people of the United States. The Attorney General of the United States is the people's lawyer and pledges to uphold the rule of law and apply the law equally no matter who you are. Mr. Barr has made clear, one, that he respects Mr. Mueller, which I truly appreciate. He said that both in my private meeting and on the record at the hearing. But he has also said that he intends to take over supervision of the special counsel's investigation. He wouldn't commit, at his nomination hearing--despite having written that 19-page memo, he wouldn't commit to following the advice of career ethics lawyers at the Department about whether he should be recused. Why did that concern me? Well, because he had actually commended the Deputy Attorney General for following those rules, and he had commended Senator and then-Attorney General Sessions for following these rules. So that concerns me. We know that if he is confirmed, he will be in a position to oversee the special counsel's budget, the scope of the investigation, and he will, ultimately--and this is key--receive the results of investigation under law. He will get to decide whether the results are released to the public or, perhaps, as he suggested during the hearing, are not released at all, and that is in addition to those related investigations he will oversee. These U.S. Attorney's investigations don't have the special counsel regulations to protect them, so he is in direct line to oversee those. Even though many of my colleagues asked him to pledge to make Special Counsel Mueller's report public, he wouldn't commit to do so. He always had a way to kind of dodge a commitment to do so, instead of, in my mind, making a full-throated endorsement of releasing that report. If he is confirmed, he will also have room to make his own interpretation of what the law allows. In fact, as Attorney General, he can make the Department's rules and regulations and issue guidance that would make the difference between transparency and obscurity. That is why we have to look at his judgment on this particular issue. Maybe if we were in a different time, in a different moment, we would be talking about things like the opioid epidemic and what the Attorney General is doing, which is very important, and I know he does care about that; or we would be devoting our moment, which I wish we could be doing, to antitrust and upgrading the way those laws are enforced and what we should do; or we would be talking, which we should be doing, about the SECOND STEP Act and not just the FIRST STEP Act. All of those questions were asked in the hearing--immigration reform, very important issues--but we are where we are. We are where we are, and we have to look at his judgment to see what kind of Attorney General he would be at this time with respect to law and order, which, to me, right now, is not just about law and order in our communities-- very important--but it is also about law and order when it comes to our entire justice system. Like many of the nominees from the President, Mr. Barr has demonstrated, just as Justice Kavanaugh did, just as Justice Gorsuch did, an expansive view--an unprecedentedly expansive view of Presidential power. We don't have to look far to see how those views would impact the special counsel's investigation. Just a few months before he was nominated as a private citizen--I don't have many constituents who would do this, but, for some reason, Mr. Barr decided to send in this 19-page memo as a private citizen. It was no ordinary memo. This memo was 19 pages, single-spaced, and addressed to the leadership of the Justice Department, but it was sent to all of these people--conservative activists and all kinds of people all over the place, the lawyers at the White House Counsel's office, and the President's personal lawyers. I don't think my constituents would really have their addresses or emails, but it was sent to all of these people. It argued that a portion of the special counsel's obstruction of justice inquiry was ``fatally misconceived.'' He said that it was based on a legally insupportable reading of the law. Now, that makes you pause. How can we be sure, how can we think he can impartially evaluate the special counsel's investigation if, before he has even seen its result, he writes extensively that part of it, not all of it, was legally insupportable and fatally misconceived? It is not just those statements that are troubling. He goes on to state, not for the first time, his alarming views about the President's powers. Here is one of them: ``[T]he President's law enforcement powers extend to all matters, including those in which he had a personal stake.'' Mr. Barr doesn't cite laws or cases from the Supreme Court or the history of our Nation's founding or even the Federalist Papers when making his claims. He just says it as if it is obvious. Let me be clear about what he means by this. Mr. Barr believes that a President gets to supervise an investigation into his or her own conduct. As a former prosecutor, I know that it is a fundamental value in our country that no one--no one--is above the law, and it is a fundamental principle in our legal system that no one should be a judge in their own case, not even the President of the United States. I also have grave doubts about Mr. Barr's respect for Congress, a coequal branch of government, and our duty to provide oversight of the executive branch. Mr. Barr is a proponent of the unitary executive theory, which is the idea that the President has expansive powers, even in the face of Congress's constitutional duties. His writings on the topic raise serious questions about how Mr. Barr will approach congressional oversight of the administration. I am concerned that Mr. Barr will rely on the broad interpretation of Executive power to support the White House's reported efforts to exert Executive privilege to prevent the release of the special counsel report, its findings, or its conclusions. If that happens, Congress must be ready to assert our responsibility to make sure the public and, especially, State election officials who are working to secure our elections have the facts about what happened. How are we going to fix this in the next election if we don't know what happened? How are we going to have accountability for our government if the public is shut out in viewing what happened? This is not the time to install an Attorney General who has repeatedly espoused a view of unfettered Executive power. Congress cannot abdicate its responsibilities or shirk its duties--not when it comes to national security, foreign relations, the budget, or, as is key today, oversight into law and order. A few years ago, I went to Atlanta to make a speech, and, of course, I took a little trip over to the Carter Presidential Library. Of course, I wanted to see this library--I had never seen it--to learn more about President Carter, but as a Minnesotan, I really wanted to look for all the Mondale memorabilia. I may have been the only one there looking for Joan's dress and other things related to the Mondale half of the Carter-Mondale team. One of the things I noticed that to me was most prominent was a quote of Walter Mondale's etched on the wall. At the time, I liked it. I thought it was simple. I wrote it down, and I put it in my purse. But I never knew how relevant it would be today. The quote came from Mondale's reflections on his service with President Carter after they had lost their reelection but had served their country for 4 years. He said: We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace. I believe that is the minimum standard we should expect of any administration. We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace. Every President faces great challenges, many of which are unforeseen and require difficult decisions, but at the minimum, an administration should tell the truth, obey the law, and do all they can to keep the peace. That is where I will end. What concerns me about this nominee is not the vast experience he has or the work he would do on a few of the things that I mentioned; it is his views on Executive power, his views on Congress's power to be a check and balance to the Executive, his views on what the Executive can do right as we face this crucial time in history, when coming right at us is this major report from the special counsel. I want someone who will make sure that whoever is in the White House obeys the law and tells the truth. Sadly, I cannot support this nominee. I do hope that I am wrong in some of my conclusions based on what I have read and heard. I would like nothing more. I appreciate so much the work of Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General and many of the other people in the Justice Department who have worked with him to allow this investigation to continue. I hope that will be the case if this nominee does go through this Chamber, that he will do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, today I wish to recognize the achievement of HealthPartners, a healthcare provider based in Bloomington, MN, which was selected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to receive a Health Equity Award for its efforts to improve healthcare quality, access, and outcomes among underserved and minority populations. Founded in 1957, HealthPartners is the largest consumer-governed nonprofit healthcare organization in the United States. HealthPartners serves more than 1.8 million consumers with its medical and dental plans and operates a multispecialty group practice of more than 1,800 physicians. To accomplish its mission of improving the health and well- being of its patients and broader community, HealthPartners has brought together more than 26,000 employees. As demonstrated HealthPartners' receipt of the Health Equity Award, their hard work has paid off. As recognized by the award, in just 3 years, HealthPartners was able to significantly reduce disparities in colorectal screening and antidepression medication compliance. In just 1 year, HealthPartners nearly eliminated the gap in mental health length of stay for patients with a limited ability to speak English. Minnesota has long been recognized as a leader in healthcare innovation, and I am proud to recognize HealthPartners' contributions to that work. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to implore my colleagues and the President to end the shutdown and reopen the Federal Government. We are now on day 34 of this shutdown, which is well past being the longest in American history. When you think about what our country has been through: the Civil War, World War I, World War II; you think about the protests we had; what we had with the country in the Depression; what we had only a decade ago with the biggest downturn since the Depression--through all of that, even through a few shutdowns, we somehow, in this Chamber and in the House and in the White House, were able to get our act together and were somehow able to keep the government open. Now is the time to open the government, Mr. President. The 800,000 Federal employees who are not being paid are keenly aware that this is the longest shutdown on record. Another sad milestone is coming if the shutdown continues through tomorrow. These workers will miss yet another paycheck. These are workers, like a Federal prison worker in Rochester, MN, who noted to me that the inmates were getting paid but the prison workers are not. She was so excited to get this job a few months ago. Her child was in daycare. She is a single mom, and now she has to decide between taking some other job and moonlighting. What does she do about the daycare if she takes another job and takes her child out of daycare and stays home with her child, which would make some sense, except she wouldn't have enough money, and then she would lose her spot in the daycare. It is very hard to get daycare in Minnesota. Instead of working on those kinds of what I would call opportunities, at a time when our economy has been stable after we had gotten out of the downturn, we have been working out of chaos. Instead of helping her to afford childcare and figuring out smart solutions, or doing something about pharmaceutical prices, or doing something about college costs, or training our workers for the jobs of today and tomorrow, or enacting comprehensive immigration reform so our rural areas in my State, where we don't have enough workers on our farms and in our fields and in our factories--we should be working on those opportunity issues--instead, we are trying to crawl out of chaos. We need to reopen the government and get these workers back on the jobs providing vital services for the American people. Once it is open, as my colleagues have made clear and as leadership has made clear, we can continue negotiations with the President about border security. I am someone, as is my colleague from Pennsylvania, who voted for a bill that had over $40 billion in border security that was part of comprehensive immigration reform. We did this, but was it a wall through the entire border? No, it was not. It allowed the experts to decide where there should be technology, where there should be fencing, where there should be barriers, where there should be personnel. That is the way to do this. There is no reason our Federal workers and the American taxpayers who rely on the vital services provided by the Federal workers should be held hostage while these policy negotiations take place. The pain that this shutdown is causing is real, and it is getting worse. The administration has implemented many creative measures to try to blunt the public outcry against the shutdown, but these measures are being held together by duct tape. We use duct tape a lot in Minnesota. We try to put things together, but we shouldn't be using duct tape to tape together our entire government. Our Agencies are running out of money, and many are reaching the breaking point. Earlier today, the five former Secretaries for the Department of Homeland Security, including our first DHS Secretary, Tom Ridge, and John Kelly, President Trump's former Chief of Staff, wrote a letter urging an end to this shutdown and full funding for the Department of Homeland Security. In their letter, the former Secretaries noted that Congress always prioritizes funding of the Defense Department as a matter of national security. Congress does so because putting national security at risk is an option we simply can't afford. DHS should be no different. The administration continues to explore ideas like a national emergency declaration to bypass Congress. The irresponsibility of all of this is breathtaking. Yesterday, the presidents of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Association of Flight Attendants released a terrifying joint statement pointing out the risk the shutdown presents to air travel: In our risk-averse industry--That is putting it mildly-- we cannot even calculate the level of risk currently at play, nor predict the point where the entire system will break. It is unprecedented. I have talked to the air traffic controllers in my State. I have talked to the TSA workers who sit there every day and do their job without pay. In this letter, they go on to state that the ``air safety environment . . . is deteriorating by the day.'' Reading this statement does not give me confidence, nor does the fact that a full 10 percent of our Transportation Security Administration agents are now missing work because of financial limitations--meaning they can't cover the daycare and transportation expenses required to come to work. Those who can come to work are surely distracted by worries about how they will pay their bills. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle last year to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. We were rightly proud of the law, including the third title, simply titled, ``Safety,'' which had 90 individual provisions designed to maximize the safety of air travel for the American people. We required updated safety training procedures for airline professionals, sought to improve safety on our Nation's runways and in rural areas, and updated the laws regarding engine safety. This matters a lot in my State. We are a major hub in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. We are the State that manufactures jets up in Duluth at Cirrus. We are the State that has major Minnesota National Guard facilities that train flight inspectors and aviators and people all over the country. Aviation is incredibly important in my State. In our bill, we required updated safety training procedures for airline professionals, sought to improve safety in our Nation's runways and rural areas. As the Senator from Pennsylvania and Florida know, rural air service in our States are key, and we updated those laws. We are hearing the entire system of air travel may break, and for what? What does air travel have to do with border security? The short answer is, air travel has nothing to do with border security, except when we are checking our airports and making sure they are safe when there are border flights. If we are talking about a wall across the southern border, that has nothing to do with our airports in Minnesota and in Pennsylvania and in Florida. I have long favored increasing our border security through smart technology. As I mentioned, our 2013 immigration bill, which passed this Chamber with a number of Republican votes--many of whom are still here-- included money for an additional 40,000 Border Patrol agents. As we know, most drugs come into this country through our ports of entry. If we want to do something about the various problems with the drugs coming into our country, things like heroin from Central America and from Mexico and things like other opioids, then we should be doing something about those ports of entry. As has been the case all along, there are proposals on the table that will reopen the government and end this senseless shutdown. The House has now passed legislation that will fund the government under any number of arrangements. It includes bills that fund all remaining government Agencies through the end of the fiscal year--bills that fund individual Departments and Agencies, most having absolutely nothing to do with this debate that is raging in the White House. The last bill that was passed through February 8, a short-term basis that would have taken us through February 8, would have allowed the President and Congress to negotiate a longer term proposal. That was the bill we passed in the Senate. This last bill was even coupled with additional funding for disaster relief--a priority for both parties that wish to help Americans in States that have suffered through hurricanes and wildfires. Earlier this afternoon, the Senate voted on the short-term funding proposal. While the proposal did not gain the required 60 votes to gain consideration, I was encouraged by the fact that 5 Republican Senators joined Democrats in voting to consider this bill. This is progress, and we need to build on that momentum by working together to do the right thing for the American people. On Monday, we celebrated Martin Luther King's life. One of the things Martin Luther King once said was that ``the time is always right to do what is right.'' This is the right time. We can't just keep waiting while government Agencies remain shuttered. There are 6,100 Federal workers in the State of Minnesota who are not receiving their paychecks. Farmers, small business owners, and taxpayers are going without vital services from their government, major portions of which have been closed for 34 days. It is time to reopen the government. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiment of the Senator from Georgia, and I remember earlier last year when we were both part of discussions to try to resolve an earlier shutdown issue and an earlier issue related to immigration reform. We put together a bipartisan bill involving the Dreamers, and we got some broad support on our side. Unfortunately, the White House, in the end, was not supportive of that agreement, even though the Senator from Georgia had worked so hard. I think we can't rule out, as much as we have tried and will continue to try, to come up with bipartisan solutions like the majority and the minority leader did in December that we all supported and would have prevented this shutdown. We can't take out the element of the fact that a number of times we have been gut-punched, basically, when we have tried to do that. That doesn't mean that the discussion shouldn't continue, and I appreciate his good work on that. I want to discuss one Minnesotan, Kathleen DeMaster, who has been affected by this and her family. She works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Minneapolis. She is currently furloughed. This is Kathleen and her daughter. She says: My situation is becoming desperate. . . . I accepted my position with the federal government only a few months ago because it is a fantastic way for me to better myself and my career. I am passionate about public service and have enjoyed my job very much since I started. While accepting this position improved my situation, I have lived paycheck to paycheck. . . . This has not changed unfortunately. I am a single mother and a homeowner. And while I am college educated . . . I have struggled to get where I am now. It has never been easy, and unfortunately, this has only made life more difficult. My funds are exhausted. At this point in time, I don't have the money to pay for my mortgage or for childcare for my daughter. The money I will receive for unemployment insurance will not cover everything I need [it to]. Unfortunately this has put me in an untenable situation. Do I risk losing my home or do I risk having my daughter lose her daycare and being unable to work when I am recalled? In other words, she can maybe lose the daycare because she is at home now, but she is not going to be able to have the daycare when she goes back to work, when she can. These are the choices I (and many others, I am sure) are facing right now. This may be a story you have heard before, but I felt it needs to be shared until it is heard by the right ears. These are this woman's words--``the right ears.'' I am at a loss for what else to do, and I'm terrified for what it means for my daughter and myself. Kathleen is doing everything she can do to provide for her daughter. She recently started picking up shifts with Instacart, the grocery delivery service, just to make ends meet. If this shutdown drags on--in her words--she is simply at a loss about how she and her daughter will get by. In my State there are 6,100 other Federal workers with these stories. They are not being paid, and each of these workers has a face and a name. It is time to end the shutdown and reopen the government. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and pay tribute to Gerald Boschwitz, who passed away on December 30, 2018. Gerry's life was defined by his enduring kindness and commitment to his family. The son of Ellen and former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz, Gerry came from a family that valued service and decency. During his life, he embodied these values and passed them on to his children as well. I went to Wayzata High School with Gerry. An accomplished student, he then attended Carleton College where he studied political science, a subject for which his family life prepared him very well. Gerry, or ``the Gerb'' as he was known to his family, was the first of Rudy and Ellen's four sons and the leader of his pack. Gerry was a quintessential oldest son and big brother, serving as both a mentor and a sounding board for those he loved. Whether it was helping his father on the campaign trail, or his brothers make career decisions, Gerry always showed up, ready to give his support. Gerry also worked alongside his siblings at the family's Plywood Minnesota/Home Valu Interiors business for 25 years, stepping in as CEO when his father was ready to pass the torch. He later cofounded a business of his own. His commitment to his work often made him the first one up in the morning and out the door, but that didn't stop him from putting his family first, including leaving voicemails for his wife Janet at her work so that his voice was the first she would hear in the morning. Gerry's family--his wife Janet and their sons David, Benjamin, and Michael--was truly the centerpiece of his life. Gerry was deeply committed to the Boy Scouts and served as an assistant scoutmaster for more than a decade. The Scouts played an important role in the lives of his sons as well--all three Eagle Scouts--something Gerry was very proud of. Gerry fought valiantly against his multiple myeloma cancer for 4\1/2\ years, undergoing numerous treatments including a stem cell transplant and a natural killer cell transplant. In keeping with the kindness and generosity that defined so much of his life, Gerry's final gift to others was the knowledge researchers will gain from his experience. That final act is no surprise to those who knew him best. May his memory be a blessing. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the ways in which this pointless shutdown has done real harm to American workers and families. I appreciate the words of my colleague from Nevada as she explained how devastating this has been in her State. We are now in day 20, and the stories are flooding in, in the calls to my office, as to how this political gamesmanship from the White House is harming the American people. The Washington Post estimates that 6,100 Federal workers in Minnesota have been affected by the shutdown. This includes 1,700 who work for the Department of Agriculture--right when the farm bill has passed. We have many small dairy farmers in Minnesota for whom we had worked so hard to get this bill passed. Now they need to understand it, and they need to figure out what programs to sign up for, but they have no one to talk to. These aren't big milking operations. These are places with a couple of dozen cows, with 50 cows, and they have no one to talk to. As I said, the Washington Post has cited 6,100 Federal workers. Some of these employees are furloughed and are forced to stay away from work. Others are forced to work without pay. Here are a few of their stories. Sandy Parr works as a food service supervisor and nurse at the Federal Medical Center Rochester in Rochester, MN. She has been asked to work 60-hour shifts during the shutdown and to fill in for dozens of absent colleagues--all without being paid. She told one of our newspapers that she may soon be forced to choose between groceries and medication for her 14-year-old son who has autism. Celia Hahn is a transportation security officer at our airport, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. It is a major airport, a hub. She told our local newspaper that she has canceled her plans to sign up her twin 9-year-old boys for a soccer clinic. If the shutdown drags on, she will have to call her mortgage lender to negotiate payments, which is a step many of her colleagues have already had to take. It goes from the small--a soccer signup that might not seem that important, but anyone who is a parent knows it is a really important thing for kids--to the big, are you going to be able to afford your house? Then it goes to the even bigger as you look at a major airport that has lines and people who are working without pay and where you have law enforcement on the frontline, whether it is Homeland Security or whether they are FBI agents who are going to be working without pay. Of course, my State is by no means unique in being hurt by this shutdown. I have heard the stories from so many of my colleagues. Senator Kaine told us about Alan, a veteran and civil servant in Yorktown. He has had to work without pay since the shutdown began. His emergency savings are exhausted, and he is behind in his bills. Senator Durbin of Illinois talked about a Transportation Security Administration worker, a TSA worker, who fears the impact of missing a mortgage or a rent payment. The man told the Senator that if he can't make one of those payments on time, it will hurt his credit rating, which could affect the interest rates he will pay on loans and mortgages for the rest of his life. These are real people with real-world problems. Senator Heinrich of New Mexico told the story of Nicholas, a firefighter. If the shutdown isn't resolved, he told the Senator, he will not be able to support his family. On Tuesday night, I joined Senator Shaheen, who talked about how furloughs have slowed down the work at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and about how the continued delays in funding will pull the rug out from first responders who rely on this funding. Senator Warner of Virginia talked about the shutdown's impact on Federal contractors, including custodians, cafeteria workers, and security guards who work as Federal contractors who will never see backpay for the shutdown unless we do something about it. This is what is happening. The public IRS office is closed. That is in my State. A woman is trying to make a payment for taxes due and is concerned about the interest and penalties because of the time it will take to process her payment by mail. The Neighborhood Development Center in St. Paul, MN, a community lender, has two projects awaiting construction funding from the SBA, the Small Business Administration. That is shutdown. A young man needs his tax transcripts for a late enrollment in college. With the IRS not providing this service, he will not be able to attend the first day of his classes. A woman who was the victim of identity theft in my State was trying to report it to the IRS but to no avail. These are basic services that our constituents are being forced to go without. These are promises we made to our constituents and to the men and women who serve the public as Federal employees. It is time for the President to end this pointless shutdown and reopen the government. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues in voicing my sincere hope that the President will end this senseless shutdown. The American people are tired of our country being held hostage and our economy threatened. There are real consequences. I see it all the time. Of course my State, unlike Mr. Van Hollen's State of Maryland and the State of Virginia, may not have as high a percentage of Federal workers, but for every worker who has been hit by this, it is the same story. At our airport just this weekend, I talked to countless TSA officers. They said: We will continue to do our job, but now we are not going to get paid. You think about these people on the frontline who are doing the work for our country, who are keeping us safe, and who are not getting paid because of this senseless shutdown. You hear about the garbage piling up in our national parks. You hear about people having trouble paying their rent or mortgage. You hear about the fears about airport security lines. Everyday Americans are affected by this as well. Other consequences of this shutdown are less visible but deeply painful for those affected. There are entrepreneurs who want to take their companies public but can't get approval by the SEC. You have rural home buyers who can't get their mortgages backed by the Agriculture Department. Farmers can't access critical loans or information about how the Department will implement the new farm bill. We were so proud to pass the new farm bill in this Chamber on a bipartisan basis--something the President took credit for--and now we can't even implement it and help our farmers as they approach growing season in the spring. They don't even know what is going to happen with the new provisions of this farm bill, especially the dairy farmers of Minnesota, who have been hit so hard by low prices and by the trade war that we are in. While this trade war is going on, we are also going to not be able to help them and to deny the help that vulnerable Americans need. Funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps put food on the table for 38 million Americans, would be severely reduced or cut off all together. The Department of Housing and Urban Development payments that maintain housing for 3 million Americans could be in jeopardy. It is time to put aside the political games, and it is time to get in the real game--and that is the lives of American people--and to stop this shutdown. It means reopening our entire government so we can work on the issues that matter. This is a time in our country when we should not be governing from crisis. We should be governing from opportunity. After the downturn, the economy had stabilized, and we should be working with the rest of the world. We should be selling our goods to market and building the infrastructure in this country. We should be doing something about prescription drug prices. We should be training our workers for the jobs that are available today and the jobs that will be available tomorrow. There are simple proposals out there. There is the Senate and the House of Representatives legislation that passed through this body unanimously--not a single Senator opposed it--yet the President suddenly changed course and, once again, insisted that he needs over $5 billion immediately. The new House has now passed legislation to fund all shuttered agencies other than the Department of Homeland Security through the end of the fiscal year. That includes the Treasury Department, the Agriculture Department, the Interior Department-- government agencies that provide critical services. These noncontroversial bills were originally drafted and approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee run by the Republican Party. None of this makes sense to me at all. The measures that were passed by the House are sensible, and they are ones that have been supported in the past by Republicans in this Chamber. Shutdowns are not good for the economy. I lived through the 2013 shutdown. That was estimated to cost our economy over $20 billion. The President's own economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, has estimated that this shutdown will shrink our economy by 0.1 percent every 2 weeks. Maybe that doesn't sound like much. Do you know how much it really is? It is roughly $10 billion every single week. That is real money for real Americans. So stop the games. Shutting down the government should not be a negotiating tactic. If President Trump were to agree to sign the bills that the House has now passed and every Member of the Senate supported last month, we would end this shutdown. Instead, critical services and our economy are being threatened with poison pill partisanship. To my colleagues in the Senate, I say this: Let's get this done. We owe it to the people whom we were elected to serve. We owe it to the country. As one former Congresswoman once said, America should be as good as its promise. This is a promise we made to them when we were elected--to do the best for them and to serve our country. Let's get it done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in response to the President's announcement on the withdrawal of troops from Syria. Like many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I am deeply concerned that prematurely withdrawing American troops from Syria is contrary to the advice of senior national security officials and that the President's announcement will have negative consequences for our country's national security interests. I am also concerned about the implications of U.S. withdrawal for the security of our allies and for innocent civilians in Syria. Since August of this year, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor have all suggested that the Syrian conflict requires sustained U.S. commitment. Just last week, the administration's Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS said that ``we can't just pick up and leave'' Syria. This week, the U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement said that the U.S. would remain in Syria until the U.S. achieves three objectives: ensuring the defeat of the Islamic State, reducing Iranian influence, and reaching a political solution to resolve the crisis. The President's announcement contradicts the advice of our diplomats and military leaders and fails to address these issues. These concerns are shared by our key allies, including Israel and Jordan. The withdrawal of U.S. troops will also abandon the Kurds, who have been our partners in the region. Once again, we see the U.S. abandoning critical alliances in favor of narrow and ill-defined aims. I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of the ongoing Syrian conflict and resulting humanitarian crisis, which has led to the worst refugee crisis since World War II. In 2015, I visited a Greek refugee center and met with officials who are dealing with the crisis. I saw groups of children who had traveled alone to try to find better lives, but when we tried to ask one little boy about his story, he did not want to tell us because he and all his friends were afraid that they would be sent back home. I also visited the Za'atari refugee camp in Jordan, where we heard about atrocities taking place in Syria that one refugee said would ``make stones cry.'' This crisis is not over, and it requires an international response and clear U.S. policy. There are no easy solutions in Syria. But what we need is leadership and a comprehensive plan based on the expertise of those on the frontlines, not hasty and ill-informed decision-making. Thank you.