Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I have already given speeches in this Chamber about my four friends, departing Democratic colleagues, Senators Heitkamp, McCaskill, Nelson, and Donnelly. Now I rise to recognize my Republican colleagues who are leaving the Senate. Let me start with Orrin Hatch, who is truly one of a kind. Out of 100 Senators, none of us can say that our great-grandfather founded the town of Vernal, UT, home of the Dinosaur Roundup Rodeo. None of us can say that we served as a Mormon bishop or that we started off working as a janitor to pay for school and then went on to become the most senior Republican in the U.S. Senate. None of us can say that we moonlight as a singer, songwriter, and famed lyricist, whose catalogue includes the classics: ``Heal Our Land,'' ``Eight Days of Hanukkah,'' and his ode to Manhattan, ``Skatin' with My Baby.'' Orrin Hatch's songs have been featured in the movies ``Oceans 12'' and ``Stuart Little 2.'' While Senator Hatch takes pride in all of his accomplishments, I know that he is proudest of his family: his wife, Elaine; their six children; 23 grandchildren; and 24 great-grandchildren. Senator Hatch and I have worked together for a long period of time. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976, and I also got my start in elected life that year as the secretary-treasurer of my 10th grade high school class. Washingtonian Magazine once named us the two Senators least likely to get into a scandal, which I assume includes with each other. We are both members of the Senate prayer group. One time I will never forget was when he was speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast and his phone started ringing and he had to improvise in front of the entire National Prayer Breakfast. He said that God was calling him with prayer advice as he answered the cell phone. Most of all, we have teamed up on many issues that matter to the American people. We are cochairs of the Rare Disease Caucus. We have helped to make our schools safer just this spring by adding $1 million to improve school security. We led a bipartisan bill that was passed unanimously in this Chamber, and it was signed into law. We worked together to restore the integrity to our patent system. He also has been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, something we need more of in this Chamber. I will always be grateful for the opportunity I have had to work with Senator Hatch, someone who has dedicated his life to serving his State and country for more than 40 years. I also want to honor the service of my colleague from Arizona, Senator Jeff Flake, whom I have truly enjoyed working with during our time together in the Senate. Jeff has never invited me to travel with him to a deserted island, as he did with Senator Heinrich, but we did once stay with Jeff and his wife, Cheryl, at John and Cindy McCain's ranch, and let's just say it had a few more amenities than he had on the island with Senator Heinrich. During that memorable visit to Sedona, I saw firsthand how dedicated Jeff is to his family. I remember how early he got up one morning to travel to his son Tanner's track meet. That afternoon he actually sent me a photo of Tanner taken after he had won the event. I also have seen how much he loves his home State. At heart, he is a fifth-generation Arizonan, one of 11 kids who grew up on a cattle ranch in the town of Snowflake. That land had first been owned by his great- great-grandfather, who had come to Arizona in 1878, and then it was passed down generation to generation. I learned a lot about the Flake family history through Jeff's book, which I once read in its entirety on Christmas Day. What I most remember from that book was that growing up, Jeff's family had a card on the refrigerator, and this is what it said: ``Assume the best. Look for the good.'' It is that unshakeable sense of optimism and faith in the decency of other people that Senator Flake has brought to the U.S. Senate. He has been willing to work across the aisle to do what he thinks is right, even when it has sometimes meant breaking with his own party. Jeff knows what is at stake, for instance, with immigration reform. He wrote in his book: ``From a very young age in ranch country, you get to know immigrants intimately and honestly'' and you know ``how indispensable they are to making things work in America.'' It is clear that those lessons have stayed with him. I have seen it as Jeff has worked to build bipartisan consensus on immigration issues, reaching across the aisle to find a solution to try to protect our Dreamers. I have seen it when we joined together to introduce a resolution, the two of us, recognizing the contributions of Muslim Americans. That resolution passed the Senate because Jeff Flake was willing to cosponsor it with me. I have seen these values as Senator Flake has worked with a bipartisan group of us to normalize relations with Cuba. This commitment dates back decades to his earlier experience in building democracy in Namibia. So when President Obama took up the cause of Cuba, Jeff did not hesitate to lend his support, and together Senator Flake and I led the bill to lift the embargo on Cuba, along with Senators Enzi, Leahy, and many others. Jeff's voice has been particularly needed lately in the face of grave threats to our democracy and the rule of law. He has been a strong advocate for this bipartisan legislation that the Senate Judiciary Committee passed to simply protect the work of the special counsel, and he has taken a stand to try to ensure that the bill gets a vote on the Senate floor. As a daughter of a journalist, I also deeply appreciate Senator Flake's leadership on behalf of a free press, which is essential to our democracy. At a time when journalists are under attack, when reporters are risking and losing their lives and the President is calling them ``the enemy of the people,'' it has never been more important for us to speak out for the First Amendment. So when Jeff Flake took to the Senate floor in support of freedom of the press earlier this year, I was proud to speak after him. While Jeff will be so missed in the Senate, I have no doubt that he will continue to use his strong voice on behalf of the issues he cares about, on behalf of his State and our country, which he has served so well. Also, Senator Corker. Senator Corker and I were elected to the Senate at the same time in 2006. He was the only Republican Senator in our incoming class. I see Senator Cardin here in the Chamber; he was also a Member of that class. We all have remained friends with Senator Corker over the years. I will tell you that Senator Corker never misses Senator McCaskill's annual chili party. He has been very good to us, and we have worked together for years. Before becoming a Senator, Bob Corker had two previous experiences as an elected official. He was the mayor of Chattanooga and the president of a high school class. He claims that he did not even have to campaign for that job. Here is what he said: ``I just woke up one day and was president.'' That is not how it usually works in politics. It turns out that Bob's roots were actually, of course, in business. He saved up $8,000 to start his own construction company at age 25 and then expanded it to 17 other States, and he has brought this commonsense business background to tackle difficult problems head-on, while always calling it as he sees it. We have seen that in his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, where Bob has spoken up to defend the values that define America, including strongly stating that he felt this Chamber and the administration had to do more in response to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We have seen it as Senator Corker has worked to strengthen our alliances. I can tell you, when I was having trouble getting the nominees to be Ambassadors to Sweden and Norway through the Congress last Congress, which is very important in my State with its Scandinavian roots, I knew that I could count on his support. We have seen it in his efforts to combat human trafficking, an issue I also care deeply about. Bob has so much to be proud of at the end of his chapter of public service and begins another back home in Tennessee. Finally, I want to recognize my friend and colleague, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. Dean has dedicated so much of his life to public service on behalf of his State--in Nevada's legislature, as secretary of state, in Congress, and in the U.S. Senate. His family moved to Nevada when he was only 9 months old. As the son of an auto mechanic and a school cook, he has often said that he is likely one of the only Senators who can change your oil and fix your transmission. Nevada is obviously a State with no shortage of tourism, and Dean has worked with me as cochairs of the tourism caucus to promote tourism across our entire country. He understands that when we increase tourism, we not only create jobs and strengthen our economy, we also strengthen our alliances and export our values. It is that same philosophy that is behind his efforts, along with Senator Flake who is here in this Chamber, to normalize relations with Cuba. Dean and I traveled to Cuba, along with Senator Flake, with President Obama, and I deeply appreciated his commitment, as well as Senator Flake's and others, to improving the relationship between our countries and opening up new opportunities for American businesses. I have valued our time together on the Commerce Committee, where we led bills that passed and were signed into law regarding more women getting into science, technology, engineering, and math at NASA. We are proud that both bills were signed into law. I have enjoyed serving with Dean Heller in the U.S. Senate, and I thank him for his service. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak about some of our colleagues who are leaving the Senate. Before I do that, I want to address what happened late on the Friday night--I think 9 days before Christmas--when a Texas judge basically threw out the Affordable Care Act. This latest decision comes more than 6 years after the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Roberts, already upheld the law's constitutionality. That opinion also found that parts of the law can be severed from the rest of the legislation. It comes after the administration has stated emphatically that it would not defend the law. So, basically, instead of going in there and helping out to save healthcare for millions of Americans and protect them from being thrown off their insurance if they have preexisting conditions--instead of going into that burning building--the administration has said to basically stand down and throw lighter fluid on the fire. That is exactly what has happened. If this ruling takes effect, the consequences will be devastating. To start, protections for people with preexisting conditions would be gone. About half of all Americans have preexisting conditions. This isn't just about rare diseases. This is also about asthma and diabetes. The ability to keep your kids on your insurance plans until they are 26 years old will be gone. The work we have done to close the Medicare doughnut hole coverage gap, which makes it easier for our seniors to afford pharmaceuticals and to lower prescription drug prices, will be gone. The provisions that help people to buy insurance on the healthcare exchanges will be gone. Minnesotans will see a loss of $364 million in premium tax credits, and, roughly, 272,000 people in my State will lose coverage. We can't allow this to happen. The judge must issue a stay immediately until the appeals are completed so that these protections can stay in place and this decision can be overturned. It is time to stop trying to start from scratch. The American people spoke in this last election across the country. Do they want improvements to the Affordable Care Act, like making pharmaceuticals less expensive and doing something about premiums? Yes, they do, but they don't want to start from scratch. We have already seen what kind of healthcare proposals we get when we start from scratch--the ones that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put forward. The legislation that we saw earlier this 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 that you trust when it comes to your health--the largest groups of doctors, nurses, seniors, hospitals, people with cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and diabetes--has said it was the worst repeal bill yet. We cannot spend the next 2 years going backward and fighting old fights. We need to focus on building on the work we have done and strengthening and improving the Affordable Care Act. I have always said that the Affordable Care Act was the beginning and not an end, and we all have heard from those on the frontlines; doctors, patients, seniors, and those working to combat the opioid epidemic say that repeal is not the way forward. We should now be governing from opportunity and not from chaos. It means passing reinsurance programs, like the bipartisan legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor, that Senator Alexander and Senator Murray put forth, and using ideas that have worked in Minnesota and taking them out on a national basis. It means doing something about skyrocketing pharmaceutical prices and passing my bill that has over 30 cosponsors to allow Medicare to negotiate for less expensive drugs under their Medicare part D-- literally lifting the ban that says that the 41 million seniors of this country shouldn't be allowed to get a better deal. It means passing my bill with Senator Grassley, which we just improved upon today, to limit anti-competitive pay-for-delay deals, which delay more affordable generic drugs from getting out on the market. It means allowing less expensive, safe drugs to come in from other countries so that we can have true competition. We could even put it to a trigger so that if there were not competition, then you could allow the safe drugs to be purchased from other countries, and I think that it would create a major incentive for drug prices to go down. What we need to do is work together on the many bipartisan proposals that have been put forward to actually improve the Affordable Care Act, not throw it out and not throw people who have preexisting conditions off their insurance.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the FIRST STEP Act, a bipartisan legislation that will make needed changes to Federal sentencing rules and prison reforms. A number of us have been working on this issue for years, but I do want to thank Chairman Grassley, who is here with us today, and Senator Feinstein for their leadership in getting it through the Judiciary Committee as well as Senator Durbin, who has been a longtime leader on this issue, and Senator Booker, who has worked so hard on this, as well as Senator Whitehouse and Senator Cornyn, who is here with us today, and many others. Senator Lee took on this cause at a time when it wasn't as easy as it is right now at the end of the year. I also want to thank the administration for working with us on this bill as well. As a former chief prosecutor in Minnesota's largest county, I understand the need to use our resources to target the most serious offenders to maintain public safety. You have to make decisions in those kinds of jobs every day: decisions about your priorities, where you are going to put your criminal justice money, what is the safest thing to do for the community, knowing that a number of our offenders do reenter into society, what is the best way to make sure that if they do come back into society, they are going to be functioning members of society; that they are not going to go back to drugs or they are not going to commit additional crimes. It is fine to pretend that it is not happening and people are going away forever, and some people rightfully do. Violent criminals and murderers don't come out again, but a number of offenders do come out again. So the question is, What do we do to make it the most safe for our community but also to allow them to become functioning members of our society? That is what this bill is about at its core. We need a justice system that both protects the victims of crime and punishes those who break the law. Someone once said that prosecutors-- my old job--were ministers of justice. That is what we are doing with this bill. We are acknowledging that there are issues with our criminal justice system that we have to deal with. We are not just closing our eyes and pretending it is fine to pretend everyone goes away forever when we know they don't. Some people are coming out, and they should come back out again, and the FIRST STEP Act gets at those hard issues. Our criminal justice system must administer justice fairly. The sentencing laws on low-level drug offenders were implemented decades ago, and in a number of cases they have diverted limited law enforcement resources away from important public safety initiatives that would allow us to actually go after violent criminals. This has resulted in prison sentences that actually don't fit the crime. Today our country has over 20 percent of the world's incarcerated people, even though we have less than 5 percent of the world's population. We need a criminal justice system that works for our communities. That is why I fought for bipartisan criminal justice reform for years. As a former prosecutor, I have long supported important policies, including more law enforcement resources. I lead that bill with Senator Murkowski and the COPS Program to get more law enforcement resources to our police. I think that is very important. I worked hand in hand with our police in Minnesota for 8 years. They have very hard jobs. As a former prosecutor, I also supported important policies that make it better for the community and the police to work together. That includes better training for our law enforcement, that includes videotaped interrogations, that includes reforms with the eyewitness process. We were one of the first States to make changes there, including body cameras, diversity in hiring, and meaningful work between law enforcement and our citizens--fair jury selection processes. There are a number of things we have done but must continue to do to increase that trust between the community and our law enforcement. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I supported the bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act for years. My colleagues and I worked across party lines to pass that bill out of committee earlier in February and last Congress as well. Although the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate until this week, today we finally have an opportunity to make meaningful progress. The FIRST STEP Act represents a concerted bipartisan effort to strike an effective balance to improve the fair administration of justice while keeping our communities safe. Even though this bill is not perfect, it is the result of a compromise between two sides and people with a lot of different views and many groups that are here to advocate for citizens. It is a compromise that has the endorsement of a range of groups that you don't usually see, such as from the Fraternal Order of Police to the ACLU. This bill represents a critical opportunity that shouldn't be lost. One of the most important reforms in this bill are the changes to mandatory minimums. We all know people who have been caught up in a criminal justice system that can be unfair. I believe strongly in enforcing our laws on the books and putting criminal offenders behind bars to protect public safety, but for nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, there are more creative and evidence-based ways to deal with them than longer prison sentences. The FIRST STEP Act allows judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who work with the government. It also reduces some of the longest sentences now on the books, including decreasing the second-strike mandatory minimum of 20 years to 15 years and reduces the third-strike mandatory minimum of life in prison to 25 years. This bill includes a crucial provision to allow people who were sentenced under discriminatory drug laws, which required a longer mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of crack than for the possession of the same amount of cocaine, to petition to be resentenced under the reform guidelines we passed in 2010. Significantly, this bill will not automatically reduce any one person's prison sentence. Instead, the bill simply allows people to petition courts and prosecutors for an individualized review based on the particular facts of their case. That is what justice is supposed to be about. It is not always a one- size-fits-all. It is giving the people who work in the justice system knowing you have mandatory minimums still in place, knowing you want fairness across the system, but it allows judges and prosecutors to look at an individualized case and decide what is best for public safety and what is best for the community. By giving prosecutors and judges this discretion, we will give them the tools to better see that justice is done. The FIRST STEP Act also incorporates much needed reforms to our Federal prisons to treat people more humanely and to encourage participation in programs intended to help people from committing another crime after they are released. In my old job as Hennepin County attorney, I always said we would try as much as possible to run our operation as a business. We would be efficient, we would keep track of what we were doing and be accountable to the public and show them what the results were with regard to our prosecutions and the numbers and what the sentences would be. We did all that, but one of the things I also knew is, while you want to run government as much as possible as efficiently as a business, there was one way we were not like a business in the criminal justice system: We did not want to see repeat customers at our doors. That is not what you want when you are running the prosecutor's office. We wanted to make sure people could get their lives back and their acts together so they didn't keep cycling through the criminal justice system. This bill, the FIRST STEP Act, includes a provision to require that Federal prisoners be placed in a facility as close to their primary residence as possible. That makes sure families aren't separated, and they can continue to have visitors. One of the things we know is, it is very important for them to make that transition when they get back in the community. This straightforward change is an important step toward reducing recidivism because research suggests that people who maintain contact with their families while they serve time are less likely to commit crimes after they are released. Other key provisions in this legislation expand access to treatment and education. I look at this two ways. One, when I first became a lawyer at a private law firm in the Twin Cities, I actually got involved in a program called Amicus, where we went to visit people in prisons. I visited a woman for a number of years until I became chief CA--that became a little awkward--but she went on to serve her sentence and got back out into the community. That program was really the community saying: We want to keep the thought out there that there is hope, that these people are going to get out at some point, and they need role models and people who are willing to work with them. I saw that work with my own eyes. The other reason I care so much about this bill is that I am a child of an alcoholic--someone who went through treatment and who, after a number of DWIs, was finally pushed into treatment and was, in his own words, ``pursued by grace.'' I think other people, whether they are in the prison system or not, should be able to have that same opportunity for themselves and for their kids. I was able to see my dad literally climb the highest mountain as an adventurer, a mountain climber, and a columnist but sink to the lowest valley because of the disease of alcoholism. You see that all the time in our prison system. Whether it is drugs or whether it is alcohol, that is one of the reasons people get involved in crime, to feed their addiction or because they are not functioning normally and making decisions they would make if they weren't addicted. This bill encourages the use of evidence-based treatment for opioid and heroin abuse and will help to address the addiction that is the root cause of so many crimes. I come from a State that believes in treatment. We are known as the ``Land of 10,000 Lakes,'' and every so often people jokingly call it the ``Land of 10,000 Treatment Centers.'' That includes, of course, Hazelden Betty Ford. We are very proud of their work, but there are also multiple other treatment centers in our State. It is a major part of our criminal justice system and our drug courts. We had one of the first major drug courts in the country, and I continue to carry on that work as a Senator. Taken together, the prison reforms in this bill and the recidivism reforms and reentry reforms are an important step that will help us to make progress toward reducing the number of repeat offenders. As a prosecutor, I have always believed that our job was to serve the cause of justice, and that was to convict the guilty but protect the innocent. Sometimes the innocent are, of course, victims of crime. That is the first thing that comes to mind. But the innocent are also people who are unfairly accused of crimes. That is why it is so important to have all of these measures in place, whether it is videotaped interrogations or jury selection that is fair--to make sure our process is fair. At some point, when someone has served a sentence and turned their life around, they go from guilty, which they once were, to having a chance to go out there as an innocent person who is just trying to lead a life. That is what our job is as Senators--to do justice, to make sure we have rules in place that make sure the guilty go behind bars if they have committed a serious crime but also to protect the innocent. That includes the families of victims and the families of offenders. There is still much work for us to do to improve our criminal justice system, and I am committed with my colleagues, many of whom I mentioned earlier, who have been leaders on this bill--I see Senator Leahy here from the State of Vermont, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, who worked so hard on this as well. So many people have contributed to the effort from the left and from the right, from the Democratic Party and from the Republican Party. This is a victory for justice today as we consider this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wanted to thank Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow for their fine leadership on this farm bill, as well as their staffs. I had a great opportunity to thank them. This was something that was universally well accepted and exciting for our State and, really, for every State in the country--the way we got 87 votes. As I noted, at home, we don't get that many votes for a volleyball resolution. It really put the bill in a good place to get this done. I thank them for their leadership. I also want to thank Brian Werner from my own staff, who has long worked on these issues, as well as at home, Andy Martin and Chuck Ackman, who have done ag work for us in Minnesota. I thank them for their work on this bill as well. Tribute to Claire McCaskill Mr. President, I am here to make some brief remarks about two of my favorite colleagues who are leaving us. They are both good friends of mine, both from the middle of the country, and both extraordinary leaders. I will start with my friend, Senator Claire McCaskill. Senator McCaskill and I were first elected at the same time, so we came in together. During our years of serving together, I have seen this strong, incredible woman stand up for the people of Missouri and stand up for the people of this country. We were the only two women in our Senate class when we came in. One of my first memories of Claire, which occurred near the beginning of our time in the Senate, was that we were driving out of the Capitol together to go speak at an event. I looked out the window, and there was my husband John walking across the lawn with a pink box. She sees him, and she looks at me, and she says: What is John doing, walking across the Capitol lawn with a pink gift-wrapped box? I yelled out the car window, and I said: What are you doing with the pink box? He yelled back: It is the Senate spouse club event. I am going to Jim Webb's wife's baby shower. Claire looked at my husband and said, in her typical, blunt way: That is the sexiest thing I have ever seen. That is Claire. We were rejoicing together in the car at that moment, as we thought we were witnessing a milestone in Senate spouse history but also in our own histories and in the journey of having more women in the Senate. Claire is someone who never keeps quiet, who always speaks her mind, and that is so refreshing. When she found out about the substandard care for our veterans at Walter Reed, she took it on. She was a freshman Senator, but she wasn't quiet, and she took it on. Her dad was a veteran, and she felt that the veterans of today deserve the same quality care that he got. That is the kind of leadership she has always shown. She never backs down, especially in the face of corruption. I think a lot of that was because of her work as a prosecutor. We shared that in common. If there were rights that needed to be respected--great. If there were wrongs that needed to be righted, she was right there. She is never afraid to speak truth to power. By the way, in her own words, she is now unleashed, and I know that will continue in a big way. Whether she is at a hearing or writing one of her famous tweets, she does it in a voice that is 100 percent authentic and 100 percent Claire McCaskill. I will never forget when she was grilling Wall Street executives at a Senate hearing for their role in the financial crisis, and she said: ``You guys have less oversight than a pit boss in Las Vegas.'' That is one example. As Missouri's former State auditor and as someone who worked her way through school as a waitress, Senator McCaskill has always rightfully demanded accountability for those in positions of power. We saw it again when she stood up to opioid manufacturers and distributors, investigating suspicious shipments of these dangerous drugs in communities across the country. We saw it with her leadership in the fight against sex assault and online sex trafficking, where she worked to take on backpage. We saw it in her fight to strengthen the role of independent watchdogs at our Federal Agencies and to expand protections for whistleblowers. We saw it every time she stood up for American consumers, highlighting the challenges that consumers often face when they get errors on their credit reports or when they have fraudulent robocalls. I would always think of how she would challenge the commonsense wisdom of her beloved mom, Betty, who is no longer with us. I had the honor to meet Betty. So whenever I would watch Claire take on these crimes--especially crimes against seniors--and speak out about them, I would always think of her mom and how her mom was such an early, powerful feminist and a woman who stood up and spoke truth to power. Perhaps most of all, as I mentioned earlier, we saw it her work with Walter Reed on behalf of our Nation's veterans. In addition to the work she did in calling out what was happening at Walter Reed, it was Claire who found out that contracting failures had led to thousands of graves at Arlington National Cemetery being unmarked or improperly marked. It was Claire whose legislation overhauled the IT systems at Arlington and ultimately held the Secretary of the Army accountable. That was trademark Claire: seeing an injustice, uncovering it, speaking out, and then never giving up until it is fixed. That is what she has done time and again. What is cool about Claire, despite what I wish had not happened--that she didn't win her election--is, she is the most resilient person I know, and she will continue to serve and continue to do that work in her way. After a former political opponent once accused her of being unladylike, she once told an Iowa audience that the traits needed to excel in leadership--to speak out, be strong, take charge, change the world--are traits she sees as very, very ladylike. Claire has shown us how to be both strong and ladylike. It has been my privilege to serve with her. I am so honored to call her friend, and I am excited about what is to come for Claire McCaskill. Tribute to Joe Donnelly Mr. President, I am going to talk about my friend, Senator Donnelly-- also someone who made extraordinary contributions to his State, the State of Indiana, as well as to our country. Indiana holds a special place in my heart. My husband, John, was born there. His parents met in a ballroom dance class at Ball State, of all places. Our States share a lot of confusion because people always seem to not be able to tell the difference between Indianapolis and Minneapolis. There is a difference. We share some thriving metropolitan areas and a lot of tech jobs, things like that, in our two major metropolitan areas, but we also share rural areas. Whenever I visited Indiana--and you know how much Indiana loves cars--well, Joe Donnelly loves driving. I have been with him in South Bend, where he went to school at Notre Dame, close to where he lives in Granger. Actually, I will never forget one time when I was in Indianapolis for something, and Joe drove all the way just to accompany me on this trip. He was by himself, drove down there, and drove me around to these campaign events. He always had his lunch bag with him just in case he needed some lunch--a paper bag--but then he decided he would treat me to his favorite lunch stop, Panera Bread. He also believes in a simple idea about public service; that is, you don't just go where it is comfortable, you go where it is uncomfortable. Joe Donnelly exhibits that kind of leadership by taking on the tough issues every time he can. For Joe, that has meant going to factories that have been shut down to meet with the employees or standing with former Indianapolis United Steelworkers leader Chuck Jones, who took on the President over jobs at an Indiana plant that were being sent to Mexico. Later, at his retirement party, Chuck Jones said of Joe Donnelly's efforts on behalf of the workers: He got it done and he didn't get the fanfare, but people benefited all the same. That is what is so special, so powerful about Joe Donnelly's leadership. He doesn't always get all the attention he deserves, but he has this incredible, understated strength and conviction. He has this great sense of humor that I wish everyone could see. Mostly, he has been a champion for the people of his State, whether it was farmers when he served on the Agriculture Committee--he recently worked with Senator Stabenow and others to get that farm bill done-- whether it is the work he has done in the Armed Services Committee on behalf of our military, or whether it is working with our servicemembers to make sure they get the mental health care they need and deserve. Because of Joe's convictions, his very first bill as a Senator was the Jacob Sexton Military Suicide Prevention Act, which required annual mental health assessments for all servicemembers. Because of his leadership, that legislation became the law of the land. He also teamed up with Senator Young on a bill to improve mental health services for the law enforcement officers who sacrifice so much to keep our communities safe. Joe has stood up in the fight against the opioid epidemic, passing legislation to help ensure that nonaddictive medications are developed and that substance abuse and treatment providers work in areas that have high overdose rates, like our rural communities. Joe stood up against high rates on student loans by helping our students pay for school with our Empowering Student Borrowers Act. Whenever you are lucky enough to work with Joe Donnelly, you see his heart, his effectiveness, that twinkle in his eye, and you also see his caring work that he does every single day. One of my funniest moments with Joe is I called him once when a report came out that showed how much money people have when they are in Congress, and they always have the richest Members at the top, and you keep looking down to see where you end up. I called Joe Donnelly once and said: Guess what. We are tied. We have the same amount of money. Joe Donnelly, without missing a beat, said: I am sorry. I am sorry for you. In any case, that was him. Earlier this year, Senator Donnelly was at a practice for the Democrats on the congressional baseball team. He was chatting with Congressman Steve Scalise, who had been a victim of that horrific shooting at a practice the year before. When asked about the majority whip's return to the field, Joe said: It is great to see him. You know, in the end, we are all brothers and sisters. It is very sad to be losing one of my favorite brothers here in the Senate, but what I know is this: Joe Donnelly will never stop. He is going to be doing great work. He will always do great work, and we look forward to seeing him again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the chairman. I wanted to speak for a minute to thank Senator Blunt for his work on the bill. This is a bill that fundamentally changes the way sexual harassment cases are handled in the Senate and in the House. The process we have will now protect victims of harassment instead of protecting politicians. This was the work of many people. I thank Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer, as well as the House leaders. I thank Senators Gillibrand, Murray, Cortez Masto, Capito, and Fischer from the Committee on Rules. And there are so many staff members I will thank later when we do additional speeches. This was something we had to get done by the end of the year. Getting rid of that cooling-off period, getting rid of a lot of the Byzantine way these cases were being handled--this is going to be better for victims. I am proud the Senate has come together on a bipartisan basis to get this bill done.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending resolution to end U.S support for the Saudi-led coalition's military action in Yemen and to reiterate my previous calls for our country to respond more clearly, more forcefully, and with moral purpose to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi by holding the Saudi Government accountable at the highest levels. Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act Mr. President, before my remarks on this resolution, I want to speak about another important matter before the Senate, and that is the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, which I urge my colleagues to take up and pass in this Congress. I thank Senator Gillibrand and a number of other leaders for their work on this bill. I have cosponsored it, along with more than 50 of my Senate colleagues. This important legislation would ensure that thousands of Navy veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, and their families, are able to receive the benefits they have earned. When our soldiers signed up to serve, we made a promise to provide them with the healthcare and benefits they deserve when they return home. The men and women who have served our country on the frontlines should not return home to find themselves left waiting at the end of the line and left waiting to get the healthcare they need or the benefits they have earned. This bipartisan legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. It is time for us in the Senate to do the same and maintain our commitment to our veterans. I do want to thank the Presiding Officer for the work we are doing together in a somewhat related area, and that is the area of burn pits--a modern-day version of what many of our soldiers experienced during the Vietnam war with Agent Orange. We have something going on right now where our soldiers who were stationed next to these major, expansive burn pits have come home sick. It is the same principle as Agent Orange. I thank the Presiding Officer for his support for the bipartisan bill we are leading given that we have many good veterans from both Alaska and Minnesota who have come home with health problems. S.J. Res. 54 Mr. President, turning to the pending matter, I would like to join those of my colleagues who have spoken in support of this bipartisan resolution. I have come to the floor before on this issue because it is so important. It is time for Congress to speak with a clear voice in opposition to U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition's operations in Yemen. We must make clear that we will not turn a blind eye to civilian casualties, as well as the ongoing humanitarian crisis that continues to devastate the country of Yemen and its people. With this resolution, we can end U.S. support for the Saudi-led military action in Yemen. This is an important step. It demonstrates that Congress will perform its constitutional duty in authorizing military action and demanding that our policies and actions are consistent with our values. In light of the bipartisan support for this resolution, which, of course, includes Senator Sanders and Senator Lee--I would also mention that former Senator Franken from Minnesota had been involved in this as a leader when he served in the Senate--the administration should more forcefully advocate for a meaningful political process to end the fighting. Following the war in Yemen and the horrific murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi, I am concerned that this administration lacks a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Saudi Arabia. I have also been deeply concerned that the President continues to ignore human rights violations, the suppression of dissent, and the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemen in order to maintain good relations with the Saudis. Yes, we have an important alliance with Saudi Arabia and an important trade relationship, but that doesn't mean that you don't stand up when you see the kind of horror we have seen in Yemen and when you see the kinds of human rights violations we have seen in the death of Mr. Khashoggi. Look no further than how the President has repeatedly dismissed his own intelligence community's assessment of the murder. This is after reports have made clear that the CIA believes with high confidence that this murder was called for at the highest levels of the Saudi Government, by the Crown Prince. His response stands in stark contrast to the founding principles of our democracy. If the President refuses to defend these values, then Congress must. This is not who we are as a country. So I call on my colleagues to join me--and I am so glad we have bipartisan support for this resolution--in defending our values. But this is not all we should do. I support the comprehensive, bipartisan legislation introduced to ensure effective oversight of the U.S. policy on Yemen and demand meaningful accountability from the Saudi Government. This legislation includes provisions to suspend weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and impose mandatory sanctions on people involved in the death of Mr. Khashoggi. While I support the recent decision to support U.S. aerial refueling--a decision of the administration--for Saudi coalition aircraft, as well as the sanctions that the administration imposed on 17 Saudi officials, this falls far short of the forceful response that our democratic values require. In addition, I have previously voted to limit arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and I will continue to oppose the sale of certain weapons-- particularly offensive weapons--to the Kingdom. These are steps that we can and should take. While there is no question that we have common interests with Saudi Arabia and that Saudi Arabia has been our partner, these facts do not require our country to completely sacrifice our values. The civil war in Yemen has now raged on for almost 4 years, resulting in widespread destruction in the country and one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. More than 22 million people--half of them children--are in need of assistance, and 8 million people in the country are on the brink of starvation. The country's sanitation system, electrical system, and other critical infrastructure have been destroyed, leading to the most serious cholera outbreak in half a century. The ongoing violence has hindered the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian aid, including food and medicine. Finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict is both a humanitarian imperative and critical to stability on the Arabian Peninsula. The United States has a long history of being a global leader in providing humanitarian aid, and we cannot just stand by and put our heads in the sand as this crisis continues. Our response to the fighting and the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen must demonstrate that U.S. foreign policy and global leadership will always be rooted in our values. It must show that we will not overlook violations of human rights, whether by Saudi Arabia or by Houthi rebels in Yemen. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important resolution and to really show the administration, to show the country, and to show the world that this Congress is actually fulfilling its obligations and constitutional duties. This is a very important moment for the U.S. Senate. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to honor our friend Bill Nelson. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I have been able to see firsthand his leadership, and I have learned a lot from him. I think we all heard his heartfelt remarks about what he loves. He loves his service. He loves Grace up there and his family. He loves his staff, and he loves everything about the State of Florida. Service for him was, of course, service in the Army, service as an astronaut, service in the State government, service in Congress, and service in the U.S. Senate. I first met Bill in Minnesota. I am not sure he remembers this, but I do because he was one of the first Senators I met other than a Minnesota Senator. He came to help my good friend Paul Wellstone. I remember what struck me immediately about him was how kind he was and how warm he was. Part of that, of course, was the warmth he was bringing from Florida. Maybe you wouldn't think our States have a lot in common, but what you might not know is that there are entire beaches in Florida filled with Minnesotans in the winter months, perhaps even entire towns--but at this point, he had come to our State. It was no surprise, then, when I first was elected and we got to Washington, that Bill and Grace were so welcoming to our family. They got me involved in the Prayer Breakfast, which has meant a lot to me through my years in the Senate. It has been such a comfort. I have gotten to know so many people, really, because of their encouragement. I have gotten to know Bill's leadership firsthand, as I mentioned, on the Commerce Committee. I was talking to his staff about all of the things we did on that committee. I see Senator McCaskill here who also served with us and Senator Thune, the chairman. I remember when Bill took on lead in toys. We both did that together. I remember him taking on all kinds of consumer issues, time and again-- the 9-1-1 system, fraud and abuse--taking on the issues that matter to people in their daily lives. Then the bigger things--modernizing our space program, our aviation policies, responding to disasters, and climate change. I remember once he said: ``I have seen the blue brilliance of the Earth from the edge of the heavens and I will fight on to save this planet.'' What I will most remember Bill by is his incredible marriage to Grace at a time when it is not easy to be in the Senate and make sure you keep your relationship strong. Grace, of course, was in leadership in her own way in the Senate's spouse club. When I was down there a few months ago, Grace told this really nice story, when we were in Jacksonville, about how my daughter had played piano at Grace's encouragement. They had the spouse event, and they smartly decided to have kids of Senators perform. I remember it a different way. I remember the kids who were performing were, of course, their own daughter, Nan Ellen, who is a beautiful singer and sings ``God Bless America'' at major stadiums; I remember Trent Lott's son, who is a professional country western singer, performing; and then I remember that my husband had raised his hand and volunteered that our 13-year-old daughter would play piano, when she is not even that good at it. We got to the event. All of the Senators are there, and Grace is just smiling like we are about to see Liberace perform. Abigail was sitting there with her music with little Post-it notes on them. Harry Reid calls her up and says: The next to perform is Abigail Bessler. She has been playing piano since she was 6 years old. I wanted to say: But she only practices a half an hour a week. She gets up there, pounds it out, stands up, and says: Now I am going to play a song that I made up. I am like: No. And she played this song, and it actually wasn't that bad. The first one there to greet her was Grace. Grace said: That was so beautiful, Abigail. Perhaps tomorrow at the luncheon, you will just want to play the second song. Grace was so sweet to her and to our family and to really all of the spouses and everyone she worked with. So I think when we think of Bill, we also think of Grace. It has been my honor to work with both of them and to respect both of them. As Senator Rubio said, we know there are many great things ahead. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Grace. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I also rise to honor my Senator next door and my great colleague Senator Heitkamp. As you could see from her beautiful remarks, she is a person of true courage and strength and a friend to so many. We saw this strength when she was running for Governor while battling breast cancer. We saw it when she stood up for the people of North Dakota as their attorney general, and we see that courage every single day in the U.S. Senate, as she fights for the people of her State and the values that have defined her as a public servant. She is simply one of the best and one of a kind. Going forward, I hope that people will listen to the speech that she just gave about those seven generations, because that is service. Heidi has always been true to herself and as mavericky as her red hair. When I walk into a room filled with dark suits and I see that red hair in the middle of it, I know where to go and exactly what I will find. There is her joy and her optimism, so much of it coming from growing up in a family of seven kids. There is her sense of humor, which I love, even when it is mixed with some serious trash talk, even when it is directed at my State next door. There is that friendship, which I treasure above all else. There is the example she sets of what one person can accomplish when you combine so much heart and fierce determination. We saw it with the human trafficking legislation that she talked about today. We saw it with her work on energy. We saw it with her work for her farmers. Thanks to leaders like Heidi, we are making progress on so many issues. I will never forget the trip that I got to take to Mexico with Senator Heitkamp and Cindy McCain on human trafficking. One of the most memorable moments was when we visited a shelter of girls who had seen unspeakable tragedy. We met a little girl named Paloma. That means ``dove'' in Spanish. That girl, unlike the other ones, didn't say a word. All she did was cry. That is all she did. It made me think of what a refugee once said. She said that what she had seen in her life would make ``stones cry.'' I saw the tears going down Heidi's face as that girl was just sitting there crying. Heidi just doesn't watch that happen. She comes back, and she takes those tears and puts them into action. That girl had no voice. Heidi was her voice. She has done that time and again. As she mentioned, everywhere you go in North Dakota, you practically meet a member of her family, and somehow they all look the same. There is also her wonderful husband Darwin, whom I adore. One of my favorite Darwin stories was the time when we took the first all-women Senators trip to Africa, and Heidi and I were sitting next to each other with some people out in the countryside, with the elders. On one side were all the women, with the women Senators, and on the other side were all the men. I turned to Heidi--because all of the elders were wearing these incredible hats and outfits--and I said: Who is the guy at the end with the baseball cap? She said: That is Darwin. There he was. He was always there, always there for her. So that is Heidi. I will end with one story from that trip; that is, when we were in a hut in the middle of nowhere, and there was a woman who lived there, a widow, with her kids. We went into that hut, these women Senators, and started asking that woman who was so proud of everything she had done-- all that was in this hut was one solar panel that she got for her work and one thing on the wall, which was a chart that showed all of the huts. It showed her with a star in the middle, and it showed how she had helped to make sure they had good hygiene and if they got baby care, as she was in charge of that. One of us asked this woman, who we had learned had walked every day, an hour and a half each day, to get water: What is your biggest challenge? This woman looked at these Senators and looked at this Senator with red hair from America and said: I have no challenges. I am a leader. That is Heidi Heitkamp. She is a leader. Whatever challenges she has overcome in her life--health, representing a State that isn't always easy when you look at it politically for a Democrat, the challenges she had bucking our own party, taking things on--every single moment, she overcame those challenges because Heidi Heitkamp is a leader. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, I wish to honor Rebecca ``Becky'' Weichhand, a fierce and tireless advocate for adoption. From an early age, Becky knew she wanted to be a lawyer to help children, and for almost 10 years, she pursued that dream as the, director of policy and later as the executive director of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, CCAI. As Senate co- chairs of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, we had the privilege of working with Becky and witnessed firsthand how her work changed the lives of children around the world. Becky was a mentor to foster youth and advised 10 classes of foster youth interns on Capitol Hill, who helped to research and develop policy proposals informed by their own experience to help our Nation's foster children. She also led efforts to help Members of Congress promote adoption and foster care around the world, organizing nine domestic and international delegation trips. In addition, Becky spearheaded the Angels in Adoption Program, which honors organizations and people who have had an extraordinary impact on children, their families, and communities across the country. During her tenure, 1,257 people and organizations were recognized with this honor. Becky dedicated her career to the belief that every child deserves a loving and stable home. She was instrumental in efforts to preserve the adoption tax credit, including working to establish a coalition of more than 150 organizations and advocating to make the adoption tax credit permanent in 2012. Becky's faith, compassion, and kindness were evident in everything she did, and she will be dearly missed. Her life was a blessing to many, and we will honor it by continuing her work of bringing loving families together with children in need.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize former President George H.W. Bush, and I want to thank my colleague Senator Portman from Ohio for those personal memories. I now will always remember that baseball story. It is an example of what he stood for, and that is that he actually cared that there were people of both parties who would sign that baseball. I want to thank Senator Portman for carrying on that torch of working across the aisle. President Bush dedicated his entire life to the United States. His first service was as a decorated Navy pilot, as we know, who risked his life during World War II and in 1944 was shot down in the Pacific. That selfless sacrifice was not enough. He went on to spend 40 years in public service as a Congressman from Texas, as an Ambassador to the United Nations, as U.S. Envoy to China, as Director of the CIA, and then, of course, as Vice President and then as President. He wore so many hats during his time in service, but through it all he was a true statesman who treated both his friends and his rivals with grace and dignity. He also viewed the world through the lens of history, which was often the guiding force in his approach to diplomacy in dealing with the rest of the world. As President, he helped to bring an end to four decades of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear engagement as democracy spread throughout Eastern Europe, and he signed the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act, which has had a lasting impact in expanding the rights of Americans with disabilities. His commitment to his country was unshakable, and he instilled this value in his own children. For George H.W. Bush, patriotism was bigger than political rivalries. In 1993, as he departed the White House, he left a note, which many of us saw for the first time this week. It was a note that he left for President Clinton, who had defeated President Bush in the Presidential election just two months before he signed that letter. President Bush said: You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well. Your success is now our country's success. I am rooting hard for you. He wrote that note just as he was turning over the keys to the Oval Office to someone who had just defeated him in an election campaign. President Bush was someone who fought hard on the campaign trail, but once the votes were cast, he understood the underlying truth of America--that people with different political views are not enemies, and when all is said and done, we can come together to advance the cause of America, not tear it down. As Senator Portman noted, President Bush's death comes less than 8 months after the passing of former First Lady Barbara Bush, his wife of over 73 years. Never one to be a shrinking violet, she was fiercely loyal to her family and an outspoken advocate for causes she believed in. I always respected her directness. She was her own person. She loved her family and her country. And we remember her this week as well. I was reading a story in our local Minneapolis paper. I did not know that President Bush actually trained in Minnesota in the middle of winter for a few months before he went over to serve in the Pacific. During that time, he wrote a number of letters to his own mother about his service. OK, maybe he complained about the Minnesota weather a little bit, but one of the more amusing parts of those letters was that he told her that Barbara was sending him some socks that she had knit for him down in Texas. He said in the letter that she said they don't even look like socks, but when he received the socks, he said: They are actually not bad. They are pretty good socks. You literally could follow that part of his life in the letters he was writing back then to his mother. You could see the patriotism shine through. You could see what it was like for him to be away from his family and how much he loved his family. That carried on to the very end of his life. He was still so kind in these notes and so sweet to his family members and to those who had been his friends for so very long. As we pay tribute to President Bush's tremendous record of service, we also must stay grounded in his respect for all public servants--not just the ones he agreed with--and his unwavering belief, in his own words, that ``no definition of a successful life can do anything but include serving others.'' Of course, that service can come in many forms, as he showed in his own life. Some people may serve in the military. Some people may take on causes outside of government service and volunteer. Others may work in law enforcement. Others may, of course, get elected or have the privilege to work in this Capitol for the people. President Bush lived that life, and America has lost a true leader. My prayers are with the entire Bush family. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wanted to comment on the importance of an agreement on the farm bill. This is something that has been long in coming. I want to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their work, as well as the Members in the House, including my colleague from Minnesota, Republican leader Collin Peterson. He will be taking over the Ag Committee in the House next year. This is a bill that is so important to rural America and in my State. We have seen low commodity prices for too long. As a member of the Ag Committee, I know the last farm bill--the one we are operating under currently--has some things for a strong safety net, but this farm bill--the new tentative agreement--will allow us to make some changes to the way the data is collected, which will be helpful for our farmers with crop insurance. We have some improvements in dairy. We have some good work that is going on with regard to conservation and some changes there. As you know, our Senate bill got 86 votes. We don't even get that for a volleyball resolution around here. It was a bipartisan bill, and much of that bill, I know, will be contained in this tentative agreement. ``Tentative'' is with a small ``t,'' and the only reason we are saying that is because we have to get the printed version out, and my hope is, we can get this done in the next week. We do not want to go into next year without a farm bill, with what we are seeing with the tailwinds from these tariffs, with what we are seeing with diseases lurking out there. In Minnesota and in other States in the Midwest, we just got through avian flu a few years back, and every so often we have seen some outbreaks of that. We lived through H1N1. We have a really good provision in here that I authored with Senator Cornyn for a vaccine bank. So there is a lot of important, steady policy in the farm bill to show rural America we have their backs and really to show the world that at a time of great global competitiveness and with issues for our farmers with everything from weather to prices, to global competition, we want to make sure America stands by our farmers, and this farm bill is a sure way to do it. I am very excited, as a member of the Ag Committee, that we are close to releasing some language here and look forward to getting this done immediately. We have all litigated these issues over the last year. It is not like some new idea had been airlifted into this bill. Literally, every single issue--from the nutrition discussions to the conservation issues, to what we have seen on the farm programs, to rural economic development, to rural broadband--has been discussed at length, and we are ready to go. Let's get this bill done.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today on two matters. I wish to begin by expressing my opposition to the nomination of Thomas Farr to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. As a Senator from a State with a tradition of high voter turnout--in fact, in the last Presidential election, with the highest voter turnout in the country--in the election a few weeks ago, nearly 64 percent of Minnesota voters cast their ballot. This isn't just registered voters; it is eligible voters. We are talking about an issue that, in my State and in so many places around the country, is fundamental to our democracy--access to the polls. It is the central pillar of our democracy. If people can't vote, they can't have a say and we don't have a real democracy. It is that simple. That is why I am here to voice my opposition to Thomas Farr--because of his long record of defending discriminatory voting laws and redistricting plans. In North Carolina, Mr. Farr defended one of the most restrictive voting laws that we have seen, which, in addition to establishing a discriminatory voter ID requirement, eliminated same-day voter registration. By the way, I have spent a lot of time on this and have a bill to institute this across the country. Same-day voter registration is really the key. When you look at the top 10 States for voter turnout-- some are red, some are blue, some are purple--what do they have in common? They have same-day registration. It makes it easier for people to vote. As long as they can prove where they live--with a neighbor, with a gas bill, you name it--they are able to register that day. That is the key when you look at all the numbers. What did Mr. Farr do? He actually defended one of the most restrictive voting laws, eliminating same-day voter registration. He reduced early voting and did away with voter registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. How did he do it? He did it by defending those laws. When the law was challenged in court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that it was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters. In its ruling, the court said that the law targeted minority voters. This is a quote from the circuit court, which is actually one of the more conservative circuits. They said that they did it with ``almost surgical precision.'' Mr. Farr also defended North Carolina's redistricting plan against claims that it used race as the predominant consideration in drawing two congressional districts. A district court found that the plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which agreed with the district court's decision. So you don't have just one incident of someone maybe getting on a legal brief or writing something or doing a law review article or writing a paper in college or in high school. This is a long, consistent, systematic record of defending discriminatory voting schemes. And I say ``schemes'' because that is what they are. They are done with the intention to discriminate against people of color. We should be making it easier to vote in our elections, not harder. That is why I am introducing legislation to automatically register eligible voters when they turn 18. That would be so easy. We wouldn't have to have all these fights all the time. We have modern-day technology that lets my hometown company of Target find a pair of shoes with a SKU number in Hawaii. There is no reason we can't go through the records and make sure we simply register people who are legal to vote when they turn 18. It is not just Mr. Farr's work in the courts that is concerning; I am also troubled by his involvement in a political campaign that was accused of engaging in tactics to discourage, once again, African Americans from voting. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division filed a complaint alleging that the campaign Mr. Farr worked on sent tens of thousands of postcards to heavily African-American districts intended to intimidate voters. According to a former Department of Justice official who investigated the campaign's alleged voter-intimidation tactics, Mr. Farr's answers to the Judiciary Committee denying his involvement were ``contrary to the facts.'' Finally, I would like to remind my colleagues about the history of this vacancy. The Eastern District of North Carolina is 27 percent African American; yet the district has never had an African-American Federal judge. Before Mr. Farr was nominated, two other nominees were submitted to the Senate during the previous administration. Both of those nominees were African-American women. Neither of those nominees received a vote. Our courts must be dedicated to upholding the law, including safeguarding citizens' constitutional rights to vote. The future of our democracy depends on it. I am opposing this nomination.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that is such an urgent challenge for our Nation and the world; that is, climate change. Over the weekend, we received the most recent and most dire warning of the costs of inaction yesterday when the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its report. It wasn't easy to break through the news in the last week. We all know there was a lot going on, but this one did. Why did this break through the news? First of all, it was such a comprehensive report. It was a product of 91 scientists from 40 countries. They looked at more than 6,000 studies, and they concluded, absent major changes in our greenhouse gas emissions, the devastating consequences of climate change are coming much sooner than previously expected. I think that is why it made front page news--because of the timeline. I think a lot of times people think of something that maybe their grandkids or great-grandkids are going to have to deal with, but, no, actually the pages in this room--young people today, people even in my generation--are going to have to be dealing directly with the frontline consequences of climate change. The report predicted that the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels by 2040. That is just over 20 years. Think about the pages in this room. Twenty years from now might seem long, but it is not that long at all. Just 20 years ago, we could see persistent droughts--we are already seeing a number of droughts now--food shortages, worsening wildfires-- think of what we have already seen in Colorado and California on the west coast--and increased coastal flooding, damage that could cost $54 trillion. This is about loss of life, loss of quality of life, and this is about loss of money and loss of people's incomes. As the authors of the report make clear, it will take immediate action to avoid these catastrophic consequences for our country and our world. First, by 2030, we must reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 45 percent from 2010 levels. Second, by 2050, we must increase our use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, by as much as 47 percent. Do you know what? We can do this. If we don't do anything, we are going to face dire consequences. When I first came to the Senate, we started hearing from military people and from scientists from all over the world about what we could see even in the next 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. So much of that has already come true. Imagine if we do nothing, and we keep on this trajectory. The American people understand it. I hear about the climate issue everywhere I go in my State--from hunters in Northern Minnesota to people who like to snowmobile and cross-country ski, to business leaders in the Port of Duluth, to students at the University of Minnesota. Increasingly, warmer temperatures are having dramatic effects all over the northern part of our country. Lyme disease has spread further north. Aspen forests are shrinking. Moose range is declining. There is thirty-seven percent more rainfall as a result of mega rainstorms than we saw 50 years ago. The ragweed pollen season has extended 3 weeks in the Twin Cities in just the past 20 years. Those are facts. When you think about the effect that has on animals, think about the effect that has on our daily lives, and then think about what would happen if we kept going that way, not just this way but that way in the next 20 years. This is in stark contrast to comments made by some who still suggest the climate change debate isn't settled. I couldn't disagree more. I know we had a vote in this Chamber where something like 98 or 99 Senators voted that climate change is occurring. There may not be agreement on what we should do about it, but there better be soon. I am a former prosecutor, so I believe in evidence. As this U.N. report shows us, the facts and the science couldn't be clearer. I suggest that everyone read about it or read summaries, which are easily available. Every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage climate change is already causing, and Americans will feel the consequences. My State may be miles and miles away from rising oceans, but the impacts are not less of a real threat to my State. Climate change isn't just about melting glaciers, although we sure have seen those. Anyone who visits Glacier National Park--I went with my family--can literally see over time, decade by decade, the changes to those glaciers. I once visited Greenland with a number of Senators, including Republican Senators, and you could see what is happening there as major icebergs and parts of their ice sheets are breaking off and disappearing. You can see the physical evidence of this. You can see the photographs of this. It is not just about that. Recently, we have seen the devastating impact of natural disasters, like Hurricane Florence and the catastrophic flooding this summer throughout Southern Minnesota in Duluth. There may be some political division around climate change; that is putting it mildly. But there isn't any real scientific division because nearly all of the scientists in this world believe this is happening. I will never forget an episode from the John Oliver show, which is a humorous program to watch, but it brings real issues to light. To show that kind of scientific division, he decided to have a bunch of scientists on the stage with him. They were wearing their white coats. He had something like 97 or 98 scientists on one side in their white coats and 1 or 2 on the other side. That is the division. It is not real division if you are someone who believes in evidence. Climate change is occurring, and this latest report is from the scientists all over the world who would have no reason to do this except to warn people about the truth. That is why they are doing this. As citizens, we have an obligation to learn about it, to understand it, and to support ideas that will not hold us back dramatically but will allow us to tackle this head-on. If we don't tackle this issue, we are going to continue to struggle with the far-reaching economic and environmental consequences. This report makes clear that those risks aren't far off in the future for your great-great-great-great-great- great grandchildren; no, they could become a crisis as soon as 2040. Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak more subtle, long- term havoc on our businesses and industries. That is why so many businesses in my State support doing something about climate change. Sometimes it is because they have customers all over the world--all over the world in areas that are going to be the first hit by tsunamis and other weather events or it is because they simply want to be good corporate citizens or it is because they see their bottom line and how it is going to be affected if we don't do something about this. The U.N. report details the economic damage that will happen if we fail to act, including losses of roughly 1.2 percent to our gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warning. As it gets hotter, the GDP does go down. As a Senator from a State with a strong agricultural industry and a tradition of hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and skiing, climate change is not only a direct threat to our State's economy, it is also a threat to our quality of life, to the way we grew up, to enjoying the outdoors with our friends and our families. When President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the international climate change agreement last summer, I heard a lot from people in our State. As you all know, 195 countries made a pledge to come together to combat climate change, and in withdrawing, the United States was initially one of only three countries that would not be in the agreement. The other two countries that weren't in the agreement were Syria and Nicaragua. Well, now Syria and Nicaragua have signed the accord, so the United States is now the only country not to sign the accord. Our decision to leave this agreement sent the wrong message to the rest of the world--the wrong message. The lack of leadership has led to other countries discussing backing out of the agreement. That is not leadership. That is not leading from the front. We can't have this happen. America should be leading and helping the world move forward. By the way, there is such an innovation space here, so much money to be made by responding to this in a smart way and developing new vehicles and developing new energy and new ways to deal with this challenge. It isn't just a challenge; it is also an opportunity. If we don't seize that opportunity by getting our own act together, by admitting that it is a problem and giving incentives to our businesses to go in the right direction and to bring other countries with us, we are going to lose that opportunity to other countries that are part of this international coalition. I have already talked to people who work in government or who work for businesses that have gone to international meetings and who have said: Do you know what some of these people in other countries say? I think we are going to work with China on this. They are part of that agreement. Hey, we are going to buy our solar panels from them, or we are going to do work with them on this. You can't hide from the fact that we withdrew from that agreement, and it hurts not just our environment, it hurts our economic opportunities going forward. Look at Minnesota and what has happened because we were out front on this. I am proud that our State has taken an incredibly proactive and innovative approach to energy use and sustainability, which is critical to addressing carbon emissions. Our State's renewable energy standard requires that 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. We passed that way back in 2007 with--get this--a Republican Governor, Governor Pawlenty. He helped lead the way on that and worked with the legislature of Democrats and Republicans to pass what was at the time seen as a very aggressive standard. We did it by combining it with doing something about biofuels--something that is important not just in Minnesota but in the Presiding Officer's State of North Dakota. We were able to put together that kind of coalition--the leaders in our legislature and the Governor, farmers and workers, environmentalists--to move forward on biofuels so we would have diversity in our fuel supply as well as diversity in our energy supply. So we don't rely on just one type of energy, and we reduce greenhouse gases by having an ``all of the above'' energy approach. The legislation back then in 2007 received overwhelming bipartisan support, passing the Minnesota House 123 to 10 and the Minnesota Senate 63 to 3. It has been a while since we have reached that kind of consensus on the Federal level when it comes to energy. What has happened? We have more than met those goals. What has happened nationally? Well, there was progress made during the Obama administration. When I first got here in 2007, I personally thought that we should move to some kind of a renewable electricity standard for the whole country, maybe making differences by geographic areas and regions. Sadly, the decision was not made to go that way. I think we lost it by one vote. We lost it by one vote. Instead, the decision was made on one side that we wanted to be more aggressive--and we tried with cap and trade, but that didn't end up getting passed in the Senate--and then on the other side, to kind of say: Well, let's just see what happens. As a result, in my mind, we have not done nearly enough. What has happened instead? Well, the States, our laboratories of democracy, have moved ahead--many of them, like Minnesota--and are coming up with their own standards or doing it by region. Our universities have moved ahead, our cities have moved ahead, and our businesses have moved ahead. By 2015, 154 companies, including companies I am very proud of--major companies in my State, such as Target, Best Buy, General Mills, and Cargill--had signed a pledge demonstrating their support for action on climate change that takes a strong step toward a low-carbon, sustainable future. These companies collectively employ more than 9 million people and represent more than $3 trillion in annual revenue. Last month at the Alliance to Save Energy gala, I got to present an Energy Efficiency Award to Target because of the work they have done with sustainability and righting the impacts of climate change. They have created an electric car program that is up and running in 5 States, and they plan to expand that number to 20 in the next 2 years. They signed a virtual power purchase agreement with the Stephens Ranch wind farm in Texas as part of their goal of sourcing 100 percent renewable energy in their U.S. operations. Like so many companies in the United States, they have started a major solar program and are committed to establishing rooftop solar panels on 500 of their stores by 2020. As of last year, they had already finished 436 of their projects. They are not alone. Xcel Energy, Minnesota's largest utility, was an early supporter of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. If we had allowed that to go through and had that in place, imagine what a better position we would be in when we read headlines like those from this morning about the U.N.'s report and the dire predictions of what we are going to see in 20 years. But, no, we are in what I consider a state of paralysis. Maybe we are not making things worse, although when we took away those gas mileage standards--when the administration went back on that--we made them worse. We sure aren't making them better. Thanks to cities and States, we are making progress, but we should be doing this together as a nation. Xcel Energy is another example of a company that appears to be ahead of the Federal Government. They supported the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and announced plans to reduce carbon emissions by 60 percent in the next 15 years. I look at it this way: If companies like Target and Xcel Energy understand the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and embrace the energy of the future, then so should Members of Congress, and so should this administration. We know that energy innovation can't take root--not in any serious way--without certainty and stability on what those incentives are. That is what that Clean Power Plan was about. It took what I considered a more moderate route than some people thought it was going to take, but then it got pulled back by this administration. It is very hard to start planning for the future if we don't have a route for these companies to go. The rest of the world is getting on board. We don't want to be following; we want to be leading in America. As this week's report made clear, inaction is not an option for our economy, for our environment, for our country, or for the world. Military and security experts have repeatedly reminded us that climate change is a threat to our national security, increasing risks of conflict, humanitarian crisis, and damage to critical infrastructure. We see the stories of some of the refugees who are not coming up from conflict but are coming up from parts of Africa where they used to do subsistence farming but can no longer do that kind of subsistence farming because it is too dry, there are too many droughts, and the world has changed. We are going to see these humongous movements of people because they can't live where they used to live. It is much better for us if we take this on as a world and do something about it than deal with the repercussions of it--more severe weather, heat waves that could reduce our water supply, extreme rainfall that could damage critical infrastructure, and a decrease in agricultural productivity that could threaten my State's $20 billion agricultural industry. People around the country understand the stakes, but this place--I think it needs just a little more imagination. If you ever visit my office, I have a picture on the wall, and it is a picture of an angel, and she is handing off the world to some outstretched hands. The words on the picture read: ``The angel shrugged, and she said, `If we fail this time, it will be a failure of imagination.' '' That is what we need right now in Washington, DC-- imagination to deal with a very clear threat that the scientists have put right in front of us. Twenty years from now, it is going to be worse than those wildfires we see raging in California and Colorado. Twenty years from now, it is going to be worse than what we are seeing when it comes to the hurricanes and the tsunamis and all of the icebergs melting and what we are seeing in our national parks. Why would we just let this happen? We are America. We are leaders. It is time to act. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I said on the first day that Judge Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate that this proceeding was not normal. On its face, it looked like a normal confirmation hearing. The family was there. He was sitting in the chair with the table in front of him, ready to address the committee. The cameras were on. The Senators were all seated, prepared to ask questions. All of it looked normal, but nothing about this confirmation process has been normal. These hearings began at a time when we had access to only a tiny fraction of the documents from Judge Kavanaugh's record. In fact, the night before the proceedings started, we got a document dump of 42,000 pages. Even less of the information--the 3 years of his time as a Staff Secretary in the White House--has been available to the American people or to us. That is still true today. These hearings were about a nominee, in the end, who was handpicked by a President--a nominee who had good credentials. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There are many nominees--potential nominees--who have good credentials. In this case, this particular person was picked at a time in our history with perhaps the most expansive view of Presidential power possible--a nominee who has actually written in an opinion that a President should be able to declare laws unconstitutional. These views go beyond the mainstream, and this confirmation process has only gone farther astray. With what happened during the last 2 weeks and in light of Dr. Ford's compelling testimony, it was deeply troubling. I will talk about this at length. I want to begin where I first started--what we know about Judge Kavanaugh's record and what it suggests about the kind of Justice he would be. In the last decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided whom you can marry, where you can go to school, who can vote, and for people like my grandpa, who worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely, MN, his entire life, the Supreme Court has decided how safe your workplace is. The next Supreme Court Justice will make decisions that affect people across the country--their lives--forever. The next Supreme Court Justice will rule on cases that could determine whether health insurers can deny coverage to people who are sick or who have preexisting conditions and whether women's rights are protected. The next Supreme Court Justice will be in a position to serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. That person must be someone who is fair and impartial and who demonstrates a commitment to the truth without consideration of politics or partisanship. It has been our responsibility--every Senator in this Chamber--to determine if Judge Kavanaugh would protect the careful balance of power among the three coequal branches that our Founders designed. We must determine if he would stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship, if he believes in the simple idea that no one is above the law. We knew coming into the hearing that Judge Kavanaugh's views of Executive power were among the most expansive we have ever seen and that he has been making the case for strong Presidential powers for decades. In a 2009 piece in the University of Minnesota Law Review, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that a sitting President should not be the subject of an investigation or even be required to answer questions as part of a special counsel's investigation. In that article, he argued, it is not a good use of the President's time to prepare for an interview or questioning by special counsel. He made no exception for an investigation addressing threats to our national security, even when a foreign power has somehow interfered in our country's affairs. It is not hard to see why these views are relevant during this critical constitutional moment. There is an extensive, ongoing investigation by a special counsel, and the President's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple Federal crimes. The man appointed as special counsel--a man who has served with distinction under Presidents from both parties--has been under siege, as well as the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. In the same article that Judge Kavanaugh wrote, he made the point that if a President did something ``dastardly,'' then Congress could act, arguing that a criminal investigation should be put on hold until the end of the President's term. When I asked him what ``dastardly'' means, he could not answer, even when I asked about a President. Who knows what he or she could do--commit murder, jeopardize our national security, obstruct an investigation, or engage in white collar crime? I still didn't get an answer about what ``dastardly'' means. The judge's expansive view of Presidential power is part of a much broader pattern of writing and commentary. More than a decade before, in a 1998 piece in the Georgetown Law Journal, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that the President should be able to remove a special counsel at will. This is the opposite direction from what we did in the Judiciary Committee when we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this year on a 14-to-7 vote to enact additional protections for the special counsel and all future special counsels. At a 2016 event at the American Enterprise Institute, the judge was animated and almost gleeful when he said he would ``put the final nail'' in Morrison v. Olson, a Supreme Court decision that upheld the now-expired independent counsel statute. It is hard to imagine that he would respect a 30- year-old precedent and protect the integrity of a special counsel investigation in light of that statement. At a roundtable discussion in 1999, he criticized the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in U.S. v. Nixon that compelled President Nixon to comply with the subpoena to produce tapes and documents written by a Minnesotan, Justice Warren Berger. When this came up in the hearing, Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly characterized the case as one of the greatest moments in our country's judicial history, but he refused to answer, when asked, the question of whether that case was correctly decided. These are incredible statements with implications that are clear when you think about what is going on in our country today. The dedicated public servants who work in our Justice Department--including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the special counsel, and the FBI--have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their motives questioned. I asked Judge Kavanaugh if these statements reflect his views today, but he said only that he wasn't making constitutional arguments. He did not dispute that he believes, as a matter of policy, that these are the types of broad powers a President should be able to exercise. He said that he was thinking of ways to make the Presidency more effective. These are not just abstract legal concepts; they are ideas that could directly impact the future of our democracy, as well as the lives of Americans. There are other pieces of this puzzle that make clear what a broad view of Executive power Judge Kavanaugh has. To cite one example, his opinion in Seven-Sky v. Holder discusses when a President can decline to enforce a law, even if a court has upheld it as constitutional. The judge wrote that ``the President may decline to enforce a statute . . . when the President deems the statute unconstitutional.'' What does that mean? That means the President could decide he could just hold a statute unconstitutional even if a court has held it is, in fact, constitutional. That is what that means. It is not a law review writing. It is not something written when he was in college or in law school. It is actually something he wrote in a case. What would that mean for women's health? What would that mean at a time when the administration is challenging protections for people who are sick or have preexisting conditions? I asked him if he believed the President could declare these protections unconstitutional, even if a court upheld them. This isn't a hypothetical example. The administration is now arguing in a Texas district court that the Affordable Care Act's preexisting conditions protection is unconstitutional. The judge refused to answer whether a President could simply ignore a law, even one upheld by the courts. He didn't answer when Senator Durbin asked it, when Senator Blumenthal asked it, and when Senator Harris posed the same question. The days of the divine rights of Kings ended with the Magna Carta in 1215. Centuries later, in the wake of the American Revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of our country's Constitution, for it was James Madison who wrote in Federalist 47: ``The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'' There is more. None of the judge's colleagues joined the section of his opinion in Aiken County outlining his views on when Presidents can ignore the law, and one who was an appointee of President George H.W. Bush stated explicitly that reaching that issue was unnecessary to decide the case. Judge Kavanaugh has made very clear over the years that he has an incredibly broad view of the types of protections that should be extended to a sitting President. Without further answers from him during the hearing, we are left only with his writings and his previous statements. These writings say that a sitting President should not have to be subject to a criminal investigation; that a sitting President should be able to remove a special counsel; that a sitting President should not have to agree to an interview with the special counsel; and that a sitting President has the legal authority to ignore the law. At this time in our history, we need a Justice who is independent and who will serve as a check on the other branches, which is what our Founding Fathers set up--not a judge who would allow the President to avoid accountability or who believes the President's views alone should carry the day. Despite many opportunities, Judge Kavanaugh did not convince me he would be an independent jurist who would maintain the fundamental idea we all learned in grade school. What is it? No one is above the law. Another concern I have is what Judge Kavanaugh's views would mean for American consumers. In one opinion that was later overturned by the entire DC Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional, calling it a threat to individual liberty. He said this about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau was founded in the wake, as you know, of the financial crisis and has now helped more than 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. The Bureau helps protect consumers as they deal with financial institutions that offer credit cards, loans, and mortgages. What did the judge say? He found it unconstitutional. Thankfully, the full DC Circuit came to the opposite conclusion--all the other judges. The majority recognized that millions of families were devastated by the financial crisis, with about 4 million families losing their homes in foreclosure and even more slipping seriously behind on their mortgages. Judges appointed by Presidents from both parties came to the opposite conclusion of the nominee who is before us today, and the majority on that court concluded that the Bureau should stay in place, as Congress intended. While the DC Circuit made the right decision in that case, what struck me was just how far the judge had gone in his opinion. The judge was not just talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in that case. His opinion referred to independent agencies as a ``headless fourth branch''--that is a quote--of government, and it could threaten other agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers from scams and anti-competitive mergers, or the agencies that helped to stabilize our economy after the financial crisis, like the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Social Security Administration, which distributes benefits to more than 60 million elderly and disabled Americans and has had a single director, just like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for decades, since 1994. Judge Kavanaugh has called independent agencies a threat to individual liberty not just once--no, more than once. In that same Minnesota Law Review article I mentioned that outlined his expansive view of Executive power, the judge criticized the 80-year-old precedent that upheld the constitutionality of our independent agencies. I asked Judge Kavanaugh about his conclusion that the Bureau was unconstitutional. He did not dispute this conclusion, but he did say his opinion simply called for a change to the law so the Director of the Bureau could be fired by the President at will. I found that answer problematic. When Congress drafted the law that created the Bureau, it made the choice--we made the choice right here in this Chamber--to give the Director a 5-year term to provide some independence from politics. This was a choice that we made in this Chamber. Not everyone agreed with it, but by majority vote it passed. It passed in the Senate, and it passed in the House. We made that decision. During our discussion on the judge's expansive views of Executive power at the hearing, he kept telling me that the scope of Presidential authority was a matter of policy that Congress should decide. He repeated this answer often to me and to others. When it comes to Presidential power, he said that Congress should decide. Look at what happened here when it comes to protecting consumers. In this case, Congress did decide; we actually passed a law. We said we wanted this independent Director to have a 5-year term over this very important agency that returned $12 billion to consumers who have been victims of scams and mortgage fraud. It was Congress's decision. Did that matter to the judge in this dissent that he wrote? It did not. It seems to me, just looking at all these opinions, that the judge's record is this. When he likes what Congress decides, he says: Hey, Congress has the final say. When he doesn't like what Congress decides, he then thinks the judge should make decision. What does that mean? In this case, he would have rewritten the consumer protection law over the wishes of Congress. What would that mean for the lives of Americans? After what this country has been through, after families who worked hard and tried to save for the future lost billions of dollars, he ruled that the agency that is designed to protect them was unconstitutional, and it is not an isolated example. In another case, he argued that the net neutrality rules were unconstitutional. Those were the guidelines developed by the FCC to help consumers and small businesses have an even playing field when it came to the internet. Those net neutrality protections would have prevented internet service providers from blocking, slowing, and prioritizing web traffic. One again, the full DC Circuit--those other judges--decided against Judge Kavanaugh, and these key consumer protections were upheld by a panel of judges appointed by Presidents of both parties. The question I always come back to is this: What will this mean to Americans? Here is the kicker: The outcome that the judge went out of his way to reach in the net neutrality case protects the First Amendment rights of corporations at the expense of the First Amendment rights of individuals. That is why that case is such a problem, but these aren't the only reasons why there is great concern for consumers. In announcing the judges's nomination, the White House touted the fact that he has overruled Federal agency actions 75 times. The White House also said in a document that it sent out that he led the efforts to rein in executive agencies. When I asked him about this in his hearing, he said that he had ruled both for and against executive agencies, but his record makes clear that he has ruled against them in the overwhelming majority of cases. Judge Kavanaugh's record suggests that health and safety standards and environmental standards would be at risk if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court. He has called the 34-year-old precedent, a case called Chevron--the same precedent that ensures these protections stay on the books--an atextual invention of courts and a ``judicially orchestrated shift of power.'' That is what he said. To make it clear, this is not just one case that happens to be sitting out there in the old dusty law books. No, it is the most cited case in administrative law. It has been referenced in more than 15,000 legal decisions, and it has been championed by scholars and jurists across the ideological spectrum, including Justice Scalia. That is that case. What would happen if we didn't have this case? Well, I guess we would have the judge making decisions instead of agencies with technical expertise. A judge with no scientific background should decide the best reading of dictating how pollution is acceptable in our air, lakes, or rivers rather than scientists. These decisions have real implications for people across the country. These are the rules that protect our drinking water and keep our workplaces safe. In the end, it wasn't a Federal judge who was helped by the DC Circuit's reliance on Chevron in interpreting a Labor Department rule. It was an hourly Minnesota grocery store worker who got to keep his hard-earned pension. As a granddaughter of a miner, I can tell you that it wasn't a CEO or a corporate board chair whose life was saved by mining safety rules. It was the Minnesota iron ore workers who, like my grandpa, would go down in a cage, 1,500 feet underground, every single day with their black lunch bucket. That is what my grandpa did every day. All my grandpa, who never got to even graduate from high school, wanted was to send my dad and his brother to college. My dad ended up as the first kid in his family to graduate from college--a community college, a 2-year community college. From there he went to the University of Minnesota and got his 4-year degree--all that because my grandpa went down in that mining cage and saved money in a coffee can in his basement to send my dad to college. Everyone would gather at the mines and run over there every time the sirens went off because it meant someone died or someone was hurt. My dad still remembers the coffins in St. Anthony's Church lined up in the front. That is what workplace safety rules have changed. It was the worker protections, coupled with the ability to organize a union, that finally made those miners' jobs safer. Americans rely on these protections to keep them healthy and safe, and we can't have a Supreme Court Justice who would throw those protections in doubt. The final point I would make about the legal record is what would happen to our antitrust laws. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made it harder and harder to enforce the Nation's antitrust laws when you have big consolidations and market dominance. There are cases called Trinko, Twombly, Leegin, and Ohio v. American Express. There has been a whole series of them. Why does that matter to us? It matters. It couldn't be happening at a more troubling time. We are seeing this wave of industry mergers. Americans know it in their own life. Companies are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. We have now two companies that have surpassed $1 trillion. Annual merger filings with our agencies here in Washington have increased by more than 50 percent in just the last 5 years. So we already have a Court that is going conservative right when I think Americans need this protection, but, instead, we have a judge that is before us today that has written two major cases in this area. Both of them were even more conservative than where the Court was. Both of them made it even harder for mergers to be checked by the Federal Trade Commission--even by a Federal Trade Commission that was run by the Republicans. They thought the merger was troubling in one case. They brought it to court. This judge went the opposite way. Our exchange in the hearing did not convince me that the American people and all those in favor of strong antitrust enforcement that promotes competition and protects consumers should not be concerned. I think back to my favorite game growing up--Monopoly. The basic premise of ``the more you own, the more you made'' has always been true in American capitalism. If you monopolized the board by buying up multiple properties in the same color or all those railroads, you could take your opponents out of the game. What does that mean today? Well, the failed merger between Norfolk Southern Railway and Canadian Pacific, something I took on only immediately when it was announced--we defeated that. But even without that merger, where are we today? Ninety percent of the freight rail traffic is handled by only four railroads. That is the same number of railroads on the Monopoly board. I don't think that is a coincidence. So as we look at his rulings in this area, we realize this isn't just a game. No, this is our economy, and we want judges who are a check and balance, just as the Founders wanted. The Founders cared a lot about monopoly, actually, and they wanted a check and balance in our courts. They set up an independent judiciary. The last point I want to focus on is Judge Kavanaugh's record and his views on campaign finance. I requested a number of these campaign finance documents to become public because I thought they raised serious concerns about Judge Kavanaugh's views in this area of law. I actually got those documents public, and it is one of the reasons that a number of my colleagues who are opposed to the judge have been able to talk about those records right here on the floor and the public has been able to see them. In one email from March of 2002, he discussed limits on contributions to candidates saying--these are his words: ``And I have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems.'' That is a big deal because we have very few campaign finance laws left that allow us to be protected from dark money and unlimited money coming into companies. He also described in another email his ``1A''--that is the First Amendment--views as ``pure.'' This is very concerning when it comes to campaign finance. I have serious doubts, based on his record, as to whether he thinks that Congress has the authority to pass any campaign finance reform and take action to rein in the flood of dark money that has drowned out the voices of ordinary citizens. What does that mean? Well, when the Court stripped away the rules that opened that door to unlimited super-PAC spending--and that is what we have right now--it wasn't the campaign financiers or the ad men who were hurt. No, it was the grandma in Lanesboro, MN, who thought it mattered when she sent in $10 to support her Senator. That is what we are dealing with, and if we get even narrower or get rid of all the limits on campaign finance, it is only going to get worse. The American people would not have even known about Judge Kavanaugh's extreme views on campaign finance if I had not sought to have those documents made public. That is because there are still 186,000 pages of documents that have been produced to the Judiciary Committee, but they have not been made available to the American people. Let me put it another way. Even now, only about 7 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's White House record has been produced to the Judiciary Committee, and even less--that is about 4 percent--is available to all of you, to the public. On top of that, we are missing 3 years of documents from his time as Staff Secretary. So we have no records to review from that part of Judge Kavanaugh's previous work in the White House. We also don't have 102,000 pages of documents that the White House has withheld under a claim of constitutional privilege, even though executive privilege has never been used to block the release of Presidential records to the Senate during a Supreme Court nomination under Presidents from both parties. As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and the record, and a good judge would not decide a case with only 7 percent of the key documents. In fact, as I mentioned, we received 42,000 documents the night before. We could not even look at them when we were starting to ask him questions because we had only gotten them the night before. So I asked him if he thought that a judge would grant a continuance in a situation like that when one party dumped 42,000 pages of documents on the other the night before trial. I didn't get much of an answer. We have already learned that the information in documents from Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House is relevant to our consideration of his nomination. We should have those documents before we have this vote, but we don't. Having full information about the judge's record brings me to the compelling testimony of Dr. Ford. Since Dr. Ford came forward, we have all thought a lot about our justice system. Before I got to the Senate, I was the Hennepin County Attorney in Minnesota. In that job, we used to say that we were ministers of justice and that that meant that we would work to convict the guilty but also to protect the innocent. I hope my colleagues think about this question tomorrow: Are we truly protecting the innocent in how we are moving forward? What have we done? A critical part of carrying out justice is having a fair process. That is something that Judge Kavanaugh himself has repeatedly and publicly said he wants. I appreciate Dr. Ford's willingness to come before the Judiciary Committee last week, but it was unfortunate that she had to do it before the White House had asked for the FBI to reopen its background investigation and follow up on what she had said. When I think of my work, we always would have those investigations and that information before any kind of a hearing. Back in Minnesota, our office handled all the judicial matters in our county from the juvenile area. In fact, we had about 12,000 cases every year, as well as all adult felonies. We investigated reports like Dr. Ford's. That job gave me a window into how these types of cases hurt women and impact everyone. I would always tell those stories of those coming before us. I would tell them: You know what. This is going to be hard. You have to tell your story to a jury box of strangers, but you are doing it for justice. You are doing it for the right reason. As for Dr. Ford, she had to tell her story to a nation. It was a moment. So many people in our country were watching her. I don't think people thought they were going to believe her when they first went in there and they first turned on their TVs, but then they watched her. They watched her grace and her dignity. But, then, sadly, in the afternoon, for my colleagues on the other side, we saw a lot of anger and chest beating. I believe the strategy was to distract and deflect from the moving and incredible testimony of someone who told her story to the Nation. This was a woman with no political background, who made an attempt to call the front office of her congressional Representative. That is all she did. All this stuff about her being part of some kind of smear campaign--she did it even before he was a nominee. She had read that he was one of the people under consideration, and she thought she should warn people. Now, she wanted her name confidential. She explained all that during the hearing. She simply called the front desk of her congressional Representative. This wasn't the first time that the Senate had confronted this type of situation. When Anita Hill came forward with her allegations against then-Judge Clarence Thomas, President George H.W. Bush immediately requested that the FBI reopen its background investigation. Dr. Ford was another person who made a credible claim. Chairman Grassley actually thanked her for her bravery in coming forward last week. Several of my Republican colleagues talked about how much they respected her. Well, I said: You know, if you really want to respect her and you really want to be brave, then, you at least have to give her the modicum of respect by following up on her allegations, and that should have been done the minute that letter went public. I found out about it, by the way, on the very same day that my Republican colleagues found out about it, and that was just a few weeks ago. I have heard a lot of complaints about that, and I am not going to get into that issue except to say one thing: The justice system is messy. Things come out at the very last minute sometimes. Evidence comes out before trial, but the issue is, When that happens, what do you do with it? What do you do with it when you are in a position of power? Do you just sweep it under the rug, as has happened too many times in this Chamber, in this building? No, you give them a chance to make their case, but also to give them that underlying investigation, and you reopen a background check--not a criminal background check, simply a background check like we do for any other high-level nomination in the Senate. As I told my colleagues last week, if you want to make a political speech about keeping nominees off the floor, here is exhibit A for you: Merrick Garland, 10 months. For 10 months he was kept off the floor. Yet people have acted in a sanctimonious way that this was some cataclysmic event--to simply go back in and do an FBI investigation. Dr. Ford's testimony was powerful. I asked her not about what she remembers about that night but what she couldn't forget. Here is what she said: The stairwell. The living room. The bedroom. The bed on the right side of the room. . . . The bathroom in close proximity. The laughter, the uproarious laughter. We also heard from Dr. Ford about how she came forward because she felt she had a civic duty, just like we have a civic duty to look at the record that I just laid out for you in the last hour. That is our civic duty. That is why she came forward. She talked about how she brought this up in therapy 6 years before and how she had given her husband the name of Judge Kavanaugh. This is before he was famous. This is before he was up for the Supreme Court. As a former prosecutor, I understand the critical role that law enforcement has in gathering the information necessary to evaluate reports like this one. I don't like living in an evidence-free zone, and while I am glad the White House reopened the background check and at least went in and talked to some of the witnesses, if you go down there--which you can't do, but I could do and the other Senators could do--you realize, and you can see this from the public reports, that a lot of people weren't interviewed. For a lot of the names from Dr. Ford and one of the other victims involved in some allegations, Ms. Ramirez, they were not able to have those witnesses interviewed. That is what you see when you are down there. So this was not a fair process that Judge Kavanaugh said he wanted and that Dr. Ford wanted. What we heard from the judge later in the day could not have been a sharper contrast from what we heard from Dr. Ford in the morning. She told her story, and it was a story that so many times in our Nation's history has been, as I said, swept under the rug because for so long, people have been told that what happens in a house should never end up in a courthouse. Now what we can say to Dr. Ford is, well, this may not end up the way you wanted it, and it may not feel worth it to have come forward to have your life turned upside down. But you know what--there is one reason it was worth it, and that is because the American people learned something and they are speaking out because the times, they are a changing. To conclude, I want to return to some of the thoughts on what this nomination means at this uncertain moment in our history. This nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government, including the rule of law, have been challenged and undermined. Today our democracy faces threats that would have seemed unbelievable not long ago. A man who was appointed special counsel in the investigation that is going on right now involving a foreign country interfering in our democracy--a man who served with distinction under Presidents from both parties--is under siege. Dedicated persons in the Justice Department are under siege. A third branch of government--our courts and our individual judges--has been under assault, not by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the President of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. It is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for centuries ago, and that is to be ``a government of laws and not of men.'' The next Supreme Court Justice should serve as a check on the other branches of government, someone who is fairminded and independent, who will uphold the motto on the Supreme Court building to help all Americans achieve ``equal justice under law.'' We have all thought a lot about the separation of powers in the last few weeks. All the attacks on the rule of law and our justice system have made me--and, I would guess, some of my other colleagues--pause and think many times about why we decided to come to the Senate in the first place, and in my case, why I decided to go into law in the first place. So I went back and I found an essay that I had written back in high school. I can tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in our family, and both of my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow, when I was in high school, my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom and watching a State court district judge handle a routine calendar of criminal cases. The judge took pleas, listened to arguments, and handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was nothing glamorous--and nothing glamorous like the judge before us is being nominated to do--but it was important just the same. I realized that morning that behind each and every case, no matter how small, there was a story, a person. Each and every decision that judge made that day affected someone's life, and I noticed how he had to make gut decisions and try his best to take account of what his decisions would mean. There is something I said back then in that essay that I still believe today, and that is this: To be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system, was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, and so is our legal system, and so was this hearing, but we are at a crossroads in our Nation's history where we must make a choice: Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving the justice system or not? Is this nominee going to administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens regardless of whether they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich one, in a small house or the White House? Many Americans are troubled today. When they watched the hearing, they were given some hope. They wanted to be fair, and they wanted due process, and I get that, but they also saw the blind partisanship of Washington and its crushing weight. For many of us, this nomination process does not look like it is going to end the way we want it to, but Dr. Ford opened a window on sexual assault that is never going to be closed. Anyone who works here knows they have heard stories, and people tell stories they had never told before. Then there are those who want to see change in government. Well, they opened a door that will never close, and we welcome them. We need some new people around here. So I am going to end with a quote from a song I listened to this morning, and it is a Minnesotan--not Prince; it is Bob Dylan. He was born in Duluth, and he grew up very close to where my dad grew up on the Iron Range of Minnesota. These are the last words of his song: As the present now will later be past, the order is rapidly fading, and the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a changing. And they are changing. People's reactions to what happened this week and their focus on government and their focus on making things better-- that is changing. As I said last Friday at the committee hearing, the Constitution does not say ``we the ruling party''; the Constitution says ``We the People.'' And last week, the American people responded like never before. They stood up for something real, for something larger than themselves, for the hope of tomorrow. So that is how we the people prevail, because the times, they are a changing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleague from West Virginia and thank her for her leadership on this work. The continuing problem of opioid abuse--the epidemic that has swept our Nation--has struck at the heart of my State, like West Virginia. In my State, there were 694 deaths from opioids and other drug overdoses in 2017. That is more than the number of people who died from car crashes and homicides combined in the State of Minnesota. No matter where I go, I hear heartbreaking stories. It is not just beloved superstars like Prince whom we have lost in Minnesota; it is teenagers in Duluth and young people in our farmland, 12-year-olds. One story I heard from some people at a small town gathering was about 12-year-olds being courted by drug pushers. The drug pushers tell them to go home to their parents' medicine cabinet. They are given a list of stuff to look for and are told: If you bring one of those bottles of pills with those names on it, we will give you a beer. That is happening in my State. There is the story of Shelly Elkington's daughter, Casey Jo, who was a champion swimmer who hoped to study nursing like her mom, but in 2008, she was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. After painful complications, Casey Jo received her first prescription opioid for pain relief. As many of you know, about four out of five heroin users got their start on prescription drugs. The very pills that are supposed to ease someone's pain end up getting them hooked or, worse yet, getting them killed. That is what happened to Casey Jo. She died of an illegal drug overdose, but she first became addicted because of that painkiller she took that day. That is what is happening to too many families in Minnesota and across the country. Here in the Senate, we have made some progress on the epidemic. Last Congress, I led a bill with three other Senators--Senators Rob Portman of Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, known as CARA, and it was signed into law. It encourages States and communities to pursue several strategies, including increasing the availability of naloxone to save lives in overdose situations. Later in 2016, this Senate and this Congress made $1 billion in funding available for treatment and prevention with the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. I got to be at the bill-signing with President Obama and Vice President Biden. Earlier this year, we made an additional $3.3 billion available as part of the government funding bill. That is all progress, but we still have a lot of work to do. We are taking important steps forward by passing this legislation today, which includes more than 70 provisions to take on addiction. We have worked with the administration, we have worked with the House, and we see this as a bipartisan priority. One of the major pieces that are in this legislation is based on the STOP Act that I introduced with Senator Portman to help stop dangerous synthetic drugs from entering our country in the first place. We know this is a serious problem. Powerful synthetic drugs like fentanyl, which is up to 100 times more potent than morphine, keep coming in from China. In my State, there were 172 deaths involving synthetic opioids last year. That is a 74-percent increase from the year before. More than 90 percent of those deaths involved fentanyl. That is the reason I joined with Senator Portman to introduce legislation to close the loophole that allows substances like fentanyl to be shipped into our country in the mail using the U.S. Postal Service. That is what the traffickers are doing. They are sending these drugs in the mail to our country from China and from other places. Under current law, the U.S. Postal Service doesn't require advance electronic data for packages entering the country. That makes it easier on the traffickers and harder for our law enforcement officers to locate packages that contain illicit drugs. Our commonsense legislation requires that these shipments provide this data to make it easier for our Customs agents to detect packages containing synthetic drugs and stop them from being shipped to communities across the country. The way I look at it is this: If Target--a hometown company in Minnesota--can find a pair of shoes in Hawaii from a simple SKU number, I would think we would be able to stop traffickers and criminals from sending in incredibly dangerous drugs that literally can kill people with an amount basically the size of a pinch of salt, that we would be able to stop them from bringing this into the country in U.S. Postal Service packages. That is just wrong. With 318 million international packages having entered our country without advance electronic data last year, it is clear that we must do more. I look forward to this measure being signed into law as part of this package. Another provision in this legislation is a provision called the SALTS Act that I authored with Senator Graham. It passed the Judiciary Committee in May. Our bill will help to crack down on criminals who sell and distribute analogue synthetic drugs. Senator Graham and I have been trying to pass this for a long period of time, and I am glad this is finally getting done. The issue of synthetic drugs hit home for me when, a few years ago, a 19-year-old from Blaine, MN, died after overdosing on a drug called 2C- E. Back then, I introduced a bill to outlaw 2C-E and eight similar substances, and it was signed into law as part of a broader bill. I remember we worked on that with Senators Graham, Grassley, Schumer, and others, and we combined the bill and were able to get those listed on the illegal drug list. But that is not enough because we are seeing that new synthetic drugs are constantly coming into the market. Criminals are adjusting the chemical composition of these drugs, so as we get one listed, they just change it a little bit so that it is no longer contained on the list because it has a different chemical composition. But it is still an illegal drug manufactured for the purpose of getting people hooked. The bill Senator Graham and I have crafted will make it easier for law enforcement to prosecute the criminals who traffic what are called analogue drugs--similar drugs where compositions have been changed enough to make it so that they are not on the list. The bill addresses a loophole in current law that allows drug dealers to skirt the law by labeling these drugs as ``not intended for human consumption'' when they are placing people in danger every day. They slap that label on and say ``See, we didn't mean that to be illegal,'' and they change the composition so it is not illegal on the list. What our bill does as part of this opioid package is it allows for the consideration of factors to help to make clear that these dangerous substances really are intended for human consumption no matter what label they slap on them, such as the substance's marketing, labeling, or the difference between its price and the price at which the substance that it is represented as--like candy or bath salts--is normally sold. That is a good clue that it is not just candy or bath salts. Since I first introduced this bill, the Drug Enforcement Administration has taken action to emergency schedule fentanyl analogues on a temporary basis. But we know that criminals are continuing to come up with new analogue drugs, and this measure will help us to meet those threats. The last provision in this bill that I want to talk about is based on legislation that Senator Rubio and I introduced, and that is the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act. Our bill targets unscrupulous actors who prey on patients seeking treatment to exploit their health insurance by making it illegal to provide or receive kickbacks for referring patients to recovery homes and treatment facilities. These kickbacks are already illegal under Federal healthcare plans like Medicare, but there is no Federal law to prohibit them in private health insurance plans. When people are struggling with addiction, their focus should be on getting well, not on worrying whether treatment facilities are trying to take advantage of them to make more money. It is simply outrageous. Our bill will crack down on healthcare facilities or providers who try to game the system to take advantage of these vulnerable patients. Those are three provisions I have worked on that are in this bill, but, as we know, there is a lot of other good work that has been done in this bill. In the end, the way I look at this is that our first goal is to stop people from getting addicted in the first place. That means doing all we can to stop this fentanyl, carfentanil, and all the illegal drugs from coming in. That means providing education in our schools so kids understand what is happening and how dangerous these drugs are. That means working with our doctors and healthcare providers so they are not overprescribing opioids. We now know that four out of five heroin users got their start on legal prescription drugs. We want to put limits--and that is going on all over the country with Republican and Democratic Governors--and we must do more here. The second piece of this is making sure we have treatment available for people who are addicted. There are all kinds of work being done on treatment, from SUBOXONE, to the work that is being done in the medical device industry as they look at potential ways to get people off of these drugs, to traditional treatment methods. We have to be openminded to all possibilities to get people off of these drugs because once addiction occurs, they are very hard drugs to kick. That means we are going to have to put in resources to combat that. I personally support Senator Manchin's bill, the LifeBOAT Act, which is a commonsense approach that allows a one-penny additional fee on each milligram of active opioid in these drugs so that that money can be used to pay for treatment. We should be using those kinds of innovative ideas at the Federal and State level. The last point is to go after the bad guys, the people who are trying to get people hooked on these drugs. That is where two of the bills I just discussed--the analogue bill with Senator Graham and the bill that Senator Portman introduced with me, the STOP Act, which requires the Postal Service to track these packages--it is a combined effort. There is a law enforcement piece of this, but we cannot forget that at its core, we want to stop this cycle where people are getting addicted. And when they do get addicted, when that happens, we have to get them the treatment they deserve. I used to be a prosecutor in the criminal justice system, and I always said that we wanted to run our office as efficiently as possible. We wanted to use business techniques in how we ran an office. But there was one important way that we were not like a business: We didn't want to see repeat customers. We didn't want to see people cycling in and out of the criminal justice system. The best way we can ensure that doesn't happen is by making sure that people get the treatment they need so that they can go on to lead happy, productive lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Federal Aviation Administration, or the FAA, Reauthorization Act of 2018. This bill provides needed certainty in aviation and gives the FAA authority to enhance consumer protections and passenger safety. It also maintains critical investments that will help to modernize and maintain our aviation infrastructure. This agreement is the product of bipartisan negotiations over the last several months. I am proud to serve on the Commerce Committee, which played a major role here. I thank Senator Thune and Senator Nelson for their work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Minnesota has a long aviation tradition, from Charles Lindbergh to our Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Two years in a row, it was ranked as the best airport in America. We manufacture jets in Duluth at Cirrus. We manufacture parachutes that go with those jets in our State. We have first-rate military training bases for aviation in Bloomington and in Duluth. We have very strong regional airports, including Duluth and Rochester, which has recently expanded its airport. It matters in our State. For too long, the aviation sector of our economy has had to rely on a series of short-term extensions. It is not good for workers, and it is not good for businesses. That is not good for travelers who use our services. For airports looking to expand or airlines looking to test new routes, these short-term bills created uncertainty that hampered growth and prevented new investments. This 5-year reauthorization bill will provide the long-term stability needed to encourage investments and help maintain American leadership in the global aviation marketplace. We know a lot about that in our State, being a major Delta hub, as well as the home of Sun Country Airlines. We know the kind of global competition that we are up against all the time. That is a very important reason for America to be a leader in aviation and not a follower. Changes in the airline industry in recent years have drastically altered the way consumers travel. New fees and complicated itineraries can make even routine travel confusing and expensive. Thankfully, this FAA bill builds on important work we have done in past reauthorizations to strengthen protections for consumers while shopping, booking, and traveling. Most people know what it is like to show up to the airport and be shocked to find out that you have to pay extra for your seat or that checking a bag is going to cost you an arm and a leg. When consumers don't have this information up front, they can be left paying hundreds of dollars in fees they didn't budget for, which can mean the difference between a family trip being affordable or not. It isn't just fees. In some instances, online travel websites have sold unnecessarily complicated passenger itineraries, provided outdated or incorrect travel information on their websites, and failed to provide appropriate disclosures for passengers. That is why I worked to include an amendment to provide a consistent level of consumer protections, regardless of where the airfares are purchased. This part of the bill will ensure that, whether a consumer books tickets directly with an airline or from a third party, the consumer will receive the same level of price disclosures and customer service. This was a provision strongly supported by consumer groups because it is such a problem that there were different types of price disclosures and customer service, depending on how a consumer booked the flight. It doesn't matter where you book the flight or how you book the flight, you should have consumer protection. This bill includes that provision. This bill will also make important improvements to the passenger experience on the plane. By directing the FAA to set standards for the size of airline seats, we will make sure passengers can travel safely and these seats will not get even smaller than they already are. The agreement also includes a provision to make clear that once a passenger has boarded a plane, they can't be involuntarily bumped by an airline. Passengers deserve to be treated with respect throughout their entire journey, and this will end the practice of removing paying customers to accommodate airline employees. The bill sets new requirements for airlines to promptly return fees for services, such as seat assignments or early boarding, when these services are purchased and not received by a customer. In addition to the strong consumer protections, this bill makes new infrastructure investments that will help to ensure passengers have a safe and efficient travel experience. Smaller regional airports provide a vital link to the rest of the world for many rural communities. In my State, both residents and businesses located near these rural airports rely on them to connect to the Twin Cities and beyond. The Essential Air Service Program is a critical tool that supports rural air service. This bill boosts EAS funding to help maintain the operations of smaller, regional airports across Minnesota and across our country. Of course, funding alone isn't enough to improve aviation infrastructure. We need policies that support the unique infrastructure needs in different regions of the country. In the 2012 FAA reauthorization, I included a provision to require that the Department of Transportation give priority review to construction projects in cold weather States with shorter construction seasons. For those of us who live in States that happen to have cold weather and snow, our construction seasons are shorter, and that means we have less time to work on these projects than maybe they do in Miami or in California. What we did here was to make sure that the FAA realized that in how they did grants and how they got these construction permits approved. Anyone who has ever been to Northern Minnesota in April or October understands that our construction season is shorter. There is a reason we have cold weather testing facilities on the Canadian border in our State, because that is the coldest conditions you can possibly have for cars. That makes for this short construction season. This provision was included again in the current bill, and it will help to ensure that cold weather States like Minnesota can make the most out of our limited construction seasons. The investments made by this bill are an important down payment that will help to address the growing demand for air transportation. I look forward to building on the progress made by this bill with bipartisan infrastructure legislation to support 21st century aviation infrastructure that is prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century economy. I wish to thank my colleagues again for their work on this bill. It makes important advances in security, consumer protections, and infrastructure development. I was proud to be a part of this, and I also am glad these provisions I worked hard on are included in the bill. The aviation industry and American air passengers will be safer because of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan agreement so we can pass, finally, a long-term extension into law. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Red Arndt for his many years of service to the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, as well as his lifetime commitment to bringing safe and reliable water to the rural corners of this country. Born Lennis Arndt, but nicknamed ``Red,'' he started working in 1989 as the public utilities director in Luverne, MN. Shortly after beginning his new position, Red heard about a proposal to bring water from the Missouri River in South Dakota to the surrounding States. Although it was a major undertaking with more people doubting the idea than supporting it, Red saw the potential and recommended to the mayor and city council that Luverne join the project as one of the first members of the corporation that would later become the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. Seeing Lewis & Clark develop from conception to construction was a labor of love for Red and a mission he fought hard to achieve. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the project, serving as the vice chairman of the board beginning in 1994, until becoming the board chairman in 2006, a position he still holds. Under Red's leadership, over $470 million in funding was directed to Lewis & Clark, and over 200 miles of pipeline have been laid in the ground that currently deliver much-needed water to 14 member communities and rural water projects, reaching over 300,000 people across South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. In May 2016, Luverne, MN, was finally able to celebrate its connection to Lewis & Clark, with Red reveling in taking the first swig of water. It was at this ceremony that the meter building in Luverne was dedicated in Red's honor. Red will be the first to acknowledge that this endeavor, benefiting generations to come in the tristate area, was a team effort. There is no question Red's vision for the future, as well as his dedication and strong leadership have been a driving force through the years. That is why he was a recipient in 2012 of the Lewis & Clark Trailblazer Award, which is the organization's highest honor. I am grateful for his commitment to public service, his hard work on behalf of Lewis & Clark, and, more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend. I commend Red Arndt for his many great contributions to Lewis & Clark, the community of Luverne, and the entire State of Minnesota. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, last week, we lost an incredible patriot, Senator, and American--our friend and colleague Senator John McCain. My heart goes out to his wife Cindy, his mom, his daughters, and family. In the Navy, John exemplified heroism and bravery, and in the Senate, he was a mentor to so many of us. He taught us how to work with leaders on the world stage, but then he taught us something just as important; that is, how to work with each other when we are here and back home. This past month, my husband and I got to visit John and Cindy at their ranch in Arizona one last time. Even while battling brain cancer, he continued to be engaged in the issues of our time. He continued to have that signature McCain humor and that grit. My last memory of John was, I had brought a few of his books to him, and he was getting tired and pointed to one sentence in one of the books and said to me: That, that is what matters. The sentence was this: ``Nothing in life is more liberating than to fight for a cause larger than yourself.'' No one proved that more than John McCain. Lindsey Graham just gave beautiful remarks about his best friend--his best friend who had taught him so much, who taught him how to pick yourself up and be resilient when things go wrong, who taught him how to always put your country first. I saw that resilience firsthand when John invited me to go with him and Lindsey on a trip to Asia. It was an incredible moment in his own life. It was right after he had lost that Presidential election-- something he had dreamed of attaining for so long, and it didn't work out. Did he just go home and not do his work? No. He dove right in and took a young Senator with him to Asia, along with his best friend Lindsey, and some of his most beloved staff. What I saw on that trip I will never forget. He was literally a few months out of losing a Presidential election, but he was still excited about the world around him. He was excited when the Defense Secretary called him with something he wanted him to work on with him. He had great humor when he read about President Obama's latest purchase of a dog and other things, and he just said it and smiled and put the newspaper down. He loved introducing me to people whom I thought I would never meet, and he loved sharing those stories. On every leg of the trip between countries, he would read books. He would read books about World War II. He would read books about anything in history that he thought was relevant to today. He loved it for the sake of history, but he also loved it because he believed history teaches us something; that you can't ignore history; that you take the lessons of history and bring them with you forward. John's own history was incredible--a Navy pilot during Vietnam. After being shot down, he was held and tortured as a prisoner of war for over 5 years in that infamous Hanoi Hilton. On the trip to Asia, we went to that prison, and I saw the cell where John had been held for those 5 years--the cell in which he made the decision to allow other prisoners to be released before him because he didn't want to look like he got special treatment. That was a moment I will never forget. Then, we went on a tour of the rest of the prison. Again, with that signature wry humor and resilience, as the guide was showing us a new exhibit, which included happy pictures of prisoners of war sitting around a Christmas tree or playing table tennis, and she proudly showed us those pictures, he nodded his head with all the media behind him and then whispered to me: I don't remember any of this. We then went to an exhibit that was brand-new of his flight suit, and it was a pristine flight suit with his name embroidered on it. Next to it was a picture of him and the plane being shot down, and the flight suit was all torn up. They would show us the flight suit, and he took pictures and smiled. Then, as we were walking away, he said to me: That was not my flight suit. That was John McCain. When he walked around the streets of Vietnam, a place where he had been held prisoner for 5 years, he was like a rock star. Do you know why? Because he had come back there so many times, bringing different Americans with him, working on issues that mattered to them, working on trade issues, normalizing relations. They loved him there. That was him; that was John McCain. The other thing about him was there were so many Senators that he mentored, but I always loved how he would take some of the new women Senators under his wing and make sure they went on these trips. In many of the rooms where we met with foreign leaders, it would be, again, John and Lindsey and I. Of course, Senator McCain went first as the leader of the delegation, and then all of these male foreign leaders would next look at Lindsey Graham because they figured he was the next senior, which was correct. But John McCain would stop them and say: I am sorry. Senator Klobuchar is the lead Democrat in the delegation, and she will be going next. At that singular moment, he would send a message to the foreign leaders: Yes, she is to be treated with respect and equally; she is the Democratic lead on our trip. Part of being a mentor to someone is also urging them on, and many of us here know what it was like to get one of those backhanded McCain compliments, which didn't always seem like a compliment but truly was. My favorite was when I would do some kind of Sunday show or something like that, and he would have liked what I said, I would have guessed, but he would call and leave a message: Well, you did a pretty good job on that show, talking about immigration--well, pretty good for a Communist. I know some of my Republican colleagues were never called a Communist, but that was his word of affection for many of us on the Democratic side. I think part of this work that he did in mentoring women Members and staff had to do with the incredibly strong women in his own life--his wife, Cindy; his mother; his daughter, Meghan; and his family. That was a part of John McCain that I think people don't know. The last thing I will mention--and Lindsey talked about this--is that his legacy must live on; that is, what he taught us about working with the rest of the world. The last trip I took with John McCain was to Lithuania and Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Georgia. He planned that trip right after the last Presidential election. The President-elect had been talking negatively about NATO, and there had been discussions about our dealings with Europe. I think he felt it was very important to show the world that there were people in the Senate, leaders in the Senate, who stood by those Baltic nations that had declared their independence, and that is why we went on that trip. Somehow we found ourselves on New Year's Eve in a blizzard in the middle of the night on live Ukrainian TV with President Poroshenko. The President of Ukraine wanted to show American support for their democracy and their quest to stay independent despite the foreign invasion by Russia. So as we stood there, the President gave Senator McCain a machine gun, a Ukrainian-made machine gun. They are very proud of their armaments there. McCain was holding it, and then he went to Senator Graham, and he gave Senator Graham a pistol. I was standing there, and McCain said to me: I wonder what you're going to get. It looks like you're getting a flat box. I opened up the box, and it had two daggers in it. Senator McCain decided that I was deserving of a pistol and somehow arranged to have one brought to me. But then what happened was the Navy confiscated every single weapon, and a year later, Senator McCain was still saying to me: What happened to my machine gun? That trip was more than just about that delightful moment. That trip was about his standing with us, with all of these leaders, to send that incredibly important message in his own words from a few years before, in 2013, when he spoke to that pro-democracy crowd of protestors in Ukraine, telling them: America is with you. And they roared ``thank you'' back at him. He said: ``The United States has a special responsibility to champion human rights--in all places, for all peoples, and at all times.'' So he would send this message to our allies. He would look for those hot spots. He would look for those moments when it was necessary to show our allies and friends and those struggling for human rights and democracy that they had a friend in the United States. He knew that supporting our allies is also about supporting ourselves--and I will use John's words here--in supporting ``their hope . . . their faith . . . and their friendship.'' That was John McCain. So when I think about protecting the future of our country and the work that must be done in this Chamber and his devotion to making friends on both sides of the aisle, I think about the decency that he brought to politics, not always--not always happy every moment of his life in politics, but always decent. That was best reflected at a rally that happened in my State in the waning days of his Presidential campaign when a woman stood up, when he could have just embraced what she said, but he didn't. The woman said of then-candidate Obama: ``I have read about him. . . . He's . . . an Arab.'' Without missing a beat, John shook his head and very politely said: ``No, ma'am. He's a decent family man . . . [whom] I just happen to have disagreements with.'' That is not something you plan for; that is not an arc of your career where you have a moment and a strategy. That was his reaction in the moment when he knew that his dream was slipping away from him, and he could have said just anything about his opponent because he was mad that he wasn't winning. But he didn't. He took the high road. That was John McCain. As we move forward in this Chamber, I hope we will remember his words, that the most liberating thing in life is ``to fight for a cause larger than [ourselves].'' He did that every single day, and we must now carry on that torch. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership, and I am pleased that Senator Durbin has brought us together. I also see the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Oregon here. I appreciate the work we have seen on the other side of the aisle on so many of these issues regarding elections and Russia, including the Presiding Officer's support for moving forward on a number of these things. Our next election is right around the corner. In fact, this coming Saturday marks 100 days from the 2018 elections. As we prepare for the midterm elections, two things are clear: First, we must hold Russia accountable for the attacks against our democracy in 2016. This wasn't meddling. This wasn't just sending a few little tweets. This was an actual cyber attack on our democracy, and we have to call it what it was. Secondly, we must do more to deter Russia and safeguard our democracy against future attacks. As complex as all this is, that is really quite simple. The first thing is, we have to figure out what happened and hold the people accountable. That is what is happening with the Mueller investigation, and that is what is happening with the Intelligence Committee investigation and other committees as well. Secondly, we have to protect our own democracy in the future from Russia, from other foreign entities, from anyone who might try to take away our democracy. That is exactly what happened in this last election. Over the last 18 months, I have come to the floor time and again to make this point: Election security is national security. Efforts to interfere in our domestic politics and attack our election infrastructure represent a threat to our democracy and our security. We know that Russia coordinated an attack against our democracy that launched cyber attacks against at least 21 States, including my own. The latest indictment from Special Counsel Mueller's investigation revealed that the Russians hacked the website of a State board of elections and stole the information of roughly 500,000 voters. We not only have them potentially trying to influence the vote, we also have them actually stealing voters' private information, which, of course, is another way to deter voters from wanting to vote. Russia's efforts also included sophisticated information warfare designed to divide our country and weaken Americans' confidence in our election system. Hard-working women and men in our intelligence agencies from both Democratic and Republican administrations have confirmed this. The heads of all of our major intelligence operations under President Obama and under President Trump have said that this happened. In fact, months ago, Director Coats said that not only did it happen but that the Russians are getting, in his words, bolder. Yet, this month in Helsinki, President Trump was asked if he stands by the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community or the denials of Vladimir Putin. He chose to go with Putin. He stood there in front of the world, and he called Putin's words ``extremely strong and powerful.'' That is why so many in this Chamber--Republican and Democratic Members of the Senate--have come out and called him on it and affirmed the U.S. intelligence conclusions and denounced the President's actions. There is no substitute for Presidential leadership--we know that--but in its absence, Congress must act. We need to make strong bipartisan commitments to defend our elections and show unwavering support for our intelligence agencies. Among others things, today Senator Graham and I submitted a bipartisan resolution that reaffirmed strong congressional support for our intelligence agencies and our diplomats. This is supplemental to the work, of course, that Senator Coons and Senator Flake have been doing. It declares that an attack on our election system by a foreign power is a hostile act that should be met with a swift and forceful response. Passing this resolution sends a clear message to Russia: We are united in our commitment to make sure you pay a heavy price for attacking our elections, and we are prepared to exercise our authority to impose even stronger sanctions. If this administration won't act, Congress must. In order to safeguard future elections, State and local officials on the frontlines of this fight must have the tools and resources they need to prevent cyber attacks. We recently voted to provide $380 million in election security funding to States. That was an important first step. All the States I have talked to say that was just the beginning, that they would need more resources, but it was an important first step. I worked on that with Senator Lankford, as well as Senator Coons and Senator Leahy. I will note that $380 million is just 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. That is what it is--3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. We have a foreign government that has been trying to attack our elections. We must do more. During a recent Rules Committee hearing, State and local officials testified that more resources are needed. Last week, Vermont's secretary of state and the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Jim Condos, called on Congress to provide additional funds on an ongoing basis, not just when a crisis happens. This week, nearly half of our country's State attorneys general sent a letter urging Congress to appropriate more funding for election security. That is why today Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and I will be offering this amendment to the appropriations legislation that is before us this week that would provide additional funding for election security. I am continuing to work with Senator Lankford on the Secure Elections Act, which, along with Senator Graham and Senator Harris, now has 10 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, equally divided. That bill is important. Senator Blunt has agreed to a markup in August. That is very critical to our moving forward to have legislation that puts some parameters in place, puts best practices in place, and requires audits. All of that must happen, but for now, we can't wait. We are almost 100 days away from this election. Director of National Intelligence Coats recently reaffirmed the threat Russia poses. He said this: ``Today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack. . . . It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then-CIA director George Tenet, the system was blinking red. And here we are nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again.'' That is from our National Intelligence Director under President Trump. I would close with this--something that happened 95 years ago. In 1923, Joseph Stalin, then General Secretary of the Soviet Communists, was asked about a vote in the Central Committee of the party. Stalin was unconcerned about the vote. After all, he explained that who voted was ``completely unimportant.'' What was ``extraordinarily important,'' he said, ``was who would count the votes and how.'' Now, nearly 100 years later, we have someone by the name of Vladimir Putin trying to control who counts the votes and how in our own country. This time, it is now, and it is in our elections. Those are the stakes. Election security is national security, and it is time to start acting like it

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak about our country's third branch of government; that is, our courts. Senators have a solemn obligation to advise and consent on the President's nominees to our Federal courts. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I take that obligation very seriously. As Senator Merkley--who is heading up this evening's speeches and has brought a number of people together--knows, it is not just an obligation of members of the Judiciary Committee; it is also an obligation of Senators, when they look at the judges who are coming out of their particular States, to make sure that this is a person--whoever the nominee is--who represents our country as an independent voice and someone who respects precedent as a member of the Federal bench, whether it is on the Supreme Court level or whether it is on the circuit or Federal district court levels. In the U.S. Senate, we are here to do the people's business and not the President's business. This is an important job, particularly when it comes to nominees to our Nation's highest Court. The next member of the Supreme Court will make decisions that will affect the lives of people across the country for generations. In the last decades, the Supreme Court has decided whom you can marry, where you can go to school, and--for people like my grandpa, who was a miner and who worked 1,500 feet underground his whole life--how safe your workplace is. Those are decisions that affect people and their lives. The next Justice of the Supreme Court will make decisions that will affect the lives of people across the country, determining whether health insurers can deny coverage to people who are sick or have a preexisting condition or whether women's rights are protected. These are all cases that will be coming to the highest Court of the land. It is for this reason that it is critical that here in the Senate, we do our jobs and thoroughly examine Judge Kavanaugh's record. This is part of our jobs in evaluating Supreme Court nominees, regardless of which party controls the White House. In fact, when Justice Elena Kagan's nomination was considered, because she had worked for an administration, approximately 171,000 pages of documents were made available. Given Judge Kavanaugh's years of service on the DC Circuit, as well as his previous work in the Bush administration, we will need to do due diligence in reviewing the record. That is part of our job. For a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court, the American people deserve no less. This is especially important because, for me, many of Judge Kavanaugh's past rulings are very troubling. One area that I am concerned about is, of course, related to Judge Kavanaugh's record on consumer issues. I have done a lot of work in this area, and, of course, I am concerned about the Executive power issue. I would say that is a paramount concern, as well as some of his other decisions regarding healthcare and women's healthcare, but I want to discuss the consumer issues because I don't think they get a lot of attention, and they should. They matter to people in their everyday lives. In his current job, Judge Kavanaugh ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects consumers when it comes to everything from credit cards, loans, and mortgages, was unconstitutional. He also went out of his way to dissent against net neutrality. Judge Kavanaugh also wrote a dissent that would have limited a woman's access to contraception, and he ruled against allowing a woman the right to control her own reproductive health in a decision that was later reversed by the full DC Circuit. We also know that Judge Kavanaugh has criticized the case called Chevron, which ensures that health and safety rules stay on the books. It is about how you consider agency decisions and the experts in the agencies. As I noted in Justice Gorsuch's hearing, overturning Chevron would have titanic, real-world implications, jeopardizing rules that protect health and public safety, requirements against lead-based paint, and clean water protections for our Great Lakes. Finally, as I noted at the beginning--I will sort of end with my discussion of his rulings as I began--there are concerning implications to Judge Kavanaugh's writings, which support an expansive view of Executive power. It is an important moment, this moment in our country's history. We just saw the President of the United States stand next to Vladimir Putin and not publicly raise any of the issues that I thought should be raised, and we have Members of both parties gravely criticizing those decisions. What I can say to the people of our State is, no matter what happens in the White House, our Founding Fathers set up a system of checks and balances. There is a check because of the courts, which can make decisions when they interpret our Constitution. There is also a check because of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. What does Judge Kavanaugh say about this? When they are in school, kids are told--and I know I was told this--that no one is above the law. But decisions he has made and his writings would not lead you to that same conclusion, that simple lesson that we were taught. When you look at the article he wrote for the University of Minnesota Law Review, as well as one in the Georgetown Law Journal, he has an incredibly expansive view of Executive power. He has said that we shouldn't even have a special counsel process, when in fact Members of the Senate, including those on the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans, have gone the other way and said: Yes, we want the check of a special counsel investigation when it is necessary--as it has been found to be in this case by the Trump Justice Department--but we want to make sure that the special counsel is protected. That is what the Judiciary Committee said. We passed a bill out of the committee that strengthened that law and made it harder for someone to fire the special counsel. Yet in his writings, Judge Kavanaugh said that the President should be able to fire the special counsel. He also said that the President should be able to deem whether or not a law is constitutional. These are certainly questions I will be asking about in the Judiciary Committee, and I think we have a right to do that. Yes, we can ask about a case that is before the Court, but before I came to the Senate, I had seen numerous nominees, including Supreme Court nominees, answer questions about cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut. Justice Alito answered a question about that case. A number of the nominees on the Supreme Court today have answered questions about settled precedent, and I believe we should be able to ask Judge Kavanaugh those questions and receive answers, especially for cases that are 45 years old. People can have certain views on issues. Everyone does; judges do. But they have an obligation to follow the Constitution, to follow the law, and to respect precedent, and that is going to be our job so that the American people can understand where this nominee is coming from. First, we will review all of those documents I talked about that are sure to come our way, and then, secondly, we will ask the questions the American people expect us to ask and get the answers they deserve to have. I would also like to briefly address one of the two circuit court nominees before the Senate this week, because even as we review the President's Supreme Court nominee, we cannot lose sight of the importance of our lower Federal courts. The overwhelming majority of cases are decided by these lower courts. That is why it is imperative to have judges who are fair and committed to equal justice under the law for all Americans. One Senate tradition that has been key to the appointment of good judges has been the blue slip. The blue slip is a check and balance that has promoted cooperation and better decision making about judges across party lines. It is for that reason that I am deeply concerned that the Ninth Circuit nominee now on the Senate floor will be receiving a vote, despite not having a blue slip from either home State Senator. Prior to his nomination, no judge has ever been voted out of the Judiciary Committee--since I have been there--without a blue slip from either home State Senator. Since the tradition has been in existence, we have said that there should be a blue slip. There is no blue slip in this case. If Mr. Bounds is confirmed, he will be the first judge in history to be appointed to the Federal bench without a blue slip from either Senator from his home State. This is all the more concerning, as noted by Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden, because they have tried to work with the White House in a bipartisan manner to find a qualified nominee to fill this vacancy. They convened a bipartisan committee of Oregon lawyers to review applications and make recommendations. This committee included attorneys chosen by those two Senators, as well as by Republican Congressman Greg Walden. This is how judicial vacancies in Oregon have been filled for the past two decades, including the time when former Republican Senator Gordon Smith was in office. So it is extremely unfortunate that my colleagues have disregarded this process. I respect them very much. I think they should have had a say. I think they should have been consulted, and I think we should follow the blue-slip process. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.