Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 2018 farm bill and the importance of passing this bill. I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their dedication and determination in producing a truly bipartisan bill that cleared the Agriculture Committee 2 weeks ago with a strong bipartisan vote. Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer have been dedicated to moving this bill to the floor. Under Chairman Roberts' and Ranking Member Stabenow's leadership, the committee held six hearings, examining every title of the bill, passed a bill out of committee on a nearly unanimous 20-to-1 vote, and included almost 70 amendments before getting it to the floor this week. The Agriculture Committee and the farm bill are models of how we can work across the aisle on tough problems and on major legislation that impacts every American--the farmers and ranchers who grow and raise the crops and livestock that sustain us, the hunters and conservationists who rely on the wetlands and grasslands protected, the families who rely on access to healthy foods. This is an important bill. I hear it every day from people in my State--fishermen and hunters, farmers in rural communities and leaders. They understand that we do not want to be a country that becomes dependent on foreign food. We don't want that to happen. In Minnesota, we produce a lot of food. Our economy is diverse from north to south and east to west--corn, soybeans, hogs, and turkeys in the southern and western part of our State; wheat, canola, and sugar beets in the northwest; and dairy and cattle in the central and southwest. As a State, we are No. 1 in turkeys. Yes, Mr. President, that is true. Minnesota is No. 1 in turkeys and sugar beets. We are No. 2 in hogs, No. 3 in soybeans, No. 4 in corn, and fifth overall in agricultural production. But the prices farmers have received when selling these goods have been declining since 2013. USDA's Economic Research Service is forecasting net farm income to fall another 6.7 percent this year, which would represent the lowest level since 2006. These commodities are increasingly sent around the world. From 2006 to 2016, Minnesota producers sent $7.1 billion worth of ag products to markets around the world, making us the fourth largest agricultural exporting State in the United States. Our soybeans and dairy go to China, pork to Canada, beef to South Korea, and corn and poultry to Mexico. These exports are a crucial part of our economy, and the unknown on trade and the threat of terrorists, especially from allies with allies, such as Canada and what we have been seeing there--and I hope we will have a reasonable approach with our allies going forward-- those headlines are having real impacts on many farmers' bottom lines. Finally, no matter where the farm is located or what crops they grow, all Minnesota farms and rural communities face weather risks. This spring, many farmers and ranchers were delayed getting into their fields because of an April blizzard. We had rains that were unexpected, and the uncertainty out there in the countryside makes our work on the 2018 farm bill even more important. What do I like about this bill? First of all, it continues to protect and improve the tools that help our farmers deal with risk. The improvements included in the commodity title will ensure more consistent payments across counties in the Agricultural Risk Coverage Program and more access to risk management tools, such as crop insurance. It also replaces the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers and invests additional funds in the new Dairy Risk Coverage Program. This is a major challenge in my State and many others. We have also started a vaccine bank for the first time--something Senator Cornyn and I worked on. He is here in the Chamber, and I thank him for his leadership in working on this vaccine bank that we have started. It will help us with avian flu, H1N1, and other diseases that we see with our animals. Senator Thune and I worked together on several provisions in the conservation title of the bill to help farmers get more out of their land. We also worked to increase the CRP cap to 25 million acres and to fix a loophole in the conservation sodsaver program. This bill includes a number of amendments. I see Senator Stabenow is here on the floor, and I again thank her for her leadership in helping us. Michigan, just like Minnesota, understands how important agriculture-based energy, biobased manufacturing, and clean energy technology programs and initiatives are. Those amendments were all included in this farm bill. I truly appreciate it, as well as the work that Senator Hoeven and I did to increase access to credit, while providing for better data reporting on borrowers and participation rates. I close with this: In these times of uncertainty in agriculture, we need to work to strengthen the farms and rural communities that sustain us every day. Whether it is hemp in Kentucky, hogs in Iowa, sugar beets and sweet corn in Minnesota, or energy in Michigan, this farm bill is about our Nation's future, and it is about adjusting what is working, making it a bill that meets the challenges ahead, and making sure we are investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest and not the oil cartels of the Mideast. Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss votes on final passage of H.R. 5895 and the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2. I was not in Washington on Monday because I was visiting Senator John McCain at his ranch in Arizona. The Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, H.R. 5895, is the result of a commendable bipartisan negotiation process led by Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy of the Appropriations Committee. The bill includes strong funding for ongoing work on Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects like the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System that will benefit approximately 300,000 people in the southwest Minnesota, southeast South Dakota, and northwest Iowa regions. The bill also includes legislation I led with Senator Tillis to create a center of excellence within the Department of Veterans Affairs to address the health conditions relating to exposure to burn pits. Had I been in Washington, I would have voted in favor of its passage. The Agriculture and Nutrition Act, H.R. 2, passed the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee by a vote of 20 to 1. The bill will provide critical investments in communities in Minnesota and will provide much-needed certainty for our farmers and ranchers. The bill includes provisions I championed to continue investments in renewable energy programs, create an animal disease and disaster program, and provide support for our dairy farmers. Had I been in Washington, I would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Merkley, the Senator from Oregon, for his leadership and his calling attention to the tragedy that has been going on right on our border. I rise today to join my colleagues to express my deep concern about the policy that was adopted by this administration to separate families at the border. What we have seen over the past several days and weeks and actually months is simply unacceptable. While the President has now recognized publicly that we should not be taking children from their parents, this should not be happening in our country. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 2,342 children were separated from their parents at the border between May 5 and June 9. The pace of these separations had been increasing, with nearly 70 children being taken from their parents up until today and being kept in facilities that are increasingly overcrowded. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have expressed their opposition. They said that this type of family separation does ``irreparable harm'' to children. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who traveled to the border, called it ``a form of child abuse.'' It is not just the medical groups. A bipartisan group of 75 former U.S. attorneys called on the administration to end its policy. The group included a former Republican U.S. attorney who served under both President Bushes, Tom Heffelfinger from the State of Minnesota. Their letter emphasized that the administration's zero tolerance policy was ``a radical departure from previous Justice Department policy'' and that it is ``dangerous, expensive, and inconsistent with the values of the institution in which [they] served.'' All five First Ladies have been critical, and, as we know, probably the woman who said it best was First Lady Laura Bush. She said: This zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart. I think that says it all. I am glad that several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have recently stood up and said they disagree with this policy. Senator Graham said: ``President Trump could stop this policy with a phone call.'' The weeks went by, and the families kept getting separated. I am pleased that Senator Feinstein is leading a bill, the Keep Families Together Act. I was an original cosponsor of this bill, but I do want to note that we do not need the legislation to stop the separation of children and their parents. While I am still reviewing this Executive order, I will note that it still raises serious issues, including with respect to the indefinite detention of children and their families, and that there are major questions about the order. That being said, action on this was necessary, and now we must move forward. I see the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, here, who has given so many speeches about Dreamers that I don't think we could even count them. We have more issues for this country besides the one that has just broken the hearts of Americans. We have people on temporary status who are sitting in Minnesota who don't know if they are going to be deported in a year, when they have been in this country legally for decades, working in our hospitals. We have Dreamers who came to this country through no fault of their own. We have immigrants who love this country, who want to be citizens here, and this Senate gave them a path to be citizens in a vote in this very Chamber years ago, and that bill never advanced in the House. We can do that again. If there is any silver lining to this tragedy as we work through it, I hope that it will focus the American people again on the fact that this is a country of immigrants and that immigrants do not diminish America; immigrants are America. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about net neutrality. First, though, I wish to commend the Presiding Officer for the agreement we have made on the STOP Act. He is the lead sponsor, and I am the lead Democrat on the bill that will really get at these drugs, like fentanyl, that can kill someone with just a grain-of-salt amount of it, which have been coming in from China and other places through our own Postal Service, which is outrageous for Americans. We have valiantly worked on this bill, and the Senator has worked out an agreement with Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden on the Finance Committee. I want to commend him for that. We are excited the bill is moving forward. Mr. President, I also want to mention another completely separate issue as we debate the NDAA, which is the issue of the Secure Elections Act that Senator Lankford and I have put on as an amendment to this bill. Let me remind my colleagues that we are approaching a different kind of warfare; that is, cyber warfare. It is certainly what we saw during the last election, but we have seen it in the area of business--in attacks on some of our major businesses in our own country--and, of course, we have seen it in elections, as well, with Russia attempting to hack into the election systems of 21 States. What this bill does is make it easier for local elected officials to get the information in realtime when hacks that they may not know about are going on in other States and to have the classified information they need by getting the security clearance they need to protect their own election system. We have worked with the secretaries of state all over the country on this. Senator Burr, Senator Warner, the heads of the Intelligence Committee, support this bill. I also thank Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Kamala Harris, who worked with us on the bill, and we are asking to get it on as an amendment to the Defense Act with the simple idea that warfare isn't the same as it was 50 years ago or 20 years ago or 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. Things are changing, and our laws need to be as sophisticated, the protection of our country needs to be as sophisticated as those who are trying to do us harm. We are hopeful that we will be able to reach an agreement on this, given that the Intelligence Committee has held numerous hearings about election security, as has Homeland Security, as has Judiciary. Net Neutrality Mr. President, today, I am here in opposition to the Federal Communications Commission's action on Monday to repeal net neutrality protections. Net neutrality is the bedrock of a fast, fair, open, global internet. It holds internet service providers accountable for providing the internet access consumers expect while protecting innovation and competition. These protections have worked and are part of the reason the internet has become one of the great American success stories, transforming not only how we communicate with friends and family but also the way companies do business, how consumers buy goods, and how we educate our kids. Earlier this year, the FCC approved Chairman Pai's plan to eliminate net neutrality rules. Yesterday, the final rollback of net neutrality went through. The FCC has now given major internet service providers the ability to significantly change consumers' experiences online. Big internet service providers now have the ability to block, slow, and prioritize web traffic for their own financial gain. This means they can sort online traffic into fast or slow lanes and charge consumers extra for high-speed internet. Internet service providers can even block content they don't want their subscribers to access. The only protections that are maintained are requirements for service providers to disclose their internet traffic policies. A lot of good that will do if, in like the State of Minnesota, you have significant rural areas where there is no real opportunity to comparison shop or find a new provider. If you only have one provider to go to, it has a virtual monopoly over your internet service. According to the FCC, more than 24 million Americans still lack high- speed broadband. We should be focusing our efforts on helping these households get connected, not eliminating net neutrality and worsening the digital divide. You can always pay for high-speed access. You can pay for it no matter where you live. You can run lines to your house if you are in a remote area--lines that will cost millions of dollars. But that is not what they have done in other developed countries. No, they have seen it as a virtue, as part of a democracy, that everyone should have access to the internet and that it is part of what makes an economy work. You don't leave people behind if they don't have the money by themselves to afford to run lines all the way to their homes. This isn't only about individual internet users. It will limit competition, and it will hurt small business entrepreneurship and innovation, which has always been at the heart of the American economy. Without unrestricted access to the internet, entrepreneurs may be forced to pay to have an equal footing so as to be able to compete online, rather than to focus on growing their businesses. When you talk to small companies--to some of the startups we have seen out there, some of the companies that young people have started-- and you ask them: How do you break into the market when you have a big guy out there who has millions and millions and billions and billions of dollars and a multinational presence if you are trying to sell baby clothes or if you are trying to have a new digital service, they tell you: It is online. They break in because they can compete by getting customers online. Guess what. If they start having to pay huge amounts of money to get that access online in order to compete with the big companies that, of course, can already pay for that and can already afford that, you are going to have a problem, and you are going to defeat the very idea of entrepreneurship. Small businesses that are unable to pay for access to faster internet service may soon find themselves struggling to compete from the slow lane. Repealing net neutrality will hurt the very people who are creating jobs and keeping our economy competitive. That is why I joined my colleagues to force a vote last month on Senator Markey's bill to repeal Chairman Pai's plan and reinstate net neutrality rules. This bill received bipartisan support and was passed by the Senate--in this very room. Now it is up to the House to do the same. The internet should remain free and open for all who use it. So the fight to save net neutrality is far from over. I have joined Senate Democrats in urging Speaker Ryan to immediately schedule a vote on the bill to save net neutrality protections. They can do this. To keep the pressure on, it will take all of us, working together--private sector partners, business, small business, nonprofit advocates--to tell our government officials at the local, State, and Federal levels to take that good vote in the Senate as a sign that it is time to change the policy. The way you do that, of course, is with a vote over in the House of Representatives. At least allow a vote. The fight to protect net neutrality is far from over, and we need to make our voices heard for all of the American consumers, entrepreneurs, and innovators who rely on a free and open internet. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I Thank the Senator for her question. The description of harassment in section 111 of the bill is only relevant to the determination of whether a Member is required to reimburse the Treasury and is not intended to be used in other contexts.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Blunt for his work on this. This is an incredibly important moment. We are completely overhauling the sexual harassment policies of the Congress. This was an antiquated policy that literally required 30 days of forced counseling, 30 days of forced mediation, and 30 days of a cooling-off period. It was time for a change, and that is what we came together to do. I wish thank our colleagues who have worked on this with us: Senators Gillibrand, Murray, McCaskill, Harris; our working group on Rules, including Senators Blunt, Feinstein, Cortez Masto, Capito, and Fischer; and of course the two leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, who worked on this. Senators Enzi and Kennedy would always say: If you can agree on things 80 percent of the time, that is a good day. This is a good day for changing the rules so that the deck is not stacked against victims, who should be in a safe workplace. Thank you, Senator Blunt.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, Senator Blunt and I were here on the floor earlier to talk about the bill that was just passed through the Senate unanimously. That is the bill dealing with sexual harassment and other harassment rules of the Congress. This was a joint effort, and I wish to take this opportunity, first of all, to thank everyone who was involved in this. First and foremost is Senator Blunt, who has been a true partner. We have worked on everything together, from adoption to tourism. Last month, when he took over from Senator Shelby's able leadership of the Rules Committee, he and I worked together on changing the Senate rules, for the first time in the history of the Senate, to be more family friendly. We worked with Senator Tammy Duckworth so that her baby will be allowed on the floor, as will other children of male and female Senators going forward. The world is changing, and the Senate needs to change with it, and I would argue that the Senate should be in the lead. It is no surprise, then, that we have had a number of women staff members take the lead and work with us on this bill. First is Lizzy Peluso, who is my lead and the ranking member's staff director of our Rules Committee. She was my chief of staff for a number of years and moved over to be our lead on the Rules Committee. She has done a tremendous job ushering in this legislation by listening to Members' concerns and working with people on the legislation. There is also Stacy McBride, who has the same role working for Senator Blunt and has worked with him on this. We thank her for her help as well. I also want to mention Erin Sager Vaughn, who works with Senator Schumer and has really done a lot of work on this bill. It just was a team effort. To John Abegg, from Senator McConnell's office, thank you for your help as well. I want to thank Travis Talvitie from my office for his work on this bill. This was a bill that was a long time in coming. I notice that there has been some excellent work over in the House. We want to thank Representative Speier and others who have been involved in their bill. We know it is a little different than our bill. We look forward to hearing them out and working with them as we move forward. I did want to thank our colleagues in the Senate who supported this bill and worked with us. That would be Senator Gillibrand, who has been such a leader on this issue, Senator Murphy, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Harris. Also, I want to thank our Rules Committee working group: Senator Feinstein, Senator Cortez Masto, Senator Capito, and Senator Fischer. All are women who serve on the Rules Committee and know we had to change the rules. I would say about this bill what Senator Enzi would always say about his work with Senator Ted Kennedy: You have to start with the 80 percent that you agree on. We found a lot to agree on when it came to reforming the process in the Senate, which was literally staff against victims. It didn't include interns. It didn't include a number of people who had worked in the Senate. It was a very difficult process for people to bring claims. Of course, our goal here is a safe workplace, not only in the Senate and in the House, not only in all of the Federal Government, but really across the country. So as much as this debate has been focused on people who serve in positions of power--as it well should be--we also have to remember the nurse on the frontline in the hospital and the factory worker on the poultry line in Minnesota, and we should have protections in place at all workplaces. I know this discussion is going on across America, and we are more than ready to be part of that discussion. So what is the problem? First of all, we have a situation where we had a 30-day forced counseling period. If someone were to bring a harassment claim in the Senate, they had to go through 30 days of forced mediation, even if they didn't want to mediate the claim. We had a 30-day forced cooling-off period before they could have access to a court. They could have been forced into a nondisclosure agreement. Interns had no protection at all, and there was no actual transparency around awards or settlement. It was literally set up to muzzle the victims in these cases. So what have we done? First of all, Senator Grassley and I worked on this last fall, along with Senator Shelby and others, and on mandatory training. I appreciate the leadership of Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer in working with us on this and getting this done quickly so that every staff member in the Senate, including every Senator, now goes through sexual harassment training. That had to happen for the first time by the end of January, and that happened. We also were concerned that victims weren't reporting incidents. After all, 75 percent of individuals who experienced sexual harassment at work didn't report it. So we wanted to make sure we improved the process so that would change. What does this legislation do? First of all, as I mentioned, it overhauls the process. That was our first and major goal--to make it easier for victims. It allows a victim to immediately pursue an administrative hearing or file a civil action--none of these cooling- off periods that are mandatory. It maintains the option for an employee to go into mediation. Secondly, there are immediate protections for staff. The bill that just passed the Senate provides employees with immediate access to a dedicated advocate who would provide consultation and assistance and figure all of the options that they have and work with them on that. As I mentioned, it covers interns, detailees, and others who work in the Senate as unpaid staff. It provides opportunities for employees to work remotely or request paid leave without fear of retribution, after they have made a complaint. It requires that a notification of rights of employees be posted within every employing office of the legislative branch, including State and district offices. There are a number of other provisions, which I will put in the Record, that are put in to immediately protect staff. Last, there is accountability for Members. This bill holds Members of the House and Senate personally liable by requiring them to repay awards and settlements stemming from acts of harassment that they personally commit and ensures that Members who leave office would still be responsible for repaying the Treasury, including garnishing nongovernment wages and retirement annuities to ensure repayment. It requires public reporting of awards and settlements, including identifying if a Member of the House or Senate was personally liable. It also requires claims to be automatically referred to the Committee on Ethics for investigation or further action when there is a final award or settlement. Those are the top lines of the bill, but I think we know that it is more than words on a page. It is more than going back and forth about which provision would be better. This is really about the cases that we have seen in the Senate and the House--that they be handled correctly, and that we have a new and improved workplace going forward so that all people feel safe, so that the culture here feels safe, and so that we can be true leaders for workplaces across the country. Again, this wouldn't have happened without the decision of many Members who work here to, one, go out of their comfort zone and, two, decide they were more interested in getting something done than having a messaging bill. That is what every Senator here decided--that it was more important to change this process. A year from now--once we get this passed through the House, and we work with them and we get this done--I believe we are going to come back and have a different story to tell about the workplaces that we work in. I wish to thank my colleagues for making that decision to concretely get something done instead of just pointing fingers at each other. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor today to discuss what I consider an often overlooked issue that is of central importance to the well-being of American consumers and our Nation's economic strength, and that is antitrust enforcement. Before I was a Senator, I was a prosecutor for 8 years, and before that, I was a lawyer in private practice. Early in my legal career, my main client when I was a brandnew lawyer was MCI. At the time, MCI was a young, innovative telecom company that was determined to disrupt the telecom industry by competing with first long-distance carriers and then local monopoly carriers. It was exciting for me to represent a company like that. They had a lot of scrappy lawyers who viewed themselves as fighting for consumers to give them some alternatives and lower prices. I remember that at one of my regulatory hearings, I actually quoted the first words Alexander Graham Bell said over the telephone: ``Come here, Watson, I need you.'' But in the Wild West world of MCI, when they were getting ready to relay the first-ever communication between St. Louis and Chicago--which seems odd to the younger pages here--at the time, Bell companies dominated all telecoms, and we only had those old-style telephones and only one company in an area that offered service. So MCI came in to compete by building their own line between St. Louis and Chicago. One of their investors, Irwin Hirsh, memorialized this great moment, and instead of saying ``Come here, Watson, I need you,'' he said, ``I'll be damned. It actually works.'' But make no mistake--without antitrust law, MCI would never have worked. We would have had no competitors. We would have been stuck in the old Bell operating company world. MCI took on Bell operating company and AT&T and ultimately broke up that monopoly. This breakup lowered long-distance prices for consumers across the country and ushered in an era of amazing innovation and revolutionized the telecom industry and, yes, brought down those long-distance prices. Antitrust may not always make front-page headlines these days, but antitrust enforcement is as important now as it has ever been. It remains vital to the welfare of our country, and we ignore it at our own peril. People often ask me, what does antitrust law have to do with our economy? The answer I always give is, everything. Let me repeat that. Antitrust has everything to do with our broader economy. That is becoming clearer to the American public. People intuitively understand that there is too much industry consolidation in this country. They understand that is not necessarily good for them whether they are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent. They understand that the benefits of big corporate mergers go largely to the merged companies and their investors and not to the public. This highlights the fact that antitrust is not just a subject for competition policy circles or law school classroom discussion or the business section of the newspaper; antitrust policy touches people across our country, and they are beginning to see how important it is to their lives. Two-thirds of Americans have come to believe that the economy unfairly favors powerful interests. Even as our economy stabilizes and grows stronger, it is easy to see why people feel that way. Every year, I go to all 87 counties in my State. Everywhere I go, people tell me that while the job situation has improved since the downturn over the last decade--and, in fact, we need workers for a lot of the jobs that are open in our economy--they are still struggling with the cost of living. In my State, we are fortunate to have a strong economy, but the cost of living is by no means low, and that is true all over the United States. For some, it is rent payments. For others, it is mortgages. For others, it is prescription drugs--and that is actually for almost everyone--and mobile phone service. To many people who dream of starting their own business, that is hard to do when those costs are so high. Anticompetitive mergers and excessive concentration can increase these cost burdens. They may lead these cost burdens, whether it is in the agriculture industry or the cable industry or certainly the pharmaceutical industry, where we see monopoly power over certain kinds of drugs, where we see pharmaceuticals basically, in the words of the President of the United States while he was campaigning, ``able to get away with murder.'' Yet, what are we doing about it? Well, the people would like us to do something about it. They are increasingly realizing that antitrust has everything to do with the prices they pay for goods and services and with the health of our global economy. These are not novel ideas. Think back to trust-busting. Think back to Teddy Roosevelt. Think back to this American entrepreneurial spirit of small companies and individuals being able to compete against each other. That is what our economy is all about in America. When companies are allowed to compete and people are allowed to get into a business, businesses can offer higher quality goods for the lowest possible price. The point I want to emphasize is this: Talking about antitrust in a narrow way is outdated and oversimplified. Antitrust enforcement affects more than price and output. We now have evidence that competition fosters small business growth, reduces inequality, and increases innovation. In short, tackling concentrations of power is a linchpin to a healthy economy and a civil society. With respect to business growth, evidence suggests that it is nearly impossible for new firms to penetrate highly concentrated markets, so ensuring competitive markets is one clear way to help entrepreneurs and small businesses succeed. We all know how important small business growth is to our economy. Research also suggests that concentration increases income inequality. Firms with market power raise prices, which takes money from consumers and puts it in the pockets of the few. Concentration also blunts incentives to innovate. Why would someone innovate if they know they can just keep the product they have, not invest in R&D, not invest in innovation, because they have the only product on the market because no one is competing with them for something better? When there are 8 or 10 competitors, they will try everything to get a leg up on their competition by lowering prices and finding new products that people want. When there are only one or two firms, there is little incentive to make product improvements, develop new products, or certainly bring down those prices. We have to recognize the broader benefits of antitrust enforcement-- especially today, when we are living in a wave of consolidation across industries. Since 2008, American firms have engaged in more than $10 trillion in acquisitions. The last few years have seen a steady increase in mergers reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. But it is not just the number of deals. I recall former Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Bill Baer, a lifelong antitrust lawyer, saying that his agency was reviewing deals that raised such serious antitrust concerns that they should have never made it out of the boardroom. As former chair and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I have raised concerns about several megamerger proposals over the last few years. Look at the Comcast-Time Warner merger proposal. As I pointed out at a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, if the merger had been approved, the combined company would have controlled 60 percent of the country's high-speed and broadband customers. Look at the failed merger between Norfolk Southern Railway and Canadian Pacific--something I took on immediately after it was announced. Even without the merger, 90 percent of freight traffic is still handled by only four railroads. As I pointed out then, this is the same number of railroads on the Monopoly board. Four is what we are down to after having literally 63 of these major railroads years and years ago, then going down to 9, and now we are at only 4. When a State has a lot of rural areas like mine has--we are fifth in the country for ag, and I think of the Presiding Officer's State-- customers or farmers or small businesses that are at the very end of that freight rail line are called captive customers because they are only served in reality by one railroad. They see their rates go up, and they have no other choices. The more numbers are reduced, the more difficult it becomes for people to get good rates so they are able to get their goods to market. It is easier when you are in a highly concentrated market, but it is very hard when you are not. These examples are part of a larger pattern of horizontal consolidation and vertical integration. Those are words you hear only in law school classes or maybe see in the business section of the paper, but that is what is happening. We all know about AT&T's bid to buy Time Warner and the Justice Department lawsuit to block the deal, but that is not all. Sinclair Broadcast Group is trying to buy Tribune Media. Bayer is trying to buy Monsanto. CVS is trying to acquire Aetna. Most recently, T-Mobile signed an agreement to buy Sprint, which would combine two of only four major cell phone carriers in the United States. Again, I note that number of four--the number on the Monopoly board--which would go down further to three. In fact, T-Mobile has been playing a major disrupting role--I mean disruption that is good in terms of bringing down prices. We have all seen the ads with what they are offering. This merger would merge two of those phone companies, and we would be down to only three. More than three-quarters of American adults now own smartphones, including many who depend on these devices for their primary connection to the internet. Many of them don't even have local phone service. Now we will bring their choices for major carriers down to three if this deal goes through. Last October, in anticipation of this transaction, and weeks ago, after it was announced, I sent letters with a number of my colleagues raising antitrust concerns and urging the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to investigate this potential transaction. Today, Senator Lee and I are announcing that we are going to hold a hearing to look at these issues very carefully and very seriously in a bipartisan way in the Antitrust Subcommittee next month. Often, in connection with large mergers, the merging parties and the investment community promise millions, sometimes billions of dollars in efficiencies and cost savings. But after closing, do consumers actually see the promised lower prices or the improved quality? I think the American people deserve an answer to that question. To address these issues, we need aggressive antitrust enforcement. Let's talk about that. Unfortunately, current levels of Federal antitrust enforcement activity are not where they need to be. I take my responsibilities on the Antitrust Subcommittee seriously, and Chairman Lee and I have done a lot of important work together on the subcommittee over the past few years. Also, we are both committed to the professionalism and the independence of the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division. Antitrust and competition are not Republican or Democratic issues; they are consumer issues. We can all agree that robust competition is essential to our free market economy. In light of this consensus, the enormous economic consequences of lax antitrust enforcement, and the current merger wave, these issues require our urgent attention. Let me explain. Our economy, in terms of nominal GDP, has increased by 30 percent between 2010 and 2017, and annual merger filings have almost doubled during that time. At the same time, our antitrust agencies' budgets have been held flat. As a result, agencies are only able to litigate cases involving the most highly concentrated markets. This limits the attention they pay to closer or more difficult cases. Despite these constraints, agencies are doing what they can, but we need to do more. Giving agencies the resources to pursue the harder cases will pay real dividends to our economy. When I say resources, I also mean the legal tools necessary to protect competition. When it comes to mergers, the protections in the Clayton Act--that is the antitrust law--have slowly been eroded. Over time, we have seen a systemic underenforcement of our competition laws. The result has been even larger mergers and more concentrated industries, and American consumers are taking notice. We need to give our agencies the legal tools to push back. That is why I have introduced two major antitrust bills over the last year. The first will give our antitrust agencies the resources they need to protect competition. Now, this is not coming off the backs of taxpayers because, as I have already explained, they are already having to foot the bill for a lot of these mergers in terms of higher prices. This bill would, in fact, update merger filing fees for the first time since 2001. Think of how many years that is and how the competitive landscape and the merger landscape have changed during those 17 years. This bill would lower the burden on small and medium-sized businesses for their filing fees and ensure that larger deals, where we are seeing all of these activities--these billion-dollar deals where they hire so many lawyers that there are more lawyers on those deals than there are Senators' desks in this room--have fees on businesses that would raise enough revenues so taxpayers could foot less of the bill for merger review. I am not talking about an across-the-board business tax. I am talking about higher fees on those businesses--major businesses, huge businesses--that are seeking to merge and reap the benefits. If their lawyers can get all kinds of bonuses for getting the deals through, at least the taxpayers should be getting the bonus of being able to know that someone is looking out for them in reviewing these deals. Effective enforcement also depends on feedback. As the size of mergers have grown, so have the complexities of merger settlements. A question for modern enforcement is whether some proposed mergers are simply too big to fix. Agencies can make better enforcement decisions if they understand what has worked in the past. So my bill gives the agencies the tools to assess whether merger consent decrees have in fact been successful. Have all those promises we hear at the hearings or we see in writing or we read about in the business pages really come to fruition? In addition, we need a better understanding of the effects of market consolidation on our economy. That is why we need to study the effects of mergers on wages, employment, innovation, and new business formation. We also must give our antitrust agencies and courts the legal tools necessary to protect competition. That is why my second bill, the Consolidation Prevention and Competition Promotion Act, would restore the Clayton Act's original purpose of promoting competition by updating our legal standards so our legal standards are as sophisticated as the companies that are proposing these mergers and the kinds of mergers they are proposing. My bill clarifies that we can prevent mergers that reduce choice, foreclose competition through vertical consolidation, stifle innovation, or create monopsony. OK, that is a great word you would hear in law school classrooms, but what does it mean? Well, it means where a buyer has the power to reduce wages or prices. It also creates a more stringent legal standard to stop harmful consolidation and shifts the burden for megamergers so the parties involved in the deal have to prove the merger does not harm competition. So what we are talking about here is when a big company buys another and then has that power to make it so that the other competitors aren't really going to be able to compete with the company that they bought, because this huge company might have the ability to bring down prices or do things temporarily to the point that they get other people out of the market or they hurt the others to the extent that you then don't have real competition, and that is what they are doing. Let me be clear. Big by itself is not necessarily bad, and large mergers do not always harm consumers. My home State of Minnesota now has 19 Fortune 500 companies, and we all benefit from the fact that the largest and most successful companies in the world are American companies. If we want the success to continue, our new businesses must have the same opportunities to grow as the businesses that came before them. Target, one of my favorite companies based in my State, started as a dry goods store in a small pedestrian mall that is now a big one in Minnesota, way, way back. That is a true story. And 3M, a big company out of my State, started as a sandpaper company. OK, so we have to make sure these small companies continue to grow and are able to compete, but that is not going to happen if we shove them out. Our new businesses must have those same opportunities. Promoting competition and preventing excessive industry consolidation is the way we encourage this country's next big idea. Take Trader Joe's, JetBlue, and Starbucks. These companies started small, but they were able to get a foothold in the market and succeed because our antitrust laws prevented large, established competitors from limiting their growth. As a result, the American people get better products and services. These bills will simply ensure that the next American business success story is possible. They will allow entrepreneurs and innovators to succeed in open, competitive markets. We can do this, and we should do this. It doesn't take a miracle. It just takes people acknowledging what has made our economy strong in America. Antitrust law and policy are not always front and center in our debates, but they should be. The proposals in these bills will improve the lives of businesses and people across the country. Protecting competition speaks to the basic principles of opportunity and fairness. It speaks to the simple notion that companies with the best ideas and the most innovative products will have a chance to rise to the top based on their own merits, and the reality is that these principles are at risk. We are currently experiencing a dramatic increase in both the number and size of mergers. As our markets and technologies evolve, our agencies and courts are less able to address this increased concentration and the really big guys like it that way. That is why we have to stand up in this Chamber for the American people. We cannot wait any longer. We need vigorous antitrust enforcement. We need to improve the tools and the resources that those who are trying, at least, to put a modicum of enforcement in place are able to exercise. Our economy depends on it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, thanks to my friends from West Virginia and Indiana. I thank Mr. Donnelly for his leadership and bringing us together today. Minnesota, like Indiana, has so many people who are in the Central States Pension Fund. Like Senator Donnelly, I believe that promises made should be promises kept. Over 10 million Americans participate in a multiemployer pension plan and rely on those benefits for a safe and secure retirement. The Central States Pension Fund was established in 1955 to help truckers save for retirement. As Senator Donnelly knows, coming from Indiana--a State where there are a lot of truckers--there are a lot of truckers still in this pension plan. Today the Central States Pension Fund includes workers from the carhaul, tankhaul, pipeline, warehouse, construction, clerical, food processing, dairy, and trucking industries. I have heard from people all over my State. Fred, from Hibbing, worked 33 years as a bread man and serves as a caregiver for his wife who has serious back problems and was recently diagnosed with leukemia. Daniel from St. Michael worked over 41 years as a mechanic. If he were to face a reduction in his pension, he would likely be forced to sell the house he has lived in since 1973. Sue, from Elk River, wrote about her husband Jim, who retired in 1998 and passed away in 2013. Jim left Sue a spousal benefit pension that was supposed to take care of her for the rest of her life. Sue writes that Jim's passing was ``devastating enough on its own,'' but now she fears being forced into the labor market as a woman in her seventies, just to make ends meet. These are just a few of the examples. Unless Congress acts, hundreds of thousands of participants in the Central States Pension Fund face the real possibility that their hard-earned pensions could be reduced. Many of these are from the Midwest. That is why it is called the Central States Pension Fund. We need to find a workable solution for underfunded multiemployer pension plans. I know Senator Brown is leading a group that is working on that--the joint committee working together--to find a solution they can present to the American people. We all know that delay only makes the solution more costly. The time is here. It has arrived. We can't put it off any more. We must move forward now to get this done. I thank Senator Donnelly for his leadership.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today to join Senator Markey to talk about the importance of strong internet neutrality protections. He also came to Minnesota this past month and was able to meet with a number of our small businesses, including a woman who started a business making children's clothes and who saw growth because of the internet. He met people who never would have had that opportunity if we didn't have net neutrality. Today we took a major step forward on this issue by forcing the Senate to hold a vote on legislation to save net neutrality. I believe, in the end, we will have the votes to get this done. It will send an important message that the internet should remain free, open, and equal to all who use it. It will then be considered, we would hope, by the House because our goal is to actually get this done. Why? Because net neutrality is the bedrock of a fair, fast, open, and global internet. It holds internet service providers accountable for providing the internet access consumers expect while protecting innovation and competition. It is also one reason the internet has become one of the great American success stories, transforming not only how we communicate with family and friends but also the way companies do business, how consumers buy goods, and how we educate our kids. At its best, it is an equalizing force because it means kids on Tribal lands in Minnesota or kids that are in extreme rural areas are going to be able to access the same classes as people in urban areas. It means that a small business in Ada, MN, is going to be able to sell their goods on the internet just like one of our big companies in the Twin Cities, like Target or Best Buy. It is an equalizing force. Earlier this year, the FCC approved Chairman Pai's plan, unfortunately, to eliminate net neutrality protections. Despite the millions of comments from the American people asking the FCC to protect a fair and open internet--not to mention a half million comments from Russian emails--the FCC voted in December to move forward with Chairman Pai's plan to end net neutrality. Under Chairman Pai's plan, the FCC gives major internet service providers the ability to significantly change consumers' experiences online. Big internet service providers may soon be able to block, slow, and prioritize web traffic for their own financial gain. They could begin sorting online traffic into fast or slow lanes and charging consumers extra for high-speed broadband. Internet service providers could even block content they don't want their subscribers to access because they would prefer other content that might benefit them financially. The only protections maintained under the proposed order are requirements for service providers to disclose their internet traffic policies. But for consumers with only one choice for internet service, like so many in my rural areas in Minnesota, there is no real opportunity to comparison shop or find a new provider if they are unhappy. So that provision is of little help. This means that even though consumers may be aware that their internet service provider is blocking or slowing their connection, they have no choice because they have no alternative. According to the FCC, more than 24 million Americans still lack high- speed broadband. We should be focusing our efforts on helping those households get connected, not eliminating net neutrality and worsening the digital divide. But this isn't just about individual internet users. It will limit competition, and that is why it is also about small businesses. A truly open internet encourages economic growth and provides opportunities for businesses to reach new markets, drive innovation, and create jobs. Small businesses remain engines of job creation, and net neutrality levels the playing field. In one company I toured in Ada--this is a great example--a woman started this business at her kitchen table. She had such bad internet access in Ada that she has to have her 2-person sales force located in Fargo--and that is a long way away. But if you look at her whole business model, it is about marketing on the internet. She has taken that business from the kitchen table to one that has 20 employees and is shipping her products--that would be chain jewelry--all over the country. Well, without unrestricted access to the internet, entrepreneurs may be forced to pay for equal footing to compete online. So if it isn't bad enough that she doesn't have access right where her business is and has to have her employees located off campus--way over, actually in another State--now, if you get rid of net neutrality, she will not be able to have an even playing field at all. She will be in the slow lane. This proposal will hurt the very people creating jobs and keeping our economy competitive. That is why I have joined my colleagues who push for a vote on Senator Markey's resolution to repeal Chairman Pai's plan and protect net neutrality rules. Over the next few days, we need to keep the pressure on because the vote will have a major impact on the future of the internet. This repeal is part of a larger trend of helping large companies push out their competition. The fight to protect net neutrality is far from over, and we need to make our voices heard. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak about our country's third branch of government--our courts--as well as to express my opposition to the nomination of Michael Brennan to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am very disappointed that the Senate has decided to abandon the blue-slip tradition for circuit court judges. The blue-slip policy held true throughout the entirety of the previous administration, including when Republicans ran the Senate and when Democrats ran the Senate. This is for good reason. The blue slip is a key check and balance. In my view, it has promoted cooperation, as well as resulted in better decision making for judges across party lines. Senators have a solemn obligation to advise and consent on the President's nominees to the Federal courts, and I take that obligation very seriously. I know my colleague Senator Baldwin also takes that responsibility very seriously. That is why she had a bipartisan process in place through which she worked with Senator Johnson in an effort to produce consensus nominees. This nominee did not gain sufficient support from the Wisconsin judicial nominations commission. So it is unfortunate that we are considering his nomination on the Senate floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize 1st Lt. Robert Frank Niemann, an American hero from New Ulm, MN, who served honorably in the U.S. Air Force as a member of the 334th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing, South Korea. North Korean forces shot down First Lieutenant Niemann's plane on April 12, 1953, and 1 year later, he was still missing and declared killed in action. Forty years later, new information revealed that First Lieutenant Niemann was captured by North Korean forces and was questioned by Soviet intelligence officers. He refused to answer their questions, emphasizing that it was a violation of international laws to interrogate a wounded prisoner of war. First Lieutenant Niemann's strength of character in the face of enemy soldiers was truly heroic. While he is still listed as missing in action and his status is still unknown, his family and loved ones are seeking closure. First Lieutenant Niemann made the ultimate sacrifice defending our county. His daughter, Ann, has planned a memorial tribute in his honor on May 12, 2018. Occasions like this one are a powerful reminder of the contributions of the brave men and women who have donned the uniform in generations past. We must never forget their sacrifice. Please join me in honoring the service and sacrifice of 1st Lt. Robert Frank Niemann.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State. After closely reviewing Mr. Pompeo's record and past statements, I have concluded that he is not the right person to serve as Secretary of State. While I respect him and will work closely with him, I cannot support his nomination. The world continues to look to America for our leadership on diplomacy and bringing our allies together. That includes upholding international agreements, such as the Paris accord, which Mr. Pompeo has opposed. It also includes respect for people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, and Mr. Pompeo's past statements about Muslims and immigrants greatly concern me. While I voted in favor of confirming Mr. Pompeo to be the Director of the CIA and thank him for his service, Secretary of State is a different job with different responsibilities. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to remember a Minnesota icon, and that would be Prince, whom we lost 2 years ago. Prince was a one-of-a-kind artist, fiercely independent, and uniquely talented. I grew up with his music. For Minnesotans, Prince was our superstar next door. He made ``Purple Rain'' a household name, First Avenue a landmark, and brought international fame to Minnesota's music scene. Minnesota loves Prince, and Prince loved Minnesota. He was born in Minneapolis in 1958 and developed an interest in music at an early age. He wrote his first song at just 7 years old and recorded his early demo tapes at Sound 80 Studios in Minneapolis. With seven Grammy Awards, an Academy Award, and a Golden Globe Award, he pioneered that ``Minneapolis sound,'' that mix of funk, rock, and pop that emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s and influenced music for decades to come. From Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis to Janet Jackson and Bruno Mars--even Beyonce--so many artists have been influenced by Prince's music and his heart. Over his career, Prince sold more than 100 million records worldwide, released 39 studio albums, had 5 No. 1 billboard hits, and 40 singles in the top 100 songs. In 2004, Prince was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame the very first year he was eligible. And 6 years later, he received a Black Entertainment Television Lifetime Achievement Award. Despite all of his success, Prince never stopped calling the State of Minnesota home. He lived in our State, and he never lost the sense that he was a beloved son, neighbor, and Minnesotan. He wrote songs about Minnesota sports teams, including ``Purple and Gold'' during the Minnesota Viking's run to the 2010 National Football Conference Championship. When the Minnesota Lynx won their third Women's National Basketball Association Championship, Prince held a concert in their honor. When Prince passed away on April 21, 2016, he left behind millions of fans and a legacy of music that touched hearts, opened minds, and made people all over the world want to dance. I am proud to honor Prince's life and his achievements as a musician, a composer, an innovator, and a cultural icon, and I am proud to call his home, Minnesota, my home as well. Prince reminded us all that there's a world waiting for us after this life: A world of never-ending happiness You can always see the sun, day or night. I am sure that is where Prince is today. On Saturday, the anniversary, purple will reign again.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, this is a very focused topic and I will just be a few minutes. I rise today to discuss S. Res. 463, which is a resolution that Senator Blunt and I just discharged from the Rules Committee that will help new parents--specifically, Senator parents--to bring their infant children onto the Senate floor. It hasn't been brought to the Senate floor yet, but I thought I would give an update and explain the importance and really the historic nature of this resolution. As my colleagues know, this month Senator Duckworth made history when she gave birth to her beautiful daughter Maile Pearl. Senator Duckworth has made history in many ways but, among other things, she is the first sitting U.S. Senator to give birth while in office. Some have pointed out that it is remarkable that it took so long to have a Senator who gave birth while in office, and I think it does speak to the fact that while we are a growing number of women in Congress, there are still not that many, and it is changing. We currently now have 23 women Senators, which is an all-time record--more than at any time in history. We are seeing record levels of women run for office. It is inevitable that in the future more women will have kids during their time in the Senate. So in this way, we are simply anticipating what we see as the future, and it is on us to make this a better workplace before they get here. I think workplaces across America are making, and have made, those same kinds of adjustments and decisions. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I recognize that this means that some of our outdated rules--and Senator Blunt as the chair realizes this as well--that were developed without considering the changing needs in the workplace must be changed. Senator Duckworth has taken the lead, and her resolution is an important part of that change. As she prepared to give birth, Senator Duckworth did what many moms do. She started to come up with a plan for how to juggle her family and her work. Like too many other moms in the United States, she came to realize that there were problems in her workplace for accommodating new moms. Senators have important constitutional obligations related to their service, the most fundamental among them being voting on legislation. The Senate rules require Senators to vote in person. We have no intention of changing that. They must vote on the Senate floor, and no one can do it for them. Right now, unlike in the House, children are not allowed on the Senate floor. That means that in order to fulfill her Senate obligation, Senator Duckworth would have to leave her baby for extended periods in order to come in and vote. Sometimes that would be just fine. She would have childcare. Her husband would be there. But as we all know, there are times when we vote late into the night, when we vote at unpredictable times, and it doesn't work for a mom with a newborn. So what did Senator Duckworth do? She called for legislation to change the rules so that Senators can bring their infants on the floor during votes, and we worked to come up with a workable proposal. I am proud to say that this week, the Senate Rules Committee swiftly discharged the legislation so that it can be passed by the full Senate, because that is what working moms do. They stick together and they get the job done. Sticking together means recognizing that we have a lot of work to do inside the Halls of Congress. The truth is too many American moms aren't in positions of power to change the rules, which is why it is so important for those of us who are in positions of power to be champions of change, not just here in the Senate but in workplaces across the country. It is wrong that America is the only industrialized country without a law that requires paid maternity leave, and it is wrong that only 10 percent of American employers offer workers full pay during parental leave. The lack of parental leave, coupled with the cost of childcare, has a profound impact on our economy and on our society, and it is one of the reasons, I believe, why there are not enough women in power. We must do better. Adopting Senator Duckworth's resolution represents a small step forward. In fact, it is one baby forward. In answer to some of the questions that I got in the hallway, no, there will not be wardrobe requirements of the baby, and, no, we do not believe the baby will be required to wear a Senate pin. Somehow, I think we will be able to adjust to this simple notion to allow a child--an infant--on the floor for the first year of life. That is why I am hopeful that this will inspire further change both inside and outside of Congress. In addition to the support of all of the women Senators, I would like to thank Chairman Blunt, Leaders McConnell and Schumer, and Senator Durbin, Senator Duckworth's colleague, who all played an instrumental role in getting this resolution to the floor. Women may be leading the charge, but there are a lot of good men who have had our backs, and that is a good thing, because we need to work together as we continue to fight for more family-friendly workplaces. Finally, I would like to thank the one who did all the work, Senator Duckworth, who continues to serve our country with courage and strength, for paving the way. Maile Pearl is very lucky to have Senator Duckworth as a mom, and I look forward to meeting her here on the Senate floor during a future round of votes. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today for a number of reasons, but first and most pressing is to call on and ask the administration to extend deferred enforced departure status for a group of Liberians. This is a unique situation. Senator Jack Reed was on the floor in the last hour talking about it as well. Both the State of Rhode Island and the State of Minnesota have a number of Liberians who didn't just come to this country--they didn't come to this country illegally--they came to this country decades ago. They came because of a civil war in their country of Liberia, and then after that war was basically resolved, they were allowed to stay. So they are all registered in this country, they are working legally in this country, and they are in a special status called deferred enforced departure. Ever since George H.W. Bush, Presidents--Democrats and Republicans; George Bush, of course, President Clinton, and President Obama--every one has allowed them to stay. As my colleagues can imagine, since this happened back in 1991, these are people who have been working in our country for decades now. I met one who is 65 years old. Some of them are now 70 years old. They have obeyed the law. They have paid their taxes. They tend to be working in a lot of--of course, consistently--working in our assisted living facilities in Minnesota. They are working in our hospitals. Some of them had healthcare experience in Liberia before they came to Minnesota. They are a thriving community that has integrated well into our State and into Rhode Island. We are a State where the unemployment rate is somewhere around 3 percent and even lower in some of the areas where this community is working. It would literally be a big jolt to our economy--and not to mention immoral--if they were suddenly deported and lost the legal status they have had for literally decades. Unlike some of the other things we talk about with people who maybe just came here--and I worked so hard on the Dreamers, to get them a path to citizenship--this is a pretty unique situation. We hope the administration will be practical about this. That is why Senator Reed and I are working on this issue. We hope to get it resolved quickly since their status is ending on March 31, which is just a few weeks from now. Liberians are the only group of people and it is the only country with deferred enforced departure--or DED, as it is known--which is a temporary legal status that requires the President to reauthorize it every 18 months. One idea is that the President could reauthorize it, and then they could look into it more. As we know, there is a lot going on in our country. There are a lot of changes right now within the Office of the Secretary of State and other things. So one idea would be that they could simply allow the program to continue for 18 months and then come to a conclusion on what they think they should do about it. As I mentioned, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush first issued temporary protected status to Liberians in response to the nation's civil war. Since 1991, Presidents on both sides of the aisle have extended legal protection to Liberians in the United States under either TPS or DED--deferred enforced departure--because of civil wars, the Ebola outbreak, and other instabilities in their country. All Liberians covered by DED have been living in the United States since 2002. This isn't, as I said, new people coming in under that status; these are people who have been living here with that status for decades. As I mentioned, some are now in their seventies, and all of them have lived here legally. They have paid their taxes and contributed to our communities and worked at our employers. If DED is not extended by March 31, they will lose their legal status and work authorization and face deportation. Minnesota, as I mentioned, has one of the largest Liberian populations in the country. Many of these people are business owners. They are teachers. They are healthcare workers. According to one organization, nearly 40 percent of Liberians in Minnesota work in our nursing homes as nursing assistants and other support staff. Imagine if we took thousands of people away just like that on March 31, because they wouldn't have legal status to work at the nursing homes where they have worked for decades. I have also called for action on the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act--a bill that Senator Reed has introduced every Congress since 1999--and I have cosponsored this bill. The bill would actually provide permanent protected status, including a path to citizenship, for those Liberians who have obeyed the law and have been here in this temporary status for decades. That is not what we are asking for today. We understand and we hope that negotiations are ongoing so that we can have a more comprehensive immigration bill. We are simply asking the administration to continue with the 18-month status that was started back in 1991 by a Republican President. I met with a number of members of our Liberian community yesterday. They are experiencing extreme fear right now that their livelihoods will be lost and their families will be ripped apart. I am hopeful that we will be able to resolve this, at least for that temporary 18-month period. Support Our Military Spouses Act Secondly, Madam President, on a different topic, I want to take a moment to discuss a bipartisan bill that I introduced this week that would help reduce the burden of relocation for military families. When servicemembers relocate to comply with military orders, they and their families make sacrifices to help protect our Nation. Right now, there is a problem with the way the law treats some military spouses who make frequent moves, and the law, ironically, makes it even harder on them rather than easier on them. Current law allows Active-Duty servicemembers to maintain one State of legal residence for tax and voting purposes even when military orders require them to relocate. That makes moving a lot easier. Unfortunately, this convenience does not apply to a servicemember's spouse unless they were living together at the same residence before they got married. In other words, if you were not living with your servicemember before you got married, you have to establish residency every single time your family gets moving orders from the military. From filing taxes to registering to vote, a military family then has double the paperwork and stress each time they move. This is a loophole that must be fixed. Why would we make it harder for the spouses of those who are making a sacrifice by having their loved one serve overseas and not make it easier for them to vote and to pay their taxes and to basically be the citizen they deserve to be? That is why, on Tuesday, Senators Cornyn, Kaine, Kennedy, Manchin, and I introduced the Support Our Military Spouses Act--legislation that would ensure that spouses have the same residency protections regardless of their living arrangements before marriage. From titling a car, to filing taxes, to registering to vote, everything is a little easier when the law ensures that you can stay a resident of one State and that it is the same State as your spouse's. That is just common sense, and it cuts out a lot of redtape for military families. The bill has the support of the Military Spouses Network, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Council of State Governments. This bill passed the House in July of 2017 with bipartisan support, and I am going to work with my cosponsors to get it done in the Senate. We ask a lot of our military members and their families. When we can make life easier for them, we should. This is one simple thing we can do. Honest Ads Act Finally, Madam President, I would like to mention the sanctions that were just announced against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. It took 14 months, multiple indictments, and a poisoning in Britain, but the administration is finally imposing sanctions--the same sanctions that were passed by the Senate 98 to 2 and 419 to 3 in the House last year. Sanctioning Russia for undermining our democracy is what we should do, but we must remember that it is not enough to protect ourselves from future attacks. There is no longer any doubt that our elections will continue to be a target for foreign adversaries. Intelligence reports make it clear that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to attack our political system. Trump administration officials--not Obama officials, Trump intelligence officials--continue to sound the alarm that Russia is continuing its efforts to attack our democracy. The CIA Director said that he has seen no signs that Russia has decreased its activity and that Russia is currently working to disrupt the upcoming 2018 elections. National Intelligence Director Coats, who was once a Senator here, said that Russia is bolder. It would be a mistake to think the sanctions passed today are all we need to do to address these warnings. They will no doubt help because if you do nothing, then you just embolden them to do more. It is the policy of the United States to defend against and respond to cyber threats to our democratic system, and we need to start acting like it. We need to be as sophisticated as those who are trying to do us harm. We know that Russia attempted to hack into 21 States' election systems. In Illinois, they actually got into the voter data system. That is why Senator Lankford and I have led a bill to take an amount of money which is just 3 percent of one aircraft carrier and invest it in our States, to let them, on a decentralized basis, make their own decisions about the kind of equipment they want and to be able to upgrade it. Forty of our States have not upgraded their equipment in 10 years. Ten of our States do not even have backup paper ballots. What would happen if they were hacked, as they got so close the last time? There would be no way to prove what actually happened. You would have to vote again. That is why we have Democrats and Republicans supporting this effort. Representative Mark Meadows, the head of the Freedom Caucus, is leading the bill that Senator Graham and I have--which is similar to the one I have with Senator Lankford--over in the House. Senator Coons from the Appropriations Committee has been a strong supporter of this effort, as have Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Graham, and a number of other people. This is a truly bipartisan effort because people understand that it is no longer going to be only traditional ways of warfare when we are attacked; it is going to be cyber. It is not going to be just election infrastructure. It is not going to be just government infrastructure. It is going to be our businesses, power companies--you name it. That is why we need to upgrade our cyber protection. The last thing I would mention on this front, as we look to the next election and how we are going to protect our democracy, is the Honest Ads Act. This is a bill I have with Senator McCain, also cosponsored by Senator Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is based on the fact that we know Russia spent millions of dollars buying ads. That was reflected in the indictment of 13 Russians and what they did and how they plotted to disrupt elections and to spend money on political ads. A number of these ads were even purchased in rubles. What Senator McCain and Senator Warner and I are trying to do is simply apply the same rules already in place to protect Americans in our elections by making sure that we know who is paying for the ads and what those ads are. Who is paying for the ads--those are the simple disclaimers you see on the ads where they say, whoever the candidate is, I paid for this ad. Who discloses the ads--that is simply when any radio station or TV station--you can go into the station or see it online and see what the ads are. That is not true right now of some of the most sophisticated companies, if not the most sophisticated companies, in America, companies like Facebook and Twitter, which have made millions and billions of dollars, companies that are profiting off of political ads. It is no different from when a newspaper or a TV station allows someone to buy an ad. They make money off it, so it is their duty to protect the citizens, to make sure that the ads don't contain falsehoods, that the ads are not criminal, that the ads are known to everyone. That is all we are trying to do, is to apply the same rules of the game to what you see when you see political ads on issues or candidate ads. The FEC did something just yesterday--but it was very narrow--about candidate ads. So what you see on candidate ads and issue ads--that you also see those same disclaimers and, most importantly, the disclosure on ads that are on social media companies. And I use those words carefully--``media companies.'' Newspaper print and radio--we love them--are media companies. Facebook and Twitter--we love them--are media companies. We are not talking about recipes and cat videos. We are not talking about free stuff that people put up. We are talking about paid political ads that need to be treated the same. While we are pleased that these sanctions have been put in place, while it is good that the FEC is narrowly trying to do something within their jurisdiction about disclaimers on candidate ads, we must pass the Honest Ads Act, because if we think it was bad last election when $1.4 billion was spent on election ads, try this next one out: Forecasts are that $3 billion to $4 billion is going to be spent on social media ads against candidates on issues, and there is no way to track it. It is just going to go out to your Facebook page. You are not going to know if it is true, you are not going to know who paid for it, and the ads will just vanish. I think Americans deserve something better, and I ask my colleagues to support the Honest Ads Act. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, these are the names of 17 children who were killed with guns in my State. I will read their first names only because it makes us remember they could be anyone's children. Lisa Marie, age 15; William Robert, age 15; Anthony, age 16; Jacob Alexander, age 14; Joseph Anthony, age 17; Terrell, age 3; Joshua Albert, age 15; Alisha, age 17; Jesse, age 18; Cedric, age 18; Darion Joseph, age 15; Justin Daniel, age 17; Jennifer Ellen, age 17; David Andre, age 17; Tabitha Lee, age 16; Terrence, age 16; Anthony Michael, age 3. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. While I would welcome regulatory reform for the small banks and credit unions in Minnesota that didn't cause the financial crisis, I'm concerned that this bill is a missed opportunity to improve consumer protection and that it reduces the regulatory oversight of larger banks, which could increase systemic risk in the financial system and put taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts. I have long believed that Minnesota's community banks and credit unions play a vital role in our communities and are deserving of regulatory relief. I was one of the first Democrats to support legislative action in past Congresses and helped develop and champion numerous proposals for reform for the community banks and credit unions. Unfortunately, title IV of the bill, especially section 401, which raises the asset threshold for enhanced supervision from $50 billion all the way to $250 billion, goes too far and threatens to increase systemic risk. The community banks and credit unions in Minnesota with which I have spoken in recent weeks have acknowledged they would have preferred a bill that was limited to regulation that directly affected them, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to cast a vote in favor of such a bill, but I will not vote in favor of this bill. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse on the day of his 200th weekly climate change floor speech. We came in the same class. So I have been a witness to this. For years he has come to the floor every week that the Senate is in session, often to an empty Chamber, to speak on this critical issue. He has been a leader and an unwavering voice on climate change, calling for action week after week and, I think, that is why so many of us are here tonight. Two hundred speeches is truly a milestone, and you can just look at the wear and tear of his ``Time to Wake Up'' floor sign to know that this actually happened. Not only does Senator Whitehouse come to the floor to talk about this issue and to share new data and information with all of us on the need to act now, but I have also seen him take on climate change deniers as a member when I was on both the Environment and Public Works Committee and also on the Judiciary Committee. I have experienced his dedication to moving the needle on this issue as a member of the Senate Climate Action Task Force that he has led for several years. I have been part of the meetings where he has pulled together Senators and advocacy group leaders to strategize on how to move forward on legislation and meetings where he has brought together Senators and private sector leaders, such as Greg Page, the former CEO of Cargill, to talk about how we change the private dialogue about sustainability in supply chains. He is truly committed to finding solutions, and I am pleased to join him tonight for his 200th speech. People talk about climate in many places in my State--from hunters and snowmobilers in Northern Minnesota to business leaders in the Twin Cities, to students at the University of Minnesota. When President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the climate change agreement this summer--the worldwide, international climate change agreement--I heard an outpouring of concern. Now, 195 countries made a pledge to come together to combat climate change. In withdrawing, the United States was one of only three countries that wouldn't be in the agreement. The other two were Syria and Nicaragua. Then, Syria and Nicaragua signed the accord. So now the United States is the only country not to sign the accord. It is a big step backward. It is the wrong decision for our economy, and it is the wrong decision for the environment. As military and security experts have reminded us, climate change is a threat to our national security, increasing the risks of conflict, humanitarian crisis--as we have already seen because of droughts, with subsistence farmers in Africa coming up as refugees--and damage to crucial and critical infrastructure. I am a former prosecutor, and I believe in evidence. Every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage climate change is already causing. Minnesota may be miles away from rising oceans, but the impacts are not less of a real threat in the Midwest--more severe weather, heat waves that could release our water supply, extreme rainfall that could damage critical infrastructure, and a decrease in agricultural productivity. It goes on and on. It has an impact on the Great Lakes and people respond. We are going to keep talking about the importance of making a global commitment and an American commitment to address climate change. We should not be the last one in. We should be the first one. This is a great nation with a history of Democrats and Republicans coming together to conserve our land and care about our environment. We are going to keep pushing climate change deniers on their facts, and we are going to keep working on policies that encourage energy efficiency, renewable energy, and a decrease in greenhouse gasses. Many of the businesses in Minnesota, such as Cargill, which I already mentioned in the lead, have taken on this cause. They know that when they have business all over the world, it matters. They know that it matters to their shareholders, it matters to their employees, and it matters to their customers. They also know that we deal with the rest of the world, and when businesses go to meetings in other countries, they don't want to hear: Well, I guess your country is not in the climate change agreement and China is; so maybe we will buy our stuff from China. That is what people are hearing at business meetings. We need to be a part of the Paris climate change agreement, and we need to lead the way in the United States. In the last administration, we had some commonsense policies put forth to reduce greenhouse gasses, but this administration has pulled back on them. I disagree. I think we could have made that work. Even though we are not seeing the action we would like out of this administration, we are seeing it in cities, in States, in businesses, and universities. They have said: If this administration doesn't do it, we will. So I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership and let all of those listening to this series of speeches and tributes to doing something about climate change in his 200th speech tonight know that there are those in this Chamber who stand with you and believe in science and believe that we need to do something about climate change. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise tonight to join my colleagues in speaking to the need to immediately respond to Russian interference. I would like to thank Senator Whitehouse for bringing us together. This evening, many of my colleagues have spoken about how Russian aggression affects Americans and our allies across the world. Some have discussed the need for sanctions to defer Russia and the fact that the administration has not yet imposed sanctions, the same sanctions that were passed by the Senate 98 to 2 and 419 to 3 in the House of Representatives. Those were the additional sanctions that were directly related to the interference in the elections and what we saw take place over the last year. They sit dormant. Others have talked about the importance of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and the fact that it must move forward without interference from the White House. Nearly a dozen Senators have come to the floor to highlight the need to stand up to Russia. I am here to talk about the critical need to safeguard the most fundamental part of our democracy--the U.S. elections. Today, I heard the Prime Minister of Sweden address our Nation. When standing next to the President, he was asked a question about this, and he put it simply. He said that in their country, they believe that the people, the citizens of their country, should be the ones who make the decisions about their elections, that they are the ones who should be able to vote, that they are the ones who should be able to have their own opinions not be influenced by foreign countries acting as if they are people in their country. It is the Presiding Officer who made the statement that I have quoted so many times--that in the last election, it was one candidate and one party, and in the next election, it could be the other candidate and the other party. We do not come here in a partisan way. We come here because the clock is ticking. Today marks an important day in the 2018 election cycle. Texas is holding the first State primary, and others begin in the coming weeks, including in Illinois. Illinois was one of 21 States that the Russians attempted to hack into--Illinois, where they actually hacked into their voter data, which is the personal information about their voters. Those elections are coming. We are glad that we have a decentralized system so that they have different systems. It is easier to hack into one centralized system. It also means that they have many things to choose from, and we have 40 States that haven't updated their equipment in over 10 years. We have 10 States that don't even have backup paper ballots, and we sit here doing nothing when the solution is right in front of us. Over the course of the last year, I have come to the floor a number of times to urge this body to take immediate action to beef up our election cybersecurity. There is no longer any doubt that our elections have been and will continue to be a target for foreign adversaries. Intelligence reports make it clear that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to attack our political system. I mentioned the attempts on 21 State election systems. Do you know when the real election--the general election--is? It is 245 days away, with primaries beginning today. We have not imposed the sanctions--the administration hasn't--despite this body's taking firm action that we wanted to see these sanctions imposed. We have had six security heads from this administration--not from the Obama administration; they already spoke out on this. The head of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the head of the FBI have all testified before U.S. Senate committees that, in fact, this is happening now. It was Director Coats, who was once a Senator here, who said that, in fact, he believes the Russians are getting bolder. These are not the words of Obama's security people. These are the words of Trump's security people. Last week, NSA Director Rogers said this about Russia: ``They haven't paid a price at least that is sufficient to get them to change their behavior.'' Earlier this year, CIA Director Pompeo said that he has seen no signs that Russia has decreased its activity and that Russia is currently working to disrupt the upcoming 2018 elections. It is the policy of the United States of America to defend against and respond to threats to our Nation. This is a cyber attack. It is not with bullets, and it is not with tanks. It is not with aircraft, but it is an attack. It is, simply, using the computer system. In every briefing that I have gone to, this is always listed as one of the major ways in which foreign adversaries are going to attack our Nation--they are going to use the internet. Here we have it happening right here on our very democracy, itself. In order to protect our election system, we need to do three key things. First, we must give State and local officials the tools and resources they need to prevent hacks and safeguard election infrastructure from foreign interference. They need those resources now, not after the election, not after the primaries. Today, more than 40 States, as I mentioned, rely on electronic voting systems that are at least 10 years old. Do you think the Russians don't know that? Do you think I am giving away some state secret here? Of course they know that. Ten years ago, on February 6, 2008, it was Super Tuesday for the 2008 Presidential election. A lot has changed in the last 10 years but not our voting equipment. It has remained the same. That is why I am leading bipartisan legislation with Senator Lankford. This is a bipartisan effort. We also appreciate our cosponsors Senators Harris, Graham, Collins, and Heinrich. We call this bill the Secure Elections Act. It would provide $386 million in grant funding for States to secure their elections systems. It is paid for. We found a pay-for. We have a similar bill that is led by Congressman Meadows in the House--the head of the Freedom Caucus--because they understand that freedom is not cheap, that to guarantee freedom, you must have a secure democracy, and $386 million is just 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. I think most Americans would agree that, as we see more and more sophisticated types of warfare happening, to not even pay attention to helping the States fund this election equipment that has been woefully underfunded is a huge mistake. The second thing that we need to do--by the way we can do this now. We can do this in the omnibus bill. The second thing we need to do is improve information sharing so that local election officials know when they are attacked and how to respond. It took the Federal Government nearly a year to notify these 21 States that were targeted by Russian- backed hackers. That cannot happen again. Finally, we need a reliable backup system. I am talking about paper backup ballots--the old-fashioned way. There are 10 States that don't have them. The integrity of our election system is the cornerstone of our democracy. Americans have fought and died for our democracy since our country was founded, and we must guarantee that democracy continues. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Team USA and to recognize the contributions of so many Minnesotans at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games in South Korea. I am happy to be joined here by my Senate colleague from Minnesota, Senator Smith. Why are Senator Smith and I here today? We are here because we had an incredible Olympics, with Minnesota really leading the way when it came to the gold medals. Of course, our State is no stranger to the Olympics. We have sent athletes to compete in women's basketball and cycling. But it shouldn't be a surprise that it is the Winter Olympics where the bold northern State really shines. We have a couple of things going for us. The weather is kind of cold. There is snow, so people are able to practice. We also have a great athletic program at our high schools, and we have a lot of team spirit, which is especially helpful in the teams we were a part of that won the gold, including men's curling and women's hockey. Of the 243 athletes who were on Team USA, 23 have ties to Minnesota, making it the third highest represented State. These athletes competed at the highest level and showed the world just what our State could do. If Minnesota were competing as a country, it would be tied for 12th, globally in the number of gold medals won. But we are not a country; we are a proud State. This success is something all Minnesotans can celebrate. Mr. President, here are some examples for you. Winning a gold medal was a first for Afton native Jessie Diggings and a first for the United States. Her road to the Olympics started on the cross-country skiing trails that cover Minnesota. Jessie worked to keep spirits high in training and during the Olympic competition. She put glitter on her cheeks as a reminder of what made her fall in love with cross-country skiing as a little girl. Her relentless energy and drive were on full display. She and her teammate, Kikkan Randall, became the first Americans to bring home a gold in cross-country team history. It is no surprise that they voted Jessie to be the flag-bearer for the closing ceremony. Jessie and Kikkan weren't the only American women to bring home gold. The women's hockey team won their first gold medal since 1998. It is no coincidence that the ``State of Hockey'' sent some serious talent. The American team included six current or former Gopher College players and two current or former Minnesota Duluth players. From Warroad to Minnetonka, the Minnesotans on Team USA brought pond hockey toughness and the experience that comes from growing up on the ice. This gold medal will help inspire the next generation of hockey players in Minnesota. I want to make a special note of our incredible goalie, Maddie Rooney. If anyone stayed up--which I did--to watch that shootout at the end, she showed such poise and such grace under pressure. I also want to make a little note of Warroad, MN, which produced the incredible Gigi Marvin, along with many other gold medalists from the past. While Americans were fans of hockey well before the 2018 games, these Olympics helped introduce the country to a sport already loved by so many Minnesotans--curling. I will note that Senator Cornyn of Texas sent out a tweet saying that curling was an obscure sport. I don't think anyone thinks that anymore. They might think it is kind of an interesting sport, but it has gone from obscure to cool. A lot of that has to do with the men's curling team. Four out of five of the members of that team were from our home State of Minnesota. In that game, the match went from 1 to 4 in the morning or midnight to 3. I can't tell you how many Minnesotans were up all night watching that and celebrating the gold medal. The success of Minnesotans has been inspiring, and I know Senator Smith agrees. From frozen ponds to backyard hills, Minnesota helps bring the winter athlete out in everyone. I congratulate Team USA and all Minnesota athletes who made these games such a success. Senator Smith.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I know Minnesotans will look forward to Senator Smith's actual first speech, but I think it is a tribute to our State that her first appearance on the Senate floor was about all of these Gold Medals in hockey and curling and skiing. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleagues Senator Ernst, Ranking Member Stabenow, and, of course, Senator Grassley. Senators Grassley and Ernst have been such leaders on ag issues in their State. I come to join Senator Grassley, not only from the other side of the aisle but also, as far as Iowa and Minnesota are concerned, across the border. Our States have rivalries in football and many other things, but one thing we always agree on is having strong people to be the voice of agriculture at the USDA. I supported Secretary Perdue when President Trump nominated him, and I believe he needs a team to be able to do the complicated work of agriculture. At a time when we have seen difficulty in everything from the dairy industry to cotton, to issues with prices for so many of our commodities, to just only a few years ago the avian flu that was such a threat to the poultry industry in Minnesota and Iowa, the thought that we wouldn't have an Under Secretary in place for farm production and conservation--such an important part of the work of the USDA right now--is just unbelievable to me. As the nominee for Under Secretary in this area, Mr. Northey would be tasked with guiding some of the USDA's most important agencies that interact with farmers and ranchers on a daily basis, including the Farm Service Agency--which is so important to my farmers when they have questions about how they are supposed to sign up for things and complex programs; they are small farmers trying to do their job, and they need that Farm Service Agency--the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Risk Management Agency. As we prepare to write and pass a bipartisan farm bill, Mr. Northey's technical and legal assistance from the USDA is going to be critical. The absence of an Under Secretary for this critical mission area also has a domino effect that is leaving important USDA agencies without leadership and without guidance. This is not good governance. Secretary Perdue picked him because he was someone who had served as a State agriculture commissioner. As Senator Ernst has pointed out, he is not someone who has lived inside the beltway his whole life. This is someone who knows a State that has a lot of ag. When he came before the Senate Agriculture Committee last October, I had the opportunity to question him about his priorities for the USDA. He has spent his entire life in agriculture. He knows farmers, he knows rural economy, and he knows what is needed. I appreciated the fact that he honestly answered questions about the renewable fuel standard. He sees it, as I do in Minnesota, as a homegrown economic generator. We are a State that is right next door to North Dakota. We appreciate their ethanol and their oil industries. These are part and parcel of Minnesota and our country's energy. That being said, we see biofuel as an economic generator. We want to make sure we are keeping strong industries alive so the farmers and the workers of the Midwest are taking part in energy just as much as the oil industries in the Mideast. The final rule for 2018 and 2019 that went through two administrations kept volume requirements for ethanol steady and made some improvement in blend targets of advanced biofuels. The final rule was a declarative statement by the administration that renewable fuels are simply an important part of our transportation fuel supply and an important part of our economy, but that is not what this is about. Our friend from Texas, Senator Cruz, has decided to hold up the nomination of someone who has done nothing but serve our country and serve the State of Iowa as the agriculture secretary there--the agriculture commissioner--with merit. I don't believe we should be holding nominees hostage. It is not something I have done as a Senator. Senator Cruz and I have debated this in the past when he held up the Ambassadors to Norway and Sweden-- two Ambassador positions that were very important to Iowa and Minnesota because of our Scandinavian populations, and yet we went for years without Ambassadors to those really important allied countries. We went for years with two qualified people who could have taken over a year before, who had unanimously gone through--just like this nominee--the Foreign Relations Committee without objection. Yet Senator Cruz was concerned about the naming of a street in front of the Embassy of China, which was completely unrelated. So while I appreciate his representing interest in his State, and I appreciate the fact that we have to have legitimate debates about energy and energy policy, I just don't believe you should be holding qualified nominees hostage. In the case of the Ambassadors to Norway and Sweden, we were ultimately triumphant because people from the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle came together and said: Enough is enough. We need people who are qualified to fill these important positions in our government. That is exactly what is happening again. This is a qualified nominee, and the Senate should not be a place where someone with his qualifications should be blocked for an important position just as we are considering the farm bill, just as we are dealing with disaster recovery all over the Nation, including in places like Texas and Florida. I just don't believe in this scorched-earth policy. I believe, as we do on the Agriculture Committee, in working things out. We work things out. We may have differences of opinion, but we let people fill an important position like this. I am glad our colleague from Texas has remained through this discussion, with his friend from the Midwest, and we just hope some of that Midwestern common sense will come his way. Like Senator Grassley, I visit every county in Minnesota every year--all 87 counties--and I can tell you that when I want to hear what the farmers think, I listen to Senator Grassley, but, most importantly, I listen to the people in my State. They want to have a USDA that is functioning and working and ready for all the issues we are confronting right now in agriculture and the United States. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.