Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my congratulations to Cliffs Natural Resources and its outstanding employees on the company's 170th anniversary. I am honored to celebrate this milestone with the largest and oldest independent iron ore mining company in the United States. In 1847, 11 men from Cleveland founded Cliffs Natural Resources to develop ore in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Cliffs has since grown to be a leader in North American mining, employing thousands and providing U.S. steelmakers with world-class raw materials. Mining has always been a way of life for families on Minnesota's Iron Range, including my own. My grandfather worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines of Ely, MN. His generation helped build our Nation's steel industry into the global power it is today. The Iron Range has the largest concentration of iron ore in the United States. Right now, Minnesota is first in the Nation in the movement of iron ore, with more than 4,000 jobs associated with the iron ore and steel industries. Throughout our State's history, iron ore mining has not only brought jobs to the region, it has also built our country, from our roads, bridges, buildings, and railways, to the tanks and ships critical to our Nation's defense. The Iron Range also supplied most of the iron used in World War II. In recent years, Cliffs has focused its energies on revitalizing iron ore mines and processing plants in the United States. In August of last year, Cliffs broke ground on a $75 million expansion at its United Taconite plant in Forbes, MN. I am proud to support companies like Cliffs that are committed to creating jobs for Minnesotans for generations to come. Cliffs is also well known for its commitment to corporate stewardship. From contributing to building homes for families through Habitat for Humanity, to helping ensure children in need get a nutritious meal through United Way programs, Cliffs has been committed to Minnesota families and communities. This 170th anniversary of Cliffs' founding is a remarkable achievement. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate Cliffs chairman, president, and chief executive officer Lourenco Goncalves and the employees of Cliffs on celebrating this occasion. Best wishes for much continued success.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the recent firing of FBI Director Jim Comey and Russian interference in our democracy. Jim Comey was my law school classmate, and I know that in my State he has a lot of respect from our agents and also from law enforcement in general in our State. When we had the stabbing in the mall in St. Cloud, MN--it was just with our police chief from St. Cloud--it was the FBI that came in and helped at the crime scene and with other things, because for a smaller police department it is difficult to deal with something like that and because they also had work to do working with the community to calm people. The result was a good one because of the courageous work of an off- duty police officer. While people were injured, no one was killed, and the investigation was completed. This is just one example of the work the FBI has done when Director Comey was in charge. I think we focus very much on what goes on in this town, but there are a lot of agents and law enforcement out there who have deep respect for him. Last week, when Director Comey was fired, I came to the floor and said that in the recent months foundational elements of our democracy-- including the rule of law--have been questioned, challenged, and even undermined. Today I return to the floor with the same concern. In the last 48 hours alone, we have learned that, in addition to sharing top secret intelligence information with Russia without checking about it ahead of time--and we know Presidents have the right to share information and declassify it, but in instances of which we are aware, the President checks with intelligence agencies ahead of time. Was this shared with an ally? No. This was shared with Russia, a country that 17 intelligence agencies in the United States of America established was trying to undermine our election; Russia, which was found responsible for trying to shoot down and successfully brought down a plane, killing innocent people in Ukraine; the same regime that has poisoned dissidents; the same regime that has put people to death for simply expressing an opinion that is different from Vladimir Putin's. That is the country with which the President chose to share this information. What else happened in the last 48 hours? Well, President Trump allegedly urged Director Comey--this news dropped in the last 48 hours--to end the investigation into ties between Russia and General Flynn and to put reporters who publish classified leaks in prison. This was information I didn't know before. It happened in the last few months, of course, but it all came out in the last 48 hours. The American people are looking to Congress for answers in the face of this assault on our democracy. It is our job to give them the answers they deserve and to right this ship. That is why I continue to call for a special prosecutor. Ever since the Attorney General had to recuse himself because of his own meetings and ties with Russia and ever since this mess kept getting messier, I have been calling for a special prosecutor. I believe that is the way to go. Also, I have long called for an independent commission, and this is for a different purpose. As the Senate Intelligence Committee continues its bipartisan work, a special prosecutor and the FBI would get to the bottom of any criminal investigation. To me, the purpose of an independent commission would be to set the rules of the road so that this doesn't happen again and so our country can protect itself. This would be a panel of experts appointed by both sides. Their focus could well be to take these facts but to put them into a future election, as in, what do we do when campaigns get information that clearly is from a cyber attack from a foreign power? Our Founding Fathers have said that our elections are precious and that they should be protected from foreign powers. Way back then, they were thinking of Great Britain. Now we are thinking of Russia. Next time, it could be another country. We should have some rules of the road. It is not that long ago that--I remember when Presidential campaigns would be given some information that they weren't supposed to get from the opposing side, and they would actually return it to the opposing side. We could go back to that kind of day. We could also have the media have some rules of the road. Look at what happened with the recent French election when there was a cyber attack there. The media didn't put out every rumor and everything they got out of that cyber attack; they showed some discretion. Those are the kinds of things we could do with an independent commission in addition to factfinding. I will start with this special prosecutor. The stack of reasons why we need a special prosecutor is getting higher and higher every day. Aides and surrogates of the Trump administration during both the campaign and in the transition were in contact with officials from a foreign government that was actively working to tear our democracy apart. That is pretty much established. We know that the campaign chair for the Trump campaign had to step down because of his ties to Russia. We know that General Flynn was on the phone with the Russian Ambassador on the very day President Obama declared he wanted to expand sanctions against Russia. We also know he then lied to the Vice President of the United States about it. Those things happened during the campaign and during the transition. Last week, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reminded us--I was there in the Judiciary Committee--they reminded us that on the very day that President Obama imposed those sanctions, that was when General Flynn--the former National Security Advisor; the person charged with the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security--was contacted-- the Ambassador--and then he later lied to the Vice President about that contact. I actually asked them specifically that after the fact that Flynn knew he was on tape, that they knew that, that there was a tape of him saying one thing to the Russians and then another to a high-ranking official in America--that would be the Vice President--I asked them if that was material for blackmail. They both said definitively that it was. Yet, when Sally Yates went to the administration twice for two formal meetings with other people--this wasn't just a little heads-up at a cocktail party; she actually went to the White House to inform them that she believed the National Security Advisor had been compromised. What happened? They let him stay on for 18 days. And 2 days in, he was on an hourlong call between Vladimir Putin and the President of the United States of America. Then, of course, we have the fact that the Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from any involvement with the Russia investigation because he met with the Russian Ambassador. I will note that he met with the Russian Ambassador just a few days after President Obama and President Putin had met at an international meeting. At that meeting and then publicly President Obama had said: No, I am not pulling back these sanctions. Then what happens? Jeff Sessions, who was closely affiliated with the Trump campaign, a surrogate for the campaign, goes and meets with the Russian Ambassador. Because of that and some things that happened in his confirmation hearing, he has now recused himself from any matters regarding the investigation between Russia and this administration and the campaign. In addition to the recusal, we have seen two people resign, as I noted: the campaign manager, the campaign chair, and the National Security Advisor. The one thing they have in common is Russia and President Trump. We have seen three people fired. One is Sally Yates, who was the Acting Attorney General of the United States. While the reasons given for her firing were, of course, related to the refugee order, in fact, she was fired on the very same day she had gone to the White House to talk to them about General Flynn. We have Preet Bharara, who was fired after saying he could stay on. He was the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, in a very major position to investigate these kinds of issues and crimes. And then, of course, we have Jim Comey. The one thing they all have in common is that they were all investigating various facets of this. In fact, Director Comey, as I noted--who had gotten support and respect from law enforcement--was fired the same day Federal prosecutors issued grand jury subpoenas to Michael Flynn's associates, just days after Comey requested more resources, according to news reports, to carry out the Russia investigation, and 2 days before he was scheduled to testify publicly before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where Members of that committee were going to ask him about Russia. Think about it. The independent government officials who are charged with getting to the truth, no matter where it leads, were fired. And the President of the United States reportedly now--and this is what we have learned in the last 48 hours, and of course we want to get to the bottom of the evidence, but according to news reports, he urged the FBI Director to end the investigation into the ties between Russia and Mike Flynn. We owe it to the American people to get to the bottom of what is going on here. It is our job to get to the bottom of this. The President can't fire Congress. He can fire the Acting Attorney General. He can fire the FBI Director, although I think it is very important that we get to the bottom of why the FBI Director was fired and whether it was for the reasons that were given in the memo that was prepared by the Justice Department or whether it was because of what President Trump has said--that it was related to Russia--or whether was because at one point he said he wasn't doing his job, which is not what I have heard from agents on the street. The one group the President cannot fire is right here in this room. The President cannot fire the U.S. Senate. The President can't fire the House of Representatives. He is not above the law. This administration cannot investigate itself. We have the ongoing and important investigation led by bipartisan leaders, Senator Burr and Senator Warner. That is important and must continue. We also need a special prosecutor to look into the President's most recent conduct and all contacts between Trump campaign aides and surrogates and Russian officials during the campaign, the transition, and the administration. This prosecutor must be fair and impartial and completely unattached to either political party. Above all, this prosecutor must be comfortable speaking truth to power. In addition to a special prosecutor, we need an independent commission. When I came back from my trip with Senator McCain and Senator Graham to Ukraine, the Baltics, and Georgia, I made it very clear--I remember speaking to my colleagues about this--that what we saw there made me even more concerned about the finding of our intelligence agencies because those countries have seen this movie over and over again where Russia has cyber attacked them. It happened in Lithuania just because they had the audacity to invite members of the Ukrainian Parliament from Crimea, who were in exile in Kiev, for their 25th anniversary, and they got hacked into. It happened in Estonia, where they moved a bronze statue out of a public square and into the cemetery with other statues of soldiers. But this was a Russian soldier. The Russians didn't like it. This was in 2007. What did they do? They shut down the internet for the entire country. This is not just a single incident involving one candidate or one political party or one election or even one country; this is something widespread. It is an attack on democracy. That is why, when I came back from that trip, I stood with Senator Cardin and House Members Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings to stand up for a bill, which has a number of other sponsors, to create an independent, nonpartisan commission to uncover all the facts and make sure future elections and political campaigns are safeguarded from foreign interference. For months, U.S. intelligence agencies--17 of them--have said that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to try to undermine our democracy. Reports show it. The facts prove it. Some $200 million dollars was spent alone on Russian TV on our own election. Much of it was passed out on the internet. Last week, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our election system. This is what he said: I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. Vigilance. He said that Russia felt emboldened by what happened. What happened in the last 48 hours? We find out that he had given high-level intelligence to the Russians before we gave it to any of our allies, before we checked it out with intelligence agencies. That actually emboldens them. We find out that, in fact--because Director Comey kept such meticulous notes, we find out that allegedly the President asked him to discontinue the investigation into General Flynn. What does that do? That emboldens Russia even more. What former Director Clapper was telling us was that we need vigilance. We need oversight. We need to send a clear message that they cannot continue doing this. We do not need to embolden them. What message does it send when the President urges the person in charge of the investigation into Russia's election interference to let it go? It is not one of vigilance in seeking the truth and fighting against a foreign adversary. An independent commission of nonpartisan experts can get to the bottom of this and tell us how we can prevent this from happening again. They can provide recommendations to help prevent future attacks on our democracy from being successful. In addition to a special prosecutor and independent commission, we also need our congressional committees to continue to exercise their oversight authority. Since the election, we have heard a lot about the three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. One of the fundamental jobs of Congress is to closely oversee the executive branch to ensure that the law is being properly followed and enforced. That means we need congressional committees to continue their investigation into Russian inference in our political system. We have subpoena power for that reason, and we need to use it. There are tapes. The President says there may be tapes. Of course, redact the classified information. We don't want to hurt anyone any further from what has been happening in the last few weeks. But we should see the transcripts. We should have the tapes. There is bipartisan support for turning over this material, including the memos prepared by Director Comey. (Mr. LEE assumed the Chair.) Today Senators Grassley, Feinstein, Graham, and Whitehouse sent a letter to the FBI and White House Counsel requesting these documents. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of doing our jobs to get to the bottom of this. The ongoing bipartisan Intelligence Committee investigation is vital to addressing the covert and classified aspects of Russian interference, but we also need transparency because the American people deserve to know as much as possible about what happened and how we are going to prevent it in the future. That is why I fully support the Judiciary Committee hearings that Senators Graham and Whitehouse have held in the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. I also believe, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, that if the Director is to testify--former Director Comey--he should come before the Judiciary Committee because these are matters related to his service as an FBI Director. They are related to the justice system, to the criminal justice system, and we should hear from him. I hope Senator Grassley has requested that he come before our committee. I am aware that the Intelligence Committee also would like him to come, but I think it is important, given the substance of what is at issue here. Yes, he should appear before Intelligence about ongoing matters related to the Russian investigation, but there is also the issue of the fact that he was fired. We heard one thing in a memo from the Justice Department, we heard one thing from the White House, we heard another thing from the White House, and then we heard another thing from the President. That is all true. We need to get to the bottom of this. On Monday, Republican Senator Bob Corker said that the administration was in a ``downward spiral.'' He used the word ``chaos.'' That was before we even knew that the President may have urged the FBI Director to end the Russia investigation and put reporters in prison. This is an unprecedented time in our country's history. The Presiding Officer, having written a book on the Constitution, knows that one of our jobs is to stand by that Constitution. Yet we are witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and democratic unease. On this day in 1973, the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities began televised hearings on Watergate. One week later, Professor Archibald Cox was sworn in as special Watergate prosecutor. Like Director Comey, who was leading the investigation into Russian interference in our election, Archibald Cox was eventually fired by the President for doing his job. The night that Archibald Cox was fired by President Nixon for investigating Watergate, he said: ``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people.'' He was right. The American people deserve a thorough, independent investigation into whether this administration obstructed justice and the extent of Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. They need to know it because we are a democracy. We don't hide things like this. We get the facts. We get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is what our democracy is about, and that is what our justice system is about. But they also need to know it because our democracy is the basis of our freedoms. If we don't protect our democracy in the coming elections, then we hurt those freedoms. The only way we figure out how we are going to protect that democracy is getting to the bottom of the truth, so we can figure out how to prevent it from happening in the future. This is not a partisan issue; this is an American issue, and Americans deserve answers. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues today in recognition of Police Week. I thank Senator Blunt and Senator Coons for bringing us together, as well as Senator Grassley and Senator Cornyn. Law enforcement officers play a critical role in keeping our communities safe, and Police Week is all about honoring their dedication and sacrifice and, sadly for so many families, those officers who made the ultimate sacrifice. Our officers are on the frontlines of public safety, and while most people run away from crime scenes or run away from disaster, they run bravely toward it. In my State, we were reminded all too well of the courageous dedication of law enforcement just this last year when Jason Falconer, an off-duty police officer at a shopping mall spending his free time on his own, encountered a horrific scene of a man unhinged who was stabbing people in the St. Cloud shopping mall. Falconer didn't even pause. He made sure that he saved the people who were wounded; 10 were wounded that day. So many would have been killed if he had not intervened--an off-duty officer. I think about Officer Shawn Schneider, who is no longer with us, in Lake City, MN. I met with his family several times. This was a brave officer, a popular officer in a small community. One night he was called to the scene of a domestic abuse case. A young woman, scared, had called. He showed up at the door, and a man unhinged opened the door and shot and killed that officer. The story behind that officer and the people behind that officer are the ones who carry on his memory--his fellow officers, as we see this week during Police Week, his family, his widow, and their three children. I will never forget sitting in the pews of that church and hearing the story as those three little kids walked down the aisle. There were two young boys and a girl in a blue dress covered in stars. The story was that the last time the family had been in that church and the last time those children had been in that church was for the church nativity play, and their dad, Officer Schneider, was sitting there watching them with such pride. A few weeks later, there they were at his funeral. Those are the people we remember during this important week. Our job as U.S. Senators is to treat them in the way that they treat their jobs. They go to work every day without fear or favor. That is what we have to do when we think about police officers. There are issues, as Senator Coons mentioned, we need to work on-- policies and the relationship between officers and our communities. We have to promote more community policing, more training, more recruiting. That is why I am very positive about these bills--the COPS bill I have with Senator Murkowski, where we finally have bipartisan sponsorship for grants that have now helped to place approximately 129,000 police officers on the beat in more than 13,000 State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies. In that community I mentioned, St. Cloud, are the recipients of some of the grants we are talking about. That is why Senator Murkowski and I are taking on this issue, to make sure that this program continues to be funded and that, in fact, we reinforce the program. The bill Senator Cornyn just mentioned that we are leading together to promote the hiring of veterans as law enforcement officers would encourage local police departments to hire and train veterans as cops while providing our veterans with the opportunity to continue to serve their communities. Yes, we can do all we can to have the backs of our officers and to work with them and our communities, but what we are doing this week is something a little different. We honor them. We recognize their sacrifices, whether it is taking dangerous criminals off the street, whether it is preventing extremist groups from recruiting people in our neighborhoods, whether it is fighting the opioid abuse epidemic, whether it is simply giving a kid a second chance--and they do those kinds of things all the time. Law enforcement officers are doing some of the hardest and most important work out there. We owe our safety to them, and we thank them for their remarkable service.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join in the minority leader's remarks and his plan for moving forward, which is a bipartisan plan and a plea for our colleagues to work together. America is not like some countries where people are all of the same ethnic background or practice the same religion. America is an idea. America is an ideal. America is something that is grounded in our democracy. Way back centuries ago, our Founding Fathers were concerned about foreign influence on our democracy. They were concerned at the time about Great Britain. Well, now we have another concern, and that concern is Russia. It is not just the Democrats' concern. As one of our colleagues, Senator Rubio, has noted in the past, maybe this election was an attack on one political candidate in one party, but next time it will be the other party. That is why we must join together and handle this correctly and in the spirit of our democracy and our Constitution. I have known Director Comey for a long time. We were classmates at the University of Chicago Law School. He was well liked in our class, and he earned the respect of the agents he supervised and the law enforcement he worked with. I made it clear to him that I didn't agree with how he handled the email investigation regarding Secretary Clinton, but nevertheless this man is a hard worker and someone of integrity. Just because someone doesn't agree with how an investigation is handled, even if it is in a big way, doesn't mean this person should be fired. FBI Directors have 10-year terms for a reason; that is because we want them to be independent from political influence. All Americans, including those who have criticized Director Comey for whatever reason in the past, should be very troubled by the timing of this firing. Let's look at the past week. We started the week on Monday, when Former Director Clapper testified in great detail about the Russian threat to our democracy and the fact that the Russians feel empowered and that he believes they will do it again and again. We also were on the heels of the French cyber attack, where their elections were attacked and where Russia was trying to get involved in their elections. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified, and she made very clear that she had not just given a heads-up to the administration that their National Security Advisor was compromised by the Russians-- no. She had two formal meetings over at the White House. She outlined in detail how she had gone over to the White House and voiced her concerns. When I asked both Former Director Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Yates whether this was material for blackmail--when you have a high-ranking official saying one thing on a tape recording that the Russians knew he had said and then another to the Vice President of the United States--if that was material for blackmail, they said yes, definitively yes, that he had been compromised. Yet, as it became clear, the White House then allowed the National Security Advisor, General Flynn, to stay on for 18 days, including being part of an hour-long conversation between the President of the United States and Vladimir Putin. So that is what happened on Monday. We know what was going to happen tomorrow, Thursday, which is that Director Comey was going to testify in his capacity as the FBI Director in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We know questions were going to be asked about Russia. Of course, I commend Senators Burr and Warner for inviting him again next week in his capacity now as a private citizen. Yet, when you look at what has happened here--the Yates and Clapper testimony on Monday, the Comey testimony expected on Thursday--what is sandwiched in between? It is the firing of the FBI Director. By the way, this is the same FBI Director who had the audacity to tell the truth before Congress when he was asked whether President Obama had wiretapped the Trump Tower, as alleged by President Trump in a tweet at 6 in the morning. The FBI Director truthfully answered, no, that it did not happen. That is also something that has happened in the past month. Today we learned that just days before he was fired, Mr. Comey asked senior officials at the Justice Department for more resources in order to carry out the Russia investigation. Now, what are my colleagues saying about this? I think it is very important to note that the two Senators who are privy to the most classified information--Senator McCain, as chair of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Burr, as chair of the Intelligence Committee-- have both expressed serious concerns about what has happened. Senator McCain said he was disappointed, and Senator Burr, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey's termination. I have found Director Comey to be a public servant of the highest order, and his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation by the Committee. Senator Flake said: I have spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey's firing. I just can't do it. The reasoning the White House is using for Director Comey's firing is bizarre, and that is why I believe Senator Burr said that his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation. The memo provided by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein cites old justifications. These are quotes from letters that I remember from the Presidential campaign, and they are used in the letter as a justification. If the administration found Director Comey's conduct during the election to be so problematic, why now--right, smack in the middle of the advancements of this Russia investigation? The answer, I believe, is that the justification that is provided in the memo is a pretext. The fact that President Trump's termination letter to Director Comey strangely discusses the fact that Director Comey informed the President that he was not under investigation in the context of the Russia investigation sheds light on what this is really about; that Director Comey was seeking the truth. Senator Burr said that Director Comey has been more forthcoming with information than any FBI Director he can recall in his tenure on the congressional intelligence committees. In firing Comey, President Trump has cast doubt about the independence and viability of any further investigation into the foreign interference of our democracy. Why was Attorney General Sessions, who had recused himself from the investigation on Russian interference, able to influence the firing of the man at the helm of the Russia investigation? That is one of the questions we want answered and why, by the way, we believe it is important to have a closed-door briefing with the Deputy Attorney General and his predecessor. Did Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein act on his own or at the direction of Attorney General Sessions or the White House? Are reports that the President had been searching for a rationale to fire the FBI Director for more than a week true? Was his firing influenced by any recent developments in the investigation, like the issuance of grand jury subpoenas or Director Comey's recent request for more resources for the Russia investigation? Why didn't the President wait for the inspector general's investigation into Director Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation to conclude before making his decision to fire him? I am a former prosecutor. I believe in facts, and I believe in evidence. These decisions should not have been made without these facts and without this evidence and while in the middle of a major investigation of Russian influence in our election. Answers to these questions are essential in getting to the truth and in ensuring that an independent investigation at the FBI can continue. For months, U.S. intelligence agencies--17 of them--have said that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to try and undermine our democracy. Reports show it. The facts prove it. When former Director of National Intelligence Clapper testified, he said Russia will continue to interfere in our election system. This is what he said exactly: I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. I was in that hearing and asked questions of Clapper when he said this: ``Vigilance.'' That is what he said--vigilance. How can we call it vigilance, when the FBI Director, who is conducting the investigation, has been fired? What message does that send to Russia? Does that make them think we are serious about this investigation; that we want to get to the bottom of it and that we do not want it to happen again? No. It sends the opposite message. Aides and surrogates of the Trump administration, during the campaign and the transition, were in contact with officials from a foreign government that was actively working to tear our democracy apart. We need to know why and when and how. In the first question, that is what I really want to know--the ``why.'' This week, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, as I mentioned, and Director Clapper reminded us that on the very day President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its unprecedented attacks on our democracy, a member of the Trump transition team spoke to a senior Russian official regarding those sanctions. Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor--the person charged with the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security--was not truthful with the Vice President. He lied to the Vice President about contact with Russian officials. In turn, the American people were misled. After the Department of Justice warned the administration that the National Security Advisor had lied and may be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian Government, what did the administration do? It continued to allow General Flynn to handle top secret information for 18 more days. They let him participate in an hour-long phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. In fact, decisive action was not taken until the Washington Post revealed what was happening. We have now seen two people resign--Trump's campaign manager and his National Security Advisor. The one thing they have in common is Russia and the President. We have also seen three people fired--Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General of the United States, who was simply doing her job; Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in New York City; and Jim Comey, the FBI Director. The one thing they have in common is that they were all investigating links, and they were doing their jobs. Think about that. Let that sink in. The independent government officials who were or could have been charged with getting to the truth, no matter where it led, were fired. We owe it to the American people to get to the bottom of what is going on here. It is our job to get to the bottom of this because the President of the United States--President Trump--cannot fire Congress. We need to know the full extent of the Trump campaign's contact with the Russian Government during the campaign and transition, including what was said and what was done and who knew about it. That is why, on January 4, I stood with Senator Cardin and with Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings, of the House of Representatives, and called for an independent commission. Now, this is different than the special prosecutor whom we need to handle the criminal investigation. This is also different than the good work that is being done by the Senate Intelligence Committee under the leadership of Senators Burr and Warner. To me, an independent commission would help us because it could get to the bottom of what has happened, with the intent of making sure it does not happen again, in order to protect our democracy. It could have recommendations, just like the 9/11 Commission had, on how we could improve our laws. It could have recommendations on what we could do if the media gets hold of information that is the result of a cyber attack from a foreign government. It could have recommendations of what political parties and campaigns could do--perhaps even in agreement-- when they get access to information that is a result of a cyber attack against the opposite party. It was not that long ago when campaigns would come upon debate information and other things and would simply put it in an envelope and send it back to the other side. We can do this, but that is not going to come out of some simple piece of legislation or from the work that the Intelligence Committee is doing. That is why I believe we need this independent commission as well as a special prosecutor to look into all contacts between Trump aides and surrogates and Russian officials during the campaign, transition, and administration. This prosecutor must be fair and impartial and completely unattached to either political party. In addition to the independent commission, we also need our congressional committees, as I mentioned, to continue to exercise their oversight authority. Since the election, we have heard a lot about the three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. One of Congress's fundamental jobs, as I told a group of students in my office today, is to closely oversee the executive branch in order to ensure that the law is being properly followed and enforced. This shouldn't just be things that students learn from their Senators when they come in during school trips or be what they learn from a textbook. This is actually our job. This means that in addition to this independent, 9/11-style Commission, we must make sure our congressional committees continue to investigate Russian interference in our political system. We have subpoena power. We need to use it. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the importance of doing our jobs in order to get to the bottom of this. As I mentioned, we have the Intelligence Committee investigation, but we also have the Judiciary subcommittee, on which I serve, led by Senators Graham and Whitehouse. They are the ones who held the hearing with Sally Yates and Director Clapper this week. This is an unprecedented time in our country's history. We are witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and democratic unease. In recent months, foundational elements of our democracy, including the rule of law, have been questioned, challenged, and even undermined. Several of my colleagues have compared the President's action to President Richard Nixon's firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating Watergate. Even then, Mr. Cox was replaced by a new special prosecutor. Today, we have no special prosecutor to determine whether the President's campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power. Some in Congress are continuing to resist any serious investigation. For that reason, our democracy may be in even greater peril. The night he was fired, Mr. Cox defended his decision to conduct the Watergate investigation as he saw fit rather than to yield to the President's order that he limit his request for tape recordings. Cox said: ``Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and, ultimately, the American people.'' He is right. The American people deserve a thorough, independent investigation into the extent of Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election. This is not a partisan issue. Americans deserve answers now. And where should they get those answers? They should get those answers from this Chamber, because we, as Members of the Senate, cannot be fired. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 48, H.R. 534.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. President. I join my colleague, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, in her comments about the Central States Pension Fund. We have over 14,000 workers and retirees in our State affected by this as well. But I really stand here today to thank Senator Manchin for his work and to thank our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, as well as Chairman Cochran and Vice Chairman Leahy for their ability to put partisanship aside and get this deal done. It meant everything from funding for the COPS Program to helping to combat the opioid epidemic, Capital Investment Grants, and medical research. But for one guy here, it was all personal, and that is Joe Manchin. He fought long and hard to protect healthcare benefits for his coal miners. Think about this: In October, 12,500 retired coal miners and widows received notices telling them that their healthcare benefits would be cut off at the end of the year. Then, in November, another 3,600 notices went out. That is over 16,000 people. I don't have coal miners in my State, but do you know why I knew about those notices? Because Joe Manchin made sure that I knew about those notices and because the other Senators who spoke here, who have coal miners in their States--they stood up and made sure we knew about those notices, and they worked tirelessly to get this done. For me, mining is not about that black coal dust. It is about red dust. It is about iron ore. As Senator Manchin knows, my grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Minnesota. He got his first job as a teamster when he was only fifteen. He had to quit school and go to work and help raise his eight, nine brothers and sisters. One of them died. His parents died. He worked underground his whole life. He went down that shaft and that cage every single day, just to support his brothers and sisters. Then he married my grandma and supported my dad and his brother. Do you know what? I wouldn't even be here in the Senate today if he didn't have the pension benefits that came out of the job he had--and healthcare. Joe Manchin understood that about the people he represents. Those miners earned those pensions, and they earned their retiree healthcare benefits. That is why what he did, and what all those Senators who represent the coal miners did, is more than just about those States and about those miners. It is about a promise we made to our workers. As one former Congresswoman, Barbara Jordan from Texas, once said: What Americans want is something simple. They want a country that is as good as its promise. I thank Senator Manchin for fulfilling that promise. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in speaking on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. As you know, Senators have a solemn obligation to advise and consent on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court, and I take that obligation very seriously. My goal during the hearing as a member of the committee was to understand the judge's view on the law, his judicial record, and his philosophy. We needed to know what kind of Justice he would be and what that would mean for Americans. Although many cases decided by the lower courts are less complicated, even though some of them are complicated, many of them are more straightforward than the ones that come before the Supreme Court. The cases that go before the Supreme Court are the hardest cases. They involve the most complicated legal gray areas. I have heard my colleagues many times talk about some of the unanimous decisions that the judge was involved in. I know that. But when I look at the kinds of cases that come before the Supreme Court, those are different kinds of cases. As I looked over the judge's record, I tried to focus on situations where he faced hard cases like those he might decide as a Supreme Court Justice. In my mind, the question was this: What would Judge Gorsuch do if he were appointed to the Supreme Court? What kind of philosophy would he have? In difficult cases, one judicial approach is to try to find consensus by ruling on the narrowest possible grounds. Judge Merrick Garland, who was nominated last year, was known and praised for that approach by Senators on both sides of the aisle. Congress actually provides a helpful analogy. When Democrats and Republicans pass legislation, we try to find common ground. We often have different views, but we do find areas of consensus. Sometimes that ground is narrow, but we can find agreement and then come together. In reviewing the judge's record, I saw that he often took a different approach, one where he often tried to go a step further than the consensus opinion, sometimes really further than the consensus opinion by suggesting a provocative change in the law or by making a broader ideological leap, which I felt was not consistent with the precedent and was not consistent with the kind of philosophy of a judge that, regardless of their political beliefs--I did not expect to agree with everything he said or how he answered the questions, but what I saw was a strikingly different philosophy. Many of the judge's opinions presented opportunities for narrow judicial consensus, but the judge decided more than the case in front of him. That is what concerns me if he were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, where he would have to decide the toughest cases and hardest legal questions facing our country. So after thorough examination and consideration of his answers and the record, I have decided not to vote in favor of the judge's nomination. His judicial approach and his record on critical cases, including the rights of children with disabilities, campaign finance, and preserving health and safety protections, have led me to conclude that I cannot support his nomination to the Supreme Court. Let me make this clear. Again, I did not expect to agree with every opinion he wrote or everything he said. I certainly did appreciate the introductions of the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Bennet, and the support he had from Colorado. That meant something to me. But then when I looked at the record, what I saw time and time again was a judge who clearly demonstrated the contrast between a narrow consensus-based approach and a more far-reaching one. One area where the judge has gone further to issue broad rulings that would have profound consequences on people's lives is in the case he decided on children with disabilities. During the hearing, because this case had been decided by the Supreme Court right before I got to ask questions, I asked a lot of questions about this case on the IDEA, also known as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. The IDEA was passed to ensure that students with the disabilities are supported in school. In my State, 124,000 children rely on this critical protection. I occupy the Senate seat once held by Minnesota's own Hubert Humphrey--someone who, of course, was never at a loss for words. In fact, this very desk that I am standing behind was the desk Hubert Humphrey signed and used. He delivered a speech 40 years ago, and one line of that speech is just as appropriate today as it was back then. He said: ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life: the children; those who are in the twilight of life: the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life: the needy, the sick, and the disabled.'' The Supreme Court has honored that principle. On the day of the judge's hearing, the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-0 unanimous decision, ruled against the narrow interpretation of the IDEA embraced by Judge Gorsuch--an interpretation that limited the educational opportunities of children with disabilities. I could not agree with the 8-to-0 decision more. All children, particularly those with disabilities, deserve the tools they need to succeed in life, and every Justice on the Supreme Court has a duty to protect these kids. So when the Supreme Court ruled that morning and overturned the standard that the judge had embraced in this Tenth Circuit case, I asked him about his ``merely more than de minimus'' standard that he wrote into that opinion back in 2006. In explaining his ruling, the judge said that he was bound by precedent to use the narrow standard that he used in that case. He cited a 1996 case from the Tenth Circuit--his circuit--that he said he was bound to follow. Now, he was not on the court back in 1996, but when he did the case in 2006, he used that 1996 case. So I looked at that case. During the hearing and at the Judiciary Committee business meeting earlier this week, my Republican colleagues repeated those words. They said that the judge was bound by precedent to use his narrow, ``merely more than de minimus'' standard that had, in fact, been rejected by the Supreme Court just this past month. So I looked to see if, in fact, that was true. Was he truly bound by precedent? That is pretty important to me. There have been a number of decisions where he has gone much further than he needed to, where he, in my mind, has abandoned precedent. I thought, well, here we have a case that is fresh, right before us, and he has said that he was simply following the precedent, that he had no choice at all. Here is what I found: While the 1996 case made a number of findings and concluded that the school district satisfied the requirement in the IDEA statute of providing an appropriate education, the case never actually turned on the standard that the judge said he was bound by, that the judge said was precedent. Here is why: The 1996 case only mentioned the de minimus standard once. It was a passing reference. Even in that mention, the de minimus language is from a different circuit; it was from the Third Circuit. In that 1996 case that he claimed he was bound by and that my Republican colleagues keep mentioning that he was bound by, there is no discussion about whether the benefits provided to the high school student satisfied that standard. The case simply did not turn on the de minimus language. I know this seems in the weeds, but the court in 1996 never relied on the de minimus standard to reach the result that it did. Was that enough? No. In the one passing mention in the 1996 case, which was not binding, the language actually says ``more than de minimus,'' but the judge went out of his way to add the word ``merely'' to that standard, which had never even been in the case that was not binding on him to begin with. So he changed it and said ``merely more than de minimus,'' that that is all the kind of education a kid with disabilities in that school district in Colorado would have to get. This is like if you say more than empty--the gas tank is more than empty, which means it could be a lot more than empty. Adding ``merely'' puts it closer to empty. You just say it is merely more than empty. The addition of a single word made it more difficult for children with disabilities to get help at school. That is why it is hard for me to understand why the judge said that the ``merely more than de minimus'' standard was binding on him when he wrote that opinion in 2006. It was not. He added the word ``merely,'' and then he used a standard that did not even decide that 1996 case; that was from a different circuit. When interpreting the IDEA, the judge once again went a step further instead of deciding the case on a narrow ground. That matters because decisions like this have a dramatic impact on the lives of children and families, which is exactly what Justice Roberts noted when he wrote the opinion 8-to-0 rejecting the standard that Judge Gorsuch had used. I have heard from families in my State, and so many of them tell me how IDEA has made a real difference for them. My mom taught second grade in the Minnesota Public Schools until she was 70 years old. I know from her how much she worked with those kids with disabilities and how much she cared about them. Here is an example I just learned about from my State. A mom from Watertown, MN, told me about her son, who was born with Down syndrome. She is so thankful for IDEA because its protections ensures that he can have everyday life experiences. IDEA allows her son to be fully integrated with the rest of the students in his school. As a result, he has made many friends and built a strong social network. When she asks her son whether he likes school, he always says, in a resounding voice: Yes. Those are the stakes of this legal debate. Second, I wanted to focus on campaign finance. In my view, one of the most troubling court decisions in recent years is Citizens United. Since Citizens United, dark money has been spent in extraordinary sums, adding up to an estimated $800 million in just the past 6 years. This continues to have an outsized influence on our politics, distorting our representative democracy and hurting, in my mind, campaigns on both sides of the aisle. How does this apply to the judge? It applies to the judge because of an opinion he wrote that is very relevant to this area of the law. That case, which is called Riddle v. Hickenlooper, is a narrow case about how campaign finance laws apply to certain kinds of contributions in Colorado, about if they are a major party or not major party. The judge again decided that a narrow consensus decision was not enough. It was part of that decision, but then he went out of his way to write a separate concurring opinion to suggest that the court should, in fact, apply strict scrutiny to laws restricting campaign contributions. If the Supreme Court adopted the approach in the judge's opinion, it would compromise the few remaining campaign finance protections that are still on the books, and it would make it even more difficult for Congress to pass future reforms. The notion that Congress has little or no role in setting reasonable campaign finance is in direct contradiction with where the American people are. In recent polls, over three-quarters of Americans have said that we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money in politics. While polls may not be a judge's problem and should not be a judge's problem, democracy is. When unlimited, undisclosed money floods our campaigns, it drowns out the people's voices, and it undermines our elections and shakes the public's trust in the process. My colleagues and I repeatedly asked the judge about his views on campaign finance laws and public disclosure requirements. He declined to tell us what the proper legal standard would be for evaluating campaign finance laws. He also would not give us a real sense of his views on public disclosure of campaign contributions, although a majority of current Justices support this. During our exchange on campaign finance, I was reminded of Justice Scalia's support for greater public disclosure and his comments on that topic. Justice Scalia said: Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave. The most striking example of a judge choosing not to decide a case narrowly based on the facts was the one last year in which he wrote the opinion and then wrote a concurrence to his own opinion. As I noted at the Judiciary hearing, it is better to write a concurrence to your own opinion than write a dissent to our own opinion. But still he felt compelled to write a concurrence to what was an opinion that he wrote. Mostly, judges are happy when they get their peers to agree to a decision, but in this case, he went a step further. In Gutierrez--the name of the case--the judge went beyond the facts to suggest overturning the long-established precedent of Chevron. Chevron is a 33-year-old Supreme Court case that ensures that the most complex regulatory decisions are made by the experts who are best equipped to handle them, not by judges or lawyers without any relevant technical knowledge. Justice Scalia again embraced the Chevron doctrine, and it has been used in more than 13,500 decisions. Chevron ensures that Federal health, safety, and education rules stay on the books. These rules protect everyone, from the hard-earned pension of an hourly Minnesota grocery store worker, to the clean water in our Great Lakes, to the difference between life and death for Minnesota iron ore workers. The judge's approach would have titanic, real-world implications on the daily lives of Americans. When the judge wrote an opinion that suggested it might be time to ``face the behemoth,'' he suggested a change in the law that would jeopardize countless rules, compromise important protections, and create widespread uncertainty in our laws. I asked the judge about the uncertainty that would result from overturning Chevron. I asked what he would replace it with. I didn't get a direct response. The judge even said that he ``didn't know what all the consequences would be'' and that he ``wasn't thinking about being a Supreme Court justice'' when he was writing the decision. So what does all of this mean? It means that the judge has repeatedly gone beyond the facts of the case, issuing separate concurrences with far-reaching effects or, as in the disability decision, writing opinions with profound consequences. When I read these opinions, I am reminded of Justice Byron White, who I know Judge Gorsuch clerked for and greatly admired. Justice White has been described by many as a Justice who was focused on deciding only the case in front of him. Here is a quote: ``Time and again, Justice White avoided broad, theoretical bases for a decision, when a narrow, fact-specific rationale would suffice.'' There is a reason we have judges to apply the law to the facts of a case. It is because answers aren't always as clear as we would like them to be, and sometimes there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the law. The cases that get to the Supreme Court are not the ones where everyone agreed at the lower court level. They are the really hard cases. It is that discretion in making those decisions that makes it so critical that Justices interpret the law evenly, without fear or favor and with the humility to recognize the gravity of the office, to respect the role of the judiciary, and to understand the impact of their decisions on people's lives. As I look back at the judge's record and his answers in the hearing, I am again reminded that it wasn't a law professor or a Federal jurist who was helped by a court's reliance on Chevron in interpreting a Labor Department rule. It was an hourly Minnesota grocery store worker who got to keep his hard-earned pension after the Eighth Circuit Court relied on Chevron. When the Supreme Court stripped away the rules in the Citizens United case that opened the door to unlimited super PAC spending, it was not the campaign financiers or the ad men who get paid to write these ads who were hurt. It was the grandma in Lanesboro, MN, who actually thought it mattered when she sent her Senator a $10 campaign contribution. When Chief Justice Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion just this past month, rejecting the ``merely more than de minimis'' standard that Judge Gorsuch had used to limit the help kids with disabilities can get at school, the Justice said: ``When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing `merely more than de minimis' progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.'' That is what the Supreme Court said about how the standard that Judge Gorsuch wrote in his opinion in the Tenth Circuit affected students with disabilities. In the end, I believe we need Justices who understand that the law is more than a set of dusty books in the basement stacks of a law library. It is the bedrock of our society. Above all, we need Justices who understand and will uphold the motto on the Supreme Court building, to ensure all Americans achieve ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' That is why I won't be supporting the judge's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in speaking about the harmful effects of this resolution of disapproval. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his words and for the very important point that we are seeing the lowest number of teen pregnancies that we have seen for a long, long time. Why would you want to mess with something that is finally reducing the number of teen pregnancies? I thank Senator Murray, who has been here diligently leading in this effort, because rolling this rule back will result in something very simple: It will result in less access to care for women and families. Title X funding supports vital family planning and related preventive care for low-income, uninsured, and young people across this country. Every year, more than 4 million people, including many who are living in rural and medically underserved areas, go to the over 4,000 health centers that rely on this funding. This includes 41 service sites in Minnesota that provide access to cancer screenings, birth control, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. In fact, 40 percent of women who receive care at title X clinics consider it to be their only source of healthcare--40 percent--which is incredibly important in rural areas. One thinks of, just recently, in the last few years, the Zika scare. People wanted to go and get birth control. They wanted to know what they could do to prevent themselves from getting Zika in order to save the lives of their babies. This is true, and this is what will be happening if they make these cuts. The regulation we are voting on today should be common sense. It simply makes clear that funds will be awarded solely based on a provider's ability to serve a patient, and it guarantees that women have access to the care they are entitled to under Federal law. We should be strengthening our efforts to provide better and more affordable care that best serves patients. Instead, repealing this rule will take essential services away from women when they need them most. By overriding this regulation, States will now pick and choose who provides these services, which will be based on arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the quality of services patients will receive. That should be our benchmark--the quality of services. When States have done this in the past, it has blocked access to critical family planning and healthcare services for many women, including those in rural areas who rely on the health centers that need these funds. As Senator Murray said this morning, women across the country have made it clear that restricting women's access to the full range of reproductive care is unacceptable. We have a situation in which this existing rule has yielded the lowest number of teen pregnancies in years. We have a situation in which two of our Republican colleagues have joined us in opposition to this repeal. We have a situation in which the Vice President of the United States had to come in and break a tie. Do you know what I would say? I would say that this resolution should be disapproved of, that rolling this rule back will result in less access to care for women and families, and that this rule should stay in place. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Well, that is going to be very important and really an opportunity to make sure that this works for patients with rare diseases and their families. We know that affordability and accessibility remain paramount. We should also think about the burden that these conditions play and the critical role of the voice of the patient. As you stated, Senator Hatch, more than 7,000 rare diseases exist, and the vast majority have no treatment. This is an extraordinary burden borne every day by Americans in every single State across the country. As we seek to continue making progress, including monitoring implementation of the advances in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, we must ensure that rare disease treatments receive sufficient attention. We also must encourage Federal agencies to better incorporate the patient's voice in their decisionmaking process. As I mentioned earlier, all too often as we rightly focus on evidence-based medicine, we can lose sight of the human experience of these and different therapies. What may seem simple in a lab may be overwhelming or difficult when applied to patients in real life situations--all the more so when children are involved. The FDA and all agencies should ensure that they have appropriate processes to seek and incorporate this vital input. The user fee agreement will be an opportunity for us to make this case. I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for his time to discuss these issues that are very important to both of us. We look forward to engaging with our colleagues on these issues as we move forward to the implementation of the Cures Act, as well as the work on the Orphan Drugs Act, and as well as the user fee agreement.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Hatch for beginning this colloquy. I am so proud to be a cochair of the Rare Disease Caucus with him, and I share my colleague's concerns. I think there must be improvements that are made. I continue to be inspired by the families across my State, your State, and our country who work so hard to make it easier for kids to have access to drugs to treat their illnesses. Unfortunately, we haven't yet achieved all we can do for these families, and I have heard time and again about the emotional roller coaster that many of them have experienced when they interact with the Federal Government on new approaches for these rare disease conditions. Too often they are unaware when drugs are under review or confused about why experts or patients are not even consulted. The individuals suffering from these conditions and their families need greater clarity about the process for evaluating and approving these drugs, and they ought to be included and informed every step of the way. It is critical that treatments that do exist for those with rare conditions be accessible and affordable. We must continue to protect the individuals from discrimination in insurance coverage and work to bring down costs. We have to ensure that incentives designed to spur the development and accessibility of treatments that the rare disease community desperately needs are not abused. I ask Senator Hatch, as one with longstanding leadership on the bill that you passed that has helped so many people and saved lives, how can we focus on sharing this message with our colleagues and our constituents?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about this administration's ties to the country of Russia. We are just 3 months into the 115th Congress, and I have come to the Senate floor multiple times to discuss inappropriate contact between Trump administration officials and the Russian Government. This is truly unprecedented. Our Constitution was set up to guarantee that our democracy would be free of influence from foreign powers. For months, U.S. intelligence agencies have said that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and propaganda to try to undermine our democracy. Reports show it, and the facts prove it. As I learned from my trip at the end of the year with Senator McCain and Senator Graham to the Baltics, Georgia, and Ukraine, this is not unique to our country and our elections and our democracy. This is something that has gone on for years--where Russia shut down the internet in the little country of Estonia simply because they had the audacity to move a bronze statue to a public square in Lithuania where they invited members of the Ukrainian Parliament who were in exile from Crimea in Kiev and invited them to Lithuania to celebrate their 25th anniversary of independence from Russia, and then they attempted to hack into the computers of the members of the Parliament in Lithuania. As Senator Marco Rubio noted, this is not just about one party or one candidate or even about one country; this is an assault on democracies across the world. Last month, we learned that the very day President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia, with unprecedented attacks on our democracy, General Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, spoke to a senior Russian official regarding those sanctions. The National Security Adviser, the person charged with the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security, then misled the Vice President of the United States and then, in turn, the American people. He resigned, as did the former chairman of the Trump campaign; he resigned. Now we have learned that Attorney General Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador. Fine, Members meet with Ambassadors; we know that happens. But in fact, he met with the Russian Ambassador only 3 days after then-President Obama was at the G20 Summit. He was at the G20 Summit, and he met with Vladimir Putin himself. He told him to stop the cyber attacks, but he also told him that America was not going to back down from the sanctions. In fact, President Obama told the whole world that day in a press conference that we were not going to roll over and back down on the sanctions imposed against Russia because of their illegal invasion of Ukraine. What happened 3 days later? Then-Senator Sessions, now our Attorney General, in fact, met with the Russian Ambassador. Senator Sessions was then asked about contacts with the Russians from Trump officials during his hearing. I was there. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Franken posed some of those questions, in addition to Senator Leahy, who has noted that, at best, the answer was misleading. That is why I feel so strongly that a press conference today is not enough and that Senator Sessions must come before the Judiciary Committee and answer under oath the questions that we now have. What are those questions? What was actually said at the meeting? Were sanctions discussed? Remember, 3 days--this meeting occurred 3 days after President Obama had said he would not roll back the sanctions. Were the sanctions discussed? Why did the Russian Ambassador, by the way, not meet with many other Members that day? We may not have a full accounting, but it appears that many of the Armed Services Committee members did not meet with the Russian Ambassador that day. No. 2, what were the discussions with the Trump administration, then- campaign officials back in September, before that meeting occurred between Senator Sessions and the Russian Ambassador? What were the discussions leading into it? What were the discussions after the meeting? Those are things we truly need to know. For weeks, Senator Sessions could have corrected the record--for weeks, during the time in which this Russian issue and the contact with the Trump administration were discussed thoroughly. For weeks, I have been calling on Senator Sessions, now Attorney General Sessions, to recuse himself from any investigation into Russia. There are clear Department of Justice guidelines about conflicts of interest, and, as I have said for weeks, when you read those rules, there is a clear conflict of interest. Today, Attorney General Sessions agreed to a partial recusal. He recused himself on the part of the investigation that relates to the Presidential campaign. Well, the American people deserve a full recusal. Think about it. The meeting between General Flynn and the Russian Ambassador took place after the campaign ended. The meeting that we just learned about today between the President's son-in-law and Russian officials happened after the campaign ended. We need a full recusal and an independent counsel to manage the investigation of contacts between the Russian Government, the Trump campaign, and the Trump administration. I believe, as I have noted earlier, that Attorney General Sessions must come before the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath and answer these questions: Were sanctions discussed? What were his discussions leading into that meeting with the Russian Ambassador? What were the discussions afterwards? And I am sure my other colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have many, many other questions. I know when I asked about Russia at Senator Sessions' nomination hearing, I asked him very specifically if he had any reason to doubt the evidence put forward by our 17 intelligence agencies that there had, in fact, been an attempt by a foreign government, the country of Russia, to influence our election. He said he had no reason to doubt those findings. He had no reason to doubt those findings, so he clearly understood when you read that report how important this is--the $200 million spent in propaganda by Russian TV, as well as the hacking, as well as the attempts to influence the election. So we have these facts. We know that meeting took place just 3 days after the President, our then-President Obama, met with Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit. We know that is a time when Putin was told by the President of the United States to stop undermining the U.S. election system with cyber attacks. This was back in September before the election even occurred. We saw Paul Manafort resign from the campaign over Russia. We saw General Flynn step down over his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, and then we have that meeting. To me this seems like a pattern, and I want to not only see the facts through the investigations that are ongoing but also hear from the Attorney General himself. That is why I am calling for the Department of Justice inspector general to investigate the actions of the Attorney General and whether the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and administration contacts with the Russian Government has been compromised in any way. We know that Russia attempted to interfere with our election. Russia tries to undermine our democracy. This is not fake news. This is as real as it gets. Aides and surrogates of this administration during the campaign and the transition were in contact with officials from a foreign government that was actively working to bring our democracy down. They were actively working to influence our elections. As Senator Rubio has noted, one time it is one candidate and one political party, and the next time it will be the other candidate and the other political party, unless we all come together in a bipartisan fashion to get to the bottom of the facts. So how do we do that beyond the recusal and the independent counsel and having Senator Sessions come back before the Judiciary Committee to thoroughly answer my questions and the questions of my colleagues? Well, the other way we do it is by having an independent commission. That is why I introduced, along with Senators Cardin, Leahy, Feinstein, and Carper, the bill that was announced by Senator Cardin and me, with Adam Schiff and Elijah Cummings, that would create an independent, nonpartisan commission to uncover all the facts and make sure that future elections and political campaigns are safeguarded from foreign interference. Remember that this commission can go alongside the Intelligence Committee investigation--not to replace it but to be in addition to it--because this committee and experts appointed by this Congress from both sides of the aisle, just like the 9/11 Commission so successfully did, could actually not just uncover some facts that aren't known publicly, but, most importantly, they can make recommendations to make sure this doesn't happen again. By the way, there are upcoming elections in Germany and in France, and getting that information out there doesn't just help our democracy, it also helps democracies in other parts of the world. We also need-- and I touched on this earlier--an independent counsel, special prosecutor to look into all the contacts between the Trump administration and the campaign and have a full recusal. What else can Congress do besides the independent commission? We have to make sure that the Intelligence Committee proceeds with its investigation. I am pleased that Senator Burr and Senator Warner have come together and announced that they are going to do a full and thorough investigation. They will also be looking into the contacts with the campaign--incredibly important. Now we have the issue of the sanctions. As I mentioned, the day that the Obama administration was imposing additional sanctions on Russia-- and the Trump campaign, through General Flynn, was actually meeting during this transition day with the Russian Ambassador to perhaps undermine those sanctions--I was with Senators McCain and Graham in Eastern Europe. As I noted, when we were in the Baltics, we heard and met with leaders--Prime Ministers and Presidents of these countries in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, who have seen this movie before. We went to Ukraine. We went to Georgia. We heard from Ukraine--6,500 attempts to hack into their country's computer system alone, shutting down access in Estonia. Trolls, in a building in Moscow--nearly 1,000 people--who are now working and have been working to undermine democracies all around the world. So this isn't just about defending our own democracy; it is about defending the world's democracies. It is about saying to a country that thinks they can just get us to roll over and say: Hey, you can influence our election. No, that is not right. That is why we worked for expanded sanctions; that is why we introduced on a bipartisan basis with Senator McCain and Senator Graham--and I was one of the original sponsors with Senator Cardin and others--the Countering Russian Hostilities Act that would impose more sanctions on Russia. It would address cyber attacks, human rights violations, and its illegal annexation of land in Ukraine and Georgia. Just this weekend, on Sunday afternoon, I met with my Ukrainian community. Hundreds of people showed up on a Sunday afternoon in Minnesota because they are so concerned about their friends and relatives and they so believe in our democracy. Right down the road from the Ukrainian Center, where we held our meeting and where I listened and answered questions from my constituents, is a deli called Kramarczuk's. It is owned by a Ukrainian immigrant family whose parents came over to our country having fled oppression, and they came over to our country and bought this deli. They put this beautiful mural across an entire wall, and it is a beautiful photo of our Statue of Liberty, that beacon of democracy. Because of the Kramarczuks--they believe in our country. They believe in America. They believe in a country that is going to stand up for freedom of the press, that is going to stand up for freedom of religion, and that is going to stand up for them and their rights as immigrants to be citizens in this country. They believe in it because they have seen the worst of it. They have seen dictatorships, they have seen oppression, and they came to our country. They expect our country, as they serve their Ukrainian food to the people all over Minnesota in front of the big mural of the Statue of Liberty--they believe that our country is going to stand up for democracy. That was the message that Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I brought to the people of Ukraine. We not only, of course, met with the President and their official leaders, but we also went right to the frontline. On New Year's Eve, we were in Eastern Ukraine on the sea-- cold, snow coming down--with hundreds and hundreds of Ukrainian troops, hearing the stories of a mother who was so young, who had just lost her son a week before to a Russian separatist sniper. We heard the stories of the 10,000 people killed just as this conflict began, standing up for democracy, just as we have stood up for our democracy. So when all of these discussions go on about recusals and about who should resign and what should happen, let's remember what this is all about. This is about saving our democracy and making our democracy strong so we can continue to be the beacon that those Ukrainians put on their wall in their deli because they believe in this country so much. This isn't about partisan divides. This is simply about being a democracy and getting to the bottom of it. When something goes on and a foreign country is trying to influence things, you have to put your party aside. You have to say: You know what, I want to know what happened here. If I am a Democrat or Republican, I want to know what happened so it doesn't happen again. I want to be able to protect our citizens and our election system and our democracy. That is what this is about. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Carper for his leadership today, and I rise today to join him in speaking about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I will not be voting in favor of Mr. Pruitt's nomination for EPA Administrator because of his record and views on issues that are very important to the people of my State--issues like climate change, which matters in Minnesota, and issues like the Renewable Fuel Standard. I am not sure everyone has focused on that today, but I think it is important, especially for States in the Midwest, to focus on what his record has been on this issue. Mr. Pruitt has written that the climate change debate is ``far from settled'' and has made other troubling comments about climate change. I could not disagree more. I believe that the debate on whether climate change is happening is over. The facts are in, and the science is clear. The ``2014 National Climate Assessment'' stated the most recent decade was the Nation's warmest on record. U.S. temperatures are expected to continue to rise. It was drafted by over 300 authors and extensively reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and a Federal advisory committee of 60 members. The ``Quadrennial Defense Review 2014'' of the Department of Defense of the United States stated: ``The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.'' Climate change isn't just about melting glaciers and rising ocean levels, although it is certainly about that. It is also about what we have experienced in the Midwest. When I first got to the Senate, I remember hearing from experts, including people in our own Defense Department and major military leaders who talked about the fact that one of the consequences of climate change will be, first of all, all over the world in economies that are already struggling. We are going to see some of those developing nations encounter unpredictable weather--hurricanes, tsunamis. In the Midwest, while we may not have tsunamis, what we see is major, unpredictable weather, which is just as dangerous. We have seen the devastating impacts of natural disasters like Hurricane Matthew, and we have seen flooding from Cedar Rapids and Duluth. We now know the risk of climate change to Minnesota, to our country, and to our planet. We must reduce greenhouse gas and tackle the challenge of global climate change head-on. If we don't tackle this issue, we are going to continue to struggle with the far-reaching economic and environmental consequences. Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak more long-term havoc on our businesses and our industries. That is why businesses in my State--major companies like Cargill and General Mills--have been willing to take this on, have been willing to talk about this as a problem. They see this as a moral obligation to their employees and their customers, but they also see it as part of their business. They can't simply continue in business and serve people all over the world if major economies could be ruined by one storm or if we see areas flooded that are on our coast or the kind of weather we have seen in the Midwest. It is bad for business, and they are willing to admit that. As a Senator from Minnesota with a strong ag industry and also a tradition of hunting and fishing, I see climate change as a direct threat to my State's economy for recreation. It is also a threat to our State's heritage of enjoying the outdoors, whether that is snowmobiling or whether that is our wildlife. We have seen some major changes to the wildlife in our State. I have always believed that an ``all of the above'' plan is necessary to build a new energy agenda for America, but it must be an agenda that recognizes the challenges of climate change. Someone who heads up the EPA must believe in science. It is an Agency grounded in science. Mr. Pruitt has also been quoted as saying ``the ethanol fuel mandate is unworkable.'' I know he has changed some of his views since he was nominated, but I, as a Senator from a State that relies on renewable fuels as one of our major industries in the ag part of our State, must look at his entire record and what he has actually said when he has been in positions of power. How do I see the Renewable Fuel Standard? The Renewable Fuel Standard has led to important advancements in clean energy, and the standard has provided stability and predictability that have and will continue to drive long-term investments in the renewable space. Every time a new study is released on the subject, I become even more convinced that investments in renewable fuels are investments in the future health of our economy and our environment. A recent study by ABF Economics showed that the ethanol industry generated $7.37 billion in gross sales in 2015 for Minnesota businesses and $1.6 billion in income for Minnesota households. Here is a big one: The ethanol industry also supports over 18,000 full-time jobs in Minnesota. Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that renewable fuels are important as a home-grown economic generator. They also are about 10 percent of our fuel supply in the United States. That is a competitor for oil. When we have that kind of competition, that allows us to have everything from electric cars to other kinds of renewables, and we should not simply rely on the oil industry to fuel our vehicles. Renewable fuels are an important competitor. As I mentioned, there is strong bipartisan support for renewable fuels. I have worked closely with many friends across the aisle for many years on this issue. And, of course, the further ethanol and renewable fuels take us, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil. We need and want a mixed fuel supply. Now is not the time to waiver on support for renewable fuels. The EPA Administrator has many flexibilities under the law to slow or make changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, and that is why I am concerned about the past record of this nominee on this important issue. Another reason we need consistent and effective leadership at the EPA is in the fight to maintain and restore the Great Lakes. Our Great Lakes contain 90 percent of our Nation's supply of fresh surface water and supply drinking water to 30 million Americans. And our economy? The Great Lakes' combined economic impact is so enormous that restoration alone is estimated to provide $50 billion in long-term economic benefits. That is why last year's Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act reauthorized the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. These projects have helped eliminate toxins from our waters, combat invasive species--something very critical in my State with invasive carp--protect against pollution, restore habitats for fish and wildlife, and promote the overall health. The Administrator of the EPA is responsible for leading efforts to implement, administer, and distribute grant funding across agencies that undertake restoration activities. As I noted, Minnesota is home to a thriving outdoor economy that relies on clean water, free of invasive species. It is vital that our next EPA Administrator continue to take action to stop the spread of invasive carp before they reach the Great Lakes and many of our most important northern waters. My background? My grandpa was an iron ore miner. He worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines most of his life. Every day when he went down in that cage, he would always think about what he would like to do in the outdoors. He loved to hunt. About once a year, they would borrow a car from my uncle. They would go to see Lake Superior, and he would bring his sons to see Lake Superior. I want an EPA Administrator that sees that, yes, you want a strong economy, and yes, those things can work together with the environment, but you also need to preserve that outdoors and wildlife and those Great Lakes my grandpa and my family hold so dear. Mr. Pruitt has articulated extreme views about the role of the EPA, but there is a bigger problem here. We still don't know his full views and record. My colleagues who sat on the Environment and Public Works Committee have asked Mr. Pruitt to produce critical documents that will clarify his record and vision for the EPA, and 19 times, Mr. Pruitt told Senators they should get the information from his attorney general's office. Well, they tried and they have not succeeded. The Oklahoma attorney general's office told them that they have a 2-year backlog for such requests. In committee questions for the record, my colleagues asked Mr. Pruitt to clear the backlog and provide the committee with these communications. Once again, he declined. Mr. Pruitt has not provided the Senate with the information we need to make an informed decision about his nomination. The EPA Administrator will be entrusted with protecting the health and well-being of Americans. This is a tremendous responsibility. That is why Americans deserve a clear picture of Mr. Pruitt's record on protecting public health, clean air, and clean water, including a review of the emails that were ordered to be released today.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the Senate recently voted to confirm Representative Mike Pompeo to be the Director of the CIA. While I do not agree with many of the views that Congressman Pompeo has expressed in the past, I have worked with him on legislation, and I know that he is a dedicated and experienced public servant. I believe he is qualified to lead the CIA at a critical time in our country's history. I was also extremely concerned about the nature of the President's press conference in front of the CIA memorial wall that honors those who lost their lives while in service. This press conference occurred before Representative Pompeo was confirmed by the Senate, and it provided an additional reason for putting seasoned leadership at the Agency without delay. Like many of my colleagues, I was concerned about Congressman Pompeo's past views on torture. That is why I personally asked Representative Pompeo about the use of torture, and as he did at his hearing, he stated unequivocally that he would not use illegal enhanced interrogation techniques at the CIA. Senator Feinstein and I have requested and received written confirmation to reinforce the commitment he made at his hearing to uphold laws that ban torture. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I intend to exercise robust oversight to ensure that these laws are upheld. I am opposed to torture. In 2007, I voted against Michael Mukasey for Attorney General because of his views on waterboarding. In 2015, I voted to strengthen the legal prohibition on torture by limiting interrogation techniques and requiring that the Red Cross has access to all detainees. I have also introduced bipartisan legislation, the Torture Victims Relief Act, to support torture treatment programs in the United States and abroad to help torture survivors recover from their trauma and rebuild productive lives. The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture has been ratified by 157 countries, including the United States. The world continues to look to America for its steadfast leadership and we must continue to fight against the practice of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatments.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first want to say a few words about the Senator from Massachusetts and her passion and what she has brought to this Chamber. While I know she has not been allowed to complete her remarks today, I know that will not silence her, and we look forward to hearing from her tomorrow and many days in the future on so many topics. I also wanted to say something about my friend from Utah. We have worked together on so many bills. I have seen firsthand that he means what he says about treating this Chamber with the dignity that we all deserve and that the American people deserve. Also, I was especially impressed by the words from the Senator from Florida. When I see the majority leader and the Democratic leader over there talking in the corner now, I think that is a good sign, because I have never seen a time where the Senate is more important, as the Senator from Florida was mentioning. This is a moment in time where the Senate will not just be a check and balance, but it is also a place for compromise. The one issue where I would differ slightly with my friend and colleague from Utah is that this isn't just about Democrats responding with surprise or anger to the election of a new President. There have been a lot of things said in the last few months, including calling judges ``so-called judges'' and some of the discussions and comparisons to foreign leaders, and things that we have heard from the White House in the last few weeks, including the order that was issued that some of our Republican colleagues expressed a lot of concern about and that the Senate wasn't involved in and that a lot of law enforcement people weren't involved in. There have been reasons that people's passions are high, and there are reasons that are good ones because we care about this country. So I hope people will see that in perspective for why people are reacting the way they do. As for the Senator from Alabama, as I would call him for the purpose of these remarks, I am someone who has worked well with him. We have done bills together on adoption, and we have worked together on trafficking, and I am proud of the work I have done with him. We have also gone to the State of the Union together every single year, and I value his friendship. I came to the conclusion that I couldn't support him not for personal reasons, but because of some of the views he has expressed in the past and his record on the Violence Against Women Act, his views on immigration, and his views relating to voting rights. I think many of our colleagues, especially those who serve on the Judiciary Committee, feel the same way--that this wasn't personal, but we simply had a deep disagreement with some of his views on certain issues. Today I thought I would focus on the voting rights issue. I spoke earlier about the Violence Against Women Act, and I think that is a good place to start as we work together going forward. We have seen an attack on America's election system; we have had 17 intelligence agencies talking about the fact that a foreign country tried to influence our election. It is the core of our democracy. I know the Senator from Florida himself has said that this time it happened to one candidate, one party, and the next time it could be another party, another candidate. So this idea of voting--this idea of the freedom to vote--is the core of our democracy. One of the most important duties of the Justice Department--and that is the office for which the Attorney General would run--is safeguarding voters' access to the ballot box. This issue is important in my State. We had the highest voter turnout of any State in the country in this past election, and part of the reason we had such a good turnout is that we have good laws that allow for people to vote. It allows for same-day registration. We make it easy for people to vote; we don't make it hard. For me, that is one of the major duties of the Justice Department, and that is to enforce our voting rights. I will never forget when I traveled to Alabama in the last few years with one of the leaders, Congressman John Lewis, who was one of the 13 original Freedom Riders. In 1964 he coordinated the efforts for the Mississippi Freedom Summit, recruiting college students from around the country to join the movement, to register African-American voters across the South. People from my State went, and people from every State in this Chamber went there for that March. On March 7, 1965, Congressman Lewis and 600 other peaceful protestors attempted to march from Selma to Birmingham to protest violence against civil rights workers. As they reached the crest of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they saw a line of troopers blocking their way. At the end of the bridge, those peaceful marchers were attacked, just for calling for the right to vote. John Lewis's skull was fractured, and he still bears that scar to this day. The weekend that I went back there, 48 years after that bloody Sunday, was the weekend that the police chief of Montgomery actually handed Congressman Lewis a badge and publicly apologized for what happened to him that day, 48 years later. But as moving as that apology was, we still have a duty to make sure that those sacrifices were not in vain. We also need to make it easier for people to actually vote, and that is a promise still unmet in America over 50 years later, whether it is lines at voting booths or whether it is laws in place that make it harder to vote. I just look at this differently, having come from a high voter turnout State, a State where we have same-day registration, and when we look at the other high voter States that have that same-day registration station--Iowa, the Presiding Officer's State is one of them; that is not really a Democratic State, yet they have a high voter turnout and people participate and feel a part of that process. New Hampshire, Vermont, these States are truly split, but what we want to see is that kind of participation. A couple of months after I was in Selma, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder. In this decision, the Justices found that a formula in section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional. This formula was used to decide which States and localities needed to have Federal approval for any changes made to their voting rights laws, endangering the progress made over the past 50 years. According to a report by the Brennan Center for Justice, following the Shelby County decision, 14 States put new voting restrictions in place that impacted the 2016 Presidential election. Three other States also passed restrictive voting measures, but those laws were blocked by the courts. So the harm is very real and very serious, and we can't sit by and just let this happen. Specifically, we need a Department of Justice that will vigorously enforce the remaining sections of the Voting Rights Act as well as the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Currently, a majority of the States are not complying with the National Voter Registration Act, leaving voting rolls outdated and preventing eligible voters from casting their ballots. Without a Department of Justice that makes the enforcement of these laws a priority, the rights of voters will continue to be infringed. Congress also needs to take action through legislation to make right what came out of that Supreme Court decision. Effectively throwing out the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act just doesn't make sense. As Justice Ginsberg put so well in her dissent, ``Ending preclearance now is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Those marchers in Selma sacrificed too much for us not to fight back. That is why I cosponsored legislation last Congress that would amend the Voting Rights Act. I am under no illusion that amending the Voting Rights Act in Congress will be easy. It won't be. We have seen some bipartisan support. In fact, Congressman Sensenbrenner, from my neighboring State of Wisconsin, who sponsored the reauthorization in 2006, called for Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act. As he put it, ``the Voting Rights Act is vital to America's commitment to never again permit racial prejudices in the electoral process.'' Another issue I want to focus on this evening that I raised in Senator Sessions' hearing is the fundamental importance of freedom of the press. My dad was a newspaper reporter, and up until a few years ago, he was still writing a blog. So I am especially sensitive to, and concerned about, maintaining the press's role as a watchdog. On a larger note, the role of journalists is critical to our Nation's democracy. That is why our Founders enshrined freedom of the press in the First Amendment. When we look at what we are seeing in the last few years in our country, what concerns me is this assault on democracy. We have voting rights issues with people unable to vote, with lines, with restrictive voting laws passed as opposed to finding ways to allow more people to vote. We have outside money in politics. Recently, we have some of the things being said about judges, and now we have some assault on this notion of the freedom of the press. Thomas Jefferson said that our first objective should be to leave open ``all avenues to truth,'' and the most effective way of doing that is through ``the freedom of press.'' This is still true today. Freedom of the press is the best avenue to truth. In fact, these values are more important now than ever, at a time when people are not exactly valuing the freedom of the press. I believe there are two distinct roles journalists will hold that Congress must preserve and strengthen in the coming years. The first is providing the people with information about their government. Sometimes this is as simple as covering the passage of a new law in a public forum. This work doesn't just lead to a better, informed public. It can also lead to important actions. Thanks to excellent reporting from across the country, Americans have been energized in the past. For instance, just a few weeks ago there was an attempt to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics over in the House. That came out, people were outraged, it was reported on, and they backed down. The second role we must preserve is journalists' responsibility to be fact-checkers. They research, they provide context, and, when they need to, they correct. We need newspapers and media to stand up for what is true and what is factual. Unlike what was recently said--not in this Chamber--the press cannot simply keep its mouth shut. The American people deserve the truth, and we are all relying on journalists to keep digging for it. I take this personally and seriously. In Senator Sessions' hearing I asked him whether he would follow the standards now in place at the Justice Department, which address when Federal prosecutors can subpoena journalists or their records and serve to protect reporters engaged in news-gathering activities. The previous two Attorneys General both pledged not to put reporters in jail if they were simply doing their job under the law. The Senator from Alabama did not make that commitment. When I asked him about this in his hearing, he said he had not yet studied those rules. He also did not make a commitment when I later asked him to do that on the record. The Senator from Alabama has also raised concerns in the past about protecting journalists from revealing their sources, including opposing the Free Flow of Information Act when it was considered by the Judiciary Committee in 2007, 2009, and 2013. So at this time, when our freedom of the press has been under attack at the highest levels of government, I believe it is critically important that our Justice Department continues to function as an independent voice that will protect the ability of journalists to do their job. Lastly, I want to take a moment to focus on the importance of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. As ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I am concerned about the state of competition in the marketplace. I wish to take a few minutes on this issue. I did ask Senator Sessions about this at his hearing, and he said he was committed to an independent division in the Justice Department and to continue that work without outside influence. I continue to believe that this issue will be important because of the massive amount of mergers we are seeing. The legal technicalities behind our antitrust laws will not be familiar to most Americans, but effective antitrust enforcement provides benefits we can all understand. When companies vigorously compete, they can offer consumers the lowest prices and the highest quality goods and services. Senator Sessions has stated that he will support the independence of that division, and I want to make clear how critical this is. It is absolutely essential that our next Attorney General enforces our antitrust laws fairly and vigorously, and that this person protects the integrity of the Antitrust Division's prosecutorial function from inappropriate influence. This is because vigilant antitrust enforcement means more money in the pockets of American consumers. The Attorney General can do this by identifying and preventing competition problems before they occur, like stopping a merger that would allow a few dominant players to raise prices, or, when a merger is allowed to move forward, putting conditions in place to protect competition. The next Attorney General will also be able to stop price-fixing cartels that hurt consumers by artificially inflating prices for goods such as auto parts, TVs, and tablet computers. Last year alone, the Justice Department obtained more than $1 billion in criminal antitrust fines. Anticompetitive practices have serious impacts on consumers; for example, pay-for-delay settlements that keep cheaper generic drugs from coming onto the markets. Estimates suggest that eliminating those sweetheart deals would generate over $2.9 billion in budget savings over 10 years and save American consumers billions on their prescription drug costs. That is why Senator Grassley and I worked on bipartisan legislation to give the Federal Trade Commission greater ability to block those anticompetitive agreements. Our Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act would increase consumers' access to cost- saving generic drugs. The bottom line is this. Antitrust enforcement is needed now more than ever. We are experiencing a wave of concentration across industries. Just last year, then-Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Division Bill Baer, a lifelong antitrust practitioner, said his agency was reviewing deals with such antitrust concerns that they should never have made it out of the corporate boardroom. Not only will antitrust violations mean higher prices for Americans and less innovation, but the indirect effects are equally troubling. There is concern that undue concentration of economic power would exacerbate income inequality. There is also concern that concentration can hurt new businesses, stifling innovation. Why would you innovate if there is just one or two firms? Only effective antitrust enforcement by the Attorney General will prevent those harms, and effective enforcement can occur only if the Department of Justice makes enforcement decisions based on the merits of the individual case, rather than politics. Traditionally, the White House has not interfered with antitrust enforcement decisions, but recent reports indicate that the President has discussed pending mergers with CEOs during ongoing antitrust reviews. Some companies have also publicly reported their conversations with and their commitments to the President. In both Senator Sessions' hearing and in a follow up letter, I raised this issue with him. The Senator from Alabama said: ``It would be improper to consider any political, personal, or other non-legal basis in reaching an enforcement decision.'' That is the correct answer. I plan to rigorously protect the Antitrust Division's prosecutorial integrity to make sure it is principled and is done right. Antitrust and competition policy are not Republican or Democratic issues. A merger in the ag industry could have an effect on farmers in Iowa, as the Presiding Officer knows. These are consumer issues, and these issues could not be more important to all Americans. We can all agree that robust competition is essential to our free-market economy and critical to ensuring that consumers pay the best prices for what they need. I want to switch gears and conclude today by speaking about the President's Executive order regarding refugees, especially those from Muslim countries, which has caused so much chaos across our country over the past several weeks. While I know Senator Sessions was not involved in writing the Executive order, it is very important that going forward, obviously, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel have a responsibility to review Presidential Executive orders and assure they are legal and done right. I sent a letter, with Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Franken, Coons, and Blumenthal, and we asked Senator Sessions what he would have done if the President's Executive order came across his desk. As a former prosecutor, I have long advocated for thorough vetting and supported strong national security measures. I believe that the No. 1 priority should be making people safe. While working to strengthen biometrics and other security measures is a good goal, this is not the way our government should work--that an order should be put out there without properly vetting it and figuring out the effect it would have on a four-year-old girl who is in a refugee camp in Uganda. That happened. In my State, there was a mom who had two children, a Somali mother in a refugee camp. She got permission to come over to our State and to our country as a refugee. But she was pregnant, and when she had that baby, that baby did not have permission to come with her. So she had a Sophie's choice: Does she leave the baby in the refugee camp with friends and go to America with her two other daughters, or do all of them stay in the refugee camp in Uganda? She made a decision that she would go with her two older girls, that that would be the safest thing for them. For 4 years, she worked to get the child that was left behind in the refugee camp to America to be reunited with her sisters. The baby, who is now 4 years old, was to get on a plane on the Monday after the President's Executive order was issued. The 4-year-old could not get on that plane. Senator Franken and I got involved. We talked to General Kelly. He was more than generous with his time. They made an exception, and the 4-year-old is now in Minnesota. But it should not take a Senator's intervention--as many of my colleagues know that have worked on these cases--to get a 4-year-old who is supposed to be reunited with their family, something that our government had worked on for 4 years and Lutheran Social Services in Minnesota had worked on for 4 years. If Senator Sessions is in fact confirmed as the next Attorney General, these are actual issues he is going to have to work on, and beyond that, we have the issue of how people in our country are afraid. We have 100,000 Somalis in Minnesota. We have the biggest Somali population in the country. A man who works for me started with my office 10 years ago and has been our outreach to the Somali community. He was just elected to the school board. We have Somalis elected to our city council. They are part of the fabric of life in our State. Congressman Emmer, who actually took the seat held by Michele Bachmann, is the cochair, along with Congressman Ellison, of the Somali caucus in the House of Representatives. We have not seen this as a Democratic issue or a Republican issue in our State. We have welcomed these refugees. We have the second biggest population of Hmong in the United States of America. We have the biggest Liberian population. We have one of the biggest populations of people from Burma. We have 17 Fortune 500 companies in our State. When these refugees come over, they are legal workers, and they are a major part of our economy. So it is no surprise that during the last year, when we heard the kind of rhetoric that we have heard, people have been concerned--not just the refugees themselves, not just their friends and family, but a lot of people in our State. The churches have gotten involved--all kinds and every denomination in our State--to stand up for our Muslim population. Why? Because they have all heard the story. One of my most memorable stories was from a family whom I heard about when I was visiting with some of our Muslim population in Minneapolis. This was a story of two adults who actually had been in our State during 9/11. And during 9/11, George Bush stood up and he said: This isn't about a religion. This is about evil people who did evil things, but it is not to indict a religion. His U.S. attorney at the time, the Republican U.S. attorney, went around with me--the elected prosecutor for the biggest county in our State--and we met with the Muslim population and assured them they were safe and told them to report hate crimes. The family, these two adults, they were there then. Nothing bad happened to them. No one called them a name. Fast-forward to this summer. They are at a restaurant with their two little children. They are just sitting there having dinner. A guy walks by and says: You four go home. You go home to where you came from. The little girl looked up at her mom, and she said: Mom, I don't want to go home and eat tonight. You said we could eat out tonight. The words of an innocent child. She didn't even know what that man was talking about because she only knows one home. That home is our State, and that home is the United States of America. If Senator Sessions is confirmed for this position, he is going to have an obligation to that little girl who was in that restaurant and to all of the people in our country because this is the Justice Department of the United States of America. As a former prosecutor, I know a big part of that job is prosecuting cases and doing all we can to keep America safe from evildoers, but it is also about keeping our Constitution and our rights safe. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, my mom was a second grade teacher, and she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. That was her life's work. I went to public school, and I sent my daughter to public school. It has really been the core of how I ended up in the Senate. After a close review of Mrs. DeVos's confirmation record and the hearing, I have concluded that, like all of my colleagues on the Democratic side and two of our colleagues on the Republican side, I cannot support her. I don't believe she is prepared for this job, and I don't believe she is committed to the kind of public education that got my family from an iron ore mine in Northern Minnesota to the U.S. Senate. My question of Senator Murray is that one of the most troubling examples of this lack of preparation came when Mrs. DeVos was questioned by my colleagues Senator Hassan, who just spoke, and Senator Kaine about whether schools should meet the standards outlined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. She said she would leave this decision to the States. As I noted yesterday, I occupied the Senate seat once held by Minnesota's own Hubert Humphrey. He was someone who, of course, was never at a loss for words. He delivered a speech at the Minnesota AFL-CIO 40 years ago, and one line of that speech is just as appropriate today as it was back then. He said: ``The moral test of government is how the government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' These civil rights protections and the funding that we have seen under IDEA have always been an area of bipartisan cooperation. I have heard from so many parents in my State. A mom from Watertown with a son who was born with Down syndrome says that thanks to IDEA, this law has given her the opportunity for her son to participate in a normal education. For a woman from Lakeville, her son was born with developmental disabilities in the late 1980s. She was so worried about what his future would be. Then that law was put into place, and today he is a successful young adult who happily lives, learns, and works in his community. So my question of Senator Murray is what her views are of the nominee's qualifications when it comes to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the concern that she has heard from others in her State as well as across the country when it comes to this very important issue for our children.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. My mom was a public schoolteacher, and she taught second grade until she was 70 years old. She loved teaching. Her favorite unit was actually the Monarch Butterfly Unit, where she would dress up as the monarch butterfly, and she would teach the kids about metamorphosis. The costume she wore, she would also wear to the supermarket afterward. She was dressed as this big monarch butterfly, with little antennae on her head and a sign that said: ``To Mexico or bust'' because that is where the monarch would fly on its way from Canada through Minnesota and down. It was the night before my mom's funeral at the visitation where I met a family who came up to me, and the mom was sobbing. I didn't know what was going on. I had never met them. They had their older son with them who had pretty severe disabilities. She said: You know, your mom had my kid here in school when he was in second grade. Now he was grown up. She said: He always loved that Monarch Butterfly Unit. After he graduated, your mom would continue to go to the grocery store, and that was why she would go to the store every year. He had gotten a job bagging groceries. She would stand in the line in her monarch butterfly outfit for years and give him a big hug when she got to the end of the line. That was my mom. She loved her kids and she was a devoted teacher. I went to public school through elementary to high school. My daughter went to public school. I learned that basic right we have in this country; that every child should have the right to an education. That led me to the conclusion--after reviewing the record of the hearing and talking to my colleagues on the committee--that this nominee and I do not share the same value when it comes to that public education. I note that two of my Republican colleagues, Senators Collins and Murkowski, have come to the same conclusion. One of the most troubling examples of Mrs. DeVos's views came when she was questioned by two of my colleagues. I note Senator Murray is here. We thank her for her leadership on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Two of my colleagues, Senators Maggie Hassan and Tim Kaine, asked the nominee about whether schools should meet the standards outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or, as it is known, IDEA. Mrs. DeVos said she would leave the decision of whether to offer equal educational opportunities to the States. This is simply unacceptable. It is not the kind of leadership we need. This is not why we have IDEA. I think most education professionals and people who are experts in this area would know that is not the answer. I occupy the Senate seat that was once held by Minnesota's own Hubert Humphrey. He was someone who was never at a loss for words. He delivered a speech to the Minnesota AFL-CIO 40 years ago. One line of that speech is just as appropriate and meaningful today as it was back then. He said: The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the needy, the sick and the disabled. I submit that Mrs. DeVos's opposition toward providing equal education opportunities to students with disabilities does not meet that moral test. Her views are at odds with decades of bipartisan support for IDEA. In 1975, when Congress passed the original version of IDEA, half of all children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services, and 1 million children with disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system. In an impassioned floor speech, then-Senator and later Vice President Walter Mondale of Minnesota talked about the need for IDEA. Before the 1975 law, disabled children were placed in segregated schools and classes with little emphasis on an education, training, or development. Many parents also gave up on the poor services offered by the public schools. As a result, disabled students remained at home. To tackle this problem, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass legislation ensuring that students with disabilities would have equal access to public education, just like all other kids. The law guaranteed and continues to guarantee today--the Federal law--that students with disabilities get a free and appropriate public education. It is not a State-by-State requirement. It is a Federal requirement. In 1975, both Minnesota Senators played a significant leadership role in enacting this groundbreaking civil rights legislation. Senator Humphrey called IDEA one of the most significant pieces of legislation and a major commitment in this Nation's commitment to its children. Then-Senator Mondale argued that this landmark legislation holds a promise of new opportunity for 7 million children in this country. When Congress first enacted this law in 1975, this was not a partisan issue. The law passed both Houses with overwhelming majorities. The Senate voted in favor of the landmark legislation by a margin of 87 to 7; the House, by a vote of 404 to 7. Bipartisan support for IDEA grew stronger over time. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush signed into law a bill that reauthorized the Disabilities Act. That bill was introduced by former Democratic Senator Tom Harkin and former Minnesota Republican Senator Dave Durenberger. The reauthorization was so uncontroversial that it passed by a voice vote in both the House and the Senate. Members from both parties supported IDEA when it was reauthorized again in 2003. Every single member of the Minnesota delegation, all 10--Democrats and Republicans alike--supported IDEA's reauthorization that year. For four decades, IDEA has garnered support from both sides of the aisle because we all understand the need to support the most vulnerable among us. Every Member of Congress knows a family member or a person who has been affected by disability. For a lot of lawmakers, this is personal. When my daughter was born, she couldn't swallow for nearly 2 years. She had a feeding tube, and the doctors didn't know what was wrong with her. It ended up being a temporary problem and not a permanent disability, but those 2 years I still look back at as a gift. They were a gift that brought our family closer together, but they were a gift because they made me understand what parents of kids with disabilities face every single day. This wasn't just a temporary thing for the parents I met. This was something they face every single day. Since the passage of IDEA, our Nation has moved to fulfill the promise of providing a high-quality education to kids with disabilities. Today, more than 4.7 million children with disabilities rely on IDEA to protect their access to high-quality education. Over the last 40 years, the Democratic and Republican Members who have come before me have all fought to preserve those critical rights and opportunities. These are American values. But they are especially near and dear to our State, where we have this long and proud tradition of working to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the same basic resources and opportunities as everyone else. This is not just the original work by Senators Humphrey and Mondale, carried on, of course, by Senator Durenberger and others, but it happened in our State as well. To cite a few examples, it was the Minnesota Ramp Project that introduced a new American model for building statewide standardized wheelchair ramps. Minnesota was the State that sent Paul Wellstone to the Senate, where he fought long and hard for mental health parity. My State is also home to some of the most innovative centers for the disabled in the country, including PACER, the Courage Center, and ARC. When it comes to educating children with disabilities, Minnesota has also been one of the Nation's leaders. In 1957, our State became one of the first States in the Nation to pass a law requiring that special education services be provided to children and youth with disabilities. In our State, from birth to adulthood, kids with disabilities have access to the quality of life they deserve. Through IDEA, our State is able to receive Federal funding for early intervention services that help diagnose disabilities or developmental delays among infants and toddlers. Minnesota also provides each child with a disability and their family a personalized K-12 education plan and the support needed to transition from high school to postsecondary education. These civil rights protections and funding under IDEA have also been an area of bipartisan cooperation among members of the Minnesota delegation. We would like to see even more funding. We don't see us move backwards. At least one Minnesota Republican has cosponsored every version of IDEA and its reauthorization over the last 40 years. We have never had a Secretary of Education who has put these commonsense bipartisan benefits at risk. Today, over 124,000 Minnesota children rely on the protections in IDEA. I have heard from families in my State, and so many of them tell me how that Federal law has made a real difference in their lives. A mom from Watertown, MN, told me all about her son who was born with Down syndrome. She is so thankful for the Federal law because this protection ensures that he can have everyday experiences like other kids. It allows her son to be fully integrated with the rest of the students in his high school. As a result, he has developed many friendships and a strong social network. When she asks her son whether he likes school, he always says a resounding ``yes.'' A mother of two autistic kids who are deafblind, reached out to me from Farmington, MN. She tells me that she depends on IDEA because the law gives her an opportunity to participate in designing individualized education programs for her children. These programs allow her to tailor the best possible educational plans. A woman from Lakeville, MN, told me that when her son was born with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the late 1980s, and she was so worried about what his future would look like. But because of IDEA, he received specialized services at school while still being included in activities with the rest of his peers. Today, she tells me that he is a successful young adult who happily lives, learns, and works in his community. During my time in the Senate, I have worked to share those Minnesota values that you hear resonating in those letters across the country. That is why I helped lead the push in Congress to successfully pass bipartisan legislation with Senators Burr and Casey called the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, or ABLE Act, a law that will help people with disabilities and their families better plan for their futures. It is a law that President Obama signed. We have made progress in removing barriers and empowering people with disabilities. Of course, we know that the ABLE Act alone is not enough. We still need to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to its promise to support education for those with disabilities by enforcing and protecting the IDEA and fully funding special education. Providing equal educational opportunities for children with disabilities is an issue that cuts across partisan lines. It is an issue of decency and an issue of dignity, and I believe it is an issue that we must all stand behind as Americans. I cannot support a nominee that would jeopardize the education of millions of disabled children across our country or someone that is not fully informed at her own hearing about such an important law. We have continuously maintained and strengthened educational laws for children with disabilities because every child deserves a chance to succeed. I think about my mom and all those years of teaching--teaching 30 second graders at age 70. I think about that boy, who is now a man, who in the second grade had her as a teacher. He had severe disabilities, but she did everything to make his learning experience as good as all the other kids that were in that class. I think of how he loved that butterfly unit and felt the passion that my mom brought to teaching it. In her own free time, she would go visit him at his job at that checkout line in the grocery store in her butterfly outfit. That was integrating kids with disabilities into our school systems. That is what special teachers and special education experts who see all children as special are all about. Thank you. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Mrs. DeVos's nomination. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and make remarks on Senator Sessions' nomination to serve as Attorney General. I will be coming back later this evening to focus on voting rights and some of the other issues at hand--freedom of the press, antitrust. I am actually the ranking member on that subcommittee, and while Senator Sessions has assured me that if confirmed, he will keep the independence of that part of the Justice Department away from outside influence from the White House, I am very focused on that because I think we have seen a wave of mergers, and I want to address that more in depth later. I worked successfully with Senator Sessions on a number of UC's over the years such as adoption and human trafficking. We have worked together well, and if he is confirmed, I am sure we will find some areas of common agreement. I am not supporting him, however, and I have told him this in person and I have talked about it at the Judiciary Committee because of my concerns relating to some of his views on some of the core functions of the Justice Department, and that is enforcing voting rights, the handling of immigration issues, the freedom of the press, and the Violence Against Women Act. Now, he has assured me that he will keep the Office on Violence Against Women funded--which I appreciate--in the Justice Department, but I was very concerned that he had actually voted against the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization recently. It was something that the majority of Republican Senators voted for and every single woman Senator, Democrat or Republican, voted in favor of. As a prosecutor and a U.S. Senator, one of my main criminal justice priorities has been enforcing and reauthorizing VAWA or the Violence Against Women Act. It is a bill that took roots in my State, thanks to the efforts on the initial bill of former Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila. Both of them tragically died in a plane crash, and we miss them very much. But Paul and Sheila's legacy lives on in the work of the Violence Against Women Act. It has a long history, as the President knows, of bipartisan support. Since it was first passed in 1994, we have made great strides in raising awareness that these are serious crimes, not shameful secrets. Since the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, annual domestic violence rates have fallen by 50 percent, but the statistics make clear that domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault are still a major problem in America. According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for every minute, 20 people in the United States are victims of physical violence by an intimate partner. That is about 10 million people every year. Millions more individuals are the victims of stalking crimes each year, with approximately 15 percent of women at some point during their lifetime experiencing stalking, during which they feel very fearful or believe that they or someone close to them could be harmed or killed. I would like to note briefly that I am pleased that the Senate recently passed the resolution that Senator Perdue and I introduced on stalking to raise awareness. I have been confronted by these issues of domestic violence and stalking since before I became a Senator. In fact, that is when I was Hennepin County attorney. That is the largest prosecutor's office in our State. I managed an office of about 400 people. With that big office handling everything from representing our State's biggest public hospital to violent murder cases, the poster that you saw when you walked into our office and down the hallway so that everyone could see it was a picture of a woman who was beaten up. She had a Band-Aid over her nose, and she was holding a little baby boy. The words read: Beat your wife, and it is your son that goes to jail. Why? That poster reminds everyone that domestic violence and sexual assault just don't hurt the immediate victims. They hurt children, families, and entire communities. We know that kids who see violence happen are twice as likely to commit it themselves and to continue the cycle. That is why I worked with Senator Leahy along with Senator Crapo to make sure that the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized. What does this legislation do? The legislation ensures that law enforcement has the tools to prosecute domestic and sexual violence and ensures that victims have the support they need to get back on their feet. But we also made some important updates on the law, including addressing the problem of above average levels of domestic violence in tribal areas, by allowing tribal courts to prosecute and to handle cases with people who are tribal members and in very specific cases when violence is committed on the reservation. Providing a uniform nondiscrimination provision was also included to ensure services are available to everyone who needs them, including victims in same-sex relationships. The new bill included stronger housing protections for victims and increased accountability for grant recipients. It also strengthened and updated anti-stalking laws to better address the new technologies that predators are using to harass their victims. This was a bipartisan provision that I authored with Republican former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. As I said, all 20 women Senators supported this critical legislation, and it passed with bipartisan support on a vote of 78 to 22, with support from a majority of Senators in Senator Sessions' own party, not to mention men and women across the country. The reason Senator Sessions had for not voting for the bill was that it was the tribal provisions that he didn't like because of the dual jurisdiction. That just doesn't hold up for me, given what I have seen in my State. Now, what does this really mean to people? Let me end this portion of my remarks with two stories. The first is about a case that our office handled, and a prosecutor in our office who was very well thought of handled it in our office, involving two immigrants. This was a case where this man was from Russia, and he beat up his wife repeatedly over the years. They had a little daughter. One day he killed his wife, and then he went to Home Depot and he bought a saw. And then he basically dismembered her and put her in a garbage bag and brought her to another State and dumped her in a river. He left the head in his trunk, and he brought it back to the Twin Cities. He eventually confessed to his crime. The family gathered--and they were a very small family. The mom and dad came from Russia, and then there was the little girl who had been left behind with really no parent to take care of her anymore. I went to meet with the family before the funeral with our prosecutor and our victim witness advocate. I heard the story then that at the airport--the little girl had never met her deceased mother's twin sister. They were identical twins. And as they got off the airplane and her grandparents and that aunt got off the airplane, the little girl ran up to that aunt and grabbed her and said ``Mommy, Mommy'' because she thought that it was her mother and that her mother was still alive. Those are the victims of domestic violence. It is not just the immediate victim; it is everyone around them. Or, the case in Lake City, MN, of Officer Shawn Schneider, an incredibly brave police officer who was called one day to a domestic violence case. It was a man who was clearly affected by mental illness, who was threatening his 17-year-old girlfriend, and the cop went up to the door, and there he was. He had his bullet proof vest on, but the man shot the police officer in the head, and he died. I attended that funeral. When I was there, I saw their young family, the two young little boys and this little girl. I heard the story about the last time they were in their church for the nativity play, and the dad was sitting there-- the police officer--in the pew, watching his family and his children perform. The next time they were in the church was when that little girl with the blue dress covered in stars was walking down the aisle for her dad's funeral. That is domestic violence. It does concern me that we did not get support from the nominee. I do appreciate that he said he would continue to fund the Office on Violence Against Women, and I believe that that is very important to the functioning of the Justice Department. Since its inception in 1995, the Office on Violence Against Women has provided financial and technical assistance to communities nationwide-- very important to the Department of Justice. The last thing I want to mention--and I will come back again to some of these other priorities that I think are important, if Senator Sessions is confirmed, to continue to be a focus in the Justice Department, as well as other concerns that I have--is the funding of the COPS program. Republican Senator Murkowski and I are leading that effort. We have always had, especially in the House of Representatives, bipartisan support for the COPS program. During Senator Sessions' hearing, I made a special note to discuss that issue with Chuck Canterbury, who is the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, and we had a good discussion about that. He stated that he shared my view that this is a very important program, particularly with the sharp decrease in staffing levels we have seen for law enforcement around the country in recent years, including training funding--something that is really important. The Community Oriented Policing Services, or the COPS program, was established many years ago. It helped to place more than 129,000 police officers on the beat in more than 13,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. In fiscal year 2015, the COPS office was able to award grants to just 209 of the over 1,000 law enforcement agencies that applied. It translated into about 915 officers, which is still a lot, but, in fact, there were requests for over 3,000 officers. I think we can all agree, and hope the administration agrees, that this is a very important program. I will continue to work with Senator Sessions, if he is confirmed, to make sure we have the support from the administration for this program, which, again, is one of the top priorities of the Fraternal Order of Police and other police organizations across the country. I look forward to discussing other issues when I return, but for now, I yield the floor. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Secretary of State nominee, as well as President Trump's recent Executive order on refugees. I believe we need a Secretary of State who will clearly stand up to Russian aggression. I am concerned about the nominee's past statements and his relationship with Russia, and I am not going to be voting for him. If he is confirmed, I hope we can work with him. Some of his newer statements have been positive on taking that on, as well as some of the many issues confronting our world. The reason I am so focused on Russia is, first of all, we have a significant Ukrainian population in Minnesota. We are very proud of them. I was recently in Ukraine, Georgia, as well as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia with Senators McCain and Graham. I saw firsthand the meaning of Russian aggression on a daily basis. In these countries, the cyber attack is not a new movie. They have seen it many times before. It is a rerun. In Estonia, in 2007, they had the audacity to move a bronze statue of a Russian fighter from a town square where there had been protests to a cemetery. What did they get for that? They got their Internet service shut down. That is what they do. In Lithuania, they decided something you could imagine happening in our own country. On the 25th anniversary of the celebration of the independence of their country, they invited, as an act of solidarity, the members of the Ukrainian Parliament--who are in exile in Kiev from Crimea, which has been illegally annexed by Russia. They invited them to meet with them and celebrate in Lithuania. What happened to them; again, cyber attacks on members of the Parliament. This is not just about one political candidate. We saw in the last election in the United States--where now 17 intelligence agencies have collectively said there was an infringement--that there was an attempt to influence our elections in America. It is not just about one candidate. It is not just about one political party, as Senator Rubio so eloquently noted. It is not even just about one country. It is an assault on democracies across the world. I think we need to take this very seriously, not just from an intelligence standpoint but also from a foreign relations standpoint. That is why I introduced the bill, with Senators Feinstein, Cardin, Leahy, and Carper, to create an independent and nonpartisan commission to uncover all the facts. It is also why we have an expanded sanctions bill that is bipartisan, led by Senators McCain and Cardin. What we do matters. I think you see that, not only with regard to our relations with those countries in the Baltics but also with what we have seen in just the past few days because of this Executive order. I hope that having a Secretary of State in place would help, as well as more involvement from other agencies so something like this will never happen again.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Because there is no plan in the alternative, I vote no.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?