Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. I appreciate the words of my colleague from California. I wish to begin by saying that my prayers and thoughts are with the family and friends and Supreme Court colleagues of Justice Scalia. He was a great scholar who had friends in many places. Just last week I was at the University of Chicago Law School, where I went to law school, and so many people have stories. He used to teach there. He taught there for a long period of time, and they miss him very much. The Supreme Court has the constitutional responsibility to weigh some of the most important issues facing the American people. From freedom of speech, to due process, to doing business in America, Supreme Court decisions have impacted and continue to impact the daily life of every citizen of this country. As one of the three pillars of our government, we value the Court's distinctive insulation from public opinion. Justices commit themselves to the law and to the Constitution and not to politics or partisanship. Americans need and deserve to have a functional and fully staffed Supreme Court. We cannot delay consideration of the next Supreme Court nominee. As my colleague just pointed out, we would have to go back to the Civil War, to a time where a position--an important key position on the Supreme Court of the United States--was left open. We would have to go back to a time when it was left open for more than a year. We would have to go back to a time before we had planes, before we had automobiles, before we had washing machines--you name it. We would have to go back to the Civil War. Delaying the confirmation of a new Justice will prevent the Court from issuing binding precedent and deny access to justice for Americans. Lower courts will be left with decisions, and decisions will not be made in those cases. That is why the Constitution of the United States says that the President shall--shall--nominate someone to the Supreme Court. It doesn't say that he will wait for a year. It doesn't say that he can't do it in an election year. It says that he shall nominate someone. We have a lot of Members of this great body who are lawyers, a lot of whom I have heard quoting the Constitution. A lot of them believe in strict interpretation of the words of the Constitution. Well, the words of the Constitution say that the President ``shall nominate'' and that the Senate's job is to ``advise and consent.'' It says that it is the Senate's job. It doesn't say that it is the Senate's job to avoid things and to just go on TV and to run ads. No. It says that the Senate has a job to do. The Senate has a job to do. Both the President and the Senate have a constitutional duty to protect the Supreme Court's ability to function and dispense justice-- not to tell the Supreme Court what to do, not to dictate their decisions, but to make sure they are simply able to do justice. This means they must be fully staffed and have the Justices in place, and it also means they should be funded. Those are our jobs. According to our Constitution, the President replaces vacant seats on the Supreme Court. That duty does not end, as I noted, in a Presidential year, just as the responsibilities of all Senators in their States and in their Nation do not end in an election year. President Obama was elected to serve out his entire second term, not just the first 3 years. For 332 long days, the President will be the democratically elected President of the United States--democratically elected, as in a democracy, as in how our democracy functions. He has an obligation to all Americans to dutifully execute his oath of office. The President has not yet announced a nominee to fill the current vacancy on the Court. When he does, it will be the constitutional duty of each one of us to consider the nominee on his or her merits and then choose whether to vote yes or no. It is really not that hard. It is what the kids learn when they are taught social studies and civics when they are in elementary school. The American people who voted for us, as well as those who didn't vote for us, expect us to do the jobs we were elected to do, regardless of the timing. A complete refusal to engage in this constitutionally required process before the President has even announced a nominee is dangerous for our system of governance. It defies the words of the Constitution. This Chamber would be neglecting a key constitutional duty if it prevented a well-qualified nominee from serving on the Supreme Court. And guess what. How do we figure out if someone is well qualified? We have hearings. That is what we have been doing for decades now. We have hearings to figure out whether this person is qualified. That is how we advise. That is how we consent. That is how we do our duty under the Constitution. It is for that reason that I urge my colleagues to continue in the Senate's bipartisan tradition of giving full and fair consideration to Supreme Court nominees. We have precedent for the Senate performing this role in the final year of a Presidency. Most recently, the Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy, someone who is currently serving on the Supreme Court, a current member sitting on the Supreme Court, someone who makes decisions every day. When was he confirmed? He was confirmed in the last year of Ronald Reagan's Presidency. And guess what. The Senate was controlled by Democrats. So we had the exact opposite situation. Now we have a Democratic President and we have a Senate that is in the control of Republicans. Back then we had a Republican President and a Senate that was in the control of Democrats. People say: Well, what does history show us? What do we know? To me, that is the best example of history. And we know what happened: Justice Kennedy was confirmed, on Ronald Reagan's nomination, by a Democratic Senate in an election year unanimously--unanimously. The Senate has taken such action more than a dozen times in our Nation's history, and there is no reason to abandon that precedent now. I am talking about when a Justice position opens up during an election year. We have that precedent, which I think is important. Again, I think the most important precedent, the most important example for historians, is what I led with: the fact that we have to go back to the Civil War to find a time when we left a vacancy on the Supreme Court open for a year. Think about that. Through World War I, through World War II, through huge tumult in this country, we always made sure we had a fully staffed Supreme Court. It would be unprecedented to deny a Supreme Court nominee fair consideration in the U.S. Senate. In the last 100 years, the Senate has taken action on every Supreme Court nominee regardless of whether the nomination was made in a Presidential year. It is now February, which gives us plenty of time to consider and confirm a nominee. Let's go to that next. People say: When will we have the time to get that done? I would submit that we do. We have hundreds of days before us. In fact, the Senate has taken an average of only 67 days. Let's make it easier: 2 months--about 2 months. That is the average since 1975 from the date of the nomination to the confirmation vote--2 months. That means that if the President offers a nomination, say, in the month of March--that sounds like a good month to have a nominee--that nominee would receive a vote in the Senate by Memorial Day. There are our 2 months. And if we even wanted to add a little time on, we would certainly do it by the Fourth of July, which is a very good holiday for those who believe in the Constitution and in the words of the Constitution. Until we confirm a nominee, the Court is left with only eight Justices. A split decision will prevent the Supreme Court from making critical decisions and leave lower courts without a precedent to follow. A major responsibility of the Supreme Court is to resolve disagreements among lower courts. A failure of the President or the Senate to meet its constitutional obligations would cause the Supreme Court to be unable to fill its constitutional obligations. These Supreme Court Justices aren't elected directly; they have lifetime appointments. Their job is to be insulated from elections and politics, and that is why we have these strict and straightforward words in the Constitution that say that the President shall nominate someone for the job, and they also say that the Senate will advise and consent. We have those words in place in the Constitution, in that incredibly important document that guides us in this Chamber every single day, just for a situation such as this one, just for situations such as these. In closing, I remind my colleagues of the important work the people have sent us here to do. Yes, we have major disputes every day. That happens every day. We get into arguments about issues. There are political campaigns going on. But we have always at least followed the Constitution. That is what this is about today. As soon as we have a nominee, as soon as the President exercises his constitutional duty and puts someone in place, we should follow the Constitution and our longstanding traditions and the history of this country and uphold that duty. We should diligently consider the President's nominee to be the next Supreme Court Justice. As members of the Judiciary Committee, we must have the confirmation hearing. We must do our jobs. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as I mentioned, I rise today to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran--an issue that is critical to our national security and the security of our allies. When we talk about our policy toward Iran, we must do so with our eyes wide open. The Iranian regime is one of the world's leading State sponsors of terrorism. It threatens Israel, it destabilizes the region, and it abuses human rights. That is why I have cosponsored the Iran Policy Oversight Act, a bill that allows Congress to move quickly to impose economic sanctions against Iran's terrorist activity. It expands military aid to Israel, and it ensures that agencies charged with monitoring Iran have the resources they need. Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy. I have strongly advocated for and supported the economic sanctions that have brought Iran to the negotiating table over the last few years. Those sanctions resulted in a nuclear nonproliferation agreement between Iran and the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China. The Iran nuclear agreement, as we have talked about many times on this floor--including my own words--is an imperfect but necessary tool to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In order for the agreement to work, of course, we must remember that simply trusting Iran to do the right thing is not an option. We must be vigilant in our monitoring and in our verification. In my view, our national security strategy must focus on three things. This is overall: Protecting our citizens, eliminating threats to our national security, and never losing sight of our core American values. It is through this lens that we must approach Iran. First of all, we must do all we can to keep our own citizens safe. We can't be naive. We cannot trust in the Iranian regime--and the Iranian regime continues to prove that is the case. Iran repeatedly violated the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 by testing ballistic missiles, most recently on October 10 and November 21 of 2015. The very next month, in December of 2015, Iran conducted a live fire exercise using unguided rockets near a U.S. aircraft carrier in international waters. Make no mistake, this was an intentional provocation. Just last month Iran announced it flew a surveillance drone over a U.S. aircraft carrier. Afterwards, an Iranian Navy commander went on State TV and said the drone strike was a ``sign of bravery'' that ``allowed our men to go so close to the warship and shoot such beautiful and accurate footage of the combat units of the foreign forces.'' Iran flying military drones over our aircraft carriers means that we must respond. We also have to keep in mind that Iran isn't just provoking our military. Iran also targets innocent civilians by funding terrorism around the world. Iran is the world's leading State sponsor of terrorism. Iran funds Hezbollah, a terrorist group that wreaks havoc in the Middle East. Recently Hezbollah was accused of recruiting five Palestinian men to attack Israelis using explosives. Luckily, the Israeli defense forces were able to stop the attack before anyone was hurt. Iran also continues to defend Bashir al-Assad and attack U.S.-backed rebel forces in Syria. The United Nations estimates that Iran spends $6 billion a year to fund Assad's government. What is Assad doing with that money? He buys barrel bombs to level entire Syrian towns. He pays for blockades to prevent food, medicine, and other critical supplies from reaching his own people. He is starving entire villages in northern Syria where children are starving and thousands of people have been forced to survive on grass because Assad and troops from Hezbollah will not let food and medicine get to them. Iran is funding a government that is responsible for a civil war that has killed 250,000 people and displaced 11 million more. Again, we need to be at the top of our game when it comes to sanctions. The worst would be for a country that behaves in this manner and that disrespects international human rights to have access to a nuclear weapon, which is why many of us in this Chamber did support the agreement. While imperfect, we did support the Iranian nuclear agreement. Our national security strategy also must focus on eliminating threats. We must demonstrate that the United States has the capability to stand up to Iran when it funds terror and seeks to destabilize the world. Given Iran's history, we can anticipate that it will test the boundaries of international agreements, and we have to be ready to respond when it does so. That is why we must hold Iran accountable every step of the way. Imposing harsh sanctions against those responsible for Iran's ballistic missile program is a good start. Iran's ballistic missile program is a threat to regional and global security. Any person or business involved in helping Iran obtain illicit weapons should be banned from doing business with the United States, have their assets and financial operations immediately frozen, and have their travel restricted. Minimizing the threat Iran poses also means working to ensure that the money flowing into Iran now that nuclear sanctions are lifted is not used to further destabilize the region and spread terrorism. We must monitor the flow of terrorist financing and use every tool available to punish bad actors who seek to do harm. It is also known that Iran has a terrible human rights record. In fact, Iranian Americans and Iranians around the world will be the first people to tell you that 35 years of religious dictatorship has been a human rights nightmare for the people of Iran. Recently, thousands of Iranians took to the streets of Paris to join a mass demonstration protesting President Ruhani's visit to Paris. Those protestors are demonstrating against things like Iran's policy to permit girls as young as 9 to boys as young as 15 to be sentenced to death. They protested Iran's continuing suppression of journalists and freedom of speech. Beyond imprisoning journalists--and we do applaud the recent release of the Washington Post journalist. I was so honored to be at the opening recently at the Washington Post facility where he appeared and spoke. We learned how he was taken from his home in Iran at gunpoint, blindfolded, handcuffed, and thrown into solitary confinement for 18 months until recently his release was negotiated. Beyond imprisoning journalists, Iran arbitrarily jails human rights activists, and it oppresses religious minorities including Christians, Jews, and Sunni Muslims. America has a long history of being an arbiter of peace and security around the world. In order to continue this legacy, we must hold Iran accountable for its human rights violations. I sponsored the Iran Policy Oversight Act because it is a bill that does three important things to hold Iran accountable. First, it allows Congress to more quickly impose economic sanctions against Iran's terrorist activities. This is really important because the best way to stop terrorism is to cut off the financing for it. We should be doing everything in our power to better track terrorist financing so that we can stop the flow of money that funds suicide bombers and illicit weapons. The United States and the international community have maintained sanctions against Iran for decades. I have voted to increase sanctions on Iran's oil imports and strengthen sanctions against human rights violators in Iran. Sanctions are a powerful tool, and Congress should exercise its authority to implement them as fast as possible against people who fund international terrorism. Second, the bill also expands military aid to Israel. The United States plays a critical role in supporting Israel's defense. The United States and Israel have enjoyed a friendship based on values rooted in democracy, freedom, and mutual strategic goals. Protecting Israel--our most reliable ally in the Middle East, the beacon of democracy--against a hostile Iran is essential. Third, the bill ensures that agencies charged with monitoring Iran have the resources they need. We cannot take Iran's word for it that they are obeying the rules. We need strong independent verification and monitoring. The United States and our European partners must fulfill our obligation to fund the international agencies responsible for that monitoring. In order to protect our citizens, Congress must exercise its constitutional authority to enact legislation that expands oversight of the Iran nuclear agreement. We must also continue to work with the P5+1 to ensure that the agreement is strictly enforced. Iran must understand that we will not hesitate to snap back sanctions if it fails to comply with the rules. Sanctions were effective at getting Iran to the table, and they will continue to be a tool that allows the United States and our allies to minimize the threat posed by Iran. Those of us who supported the Iran nuclear agreement have a special responsibility to ensure that it works. In fact, this whole Senate has a responsibility, regardless of whether Members supported it or not. It is in the best interest of our country. We cannot shirk from our duties and we must be vigilant. We owe it to the American people, to Israel, and to our allies. Our mission here is clear: We must protect our own citizens by exercising our authority to enact strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not cheat on its international commitments. Because we know from experience that Iran will test the international community, we must be ready to respond when it does. Iran must know that if it violates the rules, the response will be certain, swift, and severe. We must also minimize the threat Iran poses to our citizens and the world by doing everything in our power to stop Iran from funding the world's terrorists. Last year the world was shaken by a series of successful terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. The attacks in Paris, Lebanon, Mali, and San Bernardino, right here in the United States, remind us that the victims of these massacres will never be limited to one nationality or one ethnicity or one religion. It is critical that we take additional steps to stop countries like Iran from funding terrorism and destabilizing the world. Stopping Iran's support of terrorism protects us here at home, but it also helps millions of refugees fleeing Syria, the children that are starving in cities like Madaya, and the families fleeing mortar fire in Yemen. Our values of justice, democracy, and freedom for all demand nothing less. Iran's recent behavior suggests that the United States needs to have the ability to snap back as soon as possible. We have to have the ability to impose sanctions. That is why I am supporting this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about U.S. policy toward Iran. I wish to mention first that we are continuing to work on the issue of State Department nominees. Of course, my focus has been on the Swedish and Norwegian Ambassadors from our country to those two countries. We have now gone for 867 days without a confirmed ambassador to Norway and 476 days since the President nominated an ambassador for Sweden. I think we have made it very clear that nearly every Member in this Chamber does not have an issue with having a vote or even an issue with the qualifications of these nominees who went through the Foreign Relations Committee without objection. Senator Cotton himself said: I believe both nominees are qualified. We have significant interest in Scandinavia. My hope is that both nominees receive a vote in the Senate sooner rather than later. As we know, Senator Cruz has had various issues not related to the nominees or our two strong allies, Norway and Sweden. We are hoping we can find a way forward so that he lifts his hold and we can continue to move forward with the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States of America, those countries, Norway and Sweden, being able to have Ambassadors like the rest of Europe. Every other major Nation has an ambassador. I wish to thank Senator McConnell and Senator Reid and Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for their work on this issue. I am hoping to get this done as soon as possible.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, today I join my colleagues in support of the North Korean Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act. I commend Senator Gardner for his leadership, as well as Senator Menendez, Chairman Corker, and Ranking Member Cardin for their leadership on this legislation, because protecting the American people and others in the region from national security threats like North Korea should, in fact, be our top priority. The reason there is overwhelming bipartisan support for strong sanctions legislation against North Korea is because there is absolutely no doubt that North Korea is a well-established threat in the region. North Korea threatens global peace and security. Experts at the United States-Korea Institute estimate that North Korea has 20 to 100 nuclear weapons. Since 2006, North Korea has tested four nuclear bombs. Last month North Korea claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb. While our analysts in the United States are skeptical that it was in fact a hydrogen bomb, it was a nuclear bomb all the same. With each test, North Korea gets closer to testing a nuclear bomb small enough to fit on a long-range missile--the very same kind of missile that North Korea used over the weekend to launch a satellite into outer space. That missile has a range of 5,600 miles. That means that Alaska, California, and the rest of the west coast of the United States is actually within range of a North Korean bomb. Our European allies and Australia are also within range of a North Korean bomb. And, of course, Japan and South Korea--two of our key allies in East Asia--are closest to the danger North Korea poses. It is in our national security interests to protect these vital allies. It is not just North Korea's nuclear threat that we need to be concerned about. North Korea funds its weapons regime through human trafficking--something I care deeply about--through the production of illegal drugs and selling counterfeit U.S. currency. North Korea is also one of the largest suppliers of the arms trade and has become the bargain-basement emporium for old Soviet weapons systems. North Korea has a pattern of shipping these illegal weapons on to terrorists in the Middle East. North Korea also threatens our cyber security. North Korea's cyber attack on the Sony Corporation of America in 2014, which leaked private communications and destroyed the company's data systems, cost Sony, an American company, more than $35 million. Why this company? Because the company produced a movie that mocked North Korea's leadership. Last summer North Korea pledged to follow up on its attack on Sony with more cyber attacks, promising to ``wage a cyber war against the U.S. to hasten its ruin.'' America is not the only target for North Korea's cyber attacks. In 2013, North Korea launched a cyber attack on three major South Korean banks, and two of South Korea's largest broadcasters were temporarily shut down after a cyber attack. This cost South Korea an estimated $720 million. This is real money and real jobs in our own country and in the countries of our allies. We must take strong action to curb North Korea's nuclear program and to address the other threats that it poses to us and our allies. Weak sanctions against North Korea have proven unsuccessful. The legislation before us today represents the tough response that is necessary to send this message directly to North Korean leaders: Disarm or face severe economic sanctions. This bill puts pressure on North Korea in three important ways. First, it requires the President to investigate those that help North Korea import goods used to make weapons of mass destruction. All people and businesses involved in helping North Korea obtain illicit weapons would be banned from doing business with the United States and would have their assets and financial operations immediately frozen and their travel restricted. As we work with our allies to track down and bring to justice those who assist North Korea in its effort to harm the United States and our allies, we must also hit them financially. This bill will help to cut off North Korea's funding and further financially isolate them. Second, this bill sanctions those who attack U.S. cyber security. This bill is the first piece of legislation to lay out a framework for sanctions against the North Korean cyber threat. Combatting cyber terrorism is a key national security priority. We must be proactive about rooting out those who enable cyber attacks. Lastly, this bill addresses a serious human rights crisis in North Korea. North Korea is the most isolated economy and society in the world. The current regime exerts total control over daily life. Even haircuts are controlled--that is right. Women are allowed to pick from 1 of 14 hairstyles, and men cannot grow their hair longer than 2 inches. Thirty-two percent of people in North Korea are undernourished, and 34 percent of the population receives food aid. As a Member who has worked extensively to fight modern-day slavery, I am particularly disturbed by the fact that North Korea is also among the world's worst human traffickers. The State Department's annual report on human trafficking consistently rates North Korea as one of the worst human traffickers. The United Nations considers human trafficking to be one of the three largest criminal enterprises in the world. The first two are illegal drugs and illegal guns. Last year I was proud to be the lead Democratic cosponsor of legislation with Senator John Cornyn to fight trafficking and help trafficking victims that was signed into law by President Obama last May. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act tackles trafficking head-on. We are doing work in our own country, but we also need to be a beacon for those victims abroad. Sex and labor traffickers treat North Korean men and women like commodities. Yemoni Park, a North Korean woman who escaped after being sold into the sex trade and raped at the age of 13, has dedicated her life to shining a light on what she calls ``the darkest place on Earth''--North Korea. This bill calls for harsh sanctions against human rights violators. It calls for mandatory investigations into those who bankroll North Korean labor prisons and sex trafficking rings. But it also acknowledges the important work of human rights organizations that provide assistance to those suffering in North Korea and allows them to continue their lifesaving work. China fuels much of the demand for North Korea's human trafficking, and they help fund the North Korean regime. Beyond enacting swift and severe sanctions against those associated with North Korea's weapons suppliers, hackers, and human rights violators, we must pressure China to get serious about sanctioning the North Korean regime. Unless we have China's help, the regime will not truly feel the repercussions of its actions. We have come together today across party lines in a bipartisan effort to address the growing threat that North Korea poses to the United States and our allies. We are united in our belief that our national security--and the security of our allies--requires a swift and strong response to North Korea and those who fund its tyrants. We are also united in our belief that we must vigorously investigate and sanction those who in any way help North Korea develop weapons of mass destruction and those who seek to undermine cyber security. We must do everything in our power to help improve the lives of innocent North Koreans. That is why I am supporting this bill, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership--Senator Menendez, Senator Gardner, Senator Cardin, and Senator Corker. Ambassador Nominations Madam President, I wanted to add one more thing. As I try to do every day with Senator Shaheen, I address the issue of the Ambassadors to Norway and Sweden. It has been 864 days since we have had an Ambassador to Norway. It has been 468 days since the President nominated Azita Raji to be Ambassador to Sweden. I appreciate Senator Corker's leadership on this issue. We are working very hard to get these two Ambassadors confirmed. These countries are the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States. Senator Cruz is the one holding up the vote on these nominations. We are hopeful that at some point we will be able to move ahead. This has been going on way too long. They are some of our best allies in the fight against Russian aggression. Norway actually shares a border with Russia. We have to be by their side if they take in thousands and thousands of refugees. We have talked about the need for a strong Europe. These are the two major countries in Europe that don't have Ambassadors from the United States. That must change. Again, I thank Senator Corker and Senator Cardin for their leadership. Thank you, Madam President, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today for the fifth time to ask unanimous consent for a vote for the Ambassadors to Norway and Sweden. Senator Cruz has been objecting to this. I appreciate the bipartisan support for these nominees. They made it through the committees without any objections. These are the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States of America. They are our allies. They are our allies in our fight against Russian aggression. Norway shares a border with Russia. Yet every major European country has an ambassador except Norway and Sweden. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Samuel D. Heins, Calendar No. 263; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as I said, this has been a bipartisan effort to get these two nominees confirmed. There is no one holding up the vote on these nominations except for Senator Cruz. We asked him to remove these holds. He has not voiced any concerns about these individual nominees. He has voiced concerns about unrelated foreign policy issues. There have been other holds in the past, but everyone has lifted their hold. I note that even Senator Cotton from Arkansas has said that there are no issues with the qualifications of these nominees and that these nominees should proceed to a vote. As I said, this is the fifth time I have come to the floor. I have also been joined by Senator Cardin, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Franken. This is something that has to get done. Listen to these numbers: Sam Heins has been waiting for 293 days to be confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to Norway. Azita Raji has been waiting 474 days to be confirmed as the first female U.S. Ambassador to Sweden. Both of these nominees were voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without controversy and with significant bipartisan support. Not a single Senator has questioned the qualifications of Sam Heins or Azita Raji. That is because they are both qualified to take these jobs. We have an ambassador in France. We have an ambassador in England. We have an ambassador in Italy. We have an ambassador in Germany. We have an ambassador to nearly every European nation but not these two Scandinavian countries. More than 1,200 refugees seek asylum in Sweden every single day. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have heard people on both sides of the aisle talk about how during this refugee crisis we need a strong and unified Europe, and we need to be their allies, and they need to be our allies. While we may have disagreements on how to solve all of the refugee crises, we have to at least give support to our allies who are taking in these refugees. Sweden accepts more refugees per capita than any other country in the European Union. Norway expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this year. It has already provided more than $6 million to Greece to help respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter Europe. All of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about this. Yet, right now, no Ambassadors are in those two critical countries. I would note they have Ambassadors from China in those countries. They have Ambassadors from Russia. They have Ambassadors. So the people of their countries who love the United States, who respect the United States, who travel to the United States, they want to know: How come every major nation has an ambassador to our country but not the United States of America? We also understand the important economic contributions Sweden and Norway make to our country. These diplomatic relations are 200 years old. That is why we have widespread support for these nominees. Yet one Senator--how can one Senator stand in the way of a vote affecting relations that are 200 years old? Our economic partnership with these countries is enormous. Sweden supports over 330,700 American jobs across 50 States. In the case of Norway, our trade partnership is $16 billion--$7 billion in exports, $9 billion in imports. Leaving these countries without a U.S. Ambassador is a slap in the face to their governments, their people, and all of the American workers who are supported by Swedish and Norwegian investment in the United States. That is happening today. In addition to Sam Heins and Azita Raji, there are other nominees who are vital in our fight against terrorism; however, I am going to focus today on these two nominees. We have two countries, Norway and Sweden, that are members of NATO, that have joined us in the fight against Islamic extremists, that have joined us in the fight against ISIS. This is no way to treat them. I would also add, in kind of a combination of our national security interests and economic interests, that Norway has now signed to purchase 252 fighter planes--22 just recently--from Lockheed Martin. Those fighter planes are made in America. The country of Norway could have decided to buy those fighter planes from any nation in the world. They could have bought those fighter planes from Europe. Where did they buy those fighter planes from? They brought them from the United States, from Lockheed Martin, and that company is located in Texas. Those fighter planes are made in Fort Worth, TX, Senator Cruz's home State. So what do we say to Norway when they invest? We can do the math-- nearly $200 million a plane, 22 planes. So they have strong national security, as we see Russian aggression and Islamic extremism and as they join with us in fights across the world. What do we say? You are not worthy of an ambassador. Because one Senator--the Senator from the State where those fighter planes are made, from Fort Worth, TX--has decided to hold this up. What are we doing when we say to a major company in the United States that got a major deal with a foreign government that that government is not worthy of having an ambassador? What kind of encouragement do we give when we don't even let them have an ambassador? This is one of many examples of what is going on and why the people are so angry. We have heard from the Foreign Minister. We have seen comments from people of Norwegian descent and Swedish descent who do not understand how this could be going on right now, given everything Europe is confronting. It is my hope that we will be able to work these things out. We have been given various reasons from letters that have been written, to streets in front of embassies, for this hold. But we are hopeful that somehow we are going to be able to work this out. This is because of one Senator who is not even here in this Chamber day after day after day when I return to put these names in for Ambassador. We are not stopping. Senator Shaheen and I are going to come to this floor every single day and make the case for these countries. I am hopeful we will be able to resolve this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination that is to the country of Sweden: Azita Raji, Calendar No. 148; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire is here. She is a leader on the Foreign Relations Committee. I know she has a few things to say. But, again, we are simply asking for a vote. Senator Cruz can choose to be here or not. He can choose to vote or not. He can choose to vote no if he wants. We know these two nominees would pass because they are not controversial. I am tired of hearing from people in America and people who represent and live in these countries: What is wrong with America? Why are you ``dissing'' us when we stand by your side every day? This has to stop.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: the nomination of Azita Raji to be Ambassador to the country of Sweden, Calendar No. 148; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, this is the fourth time I have come to the floor urging Senator Cruz to remove his hold on these very important nominees for two of our best allies, the countries of Sweden and Norway. Norway has been without a confirmed ambassador for 860 days. As we know, the first nominee withdrew, but many of these days have been filled up by the second nominee, who is not controversial--Sam Heins from the State of Minnesota--who made it through the committee without objection. In the case of Sweden, it has been 469 days since the President nominated Azita Raji to be ambassador. There is no issue with these nominees. In fact, in the words of Senator Cotton from Arkansas, my Republican colleague, ``I believe both [nominees] are qualified . . . and we have significant interests in Scandinavia. My hope is that both nominees receive a vote in the Senate sooner than later.'' We know we have the support of Senator Corker, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee. We thank Senator Cardin for his support. We thank Majority Leader McConnell. We thank Senator Reid. This vote is not a controversial vote. Senator Cruz is not here to object. We understand Senator Lee is here on his behalf. But I would like to know why Senator Cruz isn't here to object. I think I know why he isn't here to object--because he is in the State of my colleague Senator Shaheen. We cannot hold up the business of the Senate like this. We have two nominees for two countries, the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States of America, Sweden and Norway. The country of Norway is the purchaser of 52 Lockheed fighter planes, 22 just ordered at $200 million apiece, all made in Fort Worth, TX, the home State of Senator Cruz. These are allies who are taking in refugees by the thousands. These are allies who are at our side in the fight against Russia to stand up against their aggression in Ukraine. They have stood with us in the fight against Islamic extremism. They have stood with us in the fight against ISIS. And what do we say to them? You can have ambassadors from Russia or from China, you can have ambassadors from every country but not from the United States of America. I ask Senator Cruz and I ask his colleagues--or perhaps his staff to ask him--why every other European nation of any major size has an ambassador and why not these two Scandinavian countries. So it is my hope--and the reasons for these holds are completely unrelated. They are varied. They are many. They change every day. I am hopeful that we are able to negotiate something because Senator Shaheen and I have pledged to come to the floor nearly every single day when the Senate is in session to continue asking, and his colleagues are going to have to come and object on his behalf. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: the nomination of Samuel Heins to be Ambassador to the country of Norway, Calendar No. 263; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss Senate amendment No. 3021, which would enable research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies. I support this amendment but was not present when the Senate voted to adopt it 87-4 on Thursday, January 28, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the amendment, and my vote would not have changed the outcome of this amendment. Research and development into the next generation of innovative energy technologies are important to our Nation's all-of-the-above energy strategy. Thank you.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I believe we will now hear from Senator Franken, my colleague from the State of Minnesota.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I note that Senator Lee, as I assume he did with the other objections, was making this objection on behalf of Senator Cruz and that, secondly, that was the Ambassador to Norway whom I asked consent for. I now ask unanimous consent for the Ambassador to Sweden. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 148; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her leadership and for her illuminating the rest of the Senate. Maybe not everyone has as many trees as we do, and biomass. I appreciate what she has done. I was proud to cosponsor this bill and be one of the leads on it, with Senator King. This amendment moves us forward in really recognizing the full benefits of the use of forest biomass as a homegrown energy solution. I also thank Senator Cantwell and Senator Murkowski for their work on this Energy bill and the inclusion of this amendment--an amendment that encourages interagency coordination to establish consistent policies relating to forest biomass energy. We have often talked about how we don't want to have just one source of energy, whether hydro, nuclear--you name it. So we want to recognize the importance of this forest biomass energy and talk a little bit about it today. I sent letters to the EPA and have spoken with administration officials, urging them to adopt a clear biomass accounting framework that is simple to understand and implement. Without clear policies that recognize the carbon benefits--and I will say that again: the carbon benefits--of forest biomass, private investment throughout the biomass supply chain will dry up and the positive momentum we have built toward a more renewable energy future will be lost. Supporting homegrown energy is an important part in an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. Biomass energy is driving energy innovation in many rural communities. The forest industry in my State and those who work in that industry are already playing a significant role in the biomass energy economy. There is always room to do more. I appreciate the discussions between my colleagues yesterday on the language of this amendment and am pleased we ultimately--including Senator Boxer's help and others'--found a solution that moves us forward. I know there is interest in continuing these conversations, and I look forward to doing so. I thank Senator Collins.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Corker for their leadership and their bipartisan work to get these nominees through the Senate, as well as Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, who have been supportive of getting this done. In fact, both of the nominees I am going to talk about for the important allies of Norway and Sweden may be a little bit of a surprise to everyone in the Chamber. The 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States of America come from companies in Norway and Sweden, which are two of our biggest allies. What is going on here? Well, this is actually the third time I have come to the floor this year urging Senator Cruz to remove his hold on these two nominees so that the Senate can move forward and fill these two vital diplomatic vacancies. Various reasons have been raised by him, both to colleagues and then publically. I was hopeful. I know negotiations are going on, so I always give room for that. But this is not related to these two countries or these two people. I think that is important to remember. Often, our fights are about a particular post because of the post or a particular nominee. That is not what this is, so I am hopeful that this gives us more room to negotiate. So what is going on here? Well, Norway has been without a confirmed ambassador for 859 days. There was an original nominee who did not work out, was withdrawn by the administration. Then this new nominee was put in and went through the committee without a problem, unlike the first nominee. It still remains that when you are in Norway--and a lot of Norwegians know about this--you haven't had an Ambassador from the United States of America for 859 days. You have ambassadors from Russia, China, but not from the United States of America. In the case of Sweden, it has been 468 days since the President nominated Azita Raji to be ambassador--again, someone who came through our committee without controversy. It is past time to get these nominees confirmed. We need a U.S. Ambassador in Norway who is deeply committed to strengthening the relationship between our two countries. Sam Heins is our nominee. He is from Minnesota. He is the right person for the job, in addition to being an accomplished lawyer. He has demonstrated his devotion to leadership in the cause of advancing human rights. He founded, organized, and served as the first board chair of the Advocates for Human Rights, which responds to human rights abuses throughout the world. Obviously, this is something Norway cares a lot about, so he is a good fit for this country, not to mention that he is from Minnesota, the home of 1.5 million people of Norwegian descent, more than any other place in the world next to Norway. Now we go to Sweden. Azita Raji is also an incredibly qualified nominee. She is a philanthropist, a community leader, and a former business leader. She served as a member of the President's Commission on White House Fellowships, director of the National Partnership for Women and Families, and a member of the Bretton Woods Committee, an organization that supports international finance institutions. These are qualified nominees, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican colleague of the Presiding Officer's, said about Sam Heins and Azita Raji: I believe both [nominees] are qualified . . . and we have significant interests in Scandinavia. My hope is that both nominees receive a vote in the Senate sooner rather than later. He said this in part because for a while he had a hold. He resolved those issues. Senator Cotton has said he thinks these two nominees are no problem. As we know, the other Republicans on this committee have not raised any objections. They are right. We have significant interests in Scandinavia, and leaving these key positions vacant is a slap in the face to Sweden and Norway, which are two of our best economic and military allies. In a December New York Times op-ed, former Vice President Walter Mondale--himself of Norwegian descent--highlighted the U.S. national security interest in confirming these nominees, saying: ``[I]n a time of dangerous international crises, we need to work with friends and allies, using all the tools of diplomacy.'' Vice President Mondale understands that now is not the time to forsake a 200-year-old diplomatic relationship. Norway and Sweden share a vital security partnership. Norway is one of our country's strongest and most dependable international allies, a founding member of the NATO alliance, and its military works with the United States. This is key to my colleagues who care about the aggression of Russia. Norway works with us in standing up to Russia's provocations in the Ukraine and in countering ISIS, the spread of violence, and Islamic extremism. May I say that Norway actually has a portion of its border that it shares with Russia. Norway is also playing an important role in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis. It expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this year. It has already provided more than $6 million to Greece to help respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter Europe. I would also add from a military standpoint that Norway recently purchased 22 more fighter planes--22 more fighter planes, bringing their total to over 50--from Lockheed Martin, based in Senator Cruz's district in Fort Worth. That is where these planes are being built, and they are worth nearly $200 million apiece. That is what Norway is investing in the United States. They deserve an ambassador. Sweden, like Norway, plays an important role in our national security. Sweden is a strong partner in our fight against ISIS, in our attempts to curb North Korea's nuclear program, in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, and in promoting global democracy and human rights. Sweden is also on the front lines of the Syrian refugee crisis. More than 1,200 refugees seek asylum in Sweden every day, and Sweden accepts more refugees per capita than any other country in the EU. All of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance of a strong Europe during this very difficult time. Yet every other major nation in Europe has an ambassador except for Sweden and Norway. So I ask my friends and colleagues on the other side who are not obstructing these nominations to help us work this out with Senator Cruz because this has gone on for far too long. This isn't a joke. These are two major allies. We also have economic relationships. As I mentioned, Norway represented the fifth fastest growing source of foreign direct investment in the United States between 2009 and 2013--that is in the world--and is the 12th largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States overall. Maybe they are too quiet about it and people don't realize it. We would never think of blocking an ambassador to England or to France, but right now the ambassadors to these two countries are being blocked. There are over 300 American companies with a presence in Norway. By not having an ambassador in Norway, we are sending a message to one of the top investors in the country: Sorry, you are not important enough to us to have an ambassador in your country. But all the other major nations have an ambassador. In October, as I mentioned, they reiterated their commitment by buying all those fighter planes from the State of Texas, from Lockheed Martin. Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said Norway's F-35 purchase marks ``the largest public procurement in Norwegian history.'' It has been 30 years since Norway ordered new combat planes, and instead of choosing a European manufacturer, whom did they choose? They chose a manufacturer in the United States, right in Texas. Do you think those other European countries don't have Ambassadors in Norway? They do. I hope Senator Cruz and his friends are listening to this right now because they chose to buy those planes from the United States, right from his home State of Texas. Sweden, like Norway, is also one of the biggest investors in the United States. Sweden is the 11th largest direct investor in the United States. Swedish foreign direct investment in the United States amounts to roughly $56 billion and creates nearly 330,700 U.S. jobs. The United States is Sweden's fourth largest export market, with Swedish exports valued at an estimated $10.2 billion. Sweden, like Norway, deserves an ambassador. Scandinavian Americans are understandably frustrated by the fact that Senator Cruz is obstructing these nominees. As the Senator from a State that is home to more Swedish Americans and Norwegian Americans than any other State, I know it because I hear it every day. I hear it from people across the country, and most importantly, I hear it from the Foreign Minister and others in countries who are waiting to get an ambassador. So, again, we have an ambassador in France, we have one in England, and we have one in Germany. We have an ambassador in nearly every European nation but not in these two key Scandinavian countries. There is really no doubt about the important relationship between our country and Norway and Sweden. We need to confirm Sam Heins and Azita Raji immediately. I do appreciate the support of nearly every Republican Senator for these nominees, the support of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, the great leadership of Senator Cardin, the leadership of Senator Reid and Senator McConnell on these issues, and the leadership of my colleague Senator Franken whom we will hear from shortly. It is time to get these done. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 263; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. There are just a few quotes from people who are not in politics at all. ``There's a crisis in a relationship between our two countries,'' said Bruce Karstadt, president and CEO of the Minneapolis-based American Swedish Institute. ``I don't really quite understand that any statement is being made other than we're ignoring you.'' I will give another example. Leif Trana, a Minister Counselor at the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, pointed out that his country just committed to 52 fighter jets. I believe each one is over $200 million. Norway is purchasing these jets from Lockheed Martin, a U.S. company, and all of them are going to be made in a Lockheed Martin plant in the State of Texas. Imagine how many jobs this provides and that we would consider not sending an ambassador to a country that not only sees us as an ally--and is allied, by the way, in our issues we have in our conflict with Russia. The Minister Counselor at the Norwegian Embassy goes on to say: Norwegians have long had a great affinity for the United States. After the E.U., this is our place where most Norwegians travel to and study. This is the last quote I will give you from this article today: Jon Pederson, board chairman of the Minneapolis-based Norway House, said it's shameful to play politics with the ambassador posts. ``This position is important,'' Pederson said. ``Left unfilled like this is a slap in the face to Norway.'' Let's go through what has been going on--853 days in the case of Norway. The first nominee who was nominated, as explained in this article, did not go well. There were issues on both sides of the aisle. That person withdrew his name. That is part of the delay, and we will acknowledge that, but a big chunk of the recent delay is because there has been a hold--not at the committee level--that went through quickly with Senator Corker and Senator Cardin's guidance--but on the floor. In the case of Sweden, it has been a delay of 462 days for a noncontroversial nominee. At the same time, in the last few months, Ambassadors have been confirmed for 38 countries. Two of those were actually political appointees. They were not career, as the rumor is; two were considered political appointees. Barbados, Ecuador, Poland, and Thailand all have Ambassadors. There is an ambassador from the United States in France, of course. There is an ambassador in England, of course. There is an ambassador in Italy. There is an ambassador in Germany. There is an ambassador in Bulgaria but not in Sweden and Norway. We, in fact, have an ambassador in nearly every European nation but not in these two Scandinavian countries. There have been no questions about the qualifications of these two nominees. I will put those qualification on the record, but I wanted to focus more on the actual countries, Norway and Sweden. They are incredibly important allies and trading partners. They deserve to be treated like other European nations. They deserve to have an ambassador from the United States of America, and it is time to get this done. Diplomatic relations between the United States, Norway, and Sweden are almost 200 years old. For 200 years we have had Ambassadors in these countries. Holding a vote to confirm frontline Ambassadors hostage is not in the best interest of our country. Let's start with Norway. Norway was a founding member of the NATO alliance, and its military has participated in operations with the United States in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Norwegians work alongside Americans in standing up to Russia's provocations in Ukraine, in countering ISIS and the spread of violent extremism, and in strengthening regional cooperation in the Arctic. Norway has been especially strong on working to check Russian aggression against Ukraine. Norway has also played an important role in the Syrian refugee crisis. Norway has a proud history of providing support to those fleeing conflict. It expects to take in as many as 25,000 refugees this year. It has already provided more than $6 million to Greece to help respond to the influx of refugees seeking a way to enter Europe. All of us on both sides of the aisle have talked about the importance of a strong Europe during these trying times. Yet now we have no Ambassadors in two of the countries that are on the frontlines of combatting extremism and addressing the refugee crisis. Sweden, like Norway, plays an important role in national security and on the international stage. Sweden is a strong partner and close friend of the United States, helping in our fight against ISIS, promoting democracy and human rights, and cooperating on global initiatives related to clean energy and the environment. Sweden is a partner in NATO and is an active global leader, from its long-term investment in Afghanistan, to its role as an international peacemaker. Sweden has supported Ukraine against Russian aggression, has made significant contributions in Afghanistan, and has aided in the fight against terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Kosovo, and the current fight against ISIS. Sweden is a member of the counter-ISIL coalition and is on the frontlines of the Syrian refugee crisis. More than 1,200 refugees seek asylum in Sweden every day, and Sweden accepts more refugees per capita than any other country in the EU. That is what is happening right now. They are accepting more refugees per capita than any other country in the EU. Yet we don't have an ambassador to that country. We have an ambassador to Germany. We certainly know they are playing a role in this refugee crisis. We have an ambassador, of course, to Greece. But we don't have an ambassador to this country. The United States has collaborated with Sweden to strengthen human rights, democracy, and freedom in countries emerging from oppressive and autocratic regimes. Sweden's commitment to promoting human democracy, human rights, gender equality, and international development and sustainability make it a respected leader in international affairs. Now let's look at economic partnerships. I do hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have all been very supportive of this will talk to Senator Cruz the next time they see him. I plan on asking for unanimous consent to get these nominees through repeatedly in the next month. I am hoping Senator Cruz will be here to explain this, and I am hoping we can find some agreement on this because, again, this is not a typical case where these nominees have been criticized or questioned, including by his own office. This is a case of simply some other issues that are not related to the nominees or to the countries, and these countries should not be held hostage. Norway is an important economic partner. According to the American Chamber of Commerce, Norway represented the fifth fastest growing source of foreign direct investment in the United States between 2009 and 2013. Of course, visiting Senator Hoeven's and Senator Heitkamp's State of North Dakota, I have seen the investments in oil and in drilling in North Dakota from the Scandinavian countries because of their history in that industry. Norway is the 12th largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States. Think about that. There are over 300 American companies with a presence in Norway, including 3M of Minnesota, Eli Lilly, General Electric, IBM, McDonald's, and others. By not having an ambassador to Norway, we are sending a message to some of the top investors in our own country. The Ambassadors in these countries, as we know, are our trading partners and help businesses in America do business in that country. While there are national security issues, there is also an economic purpose of having an ambassador. In October, Norway reiterated its commitment to invest in American businesses by purchasing an additional 22 F-35s from Lockheed Martin. That is a total of 52 fighter jets Norway is committing to buy from Lockheed Martin. The first will arrive in 2018. This is the biggest investment Norway has ever made in the country's history, and they are investing in a company in our country, in the State of Texas. These are warplanes that will be built at Lockheed's facility in Fort Worth. I called attention to this fact. I know it is a cost of almost $200 million per plane. This country is investing in American jobs--$200 million per plane--and they are buying 22 more. You can do the math. Lockheed Martin and other American companies that do business with Norway would like to see an ambassador there to help facilitate relations. Now let's get to Sweden. Sweden, like Norway, is also one of the biggest investors in the United States. Sweden is actually the 11th largest direct investor in the United States, while Norway is 12th. I would think some people might be surprised by that fact that these two Scandinavian countries are that high on the list when you look in the world, but, in fact, it is true. They are the 11th and 12th investors in the United States. Sweden's foreign direct investment in the U.S. amounts to roughly $56 billion and creates nearly 330,700 U.S. jobs. U.S. companies are the most represented foreign companies in Sweden. Swedish-Americans have contributed to the fabric of our great Nation and built successful companies such as Walgreens, Greyhound, and Nordstrom. Economically, Sweden is highly dependent upon exports and is one of the most internationally integrated economies in the world. The United States is Sweden's fourth largest export market, with Swedish exports valued at an estimated $10.2 billion. Now, does this sound like a country where we just decide we are not going to have an ambassador, yet we give ambassadors to all these other nations all across the world? That just doesn't seem right. Sweden is a significant export market for my State of Minnesota, with $131.5 million in sales through November of last year. Sweden, like Norway, deserves to have an ambassador. Speaking of the Minnesota ties here, the economic and cultural influence of Norway and Sweden is strongly felt throughout the United States. I will say that Minnesota has a special one. In fact, one of the most notable attractions in Madison, MN, is a giant 25-foot-long fiberglass cod named ``Mr. Lou T. Fisk.'' That is a little Scandinavian joke here late in the afternoon. That is a lutefisk--``Mr. Lou T. Fisk.'' Anyone from Norway or Sweden knows that lutefisk is a traditional Norwegian food. Madison, MN, is so proud of its Nordic heritage that they once took Lou, the giant fish, on a national tour in the back of a truck. That was many, many years ago, but the fiberglass cod--the largest fiberglass cod in the world--is still displayed in our State. We have about 100,000 people of Norwegian heritage in Minnesota, second only to Norway itself. We have 500,000 Swedish Minnesotans. Think of how many. That is a good chunk of our population. So we are very proud of our Nordic heritage. That is my State. I think you could go around any State in the United States and there you would find proud Norwegians and Swedes. They may not always be the loudest voices, and maybe that is part of the problem. Maybe they have been too nice. But I can tell you that these two countries are the 11th and 12th biggest investors in the United States of America. One of them has been willing to buy 52 fighter planes valued at nearly $200 million each from our Nation. They certainly deserve an ambassador. They have been very clear to me--the representatives of these companies--that they would like to see an ambassador. At some point this looks like a ``dis'' from our Nation--that we are ``dissing'' them because we allow every other Nation to have an ambassador. We look forward to working with Senator Cruz. Again, I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Corker for their support. We haven't seen any other concerns that people have that have not been taken care of. So I am hopeful we can get Sam Heins and Azita Raji immediately confirmed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I came to the Senate floor earlier this month to talk about the importance of moving forward on the nominations of the Ambassadors to two important allies to the United States of America, and that is Norway and Sweden. These are countries that have been our true friends through many wars. They have been our true friends economically--some of the top investors in America--and they have been countries that are good examples of democracy and good examples of countries that believe in human rights. Yet we have not been able to confirm an ambassador to either country. I do want to, first of all, say that in the case of Sweden, it has been 462 days since the President nominated Azita Raji to be Ambassador, and in the case of Norway, it has been 853 days since that country has had a U.S. Ambassador. I will get to those details. In this case, the nominee is Sam Heins from the State of Minnesota, where, by the way, we have over 1 million people of Scandinavian descent--1.5 million people who do not understand why every major nation in Europe has an ambassador but not these two Scandinavian countries. I thank Senator McConnell, the majority leader, and Senator Reid for their work in trying to advance these nominees to the floor. They have negotiated. Senator Corker and Senator Cardin are both supportive of these nominees. I think it is important to note that this is not a typical story of delay. These nominees went through the committee without any objection. They were not controversial, nor are they controversial today. It is a fact that Senator Cruz has some issues that are completely unrelated to these nominees but also completely unrelated to Norway and Sweden. The issue is that while Senators do from time to time put temporary holds on nominees, this has gone on too long, and I am hopeful--in an article today in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about irked Scandinavians in our State, Senator Cruz's staff has said that they are engaged in good- faith discussions with other Senators and have made clear there have been no issues raised with these particular nominees in this story. I think that is very important, and we hope we are going to move forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life and honor the service of Vietnam veteran Lt. Col. Kenneth R. Johnson. Lieutenant Colonel Johnson passed away on August 29, 2015, and was laid to rest January 14, 2016, at Arlington National Cemetery. Born and raised in Minneapolis, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson enjoyed playing music with his garage band, the Commodores, and studying airplanes. Upon graduating from Roosevelt High School in 1955, Johnson enlisted in the Minnesota Air National Guard, where he served for 2 years before entering the U.S. Air Force Academy to become an officer. After he received his commission as a second lieutenant, Johnson went on to earn his wings and begin his career flying the F-100 Super Sabre, one of the planes that he would fly during the Vietnam war. It was in this plane that Johnson earned the Silver Star, defending the Tong Le Chan Special Forces camp, heroically making nine passes at low altitude against intense hostile fire in support of our troops. Later in the war, after being forced to eject over North Vietnam, Johnson would spend nearly 15 months as a POW in Hanoi. Despite this trying time, Johnson's resolve and the love he had for his country remained intact, and he continued to serve for many years after his release in 1973. Our country will always need brave men like Lt. Col. Kenneth R. Johnson. He embodied our Nation's most cherished values and served as an example to us all. Today my thoughts and prayers are with his family, including his brother Phil; his two sons, Bradley and David; and his sister, Delores. May we always remember and cherish his memory.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to honor the outgoing Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Gary Doer. Soon Ambassador Doer will return home to Manitoba, but, lucky for us, he will be a frequent visitor to Washington, DC, as the new cochair of the Wilson Center's Canada Institute Advisory Board. We are glad the Ambassador will continue to be an influential voice in shaping U.S.-Canada relations. Over the last 6 years, I have had the privilege of getting to know the Ambassador. I knew we would get along well when I learned he was a longtime fan of Bud Grant, an incredible athlete who became the head coach of the Minnesota Vikings. From a Canadian perspective, he first coached the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the Canadian Football League. Bud Grant is adored in Minnesota and is still adored many years after he left coaching. In fact, it was during a recent playoff game that we remember well--in Minnesota versus the Seahawks--where Bud Grant came out in 17-below-zero weather and flipped the coin with no jacket on. What I will also never forget is attending an event at the Ambassador's home. I walked in the door, and he had a framed photo of Coach Grant right next to a framed photo of the Prime Minister of Canada. We like that in Minnesota. The Ambassador served for 6 years--or double-overtime, as he likes to call it. This is longer than his two predecessors combined. Ambassador Doer's long tenure and the fact that he served Prime Ministers from different political parties are testaments to his professionalism and character. Ambassador Doer is also well known in Washington for his humor and good nature, and I am sure that helps. Minnesota shares a long border with Canada--in fact, about 547 miles. As I like to say, I can see Canada from my porch. That must be why early on in my Senate career Leader Reid asked me to head up the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, along with Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho. Together we have come to understand what an important geopolitical partner Canada is to the United States. I am a Minnesotan who is proud to share a border with Canada. I appreciate the country's friendship, culture, and beauty. Not only is Canada America's biggest trading partner, but it is the only country with an embassy that at one point draped a sign that said ``friends, neighbours, partners, allies.'' I will never forget how gracious Ambassador Doer was for hosting my swearing-in celebration at the Canadian Embassy in 2013. I am the only Senator in recent history to choose the Canadian Embassy as a site for my Senate reelection swearing-in party, and a lot of that had to do with the Ambassador. President Kennedy said this to the Canadian Parliament in 1961: Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. During his tenure in Washington, Ambassador Doer has been a strong champion for Canada and Canadians and an effective diplomat who gets things done. Through his successful 10 years as Premier of Manitoba and his efforts as Ambassador to engage leaders and citizens across the United States, the Ambassador has strengthened the already robust friendship and partnership between our two great nations. His list of accomplishments is impressive. He has worked tirelessly on tourism and trade while ensuring the safety and security of the border between our two countries. The Ambassador championed the agreement on the new bridge that will link Detroit and Windsor. This bridge is destined to become the most important border crossing between our two countries. For too long there has been complete gridlock on the bridge linking our countries. I know how hard the Ambassador has worked on the Windsor bridge, and for a while it looked as though it wouldn't get done. But the Ambassador never stopped fighting for it and refused to be satisfied until the deal was done, often using an old Gordie Howe saying that ``you don't put your hands in the air until the puck is in the net.'' That is a hockey analogy between Minnesota and Canada. The Ambassador made sure the puck was in the net. The Ambassador was also instrumental in the U.S.-Canada preclearance agreement, a new agreement that will facilitate travel, create jobs, and encourage economic growth in both countries, while ensuring a secure border. This initiative reaffirms the commitment of the United States and Canada to enhancing security, while facilitating economic activity, and will help move more than $2 billion in goods and services and an estimated 300,000 people across the longest border in the world. I know that the Ambassador considers it an accomplishment that he helped to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic redtape, making it easier for businesses and agencies to operate by working to align regulatory systems and practices in health, safety, and the environment. The Ambassador also strengthened Canada's role as a world leader in renewable energy when he worked to harmonize vehicle emission standards between our two countries, which will ultimately improve air quality on both sides of the border. In addition, the Ambassador fought for the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Power Plan, which provides Canadian hydroelectricity as a renewable energy that U.S. States can import and use to comply with new Federal emission rules. Ambassador Doer ensured that the surviving members of the World War II joint American-Canadian First Special Service Force, nicknamed the ``Devil's Brigade,'' received the Congressional Medal of Honor for its part in ending World War II. Like all friends, sometimes our nations have differences, but with his experience, tact, and plain-spoken pragmatism, Ambassador Gary Doer has ensured that these differences are bridged so that our two governments can move forward together. In a 1943 address, President Roosevelt said this to the Canadian Parliament: Your course and mine have run so closely and affectionately during these many long years that this meeting adds another link to that chain. I have always felt at home in Canada, and you, I think, have always felt at home in the United States. Ambassador Doer, your service has added another strong and important link in the chain that connects our two countries. And as you have said many times in the past in Gordie Howe hockey terms, it is only safe to put your hands in the air after the puck is in the net. Ambassador, you have put a lot of pucks in the net, and now you deserve a moment to put your hands in the air to celebrate your work. In hockey parlance, you have scored for your great country of Canada. I am proud to have worked with the Ambassador during his time in the United States, and I hope he will always feel at home in our country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Air Force Maj. Adrianna Vorderbruggen, who was tragically killed in the line of duty 4 days before Christmas when a Taliban suicide bomber rammed his motorcycle carrying explosives into a joint NATO-Afghan patrol near Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. She was the highest ranking military officer there who was killed. There were several others who tragically lost their lives as well. Today I had the honor of attending the major's funeral service at the Fort Myer Memorial Chapel. Senator Franken was also there. She was laid to rest with full military honors at the Arlington National Cemetery. She is survived by her wife Heather, her son Jacob, her father Joseph, and her brothers, Dan, John, and Chris. I will note that three of the four members of the family--since I was just talking about adoption--were, in fact, adopted. Adrianna was a native of my hometown of Plymouth, MN, where she attended my alma mater, Wayzata High School. She excelled in both academics and athletics and was a 3-year starter on the Wayzata High School women's soccer team. This is a very large suburban high school. The year she was a starter and captain, she led the team to the State championship. She was also the captain of the Wayzata High School hockey team. She went on to the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado and graduated in 2002. In her senior year, she led the women's rugby team to the national championship title. She was their cocaptain, so you can imagine. She was a starter on the soccer team and helped lead that team in high school to a State championship. She was the captain of the hockey team, which is a big deal in Minnesota, of a big high school, and she was also the cocaptain of the rugby team and helped lead that team to a national championship title in the Air Force. We can imagine the leadership Adrianna had shown through her life. She always loved sports--something that was talked about a lot today by her family. After graduating, she attended the Air Force Special Investigations Academy and was deployed to Iraq until 2005. In 2009 she was selected as an Air Force Institute of Technology student in forensic sciences and earned a master's degree in forensic sciences at George Washington University. In 2010 she became a special agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, which investigates felony-level crimes committed by or against Air Force personnel in the United States and overseas. Major Vorderbruggen was also an outspoken opponent to the military's former don't ask, don't tell policy. She and Heather, an Air Force veteran, were among the first servicemembers to marry after the policy was rescinded in 2010. Adrianna chose to serve her country in spite of the military's policy and fought for reform rather than hiding her identity. As her older brother Chris said, ``She inspired us all, I think, by just being herself, and being proud to be who she was.'' Adrianna was known by her family and friends for her positive attitude and her infectious smile. At the service this morning, her dad remembered Adrianna's ability to remain upbeat even under challenging circumstances. And she loved their little boy, Jacob, who was there today with a loving family around him. Major Vorderbruggen will be remembered for the work she did in service to her country and the work she did to make sure all brave men and women in uniform receive the honor and the dignity they so rightfully deserve. I am proud to call Maj. Adrianna Vorderbruggen a daughter of Minnesota. She gave her life for a country she loves. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Adoptee Citizenship Act, legislation that will secure citizenship for adopted children. I wish to thank Senator Coats for cosponsoring the bill with me, along with Senator Merkley, and Senator Gillibrand is also a cosponsor. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 guaranteed citizenship to most international adoptees. This was very important because sometimes children have been adopted, they come over to live in this country for years, and, in fact, for some reason--the paperwork wasn't filed--they do not actually have their citizenship. The problem with that law back in 2000 was that it did not apply to adoptees who were over 18 at the time the bill was passed. I am sure there were some reasons for that, but it really makes no sense because a kid who was 17 at the time and had been legally adopted was no different from a child who was 19 at the time who had been legally adopted. What our bill does is very limited. It fixes that. The loophole denies some adult adoptees the right to citizenship even though they were legally adopted by U.S. citizens and raised in the United States. They are over 18, so they have for the most part lived in the United States for a very long period of time. In fact, they were over 18 back in the year 2000. The bipartisan Adoptee Citizenship Act would fix this problem by giving citizenship to international adoptees--people who were legally adopted, who were 18 in the year 2000 or older--regardless of how old they were when the Child Citizenship Act passed. These adoptees grew up in American families, they went to American schools, they lead American lives, yet adopted children who are not covered by the Child Citizenship Act are not guaranteed citizenship. Because of their lack of citizenship, adoptees have been refused admission to college and turned down for jobs. This constant threat to the life they know is unjust, and this bill would simply ensure that international adoptees are recognized as the Americans they truly are. The bill is especially important in my home State of Minnesota. Many people don't know this, but Minnesota actually has one of the highest rates of international adoption in the country. Minnesota families have opened their homes and their hearts to children from all over the world--from Vietnam, to Guatemala, to Nepal, to Haiti. As cochair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support adoptive families and children. Our children--all kids--deserve so much more than a roof over their heads and a bed to sleep in. Each and every child deserves a loving home, a nurturing family, and a brighter future. That is what this bill is all about. It fixes something. It closes a loophole. It has bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to consider voting for it. There is obviously a lot of interest from adoptees all across the country who have been living with this, through no fault of their own, for years and years and years.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Justice Wilhelmina Wright's confirmation as a district court judge for the District of Minnesota. Justice Wright, as the members of the Judiciary Committee learned during her fine hearing, is a dedicated public servant with a distinguished career spanning the State and Federal legal system. She is the first person in the history of Minnesota to serve at all three levels of the judiciary and receive this nomination. She served as a district court judge in Minnesota, she served for the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and she now serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court. Her 15 years of judicial experience make her ready to do this job on day one, and I can state that when you hear the statistics about the overload for the District of Minnesota, we need her to start tomorrow on day one. Her qualifications are impeccable. Justice Wright has sat on panels deciding over 2,000 cases and presided over nearly 700. Yet with all those cases and all these opinions, there were no serious questions raised at all about her being biased or unfair in some way in her work as a judge. In fact, it was the opposite. She has the support of former Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, and many others in our State who have served across the aisle. Her qualifications reveal a thoughtful and a talented jurist, one who applies the law to the facts of each case. Justice Wright currently serves as associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, a position she has had since her appointment in 2012. As the first African-American woman to serve on the court, Justice Wright has earned the respect of litigants, lawyers, and judicial colleagues alike. Justice Wright was born in Norfolk, VA. She graduated from Yale College cum laude in 1986 and received her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1989. After law school, Justice Wright clerked for Judge Damon Keith of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She then went into private practice for 5 years at Hogan & Hartson. Before long she felt the pull of public service. She joined the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota and has been a dependable and dedicated leader of the Minnesota legal system ever since that time. During her time as a Federal prosecutor, she received the U.S. Department of Justice Director's Award and the Department's Special Achievement Award. If you look at her path before she became a judge, every step of the way she excelled. She excelled growing up. She excelled in college and law school in terms of her record. She excelled as a judicial clerk, she excelled in private practice, and she excelled in the U.S. attorney's office, where she received numerous awards. She was then appointed by, I believe, Gov. Jesse Ventura. She did not start her career as a political appointee. He was in the Independent Party. She served as a Ramsey County district court judge from 2000 to 2002, when she was appointed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. She served for 10 years until her most recent appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Wright is also involved in a variety of civic and bar activities. She devotes 50 hours per year to educating the public on the law. If that is not enough, Justice Wright has also worked to improve the legal system. She has been a member of the Minnesota Judicial Council, the Minnesota Courts Public Trust and Confidence Working Group, and the Minnesota State Bar Association Task Force on the Minnesota Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In 2006, the Minnesota Women Lawyers honored her with the Myra Bradwell Award for her service, and in 2012 the Minnesota Association of Black Lawyers presented her with the President's Award. The law has always been more than a profession for Justice Wright. It has been central to her own development. Growing up, she watched her parents fight the Norfolk, VA, school system to ensure her access to the same educational opportunities as everyone else. The protections enforced by the legal system were crucial to her family's struggle. As Justice Wright has said about the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education: ``Aside from the Bible, that court order was the most important written document in my family's life.'' The law worked for Justice Wright. In turn, she has dedicated her own life to the law and to fairness and impartiality. Justice Wright deserves to be confirmed. As I said, the Judiciary Committee hearing went extremely well. She has the support of many members of the committee. In fact, her nomination went through without an objection when we had the vote. She explained any questions that the members of the Judiciary Committee had--and there were some, obviously. A very good Senator asked a lot of questions on the committee. She explained any question they had about past legal writings from law school and other issues. They felt secure in her nomination and passed her out of committee without any objection. No new issues have been raised since that time. There were no serious questions about the 2,300 cases she handled. I can't think of many nominees we have had with that kind of record. I would add that this nomination is particularly important to the District of Minnesota. The U.S. Judicial Conference has deemed the current vacancy in our State to be a judicial emergency. Our district caseload has increased significantly in recent years. In 2014, the district saw a 57-percent jump in case filings, with nearly 6,000 Federal cases currently pending. Judge Davis assumed senior status last August, vacating the position for which she has been nominated. Failing to fill this judicial vacancy is failing the people of Minnesota. I am so proud of my colleagues and thank them for their support, both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who will be voting for her today. Justice Wright is the type of nominee we strive for--the best candidate for the job. We had a bipartisan committee led by two private practice lawyers, one having served as U.S. attorney for the State of Minnesota under the first President Bush and the second President Bush, Tom Heffelfinger. He chaired this committee which looked at so many qualified nominees and made this recommendation to Senator Franken and myself. So this process from the beginning has been completely bipartisan and impeccable and we are proud of that process. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Justice Wright as ``well qualified'' to serve as a district court judge for the District of Minnesota, which is the highest rating the committee awards. It is based on a confidential peer review of Justice Wright's professional competence, integrity, and judicial temperament. As Senator Coleman, a former Senator from the State of Minnesota, a Republican Senator, said: ``I fully support her nomination and have communicated that to my former colleagues.'' Why does Senator Coleman support this nomination? Because he looked at the record of a woman of integrity, a woman who had not one case questioned before the very thorough Judiciary Committee, who has the support of many of the Republican Senators--no objections raised when the vote was taken. This is exactly the kind of nominee we want. Justice Wilhelmina Wright will make a fine Federal district court judge for the District of Minnesota. I urge all my colleagues to support this superb nominee. The people of Minnesota need and deserve a judge of Wilhelmina Wright's caliber. We are proud of our Federal judges in Minnesota. Some came from Democratic administrations, some came out of Republican administrations, but they have always had the reputation of integrity. Justice Wright will continue to uphold that reputation of integrity. I ask my colleagues to support her. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I also see that my colleague Senator Franken is here as well.