Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. So I am confused. We just had an election. In my State, the reddest parts of my State are parts of the State where there are no private schools--rural Missouri. I am a daughter of rural Missouri. My father went to public school in Houston, MO. My mother went to public school in Lebanon, MO. I attended public school in Lebanon, MO, and Columbia, MO. In fact, I am a product of public education from beginning to end. Both of my parents went to the University of Missouri, and so did I. In rural areas of this country, there are no private schools for parents and kids to choose. They would have to drive miles. By the way, in my State, the newly elected Governor just cut transportation funds for public schools--just cut them. So they now have less money for transportation than they had last year. And, by the way, it isn't like public schools are getting fully funded in my State. They are not. So I guess what I am confused about--I know what public schools mean to rural Missouri. I know they are the essence of the community. If the essence of this woman's career is to take money out of public schools in rural communities and put them in private schools that will never exist in many of these small communities, they are kicking the shins of the very voters who put them in power. I don't get that. I don't get that, Senator. I don't understand how you could give the back of your hand to rural America with this decision. I would implore my colleagues who understand that rural America is where their base is in large part that they are misreading this vote if they think that rural America is going to forget that this woman wants to rob the public schools of rural America and put in private schools in the cities, which they will never be able to attend. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. McCASKILL. It is my understanding that not only are we fighting shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis against ISIL, on the day these orders were signed, we had Iraqi pilots in the United States of America training to bomb ISIS. If they had come days after the signing of this order instead of days before, they would not have been allowed to enter the country for this important training; is that correct?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Sorry. I heard you talking about Iraqis, and I wanted to make sure everyone in America understood that they were here training with our military to fight ISIS, and the President of the United States told them they were no longer welcome.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am going to make a couple of brief comments and then yield my hour of postcloture debate. Let me just say that nothing the President did made us safer. And one of the most outrageous claims the President made was that we don't have extreme vetting. The Presiding Officer and I both serve on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and after we realized that we needed to take a closer look at refugees and making sure bad guys weren't getting into this country, we instituted an amazing array of vetting processes. Let me first start with this important principle. Nobody applies to the United States for refugee status; they apply to the United Nations. Less than 1 percent of the people who apply for refugee status with the United Nations are granted the opportunity to go forward. So we start out with 99-plus percent of the people who apply to be a refugee turned down at the United Nations, so the less than 1 percent who come to us, come to us for another aggressive screening process. I went to Jordan and watched it. There are multiple interviews. It takes 18 months to 2 years. They are vetted through every possible intelligence agency, every possible database. And by the way, we check what they are saying even if they don't have papers. There are iris scans. It is the most extreme vet you can imagine. Of course, because it was so extreme, we realized that the hole in our system was not the refugees; it was, in fact, the Visa Waiver Program, which is why we passed a law after Paris to make sure that anybody who was in certain countries had to get a visa. Obama didn't do a travel ban. Obama never identified countries for a travel ban. All President Obama did was say: If you have been in these countries, you have to have a visa so we have information on you. I wanted to clarify that because the misinformation that is coming out of the White House about what we currently have and what is in place is an insult. I wish they understood the vetting processes we have in place now for refugees; then maybe we could get back to really joining arms and trying to figure out what we can do for national security. One thing we need to do for national security is not give the back of our hand to the pilots and the other soldiers who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq against ISIS. I yield the remainder of my hour of postclosure debate time under rule XXII to Senator Schumer.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Because there is no replace, I vote no.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, let me make very clear that when we get these benefits for these coal miners and their widows--when that happens, not if but when--make sure no one misunderstands who is responsible for it. I want the coal miners in West Virginia to know one thing, there is only one person who will be responsible for those coal miners getting their benefits and their promises being kept, and that will be Senator Joe Manchin. It won't be President Donald Trump. It won't be the minority leader or the majority leader. It won't be any of us. There is only one man who is responsible for these coal miners getting what they are due, and that is Senator Joe Manchin, who has fought. I am so sick of Joe Manchin talking to me about the coal miners. You can't see him in the hall when he doesn't grab you about the coal miners. He feels this in his heart. These are the people he grew up with. These are the people he knows and loves, and he is the one who is going to make this happen. The other one I am fighting for tonight is a guy named Harry. Every time I open my desk, I get goosebumps because I look in my desk, and I see the name Harry Truman scrawled in my desk. If you are a student of history and you know anything about Harry Truman, you know that he was very plainspoken. He got himself in a lot of trouble with his mouth, but, boy, did he believe in keeping his word. When he was President of the United States--Louie Roberts told me, a man from Willard, MO, who has been in the mines and is a third- generation coal miner and has been in the mines all of his life: John L. Lewis and Harry Truman--President of the United States of America signed an agreement guaranteeing lifetime medical benefits to UMWA miners. So Mr. & Mrs. Senators & Congressmen would you please keep your Promise. Would you please keep your promise. Continuing: We only ask that the Promise be kept that was made in that 1948 agreement. I am also fighting for the word of Harry Truman. This debate reminds me of a fight we had in Congress a couple of years ago. Back then, Congress had approved a $1 trillion spending package. Oh, man, the elves get busy around Christmastime. Omnibus package is code for ``you have no idea what is in it.'' We looked and poked around in it, and we found they were cutting the pensions of thousands of Missourians who drove trucks for a living. We are talking about the people who take a shower after work, not before work. This place is really good at taking care of the people who take a shower before work. We are really good at that. When they repeal the ACA, they are going to give a big old tax cut to the 1 percent again. We are going to do that. We are going to throw 22 million off of health care. But boy oh boy, we are going to take care of the 1 percent, but we are not so good at taking care of the people who take a shower after work. That bill allowed those truckdrivers to have their pensions cut. I was the only Member of the Missouri congressional delegation to vote against it. By the way, in the same bill, we gave a car and driver to a Member of Congress. Really? A car and a driver to a Member of Congress and in the same bill we cut the Teamsters' pensions. Now I hear the House Members had to go home. I don't know how many people who shower after work get 3 weeks off for Christmas, but I am pretty sure there are none. I am pretty sure they are trying to figure out if they have to cover a shift on Christmas. I am pretty sure they have to figure out how they can make ends meet so they can buy Christmas presents. But we have to get out of here so we can have 3 weeks off for Christmas--what nerve, doing that to these coal miners and taking 3 weeks off for Christmas. On the way out the door, they did another Christmas present. They made sure that the Russian oligarchs get to sell us steel. They took out the ``Buy American'' provision in the WRDA bill. I think the guy who just won the Presidency said we are going to buy American. Then what did the Republicans in the House do? They take out the ``Buy American'' provision less than a week after he said it on his victory tour in Cincinnati. I just know this. I am proud to vote no on the CR. Frankly, I am probably going to vote no on WRDA because of what they did with ``Buy American.'' I am sick of the games being played. We are going to fight. We are going to fight until we get this done. We may not win this fight tonight, but I guarantee you we are going to win it. As Harry Truman would say--and I am quoting; so I can't get in trouble: ``Come hell or high water, we are going to get it done.'' I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I don't have eloquent prepared remarks, as the chairman just delivered, but I will tell you this: I have been lucky enough to be in the trenches with Kelly Ayotte, and when you are in the trenches with Kelly Ayotte, there is something about her demeanor that lifts you up. It was a tough fight where we were outnumbered, particularly by our fellow women Senators, and it was hard. It was really hard and emotional, and every time I would walk up to Kelly in full-blown panic mode, this smile would radiate; the reassuring pat on my shoulder that we have the facts on our side, that the emotional arguments might be on the other side but the facts were on our side. It kept me strong and it kept me focused. I will tell you three things I know in my heart about Kelly Ayotte: She is a warrior, she is a class act, and she is my friend. Thank you, Kelly.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, me too.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the 100th birthday celebration of Ewing Kauffman. Mr. Kauffman was a Kansas City and Missouri icon who lived a life that would make all Americans proud. From founding a pharmaceutical empire, to bringing Major League Baseball back to Kansas City, to establishing a philanthropic foundation that continues to change lives to this day, Mr. Kauffman built a legacy that is deserving of all of our respect. On June 1, 1950, Mr. Kauffman opened Marion Laboratories. ``Mr. K'' operated this company from the basement of his home and used his middle name as the company name so that people wouldn't know they were dealing with a small, one-man operation. As he built this humble company into an industry leader, he did so with two guiding philosophies: No. 1, share the rewards with those who produce, and No. 2, treat others the way you wish to be treated. Profit sharing wasn't an industry practice at the time, but it was vital to the company's success and an example of Mr. Kauffman's generosity. By the time the company was sold in 1989, it had provided jobs for 3,400 associates, showed a $227 million profit, and made 300 Marion Labs associates instant millionaires. In 1968 Mr. Kauffman said, ``Kansas City has been good to me, and I want to show I can return the favor.'' It was that year that he and Kansas City were awarded a Major League Baseball expansion franchise-- the Kansas City Royals were born. However, having a team was not enough for Mr. K; the team needed to win and win a lot. During his time as owner, the Royals won six division titles, two American League pennants, and the 1985 World Series Championship; yet even that was not enough for him to ``return the favor'' to Kansas City. Mr. Kauffman, worried that a new owner would move the franchise out of Kansas City upon his death, set up an imaginative strategy to ensure that didn't happen. Namely, the profit of the sale by a new owner would have to go to local Kansas City charities, essentially ensuring the franchise would stay in Kansas City. Because of this forward thinking, I am sure Mr. K was smiling down as approximately 800,000 Kansas Citians celebrated at the Royals 2015 World Series Championship Parade. Even with all that he did during his life, his most lasting legacy will be establishing the foundation that bears his name and continues to effect change to this day: the Kauffman Foundation. Mr. Kauffman regarded his education and ability to be an entrepreneur to be pivotal in his life. For that reason, the Kauffman Foundation focuses its grant making on those two areas, giving people the resources needed to be self-sufficient and make positive change in their community. Reflecting on his philanthropy, Mr. Kauffman said, ``All the money in the world cannot solve problems unless we work together. And, if we work together, there is no problem in the world that can stop us, as we seek to develop people to their highest and best potential.'' Words that are as true today as they were during his life. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the 100th birthday celebration and the life and achievements of one of Kansas City and the State of Missouri's finest citizens, Ewing Marion Kauffman.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, once upon a time, there were elections and the people of this country, in their wisdom, decided to send a different party to the U.S. Senate as a majority. At that time, to much fanfare, the leader of the Republican Party announced that it was going to be a new day, that there was going to be regular order, that there was going to be a budget. There would be no filling the tree. We would do individual appropriations bills. Most notably, the leader said we were going to put in a full day's work. In fact, my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he even talked about working on Fridays in Washington. Now, let me hasten to add that I know every Member of this body, when they go back to their homes in their States, they work. We have a lot of meetings to go to and people to see, so I don't mean to say that when we are not in session we are not working. But the American people were told that we would be putting in more work in Washington. By the way, it is not as if we don't have work to do. I remember month after month after month, all FOX News talked about was where was the budget. We had no budget. The law says you have to pass a budget. The Republicans over and over and over again, on this floor, on television: Where is the budget? Where is the budget? Well, I ask that question now. Where is the budget? It hasn't been mentioned by my colleagues across the aisle lately. My colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the budget is required by law to be done in the spring, not during football season and certainly not at Christmas time. The individual appropriations bills haven't worked out so well, either. The only ones they have been interested in doing are the ones that don't tackle the tough problem of balance; that is, the balance between our homeland security needs and our defense needs, the balance between the needs of educating our kids and making sure that our soldiers are well equipped. But probably the thing that is most amazing is that in light of no hearing on Merrick Garland, in light of no budget, in light of no spending bills--in light of all of these things--we are working fewer days in Washington than we have in 60 years. I showed this calendar to people at home, and they thought I was kidding. This is the calendar of our work schedule. Now, let me also point out that we have heard this week that the leader of the Republican Party doesn't even want us to work these three days--October 4, 5, and 6--so mark a line through those, and the entire month of October is black. That means nothing is happening on the budget, nothing is happening on the Supreme Court vacancy, nothing is happening on oversight hearings, nothing is happening on appropriations, nothing is happening on Zika. Nothing is happening in Washington. I am just going to pause for a minute so anyone who has the C-SPAN bug can just look at this calendar. All the blacked-out days are days that we are not in Washington. A full week plus in January, a full week plus in February, almost two weeks in March, another two weeks in May, another almost week in June, almost 2\1/2\ weeks in July, the entire month of August. We didn't even work the full month of September. Now we are told we may not work any days in October. The calendar shows just a handful of days in November. There is a lot of business that has to be done by the end of the year, and obviously it looks like there are only a few days in December that we are working. I think there are like 240 work days that most Americans work every year. By my estimate, I think we are working about 110 of those. No wonder the American people are angry. No wonder the American people don't get it. It is very simple. Not only is the Republican Senate not doing its job in terms of setting a history of not having even an up- or-down vote on the Supreme Court nominee, the Republican Senate simply doesn't work. I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I wish to read out loud verbatim a voice mail that was left on my office phone this morning. I wish I could play it because if my colleagues hear the voice, they will understand more completely why I believe this particular voice mail was compelling: I am 14 years old from St. Louis, 63011, and I've been really looking a lot into the Orlando shootings and just really gun control in general, and I was kind of thinking, and I thought, like, I'll be a freshman this year, and I want to go to high school, and I want to drive a car, and I want to go to prom, and I want to graduate high school, and I want to go to college, and I want to graduate college, and I want to get a job, and I want to get married, and I want to have kids. But since Missouri voted that those on terrorist watch list can purchase guns, I'm scared that I won't be able to do those things. And I know that I'm young and I don't really know what plays into your job at all, and I don't know all the arguments and all the factors, but at this point I'm just really scared and people are dying and I think something needs to change. And so, whatever that may take, please just take my feelings into consideration and I would really, really, appreciate it. So, thank you so much. Bye. A little 14-year-old girl from St. Louis. Now, she is a little confused about who has decided that people on the terrorist watch list can buy guns. It is, in fact, the U.S. Senate that made the decision in December on a vote that has been recounted over and over again, basically a party-line vote that we were not going to take the commonsense step of saying that if the most trusted law enforcement professionals in the world--the most professional and highly trained--have put an individual on the terrorist watch list, that we should not let them buy guns in this country. Pretty common sense, and a 14-year-old knows it, and she is scared. One of the pieces of legislation that Senator Murphy is asking for bipartisan support for is the one that closes the gun show loophole and the online loophole when it comes to background checks. What are we afraid of? What are we afraid of with a background check? Why should we have massive categories of gun purchases in this country without a background check? Why do we require a background check for a small business that is selling guns but we don't for somebody who wants to operate online? And we know for a fact that there has been terrorist messaging sent to people in this country: You can weaponize yourself at gun shows with some pretty heavy artillery. We are, in fact, pointed out in the rest of the world as the place where it is easiest, with no questions asked, to obtain weapons that can kill and slaughter dozens and dozens of people in mere seconds. Why is this so hard? Where is the invisible hand that is stopping this? I don't want to be cynical about it. Is it the NRA? Is it the NRA that is single-handedly stopping this? Is everyone so afraid of the NRA? Why are they so afraid of the NRA? Do they not have faith in their constituents, that their constituents are right about this, because there is no question the majority of constituents in this country want background checks, and the majority of constituents in this country want us to not sell guns to people on the terrorist watch list. Before I ask a question of Senator Murphy, I wish to cover one more subject that is really bugging me as a former prosecutor; that is, the argument that has been presented: Well, we don't want to put--we want to make sure we don't somehow let the terrorists know that we are investigating them, so if we put them on a list and they can't get a gun and they go to buy a gun, then all of a sudden this terrorist is going to know we are on to them. That is such hogwash, and let me explain why. We have a no-fly list. We have other kinds of lists in this country. If the FBI is investigating, they have the discretion in this bill to remove someone from that list for purposes that would support pursuing that individual without his knowing that he was ever on the list. So all they would have to do is if they are about to get intelligence or they think they are about to get intelligence or they think they are about to be able to uncover a larger plot or even if they think they are about to arrest the terrorist in question, they are absolutely on top of it, they can easily remove the name from the list and continue to pursue that individual, track that individual, and make sure that whatever gun they might purchase is never used. This bill, when it comes to the terrorist watch list, gives the FBI that discretion. There is not going to be a terrorist that gets the heads-up that is all of a sudden going to send them into hiding or send them, unfortunately--unless we pass the bill--to the Internet or to the nearest gun show. It amazes me the kind of trust that I hear mouthed about law enforcement on the other side of the aisle. Yet they are not willing to trust the FBI with the serious decision as to whether an individual belongs on a terrorist watch list, and they are not willing to trust the FBI as to whether they do what they need to do to continue to pursue an investigation and arrest as it relates to this list. I think this is a gut-check moment for this country. If you look at the graph of where we lie with how many mass shootings we have compared to all the other developed nations in the world, some of which have lax gun laws like we do--maybe not quite to the extent that we do--we are way, way an outlier. That is not what we want to be an outlier on in the United States of America--mass shootings. I think the American people are rising up and are saying enough is enough. I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he agrees that the legislation that would restrict the ability of an identified terrorist to buy guns in this country contains the discretion necessary for the FBI to continue to protect America and continue to pursue investigations and continue to pursue arrests and intelligence because of the discretion we have given the FBI in that piece of legislation?

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in recognizing, celebrating, and highlighting the significance of the 70th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service, VAVS, this year. This program is one of the largest centralized volunteer groups in the Federal Government with approximately 75,000 volunteers providing more than 9.7 million hours of service for our Nation's veterans during their hospital stay. It has been 70 years since this program started in 1946. Since then, the volunteers have donated more than 782.2 million hours of service to support our veterans. More than 7,400 national and community organizations support the volunteers, including support by a national advisory committee, comprising 55 major veteran, civic, and service organizations who work together to improve volunteerism in VA. Keeping up with the VA's fast-paced efforts to expand access to care for veteran patients into the community, this program, too, has strived to continue their efforts to assist our veterans. The volunteers serve in many different ways, including supplementing staff in hospital wards, community living centers, outpatient clinics, community-based volunteer programs, respite care programs, end-of-life care programs, creative arts, adaptive sports, vet centers, veterans homes, national cemeteries, and veterans benefits offices. Just in 2015, the volunteers contributed a total of 10.8 million hours of service. The current monetary value of those hours from all of the volunteers is more than $250 million. Additionally, the volunteers and their organizations contributed more than $105 million in gifts and donations in 2015, for a combined total value of $355.5 million in volunteer service and giving. While the tangible value of these volunteer activities is impressive, it is impossible to calculate all of the compassionate care and efforts that the volunteers provide for our veterans. These volunteers are a priceless asset for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask that the Senate join me in celebrating the Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service on 70 years of outstanding service to our Nation's veterans and wishing them the best in continuing to serve.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, last year a 15-year-old girl wandered into an emergency room in St. Louis, told a horrific tale, asking for help. She had been trafficked across truckstops throughout the Midwest, taken from truckstop to truckstop, and sold to truckers for sex--all through backpage. As we debate this today, it is important we stay focused on that 15-year-old girl and don't get lost in the process of the Senate. This is a valid investigation. This is an important investigation. What we are doing today is making sure the Senate can do its work under the Constitution. Backpage has refused to cooperate. It has refused to willingly cooperate. It has refused two legitimate and duly authorized subpoenas concerning backpage asking for information at the heart of the investigation. Under any circumstances, I find it shocking that a company would refuse a lawful subpoena of the U.S. Senate, would ignore a lawful subpoena of the U.S. Senate. It is particularly outrageous given that backpage has already admitted that serious criminal activity, including sex trafficking of children, occurs on its site. Backpage simply has no excuse for not complying with these legal subpoenas. During our November 19 hearing, I promised that while the subcommittee would move forward carefully and cautiously, we would not go quietly into the night, and on some day in the near future we would use the Senate's enforcement measures to compel cooperation from backpage. Today is that day. While we stay focused on that 15-year-old girl, I know I speak for the chairman--and I wish to give the chairman great accolades for our working relationship. It is not always easy to reconcile differences in positions, differences in policy, and staffs working together, but he didn't give up. We both stay at it, and we are both determined to work on this committee in a bipartisan fashion. I am very grateful to him for his effort in that regard. As we think of that 15-year-old girl and the information we need, we also need to think that a bigger principle is at stake; that is, if we ignore backpage's refusal, what does that say to companies in the future when we need information in order to do our job? That you can give the back of your hand to the U.S. Senate and there will be no consequences? Obviously, that is a slippery slope I don't think we should go down. I don't think the Founding Fathers would want us to go down that slippery slope. That is why today is the day we say enough. We go with this vote to the courts and we get enforcement of these legal subpoenas so we can truly find out what, if any, role backpage has had in the highly illegal and immoral practice of trafficking children for sex. I yield the floor. I yield back all remaining time for the Democrats.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's votes. On S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015, I would have voted yea. On the motion to table S.J. Res. 31, a joint resolution relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sales to the Government of Pakistan of F-16 Block 52 aircraft, I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's cloture vote on S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I was necessarily absent for yesterday's cloture vote on the Grassley-Leahy amendment No. 3378 in the nature of a substitute to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's amendment vote in relation to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. On amendment No. 3420 by Senator Manchin, I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's amendment votes in relation to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. On amendment No. 3362 by Senator Feinstein, I would have voted yea. On the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 3395 by Senator Wyden, I would have voted yea. On the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 3345 by Senator Shaheen, I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015. I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on S. Res. 374, a resolution relating to the death of Antonin Scalia, Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. I would have voted yea.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on the nomination of Robert McKinnon Califf to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services. I would have voted nay.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for today's vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert McKinnon Califf to be Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services. I would have voted nay.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, first I want to compliment the chairman of the committee for her remarks, which presented, I think, a very thorough and complete look at what the committee is doing and why we are doing it. There are different ways that people can do business in the Capitol. There is the one-off press conference, there is the topic of the day that everyone scurries to get attention for, and then there is the professional, plodding, complete investigation into a very important public policy issue. That is the kind of investigation that Chairman Collins is leading--one that is responsible, thorough, and, frankly, grounded in a deep belief that the American people have the right to know why these obscure drugs and the companies that developed them were purchased, and then they exploded in price. This is something we need to understand. These drugs are lifesaving drugs. This is something that adversely affects many Americans with these drugs. But the problem that is represented here could have much broader implications. Prescription drug prices have increased by 13 percent in 2015, and they are up 76 percent in the past 5 years--more than eight times the rate of inflation. A recent national poll shows that the affordability of prescription drugs was Americans' top health concern. This problem appears to continue unabated as we speak. Just last week, there were reports in the Wall Street Journal that several major drug companies have all raised prices on drugs, some by double digits in the last month alone. We need to get to the bottom of why we are seeing such huge spikes in these drug prices. In the course of the investigation, we have received quite a bit of pushback from lobbyists and insiders. One industry lobbyist said if we wanted to cure cancer, we better leave the drug companies alone. That is absurd. We want to encourage innovation, and that is why the investigation is being handled so responsibly by Senator Collins. We want to protect those in research and development, but we can do so while taking a hard look at price gouging and the hedge fund-like behavior of some pharmaceutical companies. I believe Congress has both the ability and the duty to conduct a thorough investigation of this issue, and I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan investigation led by Chairman Collins so that we can find policy solutions that will help Americans. As she indicated, we have already requested and received over 20,000 documents from multiple sources and have conducted more than 60 interviews with relevant stakeholders, and we plan to continue our investigative efforts until we have assembled a sufficiently complete picture so that we can be confident that any proposed policy solutions are well informed and targeted to the specific problems we have identified. In order to do that, it is important that we get all of the documents that have been requested. The privilege against self-incrimination is an extraordinarily important and sacred constitutional right. It is a right that this body believes in protecting, and we in no way want to erode it. But as a former prosecutor, I am also very aware of its limitations. In order to invoke the Fifth Amendment, there needs to be a nexus between the documents and the information that one is refusing to provide under the privilege and an actual fear of self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding. We are asking for documents that on their face have no apparent connection to any ongoing criminal proceeding. If there is no connection between the documents and a criminal proceeding or if the documents are corporate documents, the courts are very clear that they should be turned over to authorities. I appreciate the chairman's conscientious and dogged pursuit of this investigation. I will continue to cooperate and assist in any way possible. I look forward to continuing the important work of the Special Aging Committee's investigation into drug prices, and I can assure the public that with the work that Chairman Collins is doing along with our staffs and the other members of the committee, we will get some answers. Thank you, Madam President.