Tina Smith

Ms. SMITH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, to call for urgent action by Congress to respond to the needs of Tribal nations and urban indigenous communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have not done enough. We have not lived up to our shared trust and treaty obligations. And in this moment, we are called upon to respond to the historic injustice and systems of oppression and institutional violence that are harming communities of color and indigenous people. Over the last month, people in Minnesota and across our country have focused our attention on the deep systemic inequities that Black, Brown, and indigenous people face. This injustice is not new. It is as old as the colonization of our country, but, colleagues, this is a unique moment. This public health crisis presents us with an opportunity to show that we are serious about repairing the damage done by our broken promises to sovereign Tribal nations and urban indigenous communities. Some have said that COVID-19 is the great equalizer, but we know that COVID hits hardest those without a safe place to call home, those struggling with low wages and poverty and lack of healthcare, and Black, Brown, and indigenous people living with the trauma of having their identity and their very humanity called into question, even before this virus spread. The impact of COVID on Native communities has been devastating. Native people have been hospitalized for COVID at five times the rate of White people. In mid-May, the Navajo Nation reached a higher per- capita infection rate than any other hotspot in the country. Why is it that COVID is hitting Tribal nations so hard? Despite repeated calls from Tribal leaders and urban indigenous leaders, over the past few decades, the Federal Government has stood by and allowed the budget of the Indian Health Service to dwindle. They have neglected Indian housing programs, and they have ignored growing health inequities. The Federal institutions dedicated to serving Indian Country are not broken. Unfortunately, these institutions have never been adequate to live up to our trust and treaty responsibilities, and they represent a broken promise. The Federal Government's failure has life-and-death consequences for Native people--for their health, for their well-being, and for their opportunity to provide for their families. Think of this striking statistic: Unemployment in the indigenous community in the Twin Cities is at a terrible 47 percent--higher than any other group in our State. Within Tribal nations, the economic impact of the coronavirus is equally devastating. Early this spring, Tribal governments in Minnesota and all around the country made the difficult decision to voluntarily close Tribal enterprises in order to protect public health. As a result, they lost significant government revenue and also experienced massive unemployment, not only for their members but for members from the surrounding communities. This lost revenue meant that Tribal governments were forced to scale back essential services, like nutrition assistance for elders, public safety, and education programming. In the CARES Act, Congress agreed to $8 billion in emergency relief to help Tribes respond to COVID. Even after congressional action, though, Tribal governments have had to continue fighting to get their fair share of those dollars. The Trump administration argued that some of this relief should go to for-profit Alaska Native corporations. Then it took the Treasury Department 40 days to distribute just the first 60 percent of the funds to Tribes, and not until 2 weeks ago, almost 3 months after passage of the CARES Act, did Tribal governments receive the rest. To be clear, these funds cannot be used to replace lost revenue. We have so much work to do to fulfill our commitment to indigenous people and the simple proposition that Native families should have equal access to healthcare and housing opportunity as White Americans. When I speak to Tribal leaders in my State about this cycle of historic underinvestment, inequity, and broken promises, I share their frustration. I don't know how anybody couldn't. Indigenous leaders in Minnesota know that a lack of housing on Tribal lands leads to overcrowding, which increases the risk of contracting COVID. Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding for housing programs. They shouldn't have to ask anymore. Indigenous leaders know a lack of access to healthcare and substance abuse disorder treatment lead to chronic health conditions, like diabetes, heart disease, and asthma, which worsen COVID symptoms. Tribes have asked over and over for sufficient funding to address these health inequities, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore. Indigenous leaders know that a lack of access to credit and capital prevents urban indigenous households and folks living on Tribal lands from building wealth like their White neighbors, who can more easily, therefore, weather the storm of unemployment. Native communities have asked over and over to enforce fair lending laws and to ensure access to credit for minority borrowers, and they shouldn't have to ask anymore. Long before COVID, these inequities have harmed indigenous people. Our inaction has placed Tribal nations in the untenable position of having to ask for what they are already owed. So let's take this extraordinary moment--a terrible moment but a moment of real opportunity, a moment when our country is called to respond to this terrible pandemic and to reckon with systemic inequities that have hurt Native people and even sought to erase them-- and let's turn this moment to good. We have an opportunity not only to address the public health and economic crisis of COVID but also to live up to our obligation to Tribes, like providing them with the tools to build resiliency in their communities. First, we need to provide rapid, flexible support to Tribal governments so that they can respond to COVID-19 and provide essential services to Tribal members at the same time. Second, let's live up to our promises and fully fund the Indian Health Service and the NAHASDA housing programs. When we do this, we will be addressing the shortage of physical and behavioral healthcare for young adults and parents and elders, and we will make it easier for families to find affordable safe places to live and to build wealth through homeownership. We can do this. It is within our power. We can end this cycle of underinvestment and institutional violence. This is the best moment in a generation to accomplish this. I am committed to lifting up the voices of indigenous leaders in Minnesota and around this country. I follow their lead, and I will continue to advocate for these changes because they are so long overdue. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this work. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, it has been a little bit over 3 weeks since my constituent, George Floyd, was murdered by the Minneapolis police, and for a little over 3 weeks, millions of people have marched on the streets, raising their voices in grief and anguish to protest the police brutality and systemic racism that killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Philando Castile, Jamar Clark, and so many others. But the killing hasn't stopped. Just last Friday, police in Atlanta killed Rayshard Brooks, shooting him twice in the back. Just moments ago, it was announced that this officer will be charged. The killing will not stop until we take action. The Senate needs to act now to take up and pass the Justice in Policing Act. I joined my colleagues, Senators Booker and Harris, in introducing this bill last week. I am grateful for their strong leadership toward creating a more fair and equitable justice system. The scale of the injustice can feel overwhelming, and the path can seem very long, but passing the Justice in Policing Act would provide concrete steps on that path. It is a necessary step toward stopping the killing and advancing our work to make transformative changes that we need to fulfill the promise of freedom and equality in America. The Justice in Policing Act would make some of the changes that we urgently need to stop the scourge of police violence against communities of color. This legislation would prohibit some of the most dangerous police practices. It would strictly limit the use of force, and it would begin holding law enforcement accountable in a system that was designed to shield them from accountability. First, the bill prohibits the most dangerous police practices. It would ban the use of choke holds like the ones the police used to kill George Floyd and Eric Garner. It would also ban no-knock warrants like the one the police used when they killed Breonna Taylor in her own bed. Choke holds pose an unacceptable risk, and that risk is not borne equally. Black men are nearly three times more likely to be killed by police use of force than White men. The use of no-knock warrants also disproportionately harms communities of color. The practice was popularized in the 1990s as a tool in the war on drugs so that officers pursuing drug charges could enter a person's home unannounced, with guns drawn, inherently and unnecessarily endangering their lives. Communities and activists have been warning us about the inherent danger and injustice of choke holds and no-knock warrants for decades. It is long past time to end the debate and to ban these practices nationally, but experience has shown us that it is not enough to ban egregious practices. When Los Angeles banned choke holds in 1982, officers took up batons to beat and subdue civilians. In 1991, the officers who beat Rodney King actually argued that their actions were necessary because they weren't permitted to use a choke hold, and those officers were never held fully accountable. American policing resists reform and accountability, so it is not enough for us to ban the most dangerous practices; we need to set a national standard for police use of force. That is what the Justice in Policing Act does. Today, the current standard in law asks only if an officer's use of force was reasonable, and this makes it nearly impossible to hold officers accountable because the system--a system designed to protect officers, not Black and Brown bodies--has built up decades of precedent excusing officers from the harm that they cause. So if we are serious when we say that Black lives matter, if we are serious about our commitment to equal justice, we need to hold police officers to a higher standard of care in their use of force. That is why the Justice in Policing Act would set a national use of force standard that asks whether the force was necessary and hold officers accountable for exhausting other options before resorting to violence. The Justice in Policing Act would eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers and reset the impossibly high standard for convicting law enforcement officers of a crime. Today, our system effectively puts cops above the law by insulating them from civil and criminal liability when they violate the rights of those who they are sworn to serve. No one should be shielded from accountability for their actions in a free society. When we change these rules, we will finally be able to provide long denied justice for victims of police brutality, their families, and their communities. But we will also be able to prevent such brutality in the first place. When law enforcement officers believe that they will never face consequences for crossing the line, they will continue to ignore that line. The Justice in Policing Act will begin to make this change The House is poised to pass the Justice in Policing Act next week, and I urge this Senate to take it up. Let's debate it, and let's pass it. We are at a crossroad, and we cannot fail to act. Four hundred years of structural racism cannot be erased by a single piece of legislation or with a single generation of legislators, but passing this bill is a crucial step toward ending the killing and the violence against communities of color. It is a necessary step on the path toward racial justice. The path toward justice leads us toward transformative changes to redefining the role of policing in America. Reimagining policing means recognizing that not every social ill and every emergency is answered by calling in the armed officers. We have other better and more effective tools when dealing with the hurt of mental illness, of substance abuse, of homelessness, of economic insecurity. Reimagining policing means asking whether outfitting officers with military-grade weapons and equipment makes it safer--or does it escalate conflict and violence and encourage officers to see the communities they serve as hostile enemies? Reimagining policing means addressing the overpolicing of communities of color. It means that we ask questions about whether anyone is really safer when we surveil neighborhoods, searching for possible violations. This only feeds the system of mass incarceration. Reimagining policing means that we reassess our criminal code, our justice system, and our sentencing laws that irrevocably disrupt lives and communities for minor offenses with minimal impacts on public safety. Above all, reimagining policing means recognizing that our current system is not inevitable; it is the result of thousands and thousands of policy choices made over, literally, hundreds of years, designed to control and punish Black and Brown and indigenous communities--choices that compound injustice and unequal opportunity. As we imagine a new way forward, we need to face some uncomfortable truths about the history of policing in our country. We can, and we must, make different choices this time. We know better, and we have to do better. I want to close by thanking the community leaders and young activists who are showing us the path forward. This path requires us to be courageous. It requires us to be humble. It requires us to be uncomfortable. It requires us to listen. But it is a path rooted in love and in trust and in hope. I am committed to walking this path with my constituents, and I am hopeful that my colleagues and my fellow American citizens will join me. Thank you.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, today I would like to acknowledge the life and legacy of Marny Xiong, who had a profound impact on her community and on Minnesota. Marny Xiong was a fierce advocate for her community and for students. During her career, she worked at Hmong International Academy in Minneapolis prior to serving as an elected leader on the St. Paul Public Schools Board of Education, including as its elected chairwoman. As a proud graduate of St. Paul Public Schools, she was a passionate leader who was dedicated to giving back to her community. Marny Xiong was also a community organizer. Her vision of equity and racial justice was an inspiration to many, and she dedicated her life to that mission. Marny's fighting spirit showed through her tireless efforts to address the impacts of structural racism. Despite the magnitude of this challenge, she approached her work and her advocacy with joy, an infectious smile, and an enduring sense of hope for making change. Marny Xiong's lasting impact will continue to be felt by many across the St. Paul community and the State of Minnesota, and I am proud to recognize and celebrate her legacy today.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, last week I attended a memorial service for my constituent Mr. George Floyd, who was murdered by Minneapolis police. Like so many Minnesotans, my heart is broken for Mr. Floyd and his family and for a Black community that has been here too many times. I will once again add my voice to the chorus demanding that the police officers responsible for his death face justice. But I keep finding myself thinking that Mr. Floyd's death wasn't just a tragedy and it wasn't just a crime. It was a failure. It was our failure. Systemic racism is built into every level of our society, and for 400 years, Black and Brown and Indigenous people have paid its price. Racism isn't just evil, though it is. It is dangerous. And racism isn't just a moral issue, though it is. It is a public health issue. And the death of Mr. Floyd, like the deaths of so many Black and Brown people before him, is an indictment of our failure as policymakers to fulfill our first and most important duty, which is to protect the lives of the people whom we serve. Black lives matter. We need to say it loud and often, with strength and with purpose, and if we truly mean it, then we need to be very clear about why it is that so many Black and Brown lives are being stolen, and that means we can't just point to systemic racism writ large. We have to talk about the police. This is about the impunity with which police officers are allowed to kill Black and Brown Americans. This is about a society in which police departments have become fundamentally unaccountable institutions. This is about the fact that law enforcement in America does not deliver equal justice for all. The institutional racism that plagues American law enforcement is real. This is not just a few bad cops. It is the entire culture of policing--a culture that far too often encourages violence, condones abuse, and resists reforms and accountability at every turn. This culture kills, and it will continue to do so unless we stop it. If we can't see that, if we can't say it, if we aren't ready to use our power and our privilege to address this unforgiveable failure, well, then we might as well say nothing at all. So why is it so hard for us to talk about these issues? Why is it so hard to even admit that there is something dangerously wrong about the role that police play in our society? Well, I think, in part, it is because of the respect that we have for police officers themselves. We ask these men and women to put their lives on the line every single day. Their job is to run to trouble, and hundreds of thousands of police officers in my community and in all of yours fulfill their duty with skill and with courage every day. But I think there is something else lurking behind our inaction. The vast majority of policymakers, especially here in Washington, are White, and the vast majority of the interactions that White people have with police officers are positive. When we are scared or threatened or hurt, well, police officers come to help. And when we hear the siren or we see a blue uniform, we breathe a sigh of relief, and it is uncomfortable for White people to acknowledge that this feeling of relief is really about privilege. It is uncomfortable to imagine giving up some piece of that privilege. After all, we all want clean, safe streets. We all want quiet, orderly neighborhoods. We want to be able to call 911 when we are in danger and know that the police officers will rush to our aid. We may even catch ourselves worrying that a police force held accountable for its abuse of power against Black and Brown bodies will be a police force a little less empowered to protect us. Often, when White people talk about racism, we define it as a hatred that lurks within people's hearts, and then we search within ourselves and we can feel satisfied that we are free from prejudice. But racism, colleagues, is manifested as behavior--behavior that hurts, that kills. Who even knows what is in ``how to change hearts and minds''? But we do know, I think, let's say: Let's start with changing behavior. So this is something that I think about a lot as a Minnesotan. In my home State we pride ourselves on our legacy of progressive activism. We believe deeply in civic participation, and we are proud to have the highest voter turnout in the whole country. We are home to a diverse array of communities--African American, Somali, Hmong, Latinx, Native, and more--all people who belong here just as much as anyone else. And we are home to some of the Nation's worst racial disparities. It is not just that Black men are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be searched, more likely to be assaulted and killed by police officers. A Black or Brown or Native child growing up in the neighborhood where George Floyd was murdered can expect worse education outcomes, worse health, fewer opportunities than a White child that lives just a few miles down the road. The truth is that for all of the progress that we have made in America over the course of my lifetime and for all of the hearts and minds that have changed, racism was built into our systems from the very beginning. While it is still present in everything from healthcare to education, to housing and environmental policy, it jumps off the page when you look at our Nation's criminal justice system. Consider this. African Americans make up less than 14 percent of the population, but they account for 23 percent of fatal police shootings and nearly one-third of our prison population. Studies repeatedly show that Black people and White people use drugs at roughly the same rate, but Black people are more than twice as likely to be arrested for drug offenses and nearly four times as likely when it comes to marijuana. No matter where you look, our criminal justice system unfairly targets Black and Brown and Native people, threatening their freedom and often their lives, and you can't just blame that on racist cops. That is us doing that. Even if we harbor no hatred in our hearts, we are responsible for the racist impact of a system that was built historically by White Americans to serve White Americans. We are the beneficiaries of a system that killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Atatiana Jefferson, Sandra Bland, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, Rekia Boyd, Jessica Hernandez, Eric Salgado, Philando Castile, Jamar Clark, and so many others. So that is a hard thing to admit, but right now hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens are demanding that we face this ugly truth. The people marching in our streets have watched us forgive ourselves time and again for failing Black and Brown Americans, like George Floyd, and they are angry, they are grieving, and they are exhausted, and this time they will not be denied. It may make us uncomfortable to hear this anger, to see the images on television, to experience this turmoil when our country is going through so much already, but that is the whole point of protest. This crisis has long deserved our attention, and because we withheld that attention, these protesters are demanding it now. We cannot claim to support the goal of justice if we object to being confronted with the reality of injustice. We cannot walk away from this moral crisis. We have done that too many times after too many deaths, and every time we do, we fail the next Black or Brown American who dies in police custody. I just can't live with that. We have to make a change, and this time, White people have to get past our discomfort. Black and Brown people have been trying for too long to tell us that systemic racism isn't just limiting their opportunities. It is killing their children. To the communities of color in Minnesota, whom I am proud to represent, I want you to know that I hear you and that I will do everything I can to make sure that everyone here in Washington hears you too. Most of all, we have to devote our time, our energy, our resources, our platforms, our power, and our privilege to helping this movement succeed. As Pastor Billy Russell from the Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis said to me, ``we need to make it right. It's not right now, but we need to make it right.'' I want to tell my Minnesota community, my colleagues, and the American people exactly how I want to use my power and my privilege to help make it right. In the coming weeks, my office will be moving forward with legislative action focused on three priorities: first, fundamentally transforming the role of the police in our society from the way we fund and train and equip officers to the relationships between departments and the communities that they serve. We must rethink the responsibilities we assign to the police and the authority we give them to fulfill those responsibilities. We need to imagine and reinvent American policing from the ground up. Second, we must fix the systems in police departments that obstruct accountability and transparency at every turn. Our system effectively puts cops above the law by insulating them from civil and criminal liability for their actions. This leads people of color to conclude that they can't trust the police, and it leads the police to conclude that they will never face consequences for crossing the line. They are both right, and this means something is wrong. If we want to change the way officers act, we need to change the rules that shield them from accountability. Accountability and preventing this misconduct from being ignored will not only hold police departments responsible for perpetuating violence and unequal justice, but it will help prevent violence and injustice the next time. The Justice in Policing Act, led by my colleagues Senator Harris and Senator Booker, is an important step forward. I am proud to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to join in. Racism is about behavior. We can't legislate what police officers believe, but we can and we must legislate how they behave. Third, restoring the communities that have been torn apart by injustice--in the Twin Cities, neighbors are already coming together to clean up the damage sustained by the unrest and upheaval of the last 2 weeks, but the task of making our communities whole goes far beyond repairing the physical damage. We need a new and sustained push for racial and economic justice, not just law enforcement but in healthcare and education and in housing and in environmental policy. The people I spoke to when I was home last weekend are grieving, they are angry, and they are hurt, but most of all, they are exhausted. Communities of color have spent years fighting to be heard, fighting for justice, fighting for resources, fighting for survival. As their Senator, it is my job to carry that fight here to Washington in the Senate. Four hundred years of structural racism cannot be overcome with a single piece of legislation or even by a single generation of legislators, but we can't let the enormity of the task blind us to the urgency of this work. The last 2 weeks have been extraordinarily difficult for Minnesotans and for our country. But, throughout history, the hardest times have always been the times of the greatest progress. I choose to find purpose in making sure that, in this moment, we lead to real progress towards justice and equality. That is why I came to the floor today. No statement of intent, no matter how thoughtful, will change the reality of this crisis, but I want this statement to be on the record, part of my record as a U.S. Senator. I want to be accountable for these commitments. I want Minnesotans to hold me accountable. I want to be a part of holding this body and all of us in the Senate accountable. This, then, will be the first in a series of floor speeches I intend to deliver examining the systemic injustice that plagues American policing and plagues Native, Black, and Brown communities more broadly. It will be about the steps we need to take to address this injustice: redefining the role of the police, reinforcing accountability for police officers, and restoring the communities I am so blessed to serve. This is a big fight. The scale of the injustice is overwhelming. It can be hard to know where to start, but the people who took to the streets last week--in the Twin Cities, in communities large and small across Minnesota, and in cities across this country--are a movement for change, and they are showing us the path forward. This path requires us to be courageous, requires us to be humble, and requires us to be uncomfortable, but it is a path rooted in love and in trust and in hope. We saw it in the way the protesters brought joy to the most serious of fights they faced. We saw it in the way they stood up to those who would do damage to their communities and to their cause. We saw it in the way they kept their focus, even in the face of unimaginable brutality. So many Minnesotans have shown such courage and grace. I am proud to be your Senator, and I am proud to be your neighbor. I am committing myself to the path that you are forging. I hope my constituents, my colleagues in the Senate, and all of my fellow Americans will do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, this morning, I let Minnesotans know that I will vote to remove President Donald Trump from office. I rise today because, on this historic vote, I want Minnesotans to understand why and where I think we go from here. I was reluctant to go down the path of impeachment. While I strongly disagree with the President on many issues, I see impeachment as a last resort, and I feared that leaping to impeachment would only serve to drive us even further into our political corners. This changed when I read the whistleblower report, which alleged nothing less than the President's corrupt abuse of power, an abuse that had the potential to undermine our election in 2020. For me, this left no choice but for the House to fully investigate these allegations. When the House sent the two Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, it became my job to ``do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws,'' and I take that oath as seriously as anything I have ever done. This impeachment trial has been about whether the President's corrupt abuse of power--power that he used for his own personal, political benefit while betraying the public trust--is a high crime and misdemeanor as defined by the Founders of our Constitution. I believe that it is, and I also believe that to condone corrupt behavior such as this undermines the core values we stand for as a nation that no one is above the law, including and most especially the President. Over the past several weeks, I have listened carefully to hundreds of hours of presentations, questions and answers, and read thousands of pages of documents. Through it all, the facts underlying the case against the President were never really refuted. The President, working through his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, withheld Ukrainian security assistance and a prestigious meeting in the White House in an effort to persuade President Zelensky to announce he was investigating Joe Biden and the theory that Ukraine interfered in our 2016 elections. In order to improve his prospects for reelection, Trump directed that vital assistance be withheld until Ukraine announced investigations into a baseless conspiracy theory that originated as Russian propaganda, and he only released the aid when he was found out. Then, when the House sought to investigate these actions, the Trump White House categorically blocked any and all subpoenas for documents and witnesses. No U.S. President has ever categorically rejected the power of Congress to investigate and do oversight of the executive branch--not Nixon, not Clinton. This obstruction fractures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. How can our constitutional system work if we allow the President to decide if and how Congress can investigate the President's misconduct? It can't. If we say that the President can decide when he cooperates with a congressional investigation, we are saying that he is above the law. While evidence of the President's wrongdoing is substantial, I advocated every way I could for a trial that would be fair for both sides, which means hearing from witnesses with direct knowledge of the President's actions. I am greatly disappointed that almost all of my Republican colleagues in the Senate abandoned the historical, bipartisan precedent of hearing from witnesses in every Senate impeachment trial. Ultimately, when so many people know the truth of what happened, the complete truth will come out. Yet the Senate abandoned its responsibilities when it blocked efforts to get the complete truth here in this Chamber. As a result, there will be a permanent cloud over these proceedings. The President may be acquitted, but without a fair trial he cannot claim to be exonerated. The core question of this impeachment trial is this: Do we say that it is OK for the President to use his office to advance his personal political interests while ignoring or damaging the public good? My answer is no. Corruptly soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our elections and to announce an investigation to damage a political rival and an American citizen at the expense of free and fair elections and our national security--that is the definition of an abuse of power. This is what Alexander Hamilton was talking about when he wrote that impeachment proceedings should concern ``the abuse or violation of some public trust.'' Some have argued that what the President did was wrong, but his conduct does not rise to the level of impeachment. They agree that the President used his power to secure an unfair advantage in our elections but think that this abuse of power isn't that bad. It isn't bad enough to remove him from office. It is that bad. Trump's abuses of power are grave offenses that threaten the constitutional balance of power and the core value that no one, especially the President, is above the law. The President's abuse of power undermines the integrity of our next election and calls into question whether our elections will be free and fair. His abuses of power damage national security by undermining the moral stature of the United States as a trusted ally and as a fighter against corruption. For me, one of the saddest moments of this trial was the testimony from American diplomats who urged Ukrainian leaders not to engage in political investigations. According to the testimony, the Ukrainians responded by saying, in effect: Do you mean like the investigations you are asking us to do with the Bidens and the Clintons? Some have said that we should wait and let the American people decide in the next election, only months away. But when the President has solicited foreign nations to influence our elections with disinformation and has prevented the American people from hearing a full and fair accounting of that effort, our duty to defend the Constitution requires that we act now. A vote to remove the President from office protects our next election. When Leader McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to consider election security legislation and when the President shows no remorse and says publicly that he is ready to do it again, we have no choice but to act. When the President says that the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants, Congress must act. The President's conduct is a threat to our elections and our national security. What is more, if we fail to check this President, future Presidents may be emboldened to pursue even more shameless schemes. Lots of countries have high-minded constitutions full of powerful words and strong enunciations of rights that don't really mean anything. As House manager Adam Schiff pointed out, Russia has a Constitution like this. Our Constitution is different. It is not some dry, historic document that we keep behind glass in a museum. It is the big idea of our system of government that no one is above the law, and people, not Monarchs, are the source of power. Everything--everything-- flows from this great idea realized in the lives of Minnesotans who, every day, seek the freedom and the opportunities they need to build the lives they want. There is nothing inevitable about democracy. It is not a natural state. It is a state that we have to fight for. The fight for democracy and our Constitution has chosen us in this moment, and it is our job to rise to this moment. After the Senate vote, the work of reinforcing the American values of fairness and justice will continue. We have a lot of work to do. Democracy is hard work, and I know that Minnesotans are up to it. The truth is that I see more signs of common ground, hope, and determination in Minnesota than I do the fractures of division, distrust, and partisanship, and that is a foundation for us all to build on going forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Hafez, Andrew Bremer, and Emily Beagle, fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate the lives of James Rogers, Charles Nord, and Kort Plantenberg, all members of the Minnesota National Guard, who tragically lost their lives in a helicopter accident on Thursday, December 5. After returning home safely from deployment to the Middle East in May, this loss is especially heart wrenching. These men conducted medical evacuations in the Middle East, and their service to our troops and allies will not be forgotten. I am grateful for their service and sacrifice for Minnesota and our country. CW2 James Rogers, often remembered for his curious nature, served 10 years in the Minnesota National Guard, having enlisted before his high school graduation. CW2 Charles Nord enlisted in 2007, and he leaves behind his wife, young daughter, and a child on the way. SGT James Plantenberg enlisted in 2016, was a member of the Guard's biathlon team, and was preparing to start flight school. We are all indebted to these men for their service, and I wish their families peace during this time of tragic loss.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to add my support to the statement given by my colleague from Illinois. On behalf of the corn and soybean farmers in my State and on behalf of the biofuel industry in my State, I strongly oppose the ``small refinery relief'' language in the fiscal year 2020 Interior appropriations bill. This ``relief language'' will allow the EPA to continue to exempt refiners from blending biofuels without any evidence of actual hardship. Small refinery waivers from the EPA are wreaking havoc on our Nation's rural economy. Across the country, ethanol plants and biodiesel plants are halting production or being forced to shut down. These biofuel plants often are the local cornerstone of the community, supporting thousands of rural jobs across the country, and serving as important markets for farmers to process millions of bushels of corn, soybeans, and other commodities. Farmers are struggling after years of low prices, extreme weather and a chaotic trade agenda, and instead of providing certainty and relief for our farmers, this administration chose to destroy more markets and further harm rural communities. The problems caused by small-refinery waiver abuse are seen across the upper Midwest, but they hit the agricultural communities in my state of Minnesota particularly hard. Two months ago, the Corn Plus ethanol plant in Winnebago closed. When I traveled there, I talked to farmers and community members and heard directly about how the loss of that facility will impact their lives. The Corn Plus plant closed, but throughout Minnesota ethanol plants are idling and cutting back, impacting workers and hurting local farmers. For example, a recent Renewable Fuels Association analysis of the impact of idling at the Green Plains plant in Fairmont, MN, found that local corn prices were reduced, leading to an $8.4 million loss for local farmers who typically sell to the plant. Last week, Tim Rudnicki, executive director for the Minnesota Bio- Fuels Association traveled to Michigan to testify at the EPA public hearing on their wholly inadequate Trump administration proposed ``fix'' to the waiver abuse problems. In Mr. Rudnicki's remarks, he said that the current EPA is ``driving renewable biofuels backwards and toward the cliff.'' I couldn't agree more. This has to stop, and Congress needs to make it stop because it has become clear that the current Administration has put big oil ahead of our farmers and our rural communities. In the wake of the EPA's continued efforts to undercut the integrity of the RFS by misusing its waiver authority, I urge my colleagues to support this country's rural communities by ending the EPA's abuse of the small refinery exemptions.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for raising these issues about the skills gap. This is something that is very important in Minnesota, as well, and I agree with him. I think this should be a place where we could find some bipartisan agreement. So I thank him for his words today. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about another gap that I would like to ask my colleagues for help in filling. For many Americans, the 35-day government shutdown during the last holiday season is a distant memory. The national parks have reopened with their usual programming; airports are running normally; and Federal employees are back on the job with the backpay they had lost through no fault of their own because of the Federal Government shutdown. But for one group of workers, things are not back to normal. These are the low-wage workers employed by Federal contractors serving in cafeterias, providing building security, and keeping Federal buildings clean. These Federal contractors work shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees, and though they are often invisible, they play a crucial role in keeping the Federal Government working for Americans. Thousands--potentially hundreds of thousands--of these workers at Federal facilities all across the country were not allowed to work during the Federal Government shutdown. They went without paychecks during the height of the holiday season. They skipped Christmas gifts. They missed tuition payments. And they even, in some cases, were unable to afford the insulin they need to stay alive if they live with diabetes. Unlike Federal employees, these employees of Federal contractors didn't get backpay when the government reopened. They were ready and willing to work every single day of those 35 days of the shutdown, but they couldn't, through no fault of their own, and they paid the price. That is just not right. Making ends meet in a low-wage job is hard enough, and making ends meet when you miss two paychecks--when those paychecks are taken away from you--is nearly impossible. Families who didn't get the income they were expecting were forced to borrow from friends. They were forced to rely on the help of others. They had to make difficult choices, and many of them are still in a financial hole that was not created by them and that they can't dig themselves out of. So, colleagues, I rise today to ask you to help me in righting this injustice, and I am glad to be joined on the Senate floor by several of my colleagues who also have been strong advocates for these workers. Senator Brown from Ohio, Senator Van Hollen from Maryland, Senator Kaine from Virginia, along with many of my colleagues, have helped to try to right this wrong. In this way, we have introduced bipartisan legislation to provide modest backpay to these workers. The House included our backpay language in the appropriations package that is on the Senate floor today. It is in the bill that the House passed. Unfortunately, Senator McConnell's substitute amendment strips out this critical provision that would provide backpay to these Federal contract workers. Today, what I am proposing is that we come together in a bipartisan way and that we add back the backpay language--put it back in the legislation--and I have filed an amendment that would accomplish this. I have talked with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate Chamber, and I have to tell you, I have not found a single person who was willing to say--who even wants to say--that these Federal contractors don't deserve backpay. In fact, more often than not, when I talk to my colleagues, they will say: Didn't we take care of that? Well, colleagues, we didn't take care of that, and now we have an opportunity to fix this gap. We have an opportunity to do something for these Federal contract workers who are proud Federal Government employees in almost every sense of the word. Our proposal would allow contractors to fund backpay for their employees through a well-known and often-used contracting process known as equitable adjustment. Often people will say: Oh, Tina, this is a good idea, but it would be so difficult to accomplish this. Well, actually, there is an existing mechanism for accomplishing exactly what we need to do here, and it is called equitable adjustment. I have also made clear to my colleagues who have asked questions about this that I am happy to work with anyone who has suggestions for what we can do to further improve this proposal. But we have been told across the board that this is a good way of accomplishing this--an equitable way, a way that would have good accountability--and that it would work. Over the last 10 months, I have been proud to stand with Federal contract employees who have been fighting for this amendment and to stand with so many others around the country. Tragically, in July, one of our strongest voices for these workers, SEIU 32BJ President Hector Figueroa, passed away unexpectedly at age 57. Hector was an amazing advocate for workers all over this country. He knew how important it is to solve this Federal contractor backpay problem, and he understood viscerally exactly what difference it would make in the lives of people who lost that income. It should not be lost forever. Hector led 170,000 janitors, food service workers, and others in their efforts to secure decent wages and better working conditions, and he played a crucial role in making sure that these workers' voices were heard on Capitol Hill and in State legislatures. Hector was a source of inspiration for both workers and public officials, and I miss him as a partner in this effort. Colleagues, recently we also lost another partner in this fight. Chairman Elijah Cummings from Maryland was a longtime champion for Baltimore workers, and he was the leader of the primary House committee on Federal workplace issues. In March, Chair Cummings led a letter with 48 House Members saying that ``we must act to ensure . . . federal contractor employees are made whole.'' So I rise today to urge my colleagues that Federal contract workers should be made whole, as Chair Cummings worked so hard to accomplish. Let's not forget Chair Cummings' message. Let's not forget the passion and the work of Hector Figueroa. Let's not forget about these workers. Let's follow on the advocacy of these people and so many others to pass backpay for Federal contract workers and make sure that these hard-working Americans get the backpay they deserve. I am so grateful to be joined on the floor today by several of my colleagues, including Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has been such a strong advocate for Federal Government contract workers in making sure that they do not have to pay the price for this shutdown, which happened through no fault of their own. I am very glad to be here with Senator Van Hollen today. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and express my gratitude to Alana Petersen, my deputy chief of staff and long time staff leader for the Minnesota congressional delegation. Alana is retiring from her official role after serving the Minnesota delegation since 1993. During her public service, Alana worked for Congressman Dave Minge, from Minnesota's First Congressional District; Congressman John Oberstar, from Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District; Senator Al Franken; and now for me. In all of those roles, she has served the people of Minnesota first and especially those who most needed an ally and a voice in the halls of power here in Washington: farmers and rural families, new immigrants, Minnesota's Tribal communities, and Minnesota's diverse communities of color. For those of you who don't know Alana, let me tell you a little bit about her. Alana was born in Minnesota and, like me, spent part of her childhood in New Mexico. In fact, she and I went to the same elementary school, although Alana is younger than me and had the benefit of a new building. Alana headed Al Franken's Minnesota Senate office beginning when he was sworn in 2009. Before joining Franken's staff, she worked in the office of Congressman Jim Oberstar for 5 years as deputy district director, and she worked for Congressman Dave Minge for 6 years in several capacities. Alana also served as executive director of Target Market, a statewide nonprofit organization that promoted an anti-tobacco message to teens, and she held a position at Grassroots Solutions, a political consulting firm where she worked with national labor unions, congressional candidates, and pro-choice organizations. As if her official work weren't enough, Alana has long been a go-to volunteer for her community, where she has served as chair of the East Central Regional Arts Council and board chair for Women Winning, a bipartisan group dedicated to electing more women to public office. Alana is married to Thom Petersen, who is the Minnesota commissioner of agriculture for Governor Tim Walz, and she is mom to Waylon and Dylan. Alana and her family live on a working farm in Pine County, MN, an hour north of the Twin Cities. The Petersens raise and show miniature horses at county fairs all across Minnesota and at the Minnesota State Fair, earning blue ribbons, not only because of the amazing minis but also thanks to the amazing costumes sewn by Alana. To Thom, Waylon, and Dylan, thank you for sharing your mom and wife with us and with Minnesota all of these years. So I can't tell you when I first met Alana, but we have been good friends and allies for decades. As in all great friendships born from working together, we are connected by a sense of shared purpose, a sense of humor, and a complete trust that, when in doubt, we can call the other one. Each of us, in turn, has been a shoulder to lean on, a strategic adviser, a gut check, and a great excuse for a good laugh when either of us needs it. This has been true for both of us for years, but never more so than in this last year when I became an accidental Senator and called on my old friend to jump in one more time to help me become a Senator and win a Senate seat, all in 10 months. Alana helped me to see that I could do this job and also win an election in such a short time. It is no exaggeration to say that I couldn't have done any of this without her. Alana has the heart of an organizer. In fact, she tells the story that she first canvassed her neighborhood as a fifth-grader, knocking on doors for the father of a friend of hers who was running for office. She has been organizing and engaging people in the democratic process ever since. As an organizer Alana knows that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down. She understands that the best work happens when you build relationships with people at the grassroots. She has mentored and taught generations of campaign and congressional office staffers that teamwork based on mutual respect, high expectations, and clear goals makes progress for people possible, and that it can be joyful work. For years Alana has been the go-to person for young candidates just starting out--and a lot of us seasoned politicians too. The political offices, campaigns, and nonprofits of Minnesota are powered by the people Alana has taught and mentored. As an organizer, she is rooted in the value that Paul Wellstone best expressed when he said that politics shouldn't be about money and power; it should be about improving people's lives. It means more to me than I can express that Minnesotans elected me to serve in this seat once held by Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. On October 25, 2002, we lost Paul in a terrible plane crash, along with Paul's wife Sheila, his daughter Marsha, and staffers Will, Tom, and Mary Mac, Alana's mentor. In the fall of 2002, Alana had quit her regular job in Duluth to join the campaign for Paul's reelection because she knew she wanted to contribute to the grassroots movement that Paul was building. The plane crash and the loss of our friends was heartbreaking to all of us. Last year, on October 25, Alana shared a letter her father wrote to the Wellstone campaign team in the days after the crash. It is particularly touching because her father, Thomas Christiansen, passed away on October 25, 2009, 7 years after we lost Paul. Here is part of what Alana's father said: ``For some, public service is the dedication of one's life to the community. I have come to realize that my daughter Alana is one of those elite few.'' Alana, you are indeed one of those elite few. Thank you for your service to Minnesota, and thank you for what you will continue to do for many years ahead to move forward the hard but precious work of improving people's lives. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate the life of Peter Melvin Thompson, Jr., a decorated Vietnam war veteran and proud member of the White Earth Nation, who passed away on Wednesday, January 30, 2019. Today, on June 5, 2019, Mr. Thompson will be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery for his service to this country. He is the first member of the White Earth Nation to receive this honor. Mr. Thompson served in the Army for 12 years, during which time he received six Purple Hearts, one Silver Star with valor device, and 3 Bronze Stars with valor device. In 1960, at the age of 17, Mr. Thompson talked his dad into signing papers allowing him to enlist in the U.S. Army. He attended basic training and was posted to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, before volunteering to go to fight in the Vietnam war. Mr. Thompson deployed twice to Vietnam, first with the First Cavalry Regiment in central Vietnam from January 1968 to 1969. During this deployment, Mr. Thompson was wounded twice and earned a Bronze Star. Soon after returning to the States, Mr. Thompson volunteered for a second tour in Vietnam. During his second tour, Mr. Thompson served as platoon leader in charge of seven armored personnel carriers and three tanks. He was wounded four more times. In 1970, while on a rescue mission, Mr. Thompson was injured in combat for the last time. He was airlifted to Hawk Hill, where he helped identify all the lost men in his platoon before being sent to a field hospital to begin recovery. Mr. Thompson was transferred to Colorado, where he finished his recuperation and served as a probation officer at Fort Carson before being discharged in 1972. Mr. Thompson met and married Evelyn Auginaush on July 10, 1973 at St. Phillips Church in Rice Lake, MN. Together they moved throughout Minnesota before returning to Mr. Thompson's home in Rice Lake. Never one to be idle, Mr. Thompson found work as a trapper for the State and Tribe Predator Control and also worked at the Leech Lake Indian Health Hospital Facilities as a manager, where he won two awards for his service. Mr. Thompson's time in the military also left an indelible mark on his life and led him to start the White Earth Honor Guard, which he remained a part of throughout his life. Today, Mr. Thompson is being laid to rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery by his wife Evelyn, daughters Cheryl and Carol, 15 grandchildren, 6 great grandchildren, and many others. I am proud today to recognize Peter Thompson for his service to this country, to Minnesota, and to the White Earth Nation.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am very happy to have a chance to work with her on this. Today, my colleague Senator Collins and I are introducing a bill to help fight Lyme disease, so we are introducing this bill today here in the Senate as many Minnesotans and Mainers get ready to head out to our beautiful national parks, lakes, and coastline to go fishing, hiking, and all of the things that we love, love, love to do. In Minnesota, we have more than 10,000 lakes and a lot of space for outdoor activities, and we also have a growing tick population due to warmer summer months. With so many lakes and our excitement to get outside after a long winter, Minnesotans have become more at risk of contracting Lyme disease and other vector-borne illness. A vector-borne illness means an illness that is carried by an insect, like ticks. Unfortunately, the number of Lyme disease cases in Minnesota is on the rise. Over the past 10 years, the number of reported cases has increased by nearly a third. Our bill, the TICK Act, aims to reduce the number of cases by establishing an interagency office of oversight and coordination to target, prevent, and treat Lyme disease and other vector-borne illnesses. In our legislation, we made sure to enable collaboration between universities and public health agencies, and it is important we train and equip our public health first responders in how best to prevent and treat vector-borne illnesses. The TICK Act is supported by a coalition of researchers, as Senator Collins just said, also frontline medical professionals and government officials from across the country, so I urge my colleagues to listen to the professionals on the ground fighting vector-borne diseases and quickly take up and pass this bill. May is Lyme disease awareness month. We must be aware of and prepare for future vector-borne disease outbreaks, and this bill will be an important first step. So I want to thank Senator Collins, my colleague on the HELP Committee, for her leadership on this important issue. I am glad we are able to work together on this bill.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am very happy to have a chance to work with her on this. Today, my colleague Senator Collins and I are introducing a bill to help fight Lyme disease, so we are introducing this bill today here in the Senate as many Minnesotans and Mainers get ready to head out to our beautiful national parks, lakes, and coastline to go fishing, hiking, and all of the things that we love, love, love to do. In Minnesota, we have more than 10,000 lakes and a lot of space for outdoor activities, and we also have a growing tick population due to warmer summer months. With so many lakes and our excitement to get outside after a long winter, Minnesotans have become more at risk of contracting Lyme disease and other vector-borne illness. A vector-borne illness means an illness that is carried by an insect, like ticks. Unfortunately, the number of Lyme disease cases in Minnesota is on the rise. Over the past 10 years, the number of reported cases has increased by nearly a third. Our bill, the TICK Act, aims to reduce the number of cases by establishing an interagency office of oversight and coordination to target, prevent, and treat Lyme disease and other vector-borne illnesses. In our legislation, we made sure to enable collaboration between universities and public health agencies, and it is important we train and equip our public health first responders in how best to prevent and treat vector-borne illnesses. The TICK Act is supported by a coalition of researchers, as Senator Collins just said, also frontline medical professionals and government officials from across the country, so I urge my colleagues to listen to the professionals on the ground fighting vector-borne diseases and quickly take up and pass this bill. May is Lyme disease awareness month. We must be aware of and prepare for future vector-borne disease outbreaks, and this bill will be an important first step. So I want to thank Senator Collins, my colleague on the HELP Committee, for her leadership on this important issue. I am glad we are able to work together on this bill.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I knew I wanted to make mental health one of my top priorities. As a Minnesotan, I am proud of the way our Senators have led the way on this important issue, from Paul Wellstone to Al Franken, to Amy Klobuchar. I am honored to have the chance to further our proud legacy when it comes to improving our mental health system, but that is not the only reason I have chosen to make mental health a focus. I am glad it has become a more prominent issue here in Washington, but I have noticed it usually comes to the forefront in the context of some unthinkable tragedy. When a high-profile celebrity takes his or her own life, we immediately want to reach out to other people who are suffering in silence. Of course, we do. That is not a bad thing. We can't repeat the number often enough. If you are having thoughts of suicide, please, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255. Even if you aren't suffering from acute mental illness, put that number in your cell phone so you can, someday, help someone who is. On the other hand, when a profoundly disturbed person commits a horrible act of violence, we immediately want to intervene before the next time it happens. Of course, we do. When we bring up the need to improve our mental health system as the answer to the epidemic of mass shootings in America, though, we are making two huge mistakes. First, we are ignoring our responsibility to address a much more direct cause of these tragedies--guns. Second, we are unfairly and falsely stigmatizing mental illness. Here is another thing we can't say often enough: It is exceedingly rare that one's mental illness leads one to commit acts of violence. In fact, one is much more likely to be a victim of violence than to be a perpetrator, and we must not make it harder for people to seek help by falsely tagging them, as we do, as being potentially dangerous. Yes, these tragedies are reminders that we need to spend more time talking about mental health, but let's have the right conversation. For most people who struggle with mental illness in America, the struggle is not about life or death; it is about the quality of the lives we lead. Mental health is a continuum, and many of our fellow citizens fall somewhere along this continuum. These millions of Americans deserve our attention, and these millions of Americans deserve our help. The other reason I want to focus on mental health care while I am here in the Senate is that I am one of them. When it started for me, I thought I was just having a bad day or, really, a series of bad days. While growing up, I had always been a pretty cheerful kid, but at some point during my second year of college, I had started to find it harder and harder to cope with the daily challenges of life. Actually, it had been my roommate who had noticed that I had not been myself and hadn't been myself for a long time. She had suggested that I talk to someone over at the Student Health Services. It had been a completely foreign idea to me, and I had responded in the way a lot of people would have-- ``I have this.'' Eventually, I had realized that maybe I had been wrong about that. It was really hard to make that phone call, walk over to the counselor's office, and sit in the waiting room. I didn't know what to expect, and to be honest, I was embarrassed. The counselor's name was Charlotte. She was nice, had common sense, and wasn't patronizing or judgmental. She just asked me some simple questions about how I was feeling, and I remember what a relief it was just to talk about it. Over the course of a few months, Charlotte gave me some ideas about how to cope a little bit better with the challenges I was facing, and I would always walk out of her office feeling a little bit more courageous and a little bit more hopeful. Did I live happily ever after? Well, not quite. That is not how mental illness works. There isn't a box for when you are healthy and a box for when you are not. Like I said, it is a continuum, and you try to get a little closer to the healthy end every day. At one point in my thirties, though, I found myself sliding back in the wrong direction. There was nothing unusually traumatic going on in my life. I had a career, and Archie and I were raising our two sons. We were busy, and we were tired, but that is the way it is when you are a young parent. Still, something was wrong. All who have suffered from depression have their own metaphors to describe it, but most can identify with the sensation of the color just sort of draining out of your world. The things that used to give you joy don't give you joy anymore. The things that you used to love to do may just make you exhausted. Basically, you are just trying to slog through the day. Of course, when you feel this way, just making it through the day is tough. I found myself struggling to be a good mom, a good wife, a good friend, a good colleague. I just felt off all the time--clumsy and slow. I forgot things and got angry at the drop of a hat. See, the thing is, depression messes with your memory. I will never forget when my young son asked me quietly and cautiously: ``Mom, are you OK?'' It was a spiral. The worse things got, the more frustrated I became, but I couldn't get it together. Down and down I went until I could no longer see hope on the horizon. I was never suicidal, but I struggled to function. I definitely wasn't living my best life. I really wasn't living at all. That is the reality of mental illness for millions of Americans. I am one of the lucky ones. I was lucky that my college had excellent mental health resources and that my roommate cared enough about me to urge me to take advantage of those resources. I was lucky that when my depression came back with a vengeance, I had health insurance that covered treatment. There was a therapist named Susan with the skill and the expertise to help me. Susan asked me a few questions: How are you sleeping? Terrible. Are you forgetting things? All the time. She then suggested that I take a diagnostic test, which basically consisted of answering questions like those. Even then, I was resistant. People often say that depression lies, and the biggest lie depression tells is that what is wrong with you is you. So you resist getting help because you refuse to accept that there is anything happening except that you stupidly forgot it was recycling day again. I went ahead and I did the diagnostic test, and Susan came back and said: Yes, you are clinically depressed, so let's talk about what we can do about it. One thing I would say to people who are resisting going in for that appointment is that even after I got that diagnosis, I was still in control. When Susan brought up the idea of medication, it was a suggestion and not an order. I will admit it--it was a suggestion I had a hard time with. I didn't want to become a different person. I didn't want some pill messing with my brain. What if it didn't work and I got worse? On the other hand, what if it did work? Would I really be better, or would it just be an illusion of feeling better? Susan convinced me to give it a try, and I was lucky again when the first medication we tried worked. I didn't feel better right away. There was no big milestone moment where I woke up and everything was great again. But I remember feeling like I was slowly coming out of a fog. The color started to seep back into my day a little bit more every day. I began to reengage with my family and my friends and my work, and I could see hope on the horizon again. After a couple of years on medication, I slowly ramped down, and I haven't had to get treatment since. As I said, there is no happily ever after when it comes to mental illness, but happier is possible. If anyone needs proof, just talk to me. So that is my story, but really it is the story of millions of Americans. I chose to share mine--first in an op-ed in the Rochester Post-Bulletin and now here on the floor of the Senate--because I want to urge anyone who struggles with depression or anxiety or substance abuse or post-traumatic stress disorder or any other mental health issue to reach out and seek help. Destigmatizing and demystifying mental illness is just the beginning. Everyone can be a friend to those in need by urging them to take advantage of the resources that are available to them, but the 100 of us here in the Senate have a responsibility to make sure those resources are available to everyone. We can't afford to leave holes in the net we build to catch people when they fall, especially when one of the biggest holes is in our schools. I have spent a lot of time over the last months having conversations with teachers and administrators in public schools across Minnesota. Time and again, when I ask them ``What keeps you up at night?'' they come back to the mental health of their students. They talk about the causes--everything from increased social pressure that comes from social media to the trauma of losing a parent to opioids--but they also tell me what the crisis really looks like at ground level. A principal in St. Paul told me about the regular phenomenon of an ambulance pulling up at the school doors, rushing to the aid of a student who has suffered a break. It has happened more than a half a dozen times at his school alone this year. Meanwhile, the principal in Parkers Prairie--a town in Otter Tail County of just over 1,000, people--tells me that she sees students experiencing homelessness and other trauma, students dealing with PTSD, and students with eating disorders. Just this year, she has had three students end up in the hospital for self-harming. They have a heroic social worker who comes in but only every other day because they have to share her with another school in the district. School psychologists across Minnesota tell me they are struggling to keep up with the number of kids who need urgent intervention to make sure that, for example, their behavioral issues don't become so significant that they get them kicked out of school altogether. As for kids whose issues are very real but not so acute--like the ninth grader whose anxiety makes her sick to her stomach every day-- they wind up stuck on waiting lists for treatment. And that is even before psychologists can do any active outreach to the students who haven't reached out for help. That is why last month I reintroduced my Mental Health Services for Students Act. This bill would create a grant program for school districts looking to expand the mental health services they are able to offer to students by partnering with community mental health system organizations. If we are going to get our arms around this crisis, we need to train more teachers, administrators, and members of the school community, including parents, to recognize when kids are struggling and to connect them with help. If we here in the Senate are serious about addressing mental health in our schools, we should pass this bill without delay. A comprehensive approach to mental health means improving the system all along the age continuum. Over in the HELP Committee, we will have an opportunity this year to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA. And I have a bill, sponsored in the House by my friend Representative Dean Phillips, that would improve the delivery of mental health services within our child welfare system. For example, our bill would make sure that young, at-risk children get important developmental screenings when they need it. We are learning that childhood trauma can be a major factor in future mental illness. The more we do to address the underlying trauma, whether it is poverty, the death or incarceration of a loved one or a parent, or sexual abuse, the better we address those issues, the better chance we will have of turning the tide on this epidemic. The mental health crisis isn't only affecting our kids; it is affecting our parents too. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, one in five adults age 55 or older experiences a mental health issue, and a third of them never receive treatment. Men over the age of 75 have a higher suicide rate than any other age group. The social isolation that too often comes with aging or caring for a loved one isn't just unfortunate; it is a public health risk. Just as we have learned to reach out to the veterans in our lives and in our communities to let them know we are there for them if they are struggling, we should do the same for our elders. As the HELP Committee takes up the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act this year, I will be working to do my part. Our mental health system should be there for people at every age, from nursery to nursing home. It should be there for people everywhere along the mental health continuum, offering everything from preventive care, to ongoing therapy for chronic conditions, to crisis support for those in acute distress. It should also be there for people in every ZIP Code, and unfortunately, some of the biggest holes in our system can be found in rural areas. As a Senator, I am proud to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I frequently meet with farm groups, and today mental health is one of the first topics to come up. Farming is an inherently stressful profession, especially these days, when the numbers for suicide prevention hotlines regularly appear in farm publications. But we need to include the entire rural community, from bankers and pastors to grocers and fertilizer sellers. We need to include them in this conversation, and we need to make sure that when people do reach out for help, there is help there for them. Unfortunately, rural communities in general are often underserved by mental health professionals compared to cities and suburbs. Many still have inconsistent access to the internet, meaning that even online resources can be out of reach for someone who is struggling. That is why, in the last farm bill, we set up a rural health liaison in the Department of Agriculture--someone who understands the specific needs of rural communities and is charged with paying attention to a crisis that has too often lurked beneath the surface. Last year, Senator Murkowski and I worked together to pass a law that would provide mental health professionals in the National Health Service Corps with greater flexibility in where they practice and deliver care, increasing the resources available in underserved rural communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in continuing to take action to address the mental health crisis, and I hope that sharing my own story will make it easier for more Americans to add their voices to this fight. Still, there is no magic cure for depression. There is no magic bill to solve this problem. Mental health is a reality of life for millions of people in our country, and we can't legislate it away. If we work to help more Americans bring their struggles out of the shadows into the sunshine, if we reach out to people in need and connect them with people who can help, and if we understand the factors that make people vulnerable to these problems and focus our energies on making sure the net is there to catch them if they fall--if we do these things, then we can take steps in the right direction, one right after the other and one day at a time. I still remember what it felt like in those weeks and months after I began to treat my depression--the sense of empowerment that came with finally taking my mental health into my own hands, the renewed energy that came with finally feeling like today is better than yesterday and maybe tomorrow will be even better yet, and the joy that came with finally seeing hope on the horizon once again. So even in the midst of this public health crisis, I believe there is hope on the horizon for the millions of Americans who struggle with mental illness, but they are counting on us to make this hopeful vision a reality. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Klobuchar and my colleagues on behalf of all Minnesotans and Americans who struggle to afford their prescription drugs. The increasing price of prescription drugs is a top concern for Americans and Minnesotans. Every day, companies are launching new treatments at astronomical prices, and they are spiking the price of older drugs, like insulin. Americans are taking notice of this greedy behavior that puts patients last. The No. 1 issue I hear about from Minnesotans is the cost of healthcare and specifically the cost of prescription drugs. Every day, Minnesotans inspire me to fight to lower the price of prescription drugs, Minnesotans like Rachael Malmberg, a military veteran with cancer. Before Rachel battled cancer, she battled teams on the ice, playing hockey for the University of Minnesota and the U.S. Olympic Team. Rachael's daily medicine is stabilizing her cancer, but it comes at a great cost. Even with health insurance, she still pays $9,000 a month. For Rachael, affording her prescription drugs is a matter of life or death. I have also talked with Minnesotans like Nikki Foster, a mom living with multiple sclerosis in Brooklyn Park, MN. Nikki received her MS diagnosis only 3 months after running her first half-marathon. The diagnosis was frightening, and Nikki wondered if she would ever be able to run again. I am happy to say that 4 years later, Nikki is walking and running just fine. Her progress is due largely to the treatment regimen her doctors prescribed. However, with the rising price of her primary medication, Nikki wonders how long she is going to be able to afford it. When her medication was first introduced to the market in 2004, the price was around $16,000 a year. Today, it is more than $80,000. Without significant changes in the formulation of her medicine, the price has skyrocketed 440 percent. Those higher prices translated to higher monthly costs and a constant source of worry for Nikki. Finally, I am inspired by the memory of Alec Smith. Here is Alec's story. Alec transitioned off his mom's health insurance at age 26. He was a type 1 diabetic, so he depended on insulin to survive. Without insurance, Alec faced a $1,300-a-month cost for managing his diabetes. Most of that was driven by the high price of the insulin. Alec had a good job, but his diabetes treatment was eating up nearly 45 percent of his monthly salary, and that is on top of regular expenses for food and rent and other basic necessities. So Alec did what he had to do. He rationed his insulin to make ends meet. Unfortunately, less than a month after his 26th birthday and less than 1 month after he transitioned off his mom's insurance, Alec passed away. He was the victim of insulin rationing. Colleagues, we are at a crisis point. Thousands of people like Alec are rationing their prescriptions so they can afford them, and sometimes they are literally paying with their lives. Patients with health insurance, like Nikki and Rachael, are facing higher and higher out-of-pocket costs, and seniors are being forced to choose between paying for groceries and paying for their medicine. In the wealthiest country in the world, this is unacceptable. It is morally wrong that the pharmaceutical companies are raking profits off of skyrocketing prices while Americans struggle to pay for their prescription drugs. That is simple to understand, but the industry would have you believe otherwise. Their first argument. Well, drug pricing is so complex; it is impossible to understand; and Congress should study the problem. I would argue this complexity serves a function. Complexity obscures all the ways the drug companies are gaming the system to drive up profits. Colleagues, we can't be paralyzed by complexity. We need to create more transparency in drug pricing. So then the pharmaceutical companies come back with their second argument. They say high prices are the result of altruistic purposes, like investing in research, development, and innovation, but, colleagues, remember, it is taxpayers, not drug companies, who are subsidizing the basic research that leads to innovation and new cures through the National Institutes of Health. Innovation can't help people if it is too expensive to afford. So then comes their closing argument. We aren't the problem, say the drug companies. It is the PBMs. It is the insurers. It is everybody else but us. I would argue that everyone has a role to play. Lots of companies profit from high drug prices all along the supply chain. That needs to be fixed, and all of these players need to be held accountable. Pointing fingers and shifting blame will not bring down high drug prices. Comprehensive solutions will. In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing the Affordable Medications Act, which is a comprehensive solution that targets the multiple causes of the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs, and a number of my Democratic colleagues are working with me on this bill. It would increase transparency and hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in setting high prices. My bill would make prescription drugs more affordable by allowing Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices, just like we already do with the Department of Veterans Affairs. My bill goes further by penalizing drug companies that spike prices and allowing for the safe importation of lower cost drugs from other countries like Canada. My bill would spur innovation by creating a fund for new antibiotics and funding for clinical drug trials, and it would protect competition by blocking unfair, anticompetitive drug monopoly practices. This bill would eliminate the blame game and put patients at the center of the solution. Now, I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Cassidy to help bring low-cost biosimilars, like insulin, to the market. I am working to reintroduce legislation that would limit the ability of the big brand name drug companies to keep lower cost generic drugs off the market. Many of these proposals have bipartisan support. Many more should, but we haven't brought any of these bills up for a vote in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to take up these proposals and the drug pricing bills making their way through the House right now as we speak. Alec, Nikki, Rachael, and all of our constituents don't have the luxury of waiting for Congress to break through legislative gridlock until they can afford what they need to live. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for drawing attention to this issue and for inviting me to join with you today. I yield to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, climate change is the existential challenge of our time. I know this because this is what the science says. I know this because I have seen the impacts of climate change in my State. I know this because it is what our children who will live with the consequences of a changing climate tell us. In a recent poll, half of Americans age 18 to 29 describe climate change as a ``crisis that demands urgent action.'' Today I rise to discuss how the clean energy revolution can be the way we fight climate change and the way we create jobs and opportunity. Colleagues, in this global challenge, the United States can lead or we can follow. I want us to lead. This morning, as a Senator from an agricultural and high-tech State from the Upper Midwest, I have joined with Representative Ben Ray Lujan, who represents the great State of New Mexico, a State with significant oil and gas resources, to introduce the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019. Our legislation would dramatically expand clean electricity and put the United States on a path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector by the middle of the century, including a nearly 80-percent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 2005. Not so long ago, the United States was a global leader in tackling climate change. President Obama took strong action to remove carbon emissions from cars. He advanced the Clean Power Plan to significantly reduce emissions in the electric sector, and he provided the essential leadership that led to adoption of the international Paris climate agreement, which commits the countries of the world to collectively hold global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, our current President has moved unilaterally to undo these actions, as if we can bury our heads in the sand and ignore the reality that a warming climate threatens our health, it threatens our financial stability, and it threatens our very existence. I regret to say it, but for the most part, the Republican-led Congress has gone along with President Trump as he has ceded U.S. leadership on climate and clean energy to our competitors. The result of this? Our global competitors are happy to dominate in this field. This is, I think, quite interesting. China has more than twice as much wind power as the United States, and in 2018, China beat the United States on new wind installations by more than 3 to 1. Half of all new solar installations in the world last year happened in China. Here at home, President Trump's policies caused the solar energy industry to shed 20,000 jobs as the United States lags in fourth place on installed solar energy. Fortunately, while Washington wavers, there is a groundswell of support for the clean energy revolution at the local level. When President Trump moved against the Paris climate agreement, Americans responded with the ``We Are Still In'' campaign. Churches, Tribes, mayors, county executives, and campus leaders led the way. States followed and took action. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives pledged and passed legislation to renew our commitment to the Paris Agreement. There are now over 100 cities around the country which have committed to clean or renewable energy. Four States and the District of Columbia have policies that will get them to net zero emissions by mid-century. Several more are moving in that direction. In my home State, Minnesota's Governor, Tim Walz, has a plan for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. That bill passed the Minnesota House by a 74-to-59 vote. Minnesota Senate, it is now your turn. To my colleagues in the Senate, it is our turn as well. I believe the best ideas come from people working at the local level to solve problems, and I also think the best ideas that can get done are those that bring people together across regional differences, political ideology, and their own life experiences. That is how our bill, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, came to be. It builds on what is already working at the local level. As a clean energy standard, it has a bipartisan history. Back when Republicans and Democrats were working together on bills to reduce carbon pollution--all the way back in 2009 through 2012--clean energy standard bills like this one had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. This bill today is supported by labor groups, by environmental groups, and by utilities--an unlikely but strong coalition in these days of divisive politics. The basics of this plan are simple. First, let's start where electric utilities are and then improve from there. We know many electric utilities are shifting to renewables and clean energy because it is the most cost-competitive thing for them to do and because it is what their customers want, but we also know that each utility is going to start from a different place in terms of the amount of clean energy it already sells. Let's start there. Our bill recognizes these regional differences and then asks each utility to improve from where they are. One size does not fit all. On the one hand, States like Idaho and Washington are blessed with abundant hydropower and already produce over 80 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources. On the other hand, four of our united States get less than 10 percent of their electricity from carbon-free generation. Our bill asks each utility to start from where they are and improve from there. Utilities that start with a low amount of clean energy are asked to grow quickly, but they slow down as they reach very high levels of net zero emission electricity. The plan recognizes also that rural co-ops and municipal utilities face unique challenges, and we accommodate that. The second thing about this plan is this: Let's be ambitious. Science tells us that we need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. We desperately need some can-do American spirit and ingenuity here, not nay-saying. This bill is ambitious. It would result in expected electric sector emission reductions of nearly 80 percent by 2035 compared to 2005 benchmarks. If the cost curve bends faster and the clean energy transition turns out to be even cheaper, reductions will happen even faster. Third, let's be open to all solutions for a clean energy future. Addressing the challenges of climate change isn't easy, and there is no one solution. We need to be open to all ideas and all approaches so long as they actually reduce carbon emissions. If we want an electric system that is not only zero emissions but also reliable, resilient, and affordable, we can't afford to rule out any technologies in advance. None of us knows in 2019 what is going to be the best way to run a reliable, affordable net zero emissions electric system in 2050. What we do know is that we need to create strong clean energy incentives that the electricity market will understand and respond to and then allow all technologies to compete. That is what this bill does. Here is what that might look like. Here is what it could look like. Most scientific models say that in a net zero emission electric grid, renewable sources like wind and solar will deliver the bulk of the electricity we need, but we also know that a reliable grid needs energy sources that can be turned up or down when we need them. This means resilient, reliable electric grids that will be built on a combination of hydropower, nuclear power, long-term energy storage, and fossil fuels, if they are deployed with carbon capture. What will be the proportion of these energy sources in 2050? We can't know that today, but what we do know, based on one leading model, is an approach like the one in our bill that is open to all clean sources of electricity will be up to trillions of dollars cheaper than an approach that relies on handpicking technological winners and losers. Colleagues, clean, reliable, and affordable energy is important to my constituents in Minnesota, and I bet it is important to your constituents as well. Fighting climate change is a big challenge that requires a lot of good ideas. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, which I introduced today, will get the electric power sector to net zero carbon emissions, but it doesn't do everything we need to do to fight climate change. This bill is only one of the steps that we need to take to move our country and our world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is fair and just and economical, but it is an important piece. In the electric sector, we already know a lot about how to make progress to lower carbon emissions. Thanks to innovation and good policies at the State level, emissions from electricity production have declined substantially just in the last decade. Now we need to keep that progress going and going faster. We need to continue and accelerate progress and expand the use of clean electricity into other sectors. Think about this. A clean electric grid can provide the energy to reduce carbon emissions in transportation, in buildings, and in other parts of our economy. Electric vehicles can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean energy electric sector. Office buildings and homes can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean electric sector. That is what progress can look like. I am grateful that a few of my fellow Republicans in Congress are moving beyond the President's head-in-the-sand denial of climate change. These colleagues--and I hope more of them--are looking for ways to spur innovation in clean energy by providing new funding for clean energy research. This is all well and good, but Federal funding for clean energy research will not work all on its own. What drives adoption and dispersion of innovation is a strong market signal that low carbon sources of electricity will be valued by the market, and that will be happening predictably as big utilities make important capital investments. Research money provides a really important push to get innovation started in the lab, but for innovation to move from technology to be adopted at a scale and pace that we need, we must be sending a strong, clear signal from the market that low-carbon sources of electricity are going to be valued. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 does this. It is a crucial complement to Manhattan Project efforts to spur technology innovation. These two are complements but not alternatives. Research without market incentives will not get us where we need to go. Colleagues, climate change is real, and we need bold action to fight it. If we do--when we do--the United States can be the clean energy leader. This will be good for jobs. It will be good for our health, and it will be necessary for the survival of our planet. We can lead or we can follow. I believe we need to lead. This is what our bill seeks to do by putting the United States in the forefront for reaching net zero carbon emissions in the electric sector. This is an environmental imperative. It is an economic imperative, and it is a jobs imperative. I don't care whether you come from a State that gets 80 percent of its power from clean energy or whether you get 10 percent. This is why our plan has the endorsement of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Clean Air Task Force, and Fresh Energy in Minnesota. Our plan is supported by the Utility Workers of America and United Steelworkers. Bills that are acceptable to labor, the environmental movement, and forward-thinking utilities are rare. Yet this is what we really need if we are going to build a winning coalition to address climate change. We Democrats understand that the climate crisis requires bold action, and we understand that we need many ideas and many solutions. I offer one today. I challenge--I urge--my Republican colleagues to do the same and to join us. Join with us and help us find solutions to a crisis that will shape irrevocably the world our children and our grandchildren will be living in. Science tells us that the challenge is great, but it also shows us solutions that can cut net carbon emissions to zero, lower energy costs, and expand jobs and opportunity. That is the future I want for my children and my grandchildren yet to be born. Let's get to work. We don't have any time to waste. I thank Representative Lujan for partnering with me on this bill. I thank my colleagues Senators Heinrich, Kaine, Whitehouse, and Schatz for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, longtime chair of the Senate Energy Committee, who first worked in a bipartisan way on a clean energy standard bill that was a template for our effort today. I thank also the scientists and economists who have provided thoughtful analysis as we developed this bill--most prominently, Resources for the Future and President Obama's Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. I am grateful for their support and eager to begin the push to get our policies moved forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, climate change is the existential challenge of our time. I know this because this is what the science says. I know this because I have seen the impacts of climate change in my State. I know this because it is what our children who will live with the consequences of a changing climate tell us. In a recent poll, half of Americans age 18 to 29 describe climate change as a ``crisis that demands urgent action.'' Today I rise to discuss how the clean energy revolution can be the way we fight climate change and the way we create jobs and opportunity. Colleagues, in this global challenge, the United States can lead or we can follow. I want us to lead. This morning, as a Senator from an agricultural and high-tech State from the Upper Midwest, I have joined with Representative Ben Ray Lujan, who represents the great State of New Mexico, a State with significant oil and gas resources, to introduce the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019. Our legislation would dramatically expand clean electricity and put the United States on a path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector by the middle of the century, including a nearly 80-percent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 2005. Not so long ago, the United States was a global leader in tackling climate change. President Obama took strong action to remove carbon emissions from cars. He advanced the Clean Power Plan to significantly reduce emissions in the electric sector, and he provided the essential leadership that led to adoption of the international Paris climate agreement, which commits the countries of the world to collectively hold global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, our current President has moved unilaterally to undo these actions, as if we can bury our heads in the sand and ignore the reality that a warming climate threatens our health, it threatens our financial stability, and it threatens our very existence. I regret to say it, but for the most part, the Republican-led Congress has gone along with President Trump as he has ceded U.S. leadership on climate and clean energy to our competitors. The result of this? Our global competitors are happy to dominate in this field. This is, I think, quite interesting. China has more than twice as much wind power as the United States, and in 2018, China beat the United States on new wind installations by more than 3 to 1. Half of all new solar installations in the world last year happened in China. Here at home, President Trump's policies caused the solar energy industry to shed 20,000 jobs as the United States lags in fourth place on installed solar energy. Fortunately, while Washington wavers, there is a groundswell of support for the clean energy revolution at the local level. When President Trump moved against the Paris climate agreement, Americans responded with the ``We Are Still In'' campaign. Churches, Tribes, mayors, county executives, and campus leaders led the way. States followed and took action. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives pledged and passed legislation to renew our commitment to the Paris Agreement. There are now over 100 cities around the country which have committed to clean or renewable energy. Four States and the District of Columbia have policies that will get them to net zero emissions by mid-century. Several more are moving in that direction. In my home State, Minnesota's Governor, Tim Walz, has a plan for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. That bill passed the Minnesota House by a 74-to-59 vote. Minnesota Senate, it is now your turn. To my colleagues in the Senate, it is our turn as well. I believe the best ideas come from people working at the local level to solve problems, and I also think the best ideas that can get done are those that bring people together across regional differences, political ideology, and their own life experiences. That is how our bill, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, came to be. It builds on what is already working at the local level. As a clean energy standard, it has a bipartisan history. Back when Republicans and Democrats were working together on bills to reduce carbon pollution--all the way back in 2009 through 2012--clean energy standard bills like this one had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. This bill today is supported by labor groups, by environmental groups, and by utilities--an unlikely but strong coalition in these days of divisive politics. The basics of this plan are simple. First, let's start where electric utilities are and then improve from there. We know many electric utilities are shifting to renewables and clean energy because it is the most cost-competitive thing for them to do and because it is what their customers want, but we also know that each utility is going to start from a different place in terms of the amount of clean energy it already sells. Let's start there. Our bill recognizes these regional differences and then asks each utility to improve from where they are. One size does not fit all. On the one hand, States like Idaho and Washington are blessed with abundant hydropower and already produce over 80 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources. On the other hand, four of our united States get less than 10 percent of their electricity from carbon-free generation. Our bill asks each utility to start from where they are and improve from there. Utilities that start with a low amount of clean energy are asked to grow quickly, but they slow down as they reach very high levels of net zero emission electricity. The plan recognizes also that rural co-ops and municipal utilities face unique challenges, and we accommodate that. The second thing about this plan is this: Let's be ambitious. Science tells us that we need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. We desperately need some can-do American spirit and ingenuity here, not nay-saying. This bill is ambitious. It would result in expected electric sector emission reductions of nearly 80 percent by 2035 compared to 2005 benchmarks. If the cost curve bends faster and the clean energy transition turns out to be even cheaper, reductions will happen even faster. Third, let's be open to all solutions for a clean energy future. Addressing the challenges of climate change isn't easy, and there is no one solution. We need to be open to all ideas and all approaches so long as they actually reduce carbon emissions. If we want an electric system that is not only zero emissions but also reliable, resilient, and affordable, we can't afford to rule out any technologies in advance. None of us knows in 2019 what is going to be the best way to run a reliable, affordable net zero emissions electric system in 2050. What we do know is that we need to create strong clean energy incentives that the electricity market will understand and respond to and then allow all technologies to compete. That is what this bill does. Here is what that might look like. Here is what it could look like. Most scientific models say that in a net zero emission electric grid, renewable sources like wind and solar will deliver the bulk of the electricity we need, but we also know that a reliable grid needs energy sources that can be turned up or down when we need them. This means resilient, reliable electric grids that will be built on a combination of hydropower, nuclear power, long-term energy storage, and fossil fuels, if they are deployed with carbon capture. What will be the proportion of these energy sources in 2050? We can't know that today, but what we do know, based on one leading model, is an approach like the one in our bill that is open to all clean sources of electricity will be up to trillions of dollars cheaper than an approach that relies on handpicking technological winners and losers. Colleagues, clean, reliable, and affordable energy is important to my constituents in Minnesota, and I bet it is important to your constituents as well. Fighting climate change is a big challenge that requires a lot of good ideas. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, which I introduced today, will get the electric power sector to net zero carbon emissions, but it doesn't do everything we need to do to fight climate change. This bill is only one of the steps that we need to take to move our country and our world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is fair and just and economical, but it is an important piece. In the electric sector, we already know a lot about how to make progress to lower carbon emissions. Thanks to innovation and good policies at the State level, emissions from electricity production have declined substantially just in the last decade. Now we need to keep that progress going and going faster. We need to continue and accelerate progress and expand the use of clean electricity into other sectors. Think about this. A clean electric grid can provide the energy to reduce carbon emissions in transportation, in buildings, and in other parts of our economy. Electric vehicles can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean energy electric sector. Office buildings and homes can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean electric sector. That is what progress can look like. I am grateful that a few of my fellow Republicans in Congress are moving beyond the President's head-in-the-sand denial of climate change. These colleagues--and I hope more of them--are looking for ways to spur innovation in clean energy by providing new funding for clean energy research. This is all well and good, but Federal funding for clean energy research will not work all on its own. What drives adoption and dispersion of innovation is a strong market signal that low carbon sources of electricity will be valued by the market, and that will be happening predictably as big utilities make important capital investments. Research money provides a really important push to get innovation started in the lab, but for innovation to move from technology to be adopted at a scale and pace that we need, we must be sending a strong, clear signal from the market that low-carbon sources of electricity are going to be valued. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 does this. It is a crucial complement to Manhattan Project efforts to spur technology innovation. These two are complements but not alternatives. Research without market incentives will not get us where we need to go. Colleagues, climate change is real, and we need bold action to fight it. If we do--when we do--the United States can be the clean energy leader. This will be good for jobs. It will be good for our health, and it will be necessary for the survival of our planet. We can lead or we can follow. I believe we need to lead. This is what our bill seeks to do by putting the United States in the forefront for reaching net zero carbon emissions in the electric sector. This is an environmental imperative. It is an economic imperative, and it is a jobs imperative. I don't care whether you come from a State that gets 80 percent of its power from clean energy or whether you get 10 percent. This is why our plan has the endorsement of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Clean Air Task Force, and Fresh Energy in Minnesota. Our plan is supported by the Utility Workers of America and United Steelworkers. Bills that are acceptable to labor, the environmental movement, and forward-thinking utilities are rare. Yet this is what we really need if we are going to build a winning coalition to address climate change. We Democrats understand that the climate crisis requires bold action, and we understand that we need many ideas and many solutions. I offer one today. I challenge--I urge--my Republican colleagues to do the same and to join us. Join with us and help us find solutions to a crisis that will shape irrevocably the world our children and our grandchildren will be living in. Science tells us that the challenge is great, but it also shows us solutions that can cut net carbon emissions to zero, lower energy costs, and expand jobs and opportunity. That is the future I want for my children and my grandchildren yet to be born. Let's get to work. We don't have any time to waste. I thank Representative Lujan for partnering with me on this bill. I thank my colleagues Senators Heinrich, Kaine, Whitehouse, and Schatz for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, longtime chair of the Senate Energy Committee, who first worked in a bipartisan way on a clean energy standard bill that was a template for our effort today. I thank also the scientists and economists who have provided thoughtful analysis as we developed this bill--most prominently, Resources for the Future and President Obama's Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. I am grateful for their support and eager to begin the push to get our policies moved forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Abigail Regitsky, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this week.