Tina Smith

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to take action to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in this country. It is a crisis that we need to address now, and we can do this in the Senate by updating the Violence Against Women Act, which expired earlier this year. I would like to thank my colleagues who have been able to join with us today to speak on this important topic led by Senator Udall, and it is wonderful to be here today with Senator Murray as well. Last month, I had an opportunity to lead a roundtable at the Minnesota State Capitol to discuss the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women. This is a crisis that affects Tribal nations all over my State, as well as urban indigenous communities. I was there with Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is the highest ranking Native woman elected in an executive branch role here in the United States. It was wonderful to be there with her and all of the advocates who were present as well. At the roundtable, I heard about survivors who have experienced trafficking and sexual violence who feel invisible. I heard from Native advocates and families of victims who feel they are not being listened to by local law enforcement, and they also understand that there is a lack of knowledge about cultural and traditional practices that is impeding the efforts to end this crisis and to get help and healing to Native women who have been victimized. In Minnesota, I hear time and again from leaders of Tribal nations-- from Red Lake and White Earth to Bois Forte, Mille Lacs, and Prairie Island--who speak of violent crimes on their land, including the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women. I hear from some of these leaders about how they are unable to take action against the nonmember offenders who are committing these crimes. According to the National Institute of Justice, 84 percent of Native women have experienced violence in their lifetimes--84 percent--and over half of Native women and more than one in four men have experienced sexual violence. Among those, almost all--96 percent of women and 89 percent of men--were victimized by a non-Tribal member. Few of these survivors end up seeing justice because what is happening is that the Federal Government is failing to address the scourge of violence against Native communities. Raising awareness of this crisis is important, and that is what we are working to do today, but there are several bipartisan measures in the Senate that would take significant steps to address it. We must take action, and I am here today to talk about some of the things we can do. In April, the House passed a Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill with many strong Tribal protections to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, including my bill, with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, to help Tribes seek and get justice for their members and for survivors. Our bill, which is called the Justice for Native Survivors of Sexual Violence Act, expands upon the landmark special domestic violence jurisdiction granted to Tribes during the last rewrite of the Violence Against Women Act in 2013. Our bill would allow Tribes to prosecute cases of sexual assault, trafficking, and stalking, among other crimes of sexual violence, against nonmember offenders. Think about what this means today. If you are a nonmember and you commit a crime of sexual violence against a Tribal member, the Tribe, which is often in the best position to follow up on, investigate, and prosecute that crime, is currently unable to do that. The bill that I am working on with Senator Murkowski would fix that problem in the Violence Against Women Act. Without this jurisdiction, Tribes are unable to pursue charges against all offenders who commit crimes of sexual violence on Tribal land. Instead, those offenders go largely unpunished, as Federal courts fail to investigate or to prosecute these crimes. Passing our bill would go a long way toward deterring violence against Native women in Indian Country and holding offenders accountable when it happens. I call on the Senate to take bold action to address the crisis of violence against Native communities by taking up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and passing this legislation as soon as possible. Any reauthorization bill must include strong Tribal protections, such as our Justice for Native Survivors bill, so that survivors can begin to heal and we can prevent violence from happening in the first place. Survivors and families of victims deserve this at the very least. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, first, I just want to say, as Senator Udall knows, I was born in New Mexico, so I have a strong affinity for his wonderful State, my home State--my original home State--and I learned so much about the amazing cultural assets of indigenous people and Native American people in the Southwest. When I moved to Minnesota and I had an opportunity to get to know Minnesota's 11 sovereign Tribal Nations, that was sort of my foundation for that work. When I became aware of how Native women, who were so often the victims of sexual violence, are literally invisible in the criminal justice system, I was just really horrified. First, notice this: As Senator Udall and I were talking about this issue with many others in the Indian Affairs Committee, I became aware that there are thousands and thousands of women who have been reported missing, yet the Justice Department has on their big list only about 100 of them. Literally, these women are invisible. In the roundtable that I had with Lieutenant Governor Flanagan last week and in other conversations I have had, I have heard personal stories so many times of women, like Savanna Greywind, who are murdered in terrible and violent ways and don't end up ever--their family never has the opportunity to feel the sense of justice and healing that you have from knowing that the perpetrator of this terrible violence has been brought to justice. I am just going to--I would like to tell one story about a woman whom I spoke with in Saint Paul whose daughter was murdered in January of 2018. To this day, she still awaits the release of her daughter's body because of mixups and snafus in the system. Imagine what that would be like. This is just one example of how Native women in the criminal justice system don't get the dignity and the respect they deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is fair to say that most Americans didn't wake up this morning thinking about the role the Federal Reserve plays in their lives. The people we represent are focused on putting in an honest day's work, taking care of their families, and gradually climbing the economic ladder. The Fed is focused on making sure our economy is giving them every opportunity to do just that--or at least it is supposed to be. The Fed's mission is to keep employment high, prices stable, and our financial system in good working order. When it succeeds, we see the full potential of the American economy, the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. When it fails, ordinary people can wind up losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings. Even though most Americans don't know their names or think about their work, the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress, have an important job to do. The Fed is not supposed to be a place for politics. It is not a job for politicians. It is a job for the most accomplished and thoughtful economists and financial experts we have--men and women who truly understand not just what makes an economy work on paper, but what makes our economy truly work for working Americans. Through his choice of nominees for this position, a President demonstrates whether he understands the importance of a functioning financial system and respects the American people, who rely on the Fed to keep our economy on solid footing. Through our consideration of those nominees, we here in the Senate do the same--which brings me to the President's latest choice for this position: Stephen Moore. Let's be clear about who Mr. Moore is. He is not a professor of economics at a prestigious university. He has won no prizes for his intellectual scholarship. In fact, he has never authored or coauthored a single peer-reviewed article or journal ever. While some have suggested it might not be a bad thing to have a range of experience on the Federal Reserve Board, it is unclear what experience Mr. Moore has that would contribute a useful perspective. He has never run a bank or a business of any size. In fact, he has barely any experience in the private sector at all. No, Stephen Moore is a political operative and a pundit. There is nothing wrong with that, per se, but the fact is that President Trump picked him not because of anything he has accomplished in business or in the study of economics but rather because of what Mr. Moore believes--or at least what he goes on TV and says he believes. As we try to decide who Mr. Moore is and whether he is, in fact, suitable for a job that has never before been held by someone with his total lack of qualifications, we might start by taking a look at the opinions he has shared over the decades he spent doing little else but sharing his opinions. For example, nearly all economists agree that empowering women to participate fully and equally in the workforce would result in huge gains for our economy. In fact, earlier this decade, a McKinsey analysis found that the increased number of women entering the workforce between 1970 and 2011 accounted for roughly a quarter of the gains in GDP achieved over that time period. This McKinsey study noted: Still, the full potential of women in the workforce has yet to be tapped. As the U.S. struggles to sustain historic GDP growth rates, it is critically important to bring more women into the workforce and fully deploy high-skill women to drive productivity improvement. That is why so many of us in Washington are focused on empowering women to find jobs and build careers, to balance the responsibilities of work and family, and to participate in the economy on equal footing with men. Mr. Moore apparently disagrees. He believes and has written that ``the male needs to be breadwinner of the family.'' When it comes to pay discrimination, Mr. Moore was unconcerned with the fact that, on average, women were earning 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. In fact, just 5 years ago, he warned that raising women's pay ``could be disruptive to family stability.'' Perhaps Mr. Moore should read the McKinsey study. After all, it was produced for the Wall Street Journal, where he is a frequent commentator and used to serve on the editorial board, so I am sure he could get a copy of it. But the more Mr. Moore's public statements are examined, the more it becomes clear that his views on women and the economy might have less to do with the economy and more to do with women. Here is just one example. Mr. Moore apparently believes that efforts to address sexual harassment and assault on college campuses are quote ``draining all the fun out of college life.'' He goes on to elaborate: Colleges are places for rabble-rousing. For men to lose their boyhood innocence. To do stupid things. To stay out way too late drinking. To chase skirts. (At the University of Illinois we used to say that the best thing about Sunday nights was sleeping alone.) It's all a time-tested rite of passage into adulthood. And the women seemed to survive just fine. If they were so oppressed and offended by drunken, lustful frat boys, why is it that on Friday nights they showed up in droves in tight skirts to the keg parties? This is the sort of thing a college freshman writes on his Facebook page that comes back to haunt him in his first round of job interviews. Mr. Moore chose to put those words in a newspaper column, underneath his name, at the age of 40. Then again, anyone familiar with his record wouldn't be surprised to learn that Mr. Moore doesn't take sexual assault seriously. CNN recently unearthed that years earlier he had mocked the Violence Against Women Act as ``objectionable pork'' and referred to a program designed to promote gender quality in education as ``vile.'' So in addition to ``chasing skirts'' on college campuses, Mr. Moore seems to believe that women's equality is ruining another favorite pastime--sports. He wrote that ``co-ed sports is doing irreparable harm to the psyche of America's little boys,'' and he mused about urging his young son to assault a kindergartner named Kate Lynn just because she was a better soccer player. In another bit of sports commentary, Mr. Moore wrote: Here's the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no more women announcers, no women beer vendors, no women anything. There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant. At the time Mr. Moore wrote this, Bonnie Bernstein was a prominent journalist and ESPN analyst, and he was a 42-year-old married man. But that didn't stop him from further underscoring his creepy affections for Ms. Bernstein, adding that she should be required to wear a halter top on the air. ``If Bonnie were President of the United States,'' wrote this adult male in a national publication about a complete stranger, ``she'd be a Babe-raham Lincoln.'' Perhaps that is why Mr. Moore has also said that powerful men should never meet alone with women, because they might wind up being accused of sexual harassment. Maybe it is a rule he should follow. Frankly, if I were Bonnie Bernstein or any woman who read that column, I wouldn't want to be alone in a room with him. Mr. Moore has tried to explain away some of these misogynistic comments as jokes, so maybe he just has a profoundly unfunny sense of humor. But he didn't sound like he was joking when he called for the elimination of child labor laws, adding, ``I want people starting to work at 11, 12.'' He didn't sound like he was joking when he went on CNN 2 years ago and claimed falsely that the Civil War was not fought over slavery or when he claimed bizarrely that liberals were to blame for the rise of White supremacist violence that resulted in the death of a young woman in Charlottesville. He didn't sound like he was joking when he attacked equal rights for LGBTQ Americans, arguing that rulings in favor of marriage equality were ``overturning the will of the people.'' He didn't sound like he was joking when he referred to the unemployment insurance that millions of Americans rely on to make ends meet during hard times as ``paid vacation'' or when he warned that guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers was ``very dangerous.'' And if he was joking when he referred to most of the Midwest, including great cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland, as ``armpits of America,'' well, I know my friend Senator Brown didn't think that was funny and neither did I. Still, Mr. Moore tried to change the subject from his long history of offensive remarks, and he went on FOX News last week and said: ``I'm no angel.'' No kidding. Indeed, the best possible argument in Mr. Moore's favor is that it is possible to be a jerk about women, LGBTQ Americans, low-income workers, and anyone who has ever lived anyplace other than New York or Chicago or Georgetown and that you could still be that person and be a good economist, except, of course, that Mr. Moore isn't even a good economist. For example, he opposed the farm bill that provides the lifeblood to rural communities that I represent in Minnesota, and he believes we should get rid of safety net programs that help those rural communities. Well, I think most people living in rural America would rather withstand Mr. Moore's insults than suffer the consequences of his agenda. The truth is, we need policymakers who are committed to creating more economic opportunities in rural communities by expanding access to credit, investing in education and infrastructure, and protecting the agricultural safety net. I guess Mr. Moore doesn't care what goes on in those parts of the country that he calls the armpits of America. Here is another example. Mr. Moore has repeatedly called for a return to the gold standard, a position described by a Washington Post reporter as ``a lot like playing Russian roulette with the economy.'' Now, an economist who believes in a return to the gold standard is like a zoologist who believes in the existence of unicorns. It is a plainly ludicrous opinion for a serious expert to hold, which is probably why Mr. Moore has tried to deny that he has ever said this, claiming that he has ``never actually been a gold standard guy.'' But he has-- consistently and forcefully. In 2009, he told a Washington Policy Center reception: ``We need to go back to the gold standard.'' In 2010, he told an audience at the Fort Henry Club in West Virginia: ``We have to reestablish some kind of gold standard.'' In 2011, he went on the FOX Business channel and said: ``I do think we have to peg the dollar to gold.'' In 2012, he was asked on CNBC whether he wanted to go back to the gold standard, and he answered: ``Yes, I do.'' In 2015, he told a tea party crowd: ``We have got to get rid of the Federal Reserve and move towards a gold standard in this country.'' In 2016, he told a group of young conservatives: ``We should go back to some sort of gold standard.'' Mr. Moore apparently doesn't understand that things have changed a lot since the 1950s, not just when it comes to the role of women but when it comes to the ubiquity of video cameras. He is on tape again and again giving voice to this crazy idea that he claims he has never supported. Indeed, his position on the gold standard isn't just an example of being badly out of step. Mr. Moore is out of step with mainstream economics, and it is a pretty good illustration of his difficult relationship with the facts. A few years ago, he was banned from the opinion pages of the Kansas City Star after he wrote a column claiming that low-tax States were performing better than high-tax States. He wrote: No-income-tax Texas gained 1 million jobs over the last five years; California, with its 13 percent tax rate, managed to lose jobs. Oops. Florida gained hundreds of thousands of jobs while New York lost jobs. Oops. It turns out that Mr. Moore got his facts wrong--never a good thing when you are in the economics business. Instead of adding a million jobs, Texas had actually added less than half that number. Florida hadn't gained hundreds of thousands of jobs; it had lost nearly half a million jobs. New York hadn't lost jobs; it had gained 57,000 jobs. ``Oops'' is right. The truth is Mr. Moore is wrong a lot. He predicted that the Affordable Care Act would kill jobs. It didn't. He claimed that President Trump's tax giveaway to corporations would pay for itself. It didn't. He argued that the Fed should return to a rule tying monetary policy to commodity prices. No such rule ever existed. I could go on and on, and it would take me hours to even get to the kind of scandals that have disqualified previous nominees, like the $75,000 in unpaid taxes it was discovered he owed after filing what the IRS called a ``fraudulent'' tax return, or the time his political committee agreed to pay $350,000 in fines for campaign finance violations, or the time he was held in contempt of court for failing to pay $300,000 in alimony and child support after his divorce, or even the time he bought his mistress a T-shirt with the words ``Doing It,'' which is pretty amazing coming from a guy who, again, thinks paying women a fair wage is, in his words, ``disruptive to family stability.'' We would be making a mistake if we made this story entirely about Mr. Moore. It is certainly troubling that President Trump was able to look past so many red flags in selecting this man for this important position, but it is even more troubling to consider why he wanted to pick someone like Mr. Moore for this role. It is not hard to figure out. This President wants an Attorney General who will act as his personal lawyer. He wants an Environmental Protection Agency staffed with scientists who will push the phony science of his energy industry donors. He wants a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau where his Wall Street friends get a free pass to rip consumers off. Now President Trump wants a Federal Reserve that, instead of acting in the economic interest of the American people, will act in the political interest of the President. That is the only explanation for Mr. Moore's nomination. You see, Mr. Moore isn't really an economist at all. He is a political operative. When he is wrong--and he is wrong a lot--it isn't because he made a mistake. Mr. Moore has made a career out of being wrong on purpose. Catherine Rampell wrote in the Washington Post: Moore has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed that the country is experiencing ``deflation.'' That means prices are falling, which they are not. But claiming this gives him cover to argue that the Fed should pump more stimulus into the economy just as Trump begins running for reelection. Conversely, when we were in the depths of the financial crisis and prices were falling, Moore claimed that we were on the brink of Weimar- style hyperinflation. He therefore called on the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which would have crippled the economy--and, just coincidentally, maimed President Barack Obama. If confirmed, Mr. Moore would not see his job as fulfilling the Fed's dual mandate of stabilizing prices and raising employment. He would not see his job as providing effective oversight to the financial system. He would see his job as getting President Trump reelected, no matter what it meant for American workers, investors, and businesses. That is why President Trump picked him. Two years ago, President Trump allowed his advisers to talk him into nominating Jerome Powell, an accomplished financial expert with long experience in both public service and in the private sector, as Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, Chair Powell and I certainly don't agree on every aspect of monetary policy, but we do agree that the Fed should be focused on the productivity of our economy and the protection of American workers, not partisan political goals. In a recent hearing, for example, I discussed with Chair Powell the specific challenges of the labor market in rural areas, and he came prepared with a serious and thoughtful economic analysis that showed his keen understanding of these issues. Chair Powell has resisted pressure from the White House to intervene in the economy to produce results in line with President Trump's political agenda, and that has infuriated President Trump, who has attacked Chair Powell on Twitter and harangued him in meetings. The President feels he made a mistake in choosing an actual, serious, sober-minded, thoughtful public servant, and he is set on not making that same mistake again. Either President Trump doesn't understand what the Fed is for or he is hoping that we don't. And whether it is Mr. Moore or someone with the good sense to keep his misogyny to himself, we on the Senate Banking Committee should be prepared to give special scrutiny to any Federal Reserve nomination that this President sends to us because, while these issues might not be the flashiest, they are of critical importance to the people whom we represent. Indeed, when I joined the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year, few Minnesotans took notice, but I see it as a chance to make an enormous impact on people's lives by opening up new opportunities for people to bet on themselves and to build the lives they want. Our work can help to open up access to credit for families and small businesses and underserved communities, especially communities of color. As a Senator from Minnesota who is proud to represent our States' Tribal communities, I know how badly they have been neglected by our financial system, and I am determined to rectify that injustice. As a Senator who is proud to represent so many rural communities, I am excited to use my place on this committee to expand opportunities for economic development in parts of our State that too often go overlooked. Our work can make sure that our financial system remains on solid footing, not just so that our economy can continue to grow but so that more people can claim their stake in it--buying homes, starting businesses, and building wealth they can pass down to their next generation. Our work can help to hold Wall Street greed in check and to make sure that people don't get ripped off when applying for student loans and mortgages and so that we never again see a repeat of the great recession that wiped out so many jobs and pensions. Yes, our work can help to protect the integrity of the Federal Reserve from people who see it as a tool for partisan politics, as a laboratory for radical ideas, or as a playground for extremist ideologues who love to spout off without knowing their facts--people like Stephen Moore. So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination. I also urge us all not to let the important work of the Federal Reserve slip out of the public eye once this nominee is defeated. Instead, let's make this a moment to highlight the important issues that the Fed deals with every day and ensure that it is led by men and women who understand its mission and appreciate the impact it has on the people that we all serve. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the contributions and legacy of Norman W. Deschampe, the longtime chairman of the Grand Portage Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa, who recently passed away on February 9, 2019. Norman Deschampe was born on February 26, 1953, and lived with a commitment to improving the lives of the people of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. For more than 40 years, Norman Deschampe served the people of the Grand Portage Band, first as a Tribal council member and later as secretary-treasurer and, for 27 years, as chairman. He also served for 6 years as vice president and 22 years as president of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Norman Deschampe's legacy includes a longstanding commitment to supporting the health, education, and economic development of the Grand Portage Band. He promoted environmental stewardship and fostered relationships with local, State, and Federal governments to encourage conservation on the reservation and beyond. Norman Deschampe encouraged the appreciation and preservation of the traditions and customs of the Grand Portage Band and is remembered by many for his kindness and generosity. Norman Deschampe made a lasting contribution to the Grand Portage Band and the State of Minnesota, and I am proud to recognize his legacy as Minnesota celebrated Norman Deschampe Day on Tuesday, February 26, 2019.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise to join Senator Murray and my colleagues in standing up for doctors and patients in my home State of Minnesota and across the country. S. 311 puts Congress in the middle of the important medical decisions that patients and doctors should make together without having political interference. It would compel physicians to provide unnecessary medical care. It would override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing criminal penalties if their judgments about what is best for their patients are contrary to what is described in this bill. Colleagues, let me be clear. For women, this is a healthcare issue, not a political issue, and this bill, I fear, interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, which should worry us all. We can all agree that people deserve the best medical care based on their individual needs and their doctors' best medical advice. This is how our medical system is supposed to work--physicians and patients making decisions together that are based on patients' individual needs. Everybody is different. For example, any oncologist will tell you that each cancer patient's treatment is different. Treatment plans depend on the type of cancer and how advanced the cancer is. Decisions about cancer treatments also depend on each person's age and lifestyle and individual circumstances. The same is true when it comes to pregnancy. Any obstetrician will tell you that every pregnancy is different and that when complications arise, they can completely change the course of treatment. In that moment, women and their families and their doctors are the only ones who are able to make decisions about what is best for a woman and her pregnancy. Think about what this means in real life. In August of 2016, Tippy, who is from Minnesota and has agreed for me to share her story, was pregnant and, with her husband, went to their 20-week ultrasound appointment. They were excited because they thought they were about to find out the gender of their new baby, and they had already bought decorations for the gender reveal party. Instead, Tippy and her husband got devastating news from that ultrasound. Their baby, a boy, had stopped developing properly and would not survive. They would never get to meet him and never get to hold him. The ultrasound revealed not only the tragic news about this much wanted child but also showed a dangerous condition that threatened Tippy's own health. Tippy's placenta was enlarged, and to continue her pregnancy would risk the health of her reproductive system and her ability to have future children of her own. Tippy, with her family and her doctor, made the difficult decision to have an abortion in order to save her reproductive system. Because she was able to make that medical decision, she was able to have another baby a year later. Tippy and her husband are today the proud parents of an 18-month-old child. When Tippy and her husband made their decision, it was based on guidance from her doctor and what was right for them and the family they hoped to have in the future. They didn't need politicians to be looking over their shoulders in the doctor's office and telling them what to do. None of us in this body should be in the business of interfering in that doctor-patient relationship. We don't tell oncologists how to treat their patients; we don't tell emergency room doctors how to save lives; and we shouldn't tell women's doctors how to take care of their patients. Colleagues, that is what this bill does. It would give politicians in this room the power to make medical decisions for women and their families. This bill intimidates providers and forces physicians to provide inappropriate medical treatment even when it is not in the best interests of their patients or their families. Colleagues, we should treat women with respect. Decisions about women's healthcare aren't different from decisions about men's healthcare, so why are we treating women differently? This legislation, if it were to become law, would put doctors in an untenable position: Do they follow the law or do they follow their code of professional ethics? Colleagues, let's get out of the business of dictating medical care for women. Let's continue to trust women and their doctors. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the government funding agreement announced last night. I greatly appreciate the work of Senator Shelby, Senator Leahy, and the Appropriations Committee in their efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement. I appreciate the efforts of Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, and our House counterparts, as well, to reach an agreement. I am glad we will avert another government shutdown and also make critical investments in several areas that are important to my home State of Minnesota; however, there is an important piece of unfinished business that wasn't included in the agreement, and that is to provide backpay for the employees of Federal contractors who were forced out of work for more than a month during the shutdown. During the longest Federal shutdown in history, thousands of Americans who serve as contractors to the Federal Government lost over a month's pay through no fault of their own, and these are people who work as security guards and clean office buildings, and they work shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees for all of us. Unfortunately, and this is important, while Federal employees have received backpay--a bill this Chamber passed unanimously--their contractor counterparts have been left out in the cold with no backpay. I have introduced legislation, which has bipartisan support, which would right this wrong, and it should have been included in the final budget deal, but it appears that the White House blocked it. I have talked with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate Chamber, and I have not found a single person who says contractors don't deserve backpay. We all agree on this, and that is why every Democrat in this Chamber has cosponsored my bill, and that is why several of my Republican colleagues and many others in this room have not only cosponsored but have also expressed support for finding a solution to this challenge. So why not provide backpay to contractors in the funding bill before us today? Because it appears the White House apparently has said not to do it. But I have talked to the White House just in the last week. I didn't hear any fundamental reasons why our plan couldn't go forward and why challenges couldn't be resolved. While I don't claim to know the White House's motivation in opposing this bill, I do know there are several misconceptions about this legislation that I would like to address today. First, some have claimed that the problem is just too complicated to solve or that it would involve an untested process, but that is not right. My bill would allow Agencies to make what is called equitable adjustment to contract prices to compensate contractors who provide backpay to their furloughed employees. This equitable adjustment process is used regularly by contracting officers and contractors. It has already been used to address other shutdown-related claims, including hundreds of claims for shutdown-related compensation this year alone. This process has already been used to pay contractors, just not for backpay. So my bill would build on the existing processes already in place. These processes are established, and it is just not that complicated. Second, some have claimed that the administrative costs of the bill would just be too large, and that is simply false. It is true that Agencies would need to take administrative steps to implement the bill, just as they do with the passage of any legislation. But, again, my bill builds on an existing administrative process that is used regularly and efficiently without large administrative costs. Let me be clear. If the White House or anyone has suggestions on ways to improve this legislation to make it easier to implement, we are all ears. We would be happy to accommodate any reasonable suggestion; we just haven't seen any. We haven't received any specific suggestions. Too often, contractors are invisible to the public, but they suffered greatly during this recent shutdown. Representative Ayanna Pressley and I recently authored an op-ed about this, and it included a story about a woman named Tamela, whom we both met. We wrote in our op-ed: Tamela was worried that she would fall behind on her mortgage and car payments, ruining the good credit she'd worked so long and so hard to build. And as she spoke, beads of sweat rolled down her face. Was she nervous about speaking in front of a crowd? No. As Tamela explained, she's diabetic and has high blood pressure. Without her regular paycheck, she hadn't been able to afford the co-pay for a doctor's appointment to have her blood pressure tested and her prescription renewed. So she was going without her medicine. I recently received a letter from Annie, a Federal contractor in Duluth. Annie wrote to me: I am losing wages that I count on each month to make significant payments towards my student loans and contributions to my savings, (including my retirement savings). I can honestly say I never thought I'd be applying for unemployment, especially as a 31-year-old, but today I did just that. These employees deserve backpay. They had nothing to do with creating this crisis, and we should all be able to come together in a bipartisan way to make sure these Federal contract employees receive backpay. So I stand here today to say I am going to continue working to get this bill passed, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a path forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, last night President Trump delivered the State of the Union Address, and he talked about a lot of issues, including immigration and national security, healthcare, and prescription drugs. He talked about the need for bipartisanship. While I don't always agree with the President, I do agree that we should seek bipartisanship where we can, and today I would like to address one area that is ripe for bipartisan action. I am so pleased that Senator Brown, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Warner, Senator Cardin, and Senator Kaine have all played key roles in the effort I am going to talk about this afternoon, and many of them will be joining me today on the Senate floor. In addition, Senator Casey will be joining us, and I am so glad that he is adding his voice. So many Americans suffered during the wasteful and unnecessary government shutdown that recently ended, but for one group of Americans, the shutdown isn't over. These Americans are employees of Federal contractors. Now, in previous shutdowns, Federal contractors didn't receive backpay, and they haven't received backpay after this shutdown, either. Now, that is not fair, and several of my colleagues and I are determined to fix this. So over the next hour or so, my colleagues and I will come together on the Senate floor to talk about the importance of providing backpay to the employees of Federal contractors who lost over a month's worth of wages. Thousands of Federal contract employees work shoulder to shoulder with Federal employees to make the government work. They clean office buildings, provide security, serve millions of meals a year, and do countless other jobs. In an op-ed published today, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, the sponsor of the House companion to our bill, and I shared a story that we heard from Tamela Worthen, a security guard at the Smithsonian Institution. Tamela said that she was worried that she would fall behind on her mortgage and car payments, ruining the good credit that she had worked so long and hard to build. As she spoke, beads of sweat started rolling down her face. We were wondering: Was she nervous about speaking in front of a crowd? But, no, as Tamela explained, she is diabetic and has high blood pressure. Without her regular paycheck, she hadn't been able to afford the copay for a doctor's appointment to have her blood tested and her prescription renewed. So she was going without her medicine. Too often, these Federal contract workers are invisible to the public, but I want them to know that those of us speaking on the Senate floor today haven't forgotten about them. Now I would like to read a little bit of a letter that I got from a constituent in Minnesota named Annie. Annie is a chemist who works as a Federal contractor at the Environmental Protection Agency in Duluth, MN, and she wrote me a powerful letter about how the shutdown affected her. Here are a few pieces of what she shared. Annie wrote: I look forward to my job because I am surrounded by colleagues who are passionate about their work and want to make a significant change towards bettering our environment. . . . This work contributes to a large collaborative effort of tracking and monitoring the health of the Great Lakes, a priceless freshwater resource. Annie went on to say: My frustration with the shutdown stems not only from a personal angle, but also from the halt it has put on environmental research. She says: I am losing wages that I count on each month to make significant payments towards my student loans and contributions to my savings, including my retirement savings. I can honestly say I never thought I would be applying for unemployment, especially at 31 years old, but today I did just that. Of course, collecting unemployment is better than no wages at all, but it is still a far cry from earning my normal income. Annie finishes by saying: The irritation I feel about the shutdown extends beyond lost wages. I am very passionate about my work, and I believe that what I do is important and contributes to a critical subject: The environment. Now, Annie makes a great point. Federal contract workers like Annie do important work for people in Minnesota and across the country, and it is wrong for Annie to go without pay because of a shutdown fight that had nothing to do with her. The Senate recently passed legislation to provide backpay to Federal employees authored by Senator Cardin, and I am very honored to be able to support Senator Cardin in that work. That bill passed without a single Senator objecting. Now, I strongly support providing backpay to Federal employees, and it is just common sense that the contractors who work side by side with these Federal employees should get the same backpay that they deserve as well. The shutdown was wasteful, and it made pawns of hundreds of thousands of people. Yet Federal contractors have never been made whole in any shutdown, including this last one, and we think that needs to change. Why should these hard-working people be forced to pay the price for the shutdown? So we are working to fix this, and we have bipartisan legislation to do so. Here is what our bill would do. It would use an existing contracting process that is known as equitable adjustment to make sure that contractors can provide backpay to workers, with full backpay to low- wage workers and partial backpay to those who are earning higher incomes. Our effort is gaining support every day. In the Senate, we now have bipartisan support with a group of more than 40 cosponsors and counting, and nearly 70 organizations, including the AFL-CIO, the National Partnership For Women and Families, Oxfam America, the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and the United Steelworkers that have all written in support of providing backpay for these workers. This is what their letter of support says in part: ``These federal contract workers help keep our nation running, even if their paychecks aren't cut directly by the U.S. government, and they need their paychecks just as badly as federal employees and deserve the same considerations when the government shuts down.'' So I want to say thank you to everyone who continues to make their voices heard on this important issue. I am especially thankful to the workers who shared their stories, like the great-grandmother who is taking care of her two great-grandchildren, the employee who was furloughed from two different jobs who now can't afford his electric bill, and the worker at risk of losing their home because they couldn't pay their mortgage. Providing backpay to contractors is an important opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to do what is right and to come together. If you think it is wrong that hard-working people didn't get paid because of a shutdown that had nothing to do with them, then it is time for you to make your voice heard. Let's fix this, and let's fix it through hashtag ``BackPayNow.'' Thank you very much. I yield to Senator Cardin from Maryland.

Ms. SMITH. Will Senator Cardin yield?

Ms. SMITH. Senator Cardin, I want to take a moment to thank you so much for your leadership on this and for making sure that Federal employees get the backpay they deserve. I know that when this issue first became clear to me, you were one of the first people I called over the Christmas holiday to talk about what we might do to fix this problem. So I greatly appreciate your partnership on this, along with the partnership of so many of my other colleagues here but particularly your help on this. Thank you very much.

Ms. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Van Hollen for being here to talk about this. When I first became aware of this issue, which was over what was the Christmas holiday for us--Federal employees and Federal contractors were already not working and not getting paid--Senator Van Hollen was one of the first people whom I called to try to figure out what we might do to resolve this, to solve this problem. I thank you for your leadership and for all of the help that you have given me and all of us to try to figure out this problem. Thank you very much. It has been wonderful to work with you on this. I also note that I am very grateful to see my colleague Senator Casey here, who, I believe, also has some things to say about this. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, today and for the last 19 days, men and women across the country are being hurt by a government shutdown that President Trump said he was proud to cause for the wall. I rise today on behalf of Minnesotans, on behalf of more than 4,790 hard-working Federal employees and low-wage contractors going without pay in Minnesota right now, and I rise today on behalf of the taxpayers of our country who just want the government to work for them. Since I became a Senator, just a little over a year ago, the government has been closed three times over the President's obsession with building an expensive, ineffective wall on our southern border. I am all for border security, but we need to focus on real solutions, not symbols. So let us start with the facts. In my home State of Minnesota, the Federal Government employs about 32,000 people as food safety inspectors, prison guards, postal workers, and more. Of this total number, the Center for American Progress estimates that 4,790 people are impacted by the shutdown today in Minnesota and are furloughed or working without pay. Over 750 of these workers have already filed for unemployment benefits, and hundreds more are being forced to make tough decisions about how to cover basic expenses, feed their children, and take care of their families. A couple of days ago, I asked Minnesotans how they are being hurt by this shutdown because I wanted to understand how this is affecting people in their everyday lives. In just the last 48 hours, I have heard from Minnesota farmers who can't cash checks because the Farm Service Agency offices are shut down and Tribal law enforcement officers who are working without pay. I have heard from air traffic controllers in Minnesota who came by my office earlier this week with dozens of handwritten letters full of stories. The letters I am about to read come from these air traffic controllers, and I really want to thank them for sharing their stories. These are public servants who have dedicated their careers to making our airports safe. Tomorrow, January 11, marks the first day when these folks--Americans who show up at work every day to protect us--will miss their first paycheck. What is going to happen to these families? How will they be able to cover their credit card bills, their childcare payments, their mortgages? These are the questions that are keeping them up at night. I wanted to share some of their stories with you today so that those of us in Congress and the President can keep these people uppermost in our minds and the human impact of what is a wasteful and increasingly harmful shutdown. The first story comes from Michael, in Rochester, MN. Michael writes: My wife stays at home to care for our 3 year old daughter. She is also currently obtaining a master's degree in education so she can be a teacher when our daughter finally goes to school. I am the sole income in my home. Needless to say, the prospect of not receiving a paycheck in a week has us wondering how we will make mortgage payments, buy food, etc. We are more fortunate than some of my coworkers, however. Many of them are wondering how they will pay for day care while they continue to go to work as unpaid, essential employees. The next letter is from Jonathan, from Lino Lakes, MN. This is what Jonathan wrote: For the last two weeks, air traffic controllers have remained on the job, dedicated to the safety of every flight. But we don't know when we will receive our next paycheck. My wife is due with our fourth child in two weeks and this uncertainty only adds to an already stressful situation. Here is another one from Mike, from Minnetonka, MN. He is describing the impact of the shutdown on his family's future. I am a father to twin four-year-old boys (Jax and Finn) and had to close their college fund account in order to pay bills through the end of the month. The shutdown has also prevented me from training and certifying on my last few positions to receive a $5,000 pay raise. These hardships are going to affect my family for years to come. The replenishment of my boys' college fund alone could take years as a single income family. Mike goes on to say: This is going to have a lasting negative impact on me and my family. Please help stop the shutdown to lessen the already great impact it has had on me and my family. My kids' future and our current financial hardship depends on it. Next is Christopher, from Dundas, MN. He writes: As a cancer survivor, I have a huge stack of medical bills on structured and negotiated payments. My colleagues and I have suffered the sudden loss of our income due to this shut down. It will be very hard to meet all of my financial obligations. Finally, I want to share this really heartbreaking note that I received from a brand-new father, Joe, from Lakeville, MN. Joe enclosed two photos of his beautiful brand-new baby boy, Oliver. Here is a picture of Oliver. This is the picture Joe sent to me. This is what he wrote: This is a picture of my son, Oliver. He was born on New Year's Eve, 10 weeks early. The only local hospital to take babies born before 32 weeks is not in network for our insurance. I cannot change our insurance with this qualifying life event because those government services are closed due to the shutdown. Further, because there is no paid leave during a shutdown, I am spending my days in the NICU on unpaid furlough status. I don't know when I'll be able to change my insurance, or when I'll get paid again. I take solace in what matters most: Oliver is getting a little stronger and a little closer to home every day. Joe closed by saying: Please do what you can to reopen the government and leave us with one less worry. President Trump and my Republican colleagues, listen to these stories and think about the consequences of this reckless and increasingly harmful shutdown. The Senate could put an end to this right now. We could take up and pass the bipartisan bills passed by the House--bills that have already passed the Senate, bills that would help baby Oliver and his dad Joe and the hundreds of thousands of other people around the country who never asked and don't deserve to be pawns in this fight. It is our job to do this. Colleagues, we can do this. I don't just sit in this Chamber and say whether my vote is what the President wants me to do. I think about what Minnesotans want me to do. We must reopen government. I know, colleagues, that each of you has thousands of families with stories like this in your State and I know that you are hearing them. Let's resolve this. Let's end this shutdown now and not let American families down. To the Minnesotans who are speaking up and sharing your stories, I want to thank you, and I want to tell you to keep it up. You deserve to be heard by our President, and you deserve a government that works for you. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate the career of retired lieutenant general and current Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs commissioner Larry Shellito. Commissioner Shellito will be retiring from the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs on January 7, 2019, after leading the department for the past 7 years. His leadership has ensured the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs will continue to provide excellent care and services for years to come. Commissioner Shellito began his career in 1968 when he enlisted in the U.S. Army, during which time he served in Vietnam as a mobile advisory team leader. In 1973, he joined the Minnesota National Guard where he served for the next 37 years. Starting as a rifle platoon leader, Commissioner Shellito went on to serve in nearly every command position within the Minnesota National Guard, and in 2003, he was appointed adjutant general by Governor Tim Pawlenty. In this final position, Commissioner Shellito diligently led the Minnesota National Guard in responding to domestic incidents, transforming the force from a ready reserve to an operational force through multiple deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He made sure the needs of his soldiers and their families were met when they returned home through the creation and implementation of the Nation's first Yellow Ribbon Program. Commissioner Shellito's leadership transformed the Minnesota National Guard into one of our Nation's most respected and well-known organizations. While most people would retire after such an extensive career, Commissioner Shellito stepped up to the plate when Governor Mark Dayton asked him to serve as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs in 2011. At the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, Commissioner Shellito has assisted Minnesota's 337,000 veterans and their dependents get the benefits and services they have earned. His stewardship has ensured veterans can find a place to call home, can find jobs in the public and private sectors, and have access to the services they need to help them heal from physical and psychological wounds. In the past year alone, Commissioner Shellito has led the department in obtaining funding for three new veterans homes, improving residential satisfaction at Minneapolis veterans homes, opening a new state-of-the-art 100-bed skilled nursing care facility in Minneapolis, and establishing the Nation's first veterans home fixed dental care facility. The work Commissioner Shellito has done these past 7 years has set the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs up for success for years to come and is a testament to Commissioner Shellito's character and commitment to service. On behalf of myself and all Minnesotans, I want to congratulate Commissioner Shellito on an amazing career. Your more than 45 years of excellent public service, on Active and civilian duty, represents the finest Minnesota has to offer. We recognize your service, we are grateful for it, and we thank you.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some very good news. After months of bipartisan negotiations, the Senate has finally passed the new farm bill. This bill will probably not get as much attention as some other news going on right now in politics. That is too bad, because the farm bill is a significant piece of legislation that touches the lives of every person every day in Minnesota and throughout the country. This bill is crucial to our Nation's farmers, and our farmers are producing the food and the fuel that feed our Nation and the world. It is also good news because Congress has come together to get this done. At a time when so many Americans are frustrated with divisive politics, it is worth pausing over the way Members of both parties have come together to produce such an important bill through hard work and compromise. In the Senate, we came together with a wide range of priorities from every region of the country. Senators representing crops like cotton and peanuts worked together with Senators from States like mine, with soybeans and corn, to reach this final compromise. We were able to find agreement because of the leadership that was provided by Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow on the Senate committee and Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Collin Peterson, from Minnesota, on the House committee. When I became a Senator just under 1 year ago, I fought for a seat on the Agriculture Committee, and I immediately formed a farm bill working group in Minnesota so that I could hear from farmers and ranchers, foresters and researchers, rural community leaders and Tribes, as well as experts in nutrition, energy, and conservation, to make sure that Minnesota's priorities were included in this farm bill. From corn growers in Goodhue County in the southeastern part of Minnesota to sugar beet farmers in the northeastern part of the State, I heard the same message: We must pass a farm bill this year The farm bill is so vitally important to Minnesotans because agriculture is the foundation of Minnesota's economy. In Minnesota, agriculture generates $121 billion in economic activity and supports 400,000 jobs. Minnesota is No. 1 in sugar beets, No. 2 in corn processing, and No. 3 in soybeans. We raise the second most hogs, and we raise the most turkeys. So working on the farm bill, one of my first stops was with Collin Peterson in Ada, MN, where we met with farmers and rural development leaders, and everyone in that community told me how the farm bill directly affects them. So I directed my staff to continue these listening sessions, and I am proud to say that we had almost 50 of them around the State. Meeting with the working group and touring farms and rural development projects around Minnesota have made the issues facing rural America and our farmers one of my top priorities here in the Senate. Minnesotans have given me some great ideas about what to fight for here in Washington, DC. I heard from young farmers in Minnesota--like organic farmer Matthew Fitzgerald of Hutchinson, and Eric Sannerud, a hops farmer in Foley-- about the difficulty beginning farmers face in accessing USDA programs. So I pushed for the farm bill to include provisions to support our next generation of farmers with my friend and colleague Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Senator Angus King of Maine. After visiting the Good Acre in Falcon Heights and learning about local food systems, I joined a bipartisan effort to better connect farmers with their communities. So I am grateful for the leadership of Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio and Senator Susan Collins from Maine on this important issue. In March, I visited the Haubenschild Dairy Farm in Princeton, MN. Three generations of the Haubenschild family run this dairy farm. As we toured their impressive operation, this family talked to me about how dairy farmers have been hit hard by low commodity prices. This was a message that was echoed by dairy farmers across the State, who have been a really important part of my farm bill working group. So when I got back to Washington, I was determined to help fight for strong safety net programs that support dairy farmers, along with many of my Senate colleagues. A bipartisan coalition of Senators from dairy States worked to make sure that this farm bill builds on the improvements made to the dairy safety net in the March omnibus bill. The final version of this bill does just that. This farm bill expands gains made in the dairy safety net, especially for small and medium- sized farms. There are still a lot of challenges ahead for dairy farmers, but hopefully these provisions will help Minnesota's farmers who are facing falling milk prices. Many farmers told me they were worried about skyrocketing healthcare costs. So during a visit to Fergus Falls, MN, healthcare leaders from Douglas County Hospital and Lake Region Healthcare spoke to us about the unique health challenges facing rural communities. In Minnesota we are focused on finding innovative solutions to address rural health challenges. It is clear that Federal agencies need to do more to examine the barriers people face who are accessing care in rural communities. That is why I helped to shepherd the bipartisan Rural Health Liaison Act through the Agriculture Committee, and I helped to introduce this bill with Senator Doug Jones of Alabama and Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. The Rural Health Liaison Act will create a new position in the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the USDA is working with other agencies and departments, like Health and Human Services, to coordinate efforts. This is an important step toward improving rural health across America. When I talked to Minnesotans from the Red River Valley, I heard about how important the sugar program is to maintain their competitiveness. I fought during the floor debates to sustain this program on behalf of sugar beet farmers in my State and across the upper Midwest. I advocated to make sure that the farm bill funds a preparedness and response program to national animal disease outbreaks and a vaccine bank to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. This was a bipartisan effort, again, with my fellow Minnesota Senator, Amy Klobuchar, and Senator John Cornyn of Texas. At the poultry testing lab in Willmar, MN, I heard about the need for vaccine banks and animal disease readiness. When Minnesota was hit hard by the avian flu outbreak that resulted in the death of nearly 9 million turkeys and chickens, we knew that this program was necessary. Other Minnesota priorities came from conversations with folks across the State. This bill advances conservation programs so farmers have the opportunity to start conservation strategies and to keep them going long into the future to protect the environment and increase productivity. Minnesotans use these programs almost more than any other State. Minnesotans know that the transition to clean energy presents a great economic opportunity for rural and farming communities. As the top Democrat on the Rural Development and Energy Subcommittee, I introduced legislation outlining a road map for a strong energy title in this farm bill, and a bipartisan coalition of Senators urged the committee to fund and strengthen these many successful energy programs at the USDA. One example is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps agriculture producers, local businesses, and rural communities to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that create jobs, cut energy bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rural communities will benefit greatly from the mandatory funding given to this program. Another issue emphasized by rural development leaders across Minnesota is the need that people have for access to reliable and affordable internet service. Broadband access is critical to farmers using modern equipment and for rural families trying to access healthcare, education, and jobs. This bill incorporates my Community Connect Grant Program Act to increase funding for this important effort to create better broadband access to unserved remote rural and Tribal communities. This provision is a step forward and one of the many things we need to do to connect Minnesota and people across the Nation with affordable, reliable internet service. This farm bill also expands access to jobs and agriculture for returning servicemembers by encouraging the USDA to assist veterans in joining the agriculture workforce. I pushed for this provision, which will help veterans have the resources they need to take advantage of these opportunities. Today, as our farmers face deep uncertainty regarding tariffs and the impacts they have, this bill includes bipartisan provisions to increase funding for USDA trade promotion activities, because we all know that international markets are essential to many farmers. All farmers deserve these opportunities, and now there will be greater inclusion of Tribal products in Federal trade promotion efforts and activities to make sure that Native farmers aren't missing out on new international markets. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota and Senator Steve Daines of Montana, for working with me on this issue. It is great that this farm bill includes these provisions, and I hope farmers will begin to feel some relief, but the core trade problem remains. Don't get me wrong--I am committed to standing up to our trade partners and holding them accountable when they engage in unfair trade practices. But the chaotic approach we have seen to implementing these tariffs lacks a coherent message and a coherent strategy, and we need to solve this problem for the health of Minnesota and American farm country. Farmers are on the frontlines of this trade war, and the cycle of retaliation has no end in sight. In this farm bill, we begin to increase access to international markets, but we still need a long-term plan to reopen and preserve the markets farmers rely on. As I have already mentioned, the farm bill touches the lives of every American. The farm bill provides important stability and predictability to Minnesota farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and Indian Country, while also sustaining hundreds of thousands of Minnesota jobs. It is important to remember that the farm bill reaches beyond rural development, commodity programs, and trade. The nutrition programs reauthorized by this farm bill are of vital importance, and the data backs this up. According to the Agriculture Department, in 2017, 15 million households with over 40 million people--including millions of children across the country--live in households that are food insecure, which is a fancy way of saying that many people have no clear idea of where all of their meals are going to come from in a certain week. We need to do better than this in America. That is why farmers and ranchers in my State tell me how important they think it is to support nutrition programs, and I am glad this is reflected in the final farm bill. We have passed this bill in the Senate, and I hope the House will pass it in the next few days. Then the President needs to sign it into law to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they deserve. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise to discuss the urgency of addressing climate change. I will also address the nomination of Mr. Bernard McNamee to be a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which we are debating on the Senate floor today. Recently, the Trump administration released the latest installment of the National Climate Assessment. This report is the work of over 300 expert scientists and 13 different government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, NASA, and others. The report makes an urgent case for action by detailing the extreme threat that is posed to our Nation and to our world by climate change. The need for forward-looking environmental and energy policies is obvious to anyone who reads this report, and it is telling that this report was mandated by a law signed by the late George H. W. Bush in 1990--a President whose life we came together to celebrate yesterday. The Trump administration doesn't want to talk about the report's findings, but the problems of a changing climate are already well known to us in Minnesota. Our winters are milder than they used to be. Rain patterns are changing. We are now prone to long, hot dry spells in the summer, but when the rains do come, they are more intense. Big storms used to be rare in Minnesota, but now we suffer more than almost anywhere else in the country from these climate-driven increases in so- called mega-rain events. When it rains 6 or 8 or even 10 inches all at once, houses flood and fields flood. The water can't run off or soak into the soil fast enough. As Minnesota's Lieutenant Governor and now as a Senator, I have seen the consequences of these storms. Without action on climate change, these problems are only going to get worse. Even to those who have long accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, the new report makes for a sobering read. The assessment tells us that if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, ``the Midwest is projected to have the largest increase in extreme temperature-related premature deaths.'' By 2090, the Midwest can expect 2,000 additional deaths a year alone due to heat. That will be more than in any other region in the country. We know that there are health consequences to a warming climate and also important impacts on our food supply. Minnesota is a vital contributor to our world's food supply. We rank fourth in the country in corn production, and corn is our No. 1 agricultural commodity. In 2017, Minnesota farmers produced $4.5 billion of corn on 8 million acres. This agricultural productivity is threatened by climate change. The problem going forward is that corn doesn't tolerate extreme warm temperatures. Corn plants grow best at approximately 80 degrees, and above 95 degrees, reproductive failure is a risk. U.S. corn yields per acre grew 60 percent from the 1980s to today. Because of warming temperatures, the climate assessment warns that we risk losing all of these productivity gains by 2050. A world with nearly 10 billion people at midcentury is going to need American farmers to produce even more than ever. Climate change threatens our farmers' ability to rise to that challenge. This is why I agree with the National Farmers Union, which says: We can't wait for technology to solve climate change. We must take action now. We grow more than just corn in Minnesota. For example, the Anishinaabe people in my State harvest the world's finest wild rice. The climate assessment states: ``Declines in production are expected, related to increases in climate extremes and climate-related disease and pest outbreaks as well as northward shifts of favorable growing regions.'' The loss of wild rice in Minnesota would be a cultural, ecological, and economic tragedy. The climate assessment also highlights the economic stakes. Climate change threatens to reduce the size of the U.S. economy by up to 10 percent by the end of this century--a loss of hundreds of billions of dollars per year. In response to the extreme challenges that we face from climate change, I see two potential ways to respond. First, the path offered by Mr. McNamee would be that we do nothing to acknowledge this problem. As the Department of Energy's deputy general counsel, Mr. McNamee pushed a dirty coal plant bailout that would have cost American consumers billions of dollars a year with there being no discernible benefit to our energy system and a huge loss in our fight against climate change. That is why the proposal was rejected unanimously by the five FERC Commissioners. Now Mr. McNamee is nominated to be one of those Commissioners. To avoid dealing with the climate change problem, Mr. McNamee has-- like many in the Trump administration--decided that the first, best tactic is to deny there is even a problem. In February of this year, Mr. McNamee spoke at a policy orientation for legislators in Texas. When he was asked about how his son and other students should react to being taught climate science in schools, Mr. McNamee said: Just deny it. I don't care if you get an F. I don't care. I reject Mr. McNamee's head-in-the-sand approach, which is a fundamentally pessimistic approach to America's ability to lead the fight against climate change by leading the clean energy revolution. I, by contrast, am an optimist. The thing about the clean energy transition is that it is going to happen with or without American leadership. Between now and 2050, the world will invest $11.5 trillion in building new electric generators. Almost 9 in 10 of those dollars will be spent on renewables and other technologies with zero carbon emissions. The United States should lead the way in developing, making, and deploying clean energy technology; however, right now, China is leading the way. China leads the way in renewable energy investments, and it spent $127 billion in 2017, which outspent the United States by more than 3 to 1. We know that Americans want to step up. California and Hawaii have put themselves on a path to 100-percent clean energy by 2050. Just this week, Xcel Energy, which is the largest utility in my State, pledged to deliver 80 percent in carbon dioxide emission reductions by 2030, with a goal of having 100-percent emissions-free electricity by 2050. States, companies, and individuals can help lead the way, but that doesn't take the Federal Government off the hook. We must pull together as a country. The scale of the challenge requires national and international coordination and cooperation. The United States can lead, or we can be left behind. We led the way during the fossil fuel revolution, and we were rewarded with world-leading prosperity. There is a new revolution happening. Mr. McNamee and President Trump both believe that we can prosper by doubling down on outdated thinking regarding energy and climate, but they are wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this nominee. It is the duty of those of us in Congress to push for a clear-eyed but optimistic path forward and not to let misguided ideology leave us stuck in the past. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for her terrific words this morning. I am so grateful to be here with her today. I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. From the time his nomination was announced, it has been clear to me what type of Supreme Court Justice Judge Kavanaugh would be, and I firmly believe he is not the Justice our country needs. Appointing Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would be bad for Minnesotans and bad for our country. First this morning, I would like to speak about the aspects of Judge Kavanaugh's record and scholarship that I find most troubling--his decisions on women's freedoms, the environment, voting rights, and his views on Executive power. Next, I would like to discuss why Judge Kavanaugh's temperament and credibility demonstrate that he does not merit the trust and confidence necessary for the Senate to appoint him to a lifelong appointment to our Nation's highest Court. I have been opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination since the beginning because his record shows that he is far outside the mainstream of legal thought on issues that matter to Minnesotans, such as women's freedoms, healthcare, voting rights, and the environment. If you remember, we knew quite a lot about Judge Kavanaugh before he was even formally named as President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. This is because Judge Kavanaugh's name was chosen from a short list prepared by the far-right Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. This list contained 25 potential nominees who were selected because they could be trusted to fulfill President Trump's repeated campaign pledge to appoint Justices who would ``automatically'' overturn Roe v. Wade and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. While we can assume that nominees drawn from that short list have convinced the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation that they passed these two litmus tests, Judge Kavanaugh has a judicial record to prove it. Therefore, from the time his name first appeared on President Trump's short list, we knew what kind of Justice he would be--one that is out of step with the American people, the legal academy, and the clear dictates of our Constitution, which promise liberty and equality for all and not just for the privileged few. This is not what our country needs, especially now. A review of Judge Kavanaugh's record shows it includes restricting women's freedoms, supporting efforts to suppress the votes of minorities and low-income people, reliably siding with polluters at the expense of the public's health and allowing unlimited dark money to influence our elections. I find this record deeply concerning. It is evidence that if confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh would take this country backward, reversing course on decades of hard-won progress. So my assessment of his judicial record is enough for me to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh is not the type of jurist Minnesotans need on the Supreme Court. In this time of unprecedented political polarization, our country needs confidence in knowing that the Supreme Court can fulfill the constitutional promise that we are all equal before the law. That is why I had hoped President Trump would nominate a consensus Justice--someone dedicated to protecting the rights of all Americans. Yet it is clear Judge Kavanaugh will not be that Justice. So I would like to talk in more depth about three of the reasons it is clear to me that based on his judicial record, Judge Kavanaugh is more dedicated to advancing a far-right partisan policy agenda than in defending the equal rights of all Americans. First, a judge who would let the government restrict women's access to reproductive healthcare is not someone who is dedicated to protecting the privacy, dignity, and freedom of all women. Last year, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case called Garza v. Hargan, in which he sided with the Trump administration in its attempt to prevent a young immigrant woman from accessing an abortion. Even though this young woman had complied with every State legal requirement, Judge Kavanaugh argued that the Federal Government could, nonetheless, prevent her from obtaining an abortion until she could be placed with a sponsor. That process took weeks and jeopardized her ability to obtain a procedure at all. Yet, in his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that this government-caused delay did not constitute an undue burden on this woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions about her reproductive healthcare. When Senator Durbin questioned him about this case before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh repeated his familiar refrain that he was just following precedent, but the majority of his fellow judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals read the Supreme Court's precedent on this issue very differently, as do I. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court firmly established that our constitutional right to privacy protects women from ``unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.'' This has come to be known as the undue burden standard. It means the government is prohibited from making laws, rules, or policies that have the ``purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.'' Yet Judge Kavanaugh saw no problem with forcing this young woman to wait 9 weeks to obtain the medical care she needed--the medical care a Texas judge agreed she was competent to request and entitled to obtain. Instead, in arguing that this delay was justified, Judge Kavanaugh implied that this young woman was incapable of making her own medical decisions because she did not have her ``family and friends to rely on'' in her decision-making process. I trust women to make these decisions for themselves and their families, and I am here to tell you that women do not need the government looking over their shoulders in the examination room and telling them what they can and cannot do. As the only Senator who has ever worked at Planned Parenthood, I know that when women do not have the freedom to make their own choices about their reproductive healthcare, they lose the freedom to direct their own lives--their personal lives, their families, their economic security. I believe we deserve a Supreme Court Justice who is dedicated to protecting a woman's right to make her own private decisions about her reproductive healthcare. Yet, based on his dissent in the Garza case and the President's repeated promises to nominate only anti-choice Justices, it is clear that if confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh would continue to chip away at this fundamental freedom. The second reason it is clear Judge Kavanaugh is not dedicated to protecting all Americans equally is, he has repeatedly ruled against restrictions on pollutants that threaten our health. He has not been dedicated to protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we share. In a 2012 case, Judge Kavanaugh authored an opinion that found the Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its authority when the Agency told upwind States to, literally, stop blowing smoke onto their downwind neighbors. Then, in 2014, Judge Kavanaugh objected to using the Clean Air Act to establish programs to reduce mercury--a potent toxin that harms developing brains--and greenhouse gases. Judge Kavanaugh's narrow view of the Clean Air Act could be extremely harmful to our efforts in addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gases. Although the Act does not mention greenhouse gases by name, the Supreme Court has held that the EPA does have the power to regulate them. In fact, the Court held that the act requires the EPA to address any air pollutants that are found to endanger human health. I agree with the Supreme Court as do most Americans. An April 2018 poll found that 75 percent of Americans support even stricter limits on smog. Judge Kavanaugh claims to believe what virtually every scientist tells us; that manmade climate change is real, and it is an enormous threat to our planet and our health. Yet he still seems to have a problem with allowing the government to take action to protect us from new pollutants which threaten our health. At a time when President Trump is attempting to backpedal on every commitment our country has made toward fighting global warming, it is more imperative than ever that we have a Supreme Court Justice who believes in our collective right to protect and preserve our planet. President Trump is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. He is pulling back the Clean Power Plan. He is looking for ways to force utilities to keep expensive coal plants online, a move that would cost Americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills. All of these moves will hurt the environment and harm the health of the American people, and in each case, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows he is likely to act as an enabler. The third area in which Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he is likely to serve the interests of a far-right partisan agenda rather than the interests of our democracy is with regard to voting rights. A judge who upholds a State law that makes it harder for minorities and low-income people to vote is not someone who is going to be dedicated to protecting our most fundamental democratic right--the right to vote. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there is no doubt he will help his friends in far-right special interest groups--the same groups that recommended his nomination in the first place--to continue their coordinated campaign to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote. These groups know they can count on Judge Kavanaugh to uphold laws that make it harder rather than easier for people to vote. These groups have helped Republican-controlled State legislatures pass laws that are designed to create obstacles at every step of the voting process, making it more difficult to register to vote, to cast your ballot, and to have your vote counted equally. As a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has a record of supporting these laws, including laws that perpetuate voting discrimination, particularly against communities of color. In 2012, he wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel that upheld South Carolina's stringent voter ID law even though the Department of Justice had determined the law would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am proud to represent the State with the highest voter turnout in the Nation. Minnesotans understand that when the right to vote is restricted, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy. Our voting laws reflect our beliefs about who should have a voice in this country, and I am profoundly concerned that his record shows that Judge Kavanaugh will allow States to pass laws that will make it harder for communities of color and low-income people to make their voices heard. Minnesotans and all Americans deserve a Supreme Court Justice who is committed to making our democracy more representative so we remain a government for the people and not just some of the people, and it is clear Judge Kavanaugh would not be that Justice. Judge Kavanaugh's record as a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the process that led to his nomination were enough to convince me that he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. His decisions and opinions demonstrate that he should not be entrusted with protecting the hard-won rights and freedoms of all Americans. It is troubling enough that Judge Kavanaugh could be the deciding vote on cases that affect every aspect of life in America--cases that determine whom you can marry, whether you can access healthcare, or your rights in the workplace. I am also extremely concerned about Judge Kavanaugh's commitment to fulfilling the other sacred responsibility of our Supreme Court--to be a check against legislative and executive overreach as a coequal branch of our government. The very design of our system of constitutional checks and balances demonstrates that no one, not even our elected leaders, is above the law. This is a fundamental American principle, but Judge Kavanaugh has a dangerously expansive view of Executive power that is well outside the mainstream of current legal thought. He has repeatedly argued that Presidents, effectively, are above the law. His writings and speeches suggest he believes a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. He has argued that Presidents can only be investigated by Congress, which raises questions about his views of the constitutionality of the ongoing Mueller investigation. Perhaps what is the most troubling is, he has claimed Presidents don't have to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional. Kavanaugh's expansive views of the limits of Executive power suggest he would abdicate the solemn responsibility of the Court to both hold the executive branch accountable to its constitutional duties and to prevent it from engaging in constitutional excesses. The need for the other branches of government to be a strong check against an errant executive has, arguably, never been greater. Yet during his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh refused to answer even the most basic questions about his views on Executive power and accountability. He also refused to answer Senators' questions about topics like whether he believes a President can be required to respond to a subpoena or whether a President can pardon himself or pardon others in exchange for their silence. It is easy to see why President Trump would want a Supreme Court nominee who believes a President is above the law. It is not easy to see how this body can consider confirming him without learning more about whether he is prepared to help the Court fulfill its duty as an independent, coequal branch of government. For all of these reasons, I believe Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence and scholarship provide a more than sufficient basis for opposing his nomination. Now I turn to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last Thursday. I was grateful for Dr. Blasey Ford's powerful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the American public. Since her testimony, my office has received dozens of letters from survivors of sexual assault, some of whom are telling their stories for the first time. In reading these letters, I have been heartbroken by their trauma and pain, which we know is suffered by too many in this country. Many of these survivors were victimized by people they knew and trusted. Some were too young to have words to even describe their assaults. Some tried to come forward and report their abuses but gave up when they faced doubt and shame and suspicion from those who should have helped but didn't. All of them deserve to have their stories taken seriously and to be fully investigated. So I want to acknowledge that this is an important, historic moment-- one that shows us the cultural forces that seek to shame and silence survivors of sexual violence are shifting and that survivors and those who love them and those who stand with them are watching this process very carefully. In stark contrast to the clarity and conviction of Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony, to me, Judge Kavanaugh's performance raised deep questions about his temperament and credibility. Judge Kavanaugh showed us he has an injudicious temperament, a powerful sense of entitlement, and a partisan perspective that was right out there for everyone to see. He showed us who he is--and I believe him--and I firmly believe these characteristics disqualify him from elevation to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh showed us he thinks his professional qualifications exempt him from personal scrutiny, but an appointment to the Supreme Court requires more than a pristine legal resume; it requires a strength of character, which we now know from his own testimony that Judge Kavanaugh does not possess. His impulse, when challenged, is to lash out with conspiratorial, partisan invective--unbecoming of any nominee to the Federal Bench. His behavior, which, incidentally, he would never allow from a litigant in his own courtroom, was angry, disrespectful, even ranting. I was particularly struck by the disrespect he showed to my good colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar. When she asked Judge Kavanaugh about his history with alcohol, he became defensive; refused to answer her question; and actually turned the question back at her. To my mind, this showed a lack of respect not just for Senator Klobuchar but for the whole Senate and our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent to the President's nominees. I think all of my colleagues should be deeply disturbed by the nominee's angry and disrespectful behavior. I urge all of my colleagues to ask themselves whether they believe Judge Kavanaugh possesses the steady, sensible temperament we should expect from all of our Federal judges but, most especially, from those on the highest Court in the land. I believe Judge Kavanaugh showed us to be incapable of being an impartial and nonpartisan judge when he said he holds Democrats responsible for an ``orchestrated political hit.'' The Framers designed the Supreme Court to be above the partisan fray. In his testimony on Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh abandoned any pretense that he could live up to his own description of a good judge, one that is ``an umpire--a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.'' In his initial testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh warned: The Supreme Court must never, never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. If this body elevates Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court after his nakedly partisan diatribe on Thursday, how can the American people believe the Court's decisions are anything other than arbitrary and partisan, and the work of ideologues? Judge Kavanaugh's shocking behavior last Thursday bears directly on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court--our third coequal branch of government. Over the next few years, the Supreme Court will be called upon to decide important legal questions that will affect the lives of all Americans. Given Judge Kavanaugh's performance last Thursday, the American people will have to wonder: Does Justice Kavanaugh see the Supreme Court as the ultimate venue for providing justice or as a tool for advancing and securing a partisan agenda? Not only did Judge Kavanaugh's performance last Thursday give us reason to doubt whether he has the necessary judicial temperament to serve on the Supreme Court, but his sworn testimony also raised deep questions about his credibility. Judge Kavanaugh showed us that he is willing to be misleading and evasive when it serves his interests and when he thinks he will be protected from the consequences of those lies. When questioned by my colleagues Senator Klobuchar and Senator Whitehouse, Judge Kavanaugh provided answers that were obviously disingenuous, if he answered at all. I am concerned that the way he characterized his behavior during his high school years was less than fully truthful. His apparent lack of candor with the Senate Judiciary Committee should be deeply concerning to all of us in the Senate and to the American public. Unfortunately, I am not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the FBI's supplemental background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, but after reviewing these materials, I have even deeper concerns about Judge Kavanaugh's lack of candor. Frankly, the materials raise more questions than they answer. That is part of why I believe the supplemental investigation was woefully inadequate. Some of my colleagues have been saying that this is not a criminal trial but a job interview. I agree that Judge Kavanaugh is not on trial here, but this isn't any regular job interview either. The confirmation process allows for the Senate to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh deserves the public's faith as he asks to be entrusted with safeguarding our constitutional and human rights. He is asking for a lifetime appointment that will allow him to affect the lives and freedoms of a whole generation of Americans. I believe Judge Kavanaugh's record and his character preclude him from being worthy of that public faith. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to continue with my remarks.

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Whitehouse as he takes to the Senate floor to speak on climate change for the 219th time. Mr. Whitehouse is the Senate leader on climate change, and his foresight, actions, and determination on this issue are remarkable. I am very proud to join him today. Climate change is a dire threat to our environment and to our children's future, and yet, if we rise to the challenge of responding to climate change, it will offer us major economic opportunity. The clean energy transition is already creating jobs, reducing the cost of generating electricity, clearing the air, and improving our health. The old idea that responding to climate change comes at the expense of the American economy is outdated and inaccurate. The clean energy economy is the economy of the 21st century. We see this every day in Minnesota, which is a national leader in the clean energy transition. The climate is rapidly changing, and these changes are caused by human activities that release greenhouse gases. I know this because it is what science shows us. In Minnesota, we take special pride in the severity of our winters, but Minnesota winter temperatures have increased by 6 degrees since 1970. More than our pride is at stake. Agriculture and forest pests that were once held in check by severe winter cold are now thriving. Summer temperatures are on a pace to make Minnesota as warm as Kansas by the end of the century. Some models suggest that changing climate and spreading pests could eliminate Minnesota's iconic evergreen forests by 2100. Urgent action is needed to limit further climate change. If we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions to near zero by 2060, the world will cross a dangerous warming threshold--a threshold that the United States and other nations have pledged to avoid. I am deeply worried about these threats, and so are our children, but I am also hopeful because I have seen how tapping into the abundant wind and sunshine is building a new energy economy that is clean, green, and full of opportunity. Here is just one example. Shortly after becoming a Senator, I visited the Vetter family farm near Mankato, MN, and saw firsthand how renewable energy can provide new sources of income for farmers. The Vetters raise hogs, but they also farm the sun through a 14-acre community solar garden. The Vetters inspired me to become a champion for the energy title in the Senate farm bill, which provides Federal support for rural renewable energy projects. Just 3 years ago, Minnesota wasn't much of a player in solar energy, despite the fact that we had nearly the same solar potential as Houston, TX. However, new State policy has led to strong growth and solar energy development. The State began a community solar garden program in 2013, and Minnesota now has enough solar energy to power nearly 120,000 homes. During the first quarter of 2018, Minnesota was fifth in the Nation for solar installations. Now Minnesota is a model, but the Southeastern United States and almost all of the western half of the country has as much or more sunshine than Minnesota and lots of opportunity. Minnesota is new to solar, but we have long been a national leader in wind energy. Today, nearly 20 percent of our electricity comes from wind turbines. Like solar, the fuel costs for an installed turbine are zero. So wind energy is sheltered from the ups and downs of fossil fuel prices. Wind energy is also a rural economic engine. A single industrial-sized turbine can bring a family farm $4,000 to $8,000 in lease revenue each year. My State is home to the two largest wind and solar installation companies in the country--Mortenson Energy in the Twin Cities and Blattner Energy in rural Avon. Together, they have installed renewable energy capacity across the country equivalent to 100 coal plants. Clean energy brings good jobs. For example, wind energy technician is one of the fastest growing jobs in the country, with an average salary of $54,000, and it doesn't require a 4-year college degree. Jobs in Minnesota's clean energy sector are growing twice as fast as jobs in other parts of our State's economy. Employers report they are having trouble finding the skilled workers they need to fill these jobs. To address this problem, I have introduced legislation to help employers partner with high schools and community colleges so students can gain the skills they need to get these jobs. Last year, renewable energy contributed 25 percent of the electricity generated in Minnesota. Nuclear power, which also does not release greenhouse gases, contributed an additional 23 percent. From a climate change perspective, Minnesota is already halfway to being a 100-percent clean energy State, and we are not slowing down. Xcel, our largest utility, is on track to deliver 60 percent renewable and 85 percent clean energy by 2030. Great River Energy, which serves many of our rural electric co-ops, is committed to 50 percent renewables by that same date. Why are they doing this? Well, it is not all about saving the planet. Wind energy has become the cheapest way to add new electricity to Minnesota's electric grid. Yes, Minnesota is windy, but so is every State in the middle of the country. And, as Senator Whitehouse described, most coastal States have tremendous wind power potential through offshore wind farms. This summer, the McKnight Foundation released a groundbreaking analysis of what decarbonizing Minnesota's economy would mean. If Minnesota continues to move away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy, we can achieve a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That would mean an electric mix that includes at least 91 percent clean energy. That would mean total energy bill savings of $600 to $1,200 per Minnesota household each year. It also would mean 20,000 more jobs in our State compared to a ``business as usual'' scenario, with continued reliance on fossil fuels. Given all of the upsides, it is disheartening that the President continues to do everything in his power to slow down the clean energy transition. He would rather take us backward than have America remain a world leader pushing forward. He is pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement. He is taking steps to roll back auto fuel efficiency standards and trampling on the rights of States that want to maintain rigorous targets. He has tried repeatedly to keep uneconomic and polluting coal plants open--a move that, if successful, would cost American taxpayers and electric bill payers billions of dollars a year. In a recent attack on clean energy, President Trump has proposed replacing the Clean Power Plan with an alternative that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions and, by the administration's own calculation, cause up to 1,400 additional deaths per year due to air pollution. Just yesterday, the Trump administration proposed to weaken rules that limit the release of methane--a potent greenhouse gas. Instead, the Federal Government can and should partner with States to encourage the spread of clean energy. The Federal Government should help States lead and not hold them back. First, we should set national clean energy targets. These should be a floor, not a ceiling, setting States free to innovate and adopt the best way to meet energy emission reductions given their local resources, local economies, and local sensibilities. Second, the Federal targets should be technology neutral. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In one place, this might mean wind power; in another, nuclear power. Some States have great hydropower resources, while others might choose to utilize carbon capture and storage upgrades to existing coal plants. Third, we should work with States to enhance the interstate transmission system. I have talked a lot about what Minnesota is doing on clean energy. States like California and Hawaii and many others are certainly also leading the way. With transmission, the Texas grid expansion provides a potential national model. That expansion is helping bring clean electricity from the windy western part of Texas to the large cities in the east. Fourth, the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission must properly account for greenhouse gas emissions when it approves projects. It should allow States to value their nuclear plants as zero-emission sources. As the original fleet of nuclear plants retires, it is imperative that they be replaced with non-emitting power sources. Last, the Federal government should expand support for cutting-edge energy research at our National Labs and at State universities. The Federal Government also needs to recognize that the discoveries in the lab only help if they are actually deployed. We must help States and utilities take risks on new, potentially game-changing technologies. To those ends, I recently introduced legislation to help fund both research and initial deployment of new energy storage technologies. We have everything to lose if we fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We owe our children and the next generation a better alternative. I again thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership on this issue and for inviting me to join him today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my strong opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I want to specifically focus on what his confirmation could mean for the future of voting rights in this country. The right to vote is our most sacred responsibility as citizens of this great Nation. Martin Luther King, Jr., called voting ``the foundation stone for political action.'' That is because when the right to vote is restricted, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy. If certain groups are barred or discouraged from voting, then our elected representatives cannot be held accountable for protecting the rights and interests of all of us. When you cast your vote, you decide who should be entrusted to protect all of your rights--your right to make private decisions about how and when to start a family, your right to organize and advocate for fair pay and safe working conditions, your right to affordable healthcare, and your right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Yet, if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there is no doubt he will help his friends in far-right special interest groups continue their coordinated campaign to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote. These are the very same groups who recommended his nomination to the President. These special interest groups have helped to pass State laws that have been designed to create obstacles at every step of the voting process, like making it more difficult to register to vote, to cast your vote, and to have your vote counted equally. These groups also know that they can count on Judge Kavanaugh to uphold these discriminatory laws. As a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has a record of supporting laws that perpetuate voting discrimination, particularly against communities of color. In 2012, he wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel that upheld South Carolina's stringent voter ID law even though the Department of Justice had determined that the law would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Unfortunately, discriminatory voting laws, like the one Judge Kavanaugh upheld, have a long and shameful history in this country. When this country was founded, generally only property-owning White men had the right to vote. It took 80 years to expand the franchise to all male citizens regardless of their race or color. It took another 50 years to grant women the right to vote and another 4 years after that to grant that right to all Native Americans. Yet the expansion of the legal right to vote did not always translate into access at the polls. It took us over a century to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests, and other voter intimidation tactics. This landmark civil rights legislation finally put real teeth in the promise of the 15th Amendment--that no one should be denied the right to vote on account of one's race or the color of one's skin. Unfortunately, in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted one of the most important protections of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Since then, far-right special interests at the State level have doubled down on their efforts to make it harder for people to vote by eliminating same-day and online voter registration, by limiting early voting, by enacting voter ID laws, and by purging infrequent voters from the registration rolls. These latest efforts make it harder rather than easier for people to vote. They show us there is still so much work to be done to fulfill the promise of the 14th and 15th Amendments--that every citizen can vote. We deserve a Justice who is committed to making our democracy more representative so that we remain a government for the people and not just for some of the people. We need a Supreme Court Justice who appreciates the history of this hard-won fundamental right and who will not reverse course on centuries of progress. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions show that he will uphold State laws that make it harder for communities of color and people of low-income to make their voices heard. Our voting laws reflect our beliefs about who should have a voice in this country. I am proud to represent Minnesota, the State with the highest voter turnout in the Nation, and I believe that our next Supreme Court Justice should vigorously defend the right of all eligible citizens to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right--the right to vote. Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh's record demonstrates he will not be that Justice. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination, and I urge the American people to make their voices heard. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concern about Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. In particular, I want to discuss today his troubling record on the environment and what that means for people's health. Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he simply doesn't believe that existing law allows new environmental threats to be addressed via any sort of regulation. I am talking about existing law designed to protect human health and our environment. When you take a look at Judge Kavanaugh's record, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Judge Kavanaugh has tried to weaken Clean Air Act protections even though the act controls pollutants such as smog and carbon monoxide, which contribute to asthma, heart attacks, and even premature deaths. They put our health at risk. In a 2012 case, Judge Kavanaugh authored an opinion that found the EPA had exceeded its authority when the Agency directed upwind States to literally stop blowing smoke onto their downwind neighbors. The good news is that the Supreme Court was more sensible than Judge Kavanaugh. Justices Kennedy and Roberts joined four others in a 6-to-2 decision to overturn Judge Kavanaugh's lower court ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg found that the EPA does have the power to act to protect people's health. I agree with the Supreme Court's 2012 decision, and so do most Americans. An April 2018 poll found that 75 percent of Americans support even stricter limits on smog. What Judge Kavanaugh particularly doesn't like is that the Clean Air Act specifically gives the Environmental Protection Agency the right-- the duty, even--to regulate new pollutants that threaten people's health. He has objected to using the law to establish new programs to reduce mercury--a potent toxin that harms developing brains. In 2014, Judge Kavanaugh lashed out at tough standards for mercury--a toxin that has been found to harm children's development. Judge Kavanaugh's narrow view of the Clean Air Act could be extremely damaging to our efforts to address climate change by regulating greenhouse gases. Although the act does not mention greenhouse gases by name, the Supreme Court has held that the EPA does have the power to regulate them. In fact, the Court held that the act requires the EPA to address any air pollutants that are found to endanger human health. But Judge Kavanaugh still seems to have a problem with adding new pollutants to that list. This is even though Judge Kavanaugh claims to believe what virtually every scientist tells us: that manmade climate change is real and is an enormous threat to our planet and to our health. But merely accepting climate science is too low a bar because even if Judge Kavanaugh believes in the urgent challenge of climate change, he doesn't seem to believe there is an urgent need to address it, as his record demonstrates. Over the next few decades, the Supreme Court will have many opportunities to weigh in on how our government can work to protect our environment, particularly regarding climate change. And the stakes are high: Scientists tell us that in order to avoid dangerous global warming, we must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero sometime between 2050 and 2065. But in 2018, global carbon emissions are still increasing, not decreasing. At the same time, President Trump is attempting to backpedal on every commitment our country has made toward fighting global warming. He is pulling us out of the Paris climate agreement. He is pulling back the Clean Power Plan. He is looking for ways to force utilities to keep expensive coal plants online--a move that would cost Americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills. All of these moves will hurt the environment and harm the health of Americans, and in each case, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows that he is likely to act as nothing but an enabler. My State of Minnesota is already experiencing the cost of climate change. The rains in Minnesota are growing more intense, leading to increased damage from flooding. As our winters grow milder and our summers warmer, plant and human diseases are spreading. Many scientists predict that the forests in my State will retreat rapidly, leaving Minnesota looking like Kansas by the end of this century. But it does not need to be all bad news. A rapid transition to emissions-free energy sources is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but this change will bring economic opportunity to our country. We just need to rise to the challenge. In Minnesota, wind and solar and biofuels are already potent drivers of job growth. If Judge Kavanaugh succeeds in overturning the Federal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the clean energy transition in our country will certainly slow. We will lose the competitive advantage to China and other economic rivals in the race to develop the technology and innovations of an affordable, clean energy future. Right now, we have a President who pushes coal and fossil fuels which, unless their carbon dioxide emissions are captured, must become the energy sources of the past. President Trump's energy policy is backward-looking and puts our economic competitiveness at risk. But presidents serve only for a term or two, which brings us back again to Judge Kavanaugh. Hopefully, we will be able to recover from the backward environmental policies of the Trump administration. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life, so we cannot afford a Justice who is hostile to our environment and to human health. We cannot afford a Justice who rejects actions to fight climate change. We just don't have the time. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

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