Expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I have expressed, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), my friend, would like to have a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I know that I speak on behalf of all the Members of the House to wish Virgil Godspeed, great success in the future, and great happiness.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes no later than 3 p.m.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today.

The House will also consider H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.

I thank the gentleman for his question. I want to put it in context.

For the first time in history, we started this Congress with a government shutdown. For the first time in history. The business was not completed, the government was not fully funded, and it was necessary for us, as we began this session, to have numerous votes to open up the government. We didn't get a lot of help from your side of the aisle on doing that, and it was not about a debate; we had considered six bills that essentially had been agreed to. There was clearly a disagreement on Homeland Security.

But let me remind you, on H.R. 1, the largest bill that we considered during the last Congress, you brought that to the floor and you had no committee hearings. Not a single committee hearing. You had no witnesses. No member of the public was able to testify. It was a closed rule, and zero amendments were made in order.

Now, let me make a comparison for you on H.R. 1, the bill we just passed. This bill had five hearings across several committees, 19 witnesses testified, the primary committee of jurisdiction had markup, and 72 amendments were made in order.

Now, H.R. 1, last Congress, zero Democratic amendments made in order. Now of course there were no Republican amendments made in order either because it was a closed rule, no amendments at all, no hearings, no committee hearings, no witnesses.

So that we have, as we said we would, had a process, opportunity for the public to testify, opportunity for amendments to be made in order. I forget exactly how many amendments you said, Republican amendments, but that is, whatever that number was, whether it was 10 or 15 or 25 or 35, more than we had in order.

As the gentleman knows, the last Congress was the most closed Congress in history. In history. We did not see a single open rule, not one under Speaker Ryan, not one. I am committed to ensuring, however, that we have a limited amount of closed rules.

Again, the gentleman is correct, the government was shut down and we had rules that we put forward to get the government open. It was not an amendment to say partially open this. It was, let's get it open.

So that my answer to the gentleman is we said what we were going to do on bills. We had 72 amendments on this bill. The proportion of amendments, the gentleman's concerned about, certainly want to make sure that we have substantive amendments considered from both sides of the aisle; that was done here. The gentleman thinks not enough, but as I said, it was, as opposed to zero, a substantial increase.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Of course, we both know, certainly since the time I have been here, that motions to recommit, on both sides of the aisle, have been gotcha amendments. They have been amendments to use for political ads to talk about partisanship. Both sides did that, understand.

So is there consternation about them? There is. Did you have an MTR today? You did. It was a difficult MTR. Of course, it dealt with a problem that does not exist at the Federal level, and it said so in the resolution, that there was not a problem that they were solving, just a sort of a sense that local communities ought to be directed what to do.

Having said that let me go back to the gentleman's question again. You said you had nine amendments. We had zero. So you could say it was 900 percent, 9,000 percent, but whatever you want to say, on H.R. 1 in your Congress and H.R. 1 in our Congress and all those figures, I think, are probably lost on the public, but what is not lost on the public or the press that has covered it extensively, last Congress was the most closed Congress in history, just as the Government being shutdown at the beginning of this Congress was the first time that happened in history, because you didn't get your job done.

But I would tell the leader, I understand the rights of the minority. We want to honor the rights of the minority, and, yes, there is a lot of discussion, but as you know, nothing has been done, and I am sure those discussions will continue.

But I understand the gentleman's point. We used the motion to recommit. You have used the motion to recommit. There is no proposed change currently under consideration.

I tell the gentleman, I have heard that question raised before.

You removed Mr. King from the committees after 10 years of comments, speeches, and support for groups that did not comport with what we said yesterday in terms of rejecting bigotry and prejudice and hate. Ten years.

We have now twice taken action to make clear that hate and prejudice and bigotry are not the policies of this Congress, of this country, and should not be the policy of any of our Members, rhetorically.

Debating policy, having differences of opinion are clear. I don't know whether the gentleman heard my speech on the floor, but I could not, I think, have articulated more forcefully that anti-Semitism is unacceptable,

that anti-Semitism has led to grievous results, unacceptable results, the Holocaust, of course, being the most horrific.

I made that very clear. The resolution made that very clear. And yes, it did include other forms and other objects of hate and prejudice and bigotry.

And I was disappointed that 23 of your Members voted against it. Every one of my Members, without exception, voted for that resolution. So that resolution, I thought, that got over 400 of us, spoke very strongly to our opposition to anti-Semitism, to racism, to sexism, to Islamophobia.

And I haven't seen any resolution on the floor of the House when you were in charge that responded to the President of the United States stoking Islamophobia.

I saw no resolution. I saw no resolution on the floor when the President of the United States made a comment that, well, there are bad people on both sides, in Charlottesville--those holding Swastikas; those who were saying we are not going to allow the Jews to take over; those who had racist epithets and who, in fact, of course, killed one of the participants. I saw no resolution. We ultimately did get to a resolution.

But I would say to my friend, frankly, those of us on our side of the aisle think that the President too often uses words and actions that undermine the sentiment of the resolution that I voted for, that you voted for, and the overwhelming majority of the House voted for saying that is not and should not be the policy of the United States.

I won't go into more specifics, but the gentleman, I am sure, knows that I could.

What is positive is that yesterday some 400-plus of us voted to say to America and to each of our citizens and those who view America as a beacon of liberty and justice that we reject out of hand any comments, any actions that would be recognized by most people as stoking bigotry and prejudice and hate.

So, yes, that language you are talking about, as introduced, was not a final product. The final product came about through a lot of discussions and addressing the hate and bigotry and prejudice that is directed at too many people who are somehow viewed as different.

The remarks to which the gentleman referred were pointed out very clearly as being remarks which had been used through the millennia as ways to diminish the integrity of Jewish citizens and to imply that somehow their support for Israel was an indication of their lack of loyalty to their country. You and I both know that was used for centuries, millennia, to marginalize Jewish citizens and to make them feel unwelcomed and rejected.

So I think the resolution was a good thing for us to do. It passed overwhelmingly. I am sorry that 23 of your Members decided not to vote for it.

Let me go back to the MTRs.

We had a very strong statement that your side offered on anti- Semitism. And you all voted for it; we all voted for it. Not a single Democrat voted against it. And when it came for final passage, I don't recall how many Republicans, but it was the overwhelming majority of your caucus voted against it.

So offering an amendment, having the amendment adopted, which we accepted because we thought that it was important to make that powerful statement against anti-Semitism, we adopted it.

Unfortunately, when it came to the real vote--not the political gotcha vote, but when it came to the real vote--your side all voted against it--or if not all, pretty close.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say I reject out of hand the premise that we didn't speak directly to anti-Semitism in the resolution that was adopted yesterday, period. It spoke strongly to that.

Not only did it speak strongly, but if the gentleman heard my remarks, they were very strong with respect to an absolute rejection of anti-Semitism.

Now, apparently, the problem is we also spoke against racism. We also spoke against xenophobia.

I mentioned the President on xenophobia, the denigration of the dignity

of immigrants who have been so important to this country at the highest levels of our government, the allegations of widespread criminal activity in a broad bush. That resolution yesterday spoke to that.

It spoke about Islamophobia. It spoke about hatred of immigrants, of LGBT members of our society. It spoke against discrimination and hate. And, yes, it spoke directly about anti-Semitism, as it should have.

As I was absolutely committed, and the Members of this House were absolutely committed--save 23. I don't know why that 23 voted against it, but they did, not on our side of the aisle.

And I agree with the gentleman. Hopefully, we can continue to not use this as a political football, as I think it is being used.

And I am not going to cite some of the remarks of the minority leader with respect to Mr. Soros, Mr. Steier or others, Mr. Jordan, Mr. King. There was a difference, Mr. Speaker. We didn't wait 10 years.

Initially, we acted--the entire Democratic leadership--with a very pointed and direct letter that anti-Semitism was not acceptable, period. No confusion.

And within days, we put a suspension bill--which, by the way, the rules are waived on suspension bills. As the gentleman knows, you don't necessarily have to give 72 hours. But there were 72 hours that that was being discussed, and people knew it was being discussed, and the leader--and the whip has referred to that.

But I hope that nobody would diminish what we said yesterday about anti-Semitism, or racism, or any other kind of ism.

Let us not diminish what we did yesterday. I think this was a good week, Mr. Speaker, for the House of Representatives. We spoke about making sure that voting rights were protected for every American, and not only that, protected, but facilitated, made easier to register and to vote so that all Americans could express their opinion on the policies of their country and their State, and their municipality, or whatever office they were voting for.

It was a good day to say that we are going to have redistricting which is not run by the politicians, and I have been one of them that has done it so everybody understands that. Every State, not just a few, would have to have a redistricting process that was fair and balanced, and not just the politicians drawing their own districts.

It was a good day, Mr. Speaker. It was a good week, because we also spoke about making sure that we have campaign finance that discloses to everybody who the contributors are. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that I was here when we considered McCain-Feingold and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate both said: ``You don't need caps. You don't need to limit spending. What you need is disclosure. Let people know who is contributing.''

Well, of course, Citizens United undermined that pretty substantially, and we have millions and millions of dollars nobody knows where it comes from, so this bill did that.

This bill also said that we ought to have better ethics. We ought to not be serving on boards of profit-making corporations while we are making policies that affect them in this House. And, yes, it said the President of the United States, as every President since I have been a Member of Congress which has been since 1981, should disclose their tax returns so that the people know, are they acting in their own interest, or in the people's interest.

We called this bill the For the People Act, for voting rights, for fair registration, for campaign finance that is honest and above board and transparent, and for good ethical behavior by us and by the President.

So I disagree with my friend, the minority whip. I think this was a good week. In some ways, it was a tough week, but it was a good week. I am very pleased that not only did we adopt that resolution against hate, and prejudice, and bigotry against all, including and very pointedly, starting out with anti-Semitism.

We also adopted a bill that will give more trust and faith to the American people in their government and more access to the ballot box. It was a good bill. It was a good week.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. Speaker, why in his comment did he mention three Americans of Jewish descent but didn't mention the Koch brothers, and by the way, didn't mention the gentleman from Nevada?

Exactly. The three Jews that were mentioned were all Democrats, and the Koch brothers were not mentioned.

I agree with that.

Of course not.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I urge both sides, when the leader of our Government says things that clearly offend minority groups of all stripes that we speak out. I think that is a good thing for us to do, and I am sure that we can be joined together to do exactly that.

I would also ask the gentleman to perhaps observe the extraordinary diversity representing all of America on this side of the aisle. You ought not to be surprised that in representing that diversity, they bring forward issues that we tried to also address in a resolution that said hate, bigotry, and prejudice is wrong. It is un-American.

Unfortunately, none of us have ancestors today that were free from pursuing hateful policies. We ought not to be, as I said on the floor, too sanctimonious. We are a Nation that allowed slavery and went through an extraordinary Civil War to eliminate that blot on ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.''

So, yes, we have a lot of diversity on our side of the aisle, and that diversity is representing its people. They are Americans, but they represent a number of Americans who are perceived as different than other Americans for some designation, either because of race, gender, color, sexual orientation, or immigrant. You name it.

Yes, we have a lot of diversity on this side of the aisle, and we tried to respect that diversity and make sure that every American knew when they read this resolution; we are against discrimination against anybody.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his yielding and his comments.

Let me simply add, we can honor that by our words and our actions today, and tomorrow, and every day thereafter.

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor today to talk about a sporting event--an event that captures the attention of people not only in my State of Alaska but around the country and around the globe. I am talking about the ``Last Great Race on Earth.'' It is a pretty fancy, big, and impressive title for what really happens--the ultimate challenge with man, woman, and dogs--a 1,100-mile sled dog race from Anchorage to Nome, up north.

I will share with you all a picture that was taken at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday morning, March 13. Obviously, it is the middle of the night. I know everybody thinks that it is always dark in Alaska this time of year, but it is not. This is at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13. It is pitch dark. You can't really see it in this picture, but the snow is coming down. The wind is blowing. It is pretty dang cold. Temperatures are down in the teens, but you have some wind blowing. So it gets your attention.

What you are seeing here is Front Street in Nome, AK. At 3:30 in the morning, the street is packed. It is lined with hundreds of people who are cheering loudly. These are people from all over the country--fans, friends, and family who have come from across Alaska and flown into Nome. Some of them chartered an aircraft coming out of the YK Delta. They flew into Nome, a community of about 4,000 people, to witness this moment--to witness the moment that Pete Kaiser, born and raised in Bethel, AK, came into town with eight dogs in harness and came down the street to cross the finish line and claim victory as the 2019 Iditarod champion. He was just 12 minutes ahead of the defending champion, Joar Leifseth Ulsom, who is originally from Norway but who now lives with us in Alaska. This is probably one of the closest Iditarod races we have in some time.

Jessie Royer, of Fairbanks, a friend of my family and a great lady, came in at third place.

When you talk about the ``Last Great Race'' of 1,100 miles across extraordinary terrain, Pete Kaiser took 9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes to complete this--9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes.

Think about how you cover 1,100 miles on the back of a dog sled. Typically, with dogs, when you are moving

really fast, you are moving along at about 10 miles an hour, but you are going over some incredible terrain, and you are doing this not just between 8 and 5, but you are running the trail over the course of days and weeks.

Here is Pete Kaiser. He has just crossed the finish line. He has his hands thrown up in the air in celebration. He hugged his family. He wiped the tears from his face. It is one of those moments that he will always, always remember. The feeling is probably hard to fathom, but for Pete, a young man who grew up in Western Alaska, somebody who is often referred to as an encyclopedia of racing knowledge, somebody who is known in his community for his hard work and dedication, somebody who has now won the Kuskokwim 300 four times in a row--a race qualifier for the Iditarod--and for his family and his extended family who supported him, who cheered him along the way, and for so many in the community of Bethel who joined together, who chartered an aircraft to get there in time to see him finish and celebrate this achievement, this truly is a victory that is an accomplishment and an extraordinary highlight to a remarkable career.

So the excitement that comes when you are finishing a grueling race like this and when you and your team come across the line is something that you really have to experience to understand. There is fatigue, but there is great excitement with the accomplishment.

It is not just the accomplishment of the musher, because the musher would still be sitting back in Willow were it not for these extraordinary animals, which truly, truly live to run. They live to do this race and others like it.

Nothing beats the finish here. I don't have very many opportunities where I can actually be at the finish because you never quite know when it will be. Usually, race winners come in between 8, 9, or 10 days. So if you are starting on a Sunday, usually we finish during the week when we are back here working. So I haven't had the opportunity to be on that end, but I have had multiple opportunities--in fact, this is an opportunity that I do not miss--to be at the front end and to be at the start of the Iditarod.

So just 9 days prior, this is me and Pete Kaiser at the start of the Iditarod. He is looking pretty fresh in this picture. He probably didn't look quite so fresh after 9 days on the trail.

We gathered in downtown Anchorage with 52 mushers--that is how many mushers ran this year--and all of their teams. With the rules change this year, there were 14 dogs to a team at the start. But you are in downtown Anchorage, and you not only have your teams who are going to be moving you through the first day of the ceremonial start but you have your other dogs. So you have dogs, you have mushers, you have people, and you have kids. It is like a carnival atmosphere.

This year I had an opportunity to do something I have never done before, and that was to drive the tag sled of one of our four-time champions, Jeff King.

During the ceremonial start, you go from Anchorage to Campbell Creek Airstrip. It is an 11-mile portion of the trail. I can say that I did 1 percent of the Iditarod by driving on the back of this tag sled. I didn't have the dogs directly in front of me, but I still had to operate the brake on the sled. I still had to lean into the curves and still had the opportunity to experience just the majesty of the dogs in front of you and the way the mushers communicate with their team.

The Iditarod is a race like none other, and it is perhaps made so because of the challenge of the terrain that this race goes through. The journey that led the mushers through these valleys and across these mountain ranges is hard. It is challenging. The weather is not unlike the terrain. It was up, and it was down. We had areas along the trail where it was raining, and then we had areas where we had freezing temperatures. You had wind. You had snow. You had ice. So when you think about how much work it is to get through the burled arch, it is really a tremendous accomplishment to be able to say that you have completed this race.

As we speak, there are still dozens more mushers and their teams that are out along that trail working to complete it.

You might think that this is something where there is a significant prize, and that is what motivates people. Well, if you are successful and you finish the Iditarod, you will be able to claim $1,149. Your dogs are going to eat up that money pretty quickly. Most of this is so much for the love of mushing and the love of the animals.

People always ask: Well, how hard is it? What kind of challenges do the mushers encounter along the way?

It is everything from encounters with animals, whether it is a moose along the trail--and we have seen some bad outcomes from that--to just physical obstructions along the trail.

Richie Diehl of Aniak ran smack into a tree--literally, smack into a tree. He hit his face on the trail near Nikolai. He said he was kind of cruising along and he had his head turned. It was still dark. He looked forward and, bam, he ran into a tree.

He probably could have ducked if he noticed it, but he didn't, and then he was kind of knocked off. He did an all-out sprint to chase his team down and dove to catch his sled. He lined up the dog team, again got everybody organized, grabbed some toilet paper, some wet wipes, and started mushing down the trail as he wiped the bleeding off his skin. You are just not stopping. You are not stopping for yourself. For your dogs, if your dogs are injured, you absolutely stop.

Anja Radano of Talkeetna fell in a large hole in the ice crossing the infamous Dalzell ice hole. While she is making her way across the frozen river, her sled slipped into the hole. She falls into the water, and she injured her ribs and her legs. She had been having a little bit of a struggle along the trail, but she said she would not have been able to get out of the waterhole there without the help of her dog team.

Then there is Linwood Fiedler, who was on his way to Nikolai, and his entire dog team got separated from the sled when his biner broke, but, fortunately for him, there was a fellow musher coming up, Mats Pettersson, who shows up on the trail shortly after. He helped him get his whole team, and potentially--potentially--saved the lives of these dogs.

You have trail conditions that are hard this year, and part of the trail, quite honestly, because of the warmer weather we have seen, they were what we call tusset, which is just mounds of hard, matted grass in just kind of a bumper strip all the way going through. It is very hard on sleds. There were a couple of mushers who took 30 hours to go through this one stretch, and they ultimately decided enough and scratched.

You have the terrain. You also have the fact that you are going all out for days on end, and limited sleep has its effect. We heard some comments from Lance Mackey, who is a four-time Iditarod champ. He was talking about how he was imagining things on the trail, a little bit of a hallucination, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, thinking he was hearing people say, ``Go, Lance,'' as he was making the run between Rohn and Nikolai. You have to do all you can to keep yourself awake because you are in the back of a sled.

Remember, you are not sitting down. This is not all comfy and cozy for 1,100 miles. You are standing on the back of the sled. Oftentimes, you are running along or walking along behind. You are helping your dogs move through. You have to constantly replenish yourself and your dogs, and that means taking trail snacks and drinking nonstop.

There is always a question about what everybody eats. Aliy Zirkle, who has come in fourth, attributes her diet to rolled oat bars made out of peanut butter, banana, sesame seeds, and other things because they are easy, and they don't get frozen. You have to think about things like how do I eat while I am still moving and things don't get frozen.

They do have an opportunity to get some good meals. They get wined and dined, if you will, when they get to a checkpoint. When you are in a village, you have the kids come out, and everybody is looking for autographs. They want to say hello to them. They want to find out what position everybody is in, but they also, oftentimes, get a warm meal like a stew, but before the humans eat--before the mushers eat, the dogs have to eat. The dogs have to

be cared for. The dogs have to be taken care of first because life on the trail is taking care of the dogs. They are making sure they have a warm and a comfortable place to rest, are fed, and they are watered. They are checked out by the veterinarians.

This is one thing that is pretty interesting. People think, well, you are just going into a town. A lot of these places, it is not a town. It is not like you can just go to a tap and fill up your dog bowls for water for your dogs. Now, your dogs have been on the trail for several hours. They are thirsty. They have been eating snow along the way, but they are thirsty. They need to be hydrated.

If you are out on the trail and you have 14 or 15 dogs, what do you do? You melt snow or you melt ice. Where is the stove? Well, you have your little camp stove that you have in the back of your sled. Think about it. You are sleep-deprived, you are hungry, you are tired, but you have to take care of your dogs first. You put your straw down to bed them down. You check their feet, and you put dry booties on them. You melt the water. You have to then heat up the dog food that has been dropped along the way in places where you know your team is going to be stopping. You could be working with your dogs for a good hour before you can even start thinking about yourself and how you satisfy your hunger, your thirst, your sleep.

It is a pretty amazing race. Again, I am just in awe of the animals. I am in awe of the mushers. I am also in awe of the many, many, many, many people who come to be volunteers for it, this race. Most people have no idea what it takes to pull off a race like this, but I am told there are more volunteers who help us at this race than any other organized race like this in the country.

What we have is a volunteer Air Force, if you will. Those stashes of food I talked about, those don't get there by accident. There is no road to drive them by, so you have pilots who will volunteer to take whatever it is, straw for bedding or big coolers and containers of food, to the various checkpoints. They will drop them off so they are pre-positioned out there, but those guys, they are all volunteers.

At the banquet in Nome, at the end of this week, the people who put on the banquet are volunteers not necessarily from Nome but from all over the country. The last time I was up there, I went back in the kitchen to say thank you to the men and women who were working there. They all had their little nametags, and they say where they are from. There is a whole group who was from a little town in Florida. They had all taken a week's vacation from their work to come up and just be there for the Iditarod, to welcome the mushers coming in.

I asked: What do you do here as a volunteer? They said: We are in charge of rolls and butter. Ok. But this is how much of a commitment they have made to this race. They have been doing it for years. They are a group who just comes up from Florida, they cash in their miles, they take leave from work, and this is where they take their vacation because they realize this is such an extraordinary happening. You have volunteers from all over the country, from Canada, and the communities along the trails.

The veterinarians. There are 50 veterinarians along the trail because at the checkpoints, the dogs must be checked by the vets. We are going to take care of those animals and make sure--so you have veterinarians; you have dog handlers; and you have vet techs who come from across the Nation. They are there volunteering their time to be at this extraordinary event.

Again, the pilots who fly to drop the supplies are volunteers. They act as race judges. They aid in the event of an injury or a lost dog. The list goes on and on and on in terms of those who volunteer. Ultimately, it simply could not happen were it not for the volunteers who put the extra mile in to make it happen.

So today we are celebrating and acknowledging the efforts of all those who pitched in to help, the fans who cheered on the teams throughout the race, the communities that served as hosts along the way, and all the mushers and all their teams who put their hearts and put their souls into this really tough but incredible expedition.

We, in Alaska, are all congratulating Pete Kaiser on his win. He is the only musher from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta since the inaugural Iditarod back in 1973. He is the first Yup'ik Iditarod champion in the history of the Iditarod race. He is an incredibly humble man. He is a great role model. He is an inspiration to his community, and I know they are all exceptionally proud.

After he won, Pete said he hoped his victory would be celebrated not just by the Yup'ik people within his region but by all Native people throughout Alaska.

So, Pete, I think, we are here to tell you that today, Alaskans in the western part of the State, all over the State, including as far away as Washington, DC, are all celebrating and recognizing you and your extraordinary canine athletes.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this week the Senate conveyor belt of President Trump's judicial nominees grinds on. So far, the President and the Senate leader have an unprecedented pace in confirming Federal judges, especially powerful Federal appellate judges. They seem to have no higher priority.

What is a little weird about this is that nearly 90 percent of Trump's appellate judges and both of his Supreme Court Justices are members of the so-called Federalist Society. On the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all are members. Now, that is a little weird.

What is really weird is that through this Federalist Society vehicle, big, special interests are picking Federal judges.

In effect, there are three Federalist Societies. The first one most lawyers know from law school. It is, for the most part, a debating society made up of like-minded aspiring lawyers drawn to conservative ideas and judicial doctrine. They organize seminars and invite academics, judges, and attorneys to speak. That is terrific--no problem there.

The second Federalist Society is the parent organization of the campus debating society--a sort of highbrow think tank seeking to further conservative and libertarian judicial principles. It convenes fancy forums with conservative legal luminaries, from Supreme Court Justices to big-name politicians, to renowned legal scholars. It issues newsletters and produces podcasts and policy recommendations. Through this, they hope to ``reorder priorities within the legal system'' and create a network of members ``that extends to all levels of the legal community.''

I disagree pretty strongly with the system of law they are trying impose, and their funding is suspiciously obscure, but this debate is a fine thing to have--so no objection there either.

Then there is the third Federalist Society. This one doesn't have much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly doesn't operate like your run-of-the-mill Washington think tank. This Federalist Society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that does not care much about conservative principles like judicial restraint or originalism or textualism.

This Federalist Society is the vehicle for powerful, commercial, and industrial interests that seek not simply to ``reorder'' the judiciary but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests. This third Federalist Society understands the fundamental power of the Federal judiciary to rig the system in favor of its donor interests and, as the Kavanaugh confirmation so clearly illustrated, is willing to go to drastic lengths to secure that power.

I am here today to talk about that third Federalist Society.

The story of the third Federalist Society is partly the story of a man named Leonard Leo, the society's executive vice president.

Mr. Leo is now the most influential person shaping America's Federal judiciary. Don't be surprised if you are listening and you have never heard of him. He has never been elected. He is not accountable to any voter. Instead, he is the front man for interests that want to use the Federalist Society and its surrounding network of front groups and PR shops and think tanks to acquire control over our courts.

Renowned court watcher Jeffrey Toobin describes Mr. Leo as ``Trump's subcontractor on the selection of Supreme Court Justices.'' More accurately, Mr. Leo is the subcontractor for a network of big corporate interests and front groups.

In the summer of 2016, it was Leo who delivered the list of potential nominees to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia and the blocking of Merrick Garland. It was Mr. Leo who was involved in the Trump transition, helping to conduct outreach to potential Supreme Court picks, including Neil Gorsuch.

Mr. Leo even orchestrated a $1 million donation to Trump's inauguration.

The role of the Federalist Society has been confirmed by President Trump's own legal counsel, Don McGahn.

McGahn told a Federalist Society gathering in 2017:

Our opponents of judicial nominees frequently claim the

President has outsourced his selection of judges. That is

completely false. I have been a member of the Federalist

Society since law school, still am, so, frankly, it seems

like it's been in-sourced.

Ha-ha, so funny.

The Federalist Society does more than pick the judges. They prepare them. They study the prospective nominees and the Senators who will ask them questions. They gather murder boards for nominees to practice for confirmation hearings.

Mr. Leo is proud of this operation. During the confirmation hearing for Justice Neil Gorsuch, Leo told Toobin, with considerable satisfaction:

You know, the hearings matter so much less than they once

did. We have the tools now to do all the research. We know

everything they have written. We know what they've said.

There are no surprises.

In the Judiciary Committee, we see the result over and over-- meaningless committee hearings where nominees parrot empty words about applying law to fact and respecting precedent. Then, once confirmed and on the bench, those nominees deliver dependably for the partisan and corporate donors behind this Federalist Society operation.

It is bad enough that judicial selection has been outsourced--or insourced--to a partisan private entity. Worse is how nontransparent this all is. It is hard to find out who is behind it. It is a very nontransparent problem, but here is what we have been able to piece together. The evidence is that the Federalist Society is funded by massive, secret contributions from corporate rightwing groups that have big agendas before the courts.

In 2017 the Federalist Society took $5.5 million via an entity called DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust has as its sole purpose to launder the identities of donors to other groups so that Americans don't know who the real backers are of the groups. It is an identity removal machine for big donors. Through the hard work of investigators, journalists, and researchers, we have learned that the Koch brothers are among the largest--if not the largest--contributors to DonorsTrust. The Federalist Society's total annual budget is about $20 million. So this $5.5 million in funding, laundered through DonorsTrust, provides more than a quarter of its entire budget.

Other shadowy corporate and rightwing organizations also donate millions to the Federalist Society. In 1 year, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a rightwing trust, gave over $3 million to the Federalist Society. Koch Industries, several other Koch-network foundations and trusts, and nearly a dozen wholly anonymous donors have given over $100,000 each to the Federalist Society. Tax documents from 2014, uncovered by the New York Times, show a donation of more than $2 million from the Mercer family, the secretive donors who helped start Breitbart News and bankrolled the Trump campaign.

How do we know that these groups have a big agenda before the courts? We know that because they also fund a fleet of front groups that file so-called amicus briefs before courts signaling what results the big donors want. The Kochs, the Bradleys, the Mercers, and their ilk spend millions to pursue an anti-regulation, anti-union, and anti-environment agenda, and they use the Federalist Society to stock the judiciary with judges who will rule their way.

The Federalist Society, as a 501(c)(3) organization, is supposed to stay out of politics. The Judicial Crisis Network is a 501(c)(4) organization which can, and does, get involved in politics. The Judicial Crisis Network is led by a disciple of Leonard Leo's, a former clerk for ultraconservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Judicial Crisis Network has been described in conservative circles as ``Leonard Leo's PR organization--nothing more and nothing less.'' When it comes time to muscle a judicial nominee through Senate confirmation, the Judicial Crisis Network swings into action. Media campaigns, attack ads, and big spending--that is the Judicial Crisis Network's world.

Like its Federalist Society partner, the Judicial Crisis Network gets massive sums of dark money, and it spends massively too. It spent $7 million on campaigns to block Merrick Garland from getting a hearing on his nomination to the Supreme Court, and it spent $10 million to support the nomination--blockade enabled--of Neil Gorsuch--and $7 million and $10 million--and it received one anonymous donation of $17.9 million. One donor gave $17.9 million to this operation to influence our judiciary. I will say that we need to know who that donor was. Because we are in the minority, we are going to be spurned and rejected if we try to get that information. On the House side, where they have the power of subpoena, we need to pursue that. It ought to be public information when one donor can spend nearly $18 million to influence the selection of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Judicial Crisis Network then got $23 million from something called the Wellspring Committee. You will have to forgive some of this because it is very obscure. These are peculiar groups that aren't involved in any ordinary business or regular activity. The Wellspring Committee is a Virginia-based entity with ties to--you guessed it--Leonard Leo, and the Judicial Crisis Network then promised to spend as much on the Kavanaugh nomination as they had for Gorsuch.

Add to this mix of peculiarly funded and obscure organizations the BH Group, a shell corporation that gave $1 million to Donald Trump's inaugural. The BH Group received over $1 million in something called consulting fees in 2017 from something else called the Judicial Education Project. Who is Judicial Education Project? The Judicial Education Project is--guess what--the 501(c)(3) side of the Judicial Crisis Network. Why does a shell corporation give money to the Trump inaugural and also serve as a consultant to a legal organization fighting for the confirmation of specific Justices? What consulting did they do? Was there any consulting done at all? Great questions. Leonard Leo probably knows the answer. In 2018, he told the Federal Elections Commission that the BH Group was his employer.

While this apparatus may be complex and difficult to track, its goal is simple. Don McGahn explained it succinctly: ``Regulatory reform and judicial selection are . . . deeply connected.'' Translated, that means that the Federalist Society's goal is to pack the judiciary through judicial selection with judges who will deliver what is called regulatory reform, an extreme anti-regulation, anti-union, anti- environment agenda for those corporatist Federalist Society funders.

Let me give you two examples.

The Senate just confirmed Neomi Rao to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Rao comes right out of the deep bog of special interest dark money. Her bio appears on the Federalist Society website, along with the list of 26 times she has been featured at Federalist Society events--26 auditions, as one might describe them.

This is a person confirmed for the DC Court of Appeals who has never been a judge. She has never even tried a case. What has she done? She served as the Trump administration's point person for tearing down Federal regulations as head of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Among her greatest hits was taking one of Scott Pruitt's proposed regulatory rollbacks for the climate-change driving- gas methane from the oil and gas industry and tipping that regulation even further in favor of fossil fuel polluters. Out-Pruitting Scott Pruitt for the fossil fuel industry is hard to do. That may have been another audition for the court.

Rao also funded the so-called Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, which is devoted to conjuring ways to roll back as many regulations affecting these corporations as possible and is funded by these same secretive groups.

I asked Ms. Rao about the funders of her center at the Scalia Law School. She claimed in her answers--and, by the way, I will add that these were questions for the record--written questions that she had time to consider, review, and respond to. This was not a surprise attack of an unprepared witness at a hearing. She had weeks to answer. She claimed in her answers that, to the best of her knowledge, her organization had not received any money from the Federalist Society, from Koch Family Foundations, or from anonymous funders.

Well, that was simply not true. A Virginia open records request revealed

that an anonymous donor and the Charles Koch Foundation donated $30 million earmarked specially for her organization. Guess whose interests she has been conveyed onto the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to protect.

Now consider the case of Kisor v. Wilkie, a case currently before the Supreme Court. It hasn't gotten much attention. On its face, it is about an obscure administrative law doctrine, but Kisor has been described as a ``stalking horse for much larger game''--whether administrative agencies can continue to have the independence they need to regulate in the public interests. At stake could be the power of the EPA to protect our air and water, of the Department of Labor to continue to protect workers in the workplace, and of the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors against financial fraud.

Many corporations hate regulation. The problem is regulations are pretty popular. Politicians may talk about cutting redtape, but their constituents really like clean air and clean water. They want safe workplaces and the peace of mind that their investments are sound.

That is where judges like Neomi Rao and cases like Kisor come in. For decades we have operated in a system where Congress passes laws and administrative Agencies fill in the details and implement those laws using their regulatory power and their time, patience, and expertise to deal with complex problems. It has worked extremely well. Cases like Kisor, however, slowly chip away at that system, shifting more and more power from expert regulatory agencies to courts and to courts filled with more and more judges like Neomi Rao.

The Daily Beast influence reporter Jay Michaelson wrote:

Sometimes thought of as a legal association, the Federalist

Society is actually a large right-wing network that grooms

conservative law students still in law school (sponsoring

everything from free burrito lunches to conferences,

speakers, and journals), links them together, mentors them,

finds them jobs, and eventually places them in courts and in

government.

Within this Federalist Society is this operation I have described, funded by dark money and designed to remake our judiciary on behalf of a distinct group of very wealthy and powerful, anonymous funders. Add to that the dark money funding the so-called Judicial Crisis Network. Add to that the dark money funding the amicus briefs telling these judges what to do. Then look at the outcomes when the Federalist Society-selected appointees get a majority on the court. It is not a pretty sight.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that I know is on the minds of many, many Americans, especially folks who are in the middle class or who are struggling to get to the middle class, and that is the issue of childcare.

I think most of us in this Chamber agree that all children born in this country have a light inside of them. For some children, that light will shine very brightly without a lot of help as they have innate abilities or they have circumstances they are born into for which they don't need a lot of help from public policy or from programs or from legislation. Yet there are a lot of children who have a light inside of them that can burn to the full measure of its potential if we do our job. When I say ``our job,'' I mean the job of elected officials. I think it is the job of every elected official at every level of government and of those who work with them to do everything they can to make sure that the light inside of every child burns as brightly as at least the full measure of his or her potential.

We know, just by way of one example in the context of childcare, that affordable, high-quality childcare enables parents to work so they can support their families. Also, quality, affordable healthcare helps give children the early learning experiences they need to develop and succeed in school. When children learn more and it is early in life, they will earn more much later in their lives. That connection between learning and earning isn't just a rhyme; all the research shows that there is a direct connection. When that child learns at a younger age because of early education and quality childcare and so many other strategies, we are all better off. Not only is that child better off in his or her family, but we are all better off. We will have a higher skilled workforce; we will have a more productive workforce; and we will grow and be able to out-compete any country in the world if we invest in early learning.

Unfortunately, we know the challenges. The cost of childcare has increased by 25 percent in just the last decade, which has created significant

financial strains for those same middle-class families. According to data from Child Care Aware, which is in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the average cost of full-time, center-based childcare is about $11,560 for an infant and about $8,712 for a 4-year-old. This is about 12 percent of a married couple's annual income in Pennsylvania, and it is nearly 46 percent of a single parent's annual income--46 percent. That is not sustainable. That is not a number that anyone should be satisfied with. Frankly, I am not sure that 12 percent of the annual income for a two-parent family is sustainable. We should get that number into the single digits. The bill I will talk about in a moment seeks to do that.

Just this past week, when we were all back in our States and were able to travel for the better part of a week, I had the chance to get to six childcare centers in cities across Pennsylvania, and I spoke to more than 25 families who shared their stories about their struggles. The struggle, of course, in this case, was the struggle to afford high- quality childcare.

I was in Philadelphia, Pottstown, Gettysburg, Verona, Erie, and Reading. If you had charted those cities on a map, you would have literally gone from the furthest corner of the southeastern part of our State, which is Philadelphia, to the most remote, northwestern corner of the State, in Erie. I went to communities below Erie and to the northeast as well--so literally every corner of the State. Across those communities, we heard a lot of the same challenges, a lot of similar stories.

For example, one single mom in Philadelphia told us recently what, I think, is emblematic of what is happening in a lot of communities:

I struggle every day to make ends meet. I am not eligible

for any public assistance, so I juggle my bills just to make

ends meet. I have to become very creative in making sure that

I pay my mortgage, utilities, and childcare.

Then she goes on from there to write:

Then I decide if I can pay for anything in addition to

that, such as healthcare, food, necessities for my child or

my home. I knew I would not be able to afford childcare.

Luckily, I have the support of loved ones in my life who

support me when I fall short. Most do not have this.

Then this single mother goes on to write the following:

All of my family and friends struggle to pay for childcare

because we are middle class individuals who make too much

money to qualify for childcare assistance or any other

programs, but we also don't make enough money to actually

afford childcare out of pocket. Oftentimes, we have to choose

a childcare based off of a price and not based off of the

quality of education they will provide our children at the

childcare facility.

Notice what she wrote at the end there. She is making a decision about the childcare she will provide for her children based off only one consideration--the price. It is not based on the quality.

Therein lies the problem that we have to try to solve. If we have millions and millions of families--middle class or who are struggling to get to the middle class--making childcare determinations based solely on the cost, we will all be in trouble over time. That is not what we should be doing. It doesn't mean the price will not be a challenge for so many, and it doesn't mean the price will be irrelevant, but if they are not able to find quality childcare that is affordable, that child will be worse off over time; that community will be; and the rest of us will be. We will not have the high-skilled workforce that we need. We will not be able to compete and win the battle across the world that we need to win, and that is the battle to create the highest skilled workforce in the world and to maintain that advantage.

When I was in Gettysburg this past week, I heard from two parents who had adopted two children, one of whom has significant medical issues and has been in and out of the hospital. They have struggled to find a childcare center that is able to handle the behavioral and developmental needs of their children. The father, who is a small business owner, has had to make adjustments to his work schedule and sell off some of his business assets to make ends meet. He has had to choose between paying for his own health insurance or that of his children. He has had to give up his own insurance to ensure there will never be a lapse in coverage for his children. He makes too much money to qualify for childcare subsidies but lives with constant anxiety over his financial situation.

Part of his testimony and that of his wife was very emotional because of the stress and the pressure on that family--the stress and pressure of the healthcare itself and also of the stress and pressure because of the cost of childcare.

I was grateful he was willing to share his story. In a public setting, it is not easy to talk about the burdens that you live with every day in order to push a policy forward so as to make life better for another family. Like a lot of these parents, I was grateful they were willing to help us better understand those struggles so that we could better propose good policy.

We also heard from a single mom who works long hours as she tries to advance and work her way up the corporate ladder. Prior to her current circumstance, she was waitressing and barely making $11,000 a year. When she was hardly making any income, she was able to make ends meet with the assistance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and CCIS, which is our State's childcare program that helps families. Now she is in a different circumstance. She works full time--an achievement that she is quite proud of. She is no longer eligible, though, for these programs because her income has gone up.

The good news is her income went up, and she has a full-time job. The bad news is that it knocks her out of eligibility. She must pay the full cost of childcare and be away from her children. She doesn't know what she will do during the summer as she will need to increase the time her children are in care, which will result in higher costs when her children are on summer break. So that is the dilemma she faces-- working harder and getting a full-time job but then not being able to afford help. She needs help from us as well.

I spoke with a mother in Verona, PA, in Allegheny County, who has an 11-month-old child who is in childcare now. Though both she and her husband work full time, they struggle to afford care. They would like to grow their family, but, again, the cost of childcare is their main reason for not doing so. We know that childcare helps children grow and learn, that it helps parents work and provide for their families, and that it helps employers retain a productive workforce. Yet families across the country are unable to afford care. That is why it is so important that we increase Federal investments in early learning and childcare.

For example, in fiscal year 2018, the Childcare and Development Block Grant program was funded at $5.27 billion here in Washington. That was an 83-percent increase--the largest single increase in the history of the program. In that same year--the last budget year, the last appropriations year--Head Start received a little more than $9.8 billion, and that was $610 million more than the program got in 2017.

Both of those were good results. It doesn't happen every day in Washington, we know. These historic, bipartisan investments were continued in the last fiscal year. So there was an increase in this last fiscal year. It was nowhere near the increase of the prior year, but there were extra dollars to sustain funding. These investments are already making an impact in States like Pennsylvania and across our country, but there is so much more unmet need and so much more work to be done. So it is good news on the block grants, but, of course, that is not the whole story on childcare.

I am pushing for both increased funding for the next fiscal year--the one we are working on now, 2020--as well as two bills that will make high-quality childcare accessible and affordable for low- and middle- income families. The first is the Childcare for Working Families Act, and the second is the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Enhancement Act. I will discuss them in that order.

The Childcare for Working Families Act would first provide direct financial assistance to working parents to help pay for childcare and early learning to ensure that no parents would pay more than 7 percent of their household incomes for childcare if they earn less than 150 percent of the State's median income.

These numbers change between median household income and median

family income, but if you are just looking at the median household income in Pennsylvania, it is about $57,000. If you do 150 percent of that, you will be into the eighties, roughly. We don't know where the line would be drawn for certain State by State, but if we can come up with a way to keep costs below 7 percent for folks who are in that income range--say, roughly, in the low eighties down--we can help these families do two things: go to work while providing childcare for their children that is quality childcare and also be able to afford it.

The second part of the bill--and it is, basically, three parts--will be universal access to high-quality preschool programs for 3- and 4- year-olds.

The third part would be to improve workforce compensation by ensuring that all childcare workers are paid a living wage and that early childhood educators are provided parity with elementary schoolteachers who have similar credentials and experience. So there are three parts to that bill--childcare help, early learning help with preschool, and paying the workforce more.

People in both parties say it all the time: We care about our children, and we care about our seniors. But sometimes the folks who provide care to both groups of Americans--those who provide care and early learning to children and those who provide skilled care in nursing homes and other settings to seniors--are among the lowest paid workers in our society. So we say we prioritize those Americans, and we don't lift them up with the kind of workforce that they sometimes need.

The second bill I will talk about--and then I will wrap up--I will soon reintroduce with Congressman Davis. It is a proposal to improve and expand an existing tax credit which we know as the child and dependent care tax credit, not to be confused with the child tax credit, the tax credit you may have eligibility for if you have a child. This one focuses on child care and dependent care.

This bill would help families pay for childcare expenses by doing the following: first, increasing the maximum amount of the credit from just over 1,000 bucks--about $1,050--to $3,000 per child, and it could go up as high as 6,000 if you have more than one child, making the full tax credit available to most working families with incomes up to $120,000 a year.

Now, under the current law, that credit starts to lose its value once you hit only $15,000 of income--not that high of an income level. By raising that number, you are going to get a lot more middle-class families that will benefit, as well as some trying to get to the middle class.

The third part of the bill would ensure that lower income families are better able to benefit from the credit by making it fully refundable.

You have this strange dynamic where folks are working and they have an income, but the income is rather limited and the credit is not refundable. So they don't get anything back from that credit. So it isn't worth much to them in many cases.

The last part of the bill will retain the value over time by indexing the benefits of this child and dependent care tax credit and raise those thresholds based upon inflation.

In conclusion, I think it is pretty simple. All children deserve the chance to learn and succeed, regardless of where they are born or regardless of their family's income. That is why it is so important to make sure that all families have access to high-quality, affordable childcare and early learning. Together, these proposals will help to bring us closer to that reality and, I would argue, closer to meeting our obligation as elected officials at every level of government--this being the Federal level in the Congress, the Senate and the House, meeting our obligation to make sure that the light inside of every child burns to the full measure and shines to the full measure of its potential.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there is so much going on. So I will be addressing several topics today: healthcare, climate change, Mr. Mueller's report, and Puerto Rico.

Healthcare

Mr. President, two nights ago, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Barr decided to escalate their 2-year war against healthcare to a whole new level. They declared that the entire Affordable Care Act, and the healthcare for tens of millions of Americans and protections for more than 100 million, is unconstitutional and ought to be eliminated.

Now, the President wants to go back to repeal and replace again? Make our day. The Republicans here in the Senate tried over and over to deal with repeal and replace. They couldn't because they have no replacement. The American people spoke loud and clear in the November 2018 elections and addressed the Republican antics by defeating them resoundingly. The American people resoundingly rejected the Republican plan of repeal and replace for healthcare. In fact, very few Republican Senators would embrace it when they were running as candidates.

Indeed, if the Republican Party wants to be, in Donald Trump's words, ``the Party of healthcare,'' God help the middle class. God save the middle class. God save people with disabilities. God save the hundreds of millions with preexisting conditions.

If the administration had its way, the elimination of the Affordable Care Act would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage through Medicaid expansions. It would strike protections for hundreds of millions, even people who get coverage through their employer. It would tell college students and graduates aged 21 to 26 that they could no longer be on their parents' healthcare.

Let's not forget that this decision would impose billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. Does the Republican Party really want to raise the price for senior citizens when they buy drugs? That is what they are doing. That is what President Trump is doing. I wasn't at the lunch where the President talked about this, but I didn't hear any reports of any Republican in that room rejecting what the President said when he said repeal and replace. This Republican Party is the Party of healthcare? Come on, now.

You can't undo all the healthcare for tens of millions, the protections for preexisting conditions for hundreds of millions, the drug costs for tens of millions of seniors, the protections for millions of young college graduates,

and say you are for healthcare. You just can't.

Compounding the injury, the President's latest budget wants to cut more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. In doing so, the President is breaking his promise, blatantly and uncaringly. He doesn't care about what he promised people. He is breaking his promise to the American people that he would do no such thing. This is the party of healthcare? The Department of Justice's decision is a moral and institutional outrage. Not only would it harm Americans, but it would undermine the rule of law.

Today I am announcing a new plan--a new way for my colleagues to show that they mean what they say. I am introducing a simple amendment to the pending appropriations bill we are considering here in the Senate. It will very simply prohibit the Department of Justice from using any funding to litigate the downfall of ACA in the circuit court. Let's see how all of our Republican colleagues who said they don't want to take away protections for preexisting conditions, who said they don't want to take away healthcare for millions, and who said they want to lower seniors' drug costs vote on this.

Will the leader do what he has been so characteristic of doing in the majority and block a chance for this amendment? Will any Republican on the other side stand up and say: Don't block it, Mr. Leader; we have to protect the American people's healthcare.

We shall see.

My Republican friends, you are going to have the chance this afternoon or when they vote on this bill to show us which side you are on.

Climate Change

Mr. President, the Senate finally held the Republican leader's promised political stunt vote on the issue of climate change and the results did not make the Republicans happy. The stunt was exposed for what it was. The whole issue of climate change--for the first time, really--was debated here and turned on our Republican colleagues. It became clear to the American people that our Republican colleagues have no plan for climate change.

We have heard what they are against. We haven't heard a peep about a comprehensive plan that they are for. The attempt by the Republicans to make a mockery of the issue completely backfired. Leader McConnell was forced to answer some questions that he has ducked for a very long time. Whether or not Leader McConnell intended it, the fact is, at the very least, that this Chamber is doing something it hasn't done in years. It held an actual debate on the topic of climate change.

McConnell's stunt, again, boomeranged on him and his colleagues, and they finally had to discuss this issue rather than do what they have liked to do for the last 5 years and sweep it under the rug.

Yesterday, the day before, today, and continuing in the future, we ask our Republican colleagues three simple questions to which they owe an answer to their constituents. First, do you believe climate change is real? Second, do you believe climate change is caused by human activity? And third, do you believe Congress has to act immediately to deal with this problem?

We are finally getting some answers, thanks to McConnell's trick that he eventually played on himself. No less than Leader McConnell was asked by the press yesterday afternoon at his Ohio Clock press camp if he believes in climate change, and he said he believes it is real and he believes it is caused by human activity. Well, there is one more step if you believe all that: What is your answer--not what you are against but what you are for?

I want to commend Senators Roberts, Alexander, and Murkowski. They came to the floor and stated unequivocally and clearly that climate change is real and caused by humans. Make no mistake, in this glacial atmosphere controlled by the Republicans, when it comes to climate change, this is real progress, but, of course, it is not close to enough.

As to the third question, Leader McConnell offered no solution. All we got was a sham vote that he voted against. So I ask Leader McConnell: What is your plan? Some Republicans now seem to admit the challenges of climate change. OK, that is good. Now, what is your solution?

Turning the Senate floor into a campaign ad studio is not a solution to climate change, nor is it very effective even for their own purposes. Several Senators seemed to suggest that this problem can simply be solved by funding for more research. I support funding for research. It should be part of any climate plan. Yet I say to my friends--particularly, those from coal States--that is not going to solve the problem. Dealing with coal sequestration and coal technology will, at best, solve 1 percent of the problem. So I say to my friends: What about the other 99 percent, because 1 percent isn't enough? Temperatures will still go up. The oceans will still rise. The terrible kinds of disaster--flooding, tornadoes, and wildfires--that we have had will continue. To simply say that you are doing some research into how to deal with coal is not close to solving the problem.

Yesterday was a golden opportunity for this Chamber to come together and show the American people that Republicans are serious about tackling the threat. I asked to create a bipartisan select committee on climate change. Let's get some of the people who are most interested in this issue from different ideological stripes and from different places in the country to come together and come up with a solution. Of course, once again, the Republican leader blocked that genuine attempt. Unfortunately, my good friend, the junior Senator from Wyoming, objected when we asked for this. Instead, the Senate wasted the American people's time on a ridiculous charade featuring a sham vote that fooled no one.

Read the press today. Read the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday's vote on the Republican version of the Green New Deal was not just a cynical ploy--although it was--it was the ultimate ``tell'' that Republicans, for all their talk, have no real plan to combat climate change, no real plan on healthcare, and no real plan on climate change--just a lot of political stunts.

I am glad that finally, though--this is the good news here--some of my colleagues are starting to see the light and admit that it is real and admit that it is caused by human activity. Now, they need to put their money where their mouth is and work with us to take action that matches the scale of the problem. If our colleagues refuse to join us on a bipartisan basis in creating this select committee, we Democrats aren't going to wait. We will take action on our own.

Later today, we will be announcing our own path. We are going on offense on climate change, keeping a spotlight on this issue and making sure that this Chamber keeps debating this most urgent issue of our day.

We cannot play politics with our children's future any longer. I have a new grandson. By the time he grows up, I don't want the waters to be rising, the climate to be changing, and the whole world totally discombobulated so he can't live a good and happy life. We should all feel that way.

Avoiding the problem, whether it is because special interests are saying to avoid it--the Koch brothers, coal industry, oil industry, and everyone else--is not serving our country well.

Puerto Rico

Mr. President, the Republicans and the White House are refusing to make several minor changes to the disaster bill under consideration today--changes that will help Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Maria a year and a half ago-- devastation we haven't probably seen in any other part of our country. It is reported that nearly $91 billion of damage was done by the hurricane.

Puerto Rico is still struggling to recover. These are American citizens. Let's not forget that. These are not people from some foreign land. Yet it has been publicly reported that the President has told his staff to find ways to limit Federal dollars from going to Puerto Rico. It was even reported that at yesterday's lunch with Republicans, the President complained that Puerto Rico has been getting too much aid. He said he ``doesn't want another single dollar going to the island,'' even though he has held up the dollars that Democrats and Republicans voted for.

We help Americans when there is a disaster. We don't pick and choose because they may not vote for us--or

vote at all--or because we don't like the elected official. These are people who are hurting.

What the President is doing with Puerto Rico is disgraceful but typical of his view to divide and pick winners and losers. What the President is doing is unacceptable and un-American.

I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table, to accept the commonsense changes we have proposed to help the territories recover-- the same proposals that passed the House--and to help us pass a disaster package that addresses the needs not of some but of all disaster survivors and that addresses the needs of all Americans who are affected, not just those he happens to like. That is not what any President before has done. That is not what America does.

Mueller Report

Mr. President, finally, I want to say a few words on the report by Special Counsel Mueller.

From the start, the Democrats have argued that nothing short of full transparency will satisfy the American people's right to know what happened during Russia's attack on our election. That is why it is unacceptable that Mr. Barr, who reached his initial conclusions quickly--in 48 hours--now needs several weeks, he says, to review the report, and there are reports that he may now only release a summary of that finding.

First, let me talk about the time.

Attorney General Barr moved like a hare to get out the summary he wrote with the purpose of exonerating the President. He is now moving like a tortoise to issue Mueller's full report. People are going to ask: What the heck is going on? Is there some political motivation here? Americans are entitled to see the full report, not a summary.

We all know the intelligence community can redact parts of the report--small they will be--to protect secret sources, but we also expect the rest of the report to be issued, not a summary. Mr. Barr has issued one brief summary already, and many Americans don't trust that summary because they want to see the whole report before jumping to a conclusion. So we need the report now, without delay. We can't have political considerations enter into it. ``Oh, we will delay it for several weeks to let things cool off.'' I hope that is not what is happening.

In any case, we need the report now. This is too important for Mr. Barr to be playing politics. He can remove any cloud of suspicion by releasing the full report as the President and members of his party call for. When we read reports that Barr only wants to release a summary and that Leader McConnell is unsupportive of transparency, something doesn't smell right.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on January 16, more than 2 months ago, the House passed a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, which addressed the needs of all communities impacted by recent natural disasters. The House-passed disaster bill provided assistance to help people impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the Hawaii volcanoes, and the California wildfires. It provided aid to the people in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Guam, who were struck last year by typhoons, and the people of American Samoa, who were devastated by Cyclone Gita. It continued assistance for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help them continue their recovery from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They passed it 2 months ago.

Instead of moving quickly on this package to help those Americans in need, Senate Republicans, at the President's insistence, held up the House bill because it included assistance for Americans in Puerto Rico. Instead of giving aid to the people who need it, the President has chosen to delay it over petty grudges and political concerns.

The President's refusal to help Americans in Puerto Rico not only delays the important disaster bill that many of the other States are relying on to

speed their recovery efforts, it discriminates against the over 3 million Americans who reside in Puerto Rico, and that is wrong. We have never--certainly in my years here--had disaster bills in which we say that Americans in this State can be helped, but we do not like the Americans in this State, so they cannot be helped.

This is the United States of America. We are supposed to take care of all of our citizens when there is a crisis, not pick and choose who gets assistance based on who we are aligned with politically. I have voted for disaster relief for red States, for blue States, for purple States because they are part of the United States of America. I feel that as a country we have to come together to help each other when there is a disaster.

Certainly Republican Senators and Democratic Senators helped the State of Vermont when we were hit with a disaster a few years ago. Well, today it is Puerto Rico, and all of the Americans in Puerto Rico need our help.

A year and a half ago, it was hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is rare that anybody ever gets hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. An estimated 2,975 Americans lost their lives. Homes were demolished, communities destroyed. It was an extraordinary disaster, and it requires a commensurate extraordinary response.

I am glad we are finally moving to debate on the House-passed bill because we need that. We actually ought to just pass the House-passed bill, but, unfortunately, the Republicans say they will file a substitute that will take us backward, not forward.

Again, at the President's insistence, it eliminates critical assistance for the Americans in Puerto Rico provided for in the House bill, as well as assistance to other U.S. territories. It eliminates State-revolving funds that would help Puerto Rico rebuild damaged water systems and ensure they are resilient and can stand up to future storms. It eliminates a 100-percent cost-share for FEMA that would help cash-strapped Puerto Rico access Federal aid. It eliminates money to help Americans ensure that Puerto Rico is able to rebuild their electrical grid. It eliminates $68 million in Medicaid assistance for American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, whose programs face serious shortages due to the increased need.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this money is not needed. They point to previous disaster supplemental bills and argue that we have already addressed the needs of Puerto Rico, and we should move on. Well, that is untrue. We provided Puerto Rico with significant assistance, as we should have, given the extraordinary nature of the storms that ravaged the island and given the extent of the devastation, but as damage assessments come in and the full picture of the devastation becomes clear, we must continually reassess and provide them what is needed to fully recover.

I remember when this first happened, back when the White House was saying there may be two or three or four or a dozen fatalities in Puerto Rico. Well, they were off by thousands. There were 2,975 people who lost their lives, not just a handful.

We don't simply appropriate the same amount of money to each State or territory that is hit with a disaster no matter the level of damage. We look at each place, and we provide what is needed for the people to rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives.

I will give you one example of why one size does not fit all. With Katrina, we in Congress passed six supplemental disaster packages--not one, six--to help rebuild Louisiana and Mississippi because the storm was unlike anything we had ever seen. They needed the assistance coming in over time. I supported the help for Louisiana and Mississippi. No one at the time would have argued to stop after the first tranche of funding we provided and then leave them to fend for themselves, because they are Americans. We saw there were more problems, and we added money.

This is no different.

The President reportedly came to the Capitol and met with Senators yesterday and made his case as to why we should not continue aid to Puerto Rico. Let me repeat. The President of the United States-- something I have never seen in my 45 years here with either a Republican or Democratic President--affirmatively argued that we should refrain from helping American citizens in need.

Of course, like so many things the President has said, it was not based in fact or reality. He claimed that Puerto Rico had received over $90 billion in Federal assistance, but it has not. He knows it has not. Why does he keep saying this when he has to know that what he is saying is not true? He claims it is using Federal money to pay off its debt. It has not. The President knows that is not true. Why does he keep saying it?

Some here in this body have claimed that Puerto Rico has in the bank $20 billion in previously appropriated money that they have failed to spend, and they argue that we should provide no more until it is drawn down. I do not know if they are getting their talking points from the White House or what, but that is simply false.

The bulk of the money to which they refer, which we Republicans and Democrats alike voted to appropriate over 1 year ago, is being held up by the administration in redtape and bureaucracy. It seems as though it is being purposely held back because of inaction by this administration. Billions of dollars that Congress approved over 1 year ago for disaster recovery efforts remain in the U.S. Treasury in Washington, DC, not where they belong--assisting the American citizens of Puerto Rico. There is no excuse for that.

They cannot have it both ways. The administration cannot simultaneously hold up recovery dollars for Puerto Rico and then point to Puerto Rico's failure to spend it as an excuse not to provide additional assistance. In other words, they are holding these billions away from Puerto Rico, saying: You cannot have it, but why are you not spending it?

Come on. You cannot do that. You cannot claim they are not spending the money that is being held back from them, and then say that is why they do not need additional assistance.

Yesterday, Senator Schumer and I sent a letter to the administration about these bureaucratic delays and demanded answers.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter dated March 25, 2019, to Mick Mulvaney, Peter Gaynor, and Ben Carson.

Mr. President, yesterday the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it will review whether the White House has deliberately interfered with the timely distribution of hurricane funds to Puerto Rico. That is pretty amazing. I have never seen a case that I remember where the inspector general of Housing and Urban Development had to look into whether the White House was deliberately interfering with funds to go to a disaster area.

I know firsthand what it is like to see a State hit by disaster. Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, and it devastated our State. People lost their homes, roads were washed out, bridges destroyed, and communities forever changed. I saw bridges twisted like a child's toy. I saw farmhouses that had been on the north side of the river, which were now on the south side of the river, upside down and destroyed. I saw farmers' fields wiped out, businesses ruined, schools destroyed, roads necessary to bring medical supplies into villages gone. I know firsthand. I know as a lifelong Vermonter that in these moments the Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and rebuild.

It is the same in other States--North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line.

That is why, 3 weeks ago, I put a compromise on the table to create a path forward. I did it in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It was a reasonable proposal. It does not restore everything that had been eliminated from the House bill, but it was a compromise that focused on the most critical proposals and the immediate needs. Had Senate Republicans accepted this proposal, we likely would have seen quick passage of a disaster bill in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House. It actually would have eliminated the need for a conference and would have gotten the assistance to the people who need it sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, it appears the President will not accept even this reasonable offer. It makes me think about when he closed down the government for over 1 month because the Congress gave him only $1.6 billion for a wall, and then he reopened the government when we gave him $1.3 billion. I don't know if they actually read the proposals and bills that we sent.

In this case, I think it is obvious what is happening. The President is willing to endanger the entire disaster package for all of the United States because he wants to pick winners and losers. When there is a disaster, there are no winners and losers. Americans come together to help everybody. Yet he wants to say who gets assistance in the wake of disasters based on his own arbitrary standards and political grudges. That is unacceptable. Where is it going to end? Which State will the President disfavor next? Remember that just a few months ago, the President, in a tweet, threatened to cut off aid to California as they were reeling from some of the worst fires in recent history. He sent a tweet telling millions of Americans he doesn't want to help. We are an independent branch of government. We have to have a responsible party in the room, and it should be Congress.

I think back to when Vermont was hit by disaster and hurricane flooding. As I was traveling around the State the day after, surveying the damage, I was receiving emails from a number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, saying: Vermont stood with us when we had a disaster; we will stand with you today.

That is what I want to do. I want to help, just as I voted to help Louisiana six times and Mississippi for their damage. It wasn't for a political benefit for Vermont, but it was because we are Americans and we all stand together.

To think that we might consider a disaster package that picks and chooses which Americans are helped when they have all suffered equally from disasters, and to say: OK, you, American, we favor you, you get money. You, American, I don't like you. So you are not going to get money. That is not the American way. That is not the way the Senate should be.

Let's pass a bill that addresses the needs of all communities impacted by disaster and do it now. People are waiting. The needs are pressing.

I will file an amendment today with my recommended compromise. It provides a reasonable path forward--one that allows us to move quickly to get assistance to the people who need it now. I hope all Members will support it.

The Governor of Puerto Rico made a strong statement this morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello.

The Americans in Puerto Rico do not have representation in this body. Vermont is probably as far away from Puerto Rico as just about any State, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. They do not have anybody to speak directly on their behalf on such an important matter. The Governor has spoken out. I urge every Member to read what the Governor has to say. I agree with him. Americans in Puerto Rico should be helped just as Americans in Texas, Americans in Oklahoma, Americans in California, or Americans in New York, or wherever disaster has struck. We are the United States of America. Let's start acting like that on behalf of all Americans, not on behalf of political biases.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 208 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 208, providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.

The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule.

The rule self-executes two amendments to simply clarify that the resolution is calling for the release of the special counsel's findings in addition to any report.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Finally, the rule provides standard recess procedures for the period of March 15 through March 22.

Mr. Speaker, when the Justice Department named the special counsel for the Russia investigation, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said: ``A special counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our Nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly.''

This investigation has been about following the facts wherever they may lead, getting to the truth of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and ensuring government is transparent and accountable to the American public.

This does not predetermine the outcome of that investigation. It simply expresses that the report of the special counsel should be made available to Congress and to the American people.

The public, including my constituents in California--our constituents in California, Mr. Speaker--want to know what happened. Nearly 9 in 10 Americans in both parties say the investigation should produce a full public report on their findings. Not only do the American people want to know, but they deserve to know. Congress needs to preserve their ability to know.

Our election system is an integral part of what makes us the beacon of Western democracy. Any and all attempts to undermine this system is an attack on our country's values and cannot be taken lightly.

This is a serious investigation with consequences for our elections, democracy, government, and the future of this country and democracy itself. There is no one with more intimate knowledge of Russia's involvement in our election than the special counsel.

To date, this investigation has resulted in 34 people and three companies being criminally charged; nearly 200 charges filed; seven guilty pleas; one conviction following a jury trial; and the investigation, while costing $25 million, has recovered approximately $48 million in assets from tax evasion.

Mr. Speaker, eight Federal and congressional intelligence and national security groups believe Russia interfered

in our election, with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluding that Vladimir Putin personally ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' to ``undermine public faith in the democratic process.''

The last time our country had a special counsel operating under the same rules as this probe was in 1993 to investigate the Waco siege and allegations of government wrongdoing. Prosecutors posted their final report directly on the internet with hundreds of pages of exhibits and timelines. The American people must receive the same transparency when this report is released.

I encourage my friends across the aisle to support the release of this report. We have commitments to support it from three House Republican leaders, including the minority leader, the minority whip, and the Republican Conference chair. I hope all my colleagues across the aisle will join us in this vote to ensure that we are on the record that we will share one of the most important investigations of our time within these halls and with all of America.

This is happening on our watch, and it is our job to be faithful to our oath to defend and uphold democracy. As Justice Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me join with my friend from Georgia in noting how important it is that you are presiding, my good friend, with lots of history between the two of us in our political life in California and our education, I might add to the Jesuits.

I want to say to my good friend, I look at this as one of those opportunities where we may not get a headline. Unfortunately, too many of the headlines talk about how divisive it is here. Certainly, there is a lot of that.

But when I go home and do townhalls--and I do a lot of them in northern California--when this question comes up about polarization, I talk about all the times we do work together that don't get out, certainly, in the headlines, because that is not what sells advertising, apparently. I think this is one of those moments that we aspire to that, that we actually aspire that somebody picks up on this; that all of us, in these extraordinary circumstances, are being faithful to our oath; that we make sure that the things that may have happened, that apparently did happen, that the public needs confidence in us.

When we look every day, including today, at the affronts and the attacks on so many institutions in America, and this institution having had challenges, this might be one of those opportunities, at least for us, to say: We agree. We may have differences of opinion about who did what, but we have faith.

For me, I think history will say that this special counsel is one of those providential Americans. With his background, with his determination to believe in fidelity and truth, we were lucky to have this person at this point in time.

I put my faith in this institution. I put faith in the special counsel. In this instance, I hear from you, my friend from Georgia, that we are going to put our faith in this institution and one another, that we can show the American people that this is, indeed, more important than party, and it is more important than any of our individual political careers.

I did want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sense of Congress and that this is not the first time we have brought a resolution like this to the floor. In fact, just last week, we brought a resolution to the floor to send a message to the American people that Congress is united in condemning anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its forms. There are people who criticized us for bringing that and thought that it was unnecessary, but we brought that to the floor.

A majority of Republicans joined Democrats, an overwhelming majority, in voting for it. Leader McCarthy called it a resolution to make a statement. Whip Scalise said, regarding the resolution, ``We must all take a strong

stand against hatred and bigotry wherever we see it, and I am glad this resolution makes'' sense.

We agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that passing these types of resolutions can make a strong statement. Although they may seem to some as unnecessary, these statements on these kinds of important issues, I believe, are very necessary for this institution to make, particularly when they are bipartisan.

Today, we are letting Attorney General Barr and everyone else know that we are all united behind one common principle, which I believe he agreed to in his confirmation hearings, which the Member from Georgia alluded to. That complete transparency, consistent with law, is vital to the success of our democracy. The American people deserve to have access to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chair of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend from Georgia, I want to agree--and maybe we disagree a little bit.

I do think this is important. I think it is the unusual circumstance, and a lot of things that we have no direct control over have brought us to this circumstance.

Social media and the use of social media in our elections is relatively new, coming from the Bay area where so much of the genesis happened.

So I think it is important, and I do think there is lacking--and hyperbole is something that sometimes doesn't happen in this Chamber, but I think it is not a hyperbole to say that the U.S. House of Representatives, hopefully, unanimously says that the law should be followed to its letter.

So I think we agree, and I don't want to look for a way to disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for pointing out that I am not a poker, that I might actually be trying to be thoughtful. Maybe it is because I was once registered as a Republican. I don't regularly admit that sometimes, at least not in my district.

But I do think this conversation is important on multiple levels, and I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is here to present his side of the aisle's position.

I think there is a danger here for us to resume to our corners, and this is an instance where I really think it is important--and, hopefully, it is newsworthy--to the media and to the general public that we are coming to this moment. Although it is a resolution, I still think it is significant without indulging in hyperbole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a pleasure to see you up there. And to my friend from Georgia, in his long, illustrious public career, I want to thank him for his comity here today.

I can't help but think so many Americans now and people who are filled with adrenaline and hyperbole talk about what a difficult time this is, and I wouldn't underestimate the challenges ahead of us; but, arguably, a more difficult time, I was thinking of Mr. Lincoln's comments about appealing to the better angels of our nature, and perhaps this is a turning point.

Certainly we will be tested, and we will fail on occasion, but to my friend, for whatever time both of us have left here, I would like to personally say to the degree we can find things that are of interest to your district and my district, they are of interest to the United States, and I would love to work with the gentleman to find those things.

Lastly, I just can't help but comment on my observation about providential Americans in history. I was reading about Mr. Mueller and his comments when he was FBI Director in the context of his amazing life and career as a combat veteran, a Bronze Star winner in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. I think of my own father who was a devoted Marine Corps combat veteran who is buried in Arlington. My dad and all marines, although I was not one, liked to always recite ``Semper Fidelis.''

The special counsel, in his comments when he was FBI Director, assures me that the work he does in ways that I find profound, talked about fidelity as he talked to his agents, that the fidelity to this Constitution, to this country, and to the truth will find us true to the path that we want to take and to success as we look for the better angels of our nature.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple vote but an important vote. We need to get to the bottom of what happened and put faith in the special counsel's findings and put faith in the American public and the people that they can devise their own truth when we give them this investigation's report.

Mr. Speaker, you either believe the public and Congress should see the report or you don't. Fortunately, it looks like we are agreed that they should. We owe it to our constituents, the American people, and future generations to do the right thing always, but today, I think, in particular, to support the release of this report.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are celebrating an important week in our system of self-government. This week is known as Sunshine Week. For the last 14 years, advocacy groups, good government watchdogs, and media organizations have joined forces to observe the importance of transparency and freedom of information. With transparency and freedom of information, there is more accountability in government. As a long- time champion of an open, accessible government, I speak today in support of those enduring principles.

Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16. That is the day one of the Nation's Founding Fathers and fourth President of the United States was born. That person was James Madison, widely known as the Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

From his writings in the Federalist Papers, it might be said that he was the architect who framed our system of checks and balances. Madison believed all powers of the government are derived of, by, and for the people. That is what brings me to the floor today.

The public has a right to know what their government is doing and how their government is spending the taxpayers' dollars. What is more, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who bravely come forward, often at great professional risk, to report wrongdoing in government. We ought to expect that out of government employees or any fellow citizen who knows something is wrong.

I am here today to talk about a ray of sunlight coming from the Defense Department. More specifically, I want to alert you about the whistleblower hotline managed by the inspector general. Once in a while, good news comes out of that Department.

I spend a lot of time on government oversight. Congressional oversight is part of our constitutional assignment to protect the power of the purse and to ensure that the laws we pass are faithfully executed.

My sights are set quite often on the Pentagon when it comes to oversight. The U.S. military is the strongest and mightiest in the world. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line to protect our sacred freedoms. Each of us should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they have the resources they need. I am not, however, talking about writing blank checks; I am talking about making sure that defense dollars are spent wisely.

The Pentagon shoulders a strategic and vital mission for America but is by no means infallible--not by a long shot. As with almost any bureaucracy or corporate organization, its workplace culture dictates that each individual should go along to get along, and that is not how it should be. Institutional foot-dragging at the Pentagon, for example, has hampered efforts to root out sexual misconduct. You read about it too often. A systemic bookkeeping system has plagued the Department of Defense for decades.

Nevertheless, I keep pressing the Pentagon to fix this fiscal mess. Every

dollar lost to waste, fraud, and abuse is a dollar that could be put to better use for our men and women in uniform for better housing, as just one example.

I learned long ago that one of the best ways to expose wrongdoing is by listening to whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are the ones who have their noses and ears to the ground day in and day out. They are patriots doing their job in reporting wrongdoing. These patriots know the difference between right and wrong. So when their good conscience compels them to come forward, we should hear them out, and we need to encourage others to do the same.

Whistleblowers within the Defense Department help weed out improper payments, procurements, fraud, and other unethical schemes and misbehaviors that come at taxpayers' expense and the expense of military preparedness.

As cofounder and cochairman of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, I lead efforts from Capitol Hill to strengthen protections and raise awareness for what is often an uphill battle for whistleblowers. In the rigid command of the U.S. military, the civilian workforce and uniformed members of the military are trained to follow protocol and to respect the chain of command. Instead of receiving a pat on the back for exposing wrongdoing, too many of these whistleblowers face retribution and reprisal. I often say they are treated like skunks at a picnic.

That brings me to the DOD whistleblower hotline, a vital conduit for whistleblower complaints. Once again, there is some good news about DOD and whistleblowers and trying to improve things there in a November IG report. It shows the huge backlog of tips has been reduced. You could say that it is a glimmer of hope in an otherwise swamp of secrecy.

You see, the report also exposes the bad news. The playbook of Federal authority--defend, delay, and deny--is alive and kicking. From fiscal years 2013 to 2018, the Office of the Inspector General found the number of reports tripled. It also showed the number of reprisal complaints doubled.

The report found that 350 Defense Department officials, most of them in the branches of the Armed Forces, retaliated against and sought to intimidate 195 whistleblowers. I can't speak about 195 cases, but I will bet, in many cases, many higher-ups in the chain of command would be embarrassed, and that is why it wasn't reported, and that is why these folks were retaliated against. This tells me also that higher-ups who are accused of retaliating against whistleblowers are going unpunished.

Consider, about 85 percent of the people who reported wrongdoing and faced professional punishment or personal embarrassment are still waiting for any remedy according to this inspector general report.

This sends a very unsubtle signal to whistleblowers: Blow the whistle at your own risk. When the top dogs who dish out retribution go unpunished, and some are even promoted, the message to the rank and file is loud and clear: Blow the whistle at your own risk.

Nearly 2 years ago, I came to the floor of the Senate to sound the alarm on this very subject. At that time I shared statistics from a 2016 IG report. It listed 406 hotline cases that had been open for more than 2 years. Nobody is in a hurry to do anything about wrongdoing in the Defense Department when things like that can accumulate. More than half of those 406 cases--246 cases to be exact--had been open for more than 1,000 days, and some had been lying around for 4 years. So back when I gave that speech a couple of years ago, I noted that the IG's office wasn't moving the needle, despite increases in personnel and money in the IG's office. The workforce-to-workload ratio was mismatched. Cases were adding up, and the corrosive workplace culture within the IG was a festering sore. Allegations of tampering with investigations and whitewashing cases were tarnishing the reputation of the premier whistleblower oversight unit at the Pentagon. Congressional watchdogs, like myself, should not have to watch the Pentagon watchdogs to keep oversight on track.

As I said, there is some good news. Things seemed to turn the corner when Acting Inspector General Fine recognized the antics of a bureaucracy run amuck.

I am glad to see a ray of sunlight coming from the IG's office. However, we still aren't out of the woods.

I want to thank those in the IG's office who are toiling to reduce this hotline backlog; however, the DOD needs to step up and face the music. DOD needs to own these failures in letting retaliators off the hook.

Failing to hold these folks accountable is a huge slap in the face to those in the Department who are performing their responsibilities every day with dedication and excellence, being patriotic people, blowing the whistle, and pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse.

It also happens to be a slap in the face of the taxpayers. It is telling these patriotic whistleblowers: Thanks but no thanks. Feel free to disclose your report, but we may press the mute button after processing the claim.

Make no mistake about it--the hotline becomes meaningless if whistleblowers lack confidence in the system. They will stop calling and stop reporting waste, fraud, and abuse.

My advice to Inspector General Fine is this: Put some mustard on it, and add some hot sauce while you are at it. Get down to the brass tacks, and recommend disciplinary action against those who retaliate against patriotic people pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse.

In closing, I would like to share a tip with the Department of Defense. This U.S. Senator will continue shining the spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon--and, of course, elsewhere--and I will continue advocating for whistleblowers with every tool at my disposal.

As an Iowa farmer, I know what a load of manure smells like. I am also very aware of why farmers make hay when the sun shines, and that is a very good lesson for good government. Sunshine helps hold government accountable to the American people, and that is why we celebrate Sunshine Week this week and every year now for, I think, 14 years--because Sunshine Week promotes openness and transparency in government.

That is why the Congress passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. This law establishes a mandatory national disclosure program in which drug and medical device manufacturers report payments to prescribers in teaching hospitals. However, it appears that some parties may not be disclosing this information.

That is why, in addition to what I told you about overseeing things in the Defense Department, it is necessary to call out HHS and CMS to be forthcoming about whether opportunities exist for us to work together to strengthen the law where all these things aren't being reported as they should be. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Free Trade

Mr. President, lastly, I would like to talk about free trade for a minute. I am calling on the administration to promptly remove the section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico. This will help clear the path for the United States-Mexico- Canadian Agreement to be ratified in all three countries. These tariffs and their retaliation are having a negative impact on Americans. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is supposed to be a free-trade agreement, but we don't have free trade with these tariffs in place.

As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I look forward to helping the President with this important task. And a little bit of advice for the President would come this way: I think he imposed tariffs on Mexican and Canadian steel and aluminum because he didn't think they were going to negotiate and said that is why he put the tariffs on. Obviously they negotiated in good faith because the President said he has a very good agreement. I happen to agree that he has a very good agreement. So wouldn't you think, then, that the tariffs ought to come off?

Somebody down at the White House recently told me: Well, you can't conflate the tariffs on aluminum and steel with the USMCA agreement. Well, don't tell me you can't conflate them when you conflate them when you say to the other side: If you don't negotiate, we are going to put these tariffs on.

I think there is a clear path to getting this done.

The President is concerned about the transshipment of steel from China, through Canada, into the United States, which obviously wouldn't be fair. They are concerned, as well, about surges in exports to the United States.

I think he would find Prime Minister Trudeau very open to receiving assurances that if the House of Commons in Canada moves ahead with approval of it, these tariffs would go off. At the same time, I think they will get assurances from the Canadian Government that they will make sure transshipment from China, through Canada, to the United States won't happen and that surges in exports won't happen as well.

If we can get the Canadian Government to approve this agreement, it seems to me it is going to be a lot easier to get through the Congress of the United States. And I think that just as soon as Mexico changes some labor laws they promised they would change to make labor more fair and less unfair to the American worker, I think the Mexican Senate will approve this agreement. But time is a factor here because Canada has to get this all done before they adjourn in June for their October elections.

It seems to me that when the President says he has a good agreement-- and there is a certain amount of anxiety out there about all these trade negotiations that are going on--we could get this thing settled pretty fast and reduce that anxiety, and we could make sure we enhance our economy more than the fine policies of this President, through taxes and through deregulation, have already improved the economy and keep it growing.

I would ask the President to consider moving this as fast as he can and get off of this business of negotiating trade and tariffs for quotas because that is not much better for the United States and not much better even for the Canadians, and it isn't going to satisfy the Canadians that they can move ahead before their election.

I yield the floor.