Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 75, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, February 25th; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Granholm nomination; that there be up to 10 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Cardona nomination occur at 1:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Lankford and Portman.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and express my gratitude to Alana Petersen, my deputy chief of staff and long time staff leader for the Minnesota congressional delegation. Alana is retiring from her official role after serving the Minnesota delegation since 1993.

During her public service, Alana worked for Congressman Dave Minge, from Minnesota's First Congressional District; Congressman John Oberstar, from Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District; Senator Al Franken; and now for me. In all of those roles, she has served the people of Minnesota first and especially those who most needed an ally and a voice in the halls of power here in Washington: farmers and rural families, new immigrants, Minnesota's Tribal communities, and Minnesota's diverse communities of color.

For those of you who don't know Alana, let me tell you a little bit about her. Alana was born in Minnesota and, like me, spent part of her childhood in New Mexico. In fact, she and I went to the same elementary school, although Alana is younger than me and had the benefit of a new building.

Alana headed Al Franken's Minnesota Senate office beginning when he was sworn in 2009. Before joining Franken's staff, she worked in the office of Congressman Jim Oberstar for 5 years as deputy district director, and she worked for Congressman Dave Minge for 6 years in several capacities.

Alana also served as executive director of Target Market, a statewide nonprofit organization that promoted an anti-tobacco message to teens, and she held a position at Grassroots Solutions, a political consulting firm where she worked with national labor unions, congressional candidates, and pro-choice organizations.

As if her official work weren't enough, Alana has long been a go-to volunteer for her community, where she has served as chair of the East Central Regional Arts Council and board chair for Women Winning, a bipartisan group dedicated to electing more women to public office.

Alana is married to Thom Petersen, who is the Minnesota commissioner of agriculture for Governor Tim Walz, and she is mom to Waylon and Dylan. Alana and her family live on a working farm in Pine County, MN, an hour north of the Twin Cities. The Petersens raise and show miniature horses at county fairs all across Minnesota and at the Minnesota State Fair, earning blue ribbons, not only because of the amazing minis but also thanks to the amazing costumes sewn by Alana.

To Thom, Waylon, and Dylan, thank you for sharing your mom and wife with us and with Minnesota all of these years.

So I can't tell you when I first met Alana, but we have been good friends and allies for decades. As in all great friendships born from working together, we are connected by a sense of shared purpose, a sense of humor, and a complete trust that, when in doubt, we can call the other one. Each of us, in turn, has been a shoulder to lean on, a strategic adviser, a gut check, and a great excuse for a good laugh when either of us needs it.

This has been true for both of us for years, but never more so than in this last year when I became an accidental Senator and called on my old friend to jump in one more time to help me become a Senator and win a Senate seat, all in 10 months. Alana helped me to see that I could do this job and also win an election in such a short time. It is no exaggeration to say that I couldn't have done any of this without her.

Alana has the heart of an organizer. In fact, she tells the story that she first canvassed her neighborhood as a fifth-grader, knocking on doors for the father of a friend of hers who was running for office. She has been organizing and engaging people in the democratic process ever since.

As an organizer Alana knows that the best ideas come from the ground up, not the top down. She understands that the best work happens when you build relationships with people at the grassroots. She has mentored and taught generations of campaign and congressional office staffers that teamwork based on mutual respect, high expectations, and clear goals makes progress for people possible, and that it can be joyful work.

For years Alana has been the go-to person for young candidates just starting out--and a lot of us seasoned politicians too. The political offices, campaigns, and nonprofits of Minnesota are powered by the people Alana has taught and mentored.

As an organizer, she is rooted in the value that Paul Wellstone best expressed when he said that politics shouldn't be about money and power; it should be about improving people's lives.

It means more to me than I can express that Minnesotans elected me to serve in this seat once held by Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone.

On October 25, 2002, we lost Paul in a terrible plane crash, along with Paul's wife Sheila, his daughter Marsha, and staffers Will, Tom, and Mary Mac, Alana's mentor. In the fall of 2002, Alana had quit her regular job in Duluth to join the campaign for Paul's reelection because she knew she wanted to contribute to the grassroots movement that Paul was building. The plane crash and the loss of our friends was heartbreaking to all of us.

Last year, on October 25, Alana shared a letter her father wrote to the Wellstone campaign team in the days after the crash. It is particularly touching because her father, Thomas Christiansen, passed away on October 25, 2009, 7 years after we lost Paul.

Here is part of what Alana's father said: ``For some, public service is the dedication of one's life to the community. I have come to realize that my daughter Alana is one of those elite few.''

Alana, you are indeed one of those elite few. Thank you for your service to Minnesota, and thank you for what you will continue to do for many years ahead to move forward the hard but precious work of improving people's lives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and celebrate the life of Peter Melvin Thompson, Jr., a decorated Vietnam war veteran and proud member of the White Earth Nation, who passed away on Wednesday, January 30, 2019. Today, on June 5, 2019, Mr. Thompson will be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery for his service to this country. He is the first member of the White Earth Nation to receive this honor.

Mr. Thompson served in the Army for 12 years, during which time he received six Purple Hearts, one Silver Star with valor device, and 3 Bronze Stars with valor device. In 1960, at the age of 17, Mr. Thompson talked his dad into signing papers allowing him to enlist in the U.S. Army. He attended basic training and was posted to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, before volunteering to go to fight in the Vietnam war. Mr. Thompson deployed twice to Vietnam, first with the First Cavalry Regiment in central Vietnam from January 1968 to 1969. During this deployment, Mr. Thompson was wounded twice and earned a Bronze Star.

Soon after returning to the States, Mr. Thompson volunteered for a second tour in Vietnam. During his second tour, Mr. Thompson served as platoon leader in charge of seven armored personnel carriers and three tanks. He was wounded four more times. In 1970, while on a rescue mission, Mr. Thompson was injured in combat for the last time. He was airlifted to Hawk Hill, where he helped identify all the lost men in his platoon before being sent to a field hospital to begin recovery. Mr. Thompson was transferred to Colorado, where he finished his recuperation and served as a probation officer at Fort Carson before being discharged in 1972.

Mr. Thompson met and married Evelyn Auginaush on July 10, 1973 at St. Phillips Church in Rice Lake, MN. Together they moved throughout Minnesota before returning to Mr. Thompson's home in Rice Lake. Never one to be idle, Mr. Thompson found work as a trapper for the State and Tribe Predator Control and also worked at the Leech Lake Indian Health Hospital Facilities as a manager, where he won two awards for his service. Mr. Thompson's time in the military also left an indelible mark on his life and led him to start the White Earth Honor Guard, which he remained a part of throughout his life.

Today, Mr. Thompson is being laid to rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery by his wife Evelyn, daughters Cheryl and Carol, 15 grandchildren, 6 great grandchildren, and many others. I am proud today to recognize Peter Thompson for his service to this country, to Minnesota, and to the White Earth Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am very happy to have a chance to work with her on this.

Today, my colleague Senator Collins and I are introducing a bill to help fight Lyme disease, so we are introducing this bill today here in the Senate as many Minnesotans and Mainers get ready to head out to our beautiful national parks, lakes, and coastline to go fishing, hiking, and all of the things that we love, love, love to do.

In Minnesota, we have more than 10,000 lakes and a lot of space for outdoor activities, and we also have a growing tick population due to warmer summer months. With so many lakes and our excitement to get outside after a long winter, Minnesotans have become more at risk of contracting Lyme disease and other vector-borne illness.

A vector-borne illness means an illness that is carried by an insect, like ticks. Unfortunately, the number of Lyme disease cases in Minnesota is on the rise. Over the past 10 years, the number of reported cases has increased by nearly a third.

Our bill, the TICK Act, aims to reduce the number of cases by establishing an interagency office of oversight and coordination to target, prevent, and treat Lyme disease and other vector-borne illnesses. In our legislation, we made sure to enable collaboration between universities and public health agencies, and it is important we train and equip our public health first responders in how best to prevent and treat vector-borne illnesses.

The TICK Act is supported by a coalition of researchers, as Senator Collins just said, also frontline medical professionals and government officials from across the country, so I urge my colleagues to listen to the professionals on the ground fighting vector-borne diseases and quickly take up and pass this bill.

May is Lyme disease awareness month. We must be aware of and prepare for future vector-borne disease outbreaks, and this bill will be an important first step.

So I want to thank Senator Collins, my colleague on the HELP Committee, for her leadership on this important issue. I am glad we are able to work together on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I am very happy to have a chance to work with her on this.

Today, my colleague Senator Collins and I are introducing a bill to help fight Lyme disease, so we are introducing this bill today here in the Senate as many Minnesotans and Mainers get ready to head out to our beautiful national parks, lakes, and coastline to go fishing, hiking, and all of the things that we love, love, love to do.

In Minnesota, we have more than 10,000 lakes and a lot of space for outdoor activities, and we also have a growing tick population due to warmer summer months. With so many lakes and our excitement to get outside after a long winter, Minnesotans have become more at risk of contracting Lyme disease and other vector-borne illness.

A vector-borne illness means an illness that is carried by an insect, like ticks. Unfortunately, the number of Lyme disease cases in Minnesota is on the rise. Over the past 10 years, the number of reported cases has increased by nearly a third.

Our bill, the TICK Act, aims to reduce the number of cases by establishing an interagency office of oversight and coordination to target, prevent, and treat Lyme disease and other vector-borne illnesses. In our legislation, we made sure to enable collaboration between universities and public health agencies, and it is important we train and equip our public health first responders in how best to prevent and treat vector-borne illnesses.

The TICK Act is supported by a coalition of researchers, as Senator Collins just said, also frontline medical professionals and government officials from across the country, so I urge my colleagues to listen to the professionals on the ground fighting vector-borne diseases and quickly take up and pass this bill.

May is Lyme disease awareness month. We must be aware of and prepare for future vector-borne disease outbreaks, and this bill will be an important first step.

So I want to thank Senator Collins, my colleague on the HELP Committee, for her leadership on this important issue. I am glad we are able to work together on this bill.

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

Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I knew I wanted to make mental health one of my top priorities. As a Minnesotan, I am proud of the way our Senators have led the way on this important issue, from Paul Wellstone to Al Franken, to Amy Klobuchar. I am honored to have the chance to further our proud legacy when it comes to improving our mental health system, but that is not the only reason I have chosen to make mental health a focus.

I am glad it has become a more prominent issue here in Washington, but I have noticed it usually comes to the forefront in the context of some unthinkable tragedy. When a high-profile celebrity takes his or her own life, we immediately want to reach out to other people who are suffering in silence. Of course, we do. That is not a bad thing.

We can't repeat the number often enough. If you are having thoughts of suicide, please, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255. Even if you aren't suffering from acute mental illness, put that number in your cell phone so you can, someday, help someone who is.

On the other hand, when a profoundly disturbed person commits a horrible act of violence, we immediately want to intervene before the next time it happens. Of course, we do.

When we bring up the need to improve our mental health system as the answer to the epidemic of mass shootings in America, though, we are making two huge mistakes. First, we are ignoring our responsibility to address a much more direct cause of these tragedies--guns. Second, we are unfairly and falsely stigmatizing mental illness.

Here is another thing we can't say often enough: It is exceedingly rare that one's mental illness leads one to commit acts of violence. In fact, one is much more likely to be a victim of violence than to be a perpetrator, and we must not make it harder for people to seek help by falsely tagging them, as we do, as being potentially dangerous.

Yes, these tragedies are reminders that we need to spend more time talking about mental health, but let's have the right conversation. For most people who struggle with mental illness in America, the struggle is not about life or death; it is about the quality of the lives we lead. Mental health is a continuum, and many of our fellow citizens fall somewhere along this continuum. These millions of Americans deserve our attention, and these millions of Americans deserve our help.

The other reason I want to focus on mental health care while I am here in the Senate is that I am one of them. When it started for me, I thought I was just having a bad day or, really, a series of bad days. While growing up, I had always been a pretty cheerful kid, but at some point during my second year of college, I had started to find it harder and harder to cope with the daily challenges of life. Actually, it had been my roommate who had noticed that I had not been myself and hadn't been myself for a long time. She had suggested that I talk to someone over at the Student Health Services. It had been a completely foreign idea to me, and I had responded in the way a lot of people would have-- ``I have this.'' Eventually, I had realized that maybe I had been wrong about that.

It was really hard to make that phone call, walk over to the counselor's office, and sit in the waiting room. I didn't know what to expect, and to be honest, I was embarrassed. The counselor's name was Charlotte. She was nice, had common sense, and wasn't patronizing or judgmental. She just asked me some simple questions about how I was feeling, and I remember what a relief it was just to talk about it. Over the course of a few months, Charlotte gave me some ideas about how to cope a little bit better with the challenges I was facing, and I would always walk out of her office feeling a little bit more courageous and a little bit more hopeful.

Did I live happily ever after? Well, not quite. That is not how mental illness works. There isn't a box for when you are healthy and a box for when you are not. Like I said, it is a continuum, and you try to get a little closer to the healthy end every day.

At one point in my thirties, though, I found myself sliding back in the wrong direction. There was nothing unusually traumatic going on in my life.

I had a career, and Archie and I were raising our two sons. We were busy, and we were tired, but that is the way it is when you are a young parent. Still, something was wrong.

All who have suffered from depression have their own metaphors to describe it, but most can identify with the sensation of the color just sort of draining out of your world. The things that used to give you joy don't give you joy anymore. The things that you used to love to do may just make you exhausted. Basically, you are just trying to slog through the day. Of course, when you feel this way, just making it through the day is tough. I found myself struggling to be a good mom, a good wife, a good friend, a good colleague. I just felt off all the time--clumsy and slow. I forgot things and got angry at the drop of a hat.

See, the thing is, depression messes with your memory. I will never forget when my young son asked me quietly and cautiously: ``Mom, are you OK?'' It was a spiral. The worse things got, the more frustrated I became, but I couldn't get it together. Down and down I went until I could no longer see hope on the horizon. I was never suicidal, but I struggled to function. I definitely wasn't living my best life. I really wasn't living at all.

That is the reality of mental illness for millions of Americans. I am one of the lucky ones. I was lucky that my college had excellent mental health resources and that my roommate cared enough about me to urge me to take advantage of those resources. I was lucky that when my depression came back with a vengeance, I had health insurance that covered treatment. There was a therapist named Susan with the skill and the expertise to help me.

Susan asked me a few questions:

How are you sleeping?

Terrible.

Are you forgetting things?

All the time.

She then suggested that I take a diagnostic test, which basically consisted of answering questions like those. Even then, I was resistant. People often say that depression lies, and the biggest lie depression tells is that what is wrong with you is you. So you resist getting help because you refuse to accept that there is anything happening except that you stupidly forgot it was recycling day again.

I went ahead and I did the diagnostic test, and Susan came back and said: Yes, you are clinically depressed, so let's talk about what we can do about it.

One thing I would say to people who are resisting going in for that appointment is that even after I got that diagnosis, I was still in control. When Susan brought up the idea of medication, it was a suggestion and not an order. I will admit it--it was a suggestion I had a hard time with. I didn't want to become a different person. I didn't want some pill messing with my brain. What if it didn't work and I got worse? On the other hand, what if it did work? Would I really be better, or would it just be an illusion of feeling better?

Susan convinced me to give it a try, and I was lucky again when the first medication we tried worked. I didn't feel better right away. There was no big milestone moment where I woke up and everything was great again. But I remember feeling like I was slowly coming out of a fog. The color started to seep back into my day a little bit more every day. I began to reengage with my family and my friends and my work, and I could see hope on the horizon again. After a couple of years on medication, I slowly ramped down, and I haven't had to get treatment since.

As I said, there is no happily ever after when it comes to mental illness, but happier is possible. If anyone needs proof, just talk to me.

So that is my story, but really it is the story of millions of Americans. I chose to share mine--first in an op-ed in the Rochester Post-Bulletin and now here on the floor of the Senate--because I want to urge anyone who struggles with depression or anxiety or substance abuse or post-traumatic stress disorder or any other mental health issue to reach out and seek help.

Destigmatizing and demystifying mental illness is just the beginning. Everyone can be a friend to those in need by urging them to take advantage of the resources that are available to them, but the 100 of us here in the Senate have a responsibility to make sure those resources are available to everyone. We can't afford to leave holes in the net we build to catch people when they fall, especially when one of the biggest holes is in our schools.

I have spent a lot of time over the last months having conversations with teachers and administrators in public schools across Minnesota. Time and again, when I ask them ``What keeps you up at night?'' they come back to the mental health of their students. They talk about the causes--everything from increased social pressure that comes from social media to the trauma of losing a parent to opioids--but they also tell me what the crisis really looks like at ground level.

A principal in St. Paul told me about the regular phenomenon of an ambulance pulling up at the school doors, rushing to the aid of a student who has suffered a break. It has happened more than a half a dozen times at his school alone this year. Meanwhile, the principal in Parkers Prairie--a town in Otter Tail County of just over 1,000, people--tells me that she sees students experiencing homelessness and other trauma, students dealing with PTSD, and students with eating disorders. Just this year, she has had three students end up in the hospital for self-harming. They have a heroic social worker who comes in but only every other day because they have to share her with another school in the district.

School psychologists across Minnesota tell me they are struggling to keep up with the number of kids who need urgent intervention to make sure that, for example, their behavioral issues don't become so significant that they get them kicked out of school altogether.

As for kids whose issues are very real but not so acute--like the ninth grader whose anxiety makes her sick to her stomach every day-- they wind up stuck on waiting lists for treatment. And that is even before psychologists can do any active outreach to the students who haven't reached out for help.

That is why last month I reintroduced my Mental Health Services for Students Act. This bill would create a grant program for school districts looking to expand the mental health services they are able to offer to students by partnering with community mental health system organizations.

If we are going to get our arms around this crisis, we need to train more teachers, administrators, and members of the school community, including parents, to recognize when kids are struggling and to connect them with help. If we here in the Senate are serious about addressing mental health in our schools, we should pass this bill without delay.

A comprehensive approach to mental health means improving the system all along the age continuum. Over in the HELP Committee, we will have an opportunity this year to reauthorize the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA. And I have a bill, sponsored in the House by my friend Representative Dean Phillips, that would improve the delivery of mental health services within our child welfare system. For example, our bill would make sure that young, at-risk children get important developmental screenings when they need it.

We are learning that childhood trauma can be a major factor in future mental illness. The more we do to address the underlying trauma, whether it is poverty, the death or incarceration of a loved one or a parent, or sexual abuse, the better we address those issues, the better chance we will have of turning the tide on this epidemic.

The mental health crisis isn't only affecting our kids; it is affecting our parents too. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, one in five adults age 55 or older experiences a mental health issue, and a third of them never receive treatment. Men over the age of 75 have a higher suicide rate than any other age group. The social isolation that too often comes with aging or caring for a loved one isn't just unfortunate; it is a public health risk.

Just as we have learned to reach out to the veterans in our lives and in our communities to let them know we are there for them if they are struggling, we should do the same for our elders. As the HELP Committee takes up the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act this year, I will be working to do my part.

Our mental health system should be there for people at every age, from nursery to nursing home. It should be there for people everywhere along the mental health continuum, offering everything from preventive care, to ongoing therapy for chronic conditions, to crisis support for those in acute distress. It should also be there for people in every ZIP Code, and unfortunately, some of the biggest holes in our system can be found in rural areas.

As a Senator, I am proud to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I frequently meet with farm groups, and today mental health is one of the first topics to come up. Farming is an inherently stressful profession, especially these days, when the numbers for suicide prevention hotlines regularly appear in farm publications. But we need to include the entire rural community, from bankers and pastors to grocers and fertilizer sellers. We need to include them in this conversation, and we need to make sure that when people do reach out for help, there is help there for them.

Unfortunately, rural communities in general are often underserved by mental health professionals compared to cities and suburbs. Many still have inconsistent access to the internet, meaning that even online resources can be out of reach for someone who is struggling. That is why, in the last farm bill, we set up a rural health liaison in the Department of Agriculture--someone who understands the specific needs of rural communities and is charged with paying attention to a crisis that has too often lurked beneath the surface.

Last year, Senator Murkowski and I worked together to pass a law that would provide mental health professionals in the National Health Service Corps with greater flexibility in where they practice and deliver care, increasing the resources available in underserved rural communities.

I hope my colleagues will join me in continuing to take action to address the mental health crisis, and I hope that sharing my own story will make it easier for more Americans to add their voices to this fight.

Still, there is no magic cure for depression. There is no magic bill to solve this problem. Mental health is a reality of life for millions of people in our country, and we can't legislate it away. If we work to help more Americans bring their struggles out of the shadows into the sunshine, if we reach out to people in need and connect them with people who can help, and if we understand the factors that make people vulnerable to these problems and focus our energies on making sure the net is there to catch them if they fall--if we do these things, then we can take steps in the right direction, one right after the other and one day at a time.

I still remember what it felt like in those weeks and months after I began to treat my depression--the sense of empowerment that came with finally taking my mental health into my own hands, the renewed energy that came with finally feeling like today is better than yesterday and maybe tomorrow will be even better yet, and the joy that came with finally seeing hope on the horizon once again. So even in the midst of this public health crisis, I believe there is hope on the horizon for the millions of Americans who struggle with mental illness, but they are counting on us to make this hopeful vision a reality.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to join Senator Klobuchar and my colleagues on behalf of all Minnesotans and Americans who struggle to afford their prescription drugs.

The increasing price of prescription drugs is a top concern for Americans and Minnesotans. Every day, companies are launching new treatments at astronomical prices, and they are spiking the price of older drugs, like insulin. Americans are taking notice of this greedy behavior that puts patients last.

The No. 1 issue I hear about from Minnesotans is the cost of healthcare and specifically the cost of prescription drugs. Every day, Minnesotans inspire me to fight to lower the price of prescription drugs, Minnesotans like Rachael Malmberg, a military veteran with cancer.

Before Rachel battled cancer, she battled teams on the ice, playing hockey for the University of Minnesota and the U.S. Olympic Team. Rachael's daily medicine is stabilizing her cancer, but it comes at a great cost. Even with health insurance, she still pays $9,000 a month. For Rachael, affording her prescription drugs is a matter of life or death.

I have also talked with Minnesotans like Nikki Foster, a mom living with multiple sclerosis in Brooklyn Park, MN. Nikki received her MS diagnosis only 3 months after running her first half-marathon. The diagnosis was frightening, and Nikki wondered if she would ever be able to run again. I am happy to say that 4 years later, Nikki is walking and running just fine. Her progress is due largely to the treatment regimen her doctors prescribed. However, with the rising price of her primary medication, Nikki wonders how long she is going to be able to afford it. When her medication was first introduced to the market in 2004, the price was around $16,000 a year. Today, it is more than $80,000.

Without significant changes in the formulation of her medicine, the price has skyrocketed 440 percent. Those higher prices translated to higher monthly costs and a constant source of worry for Nikki.

Finally, I am inspired by the memory of Alec Smith. Here is Alec's story. Alec transitioned off his mom's health insurance at age 26. He was a type 1 diabetic, so he depended on insulin to survive. Without insurance, Alec faced a $1,300-a-month cost for managing his diabetes. Most of that was driven by the high price of the insulin. Alec had a good job, but his diabetes treatment was eating up nearly 45 percent of his monthly salary, and that is on top of regular expenses for food and rent and other basic necessities. So Alec did what he had to do. He rationed his insulin to make ends meet. Unfortunately, less than a month after his 26th birthday and less than 1 month after he transitioned off his mom's insurance, Alec passed away. He was the victim of insulin rationing.

Colleagues, we are at a crisis point. Thousands of people like Alec are rationing their prescriptions so they can afford them, and sometimes they are literally paying with their lives. Patients with health insurance, like Nikki and Rachael, are facing higher and higher out-of-pocket costs, and seniors are being forced to choose between paying for groceries and paying for their medicine.

In the wealthiest country in the world, this is unacceptable. It is morally wrong that the pharmaceutical companies are raking profits off of skyrocketing prices while Americans struggle to pay for their prescription drugs. That is simple to understand, but the industry would have you believe otherwise.

Their first argument. Well, drug pricing is so complex; it is impossible to understand; and Congress should study the problem. I would argue this complexity serves a function. Complexity obscures all the ways the drug companies are gaming the system to drive up profits. Colleagues, we can't be paralyzed by complexity. We need to create more transparency in drug pricing.

So then the pharmaceutical companies come back with their second argument. They say high prices are the result of altruistic purposes, like investing in research, development, and innovation, but, colleagues, remember, it is taxpayers, not drug companies, who are subsidizing the basic research that leads to innovation and new cures through the National Institutes of Health. Innovation can't help people if it is too expensive to afford.

So then comes their closing argument. We aren't the problem, say the drug companies. It is the PBMs. It is the insurers. It is everybody else but us. I would argue that everyone has a role to play. Lots of companies profit from high drug prices all along the supply chain. That needs to be fixed, and all of these players need to be held accountable. Pointing fingers and shifting blame will not bring down high drug prices. Comprehensive solutions will.

In the coming weeks, I will be reintroducing the Affordable Medications Act, which is a comprehensive solution that targets the multiple causes of the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs, and a number of my Democratic colleagues are working with me on this bill. It would increase transparency and hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in setting high prices. My bill would make prescription drugs more affordable by allowing Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices, just like we already do with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

My bill goes further by penalizing drug companies that spike prices and allowing for the safe importation of lower cost drugs from other countries like Canada. My bill would spur innovation by creating a fund for new antibiotics and funding for clinical drug trials, and it would protect competition by blocking unfair, anticompetitive drug monopoly practices. This bill would eliminate the blame game and put patients at the center of the solution.

Now, I recently introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Cassidy to help bring low-cost biosimilars, like insulin, to the market. I am working to reintroduce legislation that would limit the ability of the big brand name drug companies to keep lower cost generic drugs off the market.

Many of these proposals have bipartisan support. Many more should, but we haven't brought any of these bills up for a vote in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to take up these proposals and the drug pricing bills making their way through the House right now as we speak. Alec, Nikki, Rachael, and all of our constituents don't have the luxury of waiting for Congress to break through legislative gridlock until they can afford what they need to live.

Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for drawing attention to this issue and for inviting me to join with you today.

I yield to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine.

Mr. President, climate change is the existential challenge of our time. I know this because this is what the science says. I know this because I have seen the impacts of climate change in my State. I know this because it is what our children who will live with the consequences of a changing climate tell us. In a recent poll, half of Americans age 18 to 29 describe climate change as a ``crisis that demands urgent action.''

Today I rise to discuss how the clean energy revolution can be the way we fight climate change and the way we create jobs and opportunity. Colleagues, in this global challenge, the United States can lead or we can follow. I want us to lead.

This morning, as a Senator from an agricultural and high-tech State from the Upper Midwest, I have joined with Representative Ben Ray Lujan, who represents the great State of New Mexico, a State with significant oil and gas resources, to introduce the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019. Our legislation would dramatically expand clean electricity and put the United States on a path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector by the middle of the century, including a nearly 80-percent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 2005.

Not so long ago, the United States was a global leader in tackling climate change. President Obama took strong action to remove carbon emissions from cars. He advanced the Clean Power Plan to significantly reduce emissions in the electric sector, and he provided the essential leadership that led to adoption of the international Paris climate agreement, which commits the countries of the world to collectively hold global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Unfortunately, our current President has moved unilaterally to undo these actions, as if we can bury our heads in the sand and ignore the reality that a warming climate threatens our health, it threatens our financial stability, and it threatens our very existence. I regret to say it, but for the most part, the Republican-led Congress has gone along with President Trump as he has ceded U.S. leadership on climate and clean energy to our competitors.

The result of this? Our global competitors are happy to dominate in this field. This is, I think, quite interesting. China has more than twice as much wind power as the United States, and in 2018, China beat the United States on new wind installations by more than 3 to 1. Half of all new solar installations in the world last year happened in China. Here at home, President Trump's policies caused the solar energy industry to shed 20,000 jobs as the United States lags in fourth place on installed solar energy.

Fortunately, while Washington wavers, there is a groundswell of support for the clean energy revolution at the local level. When President Trump moved against the Paris climate agreement, Americans responded with the ``We Are Still In'' campaign. Churches, Tribes, mayors, county executives, and campus leaders led the way. States followed and took action. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives pledged and passed legislation to renew our commitment to the Paris Agreement.

There are now over 100 cities around the country which have committed to clean or renewable energy. Four States and the District of Columbia have policies that will get them to net zero emissions by mid-century. Several more are moving in that direction. In my home State, Minnesota's Governor, Tim Walz, has a plan for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. That bill passed the Minnesota House by a 74-to-59 vote. Minnesota Senate, it is now your turn. To my colleagues in the Senate, it is our turn as well.

I believe the best ideas come from people working at the local level to solve problems, and I also think the best ideas that can get done are those that bring people together across regional differences, political ideology, and their own life experiences. That is how our bill, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, came to be. It builds on what is already working at the local level.

As a clean energy standard, it has a bipartisan history. Back when Republicans and Democrats were working together on bills to reduce carbon pollution--all the way back in 2009 through 2012--clean energy standard bills like this one had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. This bill today is supported by labor groups, by environmental groups, and by utilities--an unlikely but strong coalition in these days of divisive politics.

The basics of this plan are simple. First, let's start where electric utilities are and then improve from there. We know many electric utilities are shifting to renewables and clean energy because it is the most cost-competitive thing for them to do and because it is what their customers want, but we also know that each utility is going to start from a different place in terms of the amount of clean energy it already sells.

Let's start there. Our bill recognizes these regional differences and then asks each utility to improve from where they are. One size does not fit all. On the one hand, States like Idaho and Washington are blessed with abundant hydropower and already produce over 80 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources. On the other hand, four of our united States get less than 10 percent of their electricity from carbon-free generation. Our bill asks each utility to start from where they are and improve from there.

Utilities that start with a low amount of clean energy are asked to grow quickly, but they slow down as they reach very high levels of net zero emission electricity. The plan recognizes also that rural co-ops and municipal utilities face unique challenges, and we accommodate that.

The second thing about this plan is this: Let's be ambitious. Science tells us that we need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. We desperately need some can-do American spirit and ingenuity here, not nay-saying.

This bill is ambitious. It would result in expected electric sector emission reductions of nearly 80 percent by 2035 compared to 2005 benchmarks. If the cost curve bends faster and the clean energy transition turns out to be even cheaper, reductions will happen even faster.

Third, let's be open to all solutions for a clean energy future. Addressing the challenges of climate change isn't easy, and there is no one solution. We need to be open to all ideas and all approaches so long as they actually reduce carbon emissions. If we want an electric system that is not only zero emissions but also reliable, resilient, and affordable, we can't afford to rule out any technologies in advance.

None of us knows in 2019 what is going to be the best way to run a reliable, affordable net zero emissions electric system in 2050. What we do know is that we need to create strong

clean energy incentives that the electricity market will understand and respond to and then allow all technologies to compete. That is what this bill does.

Here is what that might look like. Here is what it could look like. Most scientific models say that in a net zero emission electric grid, renewable sources like wind and solar will deliver the bulk of the electricity we need, but we also know that a reliable grid needs energy sources that can be turned up or down when we need them. This means resilient, reliable electric grids that will be built on a combination of hydropower, nuclear power, long-term energy storage, and fossil fuels, if they are deployed with carbon capture.

What will be the proportion of these energy sources in 2050? We can't know that today, but what we do know, based on one leading model, is an approach like the one in our bill that is open to all clean sources of electricity will be up to trillions of dollars cheaper than an approach that relies on handpicking technological winners and losers. Colleagues, clean, reliable, and affordable energy is important to my constituents in Minnesota, and I bet it is important to your constituents as well.

Fighting climate change is a big challenge that requires a lot of good ideas. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, which I introduced today, will get the electric power sector to net zero carbon emissions, but it doesn't do everything we need to do to fight climate change.

This bill is only one of the steps that we need to take to move our country and our world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is fair and just and economical, but it is an important piece.

In the electric sector, we already know a lot about how to make progress to lower carbon emissions. Thanks to innovation and good policies at the State level, emissions from electricity production have declined substantially just in the last decade.

Now we need to keep that progress going and going faster. We need to continue and accelerate progress and expand the use of clean electricity into other sectors.

Think about this. A clean electric grid can provide the energy to reduce carbon emissions in transportation, in buildings, and in other parts of our economy. Electric vehicles can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean energy electric sector. Office buildings and homes can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean electric sector. That is what progress can look like.

I am grateful that a few of my fellow Republicans in Congress are moving beyond the President's head-in-the-sand denial of climate change. These colleagues--and I hope more of them--are looking for ways to spur innovation in clean energy by providing new funding for clean energy research.

This is all well and good, but Federal funding for clean energy research will not work all on its own. What drives adoption and dispersion of innovation is a strong market signal that low carbon sources of electricity will be valued by the market, and that will be happening predictably as big utilities make important capital investments. Research money provides a really important push to get innovation started in the lab, but for innovation to move from technology to be adopted at a scale and pace that we need, we must be sending a strong, clear signal from the market that low-carbon sources of electricity are going to be valued.

The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 does this. It is a crucial complement to Manhattan Project efforts to spur technology innovation. These two are complements but not alternatives. Research without market incentives will not get us where we need to go.

Colleagues, climate change is real, and we need bold action to fight it. If we do--when we do--the United States can be the clean energy leader. This will be good for jobs. It will be good for our health, and it will be necessary for the survival of our planet.

We can lead or we can follow. I believe we need to lead. This is what our bill seeks to do by putting the United States in the forefront for reaching net zero carbon emissions in the electric sector. This is an environmental imperative. It is an economic imperative, and it is a jobs imperative. I don't care whether you come from a State that gets 80 percent of its power from clean energy or whether you get 10 percent.

This is why our plan has the endorsement of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Clean Air Task Force, and Fresh Energy in Minnesota. Our plan is supported by the Utility Workers of America and United Steelworkers. Bills that are acceptable to labor, the environmental movement, and forward-thinking utilities are rare. Yet this is what we really need if we are going to build a winning coalition to address climate change.

We Democrats understand that the climate crisis requires bold action, and we understand that we need many ideas and many solutions. I offer one today.

I challenge--I urge--my Republican colleagues to do the same and to join us. Join with us and help us find solutions to a crisis that will shape irrevocably the world our children and our grandchildren will be living in.

Science tells us that the challenge is great, but it also shows us solutions that can cut net carbon emissions to zero, lower energy costs, and expand jobs and opportunity. That is the future I want for my children and my grandchildren yet to be born. Let's get to work. We don't have any time to waste.

I thank Representative Lujan for partnering with me on this bill. I thank my colleagues Senators Heinrich, Kaine, Whitehouse, and Schatz for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, longtime chair of the Senate Energy Committee, who first worked in a bipartisan way on a clean energy standard bill that was a template for our effort today.

I thank also the scientists and economists who have provided thoughtful analysis as we developed this bill--most prominently, Resources for the Future and President Obama's Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. I am grateful for their support and eager to begin the push to get our policies moved forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, climate change is the existential challenge of our time. I know this because this is what the science says. I know this because I have seen the impacts of climate change in my State. I know this because it is what our children who will live with the consequences of a changing climate tell us. In a recent poll, half of Americans age 18 to 29 describe climate change as a ``crisis that demands urgent action.''

Today I rise to discuss how the clean energy revolution can be the way we fight climate change and the way we create jobs and opportunity. Colleagues, in this global challenge, the United States can lead or we can follow. I want us to lead.

This morning, as a Senator from an agricultural and high-tech State from the Upper Midwest, I have joined with Representative Ben Ray Lujan, who represents the great State of New Mexico, a State with significant oil and gas resources, to introduce the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019. Our legislation would dramatically expand clean electricity and put the United States on a path to net zero greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector by the middle of the century, including a nearly 80-percent reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to 2005.

Not so long ago, the United States was a global leader in tackling climate change. President Obama took strong action to remove carbon emissions from cars. He advanced the Clean Power Plan to significantly reduce emissions in the electric sector, and he provided the essential leadership that led to adoption of the international Paris climate agreement, which commits the countries of the world to collectively hold global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

Unfortunately, our current President has moved unilaterally to undo these actions, as if we can bury our heads in the sand and ignore the reality that a warming climate threatens our health, it threatens our financial stability, and it threatens our very existence. I regret to say it, but for the most part, the Republican-led Congress has gone along with President Trump as he has ceded U.S. leadership on climate and clean energy to our competitors.

The result of this? Our global competitors are happy to dominate in this field. This is, I think, quite interesting. China has more than twice as much wind power as the United States, and in 2018, China beat the United States on new wind installations by more than 3 to 1. Half of all new solar installations in the world last year happened in China. Here at home, President Trump's policies caused the solar energy industry to shed 20,000 jobs as the United States lags in fourth place on installed solar energy.

Fortunately, while Washington wavers, there is a groundswell of support for the clean energy revolution at the local level. When President Trump moved against the Paris climate agreement, Americans responded with the ``We Are Still In'' campaign. Churches, Tribes, mayors, county executives, and campus leaders led the way. States followed and took action. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives pledged and passed legislation to renew our commitment to the Paris Agreement.

There are now over 100 cities around the country which have committed to clean or renewable energy. Four States and the District of Columbia have policies that will get them to net zero emissions by mid-century. Several more are moving in that direction. In my home State, Minnesota's Governor, Tim Walz, has a plan for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. That bill passed the Minnesota House by a 74-to-59 vote. Minnesota Senate, it is now your turn. To my colleagues in the Senate, it is our turn as well.

I believe the best ideas come from people working at the local level to solve problems, and I also think the best ideas that can get done are those that bring people together across regional differences, political ideology, and their own life experiences. That is how our bill, the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, came to be. It builds on what is already working at the local level.

As a clean energy standard, it has a bipartisan history. Back when Republicans and Democrats were working together on bills to reduce carbon pollution--all the way back in 2009 through 2012--clean energy standard bills like this one had both Democratic and Republican cosponsors. This bill today is supported by labor groups, by environmental groups, and by utilities--an unlikely but strong coalition in these days of divisive politics.

The basics of this plan are simple. First, let's start where electric utilities are and then improve from there. We know many electric utilities are shifting to renewables and clean energy because it is the most cost-competitive thing for them to do and because it is what their customers want, but we also know that each utility is going to start from a different place in terms of the amount of clean energy it already sells.

Let's start there. Our bill recognizes these regional differences and then asks each utility to improve from where they are. One size does not fit all. On the one hand, States like Idaho and Washington are blessed with abundant hydropower and already produce over 80 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources. On the other hand, four of our united States get less than 10 percent of their electricity from carbon-free generation. Our bill asks each utility to start from where they are and improve from there.

Utilities that start with a low amount of clean energy are asked to grow quickly, but they slow down as they reach very high levels of net zero emission electricity. The plan recognizes also that rural co-ops and municipal utilities face unique challenges, and we accommodate that.

The second thing about this plan is this: Let's be ambitious. Science tells us that we need to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. We desperately need some can-do American spirit and ingenuity here, not nay-saying.

This bill is ambitious. It would result in expected electric sector emission reductions of nearly 80 percent by 2035 compared to 2005 benchmarks. If the cost curve bends faster and the clean energy transition turns out to be even cheaper, reductions will happen even faster.

Third, let's be open to all solutions for a clean energy future. Addressing the challenges of climate change isn't easy, and there is no one solution. We need to be open to all ideas and all approaches so long as they actually reduce carbon emissions. If we want an electric system that is not only zero emissions but also reliable, resilient, and affordable, we can't afford to rule out any technologies in advance.

None of us knows in 2019 what is going to be the best way to run a reliable, affordable net zero emissions electric system in 2050. What we do know is that we need to create strong

clean energy incentives that the electricity market will understand and respond to and then allow all technologies to compete. That is what this bill does.

Here is what that might look like. Here is what it could look like. Most scientific models say that in a net zero emission electric grid, renewable sources like wind and solar will deliver the bulk of the electricity we need, but we also know that a reliable grid needs energy sources that can be turned up or down when we need them. This means resilient, reliable electric grids that will be built on a combination of hydropower, nuclear power, long-term energy storage, and fossil fuels, if they are deployed with carbon capture.

What will be the proportion of these energy sources in 2050? We can't know that today, but what we do know, based on one leading model, is an approach like the one in our bill that is open to all clean sources of electricity will be up to trillions of dollars cheaper than an approach that relies on handpicking technological winners and losers. Colleagues, clean, reliable, and affordable energy is important to my constituents in Minnesota, and I bet it is important to your constituents as well.

Fighting climate change is a big challenge that requires a lot of good ideas. The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, which I introduced today, will get the electric power sector to net zero carbon emissions, but it doesn't do everything we need to do to fight climate change.

This bill is only one of the steps that we need to take to move our country and our world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is fair and just and economical, but it is an important piece.

In the electric sector, we already know a lot about how to make progress to lower carbon emissions. Thanks to innovation and good policies at the State level, emissions from electricity production have declined substantially just in the last decade.

Now we need to keep that progress going and going faster. We need to continue and accelerate progress and expand the use of clean electricity into other sectors.

Think about this. A clean electric grid can provide the energy to reduce carbon emissions in transportation, in buildings, and in other parts of our economy. Electric vehicles can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean energy electric sector. Office buildings and homes can contribute to reduce carbon emissions when we have a clean electric sector. That is what progress can look like.

I am grateful that a few of my fellow Republicans in Congress are moving beyond the President's head-in-the-sand denial of climate change. These colleagues--and I hope more of them--are looking for ways to spur innovation in clean energy by providing new funding for clean energy research.

This is all well and good, but Federal funding for clean energy research will not work all on its own. What drives adoption and dispersion of innovation is a strong market signal that low carbon sources of electricity will be valued by the market, and that will be happening predictably as big utilities make important capital investments. Research money provides a really important push to get innovation started in the lab, but for innovation to move from technology to be adopted at a scale and pace that we need, we must be sending a strong, clear signal from the market that low-carbon sources of electricity are going to be valued.

The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 does this. It is a crucial complement to Manhattan Project efforts to spur technology innovation. These two are complements but not alternatives. Research without market incentives will not get us where we need to go.

Colleagues, climate change is real, and we need bold action to fight it. If we do--when we do--the United States can be the clean energy leader. This will be good for jobs. It will be good for our health, and it will be necessary for the survival of our planet.

We can lead or we can follow. I believe we need to lead. This is what our bill seeks to do by putting the United States in the forefront for reaching net zero carbon emissions in the electric sector. This is an environmental imperative. It is an economic imperative, and it is a jobs imperative. I don't care whether you come from a State that gets 80 percent of its power from clean energy or whether you get 10 percent.

This is why our plan has the endorsement of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Clean Air Task Force, and Fresh Energy in Minnesota. Our plan is supported by the Utility Workers of America and United Steelworkers. Bills that are acceptable to labor, the environmental movement, and forward-thinking utilities are rare. Yet this is what we really need if we are going to build a winning coalition to address climate change.

We Democrats understand that the climate crisis requires bold action, and we understand that we need many ideas and many solutions. I offer one today.

I challenge--I urge--my Republican colleagues to do the same and to join us. Join with us and help us find solutions to a crisis that will shape irrevocably the world our children and our grandchildren will be living in.

Science tells us that the challenge is great, but it also shows us solutions that can cut net carbon emissions to zero, lower energy costs, and expand jobs and opportunity. That is the future I want for my children and my grandchildren yet to be born. Let's get to work. We don't have any time to waste.

I thank Representative Lujan for partnering with me on this bill. I thank my colleagues Senators Heinrich, Kaine, Whitehouse, and Schatz for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, longtime chair of the Senate Energy Committee, who first worked in a bipartisan way on a clean energy standard bill that was a template for our effort today.

I thank also the scientists and economists who have provided thoughtful analysis as we developed this bill--most prominently, Resources for the Future and President Obama's Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. I am grateful for their support and eager to begin the push to get our policies moved forward.

I yield the floor.

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