Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my strong opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I want to specifically focus on what his confirmation could mean for the future of voting rights in this country.

The right to vote is our most sacred responsibility as citizens of this great Nation. Martin Luther King, Jr., called voting ``the foundation stone for political action.'' That is because when the right to vote is restricted, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy. If certain groups are barred or discouraged from voting, then our elected representatives cannot be held accountable for protecting the rights and interests of all of us.

When you cast your vote, you decide who should be entrusted to protect all of your rights--your right to make private decisions about how and when to start a family, your right to organize and advocate for fair pay and safe working conditions, your right to affordable healthcare, and your right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Yet, if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there is no doubt he will help his friends in far-right special interest groups continue their coordinated campaign to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote. These are the very same groups who recommended his nomination to the President.

These special interest groups have helped to pass State laws that have been designed to create obstacles at every step of the voting process, like making it more difficult to register to vote, to cast your vote, and to have your vote counted equally. These groups also know that they can count on Judge Kavanaugh to uphold these discriminatory laws.

As a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has a record of supporting laws that perpetuate voting discrimination, particularly against communities of color. In 2012, he wrote an opinion for a three-judge panel that upheld South Carolina's stringent voter ID law even though the Department of Justice had determined that the law would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Unfortunately, discriminatory voting laws, like the one Judge Kavanaugh upheld, have a long and shameful history in this country. When this country was founded, generally only property-owning White men had the right to vote. It took 80 years to expand the franchise to all male citizens regardless of their race or color. It took another 50 years to grant women the right to vote and another 4 years after that to grant that right to all Native Americans. Yet the expansion of the legal right to vote did not always translate into access at the polls. It took us over a century to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests, and other voter intimidation tactics. This landmark civil rights legislation finally put real teeth in the promise of the 15th Amendment--that no one should be denied the right to vote on account of one's race or the color of one's skin.

Unfortunately, in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted one of the most important protections of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Since then, far-right special interests at the State level have doubled down on their efforts to make it harder for people to vote by eliminating same-day and online voter registration, by limiting early voting, by enacting voter ID laws, and by purging infrequent voters from the registration rolls. These latest efforts make it harder rather than easier for people to vote. They show us there is still so much work to be done to fulfill the promise of the 14th and 15th Amendments--that every citizen can vote.

We deserve a Justice who is committed to making our democracy more representative so that we remain a government for the people and not just for some of the people. We need a Supreme Court Justice who appreciates the history of this hard-won fundamental right and who will not reverse course on centuries of progress. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions show that he will uphold State laws that make it harder for communities of color and people of low-income to make their voices heard.

Our voting laws reflect our beliefs about who should have a voice in this country. I am proud to represent Minnesota, the State with the highest voter turnout in the Nation, and I believe that our next Supreme Court Justice should vigorously defend the right of all eligible citizens to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right--the right to vote. Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh's record demonstrates he will not be that Justice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination, and I urge the American people to make their voices heard.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong concern about Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. In particular, I want to discuss today his troubling record on the environment and what that means for people's health.

Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he simply doesn't believe that existing law allows new environmental threats to be addressed via any sort of regulation. I am talking about existing law designed to protect human health and our environment.

When you take a look at Judge Kavanaugh's record, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Judge Kavanaugh has tried to weaken Clean Air Act protections even though the act controls pollutants such as smog and carbon monoxide, which contribute to asthma, heart attacks, and even premature deaths. They put our health at risk.

In a 2012 case, Judge Kavanaugh authored an opinion that found the EPA had exceeded its authority when the Agency directed upwind States to literally stop blowing smoke onto their downwind neighbors. The good news is that the Supreme Court was more sensible than Judge Kavanaugh. Justices Kennedy and Roberts joined four others in a 6-to-2 decision to overturn Judge Kavanaugh's lower court ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg found that the EPA does have the power to act to protect people's health. I agree with the Supreme Court's 2012 decision, and so do most Americans. An April 2018 poll found that 75 percent of Americans support even stricter limits on smog.

What Judge Kavanaugh particularly doesn't like is that the Clean Air Act specifically gives the Environmental Protection Agency the right-- the duty, even--to regulate new pollutants that threaten people's health. He has objected to using the law to establish new programs to reduce mercury--a potent toxin that harms developing brains. In 2014, Judge Kavanaugh lashed out at tough standards for mercury--a toxin that has been found to harm children's development.

Judge Kavanaugh's narrow view of the Clean Air Act could be extremely damaging to our efforts to address climate change by regulating greenhouse gases. Although the act does not mention greenhouse gases by name, the Supreme Court has held that the EPA does have the power to regulate them. In fact, the Court held that the act requires the EPA to address any air pollutants that are found to endanger human health. But Judge Kavanaugh still seems to have a problem with adding new pollutants to that list. This is even though Judge Kavanaugh claims to believe what virtually every scientist tells us: that manmade climate change is real and is an enormous threat to our planet and to our health. But merely accepting climate science is too low a bar because even if Judge Kavanaugh believes in the urgent challenge of climate change, he doesn't seem to believe there is an urgent need to address it, as his record demonstrates.

Over the next few decades, the Supreme Court will have many opportunities to weigh in on how our government can work to protect our environment, particularly regarding climate change.

And the stakes are high: Scientists tell us that in order to avoid dangerous global warming, we must reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to zero sometime between 2050 and 2065. But in 2018, global carbon emissions are still increasing, not decreasing.

At the same time, President Trump is attempting to backpedal on every commitment our country has made toward fighting global warming. He is pulling us out of the Paris climate agreement. He is pulling back the Clean Power Plan. He is looking for ways to force utilities to keep expensive coal plants online--a move that would cost Americans billions of dollars in increased electricity bills.

All of these moves will hurt the environment and harm the health of Americans, and in each case, Judge Kavanaugh's record shows that he is likely to act as nothing but an enabler.

My State of Minnesota is already experiencing the cost of climate change. The rains in Minnesota are growing more intense, leading to increased damage from flooding. As our winters grow milder and our summers warmer, plant and human diseases are spreading. Many scientists predict that the forests in my State will retreat rapidly, leaving Minnesota looking like Kansas by the end of this century.

But it does not need to be all bad news. A rapid transition to emissions-free energy sources is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but this change will bring economic opportunity to our country. We just need to rise to the challenge. In Minnesota, wind and solar and biofuels are already potent drivers of job growth.

If Judge Kavanaugh succeeds in overturning the Federal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the clean energy transition in our country will certainly slow. We will lose the competitive advantage to China and other economic rivals in the race to develop the technology and innovations of an affordable, clean energy future.

Right now, we have a President who pushes coal and fossil fuels which, unless their carbon dioxide emissions are captured, must become the energy sources of the past. President Trump's energy policy is backward-looking and puts our economic competitiveness at risk. But presidents serve only for a term or two, which brings us back again to Judge Kavanaugh.

Hopefully, we will be able to recover from the backward environmental policies of the Trump administration. But Supreme Court Justices serve for life, so we cannot afford a Justice who is hostile to our environment and to human health. We cannot afford a Justice who rejects actions to fight climate change. We just don't have the time.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the farm bill that the Senate is currently considering.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their strong leadership on this bipartisan bill. When I first became a Senator just months ago, I asked for a seat on the Agriculture Committee, and I immediately formed a farm bill working group in Minnesota so that I could hear from farmers and ranchers, foresters, researchers, rural community leaders, and Tribes, as well as experts on nutrition, energy, and conservation, to make sure that Minnesota's priorities were included in this farm bill.

In the last few months, in Minnesota, my staff and I have convened over 30 listening sessions around the State, and I am very grateful for the input and ideas we have gotten through the farm bill process.

The farm bill touches the lives of virtually every American, and it is vital to my State's economy. This bill will provide important stability and predictability to Minnesota farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and Indian Country, while also sustaining tens of thousands of Minnesota jobs.

The farm bill works when all three pillars of the bill work together: traditional farm programs, rural development, and nutrition. If we remove one of these pillars, the farm bill will not be able to stand.

The nutrition programs reauthorized by the Senate farm bill are of vital importance. According to the Agriculture Department, in 2016, over 41 million people, including millions of children across the country, lived in food-insecure households. This is why, when you talk to farmers and ranchers in my State, they know how important it is to support nutrition programs, and they understand, as I do, that any efforts to weaken nutrition programs will ensure that this bill does not pass.

I was proud to be able to participate in crafting the farm bill as a member of the Agriculture Committee. It was a truly bipartisan process, an example of how we can get things done when we work together.

I am very happy that this bill includes many of the provisions I worked hard on, on behalf of Minnesota. For example, the Senate bill maintains the sugar program, which is so important to Minnesota's sugar beet farmers. The sugar industry employs about 29,000 people in Minnesota and provides 142,000 jobs nationwide. Sugar is a $20 billion- a-year industry--$3.4 billion in my State alone.

The U.S. sugar policy runs at zero cost and ensures that American farmers are on an even playing field against subsidized foreign sugar. Any amendment that threatens the safety net for sugar farmers could put many farmers into bankruptcy and should be opposed.

This farm bill also expands gains made in the dairy safety net earlier this year. I pushed for these improvements to help Minnesota dairy farmers who are facing falling milk prices.

I am pleased that this farm bill will establish a new national animal disease preparedness, response, and recovery program. I heard about the need for vaccine banks and animal disease readiness at a poultry testing lab in Willmar, MN. When Minnesota was hit hard by the avian flu outbreak that resulted in the deaths of nearly 9 million turkeys and chickens, we knew this new program was needed.

I have also pushed for other Minnesota priorities that came out of the many conversations we had with Minnesotans. I worked hard to make sure this bill advances conservation programs so farmers have the opportunity to start new conservation plans and then keep them going over the long term to protect the environment and increase productivity.

I supported Ranking Member Stabenow's Timber Innovation Act. This bill encourages new and innovative uses for wood in building construction, which is important for the timber industry in my State.

I am very proud that this bill expands programs I advocated for to help beginning farmers and traditionally disadvantaged farmers. We need to make sure producers from diverse backgrounds are able to access USDA services. In my State, this means Native American farmers, Hmong, Latino, Somali farmers, and veteran farmers.

Today, as our farmers face deep uncertainty around tariffs, this bill includes bipartisan provisions to increase funding for USDA trade promotion activities. International markets are essential to the profitability of many farmers, including in Minnesota.

This bill also helps to protect Native food products from fraudulent imposters on the market. For example, some food businesses are trying to mimic or replicate unique Tribal food products, such as Minnesota wild rice, and then sell those foods on the marketplace as ``traditional'' food items.

Developing new international markets through trade promotion is something Minnesota farmers and leaders in Indian Country have been calling for, and we do it in this bill.

As ranking member of the Rural Development and Energy Subcommittee, I am very happy that this bill has a strong energy title. I introduced legislation outlining a roadmap for this title in the farm bill, and I led a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues urging the committee to fund and strengthen the many successful energy programs at USDA.

One example is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps ag producers, local businesses, and rural communities develop energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that create jobs, cut energy bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another example is the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Program. American farmers can provide the raw material for high-value products that replace and improve on products typically made from oil. Bioplastics, for example, are better for the planet than traditional plastics.

Another message I hear all the time as I meet with rural development leaders across Minnesota is the need for reliable internet service. Broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st-century economy. It is not just nice to have; it is necessary if we are going to build an economy that works for everyone. Whether you are a student doing your homework, a business owner selling your products, a farmer using modern precision agriculture equipment, or a person who is trying to access healthcare, you need access to broadband internet service. I am very glad this bill incorporates my Community Connect Grant Program Act to authorize and increase funding for this important effort. The bill also seeks to modernize speeds so that those living

in rural communities don't get stuck with lower service quality than those living in urban areas.

The Community Connect Broadband Grant Program will create better broadband access to unserved remote and Tribal communities and help spur economic growth in rural America. It is a step forward and one of the many things that we need to do to connect Minnesotans to people across the Nation with affordable, reliable internet service.

I also hear from Minnesotans about their love of local produce and the importance of supporting regional food economies. I am happy to see that this bill creates a streamlined Local Agriculture Market Program to support developing local and regional food systems, and it increases mandatory funding for organic research, another priority of mine.

I am proud that this bill includes the Rural Health Liaison legislation, which I worked on with Senator Jones from Alabama and Senator Rounds of South Dakota. The Rural Health Liaison will encourage collaboration between USDA and Health and Human Services to address the specific healthcare needs of rural communities.

I am pleased to see the inclusion of my bill encouraging USDA to assist veterans in joining the agriculture workforce after leaving service. This is going to expand access and job opportunities for returning servicemembers.

As we consider the farm bill on the Senate floor, we also need to listen to all of our communities, including leaders in Indian Country. We have many good provisions in the bill for Native communities. In addition to addressing Tribal food fraud, this bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to support greater inclusion of Tribal products in Federal trade promotion efforts. It also expands eligibility for forestry program funding to include the 1994 Tribal colleges so more students in Minnesota and around the country can get involved in forestry research.

I was glad to join Senator Heitkamp in supporting a new technical assistance program that will help Tribes access rural development initiatives and will authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate Tribal promise zones to further improve access to Federal economic development resources.

Finally, I am eager to see Native farmers in Minnesota take advantage of the improved resources for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in this bill. There are so many opportunities for success in agriculture, and it is important that USDA resources are available to all communities. But there is a lot left to be done. We still need to access many more USDA programs for Native Americans and empower Tribes to make sure that these programs work for Tribal communities.

We need more investment in conservation projects, and we should allow Tribes to develop their own technical standards for conservation based on their traditions and ecological knowledge.

When I first became a Senator, I asked to be a member of the Indian Affairs Committee. As the newest member of that committee, I have picked up on a couple of themes.

One is that virtually every program for Indian Country is underfunded, and, two, we have to empower Tribes to create solutions that work for their members. We need to listen to leaders in Indian Country and make sure that the farm bill works for them.

I introduced an amendment to make sure that Tribes have the authority to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. This is a top priority of the Native Farm Bill Coalition.

Over 360 federally recognized Tribes participate in Tribal self- governance programs at the Indian Health Service and at the Department of the Interior. With a 30-year proven track record, Tribal self- governance is widely considered by Tribes and stakeholders as one of the most successful Federal Indian policies. Approximately 25 percent of Native Americans receive some type of Federal food assistance, and in some Tribal communities, participation is as high as 80 percent. Giving Tribes the authority to administer SNAP will allow them to meet the specific needs of their communities to fight hunger.

I am hopeful that this very important, bipartisan amendment will get proper consideration.

We need to pass this farm bill now to give the farmers and ranchers certainty.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today in recognizing the anniversary of a landmark Supreme Court decision, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

Before I talk about that decision, I want to talk today about Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement. This is a pivotal moment in our country. With Justice Kennedy's retirement announcement today, the stakes have never been higher for making sure we choose a Supreme Court Justice committed to the Constitution and to protecting the most fundamental rights of Americans--the right to vote, the ability to organize, and a woman's right to choose.

Whomever replaces Justice Kennedy will, no doubt, have a say on issues that affect the lives of every American--issues such as the healthcare system, our elections, and the health of our environment.

In February of 2016, some 9 months before the 2016 election, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement saying: ``The American people should have a voice in the selection of our next Supreme Court Justice.'' He kept his word. He didn't hold a hearing or a vote on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, during that election year.

I believe Republicans should be held to the same standard they set themselves. The Senate has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent. We are a little more than 4 months away from an election that will decide the balance of the Senate. So let us let the American people decide who provides that advice and consent, especially given the close balance of the Senate as it stands today.

Back to the Whole Woman's Health decision, 2 years ago today, the Court reaffirmed that women have a constitutional right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health and family planning. The Court found that this fundamental right could not be unduly burdened with regulatory restrictions and requirements by the State or Federal Government. This was just one in a long line of Supreme Court decisions that affirm a woman's right to make personal, private decisions about her healthcare and family planning.

Whole Woman's Health recognized that in order to protect women's constitutional rights, it is not enough that abortion services are theoretically available. They must also be practically accessible.

It is especially important to recognize the anniversary of this important decision today because just yesterday the Supreme Court issued another decision, one that, unfortunately, threatens to make it harder for women to receive reliable and accurate information about the full range of their reproductive healthcare options.

As a U.S. Senator but also as a woman who served as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood and then as an executive for Planned Parenthood in North Dakota and South Dakota, I know that the right to access safe and reliable reproductive healthcare has a profound impact on women's lives.

Women cannot have economic security if they do not have the freedom to decide when and how to raise a family. This deeply personal decision influences women's choices about whether to go to school, buy a home, or start a new business. I trust women to make

these decisions for themselves and their families without the government looking over their shoulders.

Whole Woman's Health struck down some of the most egregious burdens on women's rights to access reproductive healthcare. But the fight to protect women's rights to accessible, safe, and reliable reproductive health is far from over. Despite this ruling, some States have continued their attempts to undermine women's constitutional rights.

In fact, in the 2 years since Whole Woman's Health was decided, States have proposed over 1,000 new restrictions on abortion, and 180 of those have become law. Many of these restrictions are aimed at shutting down clinics or criminalizing providers. Make no mistake. This is not about protecting women's health. This is about influencing women's choices, and it is wrong.

I believe strongly that the government has no business interfering in a woman's medical decisions. These decisions should be made by a woman, her family, and her healthcare provider. I trust women to make these decisions that are best for themselves and their own situations. This is why I am proud to cosponsor the Women's Health Protection Act, which would protect women's access to safe and legal healthcare services, regardless of where they live.

The bill would prohibit States from imposing restrictions on abortion services that do not promote women's health or safety. For example, laws that target providers with unnecessary and burdensome building codes or those that force women to undergo medically unnecessary testing and procedures would be prohibited.

This bill would codify the standards set in Whole Woman's Health and authorize the Department of Justice to protect women's constitutional rights by going after these unconstitutional laws.

I stand with women, and I invite my colleagues to do the same by cosponsoring the Women's Health Protection Act.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, last week I gave my first floor speech. I spoke about how important it is for women to be represented in our government and why it is so important to keep working so that our legislature reflects the views and experiences of all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I am so proud to be here. This is my first time speaking on the Senate floor, and because I represent the great State of Minnesota, I thought I would do the polite thing and start out by properly introducing myself.

I came to Minnesota right out of business school, just married, with my husband Archie, in a beat-up orange car, and with a ton of student loans. Most people who have never been to Minnesota know us for our weather, but we have a thriving business community with a number of Fortune 500 companies, and I got my start working for one of them: General Mills.

The winters were every bit as cold as we had heard, but Archie and I fell in love with Minnesota anyway and, before long, we put down roots. We have two sons, Sam and Mason, and instead of just building a career, suddenly we were building a life.

I am so glad Archie and my dad Harlan, whose 88th birthday is this Saturday, could come to Washington to cheer me on today.

So that is the story of how I became a Minnesotan. The story of how I wound up in the Senate really starts in 1990. I had left General Mills and started a small business that I ran out of our house. Sam was 3, Mason was 1. It was a busy, exciting, and happy time for us.

My parents had raised me to believe that if you are truly going to be part of a community, it is not enough to just pay your taxes and keep your lawn nice and say hi at the grocery store. You have to find a way to get involved in civic life. When I was young, they had been involved in local politics. So I looked around the community, where Archie and I had decided to raise our kids, and saw we had a State senator who was really out of touch with the values my neighbors and I shared. Not only that, but there was a young, energetic candidate running against her, and he had young kids, just like we did.

In those days, campaigns tended to put their focus on traditional neighborhoods with single-family homes. I guess the idea was that if you own your own home, that probably means you are old enough to be likely to vote and invested enough in your community to really care about what is happening, but a lot of my neighbors lived in apartment buildings, and they had a lot to say about how they thought things were going, and frankly they were kind of tired of being ignored. As I have always seen it, if you really listen to people, you will find that everybody has a story worth hearing, everybody has a problem that is worth working to solve, and when it comes to making big decisions in the community, everybody deserves a seat at the table.

So I packed up the stroller with Sam and Mason, and we went off to organize in the apartment buildings. People were surprised to see me, but I had a great time. I got to know my neighbors, asked a lot of questions, listened to their answers, and we built relationships. The guy I was organizing for became the first Democrat to win that seat in a decade.

After that, I stayed involved in campaigns and issues I cared about, especially when it came to women's issues. My dad had been on the board of Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and I got a chance to work for Planned Parenthood in Minnesota.

Then one day I got a call from the mayor of Minneapolis, R.T. Rybak. He had been in office for a few years and was working on a whole range of challenges, starting with an epidemic of violence among young people. R.T. is a really creative thinker, and he thought that if I could bring my business experience to the position of chief of staff, we could do some good work together. I was intrigued, so I made the leap.

It was one of the best professional decisions I have ever made. I loved the challenges of that job. Later, I held the same job for the Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton.

Then one day, to my utter shock, Governor Dayton asked me to run with him and serve as Lieutenant Governor. I will be honest. That took a little bit of getting used to. When it comes to public service, I have always been a lot more comfortable with the service part than the public part, but that job involved a lot of the same skills I used in my business career: building relationships, looking for new solutions to old problems, creating coalitions to get things done, and it involved one of my favorite parts of politics, which is listening to people's stories.

A lot of times, when a big, powerful politician walks into a room full of people, everybody kind of clams up and waits for him to say what is on his mind. After all, that is why people came and, at the end, maybe he has time for a couple of questions before he has to run off to the next event, but there is rarely a chance for a real conversation.

This is where being kind of a low-key person works to my advantage. I would come into coffee shops or community centers or even people's homes, and I would introduce myself and ask people questions: What is going on with you? What have the last few weeks been like for you? What keeps you up at night? That is when people really start to open up.

You know, it is one thing to go around the table at a forum and have someone say ``healthcare is my big issue,'' but when you are in someone's living room and you are drinking their coffee--and we love coffee in Minnesota--you have met their dog, you get the chance to hear stories like this:

I just went to visit my mom in a nursing home. She is 40 miles away. With the kids in soccer and karate and the school band, I am just so busy, I only get there a couple of times a month. The nurses are great, and they work so hard, but they only stay there for 6 months at a time because they get hired away by a big hospital system that can pay them more. So I worry that my mom is never going to get the same nurse for more than 6 months at a time. I wish there was some way these nurses could get paid more so they don't have to leave.

I can't tell you how much these conversations mean to me, and so, when I was Lieutenant Governor, I made Minnesotans' living rooms my office, and I spent as much time as I could just talking to people. I have always found that when you ask people what they think and then you really listen to what they say, instead of just waiting for the answer that you were expecting, that is when you start to get a sense of what you can do to improve people's lives.

Now that I have this opportunity to serve the people of Minnesota in Washington, I am so focused on the issues that they tell me about when I am sitting in their living rooms, around their family pictures, and talking about what is happening to them.

The thing that keeps coming up in these conversations is a very simple but a very powerful idea; that is, freedom. In this country, you are supposed to have the freedom to build the kind of life you want-- and not just the freedom but the opportunity. If you are putting in 16- /18-hour days and still struggling to make the rent and put food on the table, let alone pay for childcare or if you have a child who doesn't want to go to a 4-year college and you have no idea how he or she is going to find a decent job out of high school or if someone in your family is sick and the cost of medicine is blowing a gaping hole in your budget, well, then you are not getting that opportunity, are you? You don't have that freedom.

Minnesotans who aren't getting that opportunity, who are being denied that freedom, deserve to have a voice here in Washington, and that is the kind of Senator I want to be.

So this is the story of how I came to be here and what I want my work here to be like, but I am also well aware of the way the story sometimes gets told here in Washington, and it is not actually a story about me at all. Sometimes I am barely a character in the story.

Instead, it is a story about a man who held this seat before me, a man I consider to be a good friend and a champion for the progressive values that brought me into politics, or maybe it is a broader story about how we should hold powerful men accountable for their actions and about the hope so many of us have that this moment represents a turning of a tide. I get that. I understand that.

My presence here in the Senate will always be seen by some as a symbol of a broader conversation we are having in this country today about the experience of women, so I want to give my perspective about that and say my piece about where I hope this conversation goes.

My grandmother, Avis, was born in 1898. This is Avis here, standing in the background with a cigarette in her hand. She was 17 years old when the suffragettes crashed Woodrow Wilson's inauguration and demanded franchise, and she grew up to be the president of a small community bank in rural Indiana at a time when such a thing was unheard of. Avis didn't seize the bank in a hostile takeover or anything; her father owned the bank. He had three daughters, so the only way for him to keep that bank in the family was to pass it on to them. When he did that, instead of handing it over to their husbands, what my grandmother and their sisters did was they went ahead and ran that bank themselves.

Avis's daughter, my mother Chris, was 33 years old the year that Griswold v. Connecticut was decided, confirming that married women had the right to

contraception and thus to control their futures. But when mom graduated from college a few years earlier, the options for women were still pretty limited. My mom wanted to be a journalist, but her father told her that she had better come out of school prepared for a career that would allow her to take care of herself. Back then, that meant she could be a teacher, a secretary, or a nurse. Mom picked teacher.

We lost my mom not quite 2 years ago to Alzheimer's. She was such an inspiration to me, and I think she would have been an incredible journalist. But mom didn't sit around and feel sorry for herself. Just like her mother before her, she was a fighter, and she figured out how to make the best possible life for herself and for the people she loved, no matter what the constraints anyone else tried to put on her.

As for me, I was 16 the year Roe v. Wade was decided. I grew up in a time of incredible progress for women, and with women like my mother and my grandmother in my family tree, I believed it when my mother and father told me that I could do whatever I wanted to do when I grew up, which isn't to say that I didn't notice the way the world worked.

It is interesting. I graduated from business school in 1984. That year, the big story among MBA types was about Mary Cunningham. Mary was a brilliant woman. When she graduated from Harvard Business School, the dean had said she might someday become Harvard's first female graduate to become chairman of a noncosmetic company. That is what passed for a compliment back then. Indeed, she went on to become one of the first women who had ever held a senior leadership role in a Fortune 100 company. But that is not why she was famous. Mary was famous because of gossip that she had slept her way to the top of the corporate ladder. That was the context for young women like me when we started in business.

I remember that my graduating class in business school was about one- third women, and we all dressed like men--suits and white shirts and red power ties. We were dressing in a world where women could dream of professional success, but the best way to do that was to pass like a man.

I have been fortunate in my career and in my life. I have always been surrounded by strong women and thoughtful men. I don't have a horror story to share like the ones we have heard from so many women in the ``me too.'' movement or the millions of similar stories that have gone unheard simply because the men in those stories weren't famous. But when you really listen to women, you begin to understand the million little ways in which all women are made less and denied the opportunity to contribute to their communities and their country.

The day that Governor Dayton announced he was appointing me to fill this Senate seat, I stood next to him feeling proud and excited and ready to serve the people of Minnesota. Why not? Here I was, with a graduate degree, having worked at General Mills and started my own company, having managed 34,000 people and a multibillion-dollar budget as chief of staff for the Governor and served as Lieutenant Governor. Then a reporter raised his hands and he asked: ``So, do you think you'll be able to do this?'' Like a lot of women, I brushed it off. You learn to deal with stuff like this.

The indignities are one thing, but there are also injustices that are holding women back, and a lot of them start with the policies that get made right here in Washington. There is the stuff that gets a lot of attention, like trying to defund Planned Parenthood, which millions of women rely on for healthcare, rolling back women's access to basic reproductive services, and standing in the way of equal pay for equal work. Then there is the stuff that you only really understand when you listen to the realities in women's lives. The high cost of childcare isn't a woman's issue per se, but who winds up having to drop out of the workforce when a family can't afford childcare? Women do. The high cost of prescription drugs isn't a woman's issue per se, but who winds up shouldering the responsibility of caring for aging parents? Women do. Just last month, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court decided that employers should be able to force workers into signing mandatory arbitration agreements that prohibit them from going to court when they are mistreated. That isn't a woman's issue per se, either, but millions of women who are sexually harassed or abused in the workplace lost their ability to seek justice in the process.

All of these things add up to a world in which women are unfairly denied that freedom I was talking about earlier--the freedom to build the kind of lives they want. We may have moved past the days when that freedom depended on your father or your husband, but much of it still depends on what we do here in Washington, and we are letting too many women down.

You don't have to be a woman to care about these problems or to be part of the solution. In fact, Senator Franken led the fight to ban those mandatory arbitration clauses when he was serving in this seat. But the fact is, a lot of these problems have endured because women haven't had a seat at the table here in Washington.

I am the 51st woman to take the oath of office as United States Senator, but we have had 50 different Senators named Charles--and I mean no disrespect to my minority leader. Put another way, nearly half of all the women who have ever served in the United States Senate are serving right now. You can slice and dice these numbers a million different ways. They are all sobering. But it is changing. Since I took the office, my friend from Mississippi became the Senate's 52nd-ever woman and the 27th Smith. So instead of my place in the Senate reminding people of all the ways in which women have been held back from contributing in our country, I want it to be a reminder of the contributions women can make when we have the freedom to do so.

One of the best things about my time here so far has been getting to know the other women in the Senate. Some of us are very progressive Democrats, and some of us are very conservative Republicans, but we get together once a month, and we listen, and we talk to each other, and we find a lot of common ground.

My friend Lisa Murkowski and I have something in common. It turns out we both worked on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline on the North Slope of Alaska. I know I don't look like somebody who worked on a pipeline, but after high school, I joined the union and spent a summer working in the kitchen--a kitchen in a construction camp on Prudhoe Bay. It was only an entry-level job--I wasn't allowed to touch anything hot or sharp-- but it was an interesting summer, and all these years later, it gave Lisa and me something to talk about. Once we started talking about that, we found ourselves talking about something else we have in common: We both are really concerned about the fact that kids in rural communities don't have access to the mental health services they need. We have both met with too many parents and too many teachers who worry that kids are slipping through the cracks. So we decided to team up, and now we have a bipartisan bill to bring mental health professionals in the National Health Service Corps into more schools so more kids can have access to services.

The truth is, when women are empowered to contribute more fully, we all benefit. We have seen it in our economy for the last generation. We are seeing it in our politics, as women drive the resistance to policies that hurt working people and leave our children vulnerable to gun violence. We are seeing it more and more here in the Senate. I am so proud to be a part of that.

I know that I am going to always be known in part for the circumstances that brought me here, but I will tell you what I told that reporter when he asked whether or not I thought I could handle this job: Do not underestimate me.

I believe that, as a woman and as a progressive and as a Minnesotan, I have a lot to contribute to this body, and I am so ready to do that work. I intend to stand up to this administration when it attacks the values I believe in, but I am also ready to listen, to learn, and so ready to work with anyone who wants to expand freedom and opportunity for women and men across this country.

I believe we can find ways to work together and make some progress for the people we represent. And I will tell

you something else: I believe we can actually enjoy doing it. I know that is not a trendy thing to say. I know we are supposed to come here and immediately start complaining about how broken everything is, how horrible the other side is, and how much we hate these jobs that we spend all this time and money campaigning for. I have to say, I don't get it. I think it is so amazing that we get to go out and talk to people about their lives and then bring their ideas and their concerns to the table here in Washington and try to figure out how to make progress for them.

I grew up out West, in New Mexico. In fact, Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich tell me I am the only Senator currently serving who was born in New Mexico. Our town was informally divided into two parts, and mine was one of the only White families in our neighborhood, which was mostly populated by Hispanic families who had been there for generations. Most of the kids I grew up around spoke Spanish at home. So from a very early age, I grew up with this sense that everyone around me had something different to offer.

My parents sent me to the public school in our neighborhood, and my school, frankly, lacked some of the resources that the schools where more of the White kids went had. So my parents got involved. My dad joined the school board, my mom volunteered, and they both devoted part of their lives to making things better. Do you know what? They loved it. They loved doing that work.

I was raised to believe that the world is full of people who share the same hopes and dreams but have very different experiences and perspectives and that part of being a good citizen is to go out and listen to those different experiences and perspectives and do your part to help and that it can even be fun.

Maybe that is why Minnesota was the right place for me to go into public service. Minnesotans really love doing the hard work of democracy. We vote in higher numbers than anyone else. We love talking about the issues of the day in the checkout line of the supermarket, along with the weather, which we really love talking about. We almost always elect people who enjoy working to protect people's lives, to improve people's lives, and there is no better example of that than my friend and senior Senator, Amy Klobuchar. She is effective because she doesn't buy into the cynicism. She really believes that by listening to people and working hard to make a difference for them, progress is possible, and she proves it every single day. The same was true of my predecessor, Senator Franken, who brought not just wit but heart and passion to his work. It has been true for a long line of Minnesotans, from Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale to Paul Wellstone and Dave Durenberger.

The other thing you learn when you spend a lot of time listening to Minnesotans is just how hard they are willing to work to create opportunity for their families. They deserve a Senator who will work just as hard on their behalf, and I am not just ready to do that, I am excited to do that.

I know there will be some rough days here in the Senate, but what an honor to have the chance to do this work alongside all of you. With my mother and my grandmother beside me, I am so thrilled to be here, and I am full of hope about the progress we can all make together.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Ayscue, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for organizing this colloquy on the Olympic contributions of Minnesotans. I was proud to work with you on this resolution honoring our Olympians. While I have not yet given my first floor speech--which I plan to do in a couple of weeks--I couldn't pass up the opportunity to come down and talk about our State's amazing athletes.

As I am sure Senator Klobuchar knows, as you have just heard from her, once a Minnesotan can walk, you can bet that his or her parents will try to get them on skis, skates, a sled, or maybe even on the curling rink. That early start--not to mention the fact that Minnesotans are the hardest working and most resilient people I know-- helps explain why 23 of our athletes took part in this year's Winter Games. As Senator Klobuchar said, that is the third most of any State in the country. And, boy, did they steal the show. Minnesotans brought home gold medals in women's hockey, women's cross-country skiing, men's curling, and a bronze medal in women's downhill skiing.

I want to talk about Afton, Minnesota's own Jessie Diggins, who carried the Olympic torch for Team USA at the closing ceremony. As Senator Klobuchar said, Jessie began skiing at 4 years old and started racing against high schoolers at age 11. She earned her spot on the Olympic cross-country team and was the only woman to compete in all six women's cross-country events--and compete she did.

Along with her teammate, Kikkan Randall, Jessie won the first Olympic Gold Medal ever for the United States in cross-country skiing--and in dramatic fashion. Jessie came from behind during the final stretch of the race, inching out her competitor as they crossed the finish line.

I am amazed, but not all that surprised, by the accomplishments of my fellow Minnesotans. I am so happy to be able to join Senator Klobuchar in

saying we are glad the whole world had the chance to witness what we see every day in our jobs as Senators from Minnesota--Minnesotans doing amazing things.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to celebrate Vice President Walter Mondale, who recently marked his 90th birthday. When Vice President Mondale was asked about the legacy of the Carter administration, he responded this way: ``We told the truth, we obeyed the law and we kept the peace--and that's not bad.'' Not only was that description apt and characteristically humble, I submit that it captures Walter Mondale's values and virtues.

First, Walter Mondale tells the truth. And aren't we so sorely in need of this today? Sometimes, when Mr. Mondale told the truth, it was painful. And sometimes, when he told the truth, he paid a political price. But truth in public service is a luminous thing, and Walter Mondale has always shone brightly.

Honesty was taught early by his parents, Theodore, a Methodist minister, and Claribel, a music teacher. An old friend of Mondale's once observed that he would often ask, ``I wonder what my mother's going to think about that?'' Well, his mother did not see her son become Vice President and ambassador, and Reverend Mondale did not see him become attorney general and Senator, but I suspect, he thinks about them still.

Second, Walter Mondale respects the rule of law and lives the rule of law. And aren't we so sorely in need of this today?

Not surprisingly, one of Fritz and Joan Mondale's favorite movies was ``A Man for All Seasons,'' in which Sir Thomas More famously observes that, when the last law is down and the Devil turns on you, there is no place to hide. In other words, the rule of law protects all of us.

You might say, well, respect for the law is just the baseline we might expect of the most famous graduate of the University of Minnesota's law school--now Mondale Hall--who went on to become the State's chief lawyer; yet we have seen that even prominent public officials, trained in the law, can cut corners when tempted by money or power.

Walter Mondale has never cut corners. In both his private life and his public life, this is a man who has always turned square corners.

Finally, Walter Mondale works for peace. And aren't we so sorely in need of this today?

We know of the Vice President's important role in the Camp David Peace Accords and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. We know of his role as ambassador to one of our most important allies. But when we think of Walter Mondale and peace, we must think also of his goal of community reconciliation through civil rights. As the lead author of the Fair Housing Act, for more than half a century, he has fought for equity and fairness.

Yes, Walter Mondale tells the truth, obeys the law, and works for peace. That, I would suggest, is not just ``not bad''; it is wonderful and extraordinary.

As I recognize Vice President Mondale and his contributions to this country, I wish him a happy birthday.