Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to note that, during this coming recess, we will mark the somber occasion of the 1-year anniversary of the fall of Kabul and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. I want to draw the attention of the Senate and the American people to one of our most urgent priorities in Afghanistan: providing immediate assistance for Afghan citizens that risked their lives to further U.S. interests and whose lives now stand in jeopardy should we not act soon.

Nine days--in the short span of 9 days after seizing control of the first province to fall on August 6, 2021--Nimruz--a whirlwind of chaos ensued. The world watched as, one by one, all of the country's provinces fell to Taliban forces until finally reaching the capital Kabul on August 15. With little resistance from the Afghan forces we had trained and equipped over two decades, the Taliban simply entered and took control. In terrified desperation, many Afghans gathered what they could carry with them and fled. People left their whole lives behind--their houses, their jobs, their friends and family--risking their lives to flee the country in the wake of the Taliban takeover. Shocking images of Afghans clinging to U.S. evacuation flights as they took off could not have shown a clearer picture of the despair of so many Afghans.

Amid this panic, the Biden administration acted swiftly to evacuate American personnel and most American citizens.

We joined our international allies to call for a new Afghan Government that is united, inclusive, and representative, including with full participation of women. We joined international voices to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. And along with our NATO allies, we committed to evacuate at-risk Afghans.

And make no mistake, we as Americans remain committed to all these priorities. We stand united with our allies to further these goals and ensure a stable and secure Afghanistan. Central to the Taliban's beliefs is the Pashtun code of ethics, ``Pashtunwaly,'' in which ``nang''--which means honor--stands as the central tenet. It is with ``nang'' in mind that we call on the Taliban to honor their commitment to provide an accountable and inclusive government. We urge them to honor their original and oft-repeated promise to uphold human rights and support education for women and girls--commitments that recent reporting suggests they are not fulfilling.

We call on them to honor their commitment to provide a safe and secure Afghanistan for all Afghans. We join our allies in the international community in these calls for action.

Yet in the aftermath of the fall of Afghanistan, there remains one priority for the U.S. alone to undertake: ensuring the well-being of Afghan citizens who put their lives on the line to serve our country. These are the Afghans who worked at our Embassy and other diplomatic facilities, served as our translators, helped us engage with the Afghan Government, and provided us information and assistance. They are the Afghans that served and studied in U.S.-affiliated centers and universities. They are the Afghans who worked tirelessly to promote our principles as journalists working for U.S.-affiliated outlets, like the Afghan services of RFE/RL, Radio Azadi, and Ghandara. Without their assistance, U.S. lives would have been lost. Without their support, we would have been unable to talk about our U.S. values and priorities to the Afghan people.

Without them, we would not have been able to work with the Government of Afghanistan to promote our shared goal of regional stability and security. To these individuals and their families, we owe a great debt for their assistance. The 77,000 Afghans currently in the pipeline for special immigrant visas, the 44,000 that await processing for their P1/ P2 visas, and yet another almost 5,000 that seek humanitarian parole, these individuals are all counting on us. So I call on the State Department to make renewed efforts to expedite these cases.

I would like to recognize that, to date, our government has made enormous strides in this herculean effort; tens of thousands of these individuals were evacuated from Afghanistan following the collapse of the government. Yet tens of thousands more remain stranded in limbo, both in Afghanistan as well as in third countries--among others, in Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Georgia, Albania, and the Kyrgyz Republic. They wait patiently, many of them running through their personal savings, many unable to work.

We continue to support these individuals, oftentimes maintaining a delicate dialogue with the host countries about the long-term plans for these individuals.

I would like to share with you the story of one such individual whose life hangs in the balance. It is with her permission that I share this story, and I will call her ``Arezo'' to safeguard her anonymity. Arezo is a bright young Afghan woman of Hazara heritage who studied at a U.S. university and later worked for an international human rights NGO. By all accounts, up until the collapse of Afghanistan, she was one of the many Afghans working to build a bright future for Afghanistan. When Kabul fell, like so many others, Arezo shred all the documents tying her in any way to the United States. She knew that if the Taliban discovered this connection, both her life and her family's lives could be at risk.

While attempting to flee, Arezo and her brother were discovered by the Taliban and taken in for questioning about their reasons for wanting to leave the country. Arezo's brother was savagely beaten. Arezo was subjected to a humiliating virginity test. They were both taken into custody for several weeks, during which they endured brutal and inhumane treatment, often ridiculed by the Taliban guards for their Shi'a faith as ``untrue Muslims.''

While incarcerated, Arezo witnessed the brutal rape of a 12-year-old girl at the hands of the Taliban. The crime of this child? She had been imprisoned for riding in local transport without a male family member escort. Miraculously, after external pressure, Arezo was released, but not without the threat hanging over her head that the Taliban would keep tabs on her. Arezo now waits for the United States to process her visa. Hers is one of the over 44,000 cases that remain backlogged, while her life hangs in the balance.

I tell you this: It is in our direct, immediate interest to dedicate and reallocate resources to resolve pending cases like those of Arezo.

Until we resolve their cases, we continue to expend enormous U.S. resources to support them in third countries, with no clear end in sight. We continue to ask much of our bilateral partners that have generously agreed to take in these evacuees. Our Embassies and government Agencies will continue to struggle with the overload caused by the burden of managing these extra cases. But most importantly, we owe it to these individuals who put their own lives on the line for our county to process their cases quickly.

It is no accident that I chose the name ``Arezo'' as a stand-in for the young Afghan woman who, like so many others, awaits our action. Arezo is a Hazara name that means ``hope'' or ``faith.'' And like so many others, she has taken it on faith that the U.S. Government will make good on its promise to take care of the Afghans like her that have served--and continue to serve--U.S. interests and who still believe in the American dream and still believe that America will fulfill her promises.

I encourage that at all levels of government, we work to identify resources to reallocate towards this goal. We have the resources, but we must redirect these resources and make it a top priority. I call on our State Department and USCIS colleagues to elevate the task of processing cases to a high priority status. I propose that we convene in committee to discuss additional ways that Congress can support the successful resolution of their cases and permanent resettlement. On the eve of the 1-year anniversary of an ignominious American withdrawal from Afghanistan, after a two-decade effort, I urge that across all lines of government, we recognize this priority and work promptly to resolve the cases of the many Afghans who have put their lives on the line for our country.

Mr. President, let me thank Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito and my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Infrastructure, Senator Cramer, for bringing us to this moment where we will soon be voting on the Water Resources Development Act.

I must tell you, this is an extremely important bill that gives the Army Corps the authorization they need to advance critically important water projects in our country.

Mr. President, this was passed by a unanimous vote in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Due to the leadership of Senator Carper and Senator Capito, this bill involves the input of all the members of our committee and--dare I say--all the Members of the U.S. Senate. So I want to thank them for getting this bill to the point where we will be able to vote on it this afternoon.

This bill is truly bipartisan. It incorporates the input from every single Senator and reflects priorities for our

water resources in States and communities across the country. It provides crucial authority for projects and guidance for the Army Corps of Engineers to engineer better solutions to our Nation's toughest water infrastructure supply and quality challenges.

The work of the Army Corps of Engineers is vital for keeping commerce flowing in our waterways, for restoring aquatic ecosystems, and for helping communities deal with the risks and impacts of flooding.

In my State of Maryland, we have challenges in all of these areas, and we are partnering with the Army Corps to address them. The Port of Baltimore, for example, is critical in our national supply chains and an economic engine for the State of Maryland.

To enhance the port's ability to serve commerce and provide safe navigation, the Army Corps is moving forward with a Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, or Mid-Bay, which will put dredged material to beneficial use restoring our ecosystems in the Chesapeake Bay, a major win-win for commerce and the environment. Here we are taking dredged materials and using it for environmental restoration, providing a very popular place to put dredged material so we can keep our harbors and our channels dredged but we also can restore our environment at the same time.

A project the size of Mid-Bay also has the opportunity to benefit smaller channels along the Chesapeake Bay. In Maryland, we have dozens and dozens of smaller channels that support economic activity, recreational opportunities, and are an integral part of the identity of the small communities they serve, but these channels have not received the maintenance that they require.

I am proud that this year's WRDA bill provides the Corps with new authorization to address these underserved harbors and channels, directing the Corps to take a closer look at them according to the significance to their community and not just based on the total amount of cargo they move. This is going to help many of our communities around America.

In doing so, this bill adds new perspective to the Army Corps' thinking so that the Chesapeake Bay is fully understood not just as an artery for commerce but as a national environmental treasure that is home to living waterfronts that support a variety of community, economic, and nature-based activities. The WRDA reauthorization takes an important step in that direction with its provisions for underserved harbors.

I am also proud that this bill includes a new statewide authorization for the Army Corps to provide assistance to Maryland on environmental infrastructure. We very much will take advantage of this opportunity. We know that we have challenges with the Chesapeake Bay, and this environmental study assistance will certainly help us in meeting our obligations.

This authorization will also help communities across my State deal with the impact of aging infrastructure and move forward on the backlog of critical repairs and upgrades to water supply, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.

The bill recognizes that because the Army Corps work is in high demand around the country, the Corps needs to be accessible to communities and engage with them directly on the challenges they face. The Planning Assistance to States Program, which has been so important to Maryland, will now include a new authority for the Corps to conduct this outreach to communities.

The Army Corps is carrying out its important work on navigation, flood risk mitigation, ecosystem restoration, and environmental infrastructure against the backdrop of a worsening climate crisis.

This reality is forcing us to act with new urgency to protect our communities from multiple hazards that our country is already experiencing with increased frequency and severity, including concentrated catastrophic rainfall events, sea level rise, and the associated erosion and flooding that these impacts bring. It is also forcing us to prioritize the restoration of ecosystems harmed by climate change that can still play a role in building resilience. All of that is incorporated in this bill, and we will be able to have those tools that are available.

I just want to mention that one example is marshlands, which absorb tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. They buffer waves and reduce flooding during storms. We had a hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday--it was a good hearing--on how we can get carbon capture. Well, one of the ways we can get carbon capture through natural causes is to restore wetlands, which trap carbon, and this bill will allow us to move forward in that direction.

Finally, I want to note that, this year, the Army Corps' Baltimore District is celebrating its 175th anniversary. I congratulate the Baltimore District on this important milestone. The district has played an instrumental role in the history of our Nation and the State of Maryland, dating back to the construction of Fort McHenry, and I am proud of the ongoing partnership of Colonel Pinchasin, the current regional director.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I again applaud the great leadership we have on our committee, the very open way that we do business, the way that we listen to each other and are able to get the priorities accomplished.

To Senator Carper and Senator Capito and Senator Cramer, it is a pleasure to work with you, and thank you for making this possible.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to express my support for the substitute amendment to the House message accompanying H.R. 4346, which is the vehicle for the so-called CHIPS Act.

Semiconductors are crucial to nearly every sector of our economy. They are in our cars and trucks, medical devices, and 5G telecommunications equipment. America created the semiconductor industry in the 1960s. We ceded global leadership in the 1970s. We regained it, to an extent, in the 1990s but have lost it again. In 1990, the U.S. share of semiconductor manufacturing was 37 percent. By 2020, that share had declined to 12 percent. As Mark Muro and Robert Maxim of the Brookings Institution recently reported:

While the 1990s saw a significant expansion in U.S.

innovation capacity in semiconductors, the nation's

production capacity continued to decline. In some cases, this

owed to foreign countries out-competing the U.S. on labor

costs. But more can be attributed to the significant

subsidies foreign governments have been providing to build

and maintain fabrication plans--a level of support that the

U.S. hasn't matched.

The Senate is poised, with strong bipartisan support, to get the United States back on track with respect to domestic semiconductor manufacturing, which is critical for our national and economic security. The substitute amendment provides $54 billion in grants to domestic manufacturers and another $24 billion in tax credits through the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors--CHIPS--for America Fund. The substitute amendment also authorizes $102 billion over the next 5 years for the National Science Foundation--NSF--the Department of Commerce, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology--NIST--a $52 billion increase over the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--baseline.

These funds will be a ``shot in the arm'' for domestic manufacturing; here is a list of some firms that plan to use funding to expand or establish manufacturing facilities: Intel and TSMC plan to build factories in Ohio and Arizona; GlobalFoundries wants to expand a facility in upstate New York; SkyWater Technology and Purdue University want to collaborate on a new $1.8 billion factory and research facility West Lafayette, IN; and IBM and the State University of New York at Albany want to establish a semiconductor research center in Albany.

While the substitute amendment is necessary, it is not sufficient. It does not extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance--TAA--Small Business Innovation Research--SBIR--or Small Business Technology Transfer-- STTR--Programs, for instance.

Fortunately, conferees are still working on those and other provisions from the Senate-passed United States Innovation and Competition Act--USICA--and the House-passed America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength--America COMPETES Act. I hope the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on a conference report that covers many issues the substitute amendment does not address.

Many Senators have spoken on the floor about the importance of the semiconductor incentives in division A of the substitute amendment, and I have just added my voice to that chorus. But I would also like to highlight the science provisions included in division B, which are also important. division B authorizes: $20 billion for the first-of-its-kind NSF Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, which will accelerate domestic development of critical national and economic security technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, 6G communications, energy, and material science; $9 billion--$4 billion over the CBO baseline--for several NIST initiatives and programs, including a tripling of funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program--MEP--and leverages the MEP to create a national supply chain database, which will assist businesses with supplier scouting and minimize supply chain disruptions; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's--NASA--Artemis Program to return Americans to the Moon as a prelude to sending humans to Mars.

Division B also extends the International Space Station through 2030 and supports a balanced science portfolio, including Earth science observations and continued development of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.

Division B codifies the Planetary Defense Coordination Office and requires NASA to continue efforts to protect Earth from asteroids and comets. Just 2 months from now, the Double Asteroid Redirection Test-- DART--will deliberately crash a probe into the minor-planet moon Dimorphos of the double asteroid Didymos to shift Dimorphos's orbit. The asteroid poses no actual threat to Earth; it was merely selected for the test to assess our ability to deflect an asteroid on a collision course with Earth through kinetic energy.

I introduced the Cleaner, Quieter Airplanes Act in the previous Congress and again this year and am pleased

that division B directs NASA to continue research in aeronautics, including the use of experimental aircraft, to advance aircraft efficiency and supersonic flight.

Finally, division B requires the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy--OSTP--to promulgate guidance to all Federal research Agencies that would: prohibit Federal research Agency personnel from participating in foreign talent recruitment programs; require covered individuals on applications, e.g., principal investigators, to disclose participation in foreign talent recruitment programs; and prohibit awards in cases where covered individuals are participating in malign foreign talent recruitment programs.

In the aggregate, the substitute amendment will help the United States recapture and maintain its technological preeminence in so many sectors. I want to thank and congratulate Leaders Schumer and McConnell and Senators Cantwell and Cornyn and so many others who have been instrumental in bringing the Senate to this point. As I said a moment ago, however, our work does not end here. I entreat the USICA/America COMPETES Act conferees to reach an agreement so that the Senate may consider the myriad provisions not contained in the substitute amendment--provisions that are equally important to our economic and national security.

As with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we are demonstrating that the Senate can work in a bipartisan fashion to pass bills that make life better for all Americans.

Madam President, I am wondering if my colleague would yield for 1 minute.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cortez Masto, Cardin, and Hickenlooper be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from July 21, 2022, until July 25.

Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome.

This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform.

On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote:

We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we

believe it is better to search for solutions together than to

remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem

that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election:

the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially

unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a

critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . .

Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the

2000 election.

The editorial continues:

In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the

violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being

made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes.

Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners

took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left

unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the

same destructive path that occurred in 2021.

The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote:

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol

attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald

Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous

argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to

overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count

electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official

testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a

lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much

in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony

from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's

general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless

waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence

to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this

antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which

infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.''

The Post editorial continued:

Americans went most of their history without having to

worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures.

Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections,

losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather

than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The

country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no

higher priority than fixing the electoral college process.

The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act.

I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here.

Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides:

The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof.

That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding:

But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter

such Regulations.

We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about.

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature

thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole

Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may

be entitled in the Congress.

The Constitution also provides:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the

Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes;

which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress.

Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States.

First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself.

Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.''

Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election.

Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors.

Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinary

and catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].''

This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed.

Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors.

President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session.

Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one- fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.''

This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania.

Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed.

That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes.

The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections.

The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt.

The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows.

The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility.

What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices.

Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently.

In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action.

Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action.

So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status.

For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982.

The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage.

It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2.

We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue.

The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments.

Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Just

as we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity.

As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022:

[S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it

harder to vote, have focused more intently on election

interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering

with how elections are run and how results are determined.

Election interference laws do two primary things. They open

the door to partisan interference in elections, or they

threaten the people and processes that make elections work.

In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures

to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a

stolen 2020 election.

The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law.

Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden.

Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 1045, 1046, 1047, 1049, 1057, 1058, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Foreign Service; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 411, S. Res. 568.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. President, I further ask that 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 the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 412, S. Res. 589.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, July 25, and 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 morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 3373; further, that the cloture motion filed during yesterday's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. and that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to draw the attention of the Senate and the American people to a dark anniversary on the near horizon.

On July 24, the world will have seen 5 full months of the brutal, unjustified, and utterly senseless war Russia's dictator Vladimir Putin has unleashed on Ukraine, a peace-loving democracy that has never threatened Russia or any of its other neighbors.

It will be 150 days of Mr. Putin and his army's killing and raping Ukrainian women and children; destroying homes, hospitals, museums, schools, and churches; displacing almost 13 million people; and unleashing chaos and havoc on the world. The blockage of the southern ports of Ukraine has interrupted the vital supply of Ukrainian food supplies to a hungry world, wreaking pain and havoc on societies across the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. An existing global food security crisis has now been severely worsened by Russia's violent assault, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee examined earlier today in a hearing where USAID Administrator Samantha Power and our permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, testified. They spoke about the U.S. role in trying to avert this additional global tragedy resulting from Russia's aggression and the immensity of the task ahead.

Who could forget the horrors of Bucha and Irpin, the shell-shocked look in the eyes of Ukrainian children who will forever carry the burdens of unimaginable trauma or the Ukrainian women who had to be carried from a maternity ward after the Russians struck their hospital with a cruise missile.

This is an everyday reality now for Ukrainians--unspeakable, cruel military assaults. Yet they demonstrate the indomitable will to fight for their land and freedom; they do not give up; and they are truly an inspiration for the rest of the world.

When Mr. Putin started this attack, he assumed Russia would conquer Ukraine and seize its capital in 3 days. Yet it is now day almost 150, and Russia has suffered heavy losses and retreated from Kyiv. While several towns in the south of the country have been flattened and then occupied, in most of the country, the Russian invaders have barely advanced from their initial positions.

In the towns and cities the Russians occupy, they have met heavy resistance from Ukrainian guerillas and regular citizens who do not want to be part of Putin's evil empire. Despite efforts to indoctrinate Ukrainian children in occupied areas with a counterfactual narrative of the contemporary history, Russian speakers are learning Ukrainian, and what have been generally positive relations with the people of Ukraine and Russia before this invasion have now been completely destroyed.

Independent analysts have described the ongoing violence as a genocide in

Ukraine, and there is a growing body of evidence that it is, sadly, true. A May of 2022 study conducted by the New Lines Institute and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights concluded that ``Russia bears State responsibility for breaches of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention.''

The report pointed to a pattern of Russian forces targeting the Ukrainian civilians, with evidence of mass executions and torture of civilians in Russian-occupied regions. The report included evidence of deliberate attacks on shelters, evacuation routes, and humanitarian corridors, as well as reports of sexual violence and forcible deportation of Ukrainians to Russia.

On July 14, the United States and 44 other nations signed an International Criminal Court declaration to investigate over 20,000 reports--20,000 reports--of war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine since the beginning of the war.

Make no mistake about it, Vladimir Putin has caused the suffering and pain in pursuit of his ambition to rebuild the Russian Empire. He has said it to himself on multiple occasions. He is hell-bent on destroying the post-World War II world order that has brought prosperity and peace to our allies in Europe--and to Russia to this point, too.

Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Ukrainians are fighting not just for their land and freedom, which, as Americans, we should cherish and appreciate, but also for the very core of the global order that, if destroyed, will marginalize our allies and threaten the United States.

With this in mind, we must remember that supporting Ukraine is not charity. It is in our core national security interest to provide the Ukrainians with the arms, financing, and moral support to defeat the tyrant of Russia. If Ukraine falls, it will lead to the subjugation of Ukrainian people, destruction of its culture and language, and bring a hostile and expansionistic Russian Empire right to the borders of our NATO allies that we are committed to protect with our troops and weapons. Ukraine is the firewall that the world cannot afford to see breached.

So, yes, it is a moral imperative for us to support Ukrainians in this just war, but it is also a core national security necessity for us to do this. Ukraine is fighting this war on multiple fronts: on land and at sea and in the air. The security of the Black Sea region is a critical aspect of this war that has not received enough attention. As recent reporting suggests, the ability of the Ukrainians' vessels to navigate the Black Sea is important for the country but also for regional stability and global food security. That is where Ukraine exports most of its agricultural products. Ukraine is a major grain exporter, and the Russians have been blocking these vessels from departing Ukrainian ports. This exposes some of the world's most vulnerable people to food scarcity, malnutrition, and worsening poverty--and in some cases leading to unnecessary and preventable deaths. Truly, the ugliness and depravation of the Putin regime has no limit.

It is in this context the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe that I chair conducted a field hearing on Black Sea security in Constanta, Romania, on July 1. I want to thank my friend Senator Wicker for chairing that hearing. The Commission brought together key decisionmakers from the Black Sea states to discuss how best to address Russia's illegal naval blockade of Ukrainian ports.

Subsequently, Senator Wicker and I joined Senators Shaheen and Romney in introducing the Black Sea Security Act, S. 4509. This bill would declare that it is the policy of the United States ``to actively deter the threat of further Russian escalation in the Black Sea region and defend freedom of navigation in the Black Sea to prevent the spread of further armed conflict in Europe.''

The bill further requires that the National Security Council shall deliver to Congress an interagency report that outlines current policy options toward Black Sea countries and the border region. The report would include a breakdown of funding to support these efforts, including military assistance; economic assistance, including support for food security; countering Russia's disinformation and propaganda; energy diversification; increasing access to global capital markets; a plan for helping U.S. allies in the region to accelerate their transitions from legacy Russian military equipment and promote NATO interoperability; and strengthening the rule of law and anticorruption efforts.

I call on my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Tragically, this war is turning into a marathon, and it is incumbent upon us not to lose our focus and determination in supporting our Ukrainian partners. I want to urge my colleagues in this Chamber and all my fellow Americans to stay the course and continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

My final point today is that we should say the name of what Russia is doing, the atrocities they are committing. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. Russia is trying to eviscerate not just the people and the buildings of Ukraine; they are trying to eliminate the Ukrainian language, Ukrainian history, and Ukrainian culture. That is genocide.

That is why I am joining Senator Risch, along with Senators Graham, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and Portman in introducing a resolution that would condemn the Russian Federation for committing acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people; call on the United States, in cooperation with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, to undertake measures to support the Government of Ukraine to prevent further acts of Russian genocide against the Ukrainian people; and support tribunals and international criminal investigations to hold Russian political leaders and military personnel to account for a war of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

We must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians to lighten their load and hasten their victory. We must be prepared for the reconstruction of Ukraine that will follow the conclusion of this war. And, yes, we must pursue accountability for those responsible for the genocide underway in Ukraine by the Russian Federation.