Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to take note of the enduring support by the American people and by this body for the cause of democracy and human rights in Poland.

It is difficult to acknowledge so much time has passed, but it was 40 years ago this week, on December 13, 1981, that the Soviet-backed communist government and General Wojciech Jaruzelski declared a state of war in Poland. People called it ``martial law;'' in fact, it was quite literally a war declared by a government on its own people.

The U.S. Senate, led by the late statesman and Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, acted quickly to adopt S. Res. 268. On December 15, on the last day of the first session of the 97th Congress, this body adopted by vote of 95 to 0, S. Res. 268, ``on the imposition of martial law in Poland.''

The resolution declared that:

``it is the clear and unassailable right of the Polish

people collectively to determine their own future''

It also directed that:

``the President and his Administration should consult

intensively with our allies to develop a concerted and

sustained response to the threat to the democratization

process in Poland.''

By 1989, thanks to continuing support for the people of Poland that this Senate expressed 40 years ago today, democracy prevailed in Poland.

Only two Members of today's Senate were present and voting on December 15, 1981, and I want to express my appreciation, these many years later, for their support for the resolution: Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, then in his very first year in the Senate, and Senator Patrick Leahy, then already in his second term in the Senate.

The trade union Solidarity had emerged on August 31, 1980, at the Gdansk Shipyard when the communist government of Poland signed the agreement allowing for its existence. Lech Walesa and others soon formed a broad anti-Soviet social movement ranging from people associated with the Catholic Church to members of the anti-Soviet left. Polish nationalism, together with pro-American liberalism, played an important part in the development of Solidarity in the 1980s. Solidarity advocated nonviolence in its members' activities. In September 1981, Solidarity's first national congress elected Walesa as its president and adopted a republican program, the ``Self-governing Republic''.

The first resolution adopted by Solidarnosc, at its First Congress in 1981, expressed a vision for the world, one based on the principle of its name. It stated:

The ultimate goal of Solidarity is to create dignified

conditions of life in an economically and politically

sovereign Poland. By this, we mean a life free from poverty,

exploitation, fear and lies, in a democratically and legally

organized society.

By December, the government in Warsaw and its backers in Moscow decided that they had enough of an assertive civil society. And so martial law was declared and the repression commenced, 40 years ago this week.

The terrible repression next door in Belarus today compares, but even it does not match the brute force of the war against the people of Poland declared by General Jaruzelski, the simultaneous deployment of hundreds of thousands of riot police, soldiers, armed vehicles, and tanks to occupy all workplaces and cities and to crush the resistance of an entire society organized in independent, self-governing unions. Yet Solidarity lived.

A democratic movement in Belarus also lives today. It is not inevitable, however, that it will win, just as it was not inevitable that Solidarity would win. Much depended on the indomitable will of the Polish people--and also on the actions of Western democracies.

The first people in the United States to stand up on behalf of the people of Poland were writers and intellectuals who formed the Committee in Support

of Solidarity, including Susan Sontag, Adam Ulam, Czeslaw Milosz, and others. An energetic young man named Eric Chenowith and wise strategist named Irena Lasoda soon became familiar faces in the Halls of Congress, circulating information about the struggle of solidarity and people in Poland to endure the repression they confronted.

The political force that kept the democratic world focused on support for the people of Poland then was the American labor movement, led by its president Lane Kirkland and his secretary-treasurer Tom Donahue. They immediately established the AFL-CIO's Polish Workers Aid Fund and put Tom Kahn, the international affairs director of the AFL-CIO, at its helm. They persisted in making the steady argument, even after December 1981, that in Solidarnosc lay the potential for a new, more democratic, more just, and more peaceful world.

It was the AFL-CIO, representing 16 million people, that gave voice and strength to the free trade union Solidarity in the United States. We forget how many were willing to forsake Solidarity in the period of martial law. Indeed, only the AFL-CIO, backed by the committee, pressured President Reagan and his administration to adopt stronger sanctions in response to the state of war. As importantly, it was the AFL-CIO that made sure Solidarity was sustained through financial and material help, some of which was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, after its creation in 1984.

Thanks to that support and steadfastness, eventually the government relented, especially once Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in the USSR and began to pull back the support for the repressive policies in Poland and elsewhere in the Warsaw Pact.

Roundtable Talks between the government and Solidarity-led opposition led to semi-free elections in June of 1989. In an arrangement that was similar in some ways to what transpired more recently in Burma, partially free elections were organized in which a large block of seats in the legislature were reserved--in the case of Burma for the military and in the case of Poland, in 1989, for the Communist party and its allies.

All seats in the newly recreated Senate of Poland were to be elected democratically, as were 161 seats--35 percent of the total--in Sejm. The remaining 65 percent of the seats in the Sejm were reserved for the Polish United Workers' Party--the Communist Party--and its satellite parties. These seats were still technically elected, but only government-sponsored candidates were allowed to compete for them. In addition, all 35 seats elected via the countrywide list were reserved for the Communist Party's candidates to ensure that the most notable leaders of the Polish United Workers Party were elected.

But in the June elections, the people of Poland voted so overwhelmingly for the representatives nominated by Solidarity that the Communists and the military lost all credibility. By the end of August, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed, and in December, Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Prime Minister.

Poland has since then developed into such a strong democracy and economically liberal country that it has led its neighbors into joining the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has become in every sense an ally of the United States. And in the past 2 years, it has again been true to the heritage of Solidarity by providing safe haven for many political refugees from Belarus and elsewhere.

While many of us continue to have concerns about some aspects of Polish Government policy, its treatment of certain media outlets, and the fate of the rule-of-law in the country, the government of Poland is a friend with whom we can have honest conversations. Indeed, I am sitting down later this afternoon with the newly arrived Polish ambassador to Washington, Marek Magierowsk, to continue these conversations. This is especially important at this time because Poland will become the chairman-in-office next month of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe--the OSCE--and will play a major role in shaping the OSCE's response to efforts by Russia and others to undermine the work of the organization and stability in the region.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of S. Res. 268 from the 97th Congress, as adopted on December 15, 1981, be printed in the Record at this point, along with the announcement of December 15, 1981, of the creation of the Committee in support of Solidarity.

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

Mr. President, shortly, I am going to be making a unanimous consent request in regard to the confirmations of several nominations that are currently pending before the U.S. Senate.

My colleagues have been pointing out that these are unprecedented times with the number of Presidential nominations that have cleared our committee and cleared committees with overwhelming votes--in some cases, near unanimous votes--of people who are well qualified for the positions to which they have been nominated, but they cannot take their responsibilities, their oaths, until after we have confirmed them before the U.S. Senate.

So, for reasons unrelated to their qualifications or the need to have confirmed nominees in positions, we have seen individual objections to allowing these nominations to go forward--objections from Republican Members of the U.S. Senate. I say that because these are unprecedented. We have never seen mass numbers like we have seen in this Congress.

We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to confirm Presidential nominations so that they can carry out the missions that we want them to carry out and the responsibilities that go with the reasons why we think it is important enough for the Senate to confirm those nominations. We then have a responsibility to take these nominations up in a timely way and act on them.

Secondly, when we have a confirmed person in position, we get greater accountability on the responsibilities of

that Agency. We have a person whom we can hold accountable because of the actions that we have taken in confirming that individual. Both are missing in regard to not having these confirmed positions.

I chair the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that deals with the management of the State Department, and I am going to be asking unanimous consent in regard to seven nominees who passed out of our committees a long time ago and have been pending in the Senate for months. There is no question as to the qualifications of the individuals, but they are not able to take on the responsibilities for why we decided it was important enough to have nominations with the confirmations of the Senate. That is just not right, and I think we need to point that out.

First, I want to just talk about the individuals, and then I will make my consent.

One is Adam Scheinman, as the Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of Ambassador. The nomination has been pending before the full Senate since October 19-- for over 50 days.

Adam Scheinman is the Special Representative of the President for the Nuclear Nonproliferation, a position that is essential to national security as a U.S. Special Representative on the nuclear nonproliferation treaties and the support of activities to strengthen global nuclear nonproliferation regimes. Can you think of a more important position?

Mr. Scheinman is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated, and there is no stated reason not to confirm his nomination.

The second is Jack Markell, to be Representative of the United States to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the rank of Ambassador. Jack Markell is the nominee to be the Ambassador of the OECD, known as the heavy-weight multilateral organization in the area of anti-corruption and keeper of the OECD's anti-bribery convention, which is one of the most important international anti- corruption treaties. We all talk about our commitment to fight corruption, and yet we are holding back a confirmed ambassador to that position.

Jack Markell is a former Governor and is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. There is no reason why we should not confirm his nomination.

Marcela Escobari was appointed to be the Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. The Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean oversees all USAID activities in the region, including the 13 field offices for regional programs and 3 Washington, DC-based programs. Ms. Escobari served in the same position for which this nomination is being made under the Obama-Biden administration.

I must tell you, I was on a call with Senator Blunt yesterday with regard to Colombia, the need to up our game in regard to USAID activities in that one country and so many more.

Ms. Escobari is eminently qualified for the position to which she has been nominated. Indeed, she served in this position under the Obama- Biden administration, and she should be confirmed today.

Atul Gawande has been nominated as the Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, another USAID appointment. He would lead the U.S. international health, development, and humanitarian efforts worldwide.

Now, more than ever, we know we need a confirmed person in the USAID to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Our leadership is desperately needed. We are asking lots of international questions today from the Biden administration. Wouldn't it be nice to have a confirmed ambassador who is responsible for this?

The nomination has been pending before the full Senate since September 29, for over 70 days.

Dr. Gawande is eminently qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. There is no good reason not to confirm him today.

Next will be Marcia Bernicat, as the Director General of the Foreign Service and Chair of the Board of the Foreign Service, Department of State.

The Director General of Foreign Service, who serves concurrently as the Director of Global Talent Management, is responsible for leading the GTM Bureau's mission of recruiting, retaining, and sustaining a diverse, talented, and inclusive Foreign Service and Civil Service workforce at the Department of State.

The position is critical in the modernization of the State Department and making sure the Department is attracting and training the necessary talent needed to tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

This nomination has been pending before the full Senate since September 13, over 86 days.

I recently held a hearing in the subcommittee on the retention and training of our State Department personnel. We had lots of questions, lots of good things we need to do. We need a confirmed administrator in order to have a person responsible to carry out the changes that we need in regard to the personnel at the State Department. There is no reason why she should not be confirmed without any further delay.

My next unanimous consent will be in regard to Julieta Valls Noyes to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration.

Now, more than ever, with the administration dealing with a backlog that has been heightened by COVID and with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration needs to have a Senate-confirmed representative in place.

This nomination has been pending for over 50 days.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are questioning the State Department and asking what they are doing to get people out of Afghanistan. We are asking valid questions. There is no reason to hold up this nomination from the point of view of her qualifications.

We need this position filled in order to carry out our responsibility to those Afghans who are at risk today and migrants who are at risk around the world.

Lastly, I will be asking consent with regard to Anne Witkowsky, the nominee for Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.

The Conflict and Stabilization Operation Bureau is responsible to anticipate, prevent, and respond to conflicts that undermine U.S. national interests. We are putting our national security at risk without leadership in the Conflict and Stabilization Bureau to assess how the United States will engage in emerging conflicts.

We were trying to stop conflicts from happening. We all recognize that. The risk factors couldn't be greater around the world for conflict. We need to have a confirmed Assistant Secretary responsible for this portfolio in place immediately.

This nomination was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 4. Her nomination has been awaiting confirmation for 126 days.

Dr. Witkowsky is fully qualified and should be confirmed without further delay.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 323, 327, 328, 461, 462, and 528; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I would be willing to modify to get those two nominations approved. I want to be clear. I have been told that there may be other objections on the other side of the aisle. I would like to get them done right now, if possible. I would modify my request to get these two nominations done.

I have been told that there is a Republican objection to the other two nominations.

Let me just conclude this part of the discussion by saying I understand that you have a right to demand a vote, but you are requiring us to file cloture, which means basically it is a filibuster. And under the Senate rules, that requires an intervening day; it requires a vote and debate on the cloture motion; then debate time. And there are only a certain number you can get done within a period of time while other ones are pending.

So the fact that we are not able to have a process to conclude these nominations is not the majority leader's fault. It is the fault of the massive objections that are being made en bloc to qualified individuals in regards to these appointments.

And I understand the gentleman's concerns, but the American people have a right to demand that there is an accountable person to deal with nonproliferation, that there is a confirmed nominee to deal with the remaining individuals that are in Afghanistan that we are trying to get out of Afghanistan. And by denying the confirmations of these appointments, we are denying the rights of Americans to have accountable people confirmed by the Senate in regards to all of these important subjects.

So, for all those reasons, I am disappointed. I will take back to my colleagues the offer in regards to the two individuals that the gentleman mentioned. And if we can clear those two, we will try to bring them back to the floor and get them cleared. So I appreciate that offer, and we will see what we can do about getting those two confirmed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today--on International Anti- Corruption Day, as declared by the United Nations--to speak about the Democracy Summit that President Biden is convening today and tomorrow, to which government leaders from 110 countries have been invited. It will also include a range of leading civil society actors, business and labor leaders, civic educators and investigative journalists, philanthropists, and nonprofit leaders as speakers and participants.

Undeterred by the Coronavirus pandemic, the Biden administration has organized a global virtual gathering with participants tuning in from six continents. It is an ambitious, even audacious, undertaking.

And it comes at a critical time, as the world is now 15 years into a global democratic recession, according to the well-respected watchdog organization Freedom House. In its widely cited annual survey of freedom, it has reported that, in each of the past 15 years, more countries have seen their democracy scores decline than the number of countries whose scores have improved. And last year, during the height of the global pandemic, nearly 75 percent of the world's population lived in a country that saw its democracy score deteriorate last year.

For a President who has pledged to put democratic values at the heart of American foreign policy, it is fitting and proper that he should convene the democratic leaders of the world and other relevant parties to plan the revitalization of global democracy.

Of course, readers of the annual Freedom House assessment will know that there are not 110 well-functioning, effective democracies in the world and that way too many poorly performing nominal democracies have been invited to this gathering, thus diluting its character.

While some conspicuously back-sliding countries, like Hungary and Turkey, have not been invited, there are numerous back-sliding pseudo- democracies, including the current governments of the Philippines and Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia, Bolsinaro's Brazil among others, that unfortunately have been included.

Then there is India, which dropped from Free to Partly Free status in Freedom in the World 2021, which contributes significantly to the fact that 75 percent of the world's people last year resided in countries moving away from democracy. Yet the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, after its sustained crack down on critics during the past 2 years and the atrocious scapegoating of Muslims, who were disproportionately blamed for the spread of the virus and faced attacks by vigilante mobs, has been invited to the Democracy Summit.

Members of the Senate will also know that there has been precious little information sharing with this body about the contours of the summit. There has been no discussion with us about the invitation list or the way forward from this week's summit, which I see as a missed opportunity for the Biden administration.

On the other hand, I was proud to be able to participate in a side event convened last Friday morning by the House Democracy Partnership for a discussion with legislators from other countries about the important role that parliaments can and do play in leading their governments to address the enduring and universal problem of corruption. I want to congratulate Representative David Price of North Carolina for his leadership of that important initiative and for convening a productive international exchange of views last week in the run up to the President's gathering. One of the main take-aways from that webinar was that it is always incumbent on the legislatures of the world to press forward with laws that instruct and enable executive branch officials to elevate their work to combat corruption.

This is the main topic of my intervention today, to discuss one of the hopeful aspects of the President's Democracy Summit, which is the central role that the battle against corruption is playing in the proceedings and to underscore the leading role that we in the Congress must take to compel further action from our colleagues in the executive branch.

History tells us that they will likely not do so on their own. In fact, the history of anti-corruption laws in the United States is replete with fervent opposition from the executive branch, whether during Democratic administrations or Republican, to virtually every measure proposed in the Congress. This was true of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which barred U.S. companies and their officials from paying bribes in foreign countries. The executive and the business community declared that this would end the ability of American corporations to do business around the world, which turned out not to be true, of course.

Indeed, it became in due course a foundational element in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption--UNCAC--and other elements of the international architecture of the battle against corruption.

Yet the executive has continued to oppose every measure introduced in Congress to address kleptocrats and human rights abusers, including the original Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 and its successor, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2016.

This is especially ironic because, since the enactment of the 2016 law, both Republican and Democratic administrations have been utilizing the law frequently and to good effect. Indeed, today, Secretary of State Tony Blinken announced that--on the occasion of International anti-Corruption

Day--the Department of State has designated 12 individuals from 7 countries for significant corruption and also named another 18 family members. In five of the designations, the Treasury Department has invoked Global Magnitsky sanctions for their roles in corruption.

The Democracy Summit is being built around three principal themes: defending against authoritarianism, promoting respect for human rights, and fighting corruption. Corruption is the means and the method for kleptocratic rulers around the world to steal from their own people and to stash their wealth in safe havens, most often in the democratic Western world. This is directly and intimately connected to the undermining of the rule of law and the repression of human rights in these same countries--which is why I was so pleased to see that, on June 3 of this year, President Biden declared the fight against corruption to be ``a core national security interest.'' And he directed his National Security Advisor to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the problem.

Accordingly, earlier this week, in the run-up to the Democracy Summit, the White House published the first ``United States Strategy on Countering Corruption.''

The strategy is a 38-page document that describes several major lines of effort in the new strategy. Among the document's commitments are pledges to crack down on dirty money in U.S. real estate, to require certain gatekeepers to the U.S. financial system such as attorneys, accountants, and investment advisers to perform greater due diligence on their prospective clients, and to make it a crime for foreign officials to solicit or accept bribes from U.S. companies.

If this strategy is matched with appropriate resources, it has the power to fundamentally change the calculus for kleptocrats and redirect stolen funds back to the original problems they were meant to fund such as fighting the pandemic, countering the effects of climate change, funding economic development and opportunity.

We in the Congress can do our part by passing pending legislation that would further strengthen the hand of the U.S. Government in this effort. While there are a number of valuable proposals pending, there are two that I suggest would be the most impactful and necessary.

The first is the Combating Global Corruption Act, S. 14, which I introduced and was cosponsored by my Republican friend from Indiana, Mr. Young, which would create an annual global report, modeled in some ways on the Trafficking-in-Persons report, in which the State Department would assess how earnestly and effectively the governments of the world are living up to the commitments they have made in international treaties and covenants. The report would also place the countries of the world in 3 tiers, according to how well they are doing. And for those in the lowest performing tier, likely the governments that are actually kleptocracies, the bill asks that the executive branch assess government officials in those places for possible designation for Global Magnitsky sanctions.

The second is the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, S. 93, which I introduced and was cosponsored by my Republican friend from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker, which would permanently reauthorize the existing Global Magnitsky framework and to widen the aperture of the law to encompass more bad actors and actions.

Both these measures have been reported favorably and unanimously by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and both are ready for final action by the Senate. As President Biden convenes the Democracy Summit today, with its major focus on the battle against corruption, it would be timely for the Senate to demonstrate our resolve as well.

So I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will agree in the coming days to adopt these two bills, so that we may take them to the House of Representatives, where they also enjoy bipartisan support, and get them onto the desk of President Biden during the coming year. Participating governments in the Democracy Summit, including the United States, are making commitments to strengthen their own democracies in the next 12 months, in advance of a second summit that is envisioned for next December.

The American position will be enhanced if we have enacted these laws before then.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that selected excerpts of the ``United States Strategy on Countering Corruption'' be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to join me in recognizing the incredible career of Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, as he prepares to step down as Director and return to his research laboratory at the National Human Genome Research Institute, NHGRI.

NIH is the crown jewel of our Nation's and the world's biomedical infrastructure. The Institute touches all of our lives through its research, which deepens our understanding of the natural world and produces groundbreaking medicines and lifesaving treatments for diseases. Like all Marylanders, I am proud that NIH is headquartered in Bethesda and has several satellite campuses throughout the State.

Dr. Collins' career with NIH has spanned more than three decades. A physician-geneticist, Dr. Collins served as the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute from 1993 to 2008. In this work, he led the Human Genome Project, which in April 2003 completed sequencing the human DNA instruction book. The sequencing of the 3 billion DNA letters that make up the human genetic ``instruction book'' has been instrumental in uncovering the role that the genome plays in human health and disease and marshalling in a new era of medicine. For this work, Dr. Collins deservedly received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007.

Dr. Collins is the longest serving, Presidentially appointed NIH Director, having served as the 16th Director of NIH under three U.S. Presidents over more than 12 years. Building on his groundbreaking research in genetics, Dr. Collins has led the Institutes in the effort to develop a greater understanding of medicine and pursue innovations in diagnoses and treatments.

This includes the ``All of Us'' program, which is a precision medicine initiative that in 2018 began gathering the health data of 1 million participants to develop individualized healthcare that enables us to better treat and prevent disease. Dr. Collins' leadership has similarly led to incredible advancements in understanding neurological conditions. The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies--BRAIN--Initiative aims to develop revolutionary pictures of the brain to enable researchers to find new ways to treat, cure, and even prevent neurological disorders that affect millions of Americans.

Dr. Collins' tenure has included leading the fight to eradicate cancer under the Cancer Moonshot Initiative. This generational effort aims to improve our ability to prevent cancer or detect it at an earlier stage and develop more effective therapies to treat it. To date, over $1 billion in Moonshot funding has made incredible progress through support of over 240 research projects across more than 70 cancer initiatives.

Last but certainly not least, Dr. Collins' leadership as NIH Director has witnessed one of the toughest and most challenging tests for the Institutes: the COVID-19 pandemic. Through Dr. Collins' commitment to adhering to the science and steadfast leadership, the NIH has played an historic role in shepherding the development of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and all manner of medical resources toward COVID-19 response efforts. Though the Omicron variant is troubling and the pandemic rages in many parts of the world, we are better prepared to respond and persevere against the COVID-19 pandemic because Dr. Collins played a principal role in leading our national biomedical response efforts.

Dr. Collins is not just a scientist. He is also an avid guitarist and motorcyclist. And his book, ``The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief'', is one of the most intellectually rigorous and compelling efforts to reconcile the worlds of science and faith.

I ask the Senate, my fellow Marylanders, and a grateful Nation to join me in recognizing the career of an extraordinary physician- geneticist, Dr. Francis Collins. We are incredibly grateful for his leadership and stewardship of NIH and wish him a happy and well- deserved return to his research laboratory.

Madam President, on December 1, we mark the 33rd anniversary of World AIDS Day, which gives us an opportunity to pause and reflect on the lives lost to HIV/AIDS, how far we have come in the fight against this virus, and what we need to do to ensure an AIDS-free future.

Since the first cases of AIDS were reported domestically in June 1981, more than 700,000 Americans have tragically died due to AIDS- related complications. Significant scientific advances, brought about by public and private partnerships, led to the development of antiretroviral therapies--ARTs--which have been instrumental in decreasing AIDS-related mortality rates by more than 80 percent since they peaked in 1995. Investment in U.S. disease surveillance, prevention, and public education has similarly led to an almost 50- percent decline in the incidence of infection since 2010.

We are fortunate to have premier scientific research institutes within my home State of Maryland working together to combat this deadly virus. The National Institutes of Health, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, and the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland all lead U.S. and global research on developing treatments and a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. The world-class research institutions housed in Maryland have not only substantially led the scientific advancements with respect to HIV/AIDS; they have also played a significant role in reducing the number of new cases among Marylanders and affording those who contract HIV/AIDS to continue living full lives. Across Maryland, more than 30,000 adults or adolescents were living with HIV at the end of 2020.

Though my State ranks seventh among all U.S. States and Territories in HIV diagnosis rates per 100,000 people, we are making great strides to prevent new infections. Last year, Maryland recorded fewer than 1,000 new cases of HIV infection for the third consecutive year and a significant decrease over the peak of 2,612 new HIV infections among Marylanders in 1991. Public health initiatives the Maryland Department of Health implemented have been instrumental in reducing new infections, including programs like safe-sex education programs, condom distribution, access to prophylactic medication, and a statewide needle-exchange program for injection drug users.

Today, approximately 1.2 million Americans are living with HIV, and they are able to lead healthier and safer lives due to increased access to care under the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, ACA. The ACA has led to increased patient protections such as the prohibitions on rate-setting tied to health status, the elimination of preexisting condition exclusions, and an end to lifetime and annual dollar limits. Still, there are challenges ahead. Increasing prescription drug costs for ART regimens and health insurance benefit designs that shift out- of-pocket costs onto patients risk the progress we have made to end the HIV epidemic in the U.S.

Although Federal financial support to Medicaid, the largest source of insurance coverage for people living with

HIV, has increased through the duration of public health emergency due to the COVID-19 relief bills, tightening State budgets amid record Medicaid enrollment could hinder access to treatment or care for the HIV/AIDS population. Forty-two percent of adults with HIV receive healthcare under Medicaid.

In the U.S., the fight against this disease also disproportionately affects communities of color, with Black and Latino Americans accounting for a disproportionate share of new HIV diagnoses and deaths, consisting of about 70 percent of new diagnosis despite making up roughly 30 percent of the U.S. population. The Biden-Harris administration's theme for World AIDS Day this year is ``Ending the HIV Epidemic: Equitable Access, Everyone's Voice,'' denoting a strong commitment to addressing health inequities within the epidemic. I share the administration's determination to address the disproportionate impact of the epidemic on marginalized populations like the LGBTQI+ community and racial and ethnic minorities.

Internationally, the U.S. has invested more than $100 billion in the global HIV/AIDS response through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief--PEPFAR--and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Global Fund. This investment has saved more than 20 million lives, prevented millions of people from becoming infected, and achieved HIV/AIDS epidemic control in more than 50 countries. Since 2003, PEPFAR has changed the trajectory of the HIV epidemic around the globe by expanding access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care interventions. PEPFAR is one of the most successful and cost-effective efforts in the history of American foreign assistance.

Despite the progress we have made around the globe, there is still significant work to do. Of the 38 million people globally living with HIV, 12.6 million are not accessing lifesaving treatment. In 2019, there were 1.7 million people newly infected with HIV--more than three times the global target--and 690,000 people perished from this terrible disease. While we have made strides in combating HIV/AIDS in eastern and southern Africa, we have seen increases in new infections in Eastern Europe, central Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

As with last year's commemoration, this year's World AIDS Day finds us continuing to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. Support through PEPFAR and the Global Fund has financed efforts to minimize the disruption of the pandemic on HIV epidemic response efforts, through services like telehealth and multimonth dispensing of antiretroviral therapies. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, continues to affect the global response to HIV and threatens the decades of progress we have made against this disease. In addition to disrupting HIV treatments and prevention services, downstream impacts of the pandemic have cut off vulnerable populations from educational and social support services, and growing inequalities resulting from the economic downturn are likely to lead to increases in HIV risk behaviors and vulnerability. The Global Fund reported that last year, HIV testing dropped by 22 percent and the percentage of HIV-positive TB patients on antiretroviral therapies dropped 16 percent.

A world free from HIV requires global leadership from the United States, and we have stepped up to the plate by heavily investing in the global response to HIV. From significant contributions to the Global Fund to the creation of PEPFAR, U.S. global health leadership and international collaboration helped to turn the tide on the global epidemic. This is as true today as it was 33 years ago. International public health crises require international responses. Unlike the previous administration, I support President Biden's actions to reprioritize cooperative global health response efforts. We are only as strong as the weakest health system, and it is incumbent upon the U.S. to lead global health response efforts as we look to end the COVID-19 pandemic and HIV/AIDS epidemic.

One of the biggest tragedies of the HIV epidemic is that millions of people around the world died while waiting for treatment, and once treatment became available in 1987, it was out-of-reach. At about $8,000 a year--more than $17,000 in today's dollars--the first HIV drug was too expensive for populations who needed it most: low-income communities in the U.S. and low and middle-income countries. While Congress authorized $30 million in emergency funding to States to pay for low-income patients' treatment, global access to the drug lagged. For example, when we established PEPFAR in 2003, only 50,000 people in Africa were accessing lifesaving HIV treatment.

We cannot make the same mistake with COVID-19. While we have made great strides domestically to vaccinate our population, it is equally important to vaccinate the rest of the world from COVID-19. The Biden administration has made significant strides to supply and commit future supplies of vaccines to low-income countries, and I implore the administration to continue working with vaccine manufacturers to expedite this effort as fast as humanly and safely possible. Equally important is ensuring access, when approved, to antiviral treatments. One potential antiviral treatment reduces the risk of hospitalization and death by 89 percent in high-risk adults when used in conjunction with ritonavir, a medication commonly used to treat HIV. The potential success of this antiviral treatment is a testament to the biomedical infrastructure of the United States, where the incredibly innovative treatments we developed for HIV may be effective in battling the COVID- 19 pandemic, too.

COVID-19 does not respect borders. To protect our domestic health, we must ensure that our allies and low and middle-income countries around the world have affordable access to eventually approved COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics. While we celebrate the progress we have made with respect to HIV/AIDS this World AIDS Day, we must recommit ourselves to continuing this fight because success is within our grasp.

We have made so much progress through international partnerships. Donor nations; civil society; people living with HIV; faith-based organizations; scientific research community and academic partners such as Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Infectious Disease Research; the private sector; foundations; and implementing organizations such as Catholic Relief Services and Lutheran World Relief have complemented those partnerships tremendously. We must apply the lessons of the fight against HIV to our current battle against the COVID-19 pandemic so we can save more lives and get the global economy back on track.

Mr. President, I would like to reflect on my trip to Glasgow, Scotland, for COP26, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. I was fortunate to have 18 Senate colleagues join me to bolster President Biden's agenda and the United States' leadership role on the world stage.

Six years ago, I had the privilege of leading a congressional delegation to COP21, which produced the Paris Agreement in 2015. Countries from all across the globe collectively agreed that the threats and effects of climate change were too damaging to ignore. Unfortunately, the previous administration's fraught decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement jeopardized our credibility.

The global effort suffered another setback last year, when the UN Climate Change Conference was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and it was not safe to gather. These major setbacks were costly, but this time, we went to Glasgow resolved to make up for lost time. One of President Biden's first actions when he took the oath of office was to rejoin the Paris Agreement. Since then, President Biden has brought the United States back to the negotiating table and made unprecedented commitments and investments to tackle the climate crisis.

The overarching goal of this year's UN climate conference was to rally countries toward action that would reduce emissions enough to keep the goal to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach.

Without a doubt, Glasgow raised ambition. Ninety percent of the world's GDP now has net zero commitments, and 154 countries put forward new climate action plans to cut emissions. The Glasgow Climate Pact established a clear consensus that all nations need to do much more, immediately, to prevent a catastrophic rise in global temperatures.

In April, President Biden announced our Nationally Determined Commitment--NDC--will target reducing emissions by 50-52 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 level, consistent with achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050. The combined impact of the Senate's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President Biden signed into law on Monday and the Build Back Better Act framework announced last month will put U.S. emissions on a path to meeting the new target. The target is consistent with President Biden's goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050 and of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Time is not slowing down. According to NOAA, last month was the fourth warmest October in 142 years of recorded measurements.

Scientists have sounded the alarm that, if we fail to act a catastrophic rise in global temperatures will result, and some of the changes in the climate will be irreversible. Recognizing the urgency, the Glasgow Decision asks world leaders to submit stronger NDCs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the end of next year, instead of in 2025. It would be the first time nations offer new emissions pledges 2 years in a row, in 2021 and 2022. Although there were qualifiers, the express mention of fossil fuels in the text of the Glasgow Decision is notable since prior negotiations have referred to warming and emissions rather than the source of that pollution, most of which comes from coal, oil, and gas.

COP26 marks a significant step forward in our global resolve, and the commitment to reduce private sector global carbon emissions by significant amounts is especially noteworthy. But there is more work to do. As Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry remarked in his closing press conference, a gap remains. Even if we implement all our renewed commitments, we are now on track for somewhere between 1.8 and 2.4 degrees of warming. I do not take this as a sign of failure; however, the COP26 outcome was never the goal, nor is it the end. If anything, COP26 marks the end of the beginning in which we now know that the Paris Agreement is durable and, in fact, provides a reliable framework and set of processes for the world to center its cooperative efforts.

The story of Glasgow isn't just about the National Determined Commitments--NDCs. There was also greater attention paid to adaptation. The Adaptation Fund received $356 million in new support from contributing national and regional governments, including our first ever U.S. contribution of $50 million. Pledges nearly tripled the fund's 2021 resource mobilization goal of $120 million for climate change adaptation and resilience projects and programs in developing countries.

Ahead of the dialogue, President Biden announced the launch of the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience--PREPARE--a whole-of-government initiative that will serve as the cornerstone of the Federal Government response to the increasing impacts of the global climate crisis on vulnerable communities worldwide. Resources are a pillar of the plan, which calls for $3 billion in adaptation finance annually by fiscal year

2024, the largest U.S. commitment ever made to build capacity in developing countries to adapt to and manage the impacts of climate change by 2030.

Congress must meet the moment and deliver robust appropriations for adaptation finance. As one of the wealthiest and most developed countries, we have a moral obligation to act. We cannot back away from our promises, as acting on climate is a matter of life or death.

COP26 succeeded in renewing developed countries' climate finance commitments and helped catalyze increased private sector climate finance commitments at levels never seen before. Climate finance refers to the local, national, or transnational financing that supports mitigation and adaptation actions to address climate change. In 2009, parties with more resources collectively committed to unlock $100 billion per year from public and private sources between 2020 and 2025 to support those that are less resourced and more vulnerable cut their emissions and adapt to climate impacts. A report by Germany and Canada commissioned by the U.K., the host of this year's COP, found that developed countries are not set to meet the climate finance target until 2023--3 years late.

In April, President Biden said the U.S. would double its contribution to $5.7 billion, and in his first speech to the United Nations as President, he pledged in September to ``double that number again,'' bringing the Nation's commitment to $11.4 billion per year by 2024. Consistent, strong support for the U.S. contribution to the Green Climate Fund--GCF--is indispensable in financing global endeavors to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. U.S. contributions to the GCF and other multilateral and bilateral partnerships have the potential to mobilize additional public and private sector funds, highly leveraging the impact of our investments.

As Congress works to pass transformative legislation for a clean domestic economy, COP26 provided a chance for the United States and our global partners to reevaluate and negotiate new objectives, strategies, and commitments to tackle climate change through various lenses.

Each day of the climate conference explored a new theme. Our delegation had the opportunity to attend the entirety of ``Nature Day.'' Agriculture, forestry, and other land use account for nearly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. They also support global food security and millions of jobs. At the same time, ecosystems protect us; healthy forests absorb emissions, and wetlands defend our coastlines against storm surges. On November 6, 26 nations committed to sustainable farming policies, such as reducing low carbon practices that would in turn scale back emissions and prevent unnecessary pollution.

At home, the Build Back Better Act will provide major financial support to farmers and ranchers who adopt ``climate smart agriculture and forestry'' practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester additional carbon stocks in soils and vegetation. The delegation met with a range of foreign officials and civil society leaders, received a briefing from Secretary John Kerry, conducted a side event at the U.S. Center on Congress' climate agenda--in which nine Senators participated--and held a press conference at the COP site to share our views with the public.

That same day, U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID-- Administrator Samantha Power and the Rockefeller Foundation signed a memorandum of understanding forming the basis of a strategic partnership between USAID, Power Africa, and the newly launched Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet.

Senator Coons and I were honored to give remarks during the official signing ceremony in the Sustainable Development Goal 7--SDG7--Pavilion as original sponsors of the Electrify Africa Act of 2015. The partnerships will advance the goals of ending energy poverty in Africa, combating climate change, and strengthening the enabling environment for clean energy.

Alongside the events marking Nature Day, our trip marked the end of Week One of COP26, with negotiations gathering pace and work focusing on Week Two. After our delegation departed, the parties completed the Rulebook, after 6 years of discussions. These guidelines to implement the Paris Agreement rules include transparency rules to report on emissions and measure our collective progress toward achievement of NDCs.

After more than 5 years and with the processes mostly in place, the global community is clearly committed to tackling the climate crisis. We must now enter the next phase with a laserlike focus on implementation of the agreement wherein we meet our commitments through urgent and ambitious action.

I wish to applaud my colleagues for joining the delegation to Glasgow and beyond and thank Senate Democratic leadership for recognizing and supporting our work abroad. COP26 put us on a clear path with discrete steps to achieve our 2030 goals and set a much closer course to achieving a clean economy with net zero emissions by mid-century. I urge the U.S. Senate to turn the ambition achieved at COP26 into action in this decisive decade.

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

Madam President, 12 years ago this Tuesday, Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky died in Moscow at the hands of prison guards who, instead of treating him for the acute illness that his torturous, yearlong detention provoked, beat him for over an hour. He was found dead in his cell shortly thereafter. His ``crime'' was exposing the largest tax fraud in Russian history, perpetrated by government officials. He was 37 years old and left a loving family and many friends.

At the Helsinki Commission, which I chair, we had heard of Sergei's plight months earlier, and we were saddened and outraged that such a promising life had been cut short and that so few expected his murderers to be held to any account.

Impunity for the murder of journalists, activists, opposition politicians, and now simply an honest citizen was and remains a depressing cliche in Russia under Vladimir Putin's rule, while his regime often ruthlessly punishes people for minor infractions of the law. For those on the wrong side of the Kremlin, the message is clear and chilling. Even the most damning evidence will not suffice to convict the guilty, nor will the most exculpatory evidence spare the innocent.

The need for justice in Russia in this specific case has not diminished with the passage of time. Moreover, the doubling down on the coverup of Sergei's murder and the massive tax heist he exposed implicates a wider swath of Russian officials with the guilt of this heinous crime. It does not need to be this way, nor is it ever too late for a reckoning in this case in the very courtrooms that hosted the show trials that ultimately led to Sergei's death.

As sober as this occasion is, there is reason for hope. Vladimir Putin will not rule Russia forever, and every passing day brings us closer to that moment when someone new will occupy his post. Who that person will be and whether this transition will usher in a Government in Russia that respects the rights of its citizens and abides by its international commitments remain unclear. I hope it does. A Russian Government that returns to the fold of responsible, constructive European powers would increase global security, enhance the prosperity of its own citizens and trading partners, and bring new vigor to tackling complex international challenges such as climate change.

Sergei's work lives on in his many colleagues and friends who are gathering in London this week to celebrate his life and to recognize others like him who seek justice and peace in their countries, often facing and surmounting seemingly impossible obstacles. All too often, they pay a heavy price for their courageous integrity.

Sergei's heroic legacy is exemplified in the global movement for justice sparked by his death and in the raft of Magnitsky laws that began in this Chamber and have now spread to over a dozen countries, including allies like Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Even as these laws help protect our countries from the corrupting taint of blood money and deny abusers the privilege of traveling to our shores, they also remind those who suffer human rights abuses at the hands of their own governments that we have not forgotten them.

Sergei Magnitsky is a reminder to all of us that one person can make a difference. In choosing the truth over lies and sacrifice over comfort, Sergei made a difference that will never be forgotten.

Fifty-five years ago, Senator Robert F. Kennedy addressed the National Union of South African Students and spoke about human liberty. He spoke about freedom of speech and the right to ``affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic--to society.'' He also spoke about the commensurate

freedom to be heard, ``to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives.'' He stated that government ``must be limited in its power to act against its people so there may be no . . . arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials high or low.''

Senator Kennedy went on to say:

Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve

the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends

forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a

million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples

build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of

oppression and resistance.

Sergei Magnitsky stood up for an ideal. He acted to improve the lot of others. He struck at injustice. He was and remains a ripple of hope.

On this sad anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's murder, let us all recommit ourselves to helping those in Russia and around the world who seek their rightful share in the governance of their own countries and who deserve the confidence of doing so without fear of harm. If we do this, Sergei will not have died in vain.

I am confident that one day there will be a monument in stone and bronze to Sergei in his native Russia. Until that day, the law that bears his name will serve as his memorial.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, earlier this afternoon, I convened a meeting of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee as its chairman. We had noted an agenda to act on the nomination of Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

This was not our first attempt, and I am going to outline all the efforts that we have made to get a vote on Mr. Syed. But to my disappointment, the Democrats were there ready to vote on the nomination.

We also had two important pieces of legislation that we were scheduled to vote on, and every Republican refused to show up, denying us a quorum to be able to conduct business.

Let me share with my colleagues the state of play on this individual and on this nomination. President Biden nominated Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration on March 3. He is a well-qualified entrepreneur and a small business advocate.

After reviewing his paperwork and ethics agreement, the committee held a hearing on Mr. Syed's nomination on April 21. Now, during that hearing, Ranking Member Paul raised serious concerns about PPP and Economic Injury Disaster Loan--EIDL--received by Lumiata, a tech company from which Mr. Syed serves as the CEO. After weeks of negotiations, I brokered a compromise between Ranking Member Paul and the SBA that provided access to the company's loan applications.

On June 8, I personally sat down with Ranking Member Paul and a representative of the Small Business Administration outside the Senate Chamber to review those documents and ensure that the loans were properly attained, which they clearly were. The

following day, the documents were made available to all of the committee members on the Small Business Committee.

Now, what that record showed is that those loans were taken out in regular order, that they were entitled to the PPP loan and the EIDL. But it also showed something that was quite remarkable. Mr. Syed returned the PPP loan without forgiveness. He was entitled to forgiveness, but, as he said, he was able to get access to additional capital and didn't need the government help and thought it was the right thing to return the loan without forgiveness. What exemplary action.

Satisfied that we had resolved the issue, Senator Paul agreed to my request that the committee schedule a vote to report out the nominee on June 16. After achieving a quorum of Senators, I moved to report the nomination by voice vote, as requested--a common practice in the Senate. A few Republican members asked to be recorded as voting no, which is also a common practice in the Senate.

However, we were later informed by the Senate Parliamentarian that the nomination could not be reported to the full Senate because a Republican staff member raised an objection that there had not been a rollcall vote in our committee.

A new objection was then raised based on Mr. Syed's involvement in Emgage, a nonprofit organization that supports the Muslim-American community. One Republican office even circulated an email that focused on Mr. Syed's Muslim religion and place of birth.

Two weeks after the meeting, on June 30, I received a letter from eight Republican members suggesting that Mr. Syed's involvement in Emgage was evidence of an Israel bias and support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement--the BDS movement. This is 2 weeks after we have already had our first committee vote.

Mr. Syed had a relationship with this company, and this company had no record of this type of bias. Mr. Syed responded to these concerns in a letter that he stated he is ``a proud first-generation Muslim- American but also pro-Israel.''

He clearly stated that he does not support the BDS movement and believes ``Israel to be a major partner in supporting the growth of America's innovative small businesses.''

Several Jewish organizations have come to Mr. Syed's defense. For example, the American Jewish Committee wrote:

The unsupported accusation that somehow Jewish businesses

are those with ties to Israel may not fare as well under Mr.

Syed's leadership in the Small Business Administration . . .

has no factual grounding. Indeed, he has specifically

disavowed support for the . . . (BDS) movement. . . . AJC

rejects the charge that simply an affiliation with Emgage

would reflect negatively on an individual, organization, or

agency.

And AJC went even further and called the Republican accusations against Mr. Syed ``un-American.''

On Thursday, July 15, the committee again attempted to hold a business meeting to report out the nomination.

We thought we had resolved all the issues. We resolved the issues concerning the loans. Everybody agreed they were proper. There was no concern about Mr. Syed's views in regards to Israel. That had been resolved.

So, Mr. President, I was puzzled that, on the July 15 meeting, all 10 Republican members boycotted the meeting and a reporting quorum was not achieved. We couldn't take action. I couldn't understand why because we had resolved the two issues--the first issue, and then it changed to a second issue.

But it was not until a week later that committee Republicans changed course again and developed a new line of attack, this time linking the nomination to PPP loans received by entities of Planned Parenthood.

On July 22, all 10 committee Republicans released the following statement:

The SBA has wrongfully approved nearly $100 million in

taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program loans to Planned

Parenthood branches across the country. On June 30th alone,

SBA approved four PPP loans to Planned Parenthood affiliates

despite a determination from the last Administration that

these entities were ineligible for the program. We will not

allow a vote on this nominee until the SBA takes action to

recover the wrongfully acquired PPP funds by Planned

Parenthood entities.

Mr. President, I am going to go through in detail as to how these loans were not improperly given and that the ground rules we set up were followed by Planned Parenthood and other nonprofits of similar type of organization.

Where they came up with this line is still somewhat of a puzzlement to me since my Republican colleagues were engaged with us in developing the PPP program and the eligibilities for the PPP program.

Since that date, I have tried several times to hold business meetings to report out the nomination, but Republicans would not attend markups that I attempted to hold on September 21, November 4, and again today. On September 29, I attempted to discharge Mr. Syed's nomination from the committee by unanimous consent--that is after our voice vote that had already approved his nomination--but Ranking Member Paul objected to my request on the Senate floor.

The Planned Parenthood issue predates the Syed nomination and even the Biden administration. It goes back to March of 2020 when this committee took the lead--the Small Business Committee took the lead in drafting the bipartisan CARES Act.

I was proud to be part of a team that includes Senator Shaheen, Senator Rubio, and Senator Collins. We sat down and went line by line drafting the PPP legislation that we are talking about. We negotiated back and forth in good faith on the provisions of this bill. It was truly a bipartisan effort.

Republicans controlled the Senate. We worked with the Republicans, and we came up with a bipartisan bill to help America's small businesses. That legislation made 501(c)(3)s--nonprofits--and veteran nonprofit organizations with up to 500 employees eligible for the PPP loans. This was a mutual decision. We knew it had some controversy associated with it. There are faith-based groups that people have some concern about getting government support. There are different organizations that people might have a concern. But we felt that during this pandemic, it was important to preserve our small business entities, whether they were for-profit or nonprofit, and that was a bipartisan decision that was made by Democrats and Republicans.

During the negotiations of March 2020, then-Chairman Rubio added language to an early draft that would have prohibited nonprofit entities that receive Medicaid assistance from getting PPP loans. This was presumably an effort to deny Planned Parenthood the opportunity to participate in the program. But because of the way it was drafted, it also affected a lot of nonprofits. It affected programs such as domestic abuse centers or homes for the disabled. It was soundly rejected in our group as not being a workable restriction, that we could not support that type of prohibition.

So we negotiated back and forth, and we could not resolve the issue. Eventually this issue, along with other issues that we couldn't resolve, was taken up to the joint leadership of the Senate Republicans and Democrats who were trying to resolve issues that we couldn't resolve in our committee deliberations. It was at that level that a compromise was reached to add language that applied the SBA affiliation rules to nonprofits--not the Medicaid language but the affiliate rules. We had no objection to that. We felt that nonprofits should be subject to the same restrictions as for-profit entities as far as whether they were truly independent or part of just a national group, whether there was control on the affiliate. So we thought that made sense.

In April of 2020, the SBA, under the Trump administration, released guidance on applying the affiliation standards to nonprofits, which is where we are getting to the determinations made by Planned Parenthood.

The part of the affiliation that applies to nonprofits relates to common management. I am going to quote for the Record. I have the full statement here of what the affiliate rules were, but let me just read into the Record the relevant section that applies to the controversies--I don't think it is controversies--the Republican controversy on Planned Parenthood.

Affiliation arises where the CEO or President of the

applicant concern (or other officers, managing members, or

partners who

control the management of the concern) also controls the

management of one or more other concerns. Affiliation also

arises where a single individual, concern, or entity that

controls the Board of Directors or management of one concern

also controls the Board of Directors or management of one

[or] more other concerns. Affiliation also arises where a

single individual, concern or entity controls the management

of the applicant concern through a management agreement.

Now, the question is, Does the national group control the personnel and board of the affiliate? That is how the rules apply.

Planned Parenthood of America determined its entities were eligible because it does not exercise control over its member organizations and does not have a common management. Each member organization is its own independent, not-for-profit, tax-exempt organization with its own independent board of directors that is solely responsible for the hiring and retention of its CEO. Planned Parenthood of America does not have the power to remove CEOs or directors from its individual member organizations.

Now, Mr. President, this type of federated structure is common in the nonprofit world, and it is the reason why nonprofits such as the YMCA and Boys & Girls Clubs also qualified and received PPP loans, forgivable loans. We recognize that they have a large national structure, but the individual entities are small entities and are independently managed and controlled.

In May of 2020, under the Trump administration, 38 Planned Parenthood entities received correspondence from Associate Administrator Bill Manger with a preliminary finding that the entities may not be in compliance with the affiliation rules.

To my knowledge, Mr. Manger only sent letters to Planned Parenthood entities, not to any of the other similarly structured entities. Now, I say that because we now have learned that there was a list--a hold list of a much larger number of entities that there was a concern as to whether they qualified under the affiliation rules, but only Planned Parenthood received the May 2020 letter, not the other groups that had a similar structure.

The letter that was sent out is titled ``Notice of Investigation and Request for Records.'' This was sent out in May 2020 to 38 Planned Parenthood entities. The Planned Parenthood entities responded to these letters. They contested the finding. Every Planned Parenthood company that received correspondence in May of 2020 contested its findings. The letter is pretty detailed in what it spells out. It spells out all the reasons why they comply with the affiliation rules, and it talks all about it, about all the different reasons why they were qualified to receive their funds.

Mr. President, it ends with this line. This is how Planned Parenthood responded to the May 2020 letter:

I trust that this response resolves the matter.

May 2020.

Nine months later, under the Trump administration, no additional action that we are aware of was taken by the SBA to contest Planned Parenthood's eligibility for the PPP money, so it was clear that the Trump administration decided not to take action.

So where are we now?

It is also important to note that PPP loans were not used by Planned Parenthood to provide any health services. We are not talking about providing health services here. The law is very specific as to what the funds can be used for: payroll costs, healthcare benefits for the employees, paid leave for the employees, allowance for dismissal or separation, interest on mortgage expenses, rent and utilities, interest on debt prior to February 15, 2020.

I was somewhat puzzled by all of this, but in an attempt to broker another compromise, after dealing with whether the PPP loans and the business entity were proper, whether there was any semblance of concern about his attitude in regards to Israel--having satisfied that, I made another effort to try to deal with Senator Paul and the members of the committee to see what they wanted.

Mr. Syed had nothing to do with these loans. Mr. Syed is fully qualified. The SBA needs a Deputy Administrator confirmed to deal with all of the programs that we have passed in the last 2 years to help small businesses. They need a confirmed manager to work between us and our constituents and make sure these programs are working effectively.

So what else could I provide? Yesterday, I invited all of the Republican members to come to my office--or come to the small business office and we would make available all of the information SBA has in regards to these Planned Parenthood loans. They will make it available--all the loans that were given out, when they were given out, what was forgiven, what was not forgiven, second-round PPP loans, all of it. I don't know what else we can do. Not one showed up to review the information.

I can appreciate the fact that this issue may make Republicans who oppose Planned Parenthood politically uncomfortable. I can understand that. But Democrats also disagree with views of many organizations that received PPP loans.

Last December, the Washington Post reported that 14 organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League received PPP loans. These are legal entities that qualified for the program because we can't draft it based upon the mission of a particular organization; we have to draft it in a way that those that are legitimate businesses and operations can qualify for the loans. And we did that. We don't judge who we are giving the money to, whether we like what they are doing or not. That is not what this is about.

As I said in the committee a little earlier today, it is important for the Small Business Committee to get back to its bipartisan tradition.

I hope that my Republican colleagues will accept the information that we have made available, work with us, and let's get Mr. Syed confirmed. Let's get him confirmed because he is the right person for this position at this time. The SBA desperately needs a confirmed Deputy Administrator, with all the work that we put on them, and all the help. Our small business community needs to have an accountable, confirmed Deputy Administrator so that they have an accountable person who can work with us to make sure our programs are not only administered properly but we get the information to modify these programs to make them work moving forward. We are already in the process of considering additional legislation. It is so important to have a confirmed Deputy Administrator of Mr. Syed's experience in order to help us with that.

I must tell you, Administrator Guzman is doing a fantastic job. She is one person. She needs a Deputy. It is time that we get this person confirmed. There has not been an articulated reason why this person should not be confirmed.

Mr. President, I know we have had this debate on nominations that are here on the floor. We are wondering why people vote against them. I can't even get a vote in our committee on this because the Republicans won't show up for a vote.

I think, in respect for the system, it is important that the Small Business Committee have an opportunity to vote on Mr. Syed's nomination, which I hope then would be on the floor promptly for confirmation.

I see that Senator Lee seems to be on the floor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a tremendous toll on our Nation. Healthcare workers have valiantly served our communities throughout the crisis. Still, we face unprecedented challenges, and this moment calls for historic action.

The pandemic laid bare the gaps in our healthcare system and magnified longstanding inequities. Health inequities have been eating away at our communities for many years, which is why I have fought for policies to reduce economic and social inequalities overall--in short, access to nutrition, education, and housing, and increased funding for social and mental health services.

Earlier this year, Congress enacted some of those reforms in the American Rescue Plan Act, which is bringing much-needed help to Marylanders and Americans across the country. It was a strong investment to complement ongoing efforts to curtail the rapid spread of the virus, particularly as we grapple with more contagious variants, such as the Delta variant. Now, we have the opportunity to enhance that effort through the Build Back Better Act.

Even with the significant investments in healthcare over the last year and a half, Americans are struggling to pay for their basic healthcare needs, like prescription medications and mental healthcare. Waiting lists for home- and community-based services so individuals can age in place with dignity are in the thousands or tens of thousands in States around the country. In my State of Maryland, over 30,000 seniors and individuals are waiting to get access to home- and community-based services.

Now, we have the opportunity to make prescription drugs more affordable, expand access to home- and community-based services, extend enhanced financial support to individuals in the individual market, and permanently fund the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP.

We have been working on these problems for years and, in some cases, for over a decade. Congress is long overdue in acting to remedy them.

As we make these historic investments, we must also redouble our efforts to address the longstanding gaps in healthcare access. For instance, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make major reforms to the Medicare benefit.

Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Medicare Dental Benefit Act, which would add dental benefits to Medicare. It would help more than 56 million seniors and people with disabilities afford much-needed dental care.

According to the Wisdom Tooth Project of Oral Health America, nearly 70 percent of seniors lack or have limited access to dental insurance, and fewer than half have access to dental care each year. Those numbers are inexcusable. We should be working to strengthen and expand access to quality, affordable dental care for all Americans, regardless of age or income.

That is why, today, I am introducing, along with Senator Stabenow, the Medicaid Dental Benefit Act, which would extend comprehensive dental health benefits to tens of millions of low-income Americans.

Currently, States have flexibility to determine whether to provide dental benefits to adult Medicaid enrollees. Although most States, including my State, provide at least emergency dental services for adults, fewer than half of the States provide comprehensive dental care.

The consequences of such haphazard access could not be clearer: higher costs and worse outcomes.

A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that Black, Hispanic, and low-income adults visited the emergency room for dental care at the highest rates of any group in 2018.

Many of you have heard me speak before of the tragic loss of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Prince George's County resident, in 2007. Deamonte's death was particularly heartbreaking because it was entirely preventable. What started out as a toothache turned into a severe brain infection that could have been prevented by an $80 extraction. After multiple surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, Deamonte passed away nearly 15 years ago, just a few miles from this building.

It is imperative that we use this once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase access to dental care, which will improve the overall health of millions. To echo former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, ``there is no health without oral health.''

Adequate access to oral health is essential to preventing tragedies like the death of Deamonte Driver from ever happening again. Let us continue to build upon the progress made today in advancing access to oral health to protect individuals around the country.

As we work to pass this legislation, let us not lose sight of what is at stake. Just in the last few days, we have seen some of the best that American healthcare can provide, but also some of the worst.

Vaccines are making a critical difference in the fight against COVID- 19, and just this Wednesday, they will be available to all ages 5 and older. It is a momentous achievement and a great relief to families and communities around the Nation.

At the same time, women in Texas are being denied access to reproductive healthcare while, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases challenging the Texas anti-abortion law S.B. 8. Roe v. Wade has been the established legal precedent in this country for more than half a century, but anti-choice activists continue to push policies like S.B. 8 that are sending this country and women's health and well-being in the wrong direction. Women and their healthcare should not be under constant threat. If we fail the women of America, we fail our Nation.

Right now, we have a choice on how we as a nation want to emerge from the pandemic. We can continue on the same course, leaving millions of families behind, or we can answer the call of the American people and invest in high-quality, equitable healthcare.

Let us answer the call.

Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to take a tremendous toll on our Nation. Healthcare workers have valiantly served our communities throughout the crisis. Still, we face unprecedented challenges, and this moment calls for historic action.

The pandemic laid bare the gaps in our healthcare system and magnified longstanding inequities. Health inequities have been eating away at our communities for many years, which is why I have fought for policies to reduce economic and social inequalities overall--in short, access to nutrition, education, and housing, and increased funding for social and mental health services.

Earlier this year, Congress enacted some of those reforms in the American Rescue Plan Act, which is bringing much-needed help to Marylanders and Americans across the country. It was a strong investment to complement ongoing efforts to curtail the rapid spread of the virus, particularly as we grapple with more contagious variants, such as the Delta variant. Now, we have the opportunity to enhance that effort through the Build Back Better Act.

Even with the significant investments in healthcare over the last year and a half, Americans are struggling to pay for their basic healthcare needs, like prescription medications and mental healthcare. Waiting lists for home- and community-based services so individuals can age in place with dignity are in the thousands or tens of thousands in States around the country. In my State of Maryland, over 30,000 seniors and individuals are waiting to get access to home- and community-based services.

Now, we have the opportunity to make prescription drugs more affordable, expand access to home- and community-based services, extend enhanced financial support to individuals in the individual market, and permanently fund the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP.

We have been working on these problems for years and, in some cases, for over a decade. Congress is long overdue in acting to remedy them.

As we make these historic investments, we must also redouble our efforts to address the longstanding gaps in healthcare access. For instance, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make major reforms to the Medicare benefit.

Earlier this year, I reintroduced the Medicare Dental Benefit Act, which would add dental benefits to Medicare. It would help more than 56 million seniors and people with disabilities afford much-needed dental care.

According to the Wisdom Tooth Project of Oral Health America, nearly 70 percent of seniors lack or have limited access to dental insurance, and fewer than half have access to dental care each year. Those numbers are inexcusable. We should be working to strengthen and expand access to quality, affordable dental care for all Americans, regardless of age or income.

That is why, today, I am introducing, along with Senator Stabenow, the Medicaid Dental Benefit Act, which would extend comprehensive dental health benefits to tens of millions of low-income Americans.

Currently, States have flexibility to determine whether to provide dental benefits to adult Medicaid enrollees. Although most States, including my State, provide at least emergency dental services for adults, fewer than half of the States provide comprehensive dental care.

The consequences of such haphazard access could not be clearer: higher costs and worse outcomes.

A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that Black, Hispanic, and low-income adults visited the emergency room for dental care at the highest rates of any group in 2018.

Many of you have heard me speak before of the tragic loss of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Prince George's County resident, in 2007. Deamonte's death was particularly heartbreaking because it was entirely preventable. What started out as a toothache turned into a severe brain infection that could have been prevented by an $80 extraction. After multiple surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, Deamonte passed away nearly 15 years ago, just a few miles from this building.

It is imperative that we use this once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase access to dental care, which will improve the overall health of millions. To echo former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, ``there is no health without oral health.''

Adequate access to oral health is essential to preventing tragedies like the death of Deamonte Driver from ever happening again. Let us continue to build upon the progress made today in advancing access to oral health to protect individuals around the country.

As we work to pass this legislation, let us not lose sight of what is at stake. Just in the last few days, we have seen some of the best that American healthcare can provide, but also some of the worst.

Vaccines are making a critical difference in the fight against COVID- 19, and just this Wednesday, they will be available to all ages 5 and older. It is a momentous achievement and a great relief to families and communities around the Nation.

At the same time, women in Texas are being denied access to reproductive healthcare while, on Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases challenging the Texas anti-abortion law S.B. 8. Roe v. Wade has been the established legal precedent in this country for more than half a century, but anti-choice activists continue to push policies like S.B. 8 that are sending this country and women's health and well-being in the wrong direction. Women and their healthcare should not be under constant threat. If we fail the women of America, we fail our Nation.

Right now, we have a choice on how we as a nation want to emerge from the pandemic. We can continue on the same course, leaving millions of families behind, or we can answer the call of the American people and invest in high-quality, equitable healthcare.

Let us answer the call.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's--OSCE--Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights-- ODIHR--one of the world's most preeminent and comprehensive human rights protection bodies.

In 1990-1991, during the signing of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe that created ODIHR, a spirit of ``profound change and historic expectations'' prevailed among the United States, nations of Europe, and the Soviet Union.

Revolutionary for their time, heads of state and governments resolved to ``build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.'' Further, by affirming that government's first responsibility is to ensure the ``protection and promotion of human rights,'' they explicitly linked the full attainment of those rights with ``the foundation of freedom, justice and peace'' and set the standard for relations and security within and among nations.

Now, 30 years later, I am deeply concerned that the fundamental freedoms that ODIHR was founded to safeguard are in peril.

Authoritarianism is on the rise in Europe. Credible reports allege there are more than 750 political prisoners in Belarus, many detained for participating peacefully in protest of the fraudulent elections of August 2020 and the brutal government crackdown that followed. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's administration continues its unprecedented consolidation of Hungary's media, even as opposition figures organize to resist him. In many countries across the OSCE area, we have witnessed an alarming rise in anti-Semitism, racism, religious and other intolerance, and violence against women. These scourges have worsened the conditions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our communities.

With these and other challenges in mind, ODIHR's valuable work to assist nations to live up to their commitments is more relevant and more needed than ever.

ODIHR is empowered by states to ensure respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to promote and strengthen democratic institutions and tolerance. ODIHR actively partners with OSCE's 57 participating states, civil society, and international organizations to support human rights defenders, enhance the independence of judiciaries, and promote human-rights-based policing. It offers legislative reviews and develops tools to support local government officials, including the Words into Action project, which enhances social inclusion within local communities and for which I proudly help secure funding.

The most visible demonstration of ODIHR's collaboration with the United States is perhaps in the field of election observation, where its methodology is rightly seen as the gold standard in international election observation. Since its founding, ODIHR, the Department of State, and the U.S. Congress, through the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, have deployed thousands of American citizens and legislators to observe the conduct of elections across the OSCE area, including in the United States. Since OSCE states pledged in 1990 to hold free and fair elections, elections observation has been recognized as one of the most transparent and methodical ways to encourage states' commitment to democratic standards and is a hallmark of ODIHR's work.

For nearly 30 years, ODIHR has organized Europe's largest human rights review conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting-- HDIM--gathering thousands of representatives of governments, parliaments, and civil society for 2 weeks around the same table to review progress on human rights commitments. Unfortunately, the HDIM did not take place this September. Russia blocked consensus to hold the meeting, thereby denying the OSCE region's nearly 1 billion citizens of a meaningful and sustained opportunity to hold their governments to account.

In September, Russia also prevented ODIHR from deploying a full and independent election observation mission to observe its Duma elections. Likewise, Russia was responsible for the closure of OSCE's border observation mission, which provided valuable insight into the personnel and materiel flowing across Russia's border into the temporarily occupied areas of eastern Ukraine.

ODIHR's work is more important and relevant than at any time since its founding at the end of the Cold War. I would like to take a moment to extend my heartfelt appreciation to ODIHR's 180 staff from 35 countries, upon whose dedication and professionalism we rely as we strive to realize an equitable and just future for all.

ODIHR is not only the human rights arm of the world's largest regional security organization; it is also the independent body endowed to assist us as we pursue this important goal.

The phrase ``Vancouver to Vladivostok'' is routinely invoked to describe the organization's broad geographical reach. However, it is perhaps ODIHR--and OSCE's--revolutionary and comprehensive concept of ``security,'' which includes military security, economic and environmental cooperation, and human rights, that is its defining characteristic and most important contribution to world peace and the reason why we should all be celebrating ODIHR's 30th anniversary this year and take steps to ensure its success for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to sound the alarm on the national security threat that corruption represents and to echo the determination President Biden made earlier this year that corruption constitutes a core national security threat to the United States.

Along with many of my colleagues in this body, I have worked long and hard to fight corruption, which undermines democracy, human rights, and the rule of law and is behind so many of the persistent problems that we seek to solve.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists--involving 150 media outlets, including the Washington Post and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project--conducted an investigation of corruption leading to the publication of the Pandora Papers.

The Pandora Papers reveal the astonishing extent to which questionable financial flows are entering our country and that of our allies. Those warrant further review. Although we had known that such a system of offshore financing exists, it is still shocking to see the scale of the corruption, documented in great detail by emails, contracts, and other documents.

Foreign dictators, their associates, and other foreign officials have stolen untold sums--billions of dollars--and moved that dirty money into our democracies, into our real estate, bank accounts, trusts, and other financial instruments. This is a profound threat to our national security. It hollows out the rule of law abroad and now threatens to hollow out the rule of law at home.

Foreign kleptocrats cannot do this alone. Although the kleptocrats may steal abroad, to taint our political system with that money requires the assistance of enablers--American lawyers, accountants, trust and company service providers, real estate professionals, and the like--who put aside any moral qualms that they may have

about working for the enemies of democracy to obtain a small slice of ill-gotten gains.

The Pandora Papers make clear that U.S. enablers apparently play an outsized role in helping to move stolen assets from dictatorships and struggling democracies into consolidated democracies--an appalling and corrupt transfer of wealth from those who need it the most to those who have no need for it at all.

All told, the Papers include documents from 206 U.S. trusts in 15 States and Washington, DC, and 22 trustee companies.

While there is obviously much legitimate business to be done in creating and managing trusts and investments--and we should be careful about overstating or generalizing without careful examination of each case--it appears that some Americans have knowingly played a significant role in facilitating corruption.

The Papers include 300 political leaders and public officials from more than 90 countries and territories--although no Americans and exceedingly few Western Europeans. This comes as no surprise. The movement of corrupt money runs east to west, not west to east. It is the tragedy of the post-Cold War world that corruption has come west along with dirty money rather than democracy going east.

There are names in the Papers that also come as no surprise, such as Vladimir Putin's cronies Konstantin Ernst and Gennady Timchenko. Both are included on Alexei Navalny's list of 35 human rights abusers and kleptocrats. Timchenko is already under U.S. sanctions, although Ernst is not. Now would be a good time to consider imposing sanctions on him. The Aliyevs of Azerbaijan also make an appearance. They collectively own a real estate empire in London worth $700 million. A Chinese Communist Party official also was found to have used an offshore company to trade in U.S. stocks.

Now, here is the good news. It doesn't have to be this way. The triumph of global kleptocracy is not inevitable. We can fight back, and we are.

Never before has there been an American administration so focused on countering such corruption or a Congress so creative and aggressive in facing down the threat. President Biden is the first President ever to declare countering corruption to be a core U.S. national security interest.

Congress has formed a bipartisan Caucus against Foreign Corruption and Kleptocracy. The House recently passed no fewer than six different counterkleptocracy measures in the National Defense Authorization Act, which included bills I authored in the Senate. Now, it is incumbent upon us to do the same in the Senate and pass these bills.

First is the Combating Global Corruption Act, S. 14, which would create a public and tiered country-by-country reporting requirement on compliance with international anti-corruption norms and standards. Those countries in the lowest tier of this report would have their leadership evaluated for Global Magnitsky sanctions. Then there is the Global Magnitsky Reauthorization Act, S. 93, which would reauthorize and enhance these critical sanctions for targeting global kleptocrats and human rights abusers--exactly the sort of people identified by the Pandora Papers.

Just before the recess, I introduced S. 2986, a new measure with Senator Wicker, that would require the administration to evaluate the Navalny 35 for Global Magnitsky Sanctions. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, in a letter addressed to President Joe Biden earlier this year, called for the United States to impose sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials, whom it credibly accuses of political persecution, human rights abuses, and corruption. I agree with the Navalny team and urge the administration to move forward on this request.

All three of these measures have been included in the House version of the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--and I urge my colleagues to include them in the Senate version as well.

The Pandora Papers are a wake-up call to all who care about the future of democracy. Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, it is time for democracies to band together and demand an end to these unprecedented corruptions that has come to the defining feature of the global order. We must purge the dirty money from our system and deny kleptocrats safe haven. It will take hard decisions and difficult reforms, but we can get this done. We already have a bipartisan commitment momentum in order to accomplish these results. Now it is time that we see this through in the U.S. Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month to celebrate our Hispanic and Latino communities and their immeasurable contributions to our Nation. Hispanic and Latinos have been with our country since its very founding and have helped make America exceptional. Hispanic and Latino Americans play vital roles in our communities. They are our teachers, our heathcare heroes, our entrepreneurs, our essential workers, our public servants and elected officials, all vital to the fabric of our Nation.

Hispanic Heritage Month started as a commemorative week that Congress established in 1968 and expanded to a full month in 1988 to recognize the critical role the Latino community has played in the civil rights movement. Celebrations start September 15, a significant date, as it is the independence date for Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, while Mexico celebrates its independence on September 16, and Chile celebrates its independence on September 18.

This month, we celebrate the nearly 61 million Latino Americans across the country and the more than 600,000 Hispanic or Latino residents in Maryland. Maryland is proudly one of the most diverse States in the Nation. We are home to people with origins in Central and South America, with sizeable populations of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans.

America is a nation of immigrants; people from far and wide have settled in the United States, the land of opportunity. Since the Immigration Act of 1965, millions of individuals from Central and South America have immigrated to the United States for numerous reasons, including economic instability or violence in their native country.

We take this month to highlight the importance of the Hispanic and Latino communities, including the election in 1822 of Joseph Marion Hernandez, the first Hispanic in Congress, as Florida's Delegate. Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are 54 Hispanic or Latino Members--a record number--serving: 47 in the House, including two Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, and seven in the Senate.

Though the Hispanic and Latino communities have been essential to America's identity, from the scientific innovation to art, culture, music, food, and so much more, we must still recognize the disparities that these communities face. For the second year, we are celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has affected people of color at disproportionate rates in terms of economic distress and case severity. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate soared to 18.9 percent in February of 2020. Hispanic or Latina women took even larger losses compared to their male counterparts. The unemployment disparity is due to the overrepresentation of Hispanic or Latino workers in the food preparation or serving industry, as well as building and grounds cleaning and maintenance. These sectors suffered some of the harshest economic effects of the pandemic. Even though the unemployment rate has decreased to 6.4 percent in Hispanic and Latino communities--6.2 percent in Maryland--they still have not experienced the same economic recoveries as their White counterparts.

For the immigrants who do not have a green card, their likelihood to have lost a job is even higher. Many say that at least one family member in their household has lost a job or wages. Families are suffering; they are worried about putting food on the table or even losing their homes. The financial toll of the last year and a half has exacerbated the prepandemic inequalities that the Hispanic or Latino communities were already facing.

Hispanic or Latino people are also more likely face the harshest health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hispanic or Latino people are twice as likely to catch COVID, 2.8 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 2.3 times more likely to die compared to their White counterparts. In my own home State, Hispanic or Latino people are 14.3 percent of the case rates when they only make up 10.6 percent of our population. With the widening gaps of healthcare coverage, Hispanic or Latino families face large hospital bills for their bouts of COVID. Twenty percent of nonelderly Hispanic or Latino people are

uninsured. Although the Affordable Care Act and President Biden's expansion of the Affordable Care Act have helped many receive healthcare coverage, people of color remain less likely to have healthcare coverage.

It is our duty in Congress to ensure that our Hispanic and Latino communities have the resources and access to healthcare they need so we can close the gap between them and their White counterparts. This comes with educating these communities on how to sign up and receive healthcare. It also comes with comprehensive immigration reform to provide an easier pathway to citizenship so people can come out of the shadows.

Regardless of the repercussions of the pandemic, Hispanic and Latino Americans remain optimistic, filled with love and pride for their families, communities, and the United States of America. I want to take this opportunity to thank Hispanic and Latino Americans for their contributions that have made the United States the country it is today. I want to thank the hard-working Hispanic and Latino essential workers who have put their lives at risk to keep our country running during the pandemic. I want to thank the Hispanic and Latino communities who love our Nation and strive to change it for the better. Thank you for being an important part of the American story.

Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention of colleagues the recent passing of long-time U.S. diplomat George Southall Vest, III, a long-time resident of Bethesda, MD. He was 102 years old. His career with the State Department spanned the Cold War era, from 1947 to 1989. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I want to draw particular attention to Ambassador Vest's representation of the United States at the initial multilateral discussions of 35 countries that led to an historic summit in Helsinki, Finland, from July 30 to August 1, 1975, where the Helsinki Final Act was signed.

An all-European summit was not a priority for the United States in the early 1970s. Indeed, it was a long-standing Soviet proposal, and Washington was wary of its use to confirm the division of Europe, give added legitimacy to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and provide an opportunity for Moscow to divide the United States from its European allies. Washington agreed to engage but saw little value in the effort. As Ambassador Vest himself was quoted as saying, ``This was the first time after World War II where all the Eastern European countries, all the Western European countries, together with Canada and the United States, sat down to talk about security and cooperation . . . I had very, very few instructions. I was left pretty much to feel my own way.''

The early work of Ambassador Vest and his team and that of his immediate successors led to the Helsinki Final Act, which included 10 principles guiding relations between states that serve as a basis, to this day, of our response to events in Europe, including Russia's aggression against Ukraine and other neighbors. The Final Act provided a comprehensive definition of security that includes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the basis for us to address today's brutal crackdown on dissent in Belarus and authoritarianism elsewhere. It also provided for a follow-up to the Final Act with regular reviews of implementation and development of new norms, a multilateral effort now represented by today's 57-country Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with its important institutions and field missions.

Ambassador Vest, left pretty much to feel his own way, may not have intended to make such an impact on European security. Keep in mind that he represented the United States in these negotiations during the tumultuous time of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, an oil crisis on the horizon, the growing Watergate scandal at home, and a rising Soviet threat across the globe. Nevertheless, his initial efforts contributed to an end of the Cold War division of Europe rather than a confirmation of it. That is quite a turnaround. I should add that the Congress later played a major role in shaping the U.S. contribution to this result when it created the Helsinki Commission in 1976. While things have changed since then, the Commission does now what it did in the late 1970s: ensure that human rights considerations are central to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. relations with other countries.

Given the challenges we face today, I hope it is useful to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Vest's legacy as a diplomat. Both before and after the negotiations, he served in positions in which he worked to strengthen ties with Europe, including through the NATO alliance and dialogue with a growing European Union. He was also a mentor to new generations of American diplomats. All of this followed his combat service as a forward artillery observer in Europe during World War II.

George Vest joined the Foreign Service in 1947, after using the G.I. Bill to earn his master's degree in history from the University of Virginia, where he had received his B.A. in 1941. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under President Carter and as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 1981 to 1985. His last assignment at the State Department was as Director General of the Foreign Service. He retired in 1989 as a ``career ambassador,'' a rank requiring a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

George Vest's father was an Episcopal priest and Vest graduated from the Episcopal High School in Alexandria, VA, before attending U-Va. He was as dedicated to his church as he was to our Nation. He served on the vestry at St. Albans Episcopal Church and volunteered in its Opportunity (thrift) Shop, both located on the Close of Washington National Cathedral. He also tutored students in DC public schools. Two sons, George S. Vest, IV of Fairfax, VA, and Henry Vest of Broomfield, CO, and two granddaughters survive him. I send my condolences to his family and thank them for his life of service. Let us be inspired by Ambassador George Vest and plant our own seeds for a better world tomorrow.