Floor Statements

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

Along with many 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 recently released Pandora Papers investigations--coordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and involving 150 media outlets, including The Washington Post and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project--reveal the astonishing extent to which questionable financial flows are entering our country and those of our allies. This warrants further review. Although we had known that such a system of offshore finance 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 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 it threatens to hollow out the rule of law at home.

Foreign kleptocrats cannot do this alone. Although 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 they may have about working for the enemies of democracy to obtain a small slice of the illgotten 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 transference of wealth from those who need it most to those who have no need 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 may have knowingly played a significant role in facilitating corruption.

The papers include 300 politicians and public officials from more than 90 countries and territories--though 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--Putin cronies Konstantin Ernst and Gennady Timchenko are both named. Both are included on Alexey Navalny's list of 35 human rights abusers and kleptocrats. Timchenko is already under U.S. sanctions, though Ernst is not. Now would be a good time to consider 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.

However, there is good news. It does not 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 the countering 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 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 of mine. Now it is incumbent upon us in the Senate to do the same.

First is the Combating Global Corruption Act that 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 that would reauthorize and enhance these critical sanctions for targeting global kleptocrats and human rights abusers--exactly the sort of people identified in the Pandora Papers. I am also proposing a new measure-- and I am introducing it today--that would mandate the administration 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.

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

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 the unprecedented corruption that has come to be the defining feature of the global order. We must purge the dirty money from our systems and deny kleptocrats safe haven.

It will take hard decisions and difficult reforms, but we can do it. We already have the bipartisan momentum. Now we only have to see it through.

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

Along with many 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 recently released Pandora Papers investigations--coordinated by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and involving 150 media outlets, including The Washington Post and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project--reveal the astonishing extent to which questionable financial flows are entering our country and those of our allies. This warrants further review. Although we had known that such a system of offshore finance 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 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 it threatens to hollow out the rule of law at home.

Foreign kleptocrats cannot do this alone. Although 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 they may have about working for the enemies of democracy to obtain a small slice of the illgotten 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 transference of wealth from those who need it most to those who have no need 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 may have knowingly played a significant role in facilitating corruption.

The papers include 300 politicians and public officials from more than 90 countries and territories--though 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--Putin cronies Konstantin Ernst and Gennady Timchenko are both named. Both are included on Alexey Navalny's list of 35 human rights abusers and kleptocrats. Timchenko is already under U.S. sanctions, though Ernst is not. Now would be a good time to consider 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.

However, there is good news. It does not 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 the countering 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 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 of mine. Now it is incumbent upon us in the Senate to do the same.

First is the Combating Global Corruption Act that 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 that would reauthorize and enhance these critical sanctions for targeting global kleptocrats and human rights abusers--exactly the sort of people identified in the Pandora Papers. I am also proposing a new measure-- and I am introducing it today--that would mandate the administration 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.

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

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 the unprecedented corruption that has come to be the defining feature of the global order. We must purge the dirty money from our systems and deny kleptocrats safe haven.

It will take hard decisions and difficult reforms, but we can do it. We already have the bipartisan momentum. Now we only have to see it through.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in a few moments, I am going to make a unanimous consent request in regard to Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Let me give you a little bit of background on Mr. Syed's nomination and why I am using this unusual process to advance the nomination to the floor for floor consideration.

We all know the tremendous need at the Small Business Administration as a result of COVID-19. We worked together, Democrats and Republicans, and created many new programs to help small businesses. We created the Paycheck Protection Program, both the first--and we modified it--and then a second round. We created the Economic Injury Disaster Loan and Loan Advance Program and the Targeted Grant Program.

We provided for the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant Program, we established the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and the list goes on and on and on. All this created new programs and responsibilities for the Small Business Administration. And we did this together, Democrats and Republicans, in order to advance the needs for small businesses during COVID-19.

Over $1 trillion of funds were administered by the Small Business Administration as a result of our initiatives. And our constituents had tremendous needs. Tens of millions of small businesses have benefited from what we did to help them through COVID-19.

I know that every one of our offices has gotten numerous inquiries from small businesses as to how these programs were stood up, whether they could qualify, concerns about their applications being filed promptly, the

lack of funds, the need to replenish funds--the list goes on and on and on. That put tremendous demand on the Small Business Administration, and we were pretty tough on the Small Business Administration to get these programs up and running because we knew how desperate it was for our small business community.

Now, the Deputy Administrator's job is to oversee the day-to-day operations of the Agency. That is the position we are talking about for Mr. Syed--the Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Over 5 months ago, the Small Business Committee, under my leadership as chair, had a hearing on Mr. Syed's appointment, and we discovered during that nomination process that he is extremely well qualified to assume these responsibilities. He has spent decades building and developing and scaling successful small businesses, as well as his advocacy for underserved small businesses.

The hearing, I thought, went extremely well and that we would have no difficulty advancing his nomination to the floor of the U.S. Senate. But after his hearing, my Republican colleagues requested information from the Small Business Administration about his loans that he took out as a small business owner. It was a reasonable request. On June 8, I helped arrange to supply that information to the members of the committee, and they reviewed his small business loan applications, Mr. Syed's small business applications.

There was one thing that was pretty unusual about that in that even though he was qualified to receive forgivable 7(a) loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, he decided to repay the loans because he said he didn't need the government to pay on a forgivable loan. He took exemplary action, and after the review, I believe all my colleagues were satisfied that his arrangements with the SBA were exemplary.

Next, the Republicans decided to move to a different target. They accused Mr. Syed of being anti-Israel biased, which was completely, completely unfounded.

The American Jewish Committee wrote our committee to say:

The unsupported accusations that somehow Jewish businesses

or those with ties to Israel may not fare as well under

Syed's leadership in the Small Business Administration has no

factual grounding. Indeed, he has specifically disavowed

support for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement,

which seeks the dissolution of Israel. . . . AJC rejects the

charge.

They go on to say it is un-American, the charges that have been made, and I agree.

My colleagues had the right to ask questions for the record, and they did. Mr. Syed responded to those questions for the record, again repeating the fact that he has been against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and that he has worked with companies in Israel and, in fact, visited Israel in order to promote the relationships.

Again, we thought, now, at last, we will be able to move Mr. Syed's nomination. But now the Republicans found a new reason to block his nomination. Committee Republicans announced that they would withhold a quorum on the vote because Planned Parenthood affiliates received loans under the Paycheck Protection Program.

As one of the negotiators of the CARES Act--and this was Democrats and Republicans again working together; negotiated this with Senator Rubio, Senator Collins, and Senator Shaheen. Let me explain to my colleagues how nonprofits are treated under the Paycheck Protection Program.

When the SBA considers whether or not a business qualifies as a small business, it considers affiliation. Generally, affiliations exist when one business controls or has the power to control another or when a third party controls or has the power to control both businesses. Control may arise with ownership, management, or other relationships or interactions between the parties.

The CARES Act requires that nonprofits eligible for PPP loans abide by the same affiliation rules that are applicable to small businesses.

The fact is that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America does not exercise control over its member organizations because it does not have 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 Federation does not have the power to remove CEOs or directors of its individual member organizations.

This type of federated structure is common in the nonprofit world and is the reason why nonprofits such as the YMCA and Boys and Girls Clubs also qualify for PPP loans.

The SBA must apply its affiliation rules in a uniform way, and it is wrong to ask the SBA to do otherwise for political or ideological reasons. There is no reason why Planned Parenthood should be singled out for receiving PPP loans, which I must remind my colleagues were created to help keep Americans in their jobs during the pandemic. That is the reason for it. That is why we included nonprofits.

The partisan, unnecessary, and unconscionable inaction of our Republican colleagues shows no concern for the millions of small businesses still relying on SBA support to survive COVID-19 and rebuild their future and that would benefit greatly by having a confirmed Deputy Administrator to work on the day-to-day operations at the SBA.

One last point, if I might. The Small Business Committee reported out Mr. Syed's nomination by a bipartisan vote, but due to a technicality, another vote was required, and the Republican members at this time decided to block the quorum.

As a matter of fairness, as a matter of the needs of the small business community in our States, as a matter of the integrity of this body to have a process that has some degree of respect for the nominees who go through the nomination process, I am going to make a UC request that the nomination be put on our calendar, like any other reported nominee, subject to the action of this body.

Before I make that unanimous consent request, with Senator Paul's indulgence, I know that Senator Padilla would like to make a comment. If he would be willing to allow Senator Padilla to speak next, and then I will make my unanimous consent request.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be discharged from further consideration of PN231, the nomination of Dilawar Syed to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration; that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 1 hour for debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, let me just repeat a comment. I know Senator Hirono is on the floor, and I want to give her an opportunity to speak on this, but let me make this clear.

The affiliate rules that are used by the Small Business Administration are exactly the same for a for-profit or a nonprofit, and there are lots of small businesses that have a big name next to them that are eligible for the programs under the Small Business Administration before COVID-19 and after COVID-19. The affiliation rules have been in the SBA for a long time, and I read them into the Record earlier in my comments.

What they cannot do is pick and choose who they like and don't like. That is not how you administer a program.

So, in the nonprofit world, I gave the example of the YMCAs--a pretty big name but, the truth of the matter is, they are all independently operated, and the national YMCA cannot discharge the CEO of a local YMCA. So we judge the qualifications based upon the local activities. The same is true for a lot of affiliates on for-profit companies: big chains that are independently owned and not controlled. They can qualify for these funds.

I can tell you a lot of organizations that are related in the faith community to an umbrella, but they are not controlled, so, therefore, the affiliate rules allow them to apply independently for these funds as long as they can qualify.

We knew that developing this program. We didn't want to change the affiliate rules because that would have been wrong.

So what my colleague is requesting is just--would be illegal for the administration to say that we are not going to select a particular group because we don't particularly agree with what they are doing or how they operate. That is not how the rules work. That is not what you are allowed to do.

So I regret that my colleague has raised these objections. I think it diminishes our credibility to tell our administrators to administer these programs fairly for all constituencies. And to deny Small Businesses of America a confirmed Deputy Administrator during these extremely challenging times for small businesses does not hurt Mr. Syed; it hurts the small business community.

I thank Mr. Syed for his willingness to serve, and I hope we can find a path forward because this debate has nothing to do with his qualifications or why he should be confirmed.

With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. President.

Let me thank Senator Hirono for her comments, and I also thank Senator Padilla for his comments.

I have never gone through something like this before, where the Republicans are breaking a quorum after they have already voted a nominee for reasons unrelated to the nominee. It makes no sense, and the reasons that they are using makes no sense at all, since they are asking the SBA to violate the law.

We are going to continue. As chair of the committee, I am going to continue to look at every conceivable way that we can get Mr. Syed confirmed. I think he is an extraordinary person who will serve our Nation with great distinction, and I know our small business community needs a confirmed Deputy Administrator.

You know, what surprises me is that our Republican colleagues talk about their support for small businesses, and I said we worked on COVID together to create these programs. President Trump never filled the position of Deputy Administrator so this position has been vacant for a long time.

We need this position. The small business community needs this position. So it is my hope that we will find a path forward as quickly as possible to get this nomination confirmed. I am confident that we will get a strong bipartisan vote for Mr. Syed's nomination and confirmation. Republicans tell me they think he is well qualified.

So let's stop using these parliamentary procedures to obstruct. Let's get on with the business of the Senate.

I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have been in session now for about 11 hours, and we have taken up a handful of noncontroversial nominees.

The reason?

The abuse by the Republicans of the rules of the Senate--filibuster after filibuster that require cloture votes--so we spend several hours on each of these nominations.

Even worse, the Republicans have abused the rules of the Senate to deny us in the Senate the ability to consider critical legislation that we should be taking up and acting on. There are many, many examples. I will just cite a few.

Justice in Policing: We are all committed to reforming our criminal justice system and our police system in order to deal with the values of our Nation. I know that Senator Booker has worked tirelessly on this issue. We should be able to debate that bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but, no, the Republicans will require a cloture vote and will not give us the votes even to consider that legislation.

Or consider gun safety, which we have been debating in the public now for decades, and the Republicans are continuing to use the rules of the Senate to deny the Senate the opportunity to take up issues and debate issues and see whether we can come together.

Or take immigration reform, where we see the tragedies that are occurring where we need to take action as a Senate, but, no, the Republicans won't give us the votes so we can get on a bill and debate issues and take up amendments and see whether we can't get something done on immigration.

And now they are threatening to use the filibuster on the legislation that would extend the debt ceiling so that we don't default on our debt in regard to moneys that have been spent with the initiation and support of our Republican colleagues. They are threatening to deny us the opportunity to take up that bill and vote on it by the use of the filibuster, even though they were the ones who created the spending and debt.

Or take the continuation of our government.

But top on my list is safeguarding our election system, the bedrock of our democracy. On two occasions, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to simply begin debate on protecting the right to vote in our democracy, which has come under sustained assault in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. Both times, all Senate Republicans blocked even beginning the debate on this critical legislation. Senate Republicans put gridlock and partisanship before the rights of voters.

The Senate is being blocked from having the chance to consider options and amendments and do what the Founding Fathers intended us to do--legislate.

So my Senate Republican colleagues will have another chance to do the right thing, thanks to Leader Schumer and Senator Klobuchar. Over the August recess, they worked diligently to come up with compromise legislation that still preserves the essential elements of S. 1, the For the People Act, that has already passed the House of Representatives.

President Biden was absolutely correct that we need to enact voting rights legislation to repair the damage done by the Supreme Court to the Voting Rights Act. President Biden rightly called efforts to limit ballot access across the country as the 21st century Jim Crow assault. He warned Americans that the Republicans' efforts to restrict voting rights as a result of their selfish challenge of the 2020 election results were the most significant tests of our democracy since the Civil War.

Indeed, my colleagues witnessed firsthand the violent insurrection at

the Capitol when the mob attacked, injured, and killed our brave Capitol Police officers, who put their lives on the line to preserve our very democracy and Union.

In many States, legislatures and Governors have responded to the falsehoods of the 2020 elections by restricting voting accessibility. The Big Lie, repeated by President Trump, has directly led to the disenfranchisement and suppression of the right to vote for millions of Americans.

I urge my colleagues and my fellow American citizens to reflect on the state of our democracy and the rights we hold dear. A blatant attempt to falsify an election and a persistent effort to deny the American people access to the ballot box has undermined the freedom and liberty that so many Americans have fought to defend and advance.

Voting rights is a fundamental issue of importance to a democratic country. After elections are over and we win, we celebrate. We celebrate the fact that we have gotten the support of the majority of voters, and that is what democracy is all about. If we don't win--and I think many of us have been involved in campaigns where our candidates were not successful--we go to work to try to attract more voters in the next election so we can celebrate a victory.

That is what participation in a free society is all about. That is what democracies are about. In repressive, autocratic regimes, they never accept the will of the people, so they look at ways in which they can undermine the voting record--what the voters want to do and the voters' will.

In the 2020 elections, we should all celebrate the record number of people who cast their ballot. It was a record and the most ever Americans casting their votes for the Presidency of the United States.

There were repeated reviews done by both Democrats and Republicans at the Federal, State, and local level. It all verified the simple fact that there was no widespread corruption or election fraud. The will of the people prevailed, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were duly elected.

Congress and Vice President Pence counted the electoral votes for President and Vice President and did their duty under the Constitution on January 6, notwithstanding the armed insurrection in the Capitol.

But that did not stop former President Trump from promoting the Big Lie. As a result of that, several States have now taken action to make it harder for people to cast their votes. The Brennan Center has pointed out that we have seen the worst assault on voting rights since Jim Crow.

So what have these laws done? Made it more difficult for voters to vote by mail, recognizing that for many voters they prefer to vote by mail. We have States that have had 100 percent voting by mail. There have been no indications of fraud in voting by mail. States have shortened the time for requesting mail-in ballots for voting, making it more difficult for individuals to be able to vote by mail, requiring certain requirements to vote by mail, making it more difficult to deliver their mail ballots, limiting the availability of ballot drop boxes.

Why did States take these actions? Because it makes it more difficult for people who are likely to vote for their political opponents to vote. That is what these State legislatures were doing. Stricter signature requirements, making in-person voting more difficult, purging voter rolls simply because a person did not vote, and, again, making it more difficult for people to vote. That should have no place in a democracy.

And it goes on and on in terms of the types of legislation that have already passed or is currently being considered by many State legislatures around our country. Making it more difficult to register to vote, making it more difficult to vote, targeting potential voters more likely to vote for their opponents, targeting minorities, young voters, and older minority voters is a disturbing trend we see across this country and has no place in our democracy.

The Freedom to Vote Act provides a basic Federal floor on protection of the right to vote. This legislation includes commonsense items such as automatic and online voter registration, uniform early voting, same- day voter registration, vote-by-mail and drop box standards and uniform national standards for voter identification.

These are simple voter protection measures against the actions being taken by State legislatures that are aimed at certain demographic groups and set a Federal floor.

The Freedom to Vote Act ends political gerrymandering. I don't know how many of my colleagues can defend the way that legislative and congressional lines are drawn today. Congressional districts should represent the communities' interests, not an individual Congressman's interests.

The Freedom to Vote Act takes a major step forward in ending political gerrymandering by creating nonpartisan redistricting reform and banning partisan gerrymandering and allowing States to choose how to develop redistricting plans, including having an independent redistricting commission.

In terms of election integrity, the Freedom to Vote Act requires voter-verified paper ballots, reliable audits, and voting system upgrades. I think we all would agree that we want to be able to verify votes. The only way we can is if there is a paper trail, and it provides for that paper trail.

The measure takes steps to prevent State election subversion to better insulate State and local officials who administer Federal elections, after the attempts by both domestic and foreign interference in the 2020 election results.

This legislation reduces the dominance of Big Money in the political system. It does this in a couple ways. One, disclosure. How can anyone be against the disclosure of who is putting money into our political system? And, secondly, by providing a way in which we can weaken the dependence on large special interest dollars.

The legislation requires super PACs, 501(c)(4) groups, and other organizations spending money on elections to disclose donors and shuts down the use of transfers between organizations to cloak the identity of contributors.

It ensures that political ads sold online have the same transparency and disclosure requirements as ads sold on TV, radio, and satellite.

S. 2747 includes two provisions I authored. First, it includes the Democracy Restoration Act, which deals with laws passed after the end of slavery in an effort to prevent African Americans from voting. There are States that passed laws back then that are still on the books that disqualify for a lifetime a person convicted of a felony. The definition of a felony is pretty general in many States, so we have States where one out of five African Americans have been disqualified from voting because of their conviction of a felony, even though they are fully part of our society today. They don't have the right to vote. We need to remove that disqualification on voting.

I am pleased that my Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act is included as a provision in the legislation. The spreading of false or misleading information intended to suppress voting and intimidate the electorate remains one of the most regularly employed and effective methods used to keep individuals, particularly Black Americans and other racial minorities, from voting.

Advancement in communications, including the rise of social media platforms, have made it easier for bad actors to use these strategies. For example, the targeting of Latino voters in Florida with disinformation was widely documented. This provision prohibits individuals from knowingly deceiving others about the time, place, eligibility, or procedures of participating in a Federal election.

It criminalizes efforts to intentionally hinder, interfere with, or prevent any person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding a person to vote or register to vote.

My friend and former colleague was the late John Lewis of Georgia. The two of us were elected to the House of Representatives on the same day. In an editorial published after his death, Representative Lewis called an important lesson taught--recalled an important lesson taught by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And I quote our former colleague when he said:

Each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up,

and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you

must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a

state. It is an act. And each generation must do its part.

Well, we cannot take action if we don't start. And we cannot start unless my colleagues allow us to proceed to this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

I urge my colleagues not to filibuster the right of the U.S. Senate to start the debate on protecting voter integrity, where each Member will have the opportunity to debate the issue and, collectively, we can come together.

Many of my colleagues have offered suggestions about how we can further improve S. 2747, how we can make it even a broader consensus.

Let's build on the work done by Senator Klobuchar and her colleagues over the August recess. But we cannot do that unless we have the right to proceed to a debate.

I urge my colleagues to support taking up the Freedom to Vote Act, which is a critical issue to the preservation of our democracy and the integrity of our right to vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Hassan, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Markey, Menendez, Rosen, Smith, Van Hollen, and Warren to recognize the week beginning September 12, 2021, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week. Direct support professionals are an invaluable part of our Nation's healthcare system, caring for the most vulnerable Americans, including the chronically ill, seniors, and those living with a disability. Direct support professionals include, among others, those whose titles include home caregiver, personal care assistant, home care worker, or home health aide. These varying titles speaks to the broad areas of support that are integral to the work of direct support professionals. With the assistance of direct support professionals, these individuals can perform daily activities that many people take for granted, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and leaving the house. The work of direct support professionals ensures that these individuals can be active participants in their communities.

The work of direct support professionals, like all of us, has changed due to the ongoing novel coronavirus--COVID-19--pandemic. In supporting their clients in performing activities of daily living, direct support professionals are essential and must continue to work in close proximity to their clients during the pandemic. Recognizing the work of direct support professionals is important, but all the more so as the pandemic continues, given their dedication to supporting the health and well-being of their clients.

Let me share with you the experience of Tommy Sharrow. Tommy is a direct support professional who was recognized this year for his dedicated and selfless work when he was given Maryland's Direct Support Professional of the Year Award by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR.

I am sure there are countless examples I could share about Tommy's work, but I will describe one extraordinary example where he went above and beyond for his clients as he continued to care for them in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. During a particularly challenging period of the pandemic, Tommy's tireless dedication was on full display as he quarantined with his clients in their home to continue caring for them when others in their home were diagnosed with COVID-19. In order to maintain the care he provided for them, Tommy incredibly slept on an air mattress in their basement for 2 weeks to effectively quarantine. As day programs and other care options closed around his clients due to the pandemic, Tommy stepped in to provide creative activities like music and playing games in outdoor spaces. Throughout a challenging year for us all, Tommy was steadfast and truly considerate in his care for his clients.

Tommy's story describes a career that is fulfilling, but one that oftentimes is not easy for direct support professionals like him. The hours are often long, and the wages are low. The job can be physically laborious, as well as emotionally draining. The reward for direct support professionals, however, is that they are able to improve the lives of individuals with disabilities and help fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act by making it possible for these Americans to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible.

In our country, we are incredibly fortunate to have millions of service-oriented individuals who are willing to rise to the task of becoming a direct support professional. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment of direct support professionals is projected to grow by an average of 33 percent from 2020 to 2030, compared to an 8-percent average growth rate for all occupations during that period. The demand will only continue to increase over time; the Baby Boomer generation will result in the doubling of the population of adults ages 65 and older by 2050. The increased demand for direct support professionals has created shortages in some areas, which can place strains on patients and their families or result in medical issues that could have been avoided.

Unfortunately, direct support professionals are often forced to leave the jobs they love due to low wages and excessive, difficult work hours. Many direct support professionals rely on public benefits, and some must work multiple jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we work to ensure that these hard-working individuals have the income and emotional support they need and deserve as we all struggle with the health and economic implications of the ongoing pandemic.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Collins, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Brown, Casey, Hassan, Kaine, King, Klobuchar, Markey, Menendez, Rosen, Smith, Van Hollen, and Warren in expressing our appreciation for the critically important work of our country's direct support professionals, in thanking them for their commitment and dedication, and in supporting the resolution designating the week beginning September 12, 2021, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized notwithstanding the order that no business be conducted during today's pro forma session.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order that no business be conducted during today's pro forma session, it be in order to receive H.R. 5085 from the House; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned in accordance with the order of August 10, 2021, for previously ordered pro forma sessions.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. The two of us arrived in the House of Representatives on the same day. We have been friends for all this period of time. I thank him for his generosity.

Budget Reconciliation

Madam President, I take this time to talk about legislation we will be considering tomorrow, which will be the budget resolution. It gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

I would just like to pause for a moment because it is part of President Biden's Build Back Better, that we can have a more competitive nation, and we can create the jobs that we need for the future.

I was with Secretary Blinken earlier today in College Park, and he talked specifically about the challenges our Nation faces. We go back a generation ago, and America was clearly in the forefront of creating jobs, of taking advantage of all innovation and new, emerging fields. We were the envy of the world. Today, the rest of the world has caught up and in some cases, exceeds us.

This once-in-a-generation opportunity to build back better gives us an opportunity to do what we need to do for America's future and to show the world that our free market, democratic society is the best way to take care of its people.

This is an incredibly important part to deliver on President Biden's Build Back Better. We already did with the American Rescue Plan. That gave us the opportunity to get the COVID-19 vaccines distributed so we can get that behind us. It helped our State and local governments. It took half of our children out of poverty. In Maryland, 52,000 Maryland children were taken out of poverty. Forty million families nationwide benefited from the child credit and the earned income tax credit. We took a major step forward in building back better with the passage of the American Rescue Plan.

Tomorrow, with the passage of this bipartisan infrastructure package, we will take the second step in building back better, and there is a lot to be celebrated in the legislation that we will pass tomorrow

I was proud to work on the transportation and water infrastructure issues, along with my colleague who is presiding, to make sure that we provided the building blocks necessary for modern infrastructure--for transportation, for roads, bridges, transit systems, and our water infrastructure, which is critically important.

We will take a second step to build back better with the passage of the bipartisan bill, but there is a third step that is critically important, and that is the budget resolution we will be taking up starting tomorrow.

The budget resolution takes us beyond COVID-19. Yes, we have to rebuild from COVID-19, but we also need to rebuild our Nation, make it modern and provide the needs that Americans need. The budget resolution will provide America more competitiveness, better prepared for the future, create jobs, millions of jobs, and lower the cost for Americans in dealing with their everyday needs. We are asking the wealthier people to pay their fair share--first of all, to pay their taxes, and then pay their fair share of taxes. We tackle the climate crisis, and we develop the workforce to meet the jobs of the future.

So I am very excited about the opportunity of taking up the budget resolution. Let me just comment on a few specifics as chair of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. I expect we will be given budget instructions to deal with those issues.

Madam President, you are part of that group. We need to look at access to credit, investment, and markets, particularly in underserved communities, those that have not had the opportunities in the past. I am talking about women-owned small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, and entrepreneurs from other underserved communities.

We are going take a look at government contracting. The United States is the largest purveyor of goods and services of the world. How can we improve that in building back better to make sure all are included in that opportunity?

We are going to look at innovation and growth. Small businesses are the innovator of our economy. They create a better way to do things. We saw that during COVID-19. We get more innovation from small businesses than from the larger companies. But as we look at emerging markets, there has been a real separation between the underserved communities not being able to participate in new, emerging markets.

When you take a look at the amount of venture capital that goes to minority small businesses or women-owned small businesses, it is a small fraction of their demographic numbers. The last time I checked, White men controlled 93 percent of all venture capital funding. Now, I am all for everyone participating, but that is not a fair division and opportunity for emerging markets.

So we need to take a look at emerging markets, incubator and accelerator programs, and then access to capital. We need direct help through the Small Business Administration to help small businesses because we know we have a better chance for the underserved community to get a fair shake with the SBA controlling the loans. We also need to have partnerships with the private sector, as we have seen in programs like the SBIC Program and other programs.

So we are going to work as a committee to try to deal with the needs particularly of those small businesses that have been left behind in the past.

I also serve on the Environment of Public Works Committee and chair the Subcommittee on Infrastructure, working with the Presiding Officer. I mention this because both of us have been directly involved in creating new programs to help underserved communities.

There is a program that I was involved with that deals with water affordability, a pilot program that will allow those who cannot afford their clean water bills help from government, as we do for utility costs. That was included in the bipartisan package but not the funding. I am hoping that we will have the opportunity to fund that program and to fund other programs that we deal with in underserved communities, the water projects; that we will be able to deal with that in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the budget resolution.

We are going to deal with climate, and we need to deal with climate. Investments in jobs and growth and dealing with the environment go together, and we are finding that America is not as far ahead internationally as other countries, such as China, investing a lot more in electric convention than America is investing in electric vehicles.

We are going to work with the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Commerce Committee to deal with coastal resiliency, which is critically

important to my State. The Chesapeake Bay--the iconic symbol of Maryland in our region, the largest estuary in our hemisphere--it has challenges. This once-in-a-generation opportunity gives us the opportunity to do things that are going to be beneficial for our environment and help us deal with climate change; for example, the beneficial use of dredge material. We want to keep our channels dredged for commerce. It is very important. Where do we put that material? Well, in the Chesapeake Bay, we want to put it into restoring wetlands, creating new wetlands, which will help our environmental issues as well. In agriculture, we are going to look at land conservation programs, all that are important.

I was pleased to see that in the explanation of the budget resolution, there is a specific reference to the Appalachian Regional Commission. It is very important to two western counties in Maryland, and we need to do more to help them and their economy and to grow back better, and we are going to have an opportunity in the budget resolution to do exactly that.

As I mentioned earlier, lower costs for Americans--childcare. We need to bring down the cost so Americans can afford childcare.

There is extension of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, because we want to make sure that the progress we have made in lifting families out of poverty--that we do that on a permanent basis. Let's get that longer period of time providing that relief.

Help for high education--the cost of higher education is way out of line here in America. This bill will give us a chance to deal with the cost of higher education, community colleges, HBCUs, Pell Grant increases.

I was listening to Senator Brown talk about affordable housing and home ownership. I was with Secretary Fudge this week in Prince George's County, MD, and we talked about tools that are available to help with affordable housing and home ownership so families can afford a home today.

I am proud to cosponsor a bill with Senator Portman, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Act, so that communities can do the investment in their community, and where there is a difference between market rate and the cost to do the renovation or building, we have a credit so that communities can have the type of housing commensurate with their needs.

We can do a lot more. Paid family medical leave--we are one of the only countries that don't have that. There is an opportunity in the budget resolution for us to be able to accomplish that.

Expansion of Medicare: I have been trying to get Medicare to cover dental care for a long time. Seniors need that type of protection. We have a chance to do that in this budget resolution, along with eyeglasses and hearing aids, which should be--they are essential. They should be included in Medicare. We have a chance to do that.

Then on the climate issue, we are going to have an opportunity to really deal with one of the greatest threats we have, and that is our planet is burning up. We know that. We need to take dramatic action in order to deal with the realities of climate change. We see it all around us. We see it in flooding in Maryland, wildfires out West, in flooding--lands disappearing in our community and around the world.

We will have a chance with electric vehicles and transportation and research. We will have a chance with the Tax Code to reduce carbon emissions. We will have a chance in public buildings to build green buildings and energy efficiency. We will have an opportunity for weatherization programs. All that is contemplated in the budget resolution.

I can't give specifics because that is what committees will be doing in the next several weeks, coming up with specifics to fill in. But to make this once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring down the cost to Americans, to deal with climate change, to deal with job creation and preparedness and job training--this is a responsible package that will help working families and have the wealthy who are not paying their taxes today to pay their taxes and pay their fair share of taxes.

Winston Churchill remarked:

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The

optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

I agree with Sir Winston Churchill. Together, we can meet the most formidable challenges our Nation faces, and the Build Back Better budget is the next step in that process, and I look forward to our taking this resolution up, moving it forward, and then letting our committees get back to work and fill in the blanks and get this done in order that Americans can meet the challenges of the future, create the jobs we need in the future, and get the cost reliefs that they need to deal with life essential needs.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for allowing me to give my remarks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and then I will be asking unanimous consent to consider legislation.

We included the Restaurant Revitalization Fund in our March legislation on COVID relief. We did that because, of all of the industries affected by COVID-19, restaurants have been some of the most difficult businesses to survive COVID-19.

They were ordered by government, basically, to shut down at the beginning of COVID-19. Then, as we started

to make progress, they were at much restricted operations. And to this day, restaurants are still not up to their full capacity. Their revenues have been very much decimated as a result of COVID-19.

We came together in March with bipartisan legislation in order to do something about that, and we included that in our legislation--$28.6 billion of relief for restaurants. Now, what it did is cover some of their revenue loss as a result of COVID-19. It gave them a lifeline to be able to survive this pandemic.

We projected that $28.6 billion would be the need, but we were wrong. We were wrong because COVID-19 was more severe than we thought, restaurants were more badly damaged than we had anticipated, and there was a great deal of more demand and need than the $28.6 billion. We are now being told by the Small Business Administration that the right number was $71.3 billion, or an additional $42.7 billion that is needed.

I have introduced bipartisan legislation to provide this additional authority to the SBA to complete this program. It is bipartisan. My partner in this is Senator Wicker. We are joined by Senator Schumer, Senator Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, Senator Ernst, Senator Sinema, Senator Cassidy, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Hyde-Smith. And I might add, there are many, many more Senators on both sides of the aisle who very much support our efforts to live up to our commitment.

Now, why do we need to take this up right now?

This is a matter of life or death for many restaurants in our community. There is also a matter of fairness.

We have two restaurants, side by side, in the exact same circumstances, submitting their applications on the same day, having the exact same need. Both were advised that they will get funding. One got funding before the $28.6 billion was exhausted. The other that was told they were going to get funding, they won't get funding unless we act. That is not right.

There is a matter of the credibility of the U.S. Senate and of Congress and of government. We say we are going to do something. We should live up to our commitments. The urgency of getting this done is now.

I don't think there is a Senator in this Chamber who hasn't heard from restaurants in their State about how badly they need these funds and how they thought these funds were going to be in their bank, and they are no longer in the bank. I have heard from so many Senators about this. The urgency is now.

Let me just anticipate one other argument that I might hear, and that is: Well, where are we getting this money from?

Well, legislation before us takes $36 billion out of the small business programs--$36 billion. So this is paid for by the rescissions that have been made in this legislation that we are considering, that is before us today. So for all of those reasons, this is a fiscally responsible thing to do.

Lastly, before I yield the floor to the majority leader, let me say that we made a commitment to help our small businesses. We did that-- Democrats and Republicans--working together. In some cases we overestimated the dollars that we need. In some cases we underestimated the dollars that we need. But we always came back and provided the full funding for the programs we have authorized, and, in total, it is not much different than has previously been authorized.

This is a matter of fairness and a matter of absolute need that we provide the extra money now for the restaurants.

Before I make my unanimous consent request, I would yield the floor so the majority leader can get the floor.

Mr. President, let me thank Senator Schumer for his comments. I agree completely with everything the Senator said.

I would just make one additional point before I make my unanimous consent request.

What I am asking for now has been what we have been following in regard to small business relief. Let me remind our colleagues that we work together, Democrats and Republicans, to craft the programs that help small business and save so many small businesses in our community.

We misprojected the costs of the Paycheck Protection Program, not by $30 or $40 billion, by over $300 billion when we set it up. And we came back, Democrats and Republicans lived up to our commitment and made the funds available that all small businesses could get fair treatment and equitable treatment under the Paycheck Protection Program.

I am asking my colleagues to do the exact same thing we did for the Paycheck Protection Program for the Restaurant Revitalization Program.

And as already has been pointed out, there have been funds taken away from the small business programs under the bill we are considering on the floor today to almost the same amount that we are asking in supplemental funds.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2675 introduced earlier today; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I regret the decision of my colleague from Kentucky.

I just really want to point out, we have had hearings in our committee--Small Business Committee--in which the Restaurant Revitalization Act was very much brought up during the hearing.

We have been receiving timely information about this program and how it has been implemented and the need for additional funds. So our committee has had ample opportunity to question how the program was being administered and the need for different funds.

I also regret that my colleague is holding the restaurants pretty much hostage and saying it is all right for us to give money to some but not others, when the administration of this was compromised because of a court case, and certain restaurants are now desperate as a result of not having adequate funds.

I am encouraged by the comments of the majority leader, Senator Schumer, that we will continue to focus on this issue. I can tell you, it is urgent. We really need to deal with this immediately, and we will be looking for every available opportunity to treat our restaurants equitably and fairly and provide the money that is needed to implement the Restaurant Revitalization Program.

I regret that we are not able to act today because of the Senator's objection.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my State of Maryland has a proud history of innovation in satellite technology and space exploration. Greenbelt, MD, is home to Goddard, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's first Space Flight Center Space Flight Center. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates a fleet of weather satellites, has its headquarters in Silver Spring. Additionally, the largest provider of residential satellite broadband service, Hughes Network Systems, is headquartered in Germantown. Hughes serves consumers in some of the most rural, hard-to-reach areas of the country.

As the Senate considers the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I believe there is broad agreement that the broadband deployment grants established by the bill and administered by the Department of Commerce would help bring broadband service to unserved and underserved households in some of the most rural areas in the U.S. I also believe that satellite technology can and should be one of the technological options for achieving our broadband deployment goals. Because a geo- stationary satellite orbits at 22,500 miles above earth, however, even signals traveling at the speed of light take a split-second longer to reach their destination, causing ``latency''--or delay--in real-time broadband applications. Fortunately, satellite innovators in Maryland and elsewhere have designed measures to reduce latency by using a mix of communications platforms, including low-earth orbit satellites and fixed wireless networks.

I believe that where the broadband grants provision in division F, title I of the infrastructure bill establishes a ``real-time, interactive'' standard for permissible latency, residential satellite broadband service providers may meet this standard by offering a hybrid mix of geostationary and nongeostationary satellite networks or fixed

wireless networks. I look forward to working with Senator Cantwell in her capacity as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Commerce Secretary Raimondo, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration on this important issue.