Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 2478, which would make permanent and expand the Minority Business Development Agency, or the MBDA, which is the only Federal Agency to focus exclusively on the needs of minority businesses.

This amendment is based on the Minority Business Resiliency Act, which I introduced in April, and the language is identical to what was passed out of the Commerce Committee earlier today by a voice vote.

I want to thank Senator Wicker and Senator Cantwell of the committee for their help in getting this to the floor. I also want to thank Senator Tim Scott, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Baldwin, who were also cosponsors of this amendment, for helping us reach this moment.

This amendment will give the Agency the resources and leadership necessary to help underserved entrepreneurs overcome historical barriers to small business ownership, innovate and start and grow successful businesses, and create jobs.

This Agency will also partner with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions to reach rural minority business enterprises and create a regional network supporting entrepreneurial education and help to coordinate Federal resources in service of minority business enterprises.

Last year, the MBDA programs and services helped minority businesses secure nearly $8 billion in contracts and capital, and created nearly 12,000 jobs.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 17 stakeholders in support of this amendment, which includes the Small Business Majority, U.S. Black Chamber, and U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Madam President, I understand that we may be able to do this by a voice vote, so I would ask unanimous consent that after my colleagues have had a chance to speak, we can vitiate the 60-vote requirement.

With that, I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

We have cleared this with both the Democrats and the Republicans for managing the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement on the Cardin-Wicker amendment No. 2478.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the extraordinary career of Susan Erlichman, Esquire, the executive director of the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, on the eve of her retirement after 32 years of remarkable public service. Susan is a devoted public servant and tireless advocate for civil legal services for those who need them most in the State of Maryland.

The Maryland Legal Services Corporation--MLSC--is the state's largest funder of civil legal aid. Its mission, as established by the Maryland General Assembly, is ensuring that low-income Marylanders have access to reliable, productive, and worthwhile civil legal assistance by distributing and overseeing grants to nonprofits statewide. Since its creation in 1982, MLSC has distributed grants totaling over $312 million. In turn, grantees have assisted Marylanders in more than 3.5 million legal matters, ranging from family to housing to employment to healthcare cases, in which they would otherwise have been hard-pressed to access legal aid.

Susan Erlichman's career with the MLSC spanned an incredible 32 years, including 17 as the organization's executive director. During her tenure in that position, Susan oversaw the tripling of MLSC's annual budget, from $6 million to $20 million. She also helped to found a robust working relationship between the Administrative Office of the Courts and MLSC that significantly expanded Maryland's Judicare Family Law program and the number of residents it serves. Perhaps one of her greatest accomplishments, however, was pioneering an innovative program to remove barriers to employment in Maryland by placing civil legal aid lawyers in projects aimed at the fostering of more productive and prosperous workforces.

From the 2008 recession to our current-day COVID-19 pandemic, Susan's drive, tenacity, and compassion has been an invaluable asset to our state. Through the projects I have mentioned and the countless others that she has led, Susan has utilized her institutional insight and diplomatic skills to bring together a wide coalition of allies to support and strengthen civil legal services. Susan has been an incredible leader to MLSC staff, even during the hardest of times.

Access to justice is a significant, growing challenge in Maryland and nationwide that has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In most cases, low-income Americans receive inadequate or no legal help due to lack of available resources, even though they are eligible and entitled to this legal assistance. During the pandemic, the Legal Services Corporation--LSC--reported that 94 percent of grantees surveyed said they were providing services to clients who were newly eligible for legal aid during the COVID-19 pandemic. I credit Susan and the excellent work of MLSC with making it as easy as possible for me to advocate for Federal funding. Her work and that of her peers nationwide has generated bipartisan support in Congress that was significant enough to turn back an effort to disband the agency entirely in the last administration. There is no doubt that Susan's leadership has allowed MLSC to endure as a beacon of hope in the face of the surge in demand since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The MLSC is an organization near and dear to my heart. From August 1988 through June 1995, I was privileged to serve as its chair. Previously, I chaired a task force that produced an Action Plan for Legal Services to Maryland's Poor in January of 1988. Many recommendations from the action plan, such as conversion of the Interest on Lawyer Trust Account--IOLTA--program from voluntary to mandatory, were ultimately adopted. I enjoyed working with Susan, who coincidentally joined the organization in 1988, to implement the action plan and make other improvements. Although I moved on from MLSC a few years later, I was happy to know the organization was in such good hands. I am also confident that Susan's successor, Deb Seltzer, will continue Susan's legacy and make great progress towards achieving the mission of the MLSC.

In announcing Susan's retirement, MLSC board chair Natalie McSherry had this to say: ``Susan Erlichman is a giant among all leaders of IOLTA and other funding entities for civil legal services. We have been incredibly blessed to have had the benefit of her leadership for so many years.'' It is clear that Susan's impact on the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, and the State of Maryland for that matter, will be felt for years to come. For that, I sincerely thank her for her service to our State's citizens and wish her a happy and well-deserved retirement.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation that is before us, the bipartisan infrastructure package. I applaud all of those who have worked so hard so that we could have this legislation before us.

It is desperately needed when we look at the status of our infrastructure today, the aged systems that we have across our Nation. In Maryland, we have some infrastructure that dates back over a century and a half ago.

We need a generational investment to modernize our infrastructure, and the legislation before us does exactly that. It will make the United States more competitive and create a lot of good-paying jobs. It will deal with the growing backlog of infrastructure projects that we have in each one of our States.

I applaud the work that brought us to this point. I particularly am pleased that the legislation incorporates the work done by the Environment and Public Works Committee as it relates to transportation, infrastructure, and water infrastructure.

I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of our committee, Senators Carper and Capito. I was proud to be the chair of the subcommittee on infrastructure, working with Senator Cramer and Senator Duckworth, which contributed greatly, particularly to the water infrastructure.

I also want to applaud the leadership of President Biden. It was his leadership that has brought us to this moment, his vision for America's future, what we need, and he found a way for us to move forward on modernizing infrastructure.

So let me first, if I might, talk a little bit about the transportation parts of this bill that I am particularly pleased about. Clearly, we see a significant increase in our investments in roads, bridges, transit systems, rail, airports, ports, and waterways. We can talk about some of the specifics, and I am going to do that.

But first I want to applaud the efforts that we have made to move forward in new directions. This bill, for the first time, in a major reauthorization of our surface transportation, acknowledges the realities of climate change. We know what is happening in our communities. The increasing amount of flooding, droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather events are frightening to all of us.

In my State of Maryland, I can point to one community, Ellicott City, which has seen two 100-year floods in less than 24 months. The situation is dire, and we need to act on it.

The legislation before us provides $18 billion in reducing carbon emissions and strengthening resilience and building electric charging stations and alternative fuel infrastructure. That is what we need to do, and I am pleased that the legislation addresses those issues.

In a second area, I was pleased that this bill has a significant increase in the transportation alternative programs that I authored. This increased funding will make it easier for our local governments to move forward on projects that are important to their priorities. We are talking about better sidewalks and bike paths and dealing with safety.

We are seeing an alarming increase in fatalities on our highways and roads and community roads. The TAP program will allow us to deal with those issues. We all need to be able to get around our community without using our cars, and the TAP program makes this a priority so we can enjoy our communities and we have local decision making in the use of our transportation funds.

I am also very pleased that this legislation has a justice component to it. I worked long and hard with Senator Carper and others in dealing with reconnecting our communities that had been divided because of highways that had been put in a community that did not help that community. When we find out the communities that are most disproportionately affected, they are generally minority communities.

I will give you a good example. Let me use my hometown of Baltimore City. A highway was built in the 1960s that was never completed. We call it the ``highway to nowhere.'' It is the Franklin-Mulberry Corridor. If you go to West Baltimore, you will see this gully that is a blight to the community. It divides communities. Three thousand residents, mostly African-American, are directly impacted by this ``highway to nowhere.'' It isolates neighborhoods such as Harlem Park. This legislation provides a billion dollars as a start to reconnecting communities that have been divided by highways.

I know this is good news for the people of Baltimore and these communities and, for other communities

around the Nation where the transportation program has hurt their community, not helped their community.

As I pointed out, there is increased investments in all of our modes of transportation.

This past week, I was with Secretary Buttigieg in Baltimore and with Senator Van Hollen. The Port of Baltimore is the economic engine of our community. Hundreds of thousands of jobs directly depend upon it. Baltimore is prepared for the super-Panamax. Thanks to the partnership with the Federal Government, this legislation will allow us to be more competitive in our ports, creating more jobs in our community.

I also pointed out the Howard Street Tunnel that was recently authorized under an INFRA grant, which will allow double-stacking going through a tunnel that is over 100 years old, through downtown Baltimore. This will make our community much more competitive. This bill provides additional funding for INFRA grants.

And then Maryland, like every State in this Nation, has significant backlogs in dealing with our bridges. I can mention the American Legion Bridge, right around here, or the Johnson Bridge, in Southern Maryland, and the list goes on and on and on. This bill will allow us to get to some of those bridges.

Let me talk a moment, if I might, about transit. We need public transit. Our workers need to be able to get to work. We need to be much more sensitive to our environment and getting people out of their automobiles. We waste too much time in congestion. I can't tell you how many hours are wasted every day because of unnecessary congestion. Transit--public transit--helps us deal with those challenges.

This bill takes a quantum leap forward on the transit programs. I was particularly pleased that it includes a reauthorization of the WMATA program for the transit system in this region. I call it the Nation's transit system, since it is used so much by Federal workers in order to get to work. It extends the authorization of $150 million a year from the Federal Government through this decade.

Particularly, I want to thank my colleagues in this region, Senators Warner and Kaine and Van Hollen. The four of us worked together to make sure we got the reauthorization included in this legislation.

Then, I want to acknowledge and I want to thank particularly Senator Brown for his help on this. There is now language in this bill that will allow those lines that were previously eligible for capital contributions but did not go forward to be able to be reconsidered for Federal partnerships in capital construction on transit.

We have a rapid rail line in Baltimore City, known as the Red Line, that was stopped by our Governor. We are hopeful that we can restart that. It is needed for dealing with public transit in Baltimore. That project would then now be eligible for consideration for Federal funding. And I would hope that the leadership in Maryland would take advantage of this opportunity and put the Red Line back in the equation.

I want to talk a little bit about water projects. The Environment and Public Works Committee bill that we worked on, which is the basis of this bill on water infrastructure, passed this body by a vote of 89-2. It deals with the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, increasing funding in all those categories.

We have tremendous backlogs in water infrastructure in our community. We have waterlines that are over 100 years old still being used in our communities. This bill will help us deal with that backlog. It includes authorizations that I sponsored, including affordability.

I want to thank Senator Wicker, my cosponsor on this.

This would allow grants so that low-income families can afford their water bills. I can tell you that in Maryland and in many other communities around the Nation, people can no longer afford their water bills because so much pressure has been put on the ratepayers. This bill will set up a pilot program similar to a LIHEAP program to help low-income families deal with their water costs.

I also authored an authorization bill for resiliency grants with Senator Capito to deal with extreme weather conditions and cyber security issues, and I was pleased to see that included in the legislation.

I do want to express my disappointment. There are things in this bill I am sure all of us are not satisfied with. I was disappointed that the bill does not fund those new authorized programs, as was included in the legislation that passed this body and was recommended by the Environment and Public Works Committee. I hope we will have a chance during the appropriations process to get funding for these new authorized programs.

I was pleased that President Biden's initiative to remove lead pipes was included. I can tell you that in Baltimore, we have significant lead pipe issues, particularly in our school system, and I am glad to see that those programs will be funded.

I was pleased also that we are moving ahead on PFOS, which is a pollutant in our community as a result of Federal installations. I was pleased to see that we will be able to move forward in that.

And then broadband, we all know we need broadband infrastructure. It is included in this bill. The Brookings Institution indicates that in the spring of 2020, when we went into lockdown in our schools, 12 million out of 55 million students did not have access to classes online. That is a shocking number, and look at what they lost during this past year.

In Maryland, it is estimated that as many as 324,000 people in rural Maryland do not have access to broadband, and 96,000 households in the Baltimore region do not have access to broadband. We must do better. Our goal should be that every house should have access to high-speed internet, affordable internet. This legislation moves us forward on both access and affordability on broadband. That is critically important, and I am glad to see that it is included.

As much as I support this legislation, I have to express my disappointment as to how this bill is paid for. As chairman of the Small Business Committee, I helped develop the programs that helped small businesses during COVID-19. They were lifesavers for small business. It saved small businesses. It saved our community. It saved jobs, and it saved the growth engine for innovation in our community.

One tool that we used that was extremely important was the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and Advance Program. Over 4 million EIDL loans have been granted, in excess of $230 billion. These grants help save businesses. These loans help save businesses. These are for the smaller of the small businesses. They are the ones that use it. These are low-interest, 30-year loans. We have had 6 million small businesses take advantage of the EIDL Advance Program, $23 billion. These are the differences between staying afloat or going under. The GAO estimated this past week that 86 percent of the EIDL loans went to our most vulnerable small businesses, 10 employees or less.

So why am I talking about it? Because this bill takes away the $13.5 billion from the EIDL Program--the EIDL loan program--just at the time where we have small businesses that are going to need these loans. We see an increase in wildfires. Hurricane season is coming. We are not through COVID-19 yet, and yet they take away these funds. These are the most leveraged funds we have available. For the few Federal dollars we put into it, we leverage much larger amounts of loans.

Do we really want to cut back on the ability to help small businesses through these long-term loans? Unfortunately, taking this money away does exactly that.

In addition, it takes $17.5 billion from the Advance Program under EIDL. These are the grants that go to small businesses that can't afford to take out loans.

Now, we know under a previous administration, they put a $150,000 cap on the EIDL loan program and $1,000 per employee on the Advance Program. Well, the Biden administration wants to increase the size of the loans up to the first $500,000 and then $2 million but also to give $10,000 to the businesses that need it the most under advances.

We have taken this money away--in total, about $35 billion. It is going to make it virtually impossible for us to be able to do what we need to do for

small businesses. That is not right, and we are going to need to do something about it.

I might point out that we have the Restaurant Revitalization Act--and everyone here was very proud to help our restaurants--that has been oversubscribed. We are going to need a lot more money to be put into that program. Yet you are taking away our capacity in this bill to help fund small businesses. That is not right, and I hope I will continue to work with my colleagues so we can find a path forward to help America's small businesses.

We all talk about helping small businesses. Here is one example where we took the step in the wrong direction. We don't have to choose between building modern infrastructure or helping small businesses. We can do both, and I am disappointed at this moment that we are not going to be able to do everything we need to do to help the small business communities in our country.

I hope I will be able to revisit this at a later time. But it doesn't dull my enthusiasm for this very important legislation that I urge my colleagues to support. It will make a quantum leap forward in America's competitiveness and create more jobs for America's future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I take this time to talk about the work of the U.S. Helsinki Commission in a recent opportunity we had to participate in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

I am joined on the floor by Senator Wicker, who is the Republican chair of the Helsinki Commission. The two of us have worked together in a nonpartisan, bipartisan manner in regards to the work of the Helsinki Commission. I just want to spend a few minutes, and then I am going to yield the floor and allow Senator Wicker to give his comments.

The OSCE, as the chair is fully aware as a member of the Commission, represents the U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe--57 states, which includes all of Europe, all of the former Republics of the Soviet Union, and Canada and the United States.

The Commission works on the principle of three buckets: one for political affairs and security, another for economic and environmental progress, and the third on democracy and human rights. But it recognizes--and I think this has been the hallmark of the Helsinki Commission--that you can't have advancements on political affairs or security or economic or environmental progress unless you make progress on democracy and human rights, that they are interwoven. In the Helsinki Commission, the OSCE is best known for its advancements for basic human rights.

So I think of the initiatives that we have had in the Helsinki Commission for dealing with trafficking in humans and the legislation that came out of that and how we led the global response to dealing with trafficking. I think about the efforts we made in regards to tolerance, dealing with anti-Semitism, racism, and intolerance and how we have made progress throughout the entire OSCE region. I think about the issues we did in regards to sanctions against human rights violators so they cannot use our banking system or visit our country, the Magnitsky-type sanctions. All of that came out of the work of the Helsinki Commission.

So one of the major arms of our work is the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which is the group of parliamentarians who meet every year and have meetings throughout the year to exchange views and to carry out the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.

For the last year and a half, we have been compromised because we haven't had an opportunity to meet in person, and it required us to meet by internet, and we have, but we had a unique opportunity during the last recess period to actually travel and meet with the parliamentarians. We had an OSCE Parliamentary Assembly annual meeting in Vienna. And we had a chance to do this in a hybrid manner. So we were able to travel 12-strong from the U.S. Congress to be at that meeting, and we were joined by five others here in the United States, including our Presiding Officer, to participate in the Parliamentary Assembly, and we were able to advance a lot of very important issues.

But I must tell you, we were noticed at this meeting. The U.S. presence was critically important in dealing with some very timely issues. I know that Senator Wicker will talk about this. He is one of the great leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly. He is Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly. We are very proud of the leadership position that he holds.

By the way, his election was in Vienna to be the Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly. We had multiple candidates and several elected to Vice Presidents, but Senator Wicker led the ballot with the largest number of votes, which I think speaks to his well-thought-of respect among the OSCE parliamentarians.

We wanted to make sure that this was a substantive meeting. Quite frankly, the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly said: Let's just get in there and get it over with and not bring up anything controversial. But that is not the way we operate. We have to take up current issues.

So we took up the issue of tolerance. I was happy to sponsor a resolution that ultimately passed by unanimous vote that speaks to anti-Semitism, racism, intolerance, and the growth of hate in the OSCE region. But we also made sure that we considered the recent elections in Belarus and how unfair those elections were and how Mr. Lukashenko has been acting in a way that is so contrary to the human rights of the people who live there, and the election results there do not reflect the will of the people.

We also had a chance to make sure we took up the issues concerning Ukraine. Once again, there was a lot of controversy on why you should bring that up during this meeting. We did. We supported that to make it clear that Russia's aggression and its occupation of Crimea and its interference in eastern Ukraine will never be recognized as legitimate by the United States or, by that matter, the Parliamentary Assembly, because we responded in all of those areas.

I am pleased to tell you that we supported Margareta Cederfelt, who is going to be the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Sweden, and we look forward to her visit here in the United States.

Richard Hudson, Representative Hudson, will be the chair of the first committee. So we are going to have active participation in the Parliamentary Assembly.

We had the chance to visit some other countries. But if I might, I think I am going to yield the floor and give my good friend and the leader of our congressional delegation trip an opportunity to expand on some of the things we were able to do in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me again thank Senator Wicker. Thank you for your leadership on so many issues.

But on this congressional delegation, for those who are not familiar, it is not easy to put together the type of opportunities to advance American values. And Senator Wicker took the responsibility as the leader of our delegation to make sure that we had the opportunities to advance American values. I thank him for all the effort he put into it. It was certainly extremely successful.

I just want to emphasize a few things before closing.

One, in Vienna, we did have an opportunity to meet with Rafael Grossi, who is the Director General of the IAEA. That is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has the responsibility of monitoring the nuclear programs throughout the world. Obviously, it has played a bigger role in regard to the program in Iran, and it was monitoring exactly what was happening in Iran under the JCPOA. They now don't have the same access, and we had a chance to talk with the Director General as to the challenges with the Iranian program. And I think it was helpful for all of us to understand exactly the role that the IAEA can play in regard to getting us information about what is happening on the ground in Iran.

Senator Wicker talked about our visit to Estonia, a strong ally partner, NATO partner. We showed our support by going to Narva, which is on the Russian border. It is a town that has a majority of Russian- speaking Estonians. It is an interesting community. But we could see across the river, very clearly, the Russian patrol boats. We know and heard firsthand of the concern of the Estonians. They saw what happened in Ukraine and they worry that same thing could happen in Estonia with Russian aggression.

I must tell you, our presence to reinforce the NATO commitment, I think, was an extremely important message that we gave to the Estonian people.

I would be glad to yield.

Madam President, let me move onto Bulgaria very briefly. Senator Wicker did cover Bulgaria.

The Three Seas Initiative, I wasn't that familiar with it before traveling to Bulgaria. It is an initiative by 12 States that are basically part of the Eastern European Coalition, states that are developing democratic institutions and democratic economies after the fall of the Soviet Union. They need to build up their resilience as a collective entity in energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure.

The Three Seas Initiative is to attract investment to connect the 12 countries together on infrastructure needs. It is for many reasons. It is for its own economic strength and growth, but also for resiliency against the efforts of China on its Belt and Road Initiative, which is trying to infiltrate

these countries and convert their way of economy to more of the Chinese system.

The Three Seas Initiative is an effort to have their own independent way of attracting capital. The United States is participating in the Three Seas. We are not a member, but we are participating and providing resources for the fund that is being developed that would be leveraged for these type of investments.

While we were in Bulgaria, we had a chance to have bilateral meetings. There were 12 Heads of state there. We had bilateral meetings with the President of Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Romania. We had very constructive discussions about what is happening in their country.

We raised Helsinki issues with all these countries. Senator Wicker already talked about how we were welcomed by the Bulgarian leadership in regards to the imposition of the Magnitsky sanctions. We are heroes. They feel like they have a second chance to try to develop the type of anti-corruption mechanisms that they desperately need.

Our visit to Varna, which is on the Black Sea, was very educational to see how Russia is trying to dominate the Black Sea area and one of the reasons why they are so aggressive in Ukraine and the Crimea.

I think that was extremely helpful for us to understand the security risks and how we have to work with our NATO partners to protect the Black Sea area, particularly from the potential aggression--not potential--from the aggression of Russia.

Also in Bulgaria, we had a chance to visit a Roma village. It is not my first visit to a Roma village. I have visited over the years. It is a real tragic situation. The Roma population have been in Europe for centuries. They lived in communities for hundreds of years, yet they do not have property rights.

They have lived in their homes, and yet they do not have the opportunity to have their homes registered. And at any time, the government can come in and take away their property without compensation.

They rarely have reliable utilities.

The village we visited did not have water systems, so they had to use outhouses, et cetera. They had limited availability of fresh water. Their utility service is not reliable. And they go to segregated schools. They don't have the same employment opportunities.

So we, once again, will raise the rights of the Roma population as part of our commitment under the Helsinki Commission, and we are following up with the local officials to try to help in that regard.

Then, lastly, on our way back, we visited Norway. I learned a lot because I did not know about the pre-positioning program. I know my friend Senator Wicker already knew about this from his Armed Services service, but it is where we pre-position equipment so that we can respond rapidly to a circumstance anywhere in the world. The Norway pre-positioning is actually used to help us in regard to the Middle East and our needs in the Middle East.

So it was an extremely, extremely, I think, productive visit to these countries. I think we did carry out our commitment under the Helsinki Commission, and we advanced American values. I think we represented our country well, and we were very well noticed.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the nomination of U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Boardman to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Maryland.

Judge Boardman was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee on June 10. I have recommended Judge Boardman, along with Senator Van Hollen, to President Biden, and I strongly support her nomination. Judge Boardman was nominated to fill the future vacancy created when Judge Richard Bennett, appointed by President Bush in 2003, announced his intentions to take senior status upon the confirmation of his successor. President Biden nominated Judge Boardman for this position on March 30, and the Judiciary Committee held her confirmation hearing on May 12.

Shortly after the November 2020 Presidential election, I worked with Senator Van Hollen to establish a judicial selection committee in Maryland. We used an open application process with public advertisement and communicated closely with the State, local, and specialty bar associations in Maryland. In particular, we sought out a highly qualified and diverse applicant pool.

Our committee interviewed everyone who submitted an application, which involved several dozen interviews. Senator Van Hollen and I personally interviewed several finalists before making our recommendations to the White House.

I strongly agree with President Biden's request that Senators consider nominating individuals whose legal experiences have been historically underrepresented on the Federal bench, including those who are public defenders, civil rights and legal aid attorneys, and those who represent Americans in every walk of life. Judge Boardman fits that request.

Judge Deborah Boardman was born in Silver Spring, raised in Frederick, and lives in Baltimore. She received a B.A. from Villanova University. After graduating from college, she accepted a Fulbright scholarship to study in Amman, Jordan. She received her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. After law school, she clerked for a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the ``rocket docket'' for the speed of its caseload.

Judge Boardman brings tremendous experience to the courtroom as a sitting U.S. magistrate judge in Maryland since 2019, which is the same Federal judicial district in which she would become a district judge, if confirmed by the Senate. She already handles a heavy caseload in our Federal court.

As a magistrate judge, Judge Boardman presides over civil cases by consent of the parties, resolves civil discovery disputes, conducts settlement conferences, and presides over preliminary criminal proceedings. Additionally, she administers the District of Maryland's Social Security appeals docket.

In civil cases before her by consent of the parties, Judge Boardman rules on motions to dismiss, resolves discovery disputes, decides whether a case should proceed to trial, and presides over bench and jury trials. These cases have involved claims of unemployment discrimination in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act; claims under 42 United States Code 1983, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; qualified and sovereign immunity defenses; and State law claims stemming from contract disputes and personal injuries.

As you can see, she has broad experience in regards to her tenure as a magistrate judge. She has previously served as the First Assistant Federal Public Defender of Maryland. During her 11-year tenure with the Federal Defender's Office, Judge Boardman represented individuals in both the Greenbelt and Baltimore courthouses that were charged with Federal crimes.

She also has experience in private practice, as she served as a litigation associate at Hogan Lovells, formerly known as Hogan & Hartson, in Washington, DC, from 2001 to 2008. During

those years, Judge Boardman worked exclusively on civil matters. She has experience both on the civil side and criminal side. She represented a wide range of corporate and individual clients in State and Federal courts. Specifically, she counseled insurance companies, universities, and healthcare and pharmaceutical companies, among others, in business and contract disputes.

As a fifth-year associate, the firm selected Judge Boardman to serve as the senior pro bono associate in its nationally recognized pro bono department. She managed the firm's largest pro bono cases full-time and appeared in Federal and State courts as the lead attorney in several of these pro bono cases.

She tried a wrongful eviction action before a DC jury. She was lead counsel on a 3-day evidentiary hearing on habeas corpus petitions in the circuit court for the city of Norfolk. She argued numerous discovery motions before the U.S. magistrate judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia in an unemployment discrimination class-action lawsuit.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Boardman its highest, unanimous ``well qualified'' recommendation after evaluating her integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.

As Judge Boardman said at her confirmation hearing, she is the daughter of the American Revolution on her father's side and a first- generation American of Palestinian descent on her mother's side. Her father was born in New York and was drafted to serve in the U.S. Army in the Vietnam war and then went on to be a successful businessman. Her mother was born in Ramallah, a Palestinian city in the West Bank. She immigrated to the United States in the 1950s with her parents and eight brothers and sisters when she was just 13 years of age. She spoke no English. When she began attending public school in suburban Maryland, she then learned, of course, English and went on to a successful career as a beautician.

Judge Boardman has testified that her parents taught her the value of hard work, the importance of education, the value of family, and the need to be generous to those who are less fortunate in life.

In my discussions and meetings with Judge Boardman, I have some impressions that stand out from her as a person. She is fully committed to public service through her diverse professional career as a lawyer, law firm partner, public defender, and now a U.S. magistrate judge. She regards being a sitting judge as the ultimate and highest calling of public service in the legal profession. She wants to inspire the public's confidence in the judiciary and to hear parties' concerns compassionately, while upholding her duty to fairly apply the law. Now as a U.S. magistrate judge, Judge Boardman has told me she understands the absolute importance of adjudicating disputes neutrally and fairly.

She clearly has the temperament for this position. She has told me that she is naturally curious and tries to avoid making assumptions.

Judge Boardman shared with me that her internal compass directed her toward service. Judges are first and foremost public servants, but they hold certain powers over individuals' lives. She understands that. In her view, a district court judgeship is much more than achievement; it is a serious public responsibility which requires a judge to put the public first as they uphold the rule of law.

Numerous individuals wrote to me on Judge Boardman's behalf, including several sitting judges, law firm associates, and colleagues from her service in the public defender's office. They unanimously praise Judge Boardman's courtroom skills as a litigator, in particular praising her courtroom presence, sharp legal and analytical skills in both written and legal advocacy, and her high level of professionalism, excellent temperament, and unfailing courtesy to all parties.

As a person, I have repeatedly been told by those who know her well that Judge Boardman is the best kind of person to be a judge. She is smart, patient, kind, and tough when she needs to be. She is a hard worker. She sees all sides of an argument and is always fair and professional in her treatment of others.

I was delighted to recommend the nomination of Judge Boardman to President Biden, along with Senator Van Hollen. Judicial nominees must meet the highest standard of integrity, competency, and temperament. Judge Boardman will safeguard the rights of all Marylanders and all Americans, uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and faithfully follow the judicial oath to do equal right to the poor and to the rich. I am confident that Judge Boardman will serve the people of Maryland very well once she is confirmed.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the confirmation of Judge Boardman, who is an outstanding judicial nominee from Maryland. She is already a sitting U.S. magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where she has served with district judges. I look forward to her continued public service to Maryland and to the Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of LGBTQ Pride Month of 2021. For more than 50 years, Pride Month has offered us a chance to celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer--LGBTQ-- Americans and to reflect upon the progress that our Nation has made in how we treat this community in law, policy, custom, and everyday life. It also is an opportunity to redouble our efforts to end enduring discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

President Biden promptly issued a Presidential proclamation recognizing June of 2021 as Pride Month. With the authorization of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, U.S. diplomatic missions around the world are displaying the pride flag as a clear visual representation of American values. On the very first day of his administration, President Biden issued an executive order on preventing and combating discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. This decision has already driven new policies at the agency level making an important difference in real people's lives, from protecting transgender individuals seeking safe shelter to reversing the

Trump-era ban that prohibited transgender people from serving in the military. It is clear that LGBTQ Americans can count on the Biden- Harris administration to do everything possible to champion fundamental human rights on their behalf.

The bad news is that while we see progress at a Federal level, the Human Rights Campaign assesses that 2021 is the worst year in terms of State-level anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history. Governors have signed 17 anti-LGBTQ bills into law, already exceeding the 15 anti- LGBTQ laws passed in 2015, which held the previous record in recent history. There are even more bills waiting Governors' signatures or veto override votes. Most of these bills shamefully target transgender children. These bills and laws are untethered from trends in real public opinion. Recent polling from Gallup finds that support for same- sex marriage is at a new high of 70 percent of all Americans. A PBS/ NPR/Marist poll published in April revealed that two-thirds of all Americans oppose legislation to ban transgender student athletes from joining sports teams that match their gender identity, a number that barely changes across partisan lines.

The American people clearly agree with the principle expressed in President Biden's executive order: ``All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.'' It is as simple as that.

When it comes to human rights, civil rights, and being treated with dignity and respect, everybody in this country, regardless of where they live, should receive equal treatment. The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act in February to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, Federal jury service, public accommodations, and with regard to receiving Federal financial assistance. These protections build upon and align with the Supreme Court's landmark decision 1 year ago in Bostock vs. Clayton County, which affirmed that the sex discrimination prohibition in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. That ruling states, ``it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.'' We still urgently need to pass the Equality Act, however, to apply this interpretation to all areas of civil rights law and to apply protections against discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to a broader scope of entities. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation and will work to advance it this Congress.

As Harvey Milk said, ``It takes no compromise to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom.'' This Pride Month, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting the Equality Act to ensure that we protect the human and civil rights all Americans. Our government should do all it can to promote equality, compassion, and empathy--not discrimination, bigotry, and hate.

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

Madam President, this Saturday was Juneteenth, the first official Juneteenth recognized by the Federal Government as a national holiday--the official end of slavery in America. I commemorated and celebrated Juneteenth with my colleague Senator Van Hollen at a meeting of the NAACP chapter in Randallstown, MD, and we reflected on the progress that we have made since the end of slavery and the challenges that still remain.

It has been a long path toward justice and equality in this country, and I think we all recognize the wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., with his famous quote that ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.''

I think we all believe that, but in recent actions taken by State governments to restrict voting rights, we see some very disturbing trends that would take issue with Dr. King's statement that the moral universe is bending toward justice. It seems like it has taken a detour.

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 the 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 have not been 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 will never accept the will of the people. So they look at ways in which they can undermine the voter record--what the voters want to do, the voters' will. In the 2020 election, we should all celebrate the record number of people who cast their ballots. It was a record--the most ever casting their votes for the Presidency of the United States. There were repeated reviews done by both Democrats and Republicans at the national level and at the State level and at the local level. It verified the simple fact that there was no widespread corruption, that the will of the people prevailed, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were elected President and Vice President of the United States.

But that did not stop former President Trump in 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. Fourteen States have enacted 22 new laws to make it more difficult--more difficult--for people to vote. This is unprecedented in modern times.

So what have those 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 100 percent voting by mail. There has been no indication 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-in ballots, limiting the availability of mail ballot drop boxes. All of that had been included. Why? Because it makes it more difficult for people who are likely to vote for my opponent to vote. That is what the State legislatures are doing-- stricter signature requirements, making in-person voting more difficult, and purging voter rolls simply because a person did not vote--again, making it more difficult for people to vote. And it goes on and on and on in the type of legislation that has already passed or is currently being considered by many State legislatures around the 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.

Let me give just one example. Using Georgia as a specific example, their recently enacted changes will disproportionately hurt Black voters. The Georgia State law imposes voter identification requirements on absentee ballots, makes it hard to request an absentee ballot, and makes it a crime for groups to provide food and water to voters waiting in line.

Georgia is basically restricting mail voting in response to a shift in the racial demographics of the voters who use it. On the other hand, Georgia wants to keep mail voting available for older, White mail voters.

Voter suppression is always unacceptable, and the razor-thin political margins in Georgia may mean that suppression efforts like these will change political outcomes. Rather than imposing barriers to casting the sacred right to vote, Georgia should be looking at ways to improve voter access.

As the New York Times pointed out, the Georgia law comes on the heels of a major upset for Republicans in the traditionally red State, after voters picked Joe Biden in the Presidential election and elected Democrats to both of the State's U.S. Senate seats. The paper noted that the new Georgia law ``will, in particular, curtail ballot access for voters in booming urban and suburban counties, home to many Democrats.'' President Biden was right to call this legislation the ``Jim Crow in the 21st century.''

There are many other examples. Georgia is not unique in the efforts we are seeing to suppress voter participation at elections.

Look, it is fair game to try to persuade voters to vote for your candidate. It is not fair game to suppress their right to vote.

So what is the vote this week all about, the vote we are going to have on bringing forward the opportunity to debate voter suppression legislation to protect the right to vote? It is simply a motion to proceed with a debate on the Senate floor. Let me repeat that. We are not voting on S. 1, the passage of it. We are not voting on any specific proposal. I know my friend from West Virginia has offered a proposal. We are not voting on that. We are voting on the right for the Senate to take up this critically important issue or whether it should be filibustered so we can't bring up a voter issue to protect the integrity of the right to vote.

Now, I support S. 1. I am a cosponsor of S. 1, For the People. I am proud to support the provisions of that bill. To me, it is carefully drafted legislation to deal with the modern threats to voter participation. I am extremely proud that my colleague from Maryland, Congressman John Sarbanes, is the principal sponsor of H.R. 1 in the House that already passed the House.

It provides a basic Federal floor on protection of the right to vote--on voter registration, on vote-by-mail, no-excuse balloting, 2 weeks of early voting, including weekends, no notary requirement for absentee ballots, drop-off boxes. That is a simple voter protection against the actions being taken by State legislatures that are aimed at certain demographic groups, a Federal floor.

It ends political gerrymandering. I don't know how any of my colleagues can defend the way legislative and congressional lines are drawn today. I came from the State legislature. I am a former speaker of the house. I was responsible for one of the redistricting plans of Maryland when I was speaker of the house. It is just a horrible, partisan, political process we use today to draw congressional lines.

I have been accused by my congressional colleagues in the House from Maryland that I ran for the Senate to avoid having to deal with congressional redistricting. There may be some truth to that, but I can tell you this: It is time to end political gerrymandering. Congressional districts should represent the communities' interests, not an individual Congressman's interest. S. 1 takes a major step forward in ending political congressional redistricting by gerrymandering.

It provides a commitment by Congress to advance a preclearance formula that was in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that now is not operative because of the Shelby County decision. It puts us on a path to once again have that important tool available in order to deal with the freedom and right to vote.

It promotes voter security, S. 1, by eliminating the paper ballot--by requiring the paper ballot, I should say, not eliminating it, by requiring a paper trail. I think we all agree that we want to be able to verify votes. The only way you can is if there is a paper trail, and it provides for that paper trail.

It puts an end to the dominance of big money in the political system. They do that in a couple of ways: one, disclosure--how can anyone be against the disclosure of who is putting money into our political system?--and secondly, providing a way in which we can get rid of the dependence upon large special interest dollars.

It includes, S. 1, two provisions that I authored. One is a deceptive practices act that deals with false or misleading advertisements which are aimed at targeting minority communities to confuse and mislead their votes.

It includes the Democracy Restoration Act, which I authored, which deals with laws passed after the end of slavery in an effort to prevent African Americans from voting, for, you see, 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 ``felony'' is pretty general in many States, so we have States where one out of five African Americans has 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.

My friend, our former colleague, John Lewis--the two of us were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives on the same day. In an editorial published after his death, our former colleague John Lewis recalled an important lesson taught by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and I quote our former colleague:

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 can't start unless my colleagues allow us to proceed to this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

There is a reason why there are so many groups behind us taking action. I have a Facebook Live that I do every 2 weeks with my constituents. Jana Morgan from the Declaration for American Democracy, which represents over 180 groups, from labor to racial justice groups, faith groups, women's rights groups, environmental and good-governance groups--all telling us that we need to move forward to protect our democracy, that the Senate needs to act on this issue.

One of my guests, Virginia Kase Solomon from the League of Women Voters--now, the League of Women Voters--you can say a lot of things about them, but you can't accuse them of being partisan because they are not. It is one of our premier nonpartisan institutions in America with a proud history. They are telling us to take this bill up and act for the sake of protecting our democracy.

We then have a chance to act, to take up amendments and vote on amendments and vote on concerns, whether they are offered by a Republican Senator or a Democratic Senator. That is what the motion to proceed allows us to do, to take up these issues so we can vote on them. But if you vote to filibuster the motion to proceed, we can't even bring the issue up on the Senate floor for action.

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 an opportunity to debate the issue, and collectively we can come together, as many of my colleagues have offered suggestions about how we can improve S. 1, how we can make it a broader consensus, but we can't do that unless we have the right to proceed to a debate.

I urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion on the motion to proceed so the Senate can take up this most critically important issue to the preservation of our democracy and the integrity of the right to vote

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I take this time as the Chair of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, better known as the Helsinki Commission, as we celebrate our 45th anniversary.

The Helsinki Commission is the vehicle for U.S. participation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, representing 57 states that have come together under the OSCE, all the countries of Europe, all the countries of the former Soviet Union, including those located in Central Asia, the United States, and Canada.

Mr. President, this is a unique body in that it represents both the executive and legislative branches of government. The executive branch has representatives on the Helsinki Commission, and both the House and Senate have Senators and Representatives that serve on the Helsinki Commission.

I am very pleased to have as my co-leader Senator Wicker from Mississippi as the Republican leader in the Senate on the Helsinki Commission.

The Helsinki Commission has been responsible for elevating our moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy. Its principles point out very clearly that you cannot have security without dealing with good governance and human rights; you cannot have economic progress unless you have governance that respects the rights of all its citizens.

That is why I was so pleased when President Biden announced that his foreign policy would be value-based, that as we participate in our foreign policy challenges, it will always be wrapped in our values, and his recent trip to Europe underscored that important lesson. And then he issued, not 2 weeks ago, the statement that corruption is a core national security threat and that we have a responsibility to fight corruption in order to protect our national security.

I am so pleased of the accomplishments of the Helsinki Commission, particularly from the human rights and human dimension. I go back to my early days in the House of Representatives, when the Soviet Union still existed and the challenges of Soviet Jews trying to emigrate from the Soviet Union. It was the Helsinki Commission that was one of the leading voices to help deal with Soviet Jews.

I think about trafficking in persons, modern-day slavery, and the efforts that the United States did in leading that effort, including passing landmark legislation in trafficking in persons and establishing a rating system where every country in the world is rated on how well they are dealing with fighting trafficking. Now this has become the model, and so many countries have acted. It was the U.S. Helsinki Commission that led the effort for what Congress was able to pass and the international effort in order to fight trafficking in persons.

I think about the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide, and recognize that it was the Helsinki Commission that pushed to hold those who were responsible for these atrocities accountable, particularly as it related to the Balkan conflict.

Then I think about the landmark legislation that was passed in the Congress that deals with sanctions against

human rights violators, first the Magnitsky sanctions and then the Global Magnitsky sanctions. It came out of hearings from the Helsinki Commission and legislation that we authored. It is not only the standard here in the United States. It has been adopted as the standard in Europe, in Canada, and in other countries, to make it clear that human rights violators will not be able to hide their illicit funds in our banking system or visit our country.

Perhaps our strongest contribution is the oversight hearings that we hold. We also passed the Elie Wiesel Atrocities Prevention Act. But just last week we had a hearing in the Helsinki Commission on how we can prevent atrocities from occurring in the first place. So I am very proud of the accomplishments of the Commission.

Part of the responsibilities of every member state of the OSCE is that we have the right to challenge any state's compliance with the Helsinki Final Act Accords. So it is our responsibility to challenge when Russia violates those provisions or we see violations in Turkey-- any member state you can challenge.

But we also have to do our own self-evaluation. As chairman of the Commission, I have been using that opportunity to question conduct in our own country when it does not match the responsibilities that we should have. We saw that in the past in regard to the torture issues in Guantanamo Bay.

My participation in the Helsinki Commission goes back to my early days in the House of Representatives and some of my proudest moments of representing our country on the international stage. Let me just give you a few examples.

In February 1991, I joined a fact-finding mission to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. That is when the Soviet tanks were in Vilnius. That is when the Soviet Union was demonstrating oppression against the people of the Baltic States. It was a very sad moment of oppression, and we went there to stand up for the people of the region, to let them know that the United States never recognized the Soviet's occupation of the Baltic States, and that we stood with the people and their independence.

It was very interesting. We went from there to Moscow, and Mikhail Gorbachev didn't want to have anything to do with us. He wouldn't have a meeting with us, and he wouldn't acknowledge that we were there. But we had a meeting with Boris Yeltsin, who at that time was the chair of the parliament, and we got great visibility. And Yeltsin supported our efforts to condemn the Russian use of force.

I have been to Germany several times. My first trip on behalf of the Helsinki Commission was when it was a divided country, and we went to East Berlin. We were the voices for those oppressed people whose voices could not otherwise be heard, and we gave them hope that one day they would see freedom.

I then returned when we were literally taking down the Berlin Wall, and I joined in taking down part of the Berlin Wall. I have part of that as a prized possession in my home.

I have returned to Germany as a united country and see what a democratic Germany means and the work of our Commission to bring down the Iron Curtain. Germany is now a leading democratic state and a great ally of the United States.

I have been to Kiev, Ukraine, on several occasions. I was there during the Maidan protests, where the people demanded democracy. And then I had a chance to return and monitor the elections in Ukraine with Senator Portman--again, a country that has been able to rid itself of the oppression of the Soviet Union.

I have been very active in the Helsinki Commission in regards to the Parliamentary Assembly. I chaired one of their three standing committees. I had a chance to become vice president at the Parliamentary Assembly.

Today, I acknowledge Senator Wicker, who is vice president. It points out the bipartisan nature of the Helsinki Commission and our work on the international platform

Mr. President, we could not have accomplished any of these achievements without an incredible dedicated staff to the mission of the Helsinki Commission, and I want to just acknowledge one individual who recently announced that she is retiring, Erika Schlager, after 34 years of service to the Commission and to the global community.

Erika received her bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina in Greensboro, where she graduated magna cum laude and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her A.M. degree from Harvard University in Soviet Union studies and her juris doctor degree with honors from the George Washington University Law School. She studied at Warsaw University as a Fulbright fellow and received a diploma from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. Quite a record.

She used that academic preparation to make a difference in the world--and what a difference she made. Erika has been an unfailing professional in her dedication to doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the Commission meets its mandate and defends human rights abroad. Her deep expertise, which she has honed over decades of work, is renowned both among policy professionals in the United States and in the countries of Central Europe that she followed for the Commission.

Erika is one of our Nation's top experts on Europe's most vulnerable communities. She is a leading voice on Roma rights--Europe's largest minority, with significant populations also in the United States.

I have joined Erika in the crusade to speak up for the Roma population, a group that has been denied citizenship in so much of Europe. What a difference she has made in their lives.

Erika has worked with Members of Congress, the Department of State and the OSCE to address issues ranging from the enslavement and sterilization of Roma to a permanent memorial in Berlin dedicated to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazi regime, to annual recognition of International Roma Day.

She has brought to my attention the candidacy of Ethel Brooks to be the first Roma board member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I know that Erika will continue to bring Roma perspective and history on the Holocaust to further the tolerance, education, and human rights work of the museum.

I have the honor of representing the Senate on the Holocaust Memorial Museum board, and I can tell you that Erika is so deeply respected by the professionals at that museum for the work she has done in furthering the goal of that institution to prevent atrocities against any groups of people.

Erika has long been one of my top advisers on the Holocaust restitution and Europe's Jewish community. She has worked closely with me over the years to raise concerns about the rise of Holocaust revisionism in countries like Hungary and Poland; to foster implementation of the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets measures to right the economic wrongs that accompanied the Holocaust; and to hold accountable a French railway that transported thousands of Holocaust victims to their deaths. She worked on all of these issues and made significant progress.

Erika has been instrumental in ensuring that the Helsinki Commission works to hold the United States accountable for our own human rights record, examining U.S. policies and conduct concerning Guantanamo Bay detention camps and U.S. policy regarding torture.

Erika's counsel greatly assisted me in my role as the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE's Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance, where I was focused on human rights and justice here at home and across the expanse of the 57 participating states of the

Madam President. I rise today to recognize the annual commemoration of Juneteenth, the date on which the news of the end of slavery reached the enslaved peoples in the Southwestern States. On June 19, 1865, MG Gordon Granger and Union soldiers communicated the news of liberation to one of the last remaining confederate outposts in Galveston, TX. Over 2 years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the enslaved individuals there had yet to hear the good news.

Over the years, African-American communities nationwide and in Maryland have developed rich traditions around this historically significant date. For all Americans, Juneteenth offers an opportunity to reflect upon and to educate ourselves further about the terrible history of slavery and its enduring legacy. The story of Juneteenth also reminds me of the gap between the values and principles that we espouse and the realities of life for everyday Americans, in particular the most vulnerable.

I have long supported legislation to add Juneteenth National Independence Day to the list of legal Federal public holidays. After many years, I am pleased that the Senate has finally passed it and hope that the House will act swiftly to send this bill to President Biden's desk.

In commemoration of this year's holiday, I want to take the opportunity to reflect in more depth on a couple of ways that we continue to see the clear impact of slavery today. One of the most apparent legacies is access--or should I say lack of access--to the ballot box. Study after study and the lived experiences of so many individuals tell us that Black Americans still experience greater barriers to voting than White Americans. One of the most important tenets of our comprehensive legislation to protect democracy, the For the People Act, S. 1, is enacting a Federal floor when it comes to voting rights standards.

Spreading false or misleading information intended to suppress voting and intimidate the electorate remains one of the most effective methods used to keep individuals, particularly Black Americans and other racial minorities, from voting. Advancements in our means of communication, including the rise of social media platforms, have made it easier for bad actors to use these strategies. During the 2020 election cycle, robocalls targeting communities of color in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and New York contained false information about how the recipients' data would be shared if they voted by mail. I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Klobuchar, to address these problems by prohibiting individuals from knowingly deceiving others about the time, place, eligibility, or procedures of participating in a Federal election. Our bill to ban deceptive practices, S. 1840, would also prohibit individuals from intentionally hindering, interfering with, or preventing another person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another person to vote or register to vote in a Federal election.

In 2020, more than 5 million individuals and as many as one in five African Americans in some States were disenfranchised because of voter suppression laws.

Many voter disenfranchisement laws today come from post-Civil War efforts to stifle the 14th and 15th Amendments. Between 1865 and 1880, at least 13 States enacted or expanded their felony disenfranchisement laws. One of the primary goals of these laws was to prevent Black Americans from voting. At least 11 of those States still bar individuals on felony probation or parole from voting. Under our Constitution, there is no legitimate justification for denying people from having a voice in our democracy. Disenfranchising citizens who are living and working in the community serves no compelling State interest and hinders their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. My Democracy Restoration Act, S. 481, would restore Federal voting rights for all individuals immediately upon release from incarceration.

I am proud that both my Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act and my Democracy Restoration Act are included within the For the People Act.

Finally, I want to end by commending my home State of Maryland for bipartisan restorative justice work over the past several years. The Maryland General Assembly voted nearly unanimously in 2019 to investigate the more than 40 documented racial terror lynchings that took place in Maryland between 1854 and 1933, to hold public hearings in communities where racial terror lynchings occurred, and to develop recommendations that are rooted in restorative justice for addressing, engaging, and reconciling those communities. The commission the State established has received supplemental funding from the U.S. Department of Justice's Emmett Till Cold Case Investigations Program for its efforts. Because of this work, Governor Hogan issued posthumous pardons last month for 34 victims of racial lynchings in Maryland.

This Juneteenth, I encourage all Americans to recognize Juneteenth as an opportunity to reflect upon our Nation's shared history, to recognize the enduring effects of slavery on our society, and to commit to being involved in the redemptive work toward a more just and perfect Union.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to the nomination of Tommy P. Beaudreau, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior, occur following the disposition of the Griggsby nomination.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this means that there will be three rollcall votes beginning at 3:15 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. President, I have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 15, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing nominations.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing nomination.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 12 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Rules and Administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 2: 15 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

The Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management

The Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing.