Floor Statements

Senator Wicker, that is my understanding.

Madam President, I am here on the floor today to speak in support of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that is before the Chamber that will make historic investments in our Nation's core infrastructure, and I am pleased to follow my colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Romney, who was one of those whom I worked with to help negotiate this package.

This is historic legislation that provides $550 billion in new Federal investments over the next 5 years to respond to the needs that are facing our country. This bill will rebuild crumbling roads and bridges and tunnels across the country. It will provide clean drinking water in homes and address harmful contaminants. It will increase connectivity in our communities to bring broadband to even the most rural parts of our country. It will prioritize sustainable solutions to improve our infrastructure systems for future generations. And it will combat climate change by making the monumental investments in our clean energy grid and electric vehicle infrastructure that we must make.

Now, this bill was a long time in the making, as I am sure my colleague from Utah would agree. Over the past 3 months, there have been many late nights, early mornings, and countless conversations about how to make the best use of this opportunity to invest in our Nation's infrastructure.

I very much appreciate the continued good faith and negotiations from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the White House and the leadership of Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman to deliver this bipartisan infrastructure agreement. I also appreciate the work of the chairs and ranking members of relevant Senate committees who laid the foundation for so much of the bipartisan work that has gone into this bill, as well as the leadership of both parties for giving us the space and time to get this agreement to the floor

Now, I could spend all day talking about the many aspects of this legislation that meaningfully invest in our communities and in our country, but today I want to specifically talk about two key areas that I worked on. Both of these issues, water and broadband, speak to the critical needs in New Hampshire and across the country.

Water and wastewater infrastructure is one of the major investments we make in this bill, with $55 billion invested in this area. Now, no parent should have to worry about the safety of their family's water when they turn on the tap, but, unfortunately, as most of us know, this is not the case for too many Americans, because compromised water supplies, due in part to our rundown water infrastructure, is an issue across this country and in some places in New Hampshire.

This was a problem for decades before the pandemic hit, but looking at a crisis like COVID-19 has illustrated just how basic and essential clean and safe drinking water is for our communities. Righting this wrong starts with investing in our water systems, which have been severely underfunded for too long.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, drinking water utilities will need to invest $472.6 billion over the next 20 years in order to provide safe and sufficient drinking water to the American public. Well, fortunately, we have a big chunk of that as a down payment in this proposal. And earlier this year, the Senate passed overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan vote, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. That bill makes a historic investment in our water infrastructure through authorizations. And in addition to putting significant funding toward that effort, the bipartisan infrastructure package before us includes $15 billion to replace lead service lines, which is a huge public health priority, and it is an issue that has long plagued communities across this country.

Another real public health concern that is addressed in this bill is the presence of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, or PFAS, in our water supplies. Preventing exposure, cleaning up contaminated sites, and understanding the full scope of the health implications associated with these chemicals is critical for so many affected by PFAS in their water.

As I have heard again and again from New Hampshire families, discovering that you have been drinking contaminated water can produce a range of emotions from anger and fear to guilt. That is what I heard from so many parents who had children at the former Pease Air Force Base, where they were in childcare, and parents thought they were safe in those childcare centers. But they found out that they had been drinking water contaminated with PFAS. That contamination at the former Pease Air Force Base forced the city of Portsmouth to shut off three drinking water wells in 2014. The contamination was created by the use of firefighting foam by the Air Force when Pease was an Air Force base.

One of those wells that was shut down, the Haven well, has just come back online this week, after 7 years. It was inoperable for 7 years.

PFAS contamination surrounding the Saint-Gobain manufacturing plant in Merrimack, NH, and in areas around the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in the Seacoast create an ongoing worry for Granite State families also because of PFAS contamination. So you can imagine what those parents felt like when they found out that their children had an elevated level of PFAS in their bloodstream, and they didn't really understand what that meant.

I remember talking to one mother who told me she had taken her daughter to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center for her health exam, and she talked to the doctor about the elevated levels of PFAS in her blood. She said: The doctor didn't know what I was talking about, because this is an emerging contaminant.

But thanks to the work of so many of those affected--people like Andrea Amico in Portsmouth, who helped found a group called Testing for Pease, and folks involved with the Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water-- they have raised awareness and worked to find solutions to clean up our drinking water. We owe it to them, to all of those families affected by PFAS and contaminated water supplies, a serious commitment to stop this problem where it starts and to give them the peace of mind that they so deserve. The comprehensive measures to address our water infrastructure that are contained in this historic bill will help do just that.

Now, water infrastructure is a serious issue that New Hampshire shares with many other States throughout the country. Like water, another shared issue is access to broadband or high-speed internet service.

The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic--just as I highlighted the challenge of not having enough access to clean water--highlighted just how important it is for our communities to have fast and reliable access to the internet. Whether we like it or not, we live in a digital world. We all relied on that digital world more than ever during the COVID crisis so that our kids could go to school, so our grandparents and families could keep their medical

appointments, and so our businesses could stay afloat. Of course, even before the pandemic started, the digital divide created an equity issue that deepened disparities in education, health, and business.

If you live in a community in northern New Hampshire, how can you attract business to your community if you don't have access to high- speed internet, if the business can't open a website and tell people what they do?

Just last month, I met with representatives from several towns in southwestern New Hampshire, another part of our State where they have been struggling to bring high-speed internet service to their residents. Due to their rural nature, these towns and others like them are unable to attract a provider to work with them. About a quarter of those that live in these towns are considered unserved and far more are underserved.

At that session, I talked to a woman named Molly Miller. She is a telecommunications committee member from Hancock, NH, a town with about 1,600 residents. She talked about the challenges that her family had experienced trying to work and do school from home during the pandemic. She said everyone had to disconnect while her youngest son was participating in college classes, and she shared a story about her son. She said: He was unable to turn in his final exam from one of his courses because the file was too large. He couldn't print it because they didn't have enough speed--download speed in their house. By the time he made it to the library to print out the file, it was too late. His exam was not accepted.

That is just the kind of everyday challenges that families, who don't have access to high-speed internet, face. And broadband access isn't a partisan priority. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognize the need for significant investments to ensure that all of our workers, our students, and our families are able to connect to the critical resources that are provided by the internet.

This infrastructure bill commits $65 billion to bring high-speed internet to communities in New Hampshire and all across the country. These bold investments are what we need to create jobs, to enhance the safety of our infrastructure networks, and to improve this Nation's competitiveness.

Now, had I written the bill before us on my own, I am sure, like everyone in this Chamber, it would have included different priorities than what is before us in some cases. But, as we know, that is not how the give and take of negotiations work. It is not how compromise works. You give and you get. And the fact is that New Hampshire and the United States are going to get a whole lot in this infrastructure package.

We also know that legislation that has broad bipartisan support stands a better chance at lasting longer without threats of being repealed or reversed. President Biden supports this package, and we have received strong support across the aisle through the procedural votes that we have had so far.

I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to help craft this bipartisan bill, and over the coming days, I know that I will work with even more people in this Chamber as we try and move this legislation through the Senate. Thank you. I look forward to a strong, positive vote by the end of this week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against this Barrasso amendment because there is nothing in the underlying provision that would in any way promote prohibiting natural gas, and that is what Senator Barrasso is suggesting is in the bill.

Now, if it were such as Senator Barrasso says, I don't think we would have received strong letters of support for this specific provision from both the National Association of Home Builders and the American Gas Association.

I have the letters right here. I would actually like to read from the Home Builders' letter.

The Home Builders support section 5101, which was the original section in the Energy bill as it passed the committee.

Cost-Effective codes implementation for efficiency and

resiliency.

And this is the important point:

This section promotes technical assistance and funding for

code adoption while maintaining the flexibility for state and

local governments to deliver safe, energy efficient, and

affordable housing.

Why would we want to get in the way of what States and communities are already doing?

I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record

As many of my colleagues know, it is unprecedented to get the American Gas Association, the National Association of Home Builders, and the energy efficiency advocates all in agreement, and that is the result of the extensive negotiations that went into this section of the bill that Senator Barrasso would overturn.

Now, Energy Chairman Manchin wasn't able to get here to speak to this provision and this amendment, but he opposes it. And if he were here, he would say: ``Let's not mess with a good thing.''

This provision doesn't ban--it doesn't even touch natural gas. So I strongly support the bill as written and urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that is scheduled begin immediately.

Mr. President, I am very proud to be here with the rest of my colleagues to present this bill that will make the biggest investment in infrastructure, as Senator Collins said so well, since the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s.

This is really an extraordinary work product that results from the leadership of Senators Sinema and Portman and from the cooperation of everybody on this floor. There were an equal number of Democrats and Republicans--a number who are not here tonight who have worked on this bill--the work of committee chairs and ranking members in the Senate who have done so much to put together underlying bills that we used in moving this forward and, of course, all of the staff from our personal offices, from the Appropriations Committee, from all of the committees that worked on this bill.

As has been said, this is the biggest investment in infrastructure with $550 million--billion in new spending over the next 5 years. It builds on annual appropriations. It is an investment in roads and bridges, in water and wastewater, and transit, the electric grid.

We have got to do this because right now we are investing less than our competitors--less than China, less than India, less than Europe; less than we were spending in the United States in the 1960s. And if we are going to stay competitive, if we are going to provide opportunities for the people in this country, we have got to make these investments.

As my partner in broadband said, if kids are going to have an equal opportunity for the future, then they need to have access to high-speed internet.

More important, I think, is the point that all of my colleagues so far have made, and that is that this bill shows that Republicans and Democrats can work together to address the needs of this country; that our government is not broken. We can make it work if everybody works together.

So I know we have a lot of work ahead of us to get this bill through the floor of the Senate and then through the House, and get the help out to the American people. But I know that in this Chamber we are committed to getting that done and to making sure that we make these investments to move the country forward.

So thank you, Mr. President.

I yield to my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski.

Madam President, nearly 20 years ago, the United States invaded Afghanistan to prevent that country from being exploited as a platform for terrorism and extremism. In doing so, the U.S. worked side-by-side with international and Afghan forces to remove the Taliban from power, facilitate democratic elections, build democratic institutions, and promote human rights throughout Afghanistan. Because of these efforts and the commitment and dedication of the Afghan people, the Afghanistan of 2021 is far different than the Afghanistan of 2001. And now that Afghanistan has made this progress, we must work with our Afghan partners to do everything in our power to preserve these gains and leave a stable country behind us. It is both a moral obligation and a national security priority that we do so.

As U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan, the safety and security of our Afghan allies who put their lives on the line to help our servicemembers and diplomats must be a top priority. This is about fulfilling a sacred promise that we made to those who served the U.S.- led mission in Afghanistan. It is a service that many Afghans have already paid for with their lives. Like U.S. personnel, our Afghan partners

died on the battlefield alongside Americans. But unlike our own servicemembers, when the Afghans went home, they were not safe from danger.

Earlier this year, National Public Radio shared the story of ``Mohammad'' and his family. ``Mohammad'' is not his name, but a pseudonym used because of the threats made upon him and his family by the Taliban. Mohammad was an interpreter who served his country and the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan. For this, the Taliban threatened him and his family. They labeled him a traitor and forced him to seek safety in the United States through the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program. Mohammad was murdered by the Taliban in January, shortly after his visa to the U.S. was approved--10 years after he applied. Last month, his family finally arrived in the United States--to safety--but they did so without Mohammad. His wife and six children are here without their father, who gave his life in service to his country and the U.S. mission.

Unfortunately, Mohammad's story is not unique. The Taliban has made their intentions clear. They call in the dead of the night and leave notes affixed to houses: ``We know who you are and will kill you.''

The Taliban's brutality against vulnerable populations like our Afghan allies has increased over the last several months, but as the U.S. withdrawal nears completion, conditions on the ground have become all the more dangerous. If the United States does not act quickly to uphold its promise to these Afghans, our opportunity to get our partners to safety will pass us by. U.S. action must start with bolstering the program that was supposed to protect Mohammad, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa--SIV--program, and include a secure and efficient evacuation of our partners by the Biden administration.

There has long been bipartisan support for the Afghan SIV program in Congress, which I originally championed with the late Senator John McCain. John personally understood the need to fulfill our moral obligations to our partners and the strategic value in taking care of our allies. His example of bipartisan leadership continues today, and it has served the SIV program well: There is bipartisan, bicameral determination to take action. That is why Senators Ernst, Durbin, Wicker, and I introduced the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2021 and why I am pleased that Congress has taken decisive action to pass this language with the supplemental budget appropriations bill. President Biden signed the bill into law today. These actions provide additional visas and make urgently needed process fixes to the program, which maintains broad bipartisan support across the political spectrum. This is necessary to help the U.S. fulfill its obligation to our Afghan partners, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because of what it means for U.S. credibility in future engagements. We must send a strong message to our current and future allies: If you stand by our side on the battlefield, we will have your back.

However, these improvements to the process are just the first step in ensuring our Afghan allies do not suffer for their service. The Biden administration must now take immediate steps to implement this legislation and provide for the safety of Afghan SIV applicants. Congress has demonstrated that there is bipartisan support for immediate action to protect and support our Afghan SIV applicants and friends. Our allies around the world are watching.

There is no easy answer on Afghanistan. But one thing is clear: We cannot leave our Afghan allies behind. With this legislation now law, we must concentrate all U.S. efforts on supporting and protecting those who worked with the U.S. Government, as well as those whose work is diametrically opposed to the views of the Taliban, such as women's equality advocates. To not do so is to make a grave moral and security mistake.

I look forward to continuing to work with the administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of our friends in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I join Senator Leahy and others who have come to the floor this afternoon to urge clean passage of the VOCA Fix Act so that we can secure greater deposits into the Crime Victims Fund and ensure continued support for crime victims.

I am currently the chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Moran from Kansas is my ranking member. Before that, Senator Moran was chair of the committee, and I was the ranking member. Together, we have committed to a target of spending from the fund at a minimum of the 3-year average of collections. That is a practice that was started by former Appropriations Committee and CJS Chair Senator Mikulski, along with Senator Shelby, back in 2015.

All deposits made into the Crime Victims Fund should stay in the fund. Our subcommittee directs the amount that is released by the Justice Department from the fund for victim services. But every dollar stays in the fund and is available in future years if it is not used for victim services.

If Senator Toomey's amendment passes, if appropriations bills contain less than the 3-year average, either the entire cap falls, depleting the fund in one fiscal year or, more likely, the appropriations bill would be stopped from moving forward on the floor.

Now, I appreciate what Senator Toomey is trying to do. He wants to address budget reform and the impact of mandatory spending, but this is not the way to do that. That needs a thoughtful process that goes through the committee that there is debate on. This should not be done as an amendment to a bill that is at a process that is critical to help the victims of crime.

Victims groups and direct service providers are asking for the clean passage of this act, the VOCA Fix Act. They are urging us to vote no on Senator Toomey's amendment.

We have all heard from victims groups requesting clean passage of this bill. I have heard from individuals and organizations from across New Hampshire, as Senator Leahy said, organizations like the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and the Granite State Children's Alliance which both benefit from the Crime Victims Fund because they get funding for those people who are injured.

This bill has already passed the House. If we pass this legislation today without amendment, it can be quickly signed into law, and we can get these much needed changes to shore up collections into the fund so that the victims of crime can get the help that they need. It will make a meaningful impact to ensure there is adequate funding for survivors now and in years to come.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Toomey amendment.

I yield the floor

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

Mr President, I come to the floor today to join my colleague Senator Collins from Maine, who will be here shortly, who is also my cochair of the Diabetes Caucus, to reintroduce the Improving Medicare Beneficiary Access to Innovative Diabetes Technologies Act. This is legislation that would establish a task force to provide recommendations to help

guide Medicare's decisions on coverage and payment for new technologies to improve the lives of people with diabetes.

I have had the opportunity to see the challenges that families with members who have type 1 diabetes face. My granddaughter, my oldest granddaughter, has type 1 diabetes, and I know the challenges her family faces navigating a complex web of insurance coverage rules for technologies. Anytime a new technology comes out that would benefit her, to get the insurance companies to adopt those technologies is a huge challenge, and it requires hours of phone time with the insurance company, trying to persuade them that they should provide the coverage.

Well, we know that these insurance companies often base their coverage and reimbursement rules on Medicare. That is why it is so important for the Medicare Program to keep pace with the development of new diabetes technologies and devices.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Collins on a regular basis in the Diabetes Caucus. In 2017, we were successful in pressing Medicare to cover continuous glucose monitors, something that seems like an obvious choice given the difference that those CGMs can make for people who have diabetes and ensuring that their blood sugar stays stable. We have also worked together to ensure that Medicare provides flexibility so that patients can use smartphone apps with their continuous glucose monitors.

In the years to come, we need Medicare to make progress toward covering the artificial pancreas, a landmark development that will be the most significant change for people with diabetes since insulin was discovered, but to do this, we shouldn't have to resign ourselves to this piecemeal approach to Medicare coverage that requires continual pressure from Congress and advocates.

We need an independent body, like the one that is identified in our legislation, to help provide recommendations to Medicare so that its coverage of new technologies can adapt more quickly as innovation advances. That is why I am proud to be here on the floor and proud to join Senator Collins in reintroducing this bill. I hope my colleagues will take a look at it, decide that it merits passage, and work with us to get that done.

My colleague has arrived on the floor.

Senator Collins, I was just saying that I was very proud to be able to join you in reintroducing this legislation, and hopefully this session, we will be able to get it done. Thank you for your leadership, and I look forward to hearing your comments and to working to get this passed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote begin immediately on the nominee.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise today to honor RDML Richard T. Brennan, Jr., of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Commissioned Corps, one of our Nation's eight uniformed services. Admiral Brennan most recently served as the Director of the Office of Coast Survey, one of America's oldest bureaus, created by Thomas Jefferson in 1807 to produce nautical charts to help the Nation with safe shipping, national defense, and maritime boundaries. Unfortunately, Admiral Brennan passed

away suddenly on May 13, 2021, due to complications from surgery. He was 52 years old.

Former leaders of the storied ``Survey of the Coast,'' going back to the first superintendent, Ferdinand R. Hassler, were either impeccable surveyors, expert scientists, ingenious engineers, master shiphandlers, intrepid explorers, or visionary risk-takers. With 27 years of diverse experience and a constant desire to learn more, Admiral Brennan embodied all of those qualities and more. He served on nearly every hydrographic ship in NOAA's fleet, surveying the East Coast, Caribbean territories, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast into remote areas of Alaska, even mapping far into the Arctic Ocean to support the U.S.'s Law of the Sea claim. Whether discovering a new, uncharted seamount deep in the Chukchi Sea or uncovering the sunken remains of a lost locomotive tender car off the tidal banks of the Piscataqua River, Admiral Brennan's endless enthusiasm for mapping our oceans and coasts was infectious to all who sailed with him.

During his various land assignments, Admiral Brennan provided valuable technical direction to the many physical scientists, hydrographers, cartographers, and officers who worked for him while leading change to pull charting services ever more into the digital age. He served as a reliable resource to various maritime stakeholders and other Federal Agencies, using his effective interpersonal skills to bring NOAA assets to bear in addressing their concerns. He notably earned the NOAA Corps Commendation Medal and the Department of Commerce Group Silver Medal for his service during Hurricane Irene by coordinating NOAA resources to quickly reopen the port of Norfolk, a waterway that is as vital for national security as it is for global commerce. I am proud to point out that along the way, he earned a master's degree in ocean engineering at the University of New Hampshire's esteemed Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping.

However, Admiral Brennan's stellar career is not what endeared himself to so many or what makes his passing so devastating. He was an exemplary civil servant and leader, and he is remembered as the person whom so many were grateful to work alongside during their own careers. People across the country remember Admiral Brennan for his empathy, wry humor, generosity, friendship, and humanity. Many sought his guidance on personal matters as much as they did on professional challenges, and he went out of his way for them, seeking out the struggling colleague to cheer them up with his warm wit or changing plans to chat over a commiserating meal. The task at hand was important to Admiral Brennan, but he never looked past the people around him, putting them first. My thoughts are with NOAA and the maritime community, knowing that his loss has created a hole in the hearts of all who were fortunate to know him.

More importantly, my deepest sympathies go out to his wife Tracey and his two sons, Ty and Sam, who lost a wonderful husband and loving father far too soon. By all accounts, Admiral Brennan's family were front and center in his life, and they never left his thoughts, especially when he was away in support of NOAA's mission.

On behalf of all the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in honoring Admiral Brennan for his leadership, integrity, and dedicated years of service to this grateful Nation. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address what I believe is an urgent and fundamental issue of our policy in Afghanistan, and that is, what happens to the women and girls when the United States and NATO forces leave after 20 years?

Over the years, as I have talked to my constituents and people around the country, one of the things they have all been united on about our effort in Afghanistan has been the difference that our intervention has made for women and girls.

Before we went into Afghanistan in 2002, girls were not allowed to go to school, women were not allowed to work, and there was no freedom of movement for women and girls unless they had a male escort. They couldn't listen to music. They were required to wear burqas anytime they went out of their homes.

What we have seen has been safety and security for Afghan women and girls as the result of our intervention, but now all of these gains are at risk as we withdraw our forces. The lack of emphasis on the safety and security of Afghan women and girls in the peace process is what has brought us to this point.

We are leaving by September, and there is no plan to ensure that the rights that were achieved for women and girls are actually protected, even though we have legislation that says that in conflict areas like Afghanistan, we have a responsibility to ensure that women are at the negotiating table.

Well, as we rethink the role of the United States in Afghanistan, I want to put a face on what we are talking about, what it means if we don't prioritize women's rights there.

In March of this year, the State Department posthumously honored seven women who were given the International Women of Courage Award. These are all women who were killed in Afghanistan in 2020. They are pictured here. They were murdered--assassinated, really--for choosing to live their lives outside of the narrow confines of what the Taliban and other extremist groups deem acceptable for women, and they reflect the thousands of other women in Afghanistan who have been the targets of violence.

We have seen over the last months of 2020 and beginning of 2021 that women were deliberately targeted for assassination, particularly women in high-profile positions. These women have been murdered for going to school, for reporting the news, for delivering healthcare or running for public office. We talk about them as courageous, and certainly they are, but they should not have to be courageous to do the kinds of things that they were murdered for.

It should not require courage to be a journalist like Malalai Maiwand, who

is right here in the lower left-hand corner. It should not require courage to stand up for basic human rights like Fatima Khalil, who is up here in the middle, or Freshta Kohistani, who is right here. Fatima was a human rights official. Freshta was an activist for women rights. Yet both of these women were killed by the Taliban for doing what they believed in, for trying to improve the lives of other women. Sadly, that kind of courage is what is required of all women in Afghanistan today.

I worry that this reality is only going to escalate after our departure. Indeed, we saw this over this past weekend when 85 people, most of them schoolgirls, were killed in a car bomb outside of a girls school in Kabul.

I saw them interviewing one young woman who, I think, was about 14, about why she thought they had been targeted. She said: ``I guess it's because we want an education.'' This is the future we risk if we don't have a plan for how we are going to continue to support the women and girls of Afghanistan.

I also want to talk about the other four women who are pictured here.

Fatima Rajabi, who is in the middle, was a 23-year-old prison guard. She was on her way home from work and was on a civilian bus when the bus was stopped by the Taliban. She was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered, and 2 weeks later, her body was sent to her family.

Then there is Freshta, who is the daughter of Amir Mohamed. She was a 35-year-old prison guard who was killed on her way to a taxi to get to work--again, killed by a gunman.

At the bottom is General Sharmila Frogh. General Frogh was the head of the gender unit in the National Directorate of Security and was one of the longest serving female NDS officers in Afghanistan. She was assassinated when an IED explosion targeted her vehicle in Kabul.

Finally, I think the most horrific and barbarous of all of these murders was of Maryam Noorzad. Maryam was a midwife, and she was killed when the hospital in Kabul was attacked by the Taliban. She was there, helping a woman deliver a baby, and she refused to leave when they were attacked. She didn't want to leave the woman she was helping as a midwife, so the Taliban not only killed her when she refused to leave the woman, but they killed the mother, and they killed the baby. These are the Taliban whom we are being asked to join at the negotiating table.

I can tell you that I don't intend to support any political efforts that will allow the Taliban to continue to commit these horrific acts of violence. The agreement we made with the Taliban has already been breached by the Taliban. They have refused to cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They continue to escalate the violence.

What we are going to see over the next several months and what we do is going to impact the lives of women for generations to come in that country, which is why we must do absolutely everything in our power to support the women and those in Afghanistan who want peace and who want to see the country move beyond the extreme religious rhetoric of the Taliban.

These seven women didn't deserve to die, and those schoolgirls in Kabul didn't deserve to die. We owe it to them and to the generations who will come after them to do everything we can to prevent any more Afghan women from meeting the same fate.

This is not a partisan issue, and it is not a woman's issue. It is a human rights issue, and it is a security issue for the future of Afghanistan because, if women are empowered in that country, the potential for stability is so much greater. So I urge the Senate to do everything in our power to ensure that women are represented at the table in the future of negotiations and that their rights are preserved in Afghanistan.

We must remember these seven women and the thousands of women like them and the schoolgirls in Kabul--the girls who should have the opportunity to grow up in a world with the freedoms that their mothers fought to secure. The women and girls of Afghanistan are watching what we do, and we can't afford to let them down.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Lisa Morris, New Hampshire's director of public health at the State department of health and human services, for her years of service to the Granite State. Throughout her career, first serving the people of New Hampshire's Lakes Region at the Partnership for Public Health and later the entire State at the New Hampshire Division of Public Health, Lisa has made it her mission to improve the health and well-being of the New Hampshire public. I am grateful for her service to our State, especially her work to address the COVID-19 pandemic over the past year.

Prior to her time as the New Hampshire director of public health, Lisa served for over a decade as the executive director of the Partnership for Public Health in Laconia, providing invaluable public health information and services to the people of the Lakes Region. In this role, Lisa was a leading voice in advocating for resources to meet the health needs of the region and solve the most pressing public health concerns. During her time as executive director, the Partnership for Public Health was able to provide the region with invaluable services such as a community emergency response team, an immigration welcome center, flu vaccine clinics, and other community health education programs. I especially commend Lisa for her attention to the substance misuse crisis during her time as executive director.

Lisa has served as the director of public health for the State of New Hampshire since 2016 and has provided essential leadership through several public health challenges. In 2014, contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances--PFAS--was first discovered in New Hampshire at the site of the former Pease Air Force Base. In the time since, more contamination has been found throughout our State, including in the town of Merrimack and at the Coakley Landfill in North Hampton. While information about the toxicity and human health impacts of PFAS was only just emerging as the contamination was discovered, Lisa and her team worked diligently to keep the public and physicians updated with necessary information. The division of public health, which Lisa led, conducted PFAS blood testing for more than 1,800 individuals who reported exposure from contaminated drinking water while living, working, or attending childcare on or near the campus of the Pease International Tradeport. This information has been invaluable for those individuals worried about their health, and I thank Lisa for her leadership to provide this information to families.

I also commend Lisa for her leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we all know, a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic has been difficult for us all, but Lisa's leadership has been an incredible asset to the State of New Hampshire. From New Hampshire's announcement of the first case of COVID-19 in March 2020 to the present, the New Hampshire Division of Public Health has been a reliable resource, providing daily reports on the number of COVID-19 cases and positivity rates, which have been an important source of data for State leaders, businesses, and the general public. With her leadership, New Hampshire was able to establish partnerships with the New Hampshire National Guard to stand up testing sites and vaccine distribution sites throughout our State. New Hampshire's vaccine distribution rollout has been recognized as one of the best in the Nation and the most efficient in reaching the public with shots in arms. These achievements can only happen with competent and forward-thinking leaders like Lisa.

On behalf of all the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Lisa for her years of service, advocacy, and leadership. I wish her well in her retirement and the years ahead.

Mr. President, I call up amendment 1461, and I want to thank Senators Collins, Gillibrand, King, Rounds, and Peters for cosponsoring this amendment and also thank Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito for their support for the amendment.

As we all know, you can't put a price on safe drinking water, but for too many communities and too many households in this country, costs are a real barrier to contamination.

This bipartisan amendment will help States address pollution not just from regulated contaminants like arsenic but also from unregulated contaminants like PFAS. It does this by expanding an existing grant program to help small and disadvantaged communities, not just those defined as underserved. It would also help households with private wells.

We have to provide more tools to ensure that all Americans have access to clean, safe drinking water. My amendment would do just that. I urge its adoption, and I would be very happy to have this done by voice vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senate amendment No. 1461, which I have offered to expand a key program that helps address contaminated drinking water. But before I do, I would like to commend Senator Duckworth, Chairman Carper, and Ranking Member Capito for developing the bipartisan legislation currently before the Senate, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. This bipartisan bill will invest more than $35 billion for water infrastructure across the country. This can't come soon enough for States like New Hampshire.

Like most States, New Hampshire is suffering from aging infrastructure, much of it is between 50-100 years old. And unfortunately, our State government and municipalities simply do not have the ability to fully fund the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to address the rising costs of failing infrastructure, population growth, and changes in regulation. Communities across the country are facing similar financial challenges.

That is why Congress must pass sweeping legislation to tackle our Nation's water infrastructure problems, build climate-resilient systems, and ensure that all Americans have access to clean and safe water. The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act is a good first step, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do more.

The amendment I am offering today with Senators Collins, Gillibrand, King, Rounds, and Peters will help more people impacted by drinking water contaminants, including those who rely on wells. While America's drinking water is among the safest in the world, unregulated contaminants, such as PFAS, are increasingly being detected in drinking water across the country. This is a problem in particular for New Hampshire's southern cities and towns, including Merrimack, Londonderry, Portsmouth, and Dover.

It is not just unregulated contaminants. Pollutants and known carcinogens like arsenic, radon, iron, and manganese have been found in New Hampshire groundwater sources at levels that threaten public health. According to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, approximately 98,000 Granite Staters who utilize private wells have unsafe levels of arsenic in their water.

As I have heard again and again, discovering that you have been drinking contaminated water can produce a range of emotions, from anger and fear to guilt. It is heartbreaking to hear stories of parents worried about what their kids' exposure will mean for their health. I am committed to finding every opportunity to improve this situation. That is why I am proposing to expand a key part of the Environmental Protection Agency's Assistance for Small and Disadvantaged Communities Program to help States respond to water contamination in more places.

I want to make clear that States have flexibility to support a range of projects to address contaminants including in underground sources of drinking water, which will help households relying on well water. In New Hampshire, a little over half of our population gets its drinking water from public water systems that provide water from lakes, rivers, and wells. The remainder get their water from residential wells. All of them deserve healthy and safe drinking water. My amendment will help do just that. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

As I said at the outset, this bill we have before us today is a good step in addressing our water infrastructure needs, but there is more to be done. For instance, Congress must address outstanding issues affecting water infrastructure financing. The 2017 tax law repealed a longstanding incentive under section 118 of the Internal Revenue Code known as the Contributions in Aid of Construction exemption, or CIAC. Communities across New Hampshire have been planning projects for years that are now threatened by these tax changes. For example, the Hampstead Area Water Company reports that it is facing a $1.5 million tax bill on an infrastructure project aimed at providing more customers access to clean drinking water. And what is worse, these tax increase may be passed on to utility customers, increasing their water bills. That is why I have filed an amendment to undo these harmful changes, so that our Tax Code once again encourages these critical investments. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fix this.

We must also provide increased support for water systems in small rural communities across the country that are struggling as a result of this pandemic. The financial impacts of COVID-19 on systems serving 10,000 people or fewer is estimated to be at least $3.6 billion. Yet no support for small rural water and wastewater systems has been included in COVID relief legislation to date. That is why I have joined with Senator Tillis to introduce the Emergency Assistance for Rural Water Systems Act, legislation that would provide critical funding to small and rural communities during this challenging time.

Finally, we must address PFAS contamination and its effects on our communities. As many of us know, PFAS chemicals impact drinking water sources in and around military bases, manufacturing sites, airports, and other places across the country due to their widespread use in firefighting foam and consumer products. In my State of New Hampshire, the city of Portsmouth closed a major water supply well at the former Pease Air Force Base due to PFAS in the drinking water. And several communities in southern New Hampshire are struggling with groundwater PFAS contamination near the Saint-Gobain plant in Merrimack. Residents near the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in North Hampton and Greenland are concerned about high levels of PFAS found in nearby surface waters.

We owe it to the American families in New Hampshire and across the country who live and work near sites contaminated by these materials to invest at the scale necessary to fix the problem. That is why I have championed legislation, the PFAS Testing and Treatment Act, which would deliver robust Federal resources to support State efforts to address PFAS through remediation and clean up. I hope to work with the chairman and ranking member, as well as House and Senate leaders, to move this proposal forward.

Access to safe, clean drinking water is essential. While I am only seeking a vote on amendment No. 1461 today, I will continue to work on all of these issues. I look forward to passage of the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act and continuing to work to address these outstanding issues in future infrastructure bills.

Vote on Amendment No. 1461

If we are quiet, we will be quick.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and help ensure that our Nation's hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and other healthcare providers have the support they need to get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

This substitute amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering is a compromise that delays the Medicare payment cuts through December 31 and ensures that the cost of this delay is paid for.

I hope you will support it.

Senator Collins.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and help ensure that our Nation's hospitals, nursing homes, physicians, and other healthcare providers have the financial support they need to get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 25, 2020, this body came together and passed the CARES Act, by a 96-0 vote--exactly 1 year ago today.

The CARES Act helped to provide the resources needed to ramp up testing and vaccine development, ensure that small businesses would have support to continue to pay their workers, and provide much-needed financial relief for healthcare providers on the frontlines of this pandemic.

A year later, we can start to see the light at the end of the very long tunnel that is this public health crisis. More than 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered across the country. And we are starting to see job growth as more companies start hiring again.

However, with hundreds of millions of Americans still needing to be vaccinated and the threat of COVID-19 variants still looming, we need to continue to support our frontline healthcare providers and help keep them financially strong for the months ahead.

That is why Senator Collins and I came together to introduce the Medicare Sequester Relief Act, a bill that would suspend the 2 percent Medicare payment cuts that are scheduled to hit healthcare providers starting on April 1.

As a result of the CARES Act and through subsequent relief measures, these payment cuts have been suspended through March 31, and they need to be suspended again.

With American hospitals and nursing homes projecting tens of billions of dollars in additional financial losses this year due to the COVID-19 crisis, we need to continue to avert these Medicare payment cuts until we are further past the worst of the pandemic.

The substitute amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering today is a reasonable compromise. It delays the Medicare payment cuts through December 31. And it ensures that the cost of this delay is paid for, so that we do not increase the Federal budget deficit.

This week, I heard from Wentworth-Douglass Hospital in Dover, NH.

They highlighted that this legislation would result in $2.1 million in desperately needed additional revenue for the hospital.

The hospital's chief financial officer, Peter Walcek told me: ``These are real dollars supporting our organization's recovery from tens of millions in lost revenue and added costs during the pandemic. . . . By passing a continued moratorium through 2021, Wentworth-Douglass will be in a better place to care for those in need and respond to any future crisis affecting the health of our community.''

I also heard about the importance of Medicare sequester relief for New Hampshire nursing homes. Patricia Ramsey, from the Edgewood Centre nursing facility in Portsmouth, NH, said ``the Medicare sequestration suspension, although not a cure, will help us mitigate the added operating expenses and losses we continue to experience, especially with the exacerbated workforce shortage.''

I have heard stories like these from so many healthcare providers across New Hampshire, and I believe there are healthcare providers in each of our communities that would share similar stories.

We need to provide them with more financial support so that they can be there to care for patients, as we continue to make progress in combating this pandemic.

We cannot allow our hospitals and healthcare providers to go under as we fight through the worst public health crisis of our lifetimes.

I urge my colleagues to come together again, like we did in the CARES Act, and support this legislation when it comes up for a vote today.

Thank you.

Mr. President, on January 6, 2021, the heart of American democracy was attacked by a violent mob seeking to stop the counting of electoral votes in Congress and the peaceful transition of power. The peaceful transition of power is the hallmark of any healthy democracy and the foundation of our government by the people. That tradition has endured in our country since the ``Revolution of 1800'' when John Adams lost his election to Thomas Jefferson, marking the first peaceful change of Executive party in the United States. Years later, Jefferson would write about the ``Revolution of 1800'' and say, ``for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 76 . . . not effected indeed by the sword . . . but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.'' Sadly, the attack on the Capitol was an attempt to return to the ``sword,'' and it was incited by the President of the United States.

Donald Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6 demonstrated what I believed following his first impeachment: He was unfit for the Presidency and betrayed his oath to faithfully execute the office of President and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Donald Trump engaged in a months-long campaign of lies and misinformation about voter fraud in the 2020 election to mislead the American people and maintain power. This campaign was waged with a singular purpose: to overturn a free and fair election through any means necessary. It included calls to State election officials in Georgia where he urged them to ``find votes'' that would allow him to win the State; wild conspiracy theories that voting machines had been rigged against him; and baseless lawsuits that were rejected more than 60 times by Federal courts at all levels. This insidious effort culminated at the ``Save America'' rally on January 6 when the former President urged his supporters to ``fight like hell'' and directed them to march on Congress where the counting of electoral votes had begun.

The House Managers presented a detailed timeline of the former President's actions before, during, and after the election that exposed his effort to subvert the Constitution and defy the will of the American people. The evidence presented against the former President demonstrated that he sought to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of the 2020 election. It showed that when his challenges in court had failed and the electoral results had been certified, he turned his attention and all the power of the Presidency to January 6. He encouraged his supporters to come to DC to ``stop the steal'' and pressured former Vice President Pence to assert power he did not have under the Constitution to overturn the election. Trump amassed a crowd of individuals waiting for his direction, including armed individuals who had planned an attack for weeks in response to the President's claims that the election was stolen.

The former President's actions had deadly and destructive consequences. Insurrectionists stormed the Capitol building, desecrating the seat of American Government and the physical manifestation of freedom for people across the world. The insurrectionists viciously beat police officers defending our democracy, vandalized the building, and terrorized those inside. All the while, the mob chanted ``hang Mike Pence,'' ``President Trump sent us'' and ``traitor, traitor, traitor.'' When the attack was over, hundreds of police officers and others were injured, and five people were dead, including a brave Capitol police officer who lost his life defending our Capitol. The attack was viewed across the world and has undeniably tarnished America's reputation as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

What was the former President's response to this treasonous attack on our constitutional process? It was to repeat the sinister lies that had led to the attack in the first place and refer to the insurrectionists as ``great patriots'' whom he loved. The House Managers showed that the President could have stopped the attack, but he chose instead to continue his effort to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes. According to the testimony of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler submitted to evidence, the former President responded to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's pleas for help by saying, ``Well, Kevin, I guess these people (the insurrectionists) are more upset about the election than you are.'' These are not the actions of a President trying to defend the Constitution and uphold his oath of office; they are the actions of an individual intent on retaining power by any means necessary.

The actions of Donald Trump before, during, and after the attack on the Capitol reflected our Constitution's Framers greatest fear that a president would do anything to retain power contrary to the will of the people. They knew well the dangers of a despot and the capacity of power to corrupt the Republic they had established. That is why I voted to convict the former President to protect our system of government from those who would use their office to undermine our Constitution. Senate precedent, history, and tradition clearly demonstrate that a former President could be convicted having been impeached by the House while still in office.

The former President's legal team made no persuasive argument as to how his remarks on January 6 would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment or why he could not be convicted as a former President. As House Manager Raskin said during his argument, ``if this is not impeachable conduct then what is?'' I believe it fits squarely within the high crimes and misdemeanors identified as an eligible offense for impeachment in the Constitution. Thus, I exercised my responsibility as a juror to vote to convict and ensure that the actions of the former President would not go unchecked.

Donald Trump betrayed his oath of office and he betrayed the American people. His actions must not go unanswered. The oath that I took and my allegiance to it require that I preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by voting to convict a former President whose zealous pursuit of unchecked power will forever be remembered as one of the darkest days in American history. As a U.S. Senator, I will continue to take a stand against actions that violates the fundamental norms and ideals of American democracy.