Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 834, as modified, and speak for 30 seconds and then turn the mic over to my colleague Senator Murkowski, who is the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment supports organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. As we know, because of COVID, those survivors and families have been hit particularly hard, and there has been very little money that has gone to support them. This amendment would say very strongly we need to do better.

Senator Murkowski.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, my colleague from Utah tells a nice story, but it is not accurate. He is not being honest about what is going on with the global gag rule, and I am really disappointed that he is once again trying to push this dangerous legislation.

As I pointed out when I objected to the same bill less than a year ago, the policy in question closes health clinics, decreases care, and needlessly puts the lives of women, children, and families at risk. In fact, instead of protecting life, the global gag rule erects new barriers to critical health services, including reproductive health services for people and communities that already have limited access to affordable, quality healthcare.

And let's be clear: America's taxpayer dollars do not go to fund abortions overseas.

What my colleague is objecting to is funding for family planning services to help women protect their families. And the policy that he wants to codify into law is dangerous in the best of times, but during a global pandemic, when care is already stretched, it is downright deadly.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that a 10-percent--just a 10- percent decline in family planning services, including reduced access to reversible contraception and pregnancy and newborn healthcare, results in 49 million more women with unmet contraceptive needs; 15 million additional unintended pregnancies; 1.7 million women and 2.6 million newborns who will experience major complications due to not receiving the care they need; and most unfortunate and sad, 28,000 more maternal deaths and 168,000 more newborn deaths because of this policy. And that is just a modest 10-percent reduction in family planning access.

So if you really care about families and newborns, you will ensure that they have access to the critical services that they need so they don't have those unintended pregnancies.

It is safe to say that the COVID-19 pandemic, which has diverted care and shut down access to family planning clinics across the globe, is greatly exacerbating the situation. So now is not the time to place draconian limits on family planning dollars.

In fact, we need a renewed commitment to comprehensive family planning. That is why last week, along with 47 of our colleagues, we reintroduced the bipartisan Global Health Empowerment and Rights Act. The bill, also known as Global HER, would ensure that care is not limited based on the President in the White House because if we are going to actually get serious about improving the lives of women and girls, we should be working to end the global gag rule, not to expand it.

So for all of these reasons, I object to my colleague's request.

Madam President, again, I would just like to correct what my colleague is saying. We do not use foreign aid money to perform abortions overseas. In fact, a poll conducted by CHANGE, Center for Health and Gender Equity, demonstrates that 59 percent of likely voters--if we want to talk about polls--59 percent of likely voters in America oppose banning U.S. global health assistance going to organizations in other countries that provide legal and safe abortions or abortion referrals. Only 30 percent support this policy.

Research published in the Lancet medical journal last July found that the global gag rule under President George W. Bush--which was implemented on an exponentially smaller scale than what was done by President Trump and what is proposed in the law that my colleague from Utah is asking for unanimous consent to put forward, that kind of reduction in access to services increases a country's typical abortion rate by 40 percent while reducing the use of modern contraceptives by 3.5 percent.

See, this is what happens when you don't base policy decisions on scientific data. You get these kinds of narratives that are absolutely inaccurate. What we know and what is repeatedly evident through the research is that the global gag rule or, as my colleague calls it, protecting life in global health assistance, actually increases abortions.

It is, unfortunately, simple logic. Decreasing access to family planning methods like modern contraception, counseling, and the health spacing and timing of pregnancies, directly leads to more unwanted pregnancies. But because this policy also limits abortion services that organizations provide with other non-U.S. funds, women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to seek out unsafe abortions. That is why we see the abortion numbers increase. So it is a lose-lose policy, and, of course, it is women and children who pay the price.

The Foundation for AIDS Research found that one-third of 286 PEPFAR Programs implementing partners who were surveyed had altered their services or organizational operations in response to the global gag rule under former President Trump--a great program, PEPFAR, under George W. Bush, that has saved millions of lives, and yet what we saw under the Trump implementation of the global gag rule is that they had to alter the services that they provided, including reducing sexual and reproductive health and pregnancy counseling, youth outreach, contraception services, and HIV counseling, testing, and treatment.

The policies that my colleague is advocating for makes the situation worse for women and families, and if he would look at the scientific data, he would understand that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 3, I, along with 31 of my colleagues, stood in this Chamber and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is both ironic and deeply disappointing that only 3 days after swearing these oaths, some of my colleagues are coming close to breaking this promise.

Since 1797, each U.S. President has peacefully handed over power to the next, and that will happen again on January 20, when Donald Trump, despite the protesters today, the violence today--when Donald Trump leaves the White House at noon and Joe Biden becomes President.

We have heard tonight from both Democrats and Republicans about the importance of the voters speaking in the election and about the fact that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But this is not just an issue for us here in the United States; this is an issue for nascent democracies around the world, which, as Senator Romney said, look to the United States as an example. We are the shining city on the hill. We give those struggling under oppression hope for a better future.

Now, like so many of us in this Chamber, I have traveled to developing democracies around the world--to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Western Balkans, to Africa, to the country of Georgia. I went there with my colleague Senator Risch.

In 2012, we went to Georgia to observe officially, on behalf of the Senate, the election between outgoing President Mikheil Saakashvili and his United National Movement Party and the challenge by Georgian Dream, which was a newly formed party supported and funded by billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. It was a battle for Parliament, but also for control of the government.

Senator Risch and I visited multiple polling places on election day, and we agreed with the international assessment that that election was free and fair and that Georgian Dream were the winners.

But there was real concern in the country that Saakashvili was going to refuse to give up power--that that would lead to violence, and it would end the nascent democratic reforms that were happening in that former Soviet Republic.

So Senator Risch and I, the day after the election, went to visit President Saakashvili to try and talk him out of staying in power. I remember very clearly going to his home, and we sat down with him, and we pointed out that the hallmark of a democracy--what he had worked so hard for in his 8 years as President of Georgia--the hallmark of that was to turn over power in a peaceful election to the person the voters chose. Well, President Saakashvili listened to us, and he did leave office peacefully.

But it is important that future generations recognize that America-- like democracies everywhere--depends on a peaceful transition of power, on believing in what the voters say, and ensuring that happens.

Unfortunately, we have heard from some Senators today who have been enabling President Trump's willful disregard of the votes of our citizenry, even as they speak out against foreign leaders who ignore their own people.

They will fail, and history will remember them.

I hope that future generations will view the actions of some of those folks today as little more than an unfortunate anomaly.

Future opportunists may use this ill-fated effort to seek short-term political gain over the long-term stability of our Republic. But for the sake of our great country and America's standing in the world, I ask my colleagues today to fully endorse the results of the free and fair election and set aside this partisan attempt to subvert the will of the people. We should be venerating the peaceful transition of power, even if our own preferred candidate didn't win. That is, after all, who we are in the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, on Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Texas v. United States case to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, although the Affordable Care Act is currently the law of the land, the Department of Justice--our Nation's highest law enforcement authority--was not there to defend the law of the land, the Affordable Care Act. The DOJ was not there because it had been instructed by this President and this administration to join the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Sadly, the stakes of the Texas v. United States litigation are profound. This year in New Hampshire alone, approximately 90,000 Granite Staters obtained health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion or through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces. Across the country, more than 17 million Medicaid expansion enrollees and 11 million people in the marketplaces' health plans depend on the Affordable Care Act for their coverage. Yet the Department of Justice refuses to defend them. It refuses to defend the law of the land in court.

In this case, if the courts side with the Trump administration and the Republican attorneys general, millions of these people will return to the days when they were one cancer diagnosis, one medical complication, or one car accident away from medical bankruptcy.

The Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion is also our most powerful tool in combating the opioid epidemic. This is critically important in New Hampshire as we have the third highest overdose death rate from opioids of any State in the country. In New Hampshire, more than 11,000 people receive substance use disorder treatment thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and many more Granite Staters are able to get substance use disorder treatment thanks to coverage obtained through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces.

Just think. Without the expansion of Medicaid, which is a bipartisan effort in New Hampshire, and without the ACA's health insurance marketplaces, we would have thousands of people affected by substance use disorders who would not be able to get treatment. There is no plan B if the Affordable Care Act is overturned.

In 2017, a mother named Nansie, from Concord, wrote to my office. I will not use her last name.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Nansie's 2017 letter.

Madam President, in Nansie's letter, she writes:

The ACA saved my son's life. It was due to ObamaCare that

we were able to get him insured so that he could get the

proper help he needed and get into a Suboxone program that

assisted him. Now, if the courts side with the Trump

administration, this critical source for treatment and

recovery could be ripped away.

We don't have enough time for me to go through the whole list of all of the benefits under the Affordable Care Act that will be lost if the ACA gets overturned. One of the benefits, though, that would be thrown out yet is critically important to the people of New Hampshire and across this country is that of the consumer protections against skyrocketing prescription drug costs. They will be gone.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a hearing in the Committee on Aging, and we had someone from the FDA who was testifying. She talked about the fact that the major driver in prescription drug costs under Medicare and Medicaid was the cost of biologic drugs and that what was bringing down that cost was the pathway for biosimilars to create alternatives of those biologic drugs for those people. What she failed to point out was that this provision

was in the Affordable Care Act and that if the Affordable Care Act gets struck down, this provision will get struck down. Those increased costs that we have been seeing of those biologic drugs are going to continue going up.

What is probably even more important for most people in New Hampshire is that the Affordable Care Act includes a very important program that has closed the Medicare Part D coverage gap--what is called the doughnut hole--for prescription drug coverage. This program has saved New Hampshire's seniors an average of $1,100 a year in Medicare prescription drug costs. These savings help to ensure that Granite Staters who have fixed incomes can pay their utility bills or put food on the table.

The court's decision could wipe out these critical Medicare savings for seniors, just as it could wipe out coverage for preexisting conditions, coverage to keep young people on their parents' insurance up until they are the age of 26, and coverage for essential health benefits, which means that mental health care and coverage for substance use disorder treatment are required by insurance companies to be covered.

So given what is at stake, at this point I want to offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 134, which is a resolution I introduced to express a sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice should reverse its position in the Texas v. United States case and defend the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. President, I knew my colleague from Wyoming was going to object. I am disappointed in his objection, and I know he is a doctor. I believe he cares about his former patients. I believe he cares about providing healthcare to his constituents, as I believe all of my colleagues care about that.

That is why I am so puzzled by why there has been a 9-year effort to try and undermine the Affordable Care Act and the healthcare that it provides to people in this country.

As I said earlier, there is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. There is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with substance abuse disorders, for mental health coverage. That is all going to go out the window.

By failing to send a clear message to the Justice Department that they should defend the Affordable Care Act, we are putting access to care at risk for millions of Americans across this country.

What we should be doing--and we should have done it as soon as the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act was defeated in 2017--is working together to put in place changes that make the Affordable Care Act work better. We should be looking for ways to provide coverage to people that is affordable, that provides quality healthcare, that is accessible to every American. Instead of that, we have no plan B. There is no bill that would provide coverage if this administration is successful in overturning the Affordable Care Act.

I am very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction from my colleague from Wyoming.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to salute Clyde Terry for his many years of dedicated service and staunch advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities. Clyde is retiring from his longtime role as CEO of Granite State Independent Living, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Granite State Independent Living--GSIL--is a nonprofit that breaks down barriers for seniors and people with disabilities and expands the training and support services available to them. Its mission is grounded in a firm belief that all people have a right to define their own level of independence. Under Clyde's leadership, GSIL has blossomed into an essential statewide organization with a $17 million budget and several awards and accolades to its name, including Non-Profit of the Year Awards from Business NH Magazine, NH Business Review, and the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. Service offerings have grown as well to meet the aging, education, and employment challenges faced by so many across the Granite State.

Clyde has tapped into a wealth of experience to build GSIL into an expansive and responsive organization that remains committed to its founding principles of personal choice and direction. Before his tenure at GSIL, he was

the executive director of the New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council, a State agency tasked with protecting the rights of our State's most vulnerable citizens. While affiliated with the council, he coauthored a report on the accessibility of polling locations in the United States and established himself as a national expert on election reform. He was also an administrative hearings officer in the State's service systems, and before that, he helped to create and implement New Hampshire's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Throughout his career, Clyde has shown an unrivaled passion for improving the lives of the disabled, the aged, and the impoverished.

I was honored to recommend Clyde when a vacancy arose on the National Council on Disability in 2009. As a member of the council, he became a sought-after voice on the potential of autonomous vehicles to broaden a sense of independence among people with disabilities. He was also a force in fighting for fair pay and equal treatment in the workplace. Clyde was eventually named chairperson of the council, a testament to his leadership and communication skills and his fluency on the broad set of issues in the disability community.

I have known Clyde for decades. We worked together on Gary Hart's 1984 Presidential race. Though the campaign eventually ended in heartbreak, Clyde emerged from the race having met Susan, who would become his beloved wife of many years. As Governor of New Hampshire and U.S. Senator, I always appreciated Clyde's guidance and counsel.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Clyde Terry for his years of service and advocacy and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.