Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is really with hope, pride, and optimism that I rise today to honor the legacy of an icon of the civil rights movement, a hero of democracy, and a dear personal friend of mine: John Lewis.

More than anything, John Lewis was a man of action. Where he saw suffering, he tried to end it. Where he saw injustice, he tried to correct it. Where ``good trouble'' was needed, he showed up for it.

The most fitting way to honor the legacy of John Lewis is to take action ourselves--the action that he would have. So it is with pride today that I introduce the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021. It is a vital piece of legislation to restore the landmark Voting Rights Act.

Now, this legislation is the culmination of many months of tireless work across the Halls of Congress, back and forth between the House and the Senate. But that is exactly what Congressman Lewis would have wanted to see. That work began by building the record and telling the story of the current conditions for voters across the country.

But what did that record show?

A shocking picture.

Empowered by the Supreme Court's damaging 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, States across the country have been advancing and enacting sweeping voter suppression efforts to make it more--not less-- difficult for American citizens to participate in their own democracy.

Can you imagine that--making it harder for Americans to participate in their own democracy?

And today, tens of thousands of Americans are being disenfranchised under the guise of State law. And it is no coincidence that certain communities consistently bear the brunt of these suppression schemes across the country.

Throughout our history, we have worked to make our democracy ever more inclusive, not exclusive. With each generation, we have sought to empower millions more to be equal participants in America's system of self-government. So make no mistake: This tidal wave of voter suppression effort seeks to bend the arc of equal justice and equal rights backward. We should not allow that to stand.

Action in Congress is desperately needed. The House answered the call from Congressman Lewis and others to protect our precious, almost sacred right to vote, and they passed a bold version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act earlier this year.

Today, in the Senate, we will be introducing a version of that bill that should get the votes needed to restore the Voting Rights Act.

This legislation addresses the Court's 2013 and 2021 decision. This should be advanced here. It should be passed by the House, and it surely would be signed into law. And there is no reason for delay.

This legislation addresses the Supreme Court's Shelby County decision by restoring the Justice Department's preclearance powers to prevent States from enacting discriminatory voting changes. The legislation limits the harms caused by the Supreme Court's Brnovich decision earlier this year by enshrining a private right of action and clear factors with which voters can bring lawsuits against attempts to disenfranchise them.

Fundamentally, this legislation seeks to ensure that the Justice Department possesses the tools it needs to protect the right to vote for all Americans, regardless of party or race or creed or background.

Now, you wouldn't know by listening to the partisan rancor of today's politics, but this goal--protecting our right to vote--has never been a partisan issue.

John Lewis once said: ``We all know this is not a Democratic Republican issue. It is an American one.''

Truer words haven't been spoken.

We should remember that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act on a bipartisan basis is the way we have always done it. The core provisions of the Voting Rights Act have been reauthorized five times. Remember that, five times. Every time, this has been done with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. It was signed by President Nixon. It was signed by President Reagan. It was signed by President George W. Bush. They all signed the Voting Rights Act reauthorizations into law. They knew the profound importance of the landmark law for our democracy. In fact, the most recent Voting Rights Act reauthorization was in 2006.

And do you know what the vote was in the U.S. Senate?

Ninety-eight to zero. And many Senators still serving today, both Republican and Democrat, voted to support that legislation.

The toxic partisanship of American politics today has obscured what has, for decades, united us across party lines. This is the belief that protecting our right to vote--the very right that gives democracy its name--is bigger than party or politics. It is the belief that a system of self-government--a government of, by, and for the people--is one that is worth preserving for generations to come. It is the belief that government exists to serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

And that, Mr. President, is what I believe.

And so, today, I hold the memory of John Lewis--of his advocacy, of his passion, of his zealous belief to our better angels--to urge all Senators, regardless of party, to join me in restoring and reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act gives us that opportunity. Congressman Lewis, I know, would have wanted us to come together and find a path forward to addressing the many threats facing Americans' foundational right to vote.

I will tell you what he would not have accepted. He would not have accepted inaction. So let's try to live up to the memory and the example of John Lewis--a heroic man of action, one of my dearest friends in my years in the Congress. And I know he is watching over us. Let's make him proud.

Madam President, we will have before us a substitute amendment identical to H.R. 5305, which we will be voting on today. H.R. 5305 is the House-passed continuing resolution, except that the provision raising the debt ceiling has been removed because Republicans continue to block raising the debt ceiling.

But the stop-gap measure really keeps the government funded through December 3. It provides $28 billion to help States that have been ravaged by hurricanes and wildfires. It provides critical assistance to Afghan refugees who fled the Taliban in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Many of those refugees have worked with American forces and helped us. So I urge all members to vote for it.

But I agree with the majority leader that it is shameful we can't reach an agreement today to raise the debt ceiling and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. If Republicans don't want to vote to protect the full faith and credit of the United States, if the Republicans don't want to vote for the money that pays for the programs that they had supported under Donald Trump, well, then, stand out of the way and Democrats can raise the debt ceiling.

Over and over, the last few days, we heard from Members on the other side of the aisle speak about the importance of passing a continuing resolution that contained disaster relief to help hurricane-ravaged States, like Louisiana and Texas. They are pleading for help. Well, we are about to pass a CR that provides that help.

I have always taken the position that if there is a disaster in any State, that we should all come together to provide assistance because we are the United States of America; it is not just one State. Whether it is my State of Vermont or Texas or any other State, we can provide the assistance.

But they may go home and say: Hey, we voted to get money, disaster relief for our hurricane-ravaged States.

Somebody is going to say: Well, wait a minute, where does the money come from to help recover and build if the U.S. Treasury is literally out of money?

In other words, they have a position where they can vote for something that would be popular back home, and it is kind of like ``the check is in the mail.'' We are not going to give you any money for it, but, boy, we are going to speak about how important it is to help.

Many Senators here today want to provide a billion dollars to fund Israel's so-called Iron Dome, even though Israel has not spent the money we have already given them. Well, we will pass a bill to do just that. But if there is no money in the U.S. Treasury to pay the bills, it is nothing but an empty promise to one of our closest allies. We are voting on a blank check.

According to the Treasury Department, we are going to reach the debt ceiling in 18 days. Now, I say that because we ought to know what we are not voting on. What we are not voting on--as the majority leader pointed out, we are not voting on the debt ceiling.

We could say: Oh, we are helping hurricane-ravaged areas; oh, we are making others happy with things we vote for, but we are not voting for the money.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, once that happens, we run out of money to pay our men and women in uniform. We all support our men and women in uniform. We are just not going to put in the money to pay them. We can't send out Social Security checks. Find a Senator in this place that would say they are against Social Security. But to put the money in for it, they are not ready to do that. Just saying: Oh, we all support our veterans. Of course, we do. We are just not going to put the money in to support them.

For the first time in history, the U.S. will default on its debt. The economy will take such a hit that it will take years to recover. Millions of people will be out of work. Bills will not be paid. Watch the stock market go down faster than we have ever seen and millions of Americans' lifetime savings will be at risk. Oh, we are for all of those--we just--you are on your own.

Now, the Republican Party is playing political games with U.S. economy and with people's livelihoods, and it is shameful. Senator McConnell said he would not provide a single Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling. It is interesting because most of this debt was incurred under a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Senate.

But as irresponsible as it is for the Republican leader to say we won't vote to pay for the debt that we incur, we, on the Democratic side, are prepared to show what leadership looks like and do it all on our own. We are willing to pass this with Democratic votes.

But the Republicans continue to filibuster. If we don't resolve the debt issue in the coming days, make no mistake where the blame lies: squarely at the feet of the Senate Republicans.

When we go back and say all these wonderful things we have done for you in the continuing resolution, but we are not going to pay for it-- we need to pass the CR today, of course, to avert a government shutdown tomorrow. A government shutdown, as we know from those in the last administration, wastes billions, accomplishes nothing. But it is also essential not only to pass the continuing resolution, but to unite and pass the debt limit extension, or there is not going to be money in the Treasury--no money to pay for the funding of this bill for American families, for the elderly, for our troops.

Now, prior to the final passage, we will have a series of three amendment votes. With only 13 hours for the government set to shut down--13 hours and a few minutes--any one of these amendments could peril the continuing resolution. They are controversial. They could complicate House passage. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on all three amendments and an ``aye'' vote for final passage.

Any one of those things in those three amendments, bring them up as legislation somewhere else, but don't shut down the government because you didn't get your political amendments.

Amendment No. 3830

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3830.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up all remaining amendments, in order, with respect to H.R. 3505 en bloc, and ask that they be reported by number.

We obviously have these amendments, so we will have them in order to be voted on. I call them up to have them all before us.

I can assure you that the three amendments that I have referred to, I will strongly oppose them because, were they to pass, we would not be able to get the continuing resolution done, the government will be closed, billions of dollars goes out the window, and we would not have done our job.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Cotton Amendment short changes critical assistance provided to Afghan parolees that is included in the underlying bill and it should be defeated.

It shortens the length of time that we provide refugee assistance to thousands of Afghan men and women who fled to the U.S. to escape the wrath of the Taliban--financial assistance, medical care, emergency housing, mental health care, job placement services, the things that they desperately need to begin their new lives in the U.S. For some, this would mean benefits for only a matter of months, and then they are on their own. This is not nearly sufficient for them to get on their feet in a new country. Especially when many of them came here with nothing.

Many of these men and women were critical U.S. partners during the war in Afghanistan, putting their lives at risk along with our men and women in uniform. We cannot turn our backs on them now.

The amendment also limits their ability to apply for a driver's license. A driver's license is vital to successful integration in this country--to securing a job, to getting an education, to starting a small business. This is especially true outside of urban areas and without public transit, where many are likely to resettle.

This should not even be a debate. I urge a no vote on the Cotton Amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3833

Mr. President, families across the country are frustrated, and so am I.

People are doing everything they can to end this pandemic, only to see some Republicans trying to prolong it with bills like this.

We are fighting a highly contagious virus. It has killed over 685,000 people in our country.

And that that number is only going to keep going up if people don't get vaccinated, and variants like Delta will continue to spread, undermine our economy, and take lives.

We need to end this pandemic, and getting people vaccinated is one of the most important things we can do to accomplish that.

So why would we pass an amendment that weakens one of our strongest tools to get people safely through this crisis?

I urge all of my colleagues to stand with people across the country who have been following the public health guidance, and who are ready for this pandemic to an end, by voting against this dangerous, counterproductive amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3831

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, you know, this amendment has no business whatsoever being in a CR which has to be enacted by 12 midnight tonight. It may make a great sound bite or political ad, but it is not good policy. It is not a thoughtful solution to the many complicated reasons that we fail to enact budget resolutions or appropriations bills precisely on October 1.

We all have serious policy disagreements that lead to inaction or delay. Let's debate those policies. Threatening to withhold pay or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with the structural issues, but it would do one thing. It would make sure that we had only multimillionaires in the House and Senate. It is a dangerous precedent and potentially corrosive influence of public policy.

Let's stop the political posturing. If you want this, do it as a freestanding bill, under regular order, by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The CR is not the place for it.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3832

Mr. President, I thank the Senators who stayed with us to

make sure we could get a good continuing resolution passed, which we are about to do. I just want to thank everybody and urge--it will be a voice vote, but shout ``yes'' on this next vote. Thank you.

I yield the floor, and I yield back the time on both sides.

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about the recent decision by the National Jurisdiction Sentencing Court in Honduras to acquit Honduran nationals Edwin Espinal and Raul Alvarez. Both men were found to have been falsely accused of aggravated property damage, aggravated arson, and the use of homemade explosives, charges for which it turned out the government had no credible evidence.

Espinal and Alvarez spent 19 months in a maximum-security prison awaiting trial. They were reportedly subjected to harsh conditions, including receiving only 2 hours of sunlight per month. Despite being accused of common crimes, special courts created to try members of organized criminal networks presided over the process, including a judge located at a military base. It took 4 years for a court to rule on their case and to finally absolve them of charges that were determined to be without merit.

Espinal and Alvarez, like dozens of other protesters, were arrested during the 2017 electoral turmoil that culminated in the reelection of current President Juan Orlando Hernandez. Their case was used as a means to silence protesters and stifle discussion of the democratic process and the need for transparent elections.

Edwin Espinal is a human rights defender who has faced political persecution since 2009. He is not alone. Many human rights and environmental defenders, as well as independent journalists in Honduras, have suffered threats, arbitrary arrests, beatings, and assassinations by Honduran police or others acting on their behalf.

I and others here have repeatedly voiced our concerns with the Honduran Government's misuse of the judicial process to silence dissent. Bringing charges with no credible evidence and holding social activists and other critics in prison and subjecting them to lengthy criminal processes undermines due process and erodes public confidence in the integrity of the police and the courts.

I am also concerned with the lack of due process in the case of the eight imprisoned water defenders from Guapinol that has dragged on for years. And like many, I am waiting for the official sentencing hearing of Roberto David Castillo, the convicted coauthor of the murder of Honduran environmentalist and indigenous activist, Berta Cceres.

With another election just around the corner in Honduras, I urge the Honduran Government to support a free and fair electoral process, as well as freedom of expression, association, and assembly for all Honduran citizens. And I hope that the Honduras' next leaders will reject the corrupt practices and impunity of the past and support an independent judiciary, uphold the rule of law, hold the police and other public officials accountable when they abuse their authority, and restore the faith of the Honduran people in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mr. President, it was with great pride that Americans across the country tuned in this summer for the return of the Olympic Games. I want to take a moment to celebrate the achievements of one Vermonter who traveled to Tokyo, Japan, to represent our Nation--and our State--in these celebrated games. Elle Purrier St. Pierre represented the United States in the 1500-meter run at the 2020 Olympic Games. This was Elle's first turn as an Olympian, and she certainly made her mark, qualifying for the final in the 1500-meter, in which she crossed the line in 10th place.

Elle is a Vermonter in the truest sense of the word. She grew up working on her family's dairy farm in Montgomery Center, a town of less than 800 people along the Canadian border. During her freshman year of high school, she stumbled onto the Richford High School track team, initially skeptical of long-distance running. Nonetheless, her raw talent and grit quickly became clear, and she went on to become one of the most decorated high school runners in State history.

In college, she ran for the University of New Hampshire, where she garnered 11 NCAA Division One All-American titles and a championship victory in the indoor mile her senior year. Upon graduation in 2018, Elle signed with New Balance to run professionally. Although she has only run professionally for 3 years, she has set new national records in the indoor 1-mile and 2-mile distances.

In June, Elle won the 1500-meter at the U.S. Olympic Trials, breaking the Olympic Trial record and securing her spot on the U.S. Olympic team in the process. Elle sailed through the qualifying rounds of the 1500, made it through to the finals where she competed against the strongest and fastest runners in the world. While her friends and family could not join her in Tokyo, they and so many others gathered in the Richford High School cafeteria in the early hours of the morning to watch each of her races live.

Even as her success as a professional runner has taken her across the globe, her Vermont roots remain strong. Elle still considers Montgomery Center her home, where she lives with her husband, Jamie, who is also a dairy farmer. On September 25, Elle was celebrated at a welcome home parade through the town of Richford. Throngs of fans cheered her on as she took her well-deserved victory lap.

It is hard to overstate how proud we Vermonters are of Elle. She is only the second Vermonter to compete in the Olympics for track and field. At only 26, I am sure we will see more from Elle in the future. I am very excited how Elle continues to perform in the years to come.

I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Welcome Home, Elle! Richford Community Hosts Parade in Honor of Home-Town Olympian Elle Purrier St. Pierre,'' published in the St. Albans Messenger, be printed in the Record.

Welcome Home Elle! Richford Community Hosts Parade in Honor of Home-

Town Olympian Elle Purrier St. Pierre

(By Ruthie LaRoche)

On Saturday, Sept. 25, Elle Purrier St. Pierre walked

beneath the American Flag, hoisted high on the Richford

Volunteer Fire Department's ladder truck as part of a Welcome

Home parade held in her honor.

This August, Purrier St. Pierre represented the United

States of America, racing in the women's 1500 meter at the

2021 Olympic Games in Tokyo, Japan.

Purrier St. Pierre walked just steps behind a white and red

heifer draped in the Stars and Stripes, the community she

represented with pride, cheering and waving as she passed.

A little while later, Purrier St. Pierre stood on a podium,

the crowd of parade-goers now encircling her, listening in

rapt attention as she spoke of her journey to the Olympic

stage.

Many knew her story well, but I'm sure there were portions

very few knew, and it was the unknown story that made the

community support so much more special.

``Representing the United States of America on the Olympic

and world stage has been one of the highest honors of my life

so far,'' said Purrier St. Pierre.

``Competing at the Olympics is the epitome of sports, and

wearing those three letters (USA) across my chest was one of

the best feelings I've ever had.''

Purrier St. Pierre spoke of her time in Tokyo and the thoughts of home

that buoyed her up from half a world away

``These Olympic Games were different than most, but they

were still astounding and historic. I tried to embrace the

challenges brought on by the pandemic but found myself

feeling very isolated throughout the experience,'' said

Purrier St. Pierre.

``I spent many days alone since no friends or family

members were allowed to travel to Tokyo. I was trying to

mentally and physically prepare to compete against runners

who were the best in the world.''

Purrier St. Pierre was preparing to compete in the most significant

race of her career

``I knew I had prepared well for many years, but I'd be

lying if I didn't say it wasn't extremely daunting. Something

that helped me regain my courage was remembering the great

country, state, and community I was representing,'' said

Purrier St. Pierre.

``I was thousands of miles away, but I felt the love from

this place and all of you. That love and support helped me

persevere through the games.''

On the team bus in Tokyo, Purrier St. Pierre received a message from

home that brought tears to her eyes

``I was on my way to the track to make my Olympic debut; I

opened my phone and saw a

picture of the American flag hanging from the Richford fire

truck high above Main Street, and I immediately began to

cry,'' said Purrier St. Pierre.

``I cannot begin to explain how much your compassion and

support through this experience has meant to me.''

As she took the track, Purrier St. Pierre thought of the

community behind her.

``I was racing for way more than myself; I was racing for

all the people that got me there and hoping to inspire the

next young generation in this great community,'' said Purrier

St. Pierre.

``I was humbled to see the Franklin County community come

together to support one of their own; I could read your

messages, see your signs, and watch in awe as you all showed

up to the Richford High School gym to cheer me on.''

Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, Congress worked on a broad bipartisan basis to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the biggest change to the United States patent laws in half a century. The patent system exists to create incentives that promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. Our whole economy depends on a working patent system that reinforces high-quality patents while ensuring that poor-quality patents cannot throw a wrench into the gears. Today, I am proud to introduce, alongside Senator Cornyn, the bipartisan Restoring the America Invents Act to ensure that the improvements we made to maintain high patent quality in the Leahy- Smith Act continue to work as Congress intended.

One of the challenges we confronted 10 years ago was that too many invalid patents were being issued. Instead of rewarding true innovation, these patents were being used to indefinitely extend monopolies, quash competition, and harm American consumers. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, brand-name drug companies would artificially extend a drug's patent term by patenting minor and insignificant changes to the underlying product. In other industries, entities that did not even make products would buy up tens of thousands of questionable patents covering simple and obvious actions like doing business on the internet, and they would sue thousands of small businesses that sold innovative products online.

One of the biggest accomplishments of the Leahy-Smith Act was that it empowered members of the public to challenge a patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--PTO--directly, providing a faster, less expensive, and more accessible avenue than litigation in the courts. These proceedings, called inter partes review

and post-grant review, have been wildly successful. According to one economic impact study, in one 5-year period, the Leahy-Smith Act saved the U.S. economy $2.64 billion in litigation costs alone, with more than $1 billion more in added personal income for Americans.

The Leahy-Smith Act's new proceedings have been used thousands of times and have had the aggregate impact of improving the quality of patents in our patent system. Unfortunately, over time and especially during the last administration, the PTO has limited the availability of these proceedings beyond what Congress intended. The PTO began routinely declining to hear challenges brought by members of the public, even when those challenges met timing requirements, met all other statutory criteria, and would have likely succeeded on the merits. In 2020, roughly one in five challenges was summarily denied proceedings by the PTO, undermining the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act.

Furthermore, whether a patent is valid should not depend on which party is in the White House or what individual is in charge of the agency. During the last administration, there was reported nontransparent meddling by the PTO Director in the work of the administrative patent judges who were making inter partes and post- grant review decisions. While the Supreme Court has recently held that the PTO Director should have the last word on patentability decisions, the public deserves to know when decisions are being made by dedicated civil servant judges and when they are being made by the politically appointed Director.

This bill fixes both problems and generally restores the Leahy-Smith Act to what Congress intended 10 years ago. It requires institution of inter partes review petitions that meet the statutory criteria and further encourages district courts to stay litigation when a parallel proceeding at the PTO will resolve the same validity issues. The stay factors in this bill are intended to put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a district court stay, preventing duplicative proceedings, and protecting patent owners from having to repeatedly defend their patents. The Restoring the America Invents Act further imposes transparency. The PTO Director must provide a separate written opinion when overriding part or all of a decision of administrative patent judges, and the PTO Director may not interfere in any way in the judges' initial decisionmaking. The public and any reviewing court should get to see the judges' decisions first, before any political actor might change the outcome.

This bill further clarifies other aspects of the Leahy-Smith Act. It clarifies the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act that the PTO can address, in inter partes review proceedings, certain clear instances of invalidity: double patenting, where applicants amass dozens of patents covering trivial iterations of an already-patented drug or other product; and admissions by the patent owner, in the patent itself, that someone else first came up with the invention. It clarifies that, when patent owners want to amend their patent claims during these post- issuance proceedings, the PTO must fully examine and vet those claims before issuing them. Likewise, the bill prohibits the PTO from issuing new claims to a patent that are essentially the same as existing claims, addressing the problem of patent thickets. And the Restoring the America Invents Act addresses multiple related proceedings pending at the PTO, specifying that the PTO must decide ahead of time how to proceed, to avoid conflicting outcomes from separate parts of the agency. This is in addition to the agency's ongoing obligation to make rules addressing common situations, such as under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 316(a)(4). The PTO should study frequent scenarios and determine whether new regulations are needed to address them.

Fundamentally, we need to address why the PTO issues invalid patents in the first place. But when these invalid patents have already been issued, they need to be addressed on the back end. On this 10th anniversary of the Leahy-Smith Act, I am proud to introduce this bill-- the Restoring the America Invents Act, that will restore the patent system so it can continue to accomplish its goals into the next decade and beyond, reinforcing high-quality patents while ensuring that poor- quality patents don't disrupt the American economy, costing Americans untold sums in unreasonable drug costs and overly inflated prices generally. I am excited to work alongside Senator Cornyn, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this important piece of legislation. The Founders envisioned the patent system to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. It is time to get back to the Founders' vision. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, Congress worked on a broad bipartisan basis to pass the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the biggest change to the United States patent laws in half a century. The patent system exists to create incentives that promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. Our whole economy depends on a working patent system that reinforces high-quality patents while ensuring that poor-quality patents cannot throw a wrench into the gears. Today, I am proud to introduce, alongside Senator Cornyn, the bipartisan Restoring the America Invents Act to ensure that the improvements we made to maintain high patent quality in the Leahy- Smith Act continue to work as Congress intended.

One of the challenges we confronted 10 years ago was that too many invalid patents were being issued. Instead of rewarding true innovation, these patents were being used to indefinitely extend monopolies, quash competition, and harm American consumers. For example, in the pharmaceutical industry, brand-name drug companies would artificially extend a drug's patent term by patenting minor and insignificant changes to the underlying product. In other industries, entities that did not even make products would buy up tens of thousands of questionable patents covering simple and obvious actions like doing business on the internet, and they would sue thousands of small businesses that sold innovative products online.

One of the biggest accomplishments of the Leahy-Smith Act was that it empowered members of the public to challenge a patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--PTO--directly, providing a faster, less expensive, and more accessible avenue than litigation in the courts. These proceedings, called inter partes review

and post-grant review, have been wildly successful. According to one economic impact study, in one 5-year period, the Leahy-Smith Act saved the U.S. economy $2.64 billion in litigation costs alone, with more than $1 billion more in added personal income for Americans.

The Leahy-Smith Act's new proceedings have been used thousands of times and have had the aggregate impact of improving the quality of patents in our patent system. Unfortunately, over time and especially during the last administration, the PTO has limited the availability of these proceedings beyond what Congress intended. The PTO began routinely declining to hear challenges brought by members of the public, even when those challenges met timing requirements, met all other statutory criteria, and would have likely succeeded on the merits. In 2020, roughly one in five challenges was summarily denied proceedings by the PTO, undermining the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act.

Furthermore, whether a patent is valid should not depend on which party is in the White House or what individual is in charge of the agency. During the last administration, there was reported nontransparent meddling by the PTO Director in the work of the administrative patent judges who were making inter partes and post- grant review decisions. While the Supreme Court has recently held that the PTO Director should have the last word on patentability decisions, the public deserves to know when decisions are being made by dedicated civil servant judges and when they are being made by the politically appointed Director.

This bill fixes both problems and generally restores the Leahy-Smith Act to what Congress intended 10 years ago. It requires institution of inter partes review petitions that meet the statutory criteria and further encourages district courts to stay litigation when a parallel proceeding at the PTO will resolve the same validity issues. The stay factors in this bill are intended to put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a district court stay, preventing duplicative proceedings, and protecting patent owners from having to repeatedly defend their patents. The Restoring the America Invents Act further imposes transparency. The PTO Director must provide a separate written opinion when overriding part or all of a decision of administrative patent judges, and the PTO Director may not interfere in any way in the judges' initial decisionmaking. The public and any reviewing court should get to see the judges' decisions first, before any political actor might change the outcome.

This bill further clarifies other aspects of the Leahy-Smith Act. It clarifies the intent of the Leahy-Smith Act that the PTO can address, in inter partes review proceedings, certain clear instances of invalidity: double patenting, where applicants amass dozens of patents covering trivial iterations of an already-patented drug or other product; and admissions by the patent owner, in the patent itself, that someone else first came up with the invention. It clarifies that, when patent owners want to amend their patent claims during these post- issuance proceedings, the PTO must fully examine and vet those claims before issuing them. Likewise, the bill prohibits the PTO from issuing new claims to a patent that are essentially the same as existing claims, addressing the problem of patent thickets. And the Restoring the America Invents Act addresses multiple related proceedings pending at the PTO, specifying that the PTO must decide ahead of time how to proceed, to avoid conflicting outcomes from separate parts of the agency. This is in addition to the agency's ongoing obligation to make rules addressing common situations, such as under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 316(a)(4). The PTO should study frequent scenarios and determine whether new regulations are needed to address them.

Fundamentally, we need to address why the PTO issues invalid patents in the first place. But when these invalid patents have already been issued, they need to be addressed on the back end. On this 10th anniversary of the Leahy-Smith Act, I am proud to introduce this bill-- the Restoring the America Invents Act, that will restore the patent system so it can continue to accomplish its goals into the next decade and beyond, reinforcing high-quality patents while ensuring that poor- quality patents don't disrupt the American economy, costing Americans untold sums in unreasonable drug costs and overly inflated prices generally. I am excited to work alongside Senator Cornyn, on a bipartisan basis, to pass this important piece of legislation. The Founders envisioned the patent system to promote the progress of science and the useful arts for the benefit of the public. It is time to get back to the Founders' vision. I hope the Senate will act quickly to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. President, one of the most ubiquitous technologies in the world today is the cell phone. According to Pew Research, a stunning 97 percent of Americans own some sort of mobile device. These devices are critical to our everyday lives, keeping us connected to one another while also serving as a gateway to entire sectors of our economy. Most Americans probably do not realize that they are holding a piece of Vermont in their hands every time they use their phone, but thanks to engineers at GlobalFoundries in Essex Junction, every cell phone in the world contains a chip manufactured in my home State.

Today, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of one of those engineers, Anthony ``Tony'' Stamper of Burlington and thank him for his contributions to the global innovation ecosystem from his corner of Vermont. Tony retired this summer from GlobalFoundries after 30 years of semiconductor engineering at the Essex facility. During Tony's celebrated career, he has been responsible for over 500 patented inventions, making him one of the world's top 100 most prolific inventors of all time.

Tony's leadership at GlobalFoundries has helped keep Vermont at the forefront of an ever-changing industry for over 70 years. In 2015, GlobalFoundries acquired IBM's Essex plant and their talented workforce. Thanks to Tony and Essex innovators like him, the Vermont GlobalFoundries facility leads the industry in manufacturing radio frequency power semiconductors.

While Tony has been a prolific inventor, U.S. Patent No. 6,310,300 is one of his most notable inventions. It solved the significant problem that the space between an insulation layer and a metal wire in a chip would degrade over time. He and his team members created a barrier layer that prevented degradation and allowed for much smaller metal wires on the chip, hence much smaller chips. The invention has been used in every chip produced in the last 20 years.

Tony is not only an accomplished inventor but has repeatedly led teams of engineers to utilize these inventions to create leading edge products for high-speed computing and mobile communications. Tony has been a dedicated mentor and teacher to a new generation of inventors, which led him to be nominated for the GlobalFoundries Diversity and Inclusion Inventorship Champion Award. He knows that collaboration is the key ingredient to successful innovation and has fostered that kind of environment in all of the invention teams he has led.

Tony's story shows that innovators can thrive anywhere in the country, not just in Silicon Valley. I know his fellow engineers, who have relied on his expertise over the years, will feel his absence and miss him dearly. As he embarks on this next exciting part of his life, I want to acknowledge Tony's work and thank him for his decades of service to Vermont and the industry. Marcelle and I join his friends at GlobalFoundries and wish him the best of luck.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize the incredible impact of Farm to School programs in Vermont and across the country and the great work of Vermont students, their schools, and their broader communities to improve access to healthy food options.

Since 2000, Vermont Food Education Every Day--FEED--has facilitated collaboration between schools and farms in Vermont, helping cafeterias to source meals locally and working with schools to institute curricular and cocurricular programming to educate students on local food systems. In 2010, I was proud to author the national Farm to School Program in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act. Since then, Vermont FEED and its Farm to School programs have become a national benchmark, with Farm to School programs now operating in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

A few weeks ago, I had the chance to speak with students from Harwood Union High School about their Farm to School program. For the past 15 years, Harwood has sourced its food locally and worked with Vermont FEED to develop opportunities for students, teachers, and staff to connect with local farmers beyond the cafeteria. For 5 years, Harwood's student-led Farm to School Club has coordinated educational programming, farm visits, and recipe competitions to help students and staff to experience local agriculture and the Vermont food system. Even through the COVID-19 pandemic, the Harwood Farm to School Club adapted its programming by shifting to virtual tours of local farms and at-home recipe contests.

As a truly Vermont-grown initiative, I have always been proud of the impressive adoption of Farm to School programs in communities nationwide. In April, I reintroduced the Farm to School Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would increase mandatory funding for the Farm to School Grant Program, ensuring that more schools, students, and farmers can take advantage of the program. And every year in the annual appropriations process, I have worked to increase discretionary funding for this popular program.

The Farm to School Club at Harwood serves as a testament to the importance of community engagement and the educational, economic, and nutritional benefits of Farm to School programs. The club was recently featured in an article published by Seven Days, and I ask unanimous consent that the article, ``Vermont Leads National Farm-to-School Movement, and Harwood Union High School Demonstrates How'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize the iconic Vermont Lake Monsters and their championship victory in the team's first season as members of the Futures Collegiate Baseball League. The Vermont Lake Monsters have seen various iterations over the years, and the determination, grit, and resilience of the team's players, coaches, staff, and fans are clear to all Vermonters and fans of the team.

The Lake Monsters began in 1994 with establishment of the Vermont Expos, a minor league baseball team affiliated with the Montreal Expos. When the Montreal Expos moved to

Washington, DC, and became the Nationals, the Vermont Expos changed their affiliation and their name, becoming the Lake Monsters in 2004 and affiliated with the Oakland Athletics. When Major League Baseball elected to shrink the minor league in 2019, the Lake Monsters sadly lost their affiliation. The loss of affiliation and the prospect of the closure of the Lake Monsters were devastating for the baseball community in Vermont.

Luckily, the Lake Monsters seized the opportunity to join the Futures Collegiate Baseball League, bringing the team back to Centennial Field in Burlington after a 2-year hiatus. Quickly, a new coaching staff was hired, and a roster filled. The Lake Monsters returned to Centennial Field on May 21, beginning a fantastic season run that brought them to a championship title on August 20.

Madam President, I know the speeches on the other side have gone a little longer than we expected, so I ask unanimous consent that I have time to complete my statement on the continuing resolution and national debt, which will be relatively short.

Madam President, today, the Senate will hold a vote to allow for the consideration of a temporary, stopgap measure to keep the government funded through December 3. The measure also provides $28 billion to help States ravaged by hurricanes and wildfires, like Hurricane Ida that recently tore through both the South and the Northeast. It provides critical assistance to Afghan refugees who fled the Taliban in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Finally, it will raise the debt ceiling to December 2022, including the $8 billion of debt that was incurred under President Trump.

Now, this shouldn't even be a close call. A government shutdown, if we had one, would needlessly cost the taxpayers billions of dollars-- billions of dollars--throughout our country. It would throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. A government default would be catastrophic. And that is all completely avoidable.

Yet, in the wake of the deadliest pandemic our country has seen in over 100 years and in the wake of natural disasters that have left a trail of death and destruction, the Republican leader and his party have decided to play a dangerous game of political brinksmanship. They have chosen--and it was a free choice on their part--to withhold their votes and prevent this bill from even being debated, threatening to shut down the U.S. Government--the U.S. Government--and have it default on its debts for the first time in the history of our great country.

I think that is the height of irresponsibility and callousness. It is also pretty hypocritical, because who pays the price for this political brinksmanship? Not the Republican leadership careening us towards disaster but the American people. A government shutdown has serious consequences for people just trying to make ends meet--support their families, live their lives.

Important food and nutrition programs--SNAP and WIC--would dry up in a matter of days, leaving millions of Americans in the wealthiest Nation on Earth without the help they need to put food on the table.

Also, I look at our Nation's schools that are struggling to reopen after a pandemic. Assistance to those schools would be delayed.

Then we look at our public health response to the mental health and substance abuse crisis. That would be severely hampered. And we cannot forget that we have an epidemic of drug overdoses in this country happening alongside the COVID pandemic.

The Small Business Administration that provides so much assistance to our Nation's small businesses--I believe, as I said many times on this floor, that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy-- would be forced to close the door.

More than half of the CDC would be furloughed just weeks after COVID deaths passed the grim toll of the 1918 pandemic in our own country and right before the start of the annual flu season.

These are just a few examples of the needless pain a government shutdown would cause.

As painful as a government shutdown would be, the consequences of defaulting on our debt for the first time, the first time in American history--that is even worse. The government of the wealthiest country in the world would not have funds to operate, meet its obligations, and pay its debts.

The last time we even toyed with such an irresponsible idea, the credit rating of the U.S. Government was downgraded for the first time in history, and, boy, that cost every American, directly or indirectly, money. It certainly hurt businesses all over our country.

If we were to default on our debt, then the women and men of the military would be handed IOUs in exchange for their bravery defending our country; Social Security checks that people earned and rely on to survive would stop; and the economy would take such a hit from which it would be hard to recover. The stock market would no doubt take a dive and then put millions of Americans' lifetime savings at risk. All of this as we are still recovering economically from the last 18 months of a global pandemic. And for what? So Republicans can make campaign commercials claiming they are the party of fiscal responsibility and do that with a straight face? Come on.

While President Trump was in office, U.S. debt increased by $8 trillion--$5\1/2\ trillion alone since we last raised the debt ceiling under President Trump. Incidentally, on that one, because it was so important to the country, there was bipartisan support for it.

Republicans' irresponsible tax cut for the wealthiest Americans is partly to blame, but Democrats still supported the Trump administration when it needed to raise the debt limit to account for the resulting bills because, if we did otherwise, everybody in this country was going to be hurt. It would have been irresponsible. It would have been dangerous for the U.S. economy.

The argument made by my colleagues that Republicans will not support raising the debt limit because they are not going to support the tax- and-spend policies of the Democrats--well, it is probably just as well that many people wear masks these days because it hides their smiles, because that argument does not hold water. The bills they falsely claim to be socialist bogeymen have not even passed Congress, let alone been signed into law, and they are going to be fully paid for. In 2017, my friend the Republican leader chose not to take that path when Republicans passed a massive tax cut--massive tax cut--for the wealthiest in this country, and that was not paid for.

Raising the debt limit is about meeting obligations our country has already made, and many of those obligations were made under President Trump. So playing political games with so much on the line--that is as irresponsible as it is irrational.

The bill before us today provides a path out of this made-in- Washington crisis--a path that could help all of our country. It can fund the government through December 3. It can raise the debt limit through December 2022. It could provide relief to communities all over our country that have been devastated by natural disasters and provide assistance for the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war.

So we really have an off-ramp from this crisis. I wish my colleagues would take it. Vote to advance this bill. Stave off an unnecessary crisis. Put the American people first, ahead of the party. That is actually, I think, a pretty simple choice.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

I have listened to this debate. I have also listened to my two dear friends from Louisiana speak about the disaster recovery, and I support disaster recovery for that. But I would just point out that on the proposal of the Republican leader, there would be no funds in the Treasury to pay for disaster recovery or for writing a check to Israel for the Iron Dome because it doesn't raise the debt limit.

And the substitute offered by my friend, introduced by my dear friend the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, does not solve the problem in front of us. It doesn't address the looming debt crisis facing our Nation, so it ignores that that exists.

Now, perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to wash their hands of this. They can. Much of that debt was incurred under a Republican President and under a Republican-controlled Senate and debt racked up by irresponsible tax cuts championed by the Republican Party for the wealthiest of Americans. And, yes, debt also occurred in a bipartisan fashion to deal with multiple crises that faced the Nation: Disaster assistance in the wake of hurricanes and wildfires keep getting worse every year because we don't combat climate change; COVID relief to keep this country from careening head first into economic disaster in the wake of a worldwide pandemic; historic levels of support and investment in our Nation's military and our men and women in uniform.

And to try to put this all at the feet of President Biden's Build Back Better agenda, a yet-unpassed reconciliation bill that is not the law--it hasn't been passed--is ridiculous. We are talking about debt we already incurred, not spending in the future.

And as my Republican colleagues know, we expect to fully pay for those investments. They may not like how we are going to offset the spending, but that is what the legislative process is for, to debate them. At least we are willing to pay for the bills we incur, which is more than could be said for the Republicans when they pushed a massive tax cut for the wealthy that was not paid for.

So let's stop this political brinksmanship. Let's secure the full faith and credit of the United States. Let's pass and increase the debt limit. To do otherwise puts our country and our economy at risk.

The substitute also scales back the assistance provided to Afghan refugees that was included in the House-passed bill.

Now, I was pleased when we reached bipartisan and bicameral agreement of $6.3 billion in the House-passed bill for much needed assistance for the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war. It is our duty; it is our obligation to support them.

But the substitute bill they are seeking to pass would shorten the length of time we provide assistance to thousands of Afghan women and men who fled to the United States to escape the wrath of the Taliban-- food, medical care, housing, basic things they need.

The bill also eliminates their right to obtain a REAL ID-compliant U.S. driver's license, yet we want them to go out and seek jobs.

How are they going to do that if they can't drive?

There shouldn't even be a debate. I could give a dozen more reasons, but I know people are ready to vote, so I object.

Mr. President, innovation is the lifeblood of the American economy. Thanks to our Founders, our Constitution anticipated the power of innovation and enshrined the basic idea that inventors should be given the incentive to do what they do best. The intellectual property clause has pushed the United States to be the longstanding global leader in innovation. Unfortunately, like too many other aspects of our society, the benefits of our innovation ecosystem have not been equally felt by Americans from all backgrounds. Today, I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Unleashing American Innovators Act, legislation that will make the patent system more accessible to Americans from all backgrounds and ensure that we do more to harness the untapped potential that exists in our country.

The Unleashing American Innovators Act builds on a legacy of broadening access to the patent system that I am particularly proud of. Ten years ago last week, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was the most significant update to our patent laws in nearly sixty years. Under the Leahy-Smith Act, we created a network of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) satellite offices around the country, bringing the PTO closer to where Americans actually innovate. We lowered fees for small businesses and created a new micro-entity status to lower fees even further. We also created a Patent Pro Bono program to help make legal resources more accessible to prospective inventors.

Now is the time to build on that success. The Unleashing American Innovators Act will further boost access to the patent system for underrepresented groups by explicitly directing existing PTO satellite offices to reach out to those who are underrepresented in in patent filings. A recent PTO study found that only twenty-two percent of U.S. patents list a woman as an inventor, even though women make up more than fifty percent of our population. Other studies have found that African Americans apply for patents at about half the rate of white Americans. We need to boost participation from inventors in rural areas like Vermont as well. Congress must do more to ensure that these and other underrepresented groups have the opportunity to participate in the system.

This bill will go further than our efforts ten years ago by requiring the PTO to study whether additional satellite offices are needed to increase participation in the system by women, people of color, military veterans, individual inventors, and any other groups that are currently underrepresented. It will also create a network of smaller community outreach offices, which will do the hard work of meeting prospective innovators where they live. These offices will partner with local community organizations to create community-based programs to educate Americans about the patent system and the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship. One such office will be located in northern New England so that it can help provide assistance to inventors in Vermont.

The Unleashing American Innovators Act will also establish a patentability assessment pilot program to assist first-time prospective inventors in determining whether an idea they have is likely to meet the threshold for patentability. It will give the PTO study the efficacy of the Patent Pro Bono Program to ensure that it is meeting the needs of underrepresented groups. Finally, it will further reduce application fees for small businesses and micro entities to reduce the costs of obtaining a patent.

By building on the structures we put in place in the Leahy-Smith Act ten years ago, we can ensure that the next generation of innovators in America reflect the full potential of our greatest natural resource-- the genius of the American people. I am proud to partner with Senator Tillis on this important piece of legislation. Expanding access to the patent system is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of maintaining American competitiveness and extending opportunity to all Americans, no matter their background, economic status, or location. I urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass this bill.

Mr. President. One of the fundamental underpinning of the patent system is transparency. In exchange for obtaining limited exclusive rights over their inventions, inventors disclose those inventions to the public, making transparent something that might otherwise remain secret. This transparency has tremendous benefits for our society by accelerating innovation, and the patent system as a whole helps to drive our economy. I have fought for many years to bring even more transparency into the patent system to further benefit the public, particularly by pushing for public disclosure of who actually owns a patent.

I am proud today to continue my partnership with Senator Tillis on intellectual property issues by introducing the bipartisan Pride in Patent Ownership Act, which requires patent owners to disclose their true identity when a patent is issued and when it is sold. I have long supported efforts in the Senate to achieve this goal and am excited to spearhead this effort now.

The American people--any of whom may be charged with infringing a given patent--have a right to know who owns a patent, which often changes hands after being issued to the initial inventor. Currently, to know who owns a patent, you have to engage in costly, time-consuming litigation to uncover that information. That simply shouldn't be the case. This bill helps to ensure a fair innovation system for small businesses, non-profits, and independent entrepreneurs who lack the resources to engage in costly litigation just to discover who possesses exclusive patent rights over a particular invention.

Transparency in patent ownership will also help us better understand how we are doing in the global competition for innovation. Currently, a whopping 52% of U.S. patents are issued to foreign applicants. But there is no systematic way to track ownership of U.S patents, including when patents are sold to foreign entities. And Chinese companies like Huawei--which often serve as proxies for the Chinese Communist Party-- are wielding patent portfolios of unknown size and scope in the United States.

Although we do not know what specific patents Huawei owns, in the last two years, it claims to have received an estimated $1.2 to $1.3 billion in patent licensing fees, and it is likely that most of those licensing fees come from Americans, based on U.S. patents. Furthermore, Huawei's patents cover fundamental technologies that will power our global future, such as the 50 mobile network. Its dominance over these cutting-edge technologies unquestionably advantages China and disadvantages America. It is imperative, both for our innovation economy and national security, to know who owns what patents and who is profiting.

Senator Tillis and I feel strongly about transparency in patent ownership. We initially proposed this bill as an amendment to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act earlier this Congress, and it was cleared by the Chair and Ranking Member of the full Judiciary Committee for inclusion in that bill's manager's package that ultimately failed. We have since received feedback from a wide spectrum of stakeholders, whose input we have worked hard to incorporate. As Chairman of the Senate's Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will continue to utilize all of our Subcommittee's tools along with Ranking Member Tillis to improve transparency around patent ownership. This bill is an essential next step in that process, and I urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass it.

Mr. President, few people have advocated for their home States as tirelessly and as effectively as Paul Costello has advocated for Vermont. After 21 years at the helm of the Vermont Council for Rural Development, Paul is retiring from his post, but I know he will never retire from his steadfast support for Vermont.

Paul has dedicated his entire career to fostering dialogue and embracing civic engagement to move our communities forward by bringing people together to inspire constructive change. His decades of service deserve special recognition. As I was as well, Paul was born and raised in Vermont. He grew up in Burlington and spent his undergraduate years at the University of Vermont. He later crossed the border to earn a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Montreal's McGill University. After completing his education, Paul lectured at his alma maters and at Saint Michael's College, and he served as an adviser at Sterling College in Craftsbury. He served for 5 years at Central Vermont Basic Adult Education, bringing literacy instruction to teens and adults in rural Vermont counties, before stepping into his longtime role as executive director at the Vermont Council on Rural Development--VCRD--in 2000.

The VCRD is truly a Vermont institution. The council does important work to help strengthen our rural communities. Known for their community visits, VCRD travels to towns throughout the State, where leaders from different sectors in Vermont listen to community members identify and acknowledge the challenges and opportunities they have before them. Sticking to Paul's dedication to a locally driven process, the visiting VCRD team reflects on the community discussion and offers guidance and potential resources to help the community meet their needs and goals. The VCRD has facilitated community visits in over 75 Vermont towns, and success from these events is seen in the form of new projects, grants, job creation, implementation of green energy, and so much more. These visits also have the effect of bringing our rural communities together and adding to the sense of unity that is already so strong in our small towns.

Through Paul's leadership, the VCRD has followed through with initiatives that have a lasting positive influence on our State as a whole. The council's Working Lands Enterprise Initiative has created hundreds of new jobs and generated more than $35 million for Vermont's economy. Under Paul's steady hand, the VCRD has also helped to improve and expand Vermont's digital economy, something which our State continues to expand to make ours a competitive economy, locally, regionally, and internationally.

Paul has lived by his mantra of ``listening, learning and helping,'' and the benefits can be seen across rural Vermont. He is a Vermonter through and through, and I am proud to call him a dear friend.

In honor of Paul's retirement and 21 years of exceptional service to Vermont, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Moved the Needle,'' by Steve Pappas, published in the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request, if I might----

Mr. President, I voted for the Rubio amendment because, like others here and in Cuba, I believe the Cuban people have as much right to access to the internet as anyone else. No government should prevent that access, or access to other sources of information, whether in Cuba or any other country. It is a universal right.

However, we have only the vaguest idea of what this amendment envisions, how it would be implemented without violating Cuba's territorial sovereignty, or how much it would cost. These are important questions that need answers.

I also note that the ``purpose'' of the amendment refers to the ``illegitimate communist Cuba regime.'' We are all familiar with that kind of rhetoric, and no one who believes in democracy would argue that the Cuban Government is legitimate, since its leaders were not elected in a free and fair multi-party election. Cuba is a one-party state where political opposition is not tolerated. Presumably, that is because the Cuban authorities are afraid that if they allowed political opposition parties to operate and a free and fair election were held, they might be voted out of office. In that sense, it is similar to pariah states like Iran and Syria, as well as U.S. allies and partners like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, neither of which permits opposition parties to operate and both of which engage in repression on a scale far larger than in Cuba.

I mention this because when it comes to principles of freedom of speech and association, we should at least try to be consistent. We have an economic embargo against Cuba, a tiny impoverished country that poses no credible threat to us, while we sell billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 terrorists, and the perpetrators of the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the disastrous war in Yemen. Saudi women are routinely discriminated against and imprisoned for acts that are protected by international law. The death penalty is carried out after sham trials.

None of this is to excuse or justify the actions of the Cuban Government. But it is interesting that many of those who focus their wrath on Cuba and support a policy of sweeping sanctions that is contributing to the misery of the Cuban people, support a very different approach toward other repressive governments when it suits them.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following rollcall votes be 10-minute rollcalls.

Madam President, once again, the Senate has proven that infrastructure is--as it always has been--

a bipartisan issue. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act offers a once-in-a-generation vision for America's infrastructure that is long overdue. This bipartisan infrastructure package makes the largest Federal investment in public transit, passenger rail, and bridges in more than 50 years.

Gone are the days when ``infrastructure'' has meant only bridges, highways, roads, and rail. While we need to invest in all of those areas, States like Vermont have infrastructure needs that also include climate resiliency, broadband, and renewable energy. That is exactly what this sweeping infrastructure package does.

The need for action in Vermont is clear. It is no secret that Vermont's infrastructure is aging. For decades, infrastructure in Vermont has suffered from a systemic lack of investment. Vermont has more than 2,700 bridges, 570 miles of freight railroad, 14,000 miles of public road, and an overall C grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers--ASCE--for the condition of these facilities. There are 66 bridges and over 666 miles of highway in the State that are in poor condition and need of repair. When it comes to stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, Vermont's report card is even more dismal, receiving a D+ grade from ASCE, an unacceptable reality as our communities continue to see the impacts of climate change and extreme weather. With the passage of this indispensable infrastructure package, that will all change. The State of Vermont is expected to receive over $1.5 billion in formulaic funds to repair highways and bridges and also install a network of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the State.

This desperately needed infrastructure package will help repair Vermont's roads and bridges, while also creating good-paying jobs. It provides significant investments and makes key programmatic changes to competitive discretionary infrastructure programs to make more these Federal revenue streams more accessible to small, rural States like Vermont.

The bill tackles the challenge of bringing broadband to the 19 million Americans, including 60,000 Vermont homes, in rural areas and other parts of the country that still lack access to quality, high- speed internet service. Not only will the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act buildout broadband in unserved areas, it permanently establishes the Emergency Broadband Benefit program created through the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act renaming it the Affordable Connectivity Benefit program. This program will provide a $30 per month voucher for low-income families to use toward any internet service plan of their choosing. It builds on the EBB program by expanding eligibility to help more low-income households, while also making it more sustainable for taxpayers.

Importantly, this package will also make significant down payments on climate resiliency initiatives to make Vermont more prepared to tackle the climate crisis, which has for too long been overlooked. Later this month will be the 10-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene. The devastation that occurred as the storm swept through our State showed that we must build back better to make our communities and critical infrastructure more resilient to extreme climate events like Tropical Storm Irene. And anyone who doubts the obvious link between our infrastructure needs and the climate crisis need only look at what happened to Texas's energy grid during the winter, or the devastating heat wave and drought taking place across the West this summer, where record temperatures have literally melted power lines and buckled roads.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience programs that are both pragmatic and forward-thinking. It includes record amounts of funding for weatherization assistance to reduce energy costs for low-income households, makes the largest investment in clean energy transmission and electric vehicle infrastructure in history, funds the electrification of thousands of school and transit buses across the country, and establishes new programs to overhaul our energy grid and rapidly accelerate development and deployment of battery storage technology.

The bill amounts to the single largest investment in clean drinking water in American history, including dedicated funding to replace lead service lines and address the PFAS contamination in our communities, and provides an additional $40 million for water quality projects in the Lake Champlain Basin. Taken together, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will leave every community in Vermont better prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century and help restore American leadership in the fight against climate change.

This significant legislative and stimulus package shows what can be done when we all work together in the Senate. This hasn't been easy, but it is important to Vermont and to our country, and thanks to these efforts, we will be able to repair roads and bridges, build electric charging stations, and build out broadband throughout the country. I hope that the Senate will pass this legislation today, and that the House of Representatives will soon consider this legislation, so President Biden can sign this historic infrastructure investment into law.