Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I applaud what the majority leader just said. We are here. A lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have rearranged schedules to be here. Let's go forth and do the country's business. If people have amendments they want, bring them up. Vote them up or vote them down. But let's just get on and do our work.

My Appropriations Committee staff worked very, very hard with both the Republican and Democratic side on the parts of this piece of legislation that required work from the Appropriations Committee. They have worked weekends, evenings--long, long days--drafting and redrafting and redrafting to make sure that people on both sides approved of what they wanted. Now, the American people expect us to vote. We are here. Let's vote.

I am happy to see Republican amendments or Democratic amendments come up. But it is one thing to talk about them on the news shows or on social media or trying to talk to the press in the halls and make sound bites; it is another thing to actually vote. Let's vote. Let's let people know where we stand. That is how the people in our State know where we stand.

Frankly, those who are afraid they may cast a vote that creates problems--but we are not here to cast only popular votes. I have cast more votes than all but one person in the history of this country. I have cast well over 16,000, almost 17,000 votes. I am sure I can go back over those votes and find some and say: Hmm, in retrospect, I might have voted the other way. But I voted.

What we are doing in not bringing this up and getting this done, we are trying to vote ``maybe.'' I don't know anybody in my State, Republican or Democrat, who elected Senators to say: We want you to vote ``maybe.'' No. We want you to vote.

It doesn't mean the people of my State will agree on every vote. I hope that they will agree on a lot of them. But I will represent my State. I will represent my conscience. But I will represent the Senate, and I will represent my oath of office. My oath of office is not to just sit here and do nothing but talk to the press and others; my oath of office is, I respect the Constitution, and I will vote. So let's hope they vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is alarming to know that voter suppression, which we have worked for decades to overcome, is not a ghost from our past. Suppression efforts are resurfacing--and surging-- in State legislatures across the country. Voter roll purging, out-of- the-way polling stations, and needless barriers to accessing the ballot box are underway and under consideration in jurisdictions across the country. It cannot stand.

Under the guise of election integrity, even in the wake of the most secure election in our Nation's history, proponents of these suppressive movements make no effort to hide their targets: African Americans, Latino Americans, college students, low-income voters, the list goes on.

Those who do not feel compelled to push against these voter suppression need a lesson in history. Thankfully, a July 27 column in the Washington Post by Norman Lear offers just that insight. Penned on the occasion of his 99th birthday, this decorated American war hero, one of our Nation's Greatest Generation, recalls the pain and betrayal felt by African-American war heroes who fought for democracy abroad, only to be excluded from it at home. He reminds us that it took decades of relentless activism to give millions of minority American voters and others a real voice by finally giving them a vote.

And most importantly, he urges all Americans to fight now to protect the right to vote, the very right that gives democracy its name. This is a call to action. Voting suppression cannot stand. From the For the People Act to my own bipartisan John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for another icon of the voting movement, this Senate has a real opportunity to stand for democracy. I will work in good faith with any member of the Senate, regardless of party, to find a path to passing and enacting that important bill bearing John Lewis's name. Efforts to restore the Voting Rights Act have always been bipartisan. There is no reason it shouldn't be bipartisan again now.

To echo Norman's words, the right to vote isn't about party or even politics. It is about our system of self-government and the notion that a government of, by, and for the people is worth protecting in a world where authoritarianism and tyranny are still forces we are reckoning with. I ask unanimous consent that Norman Lear's opinion piece, titled ``Norman Lear: As I begin my 100th year, I'm baffled that voting rights are still under attack,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, after decades of civil war, famine, and political instability, after millions were killed and millions more became refugees, many hoped that independence and a peace agreement in South Sudan would usher in a period of stability and progress.

Some South Sudanese refugees who had resettled in the United States returned to South Sudan to aid in rebuilding. Unfortunately, peace was fleeting and the past decade of independence has been marred by continued violent ethnic conflict, widespread hunger, and ongoing disputes between rival politicians that have cared more about their own ambitions than the South Sudanese people. Despite several power sharing agreements, promises of unity and reconciliation, and a goal to seat a full Parliament in 2020, the rivalry between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar has stoked tensions between the Dinka and Nuer ethnic groups and neglected public infrastructure and basic services. On August 2, almost a year past the promised deadline, an incomplete Parliament was sworn into office, with 62 members absent due to disagreements over the power-sharing arrangement.

The people of South Sudan cannot wait another decade for progress. They cannot wait for politicians to argue over control while their children go hungry, while they sink deeper into poverty, while they worry that the next outbreak of violent conflict might send them fleeing for their lives. Recently, the People's Coalition for Civil Action launched an effort to mobilize all South Sudanese people, whether living within the country or abroad, and demand political change. In a declaration, they said they ``have had enough of war, enough of corruption, enough of insecurity, enough of economic hardships, enough of public neglect and leadership failure.'' They admonished the administration of President Salva Kiir, which has completely failed to fulfill its most basic responsibilities to provide security and stability for its citizens.

Just days later, the South Sudanese National Security Service--NSS-- arrested two of the leaders of the movement, Augustino Ting Mayai and a former State Governor, Kuel Aguer Kuel, for signing the declaration. The NSS shut down the Sudd Institute, a think tank involved in the creation of the People's Coalition for Civil Action, and issued arrest warrants for Rajab Mohandis and Abraham Awolich, two other signatories of the declaration, who have gone into hiding. This suppression of dissent is not new in South Sudan. Weak and paranoid new leaders often resort to projecting strength by arresting civil society leaders, journalists, and political rivals, and over the years, this has become President Kiir's trademark. This most recent transparent attempt to silence his own citizens for nothing more than demanding that he keep his promises and do his duty has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world.

President Kiir may not know that Abraham Awolich was one of the now- famous Lost Boys, who as a child survived the civil war that killed most of

his family, endured malnutrition, and escaped attacks by rebel groups seeking child soldiers, only to find himself alone in a refugee camp. He eventually was resettled in the United States, arriving in Vermont in 2001, graduating from the University of Vermont, becoming an American citizen, and going on to get his master's degree. He was my constituent for many years, and I am very proud of the work he did as a member of the South Sudanese diasporic community who returned to his native country to help rebuild. President Kiir may not have known that Abraham was my constituent or that I will always consider him my constituent. So I call upon him now to immediately release Kuel Aguer Kuel and Augustino Ting Mayai, to cancel the arrest warrants for Rajab Mohandis and Abraham Awolich, and end the repression of civil society leaders, journalists, and dissidents.

I want to read into the Record a quote from Abraham Awolich's statement at the launch of their movement. What he said is instructive to every citizen of every democracy around the world. He said, ``In the last 10 years the people of South Sudan have been dormant, they have not been challenging the status quo in the Republic of South Sudan and we cannot expect to have a democratic country without active citizenship.''

President Kiir has an opportunity now, with a new Parliament seated and the seeds for an active and engaged citizenry sown, to show true leadership. He has no time to waste, or he will risk wasting his country's future and losing the support of the United States.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that last 15-minute vote take?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following rollcall votes be 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. President, I know a lot of negotiations have been going on in the bill that is soon to be before us, and I appreciate the Senators from both parties who have done that, but sometimes we forget that there are hundreds of other people who work on it.

I know the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have been working extremely hard. I think of people--Chuck Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, and others in our committee--who have given up weekends, evenings. They were working and briefing me until last evening on the work they were doing because we can say what we want to do, but then you have got to write it down.

The same thing happened with the bill that, fortunately, passed unanimously here to reimburse our National Guard, to pay the backpay and other necessities of the Capitol Police, to try to repair the damage and improve the situation after what happened--the terrible things that happened on January 6--to go for higher protections of COVID for everybody who works here in the Capitol: the staff, professionals, everybody. This is from those who clean the Capitol to those who guard the Capitol; they all need this kind of protection.

And with the help of Jeanne Shaheen and others, we were able to put in additional money and changes in the law to help us bring translators back from Afghanistan, people who had worked and put their lives on the line for our military, and bring them to safety.

As soon as, first, President Trump and then President Biden said we are leaving, their lives and the lives of their families were greatly endangered by the Taliban, and now they are back.

But I mention that because sometimes I might say, only half in jest, that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staffs, but we are very fortunate to have some of the brightest women and men anywhere in the staffs of the Senators in both parties, and certainly in those who administer the Senate, including those who are presently sitting and preparing to help us on everything from points of order to making sure the right papers are done and that the votes are counted properly.

I see all of these people working hard here today when I came into the Capitol, everybody from those who have to follow and make a copy of what I say on the floor, on through. I didn't hear anybody say: Boy, I wish I wasn't here.

I am sure just about everybody had other plans for Saturday and Sunday instead of being here. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who

have come here who are helping us perform our duties. And I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will take note of that, try to bring these things to a conclusion--of course, have whatever votes we need--but keep in mind that there are hundreds, thousands of people working in the Capitol whose schedules are ofttimes disrupted because of our schedules.

They do it. They help us. They support us. We could not do our job without them. And I hope we will take note of that and help them in reaching a conclusion or at least give some finality to what we are doing.

I am willing to stay here whatever hours are necessary, but I am hoping that we will know what those hours are so that the hundreds, even thousands of other people who work here in the Capitol can go about planning for themselves, their families, their friends, whatever need be.

So I would note that both the distinguished Presiding Officer is here, and I am here in the Senate. I am not holding up anything because no other Senator is seeking recognition, but I hope this may be coming to a conclusion.

With that, I will yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this has been a week. I spoke earlier about the loss of my good friend Senator Mike Enzi, as many other Senators have, out of respect, from both sides of the aisle.

Yesterday, another good friend, Senator Carl Levin, left us. And, again, there will be respect shown, I am sure, by both Republicans and Democrats because he was of the school that worked with both.

I had the privilege of being here throughout his decades of service, and he epitomized what the Senate should be. He was a person of complete integrity; a person who knew the issues, whatever they were, that he was going to be discussing and working on. He knew them as well as anybody else. But everybody knew, Republican or Democrat, that they could take his word for anything.

And I couldn't help but think last night, if more Senators had listened to him at the time of the major Iraq war, supposedly because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which of course he did not; when we had been told by many in the administration they had evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when they did not; and because he actually took the time to read the intelligence--he was one of three Senators, another one being the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a conservative Democrat from Florida--they would come to us and tell us specifically what parts of the intelligence we should read, as did a third Senator.

Those who actually took the time to read it, as, of course, Senator Levin did, voted against the war. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. They knew that this would ultimately put America at risk. And, unfortunately, by having to transfer forces from Afghanistan that were closing in on the Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden and his followers, the people who had organized 9/11 and the strike against us, he was able to escape and stayed loose for years, until captured during the Obama administration.

But Carl Levin I remember saying: Please, do your due diligence.

He and Vice Chairman Bob Graham and a third Senator kept saying: Read the intelligence.

Those who did voted no.

But I could give hundreds of other times when we would gather around Carl Levin, Republicans and Democrats alike, and say: What do you think of this issue? What did you study?

And we would get it, chapter and verse. It was always accurate.

He was what I considered a Senator's Senator. He was the type of Senator I hoped to be able to serve with when I first came to the U.S. Senate.

I remember sitting in the Gallery up there as a young law student at Georgetown Law School. Between classes or exams, I would come here just to watch the U.S. Senate, and I would see so many giants in both parties speaking, and I thought how wonderful it would be to serve in such a body. When Carl Levin was here, that was the example--his brother in the House of Representatives; he in the Senate.

And I remember Carl, with his sense of humor, speaking of his mother, whom I also got to meet, when she was asked by the press: What do you think about one son in the U.S. House of Representatives and the other in the U.S. Senate? Does that make you proud?

And she said: Well, if it is what makes them happy, I think that is good.

And Carl would just say that with his own self-deprecating sense of humor.

I hope Senators will look at his life and realize, whichever party you belonged to, this is a person you could follow. When he did lead the Armed Services Committee, he listened to everybody in this body, from the right to the left, and studiously considered their concerns.

I would not interrupt the Senate here, but I mentioned him because this is what a Senator should be, as I said earlier with Senator Mike Enzi. Losing two people I admired, two close friends, two people who worked to make the Senate better--let us all pause and try and do the same.

I appreciate Senators coming together yesterday in the legislation that Senator Shelby and I put forward to help our Afghan translators who worked with us, to bring them to safety, and to help our Capitol Police and those who work around the Capitol to be able to recover from January 6. And it gave me hope that they came together by a 98-to-0 vote and passed that legislation.

Let's take a break, and let's think of Carl Levin. Let's try and do more of that.

I think of my days as a young student looking down on this body, and I look at it now as the dean of the Senate. I have seen the good and the bad. I prefer the good.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows from all his involvement and the negotiations that have been going on, we do have an emergency security supplemental issue before us. So I am speaking now to urge that the Senate take up and pass H.R. 3237, which is the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021, which the House sent over, and we add a Leahy-Shelby substitute amendment.

Let me describe a little bit for my colleagues what the Leahy-Shelby substitute amendment is. It is the result of bipartisan compromise between myself and Vice Chairman Shelby.

We have been working on this for weeks and weekends. Our staff has been working late into the night. And I want to thank Senator Shelby both for his hard work and his friendship.

This $2.1 billion package is designed to address the aftermath of the violent insurrection that took place on January 6, is designed to heal the remaining scars of the COVID pandemic on the Capitol Complex, and provide the resources we need to ensure the safety of our Afghan partners as we conclude our mission in that country.

Let me tell you why there is urgency in this. If we don't act, then the Capitol Police will deplete salaries funding in literally a matter of weeks. The National Guard all over the country will be forced to cancel needed training to carry on their mission at home and abroad. We all remember when we went out speaking to members of the National Guard from most of our States who were here to help with the security of the Capitol in January.

So if we did nothing, that would be sort of a security crisis entirely of our own making in what it would do to the Capitol Police and what it would do to our National Guard.

But by acting, we prevent that crisis. We provide the Capitol Police with $70.7 million in resources for overtime pay, retention bonuses, mental health services, and new equipment and training.

Let me tell you why this is necessary. Since January 6, 73 officers have left the Capitol Police, and that is not sustainable. We have to make a strong statement of support for those officers who defended this building, and all it stands for, on that terrible day.

This week, the Nation is hearing the testimony of the officers who fought the violent insurrectionist mob on that day, and their trauma is real. Anybody watching their testimony knows it cannot be brushed aside.

We also provide $521 million to fully fund the cost of the National Guard deployment to Capitol Hill. From around the country, including my own State of Vermont, the women and men of the National Guard responded without hesitation to our call for help. We shouldn't hesitate to reimburse those costs.

I remember during daylight hours and also late at night going around thanking members of the National Guard, not just from my State but from all the other States, for what they were doing. But I think it takes a little bit more than just a thank-you. We basically told them we will pay for this. Well, now we will.

But that is not all we need to do. We need to secure the Capitol Complex. On January 6, the shattered windows and doors were broadcast to the world, laying bare that our seat of democracy is not some impenetrable fortress. We can't just replace the windows, fix the doors, and say: OK. Everything is fixed. We need to secure the entire complex, including the office buildings where thousands of public servants work and countless constituents visit.

So our bill provides $300 million to harden accessible windows and doors to the Capitol Building and the Senate and House Office Buildings and to install new security cameras around the complex.

Our bill also fulfills our responsibility to support the dedicated public servants who worked overtime, way overtime, to clean up the mess left by a violent mob and diligently worked to ensure our safety during the darkest hours of the pandemic.

We must support those who supported us. That is not just a political or economic responsibility; that is a moral responsibility. That means paying for the costs we have incurred protecting staff, the Members, the entire Capitol community from COVID, including cleaning costs and personal protective equipment, none of which has been paid for. Until now, we covered the costs by robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is unsustainable.

Our bill addresses this by providing $42.1 million to reimburse the costs of cleaning, personal protective equipment, telework equipment, and the salaries of employees and contractors who would have been laid off in the height of the pandemic.

Finally, in the Leahy-Shelby legislation, we stand with the brave Afghans who supported our mission through two decades of war. By now, we have all seen the gruesome reports of men and women being summarily executed in the street, sometimes in front of their families. Why? Because they had supported us. And that slaughter is only going to escalate.

We have to provide resources for additional special immigrant visas, SIVs, for translators and other Afghans who worked with Americans over the past two decades, as well as for additional humanitarian relief to Afghan refugees.

Our bill does just that. It provides $1.125 billion to fulfill our commitment to those brave Afghans.

Let me tell you what the funds will do. They will support emergency transportation, housing, and other essential services to our Afghan partners coming to the United States under special immigrant visas, and humanitarian aid for the inevitable flood of Afghans fleeing to neighboring countries. The United Nations has estimated that could swell to 500,000 refugees in just the next few months.

We have also increased the number of Afghan special immigrant visas by 8,000. We have made improvements to strengthen the program, expand the reach of its protections.

The reason we have this in the Leahy-Shelby bill is that there is bipartisan understanding that this is an urgent need, and we have, as the United States of America, a moral responsibility to address it immediately.

Now, some have said we should just do the bare minimum. Some will say: Let's take care of the most pressing needs now and work on this maybe later on--maybe. But I have served in the U.S. Senate long enough to know that a promise to do something later is no promise at all. I cannot accept a piecemeal approach to the urgent security needs facing our Nation. They are facing us today, not sometime when we may think about it a few months or years from now.

Vice Chairman Shelby has a proven track record of reaching bipartisan compromise. I would note that this agreement does not include everything I want. I am sure it includes some items that he would have preferred to not be included. But it is a strong bipartisan bill. We have come together to give the best piece of legislation possible for the U.S. Senate.

A pandemic happened. A violent insurrection happened. And the President announced the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The needs are urgent. We must address them now.

So I am urging all Senators to not only support the bill but actually to pass the bill today because it still has to go back to the House of Representatives this week. There is no time. There is no time left. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a necessary piece of legislation, and some would say, at least on the Afghan part, inevitable. Both President Trump and President Biden said they wanted to withdraw our troops this year. Well, they are withdrawing. Now we have to fulfill our responsibility.

Mr. President, I know that Senator Shelby will be on the floor to speak in a few moments, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that Senator Shelby be recognized when we come out of the quorum call.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment and Senator Shelby's be called up.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act or any applicable budget points of order for purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

I understand we are going to have a voice vote on the Cotton amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 2124

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues for joining both myself and Senator Shelby on the Leahy-Shelby amendment. There have been weeks of negotiation, most of it quiet but weeks of negotiation going on in this.

I am sure I can speak for both Senator Shelby and myself. We each might not have gotten everything that we wanted, but on this specific issue, we got what the country needed. We got the improvements for the security of our Capitol, the symbol of our democracy. We showed what we can do to help take care of the damage to the Capitol Police, what we can do to help those who work so hard here in the Capitol, the men and women throughout the Capitol and Capitol Complex facing the threat of

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further remarks of mine, that I be able to add them to the Record, including so many of the people who needed and should have been thanked for what they have done, that they be added in the Record along with my earlier statement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

Mr. President, I always consider it a privilege to open the U.S. Senate, be here for the pledge of allegiance, be here for the Chaplain's prayer. But I must admit this morning that I felt such a sense of sorrow that we were praying for my good friend Mike Enzi, whom I had the privilege to serve with during all the time he was in the U.S. Senate.

We used to spend time together. We would talk to each other on votes coming up. He was the old ``old school.'' He always kept his word; he knew I would mine. We worked on many things.

I did remember, through the tears this morning as I heard the news, of one day when I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Enzi came to me and he said: You know, I know you are Italian American--which I am on my mother's side--and I am Italian American. And I have this nominee. He is one of us. He is Italian American. Please push him through.

Well, the nominee backed by Senator Enzi was, of course, well qualified anyway. We put him on the agenda and passed him.

A few weeks later, he came up to me, and he said: I have got another nominee.

I said: How many Italian Americans do you have in Wyoming?

He said: Oh, this is one of us. He is Irish.

I said: Mike, what do you mean ``he is Irish''? You are Italian.

He said: No, I am just like you, except in reverse.

He had an Italian father and an Irish mother. I had an Irish father and Italian mother.

So he said: He is one of us; you have got to get him through--of course, as only Mike could, in that gentle humor of his.

And we laughed. And, of course, he was well qualified, and we put the nominee through.

A couple of weeks later, he comes up to me on something else. I said: Do you have another nominee?

He said: No, but I am looking for a French Canadian, and now I am going to call your wife Marcelle and say: This is one of us. We have got to get him through.

But I tell that story only because it was typical of him. He would quietly meet with Senators on both sides of the aisle. We were different in our political philosophy, but he always worked at finding a way we could come together. And countless times he would bring Democrats and Republicans together. It was never done with any fanfare. He didn't seek publicity. He wasn't running to the press to say: Look what I did; look what I accomplished. But he had the thankfulness of all of us.

He and his wife Diana and Marcelle and I have spent so many times together, and you felt this was somebody you could be having a backyard barbecue with, somebody you could just be

sitting together and watching a sporting event with or anything else.

I don't know the full details of the tragic accident he had, but I can almost see Mike out on his bicycle, in his beautiful State, and enjoying the day. I do mourn his passage, not only as a friend but as somebody who represented what I feel the Senate has been and should be again. So I will yield the floor and only say I miss Mike Enzi.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will get right to the point: the very definition of democracy in the United States is under attack. You see it in State legislatures across the country. Powerful partisans advancing bill after bill to restrict voters' access to the ballot box. It flies in the face of the very evolution of progress.

Gone are the days when voters rode on horseback or walked for miles to cast their ballot. Technological advances, commonsense understandings of the daily lives of hard-working Americans--all these things and more recommend an open, accessible, expanded, and secure election process. Yet instead of seizing these opportunities to ensure every voice, every vote counts, partisan efforts are afoot to take us back--back to a time when senseless barriers were erected to block the votes of very specific communities.

The U.S. Senate--the democratically elected U.S. Senate--should not stand for such an assault on our democracy. And every Senator who swears the oath of office should stand up and stand against this bitter attack on the ballot box.

Protecting the right to vote has long been bipartisan. I stood alongside my dear friend, himself a soldier in the war against voter oppression, John Lewis, when we reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006. And it was with a heavy--but hopeful--heart that I reintroduced the Voting Rights Advancement Act last year to bear his name. I will soon do so again. This bipartisan legislation should advance, and quickly.

Now is the time for every American--regardless of party, regardless of politics--to stand in defense of our democracy. To stand for what is right, and to stand with the clear arc of history--the arc that bends toward justice, toward inclusion, towards equality. With one loud and clear voice, we should reject erosions of voter protections. And we should do so now.

Vermont has always been at the forefront of expanding access to the ballot, and one of our State's leaders in that fight has been Secretary of State Jim Condos. I ask unanimous consent that a column by Secretary Condos, published in the July 14 edition of The Times Argus, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since the start of the pandemic, the State of Vermont, at every level of its leadership, has taken heroic efforts to mitigate spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus. With strong leadership from Gov. Phil Scott, and bolstered by a firm belief in scientific facts, the State nearly halted altogether the spread of COVID-19, minimized the number of Vermonters lost to the disease, and now leads the Nation in the percentage of residents who have received at least one vaccine shot. As we look to hopefully soon be on the other side of this pandemic, I strongly believe that there are invaluable lessons to be learned from Vermont's response, so that we are better prepared for the days, months, and years ahead.

Aisha K. Jha's ``Vermont's and South Dakota's COVID Infection Rates are Remarkably Similar--But their Outcomes are Not'' article published in the Washington Post on July 13, 2021, reviews the important steps Vermont took to not only protect the health of its residents but also ensure that minimal economic damage was done given

the circumstances. A strong public health approach, led by Vermont Health Commissioner Mark Levine, always communicated scientific evidence clearly and thoughtfully. This fostered a sense of trust and community that has now resulted in Vermont nearing herd immunity and able to fully reopen local businesses for everyone to enjoy.

I am so proud of every Vermonter who stepped up to do their part to not only protect themselves, but their families, friends, and neighbors. This is truly the Vermont way. I know that if all States followed Vermont's example, and continued to vaccinate all residents, we would be able to put this dark chapter of American history in our rearview mirror.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article mentioned above, about the important work in Vermont to protect our State from the COVID-19 pandemic.