Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Frank Zullo, an extraordinary public servant who passed away on May 26, 2018, at the age of 85.

Born and raised in Norwalk, CT, Frank started his law practice in 1957 in his hometown. The next year, the Norwalk Junior Chamber of Commerce named him ``Young Man of the Year.'' He was elected mayor of Norwalk in 1965. At only 33 years old, Frank was the youngest mayor in the city's history, in addition to being their first Italian-American mayor.

Throughout his three terms, Frank worked closely with the people of Norwalk, listening to their concerns and striving to initiate positive change. Against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, the Vietnam war, and the Cold War, Frank faced local challenges head on and diligently united his constituents. Frank was known for his compassion and did everything he could to make Norwalk a welcoming city for all of its residents.

Frank became a symbol of the city, and his leadership ushered in a new era of participation in Connecticut politics, in which residents saw the difference they could make as part of his administration. His legacy is enduring, and for the rest of his lifetime, Frank was often called upon for guidance by his successors, who recognized his remarkable accomplishments. He also helped establish the Connecticut Conference of Mayors and served on the executive board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors as a trustee and member.

Admired for his lively spirit and giving personality, Frank committed himself to serving Norwalk in a multitude of ways, both when he was mayor and when he returned to practicing law. One notable example includes his role as chair of the Norwalk-Wilton Chapter of the American Red Cross Board's Water Safety Program, in which he taught hundreds of young people lifeguarding and swimming skills. He also chaired the Board of Trustees of Norwalk Hospital and the University of Bridgeport, chaired the First Taxing District Water Department, and served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk.

Following Frank's passing, a memorial rose garden was constructed in his honor by the First Taxing District of the City of Norwalk. Though the celebratory programs were canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Frank N. Zullo Memorial Rose Garden stands as a fitting tribute to a man

who spent his lifetime bettering the city.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Albert Bros., Inc., as it celebrates 125 years of outstanding industry in Connecticut.

The company began with Nathan and Lewis Albert peddling scrap metal across Connecticut upon their arrival in Waterbury from Lithuania. In 1895, the Alberts, demonstrating the entrepreneurial skill and energy for which our Nation is known, opened their own scrap yard, establishing Albert Bros., Inc.

Over the past century and a quarter, Albert Bros. has grown into one of New England's foremost scrap metal recyclers and processors, using Connecticut ingenuity to turn waste products into productive materials. Their exemplary work has earned them accolades from the State of Connecticut and recognition on an international scale.

Though they reached their 125th anniversary during the COVID-19 pandemic and were unable to celebrate, Albert Bros. has marked this milestone by relocating their offices and significant warehouse and processing facilities to a new location. In September of this year, they officially moved to the site of the old Waterbury Rolling Mills, giving their plant an impressive new setup as they continue to serve the people of Connecticut and beyond.

Albert Bros. is now in its fourth generation of family ownership and remains unstintingly committed to innovation, thoughtful expansion, and workplace safety. I had the privilege of visiting the company and speaking with a number of employees, and I can attest firsthand to their remarkable, dedicated work ethic.

As Albert Bros. celebrates its anniversary and establishes its new plant, I applaud the company on its extraordinary record of accomplishment. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Albert Bros., Inc, on over 125 years of excellence.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for that very powerful explanation for why we are here today, and I thank Senator Klobuchar for her incredibly important and impactful leadership in this area as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust of the Judiciary Committee. She has led informative and profoundly significant hearings, and now she has brought to the floor, with many of us as cosponsors, along with Senator Grassley, this major piece of legislation, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.

I will just begin by restating what a number of my colleagues have said. These complaints about inflation are really totally misplaced as applied to the Build Back Better legislation. In fact, the Build Back Better legislation will drive down costs for Americans, make childcare affordable and accessible, make preschool free and universal for all Americans, and lower the cost of prescription drugs--for the first time, a major piece of legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and lower costs, as well, for energy and housing. The ripple effects of these major steps in reducing costs for everyday Americans will be profound and enduring.

To my colleagues who say on the floor today that this bill is changing or complex, yes, it is complex because it is big and impactful in lowering costs. And, yes, we have listened to Americans in making improvements to the bill, and we will continue to listen to Americans.

Now, inflation also is tied to the bill that is before us, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. Competition is the lifeblood of our economy. Competition is the way that prices are kept competitive in benefits to consumers. Competition among businesses is the key.

Today, in our digital marketplaces, Big Tech in effect controls access to consumers.

Go back to an earlier time in our country's history. After the Civil War, we saw railroad tycoons use their monopolies to favor big, repeat businesses, with costs to average Americans. They imposed discriminatory terms on farmers and other businesses that needed access to the rails in order to get their products to the public. The American people wanted to do something about it. Congress did. In 1887, Congress responded by passing the Interstate Commerce Act, which stopped railroad monopolies from offering less favorable terms to smaller businesses and farmers.

The analogy is not completely exact because we are dealing now with Big Tech, but the principle is the same. Think of it as the big tech companies controlling the means of delivery of goods and services. They are the modern-day railroads. In our digital markets, they are dominant gatekeepers with total control of essential online platforms. But, even worse, they have another role as marketers of their own products on those platforms. In other words, big tech companies own the railroads of our digital economy, but they also compete with the economies relying on those railroads to get their products to consumers.

Just a couple of weeks ago, in the Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, which I chair, a whistleblower from Facebook described, to the disgust and dismay of most Americans, how Big Tech is pushing disruptive and toxic content on children and how they know it and profit from it and, in fact, know from their own research and studies what the effects are of online bullying and eating disorders and other harms that are conveyed.

Americans asked me, as they did many of my colleagues: What are you going to do about it?

There are solutions--on privacy, on tools for parents, on other means of holding Big Tech accountable--and one of them is to make sure that antitrust laws are enforced and approved so that there are competing apps that offer safer means of reaching children and other consumers.

Now, the app market is a place where these harms to consumers and competition are starker than anywhere else. The mobile app market has grown into a significant part of the digital economy. In 2020 alone, U.S. consumers spent nearly $33 billion in mobile app stores, downloading 13.4 billion apps.

We are all dependent on our phones as our gateway to our work, our social lives, and education. But two companies, Apple and Google, dictate the terms of this important market. They do it exclusively. Yet they have those dual roles: first as gatekeepers of the dominant mobile operating systems and their app stores; and, second, as participants on those app stores.

And as with the railroad tycoons, Apple and Google abuse that gatekeeper status to preference themselves and their business partners, driving up their own profits--and consumers' costs--while shutting down competition and stifling innovation. Higher costs, less innovation means consumers are deprived of the benefits of competition.

As with the railroads, Congress needs to ensure that new entrants and smaller companies can compete on fair terms. Today's digital tycoons need new rules of the road that will protect other businesses, like laws protected small farmers and small businesses

against the railroad tycoons. And these rules of the road need to address the anti-competitive discrimination that is self-preferencing across our app economy.

I have heard from app developers who have been unable to tell their own customers about lower prices, unable to inform their own customers about better prices from app developers whose ideas have been co-opted by Apple and Google under their ``kill'' or ``copy'' strategy and who are knee-capped by the onerous 30-percent rent fees that are charged to them. And if app developers don't like the term, there is simply nowhere else for them to go.

So I am indebted to Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blackburn for coauthoring another bill with me. In August, I was proud to introduce the Open App Markets Act, which would address anti-competitive discrimination and self-preferencing.

I believe that it is critical that we pass that bill, as well as this one, to set fair, clear, and enforceable rules to protect competition and consumers within the app market.

Like in the app market, there are central gatekeepers in our digital markets with enormous power and deep conflicts of interest. Amazon alone, for example, controls as much as 70 percent of all United States online marketplace sales. If you are a third-party business: Amazon can stop you from contacting your own consumers; Amazon can rank its own products ahead of you in search; Amazon can make sure that when a consumer asks Alexa to buy a particular product, the consumer receives Amazon products; Amazon can use its asymmetric access to data to engage in a copy and kill strategy. It can replicate your successful products, make the products themselves--often more cheaply, given their massive size--and then rank the product at the top of the search bar. In effect, they can make it impossible for you to compete on product quality or price.

We have a rare opportunity to improve this abuse of power. We should seize that opportunity with bipartisan support and help protect American consumers and businesses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Alan Kalter, a warm, generous man and friend to many. Alan passed away on October 4, 2021, at the age of 78.

Alan was born in 1943 in Brooklyn, NY. He graduated from what was then Hobart College in 1964, after which he attended the New York University School of Law. His radio work began while he was still an undergraduate, when he served as an announcer for WGVA in Geneva, NY.

While working as a high school English teacher, Alan furthered his passion for the radio through weekend gigs. Three years later, he was hired at WHN Radio in New York, where he was a newsman for 4 years. Following this, Alan transitioned into commercials and then game shows. His work as an announcer earned him acclaim, and his voice was recognizable to people across the country.

In 1995, Alan joined the Late Show with David Letterman, following the retirement of Bill Wendell. A dynamic addition who was known for his open-minded willingness to try any stunt or suggestion, Alan quickly became beloved by staff and audience members alike. He was known for his calming, affable presence and the enthusiasm with which he approached every task before him.

When not on air, Alan lived quietly in Stamford, CT, where he resided for over four decades. I had the distinct privilege of having Alan as a friend, and I can attest firsthand to his caring and compassion.

Alan's great humor and thoughtful spirit touched countless lives. He brightened the days of both friends and strangers without a second thought. Alan was also guided by his deeply rooted values and dedicated himself to giving back to his community.

My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Alan's family during this difficult time, especially his wife, Peggy, his two daughters, and his five grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Alan provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, we have reached a really important point in our relationship with one of our great allies in the world. The United States has before it the challenge--and this Congress can meet that challenge--for $1 billion of supplemental security assistance to replenish Israel's Iron Dome system.

That funding is provided in H.R. 5323, the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, passed by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming--and I emphasize ``overwhelming''--bipartisan support.

I want to thank my Connecticut colleague Rosa DeLauro of New Haven for her leadership and all of the Members of the House of Representatives for their vision and courage in separating this measure and passing it. And we should do so now, as quickly as possible.

All of us know that the 2016 memorandum of understanding negotiated between Israel and the United States provides $500 million per year in security assistance for Israel's missile defense. The MOU allows Israel to request additional funds to replenish and restore missile defense capabilities in exceptional circumstances.

We all remember vividly the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas, and in our minds still vividly and graphically are the pictures of that Iron Dome system intercepting missiles aimed at civilians in Israel. The Iron Dome defense system intercepted about 90 percent of those potentially lethal missiles targeting populated areas of Israel.

In total, about 4,400 rockets were launched by Hamas. Should the Iron Dome have failed, countless Israeli civilians would have been killed. This system performed with such extraordinary and exceptional prowess, showing its necessity for both humanitarian and defensive purposes.

I recently returned from a trip to Israel, where I talked to the top leadership of the new government, including Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. I was inspired and excited by the determination of the Israeli leadership and, I believe, the Israeli people to inaugurate a new era where we are even closer to Israel than we have been in the past.

There have been some bumps in the road; there have been some potential disagreements in this body; but we should focus on making sure that Israel's defense is completely bipartisan; that our relationship with Israel crosses party lines. We have that opportunity today to renew the sense of bipartisanship in our unshakeable relationship with Israel.

And that relationship goes beyond just security concerns. We are bound by culture, heritage, faith, and a common commitment to democracy. And Israel has that commitment in perhaps the most constantly dangerous neighborhood in the world.

Iron Dome is a defensive system. It is solely defensive, and it defends against the loss of civilians on both sides, in Gaza as well as Israel, because the loss of life in Israel, if it occurs, if Iron Dome is lacking, will lead to escalating violence that will cost lives in Gaza as well.

The Iron Dome prevents escalating hostilities that will cost lives among both Palestinians and Israelis. So its defensive value is indisputable, and that is why it does have bipartisan support here. It has the President's support. He stated:

We're also going to discuss Israel's unwavering--unwavering

commitment that we have in the United States to Israel's

security. And I fully, fully, fully support replenishing

Israel's Iron Dome system.

A quote from his meeting prior to meeting with Prime Minister Bennett at the White House.

Just 2 days before he made those remarks, Secretary Austin also expressed his support:

You can also see that commitment as we advocate for the

replenishment of the Iron Dome missile defense system. The

administration is committed to ensuring that Iron Dome can

defend Israeli civilian population centers targeted by

terrorist attacks, and we're working closely with Congress to

provide all the necessary information to respond positively

to your request for the--for $1 billion in emergency funding,

and it's going to save more innocent lives.

I am concerned that Members of the U.S. Senate are blocking passage of this bill. Senator Paul has demanded that we add unrelated language to rescind funds from the Department of State and the Department of Defense before he will agree to a unanimous consent decree. We should prevent this sacred relationship from becoming a political football. We should make sure that we preserve it as a bipartisan source of consensus.

And that is not to say necessarily that we agree with every single act, every single measure that our Israeli allies take. We can be friends and family and still disagree.

But our aid should not be conditioned on agreeing with every single policy or action taken by our Israeli friends. This measure is a defensive platform that saves lives. It is a humanitarian step that should be regarded for what it is--essential to our alliance, our relationship, and our bond with Israel.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up to 2 hours of debate; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let's set the record straight.

There is no possibility of this money or any other money going to the Taliban. Section 9021 of the fiscal year 2021 Defense Appropriations Act--we all voted for it--makes funding the Taliban illegal, and if any Pentagon official breaks that law, they could go to jail under the Antideficiency Act.

Whatever the Secretary of State may have answered to Senator Paul's question at a hearing, we should know and he should know that spending money in any way that enables it to go to the Taliban would be breaking the law, and he would have to come to Congress to use any of that money to aid the Taliban. So this is a false issue.

The funds that the Paul amendment seeks to rescind have actually not yet been appropriated. He targets the $3.3 billion in the fiscal year 2022 request. You can't rescind funds that haven't yet been appropriated. So the amendment falls of its own weight, but I want to deal with the merits.

No. 1, the Paul amendment seeks to rescind funds from the Department of Defense's Afghan Security Forces Fund. Those funds are still needed to complete the withdrawal. They are in an account that is urgently needed to terminate contracts that are already in place and secure military equipment that has been withdrawn from Afghanistan.

All of the complaints about the withdrawal and all of the complaints about the need to secure that military equipment are met by this funding. Defunding the Pentagon in this way will, in fact, disrupt the shutdown of these activities and open the United States to legal action from contractors. I have been advised, for those reasons, that the Department of Defense strongly opposes the Paul amendment because it makes ending the war in Afghanistan more difficult.

Let me just close by saying that there is a need for humanitarian support in areas where the Palestinians live. There is a need for aid for water treatment and vaccines and health and all of the needs-- humanitarian needs--of the Palestinian people.

One of the encouraging parts of my visit with the Israeli leadership was their recognition that Israel has a humanitarian obligation in this area. They recognize, as well, that we may not always agree on every facet of our relationship, but this measure should be unconditional because it is defensive, and it is humanitarian to support the Iron Dome.

I wish my Republican colleagues were here to refute Senator Paul, because I know many of them support it.

Therefore, I will not modify my request.

I would just close, Mr. President, by saying we need to pass this measure. We need to do it now, and there is no need for pay-for. We should move ahead with this unanimous consent. I regret the objection.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Jones, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year so he can participate in the National Defense Authorization Act consideration.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Daniel W. Crowley, a remarkable patriot, war hero, role model, and public servant. Dan passed away on September 16, 2021, at the age of 99.

Dan was born in 1922 and raised in Greenwich, CT. He lived through the Great Depression and enlisted in October 1940 in the U.S. Army Air Corps. In March 1941, he was sent to the Philippines and assigned to Nichols Field, which was destroyed by Japanese forces the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In the following months, Dan fought with the U.S. Army's Provisional Air Corps Infantry Regiment to fend off three amphibious Japanese landings on the Bataan Peninsula. On April 9, 1942, the peninsula was surrendered, and Dan swam to Corregidor Island through shark-infested waters. Upon arrival, he became part of the 4th Marines, where they fought valiantly to maintain the shore, until the fortress fell on May 6, 1942.

In 1944, following several brutal work details in the Philippines, Dan was sent to Japan on a hell ship. In the many months that followed, Dan mined copper as a slave laborer. Surviving the harsh, demanding conditions, he was finally liberated on September 4, 1945.

After, in 1958, Dan joined Northwestern Mutual insurance. His acumen and quick wits earned him fast recognition as one of the company's top producers, and he even became a member of their million dollar club.

Dan has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to preserving the memory of his fellow soldiers. In 2013, he played a key role in renaming a bridge in Simsbury, CT, the ``Bataan Corregidor Memorial Bridge'' in their honor. I had the privilege of meeting Dan at the dedication for this bridge, and I can attest firsthand to what a remarkable model of public service he is.

The next year, Dan returned to Japan as part of the fifth Japanese- American POW Friendship Program. Furukawa executives refused to meet with him, but he was given the opportunity to visit one of the mines where he had previously worked. Later, in 2016, Dan attended the Veterans' Day breakfast hosted by President Obama at the White House.

I have been fortunate to visit with Dan on a number of occasions since our initial meeting. My office and I assisted him with obtaining a prisoner of war registration for his license plate in recognition of his extraordinary service to our country. I also had the honor of speaking with Dan and meeting his wife, Kelley, this year. On January 4, 2021, I attended a ceremony at Bradley Air National Guard Base, where Dan was promoted to sergeant and received an honorary Combat Infantryman Badge and the Prisoner of War Medal. It was a poignant and powerful moment.

My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Dan's family during this difficult time. May their many wonderful memories of Dan provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I am so proud and honored to be with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Warnock--all of us who are championing the Senate version of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I think any of us would be honored to be spearheading a bill named for one of our heroes.

This bill has particular significance to all of us because we lived through the time--the summer of 1965--when States mercilessly attacked John Lewis and 600 others as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in peaceful protest to protect their right to vote.

In the wake of that attack, as the Nation came together to grieve, President Johnson joined with Congress to pursue, as he put it, ``an end to voting discrimination in America.''

Roughly a week after the attack, President Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. Two days later, Congress announced that it would take up that legislation. So by early August, just 5 months after ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support and became, again in the words of President Johnson, ``one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.''

Today, with the introduction of this legislation, we honor the legacy of John Lewis. We honor everyone involved in that great movement at the time that advanced civil rights and liberty, the most fundamental being the right to vote, and we honor the fight itself to protect the franchise.

A century after the Civil War ended, our Nation had failed to eradicate the blight of racial discrimination in voting. The promise of equality--political equality as well as economic equality--remained unfulfilled for Black citizens.

The Voting Rights Act did what even the 14th and 15th Amendments failed to do, proving to be a uniquely powerful tool with the capacity to meet ever-new forms of discrimination through its preclearance regime.

Then, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County--well known to all of us--gutted, absolutely eviscerated the highly effective preclearance regime, jeopardizing the progress the Voting Rights Act made over the course of half a century.

As Justice Ginsburg said in her moving and powerful dissent in Shelby, until Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, early attempts to cope with the vile infection of racial discrimination in voting ``resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in their place.''

Today's reinvigorated efforts to deprive members of minority groups from equal access to the ballot box through more subtle, second- generation barriers prove that a new preclearance regime is needed now more than ever.

This year alone, we have experienced the most destructive legislative session for voting rights in generations, with States and localities enacting a torrent of new voting restrictions, all of it designed to suppress the vote, to curtail the franchise, to move back the clock on voting rights.

Between January 1 and July 14 of this year, more than 400 voting restriction bills have been introduced in 49 States--49 States--and 18 States successfully enacted 30 laws that make it harder for people to vote.

These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult. They manipulate the boundaries of districts to reduce minority representation, and they have led to the purge of up to 3.1 million voters from the rolls in areas that were once covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement.

In short, this threat is more than just speculative, far from imaginative or suggestive. The threat is real and urgent. In fact, it is more than a threat. It is action now moving forward in States.

Today's legislation would confront this resurgence of voting restrictions very directly. The new John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act includes new formulas to revive preclearance.

By focusing specifically on jurisdictions with a proven history of discrimination and on preventing specific known discriminatory practices from taking effect in areas of increasing diversity before they can do damage, this new preclearance coverage formula responds to the Supreme Court's concerns and will allow the Voting Rights Act to keep pace with present conditions and America's rapidly changing demographics.

The bill also reinvigorates the Department of Justice's ability to challenge discriminatory laws already in effect, reversing the Supreme Court's latest attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. That 6-3 partisan decision was a stunning display of judicial overreach--a highly political, highly partisan decision that gives new meaning to the phrase ``judicial activism,'' a case of judicial overreach.

Protecting the right to vote, very simply, should not be a partisan issue. In fact, voting rights are widely supported throughout American society--on the left, right, center, private, and in public sectors.

Since the original inception of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both Houses of Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times.

Let me repeat: Both Houses of Congress, bipartisan majority, overwhelming vote, five times since the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

And for nearly a century after the Civil War and before the Voting Rights Act, the scourge of racial discrimination in voting challenged our Nation's core commitment to these ideals of democracy. From that century of sacrifice and suffering came the Voting Rights Act and its extraordinary commitment to realizing our Nation's highest ideals; and for decades, it worked with bipartisan support overwhelmingly.

The Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy, has documented powerfully the need for this Act.

And my Subcommittee on the Constitution has held one hearing already. We will have another shortly that will set the record--in fact, provide the evidentiary support--that the Supreme Court erroneously found lacking in its Shelby decision.

As a tsunami of voter suppression bills crashes against the shores of our democracy, my hope is that today we can renew a bipartisan commitment to protecting voting rights in this country.

I am proud to help lead this effort in the Senate, and I want to thank my colleagues again for being on the floor today.

Mr. President, I am so proud and honored to be with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Warnock--all of us who are championing the Senate version of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I think any of us would be honored to be spearheading a bill named for one of our heroes.

This bill has particular significance to all of us because we lived through the time--the summer of 1965--when States mercilessly attacked John Lewis and 600 others as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in peaceful protest to protect their right to vote.

In the wake of that attack, as the Nation came together to grieve, President Johnson joined with Congress to pursue, as he put it, ``an end to voting discrimination in America.''

Roughly a week after the attack, President Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. Two days later, Congress announced that it would take up that legislation. So by early August, just 5 months after ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support and became, again in the words of President Johnson, ``one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.''

Today, with the introduction of this legislation, we honor the legacy of John Lewis. We honor everyone involved in that great movement at the time that advanced civil rights and liberty, the most fundamental being the right to vote, and we honor the fight itself to protect the franchise.

A century after the Civil War ended, our Nation had failed to eradicate the blight of racial discrimination in voting. The promise of equality--political equality as well as economic equality--remained unfulfilled for Black citizens.

The Voting Rights Act did what even the 14th and 15th Amendments failed to do, proving to be a uniquely powerful tool with the capacity to meet ever-new forms of discrimination through its preclearance regime.

Then, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County--well known to all of us--gutted, absolutely eviscerated the highly effective preclearance regime, jeopardizing the progress the Voting Rights Act made over the course of half a century.

As Justice Ginsburg said in her moving and powerful dissent in Shelby, until Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, early attempts to cope with the vile infection of racial discrimination in voting ``resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in their place.''

Today's reinvigorated efforts to deprive members of minority groups from equal access to the ballot box through more subtle, second- generation barriers prove that a new preclearance regime is needed now more than ever.

This year alone, we have experienced the most destructive legislative session for voting rights in generations, with States and localities enacting a torrent of new voting restrictions, all of it designed to suppress the vote, to curtail the franchise, to move back the clock on voting rights.

Between January 1 and July 14 of this year, more than 400 voting restriction bills have been introduced in 49 States--49 States--and 18 States successfully enacted 30 laws that make it harder for people to vote.

These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult. They manipulate the boundaries of districts to reduce minority representation, and they have led to the purge of up to 3.1 million voters from the rolls in areas that were once covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement.

In short, this threat is more than just speculative, far from imaginative or suggestive. The threat is real and urgent. In fact, it is more than a threat. It is action now moving forward in States.

Today's legislation would confront this resurgence of voting restrictions very directly. The new John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act includes new formulas to revive preclearance.

By focusing specifically on jurisdictions with a proven history of discrimination and on preventing specific known discriminatory practices from taking effect in areas of increasing diversity before they can do damage, this new preclearance coverage formula responds to the Supreme Court's concerns and will allow the Voting Rights Act to keep pace with present conditions and America's rapidly changing demographics.

The bill also reinvigorates the Department of Justice's ability to challenge discriminatory laws already in effect, reversing the Supreme Court's latest attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. That 6-3 partisan decision was a stunning display of judicial overreach--a highly political, highly partisan decision that gives new meaning to the phrase ``judicial activism,'' a case of judicial overreach.

Protecting the right to vote, very simply, should not be a partisan issue. In fact, voting rights are widely supported throughout American society--on the left, right, center, private, and in public sectors.

Since the original inception of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both Houses of Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times.

Let me repeat: Both Houses of Congress, bipartisan majority, overwhelming vote, five times since the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

And for nearly a century after the Civil War and before the Voting Rights Act, the scourge of racial discrimination in voting challenged our Nation's core commitment to these ideals of democracy. From that century of sacrifice and suffering came the Voting Rights Act and its extraordinary commitment to realizing our Nation's highest ideals; and for decades, it worked with bipartisan support overwhelmingly.

The Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy, has documented powerfully the need for this Act.

And my Subcommittee on the Constitution has held one hearing already. We will have another shortly that will set the record--in fact, provide the evidentiary support--that the Supreme Court erroneously found lacking in its Shelby decision.

As a tsunami of voter suppression bills crashes against the shores of our democracy, my hope is that today we can renew a bipartisan commitment to protecting voting rights in this country.

I am proud to help lead this effort in the Senate, and I want to thank my colleagues again for being on the floor today.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the Very Reverend Father George Poulos, a deeply admired community leader, who turns 100 on September 30.

Born in Massachusetts to Greek immigrants in 1921, Father George joined the priesthood in 1943. He began his studies in Connecticut at the Holy Cross Seminary in Pomfret. Upon graduating in 1948 from the Holy Cross Seminary in Brookline, MA, Father George served as a pastor of the Holy Trinity Church in Norwich, CT. Then, in 1956, he was assigned to the Church of the Archangels in Stamford, CT. In 2009, after over six decades of remarkable service, Father George retired. He still plays an active role at the Church of the Archangels, serving as pastor emeritus.

I have been privileged to know Father George as a leader of courage and conviction, whose great work has touched countless lives. His vision and dedication enabled the Church of the Archangels to build an amazing, 11th Century Byzantine-style Greek Orthodox Church, which was consecrated in 1959. Later, in 1976, the church campus opened the Greek Cultural Center, which offered athletic amenities for church youth and banquet facilities for the entire community. In 1995, this center became the Stamford Athletic Club, providing invaluable services to the public.

Father George oversaw the creation of Ionian Village, a summer camp youth program in Greece. Since 1970, it has hosted thousands of Greek- American campers, giving them the opportunity to further explore their cultural history, religious roots, and language. Father George also established ``Byzantine Fellowship'' in America, and in his 30-year tenure as executive director, helped sponsor Greek cultural events in the United States and pilgrimages.

Father George's tireless dedication to helping others has earned him enormous respect and affection, as well as official recognition. He was appointed as vicar general of the churches in Connecticut by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and in 2017, he received an honorary doctorate of divinity from Holy Cross Seminary. Father George is a prolific author and is actively involved in community service, as chaplain of the Stamford Fire Department, vice president of the local Council of Churches and Synagogues, and a major in the U.S. Air Force Civil Patrol.

I am honored to know Father George and his family for many years-- indeed, decades. I can attest firsthand to his wonderful generosity and loyalty as a friend and his love for humanity, as well as the warm and welcoming spirit of his congregants. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Very Reverend Father George Poulos, his wife, Christine, their five sons, and their six grandchildren on this milestone of Father George's 100th birthday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the votes in relation to the White and Pan nominations occur at 6:30 p.m. tonight.

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, there will be one rollcall vote at 2:45 p.m. today. That vote will be on the confirmation of the Batchelder nomination. There will be two rollcall votes at 6:30 p.m. tonight. Those will be on the confirmation of the White nomination and cloture on the Pan nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, the stated purpose of this amendment is a pretext. It is a pretext for restricting reproductive rights and interfering with women's decisions about whether to have an abortion.

For all of us who care about people with Down syndrome, we ought to listen to the National Down Syndrome Society and devote more resources to research at NIH, to funding better settings and care for people with Down syndrome, and better opportunities for their employment. There are ways to serve that community without this pretextual restriction of reproductive rights.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3331

Madam President, I am here to talk about the Build Back Better proposal and the budget resolution that we will shortly take up, but let me just respond briefly to my good friend and colleague from Iowa's remarks on the interview that was conducted with Jeffrey Rosen on Saturday and the previous interview with Rich Donoghue.

I agree completely that the facts and the evidence are what are important here, and this investigation is supremely significant. I hope that we will join, on a bipartisan basis, to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead and encourage voluntary cooperation by the witnesses and collect all of the documents and other evidence that is necessary to fairly and fully present the truth to the American people. They deserve to know what we have heard so far, which amounts to a chilling and shocking picture of a President seeking to corrupt the Department of Justice and overthrow an election. That much has been clear from the evidence that we have seen

But I agree that we should not talk about the specific facts at this point because it is an ongoing investigation. And I hope that we will join, in a bipartisan way, not only to encourage voluntary cooperation but to seek testimony and documents by subpoena where necessary, where, as a matter of resort, if that evidence is denied, we need to do so because the interests of our Nation are best served by the truth.

All of it should be made public. Eventually, these transcripts from interviews and other evidence should be made public so that the American people can see the truth. I know that my colleague from Iowa has been a staunch and steadfast champion of whistleblowing, of making available the truth to the American people. Nobody in this body has been a stronger advocate of whistleblowers and protecting them so that the American people could see the truth than my colleague from Iowa. So I am hopeful that we will work together toward that end.

Budget Reconciliation

Madam President, the Build Back Better proposal that will soon be coming before the Senate is literally a milestone for this country.

The bipartisan infrastructure proposal that we will shortly pass is transformative for our Nation and for Connecticut. It will enable us to do long-overdue work on our roads and bridges, our railroads and broadband, on the physical assets that are essential to this country creating jobs and remaining competitive around the globe. This work has been too long delayed, and I will be proud to support it.

I thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed so critically to making this vote possible; final passage of a measure that will enable the bridge across the Connecticut River to be truly safe and reliable; the Mixmaster in Waterbury--so-called because it mixes several roads at once--to be finally done; a proposal that will enable, we hope, eventually, the tracks between New Haven and New York to be really reliable, to be maintained properly.

On every one of those transportation byways, there are people who depend on them, people who are going to work or to visit their family. Those people are, at the end of the day, who this infrastructure serves. And the freight that will be on railroads or the goods and produce transported on our highways go to people. They serve our economy. They create jobs. We need to do much more for those people.

Just today in the New York Times, in the Business section, there is an article about a young mother who wants to go back to work, reenter the workforce, but she has two children. One is awaiting the beginning of school, and the other, she feels, needs and deserves daycare before she can go back to work. That road that enables her to drive or the railroad, to commute, won't be a link to the workplace for her until she has daycare.

Our economy is interconnected in ways that we understand intuitively when we look at individual people, but too often, we have mounds of paper--no longer for all of us truly paper but mounds of print--and numbers and statistics. The real story is in that young mother whose account is so important to us, the human story.

Universal daycare, paid family leave, affordable medical care, and housing--they are also the stuff of human needs. They are part of our human assets.

Seniors need dental care and eyeglasses and hearing aids so that they can appreciate all of the benefits that we are trying to bring them through this infrastructure program.

The American people need jobs so that they can afford prescription drugs, and the cost of prescription drugs needs to be lower so they don't have to make these choices that we describe day after day between paying the mortgage and putting food on the table and clothing their kids.

The pandemic has affected health, food, shelter, and the financial and overall security of families across the country. It has taken a toll on small businesses. They, too, need help. The Restaurant Revitalization Program should be replenished and small businesses given a lifeline they need because they have been so direly injured and threatened.

We need to build back America and the assets--the roads and bridges but also the systems--that serve Americans, and we need to build it back better.

I am proud to support this budget resolution that will make investments for working families, the elderly, our environment.

Over the past year, I have spoken to countless families who need that childcare and providers who furnish it across the northeast. Childcare is critical not only to those jobs and the people who fill jobs, but also to the emotional and educational development of children--allowing moms and dads, and grandparents, to go back to work, but also for children to have the basics in preparation for education that they need.

By establishing a universal pre-care system and providing families with incentives, like the child care tax cuts, to help them afford care, we can ensure that children are prepared for success and parents can go to work.

But it isn't enough to ensure that families can just afford childcare. We have to ensure they are able to live healthy lives. And we know healthcare is complicated; it is confusing; it is expensive, especially for our aging seniors and people with disabilities and our fellow Americans with preexisting conditions.

Over this past year, we learned clearly and dramatically how resource-deprived our healthcare system has become--individuals forced to make choices between keeping a roof over their head or going to the doctor or paying for medications. No American family should be forced to make those choices.

And we need to invest. It is not about spending; it is investing in our healthcare system. This budget proposal will accomplish exactly that goal.

Lower prescription drug costs, lowering those burdens, providing broader access to medical providers, including that dental care, hearing aids, and vision for individuals--all individuals--on Medicare should be our paramount goal.

And it is critical that home healthcare workers and patients understand their value. Individuals with disabilities were left struggling to find affordable home- and community-based services throughout the pandemic. We need to appreciate the home care workers and support them and pay them adequately, just as we need to provide that home care for seniors who need it. Healthcare is more than access to care; it is the basic system that provides that access.

And there should be no delay when we are talking about the air we breathe and the water we drink, because those assets also are essential to healthcare.

Rail will be supported--better railroads, tracks, cars--by this proposal that we are passing today or tomorrow, but there is more that needs to be done to ensure high-speed rail. Right now, the link between New Haven and New York is slower than it was 50 years ago. We need to make sure that it is quicker--not just more reliable, but faster and more reliable and safer.

Too often, the impacts of unsafe air and unhealthy drinking water fall on minority and low-income communities.

They have disproportionately faced adverse impacts from public and environmental health grants, and the American people are counting on our leadership to authorize funding for investment in programs that support clean energy resources. Climate change is an enemy that we must conquer, just as we are working to conquer the pandemic.

In the Senate, I have worked with the administration to meet the goal of conserving 30 percent of our country's lands and 30 percent of our waters within the next decade. That goal is ambitious, but it is a vital effort that takes an important step toward reducing environmental justice and ensuring healthy lives for all.

This proposal is comprehensive, and that is exactly what is needed now--a comprehensive program that deserves our support and our leadership. We must invest in our country's leadership by putting the American people and what they need--childcare, healthy homes, and environments--put it first.

I am proud to support this proposal, and I look forward to advancing it on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

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

Before I begin the remarks that brought me here today, I want to say a word about Richard Trumka, a hero to all of us who care about working people and a good friend to many of us.

I am proud to call him a friend and proud to have been with him as an ally in causes and principles that are so important to the present of America and the future of America. I am proud to have been with him on picket line and platform, to have stood with him and behind him in supporting the rights of working men and women to decent pay, fair treatment, and safety on the job.

He came from America, and he never forgot where he came from. His life is

a lesson to so many of us who seek to emulate his devotion to the public interest.

As a leader of the labor movement, his life also reminds us that unions count; that collective bargaining means something; that the rights of working men and women succeed because they come together in unions, and we ought to respect those unions and listen to them and champion their right to represent fairly and freely and to organize men and women on their jobs.

So we will miss Richard Trumka, but his legacy is going to be an inspiration to all of us--certainly to me--in fighting even harder for the great convictions, sense of conscience, the wonderful heart and spirit that embraced people who disagreed with him. A life's lesson for all of us.

(The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 2654 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''