Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I was very proud to introduce with my colleague Senator Menendez, who is leading this effort, and Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley the September 11 Transparency Act.

Members of this body have heard me talk about this issue before. It has been a repeated issue for me but for this body as well.

We passed JASTA because we wanted the 9/11 families to have access to the courts and have their fair day in court. We passed the resolution in 2018 to require that the government declassify, to the maximum extent possible, all of the information surrounding 9/11. JASTA was passed over President Obama's veto. His veto was overridden on a bipartisan basis. The resolution demanding more declassification was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by the President.

The letters that we have written, the questions that I posed in hearings, the press conferences held, the constant effort to provide documents and information to those families so they can have their fair day in court has been a continuing and constant one and, so far, completely unavailable.

Administration after administration--Obama, Trump, and hopefully not but apparently Biden--have resisted these calls for declassifying and disclosure.

That information is evidence that those families need to seek justice in their effort to hold accountable the Government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged complicity, its aiding and abetting, its support for the 9/ 11 attack. They want to hold them liable in an American court, which JASTA enables them to do. They want to pinpoint responsibility and liability so that we will know, as Americans, whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was, in fact, complicit and supportive of those attackers.

The truth they seek is not just for themselves; it is for the American people, and the concealment by successive administrations denies the American people the truth they deserve and need.

Today, I was proud to stand with Senator Menendez and some of those families led by Terry Strada and Brett Eagleson in front of this Capitol as we announced our introduction of the act, the September 11 Transparency Act, that would very simply require the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the Director of the CIA to conduct declassification reviews of certain investigative documents in their 9/11 file. It is a baby step toward full disclosure and truthtelling.

But I was so proud to stand with these families, represented by Terry Strada, among others, when she said:

Yes, we know the Kingdom played a major role in supporting,

and financing al Qaeda and evidence demonstrates that Saudi

agents who the Kingdom sent here aided and abetted some if

not all the 19 hijackers leading into the attack.

It is an indisputable fact the hijackers were living in our

country 12-18 months prior to 9/11 planning and plotting the

murder of thousands and that the FBI and the CIA knew of at

least two of them, Nawaf Al-Hamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar.

She further said:

By keeping evidence hidden that will shed light on the

brutal murder of our loved ones, our own government is not

only perpetuating our continued pain and suffering, but it is

also leaving the facilitators of the attacks unaccountable

and our nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Her remarks were so powerful, I hope that every one of my colleagues will read them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remarks from Terry Strada be printed in the Record

We are fast approaching 9/11, the 20th anniversary of that horrific, unspeakable murder of thousands of our fellow citizens, including Terry Strada's husband and Brett Eagleson's father.

Brett Eagleson put it very, very starkly and simply. I am not quoting, but essentially his warning to us ought to reverberate in these Halls. Public officials on that anniversary will be making speeches about how we should never forget, about how we need to commemorate the memories of all who perished in 9/11. But, as he said, their words will ring shallow or hollow if their own government continues to refuse to disclose documents and evidence needed for them to seek justice. Those families deserve better.

And the cause is bigger than just those families. It is the American people who deserve better. They deserve and they need to know the truth about whether the complicity and other kinds of potential criminal activity can be proved in a court of law, can be used to learn about future action to be taken. If Agencies of the U.S. Government, including our intelligence Agencies, knew about those attackers and the danger they posed and failed to take sufficient action, we should know those facts as well.

It is incomprehensible why the U.S. Government has failed to provide this truth to the American people. There has been no explanation for the failure to declassify. There is no explanation for invoking the State Secrets Act. The courts have said that that privilege, the state secrets privilege, cannot be invoked unless it could reasonably be expected that there would be a harm to our national security. No Agency, no official of the U.S. Government has ever said what harm could result, especially 20 years after that attack.

The idea that sources or methods could be endangered seems farfetched. Certainly, there has been no such contention. The idea that maybe the Saudis would be embarrassed is a possible explanation, but it is no excuse--none--for refusing to declassify and disclose this information. The fact that the Saudis may be embarrassed or they may be held liable is no valid reason to withhold this truth from those families and from the American people.

The administration, at the very least, owes us an explanation. We demanded it again and again at the Attorney General's confirmation hearing, at the oversight hearings for the Director of the FBI, at hearings for confirming lower but top-ranking officials of the Department of Justice, and every one of them has promised to look into it but nothing back--no explanation, no justification.

So Senator Menendez and I, along with our colleagues Senators Cornyn and Grassley, have introduced the September 11th Transparency Act. It wouldn't require the declassification of any document, but it would require the review, and it is not unprecedented, because this Congress, 7 years ago, passed and President Obama signed the Intelligence Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2014. It had a similar provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to complete a declassification review of documents collected during the Osama bin Laden raid in Pakistan in 2011.

This measure should have broad bipartisan support, just as JASTA did and the resolution calling for declassification in 2018, and I have been proud to stand with my Republican colleagues in favor of simple justice.

As Senator Schumer said today at that meeting in front of the Capitol, ``Justice, justice, justice.'' That is what these families deserve. That is what the American people should expect of their government, not concealment or obstruction and obfuscation.

Right now, these families are in a struggle against the Government of Saudi Arabia but, equally so, against their own government in seeking fairness and transparency, disclosure, when it counts for them and when it should count for the American people.

We will continue this fight. I don't expect any single speech will persuade administration officials--certainly no single speech of mine-- but they are going to be making speeches as we go closer to 9/11. Let them keep in mind that the voices and faces of those families--Brett Eagleson and Terry Strada and others who were there that day and many others in Connecticut, as well as New Jersey and New York and all around the country--will be there as well, and ultimately, our government must be held accountable for telling the American people the truth.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in just a few weeks, our Nation will come together to remember September 11. It will be the 20th anniversary of that unspeakable act of horror, an attack on our Nation that devastated us and, most particularly, the families and loved ones who lost members of their family and friends--the fallen--who will be remembered on that day and honored.

And I have been honored to stand with those families over the years, as many of us have, as they remember their loved ones and continue to face the trauma and immeasurable grief of their loss. And in these years, many of those families have sought justice. They have tried to honor their loved ones with action to vindicate not only their individual grief and mourning but also justice for our Nation, truth, and truth-telling in the courts of law in this country. They have brought legal action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the face of mounting, significant credible evidence that, in fact, the Saudis aided and abetted that attack on our Nation.

As a Congress, we have acted to support that effort, and I was proud to help to lead the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, when we passed it overwhelmingly here, and then on a bipartisan basis, we overrode the President's veto. It was President Obama who vetoed it, and many of us, including the Presiding Officer, voted to override that veto, I believe.

We opened the courthouse doors to the 9/11 families in their legal effort to hold Saudi Arabia accountable in the face of that evidence of its potential complicity. Again, I was proud to stand with these families in 2018 when I introduced, with the help of Senators

Cornyn, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Menendez, a resolution urging that documents related to the September 11 attack be declassified to the greatest extent possible.

That resolution passed the U.S. Senate unanimously--unanimously-- because all of us recognized that the survivors and the families of the fallen and the American people deserved answers, the truth about what happened on September 11, who was behind it, who supported it, who aided and abetted, and who was complicit in enabling that handful of terrorists to do such a devastating attack and unspeakable horror on this Nation. Many of us have stood with those families to ensure that the 9/11 families not only get their day in court but are also able to go to court with all the evidence they need to have a fair chance to prove their case.

I have asked questions at oversight hearings, including of Director Wray of the FBI. I have sought commitments from nominees like Attorney General Garland. I have written letter after letter after letter, with Democrats and Republicans alike, calling on the Department of Justice and the FBI to provide information that the 9/11 families have requested.

I am proud to continue to stand with those families as we approach this 20th anniversary date, but I also, in fairness to this administration, want to say that the moment of truth-telling now has arrived, and there is a moment of reckoning here.

These families, since JASTA, have been engaged in an epic legal struggle against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, but now that struggle is also one against their own government, our government, because while Congress did our job in passing JASTA, opening the courthouse door to give those 9/11 families a chance at justice, the last administration invoked the state secrets privilege without explanation to shield the documents and information the 9/11 families need to make their case.

The last administration denied them their fair day in court, and I say with great regret that the current administration seems intent on doing the same. My hope is otherwise. That is the reason I have raised this issue publicly and privately repeatedly, not only in the last years but in the last weeks. To deny information to the 9/11 families and, equally important, to the American people is unacceptable, and it is unconscionable.

The requests that I and so many of my colleagues have made to the Department of Justice and the FBI to disclose and declassify what can be disclosed and declassified in the national interest--those requests have gone unanswered. Sadly, the executive branch across administrations has repeatedly failed to provide any explanation--let me repeat: failed to provide any explanation--let alone meaningful justification for why there has been no disclosure. That denial of explanation or justification is itself also unacceptable and unconscionable. These families will never get their loved ones back, but at the very least, they should get answers. In fact, they deserve answers. They deserve the truth. The American people deserve the truth.

Now, what the executive branch has done is to invoke broadly and unspecifically something called state secrets privilege. State secrets privilege was and remains intended to prevent court-ordered disclosure of government information when genuine and significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations is at stake but only to the extent necessary to safeguard those interests.

It is also clear under the Department of Justice rules that it should be invoked only upon sufficient showing that it is necessary ``to protect information the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security and that the invocation be narrowly tailored for that specific purpose.''

Here is the problem: We don't know if that is what happened in the 9/ 11 families' case or in many other cases. We don't know whether decisions to invoke this privilege met this high and exacting standard or were narrowly tailored. And we don't know because in the 9/11 families' case, the Department of Justice and the FBI have claimed that even the Trump administration's ``justification for secrecy needed to remain secret'' and the ``public discussion of the issue `would reveal information that could cause the very harms [the] assertion of the state secrets privilege is intended to prevent.' '' These blanket assertions and vague justifications undermine both public confidence that our government will only invoke the privilege to protect national security and the pursuit of justice.

Now, let's be very clear. There are times when disclosure can imperil methods and secrets and sources in information gathering. There are times when secrecy is important to protect an ongoing investigation. We are talking here about disclosure of information relating to an attack 20 years ago. There is no indication of any ongoing investigation into the attack on our country. There has been no explanation that sources and methods may be imperiled. There has been no justification whatsoever.

Similar rationales, blanket assertions of protection, have prevented explanations in other cases as well and in some instances have led to the withholding of documents or information and outright dismissal of cases, depriving victims of an opportunity for justice.

In 1948, three civilians were killed when a B-29 aircraft testing secret electronic equipment crashed in Waycross, GA. Their grieving widows did the only thing they could, bringing a wrongful death action in Federal court against the government. But the invocation of the state secrets privilege prevented them from receiving justice and the truth.

In 2003, Macedonian officials abducted a German citizen at the request of the CIA. In that instance as well, justice was sought unsuccessfully, and the case was dismissed because the government invoked the state secrets privilege.

In 2006, the FBI allegedly engaged in the targeted religious profiling of Muslims in Southern California. If true, it was and it remains an egregious abuse, one that led these individuals to sue the FBI. But rather than let the case proceed and rather than let the truth come to light about what the FBI did and why, the government asked the trial court to dismiss the case on the basis of the state secrets privilege, and the trial court agreed. This case, however, is not yet over because the Supreme Court will hear it in the fall after it has wound its way through the lower courts. As we know, justice is often delayed. In this instance, justice delayed is justice denied, again because of the state secrets privilege.

Let me close with a bit of history. On September 11, 2019, the then- President of the United States, Donald Trump, made a promise. He made a promise to the 9/11 families. He made a promise to them to their faces. He looked them in the eye, shook their hands, and he told them that the Department of Justice would disclose documents relative to their case against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The next day, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, in a sworn declaration to the Southern District of New York Federal Court, invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent the release of the very information that the President of the United States had promised those families, the same documents, the same evidence that the President of the United States had vowed to disclose. The very next day, the Attorney General of the United States went into the Federal District Court in New York and said no.

The 9/11 families, whom I have come to know and admire, deserved so much better from the last administration. But it is not about one administration or another. It is about the United States providing them with the truth. It is about our government providing the people of the United States with the truth.

I will be coming back to the floor in the weeks ahead, and I hope my colleagues will join me in raising this issue, in calling on the Department of Justice and the FBI to review their decision invoking this privilege, to declassify and disclose information that they have withheld. They have yet to explain why the national interest is served by this blanket, unjustified, and unexplained invocation of the state secrets privilege. The 9/11 families and

the American public deserve that much and more. And this case is about accountability. It is about holding accountable the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I am not here to argue the case in court. I am not here to take issue with any legitimate, urgent, narrowly-tailored interest that may be served by this Privilege, but there is no indication of any such interest and, in fact, neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice should stand in the way of justice for these families in court.

They owe the American people an explanation, and they owe the 9/11 families the truth so they can bring it to bear in their quest for justice.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a reason that the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act bears his name, and the reason is that John Lewis was truly a civil rights hero, an icon, a trailblazer, a model, and a mentor to so many of us, not because of what he said but because of what he did.

In marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where he was beaten and bloodied in leading those civil rights activists, in fighting for equality and justice here in the Halls of Congress, he set a model of courageous public service that inspires us today.

It has inspired voting rights since 1965, when those acts of courage led the Congress to adopt that Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was bipartisan then; it has been a bipartisan cause since then. In fact, it was most recently reauthorized in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

There should be nothing partisan about voting rights, which go to the core of our democracy. They are the lifeblood of our democracy, as we know better or as well as anyone in this Chamber, because we know that we act here with authority by the consent of the governed, as the Founders said. We govern by the consent of the people who elect us, hopefully fairly. That is the reason we need now the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in two decisions, Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, has in effect eviscerated--more bluntly, gutted--two key sections, 5 and 2, of the Voting Rights Act.

Now, we have the opportunity--in fact, we have the obligation to make sure that the memory and the cause of John Lewis in advancing voting rights are upheld. We have that obligation not for ourselves but for the country, which is why John Lewis fought so hard and so well.

Today, State legislatures are taking advantage of the gaps and defects opened by those two Supreme Court decisions to attack America's right to vote. What we are seeing is the greatest assault on voting rights in the history of this country, maybe with the exception of Jim Crow.

I know some have called these laws a second Jim Crow. It may be the son of Jim Crow or the nephew or niece of Jim Crow, but the goal is the same: suppression of voting rights, discriminating against individuals who have that right to vote.

Last week, I chaired a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee on the impact of these two Supreme Court decisions on voting rights. What we heard from the witnesses appearing there was nothing less than a call to action to protect our democracy and live up to America's founding ideals. We heard from men and women who have been litigating-- in the trenches, on the frontline of this battle to preserve voting rights--about the impact of these two Supreme Court decisions and the lower court decisions that have been in their wake.

Since Shelby County in 2013, approximately 21,000 polling places nationwide serving the people of the United States on election day have been eliminated. Millions of voters have been purged from the voter rolls. This year alone, 17 States have passed 28 laws to restrict voting rights.

This assault on the right to vote, this effort to suppress men and women who by law should have that right, is purposeful, relentless, unremitting, and it is supported, unfortunately, by elected officials across the country. We have seen it in Arizona, in Florida, Texas, but many more State legislatures are moving in this direction. The voting rights of this Nation are at stake because what we are seeing is a deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult to register to vote and particularly for people of color to have this right. It is an attempt to subvert our democracy and attack the lifeblood of our Nation.

We know in theory that the Founders intended that, in fact, our government ``derives [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.'' But more than an exercise in theory, this effort is a direct, clear attempt to defend against the tsunami of voter suppression bills now crashing on our Nation. That is why the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act should be bipartisan. I have no illusions about it being so, but one way or the other, we ought to follow the advice of John Lewis, who said:

The right to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the

most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument we have in a

democratic society.

In memory of what he said but more in tribute to the ideals of democracy that he advanced by his actions, we should stand up to this assault on our democracy and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. There is no time to waste.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I was tremendously proud and grateful to be at the bill signing last week in the East Room of the White House with the President of the United States, at his side when he put his approval on a measure that took years to pass, the NO HATE Act--known as the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, named after Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer, who perished as a result of the most vicious and vile hate crimes in this Nation's history. The occasion was centered on legislation addressing protection for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. It was a tremendously moving and powerful event when the President spoke passionately and unequivocally that hate has no safe harbor in the United States.

I was reminded of those moments with the President of the United States as I witnessed just very recently this surge in anti-Semitic hate crimes across this country. We have seen them again and again and again. The Anti-Defamation League has been tracking anti-Semitic incidents in the country since 1979, and the past three annual reports have included two of its highest tallies. Last year's report recorded more than 1,200 incidents--a 10-percent increase from the previous year.

These assaults and insults, brawls, and vicious desecrations have occurred across the country to individuals in synagogues and places of worship, and we should be rising to condemn them now unequivocally and clearly, condemn all of these acts of hate, because we are all in this perilous time together.

We know from the acts of hatred directed against Asian Americans that they follow similar kinds of assaults and incidents involving Muslim Americans, Black Americans, and Jewish Americans. An assault on one is an assault on all of us. But the assaults and the acts of hatred against Jewish Americans have been particularly vile and venomous over these last 2, 4 weeks and months. We have seen not only the physical attacks but also Holocaust denial and distortion, including intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust.

These kinds of vicious and intolerable statements have grown. That is one reason why I continue to support the Never Again Education Act, which was signed into law almost 1 year ago, to expand the United States Holocaust Museum education programming and the development and dissemination of accurate, relevant, and accessible resources to improve awareness and understanding of the Holocaust. But prevention through education is not enough. We must do more. We must act.

What is most important to remember about every one of these incidents is that they involve real people, real communities, and real victims whose lives are torn apart in the most heartbreaking cases. They involve real lives that are lost forever and real families who will never see their loved ones again.

That is what happened to the families of Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer. They were in the East Room of the White House with us, graciously and generously lending their presence, their faces, and their voices to this effort against hate crime. They expressed gratitude for the actions we are taking.

Now we must move forward to provide the funding for the NO HATE Act so we have greater reporting of these vicious acts and so that we have better training and more prevention and action--not just condemnation but action against anti-Semitism in this country.

I read recently that a 5-year-old was constructing a Lego of a synagogue and, using those Legos, added a security force around the synagogue. What kind of America is it that requires a 5-year-old building a place of worship out of Legos to include a police security guard? And what kind of America is it that has double the number of reported anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism, and violence just over a 2-week period most recently when there were clashes in Israel and Gaza? It is not the America we know and love, and it is not the America we deserve.

We must do better, and I know my colleagues share this view. I heard and saw my friend and colleague Senator Cardin speak powerfully on this issue just moments ago. We know that we as a body can take action because hate is contagious, but so is courage. We must provide all of the people who have courage and good will in this country with the kind of support that we can, that we must, and that we will to fight anti- Semitism and to make sure that this America is the one that we know and love and that my father came to believe in as an immigrant at the age of 17 when he escaped persecution in Germany, coming here at 17 years old in 1935 with not much more than the shirt on his back, knowing no one, speaking virtually no English, but believing in that America that would provide him freedom and opportunity and, yes, protection against exactly the kind of anti-Semitism whose beginnings are in those kinds of vile and vicious assaults and words we see around the world today.

Let us all come together and fight anti-Semitism just as we have done with the hate crimes against our brother and sister Asian Americans and make sure that our country is the one that we know and love.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, our colleague and friend, for those really eloquent and powerful remarks. I thank her and our other colleague from Iowa, who has been beside us from the very start of this cause 8 years or more ago. But most importantly, I thank my colleague from New York, who has been unstoppable, steadfast, and resolute in this cause. We are here today with that overwhelming, bipartisan support because of her advocacy, her eloquence, and power.

Above all, we are here today because of the survivors and victims who have come forward with tremendous courage and strength. As much courage as it takes to be in the military--and I pay tribute literally every day to the men and women in uniform who defend our country, who raise their right hand, willing to give their lives--it is equally if not more difficult to come forward as they have done over these years and speak their truth to us. I have been so impressed by their bravery and by their truth-telling.

I know as a prosecutor how difficult reporting this crime is in the civilian world, in universities, in the workplace. It is excruciatingly difficult to come forward and overcome the stigma and sometimes shame and the threat of retaliation. It is that threat of retaliation that we need to counter and stop because reporting of this crime is always difficult. Underreporting is a chronic problem in prosecuting it.

So taking it out of the chain of command, eliminating the prospect of retaliation, implicit fear, even if it is not spoken--it may be unspoken--and that is what our purpose is. It is not just taking sexual assault out of the chain

of command of decision but also felonies, serious crimes that may be intertwined and interrelated with sexual assault, as they so often are in the civilian world, whether it is obstruction, intimidation of witnesses, assault, other crimes that may be related to it.

So I believe sincerely that this Secretary of Defense is committed to ending sexual assault. I talked to one of the nominees for a prominent position in the Department of Defense; I believe he is firmly committed. I have talked to others who have been confirmed or who will be nominated; they are firmly committed.

Let's make that commitment real and approve this legislation because the numbers have belied the promises. The results have betrayed the good intention, and now it is time for action.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Madam President, in just hours, we will be voting on the nomination of Kristen Clarke to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice.

I am proud tonight to advocate for her, not that she needs my voice in her support. She is a brilliant leader and advocate. She has dedicated her entire career to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, and she has an extraordinary record to show for it.

She reminds me of the legal warriors in the Department of Justice during the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s who battled for the rule of law in supporting children who were trying to gain entry to desegregated schools, in voters who sought to uphold the franchise, and in men and women who challenged the denial of their rights in the South and throughout the country. The Department of Justice became a beacon of law enforcement in its upholding of the civil rights of America, and she is in that great tradition--fierce and fearless, strong and unyielding and tenacious in defending and advocating for the rights and liberties of Americans when they are denied those rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution and our statutes.

She served as the civil rights chief for the New York Attorney General in the civil rights bureau. She served as assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. She served as a Federal prosecutor during the Bush administration in the Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section and Voting Section, the very divisions that she has been nominated now to lead.

She knows these issues. She knows civil rights and civil liberty issues and law because she has worked on them for more than two decades. She cares about these issues because her life has

been dedicated to them, and she understands these issues on a deeply personal level. She knows them inside and out because she served to fight for them inside and out of the DOJ, inside and out of the New York Attorney General's Office, inside and out of the organization whose mission is to protect them, and she is the daughter of immigrants who grew up in the Nation's largest public housing complex. She is also the mother of a 16-year-old son, who is growing up in this moment of reckoning for racial justice, equality, and equity in America.

If memory serves me, she also once took a field trip to the Hartford area, in Connecticut, and watched a then comparatively young State attorney general who was arguing in court in a desegregation case. Now, I have no illusions that this experience played any part in her desire to use her extraordinary skills and talents and gifts and education as a public servant and lawyer for the public good, but that has been her career, and that is exactly what we need now at the helm of the Civil Rights Division.

There is no excuse for waiting another moment to confirm her to this most important post. She is the civil rights chief for this moment because we are in a moment of reckoning. Justice, equity, and equality are on the line now, and her strength and tenacity meet this moment.

Unfortunately, there are some on the other side who have used Ms. Clarke's nomination to make baseless allegations against her, including allegations that she supports abolishing the police. To support this distortion, they have repeatedly invoked a 2020 op-ed written by Ms. Clarke and published by Newsweek. I want to meet that article head on because, at our Judiciary Committee's markup just 2 weeks ago, Senator Cruz selectively excerpted portions of that op-ed, claiming that they demonstrated that Ms. Clarke ``explicitly'' advocated abolishing the police.

There is only one problem with this argument: Ms. Clarke never wrote that. It just isn't true. Ms. Clarke's piece is a thoughtful call to rethink how we approach law enforcement in a country that is going through a moment in which thousands of Americans have called out for real reform, real change, real action.

I have been proud to be involved in peaceful demonstrations and rallies throughout the State of Connecticut--probably 20 or maybe more of them over the last summer--when young people led these public calls for justice in policing, justice in housing, justice in the workplace, and justice in healthcare--all of them implicated in this moment.

The fact is the word ``abolition'' appears only once in the entire op-ed. That word appears once in the op-ed--``abolition''--when it is used to describe the huge range of views held by others, activists and local governments. That is it. That word ``abolition'' is used to describe the views of others, not her views.

Senator Cruz has also distorted her record in another way in claiming she had written a provocative email comparing the police to the Ku Klux Klan. That is simply not true. In reality, the passage Senator Cruz quoted was written by someone else--an activist--in an essay that Ms. Clarke had simply forwarded in an email. In the email, the subject line includes the actual author's name, and the essay is signed at the end by the author.

Had Senator Cruz bothered to look at the entirety of the email and of that document instead of cherry-picking a line to fit his preconceived narrative, he would have known, and it would have been truer to the facts here. Ms. Clarke no more wrote the words Senator Cruz attributed to her than he did.

At a time when the country faces a moment of reckoning over racial justice, the Civil Rights Division needs someone with Ms. Clarke's knowledge, skill, dexterity of thinking, life experience, heart, and dedication because these challenges are immense and they need to be addressed. She is the person for this moment. That is exactly what she will do, address the need for equity and equality in civil rights enforcement. She will be tenacious but thoughtful and insightful and true to the law, serving the rule of law. She is a dedicated and devoted public servant, committed to equal justice, civil rights, and the rule of law.

I have seen that firsthand, and I know I am not the only one who thinks so. The letters the Judiciary Committee has received in support of her nomination reflect a broad, professionally and ideologically diverse coalition of individuals and organizations that know that she is, without a doubt, eminently qualified for this position.

That support includes law enforcement, like the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and 71 former attorneys general from red States and blue States.

The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives wrote:

Ms. Clarke has displayed the qualities of leadership,

empathy, excellence, and persistence in supporting and

defending the U.S. Constitution while ensuring equal

protection and justice for all Americans.

The 71 former attorneys general wrote:

Kristen Clarke is someone with immense credibility among

community leaders in each of our states--she has handled

cases of hate crimes, constitutional policing, human

trafficking, and voting rights, and, most recently, has done

effective work on violent extremism and the threat that it

poses to our citizens.

I believe strongly that Kristen Clarke should be confirmed right away, without delay, and I encourage all of my colleagues to see the baseless allegations against her for what they are--a distortion--and I urge them to support her nomination. I have confronted those allegations. They are unworthy of repetition, but I think my colleagues should know the truth behind them. The Civil Rights Division and the American people need Kristen Clarke.

For me, this vote feels very personal. Two of my four children are graduating literally today and during this week from law school. I hope they will use the great gifts that they have, the skills that they have acquired, and the advocacy that they have been learning to advance the public interests in the way that Kristen Clarke has done throughout her extraordinary career. I hope they will regard her as a role model because she has sought justice.

She has fought to uphold the rights of people who are vulnerable, Americans who are voiceless, and ordinary Americans, who all too often have been denied their rights. She has stood up for them; she has spoken out; and I hope we will confirm her tomorrow with a bipartisan vote.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Dr. Saul Hertz, a pioneer for medical uses of radioiodine, RAI.

The son of Jewish immigrants from Poland, Dr. Hertz graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1929. While serving as director of the Massachusetts General Hospital's thyroid unit, he attended a presentation about the use of physics in medicine. Inspired by the concept, Dr. Hertz worked alongside Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Dr. Arthur Roberts to discover the potential for iodine radioisotopes in thyroid disease diagnosis and treatment.

On March 31, 1941, after years of experiments, Dr. Hertz administered the first therapeutic use of radioiodine to a human patient. Never before had humans been successfully treated with an artificially produced radioactive material. In 1946, Dr. Hertz was the lead author of the May issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which featured a 5-year study following 29 patients he treated through this method. Today, medical uses of RAI remain the gold standard of targeted precision oncology.

Dr. Hertz made a number of other outstanding contributions to the medical field. Notably, his research played an essential role in the developing field of nuclear medicine, which was critical during World War II and beyond. In 1949, he established the first Nuclear Medicine Department at the Massachusetts Women's Hospital.

Dr. Hertz passed away on July 28, 1950, but his legacy is enduring. Not only does his work continue to support extraordinary medical work, but his memory also encourages other researchers through the Saul Hertz, MD, Award. Bestowed by the Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Engineering, this eponymous award honors individuals who make phenomenal strides in the radionuclide therapy field.

Dr. Hertz's archives are kept in Greenwich, CT, offering a rich history of research in this critical field and a testament to his brilliant, lifesaving work. This year, Greenwich, CT, First Selectman Fred Camillo issued a proclamation, naming March 31 ``Dr. Saul Hertz Nuclear Medicine/Radio Pharmaceutical Day.'' This recognition is a tribute to Dr. Hertz's remarkable legacy and the impact he will forever have on this field.

I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Dr. Saul Hertz.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, Senators Murkowski and Sullivan have ably represented the very serious plight of the people of Alaska. I am very sympathetic to the economic and humanitarian situation that prompts this effort, the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.

But I must say that the cruise line industry has a very inconsistent--that is a nice way of putting it--and deeply inadequate record on consumer protection and worker safety. We worked out a number of amendments that are incorporated into this measure. They are basic protections during the pandemic and a negotiated compromise, and I thank my colleagues from Alaska for doing it in a way that really is a win-win for everyone, and that is the measure that is before us now.

So I will offer no objection. I understand that our colleague Senator Lee has an objection--I am not sure what they are at this point, but if he does, I look forward to working over the recess with my Alaska colleagues to see if we can reach agreement with Senator Lee and resolve his objection.

Madam President, I just want to make clear after Senator Lee's statement, No. 1, that I appreciate my colleagues from Alaska being as cooperative as they have been.

These issues are a matter of vital consumer protection and worker safety. We are talking here about defibrillators and a requirement that there be certain minimum numbers on these ships. We are talking about bodies, tragically, having to be returned if there is a death on one of these ships. We are talking about some rights for consumers that the industry itself has approved and that we are just incorporating into this amendment and enabling the Department of Transportation to enforce. So I want to make clear that these are reasonable and, in fact, in my view, very minimal protections--a first-step, another step.

I appreciate the agreement that we have been able to reach with our colleagues from Alaska on them, and I am disappointed that our colleague from Utah has objected. But I will do my best to work with them in trying to resolve Senator Lee's objection.

Madam President, today I rise to recognize Lions Clubs International as it celebrates 100 years of outstanding service in Connecticut.

In the winter of 1921, Lions Clubs International, now the world's largest service organization, dispatched an organizer to Connecticut to form the first Lions Club in New England, the Bridgeport Host Lions Club. Throughout their century of service, these volunteers have worked diligently to help set up a fresh-air camp for Bridgeport's youth, create a vision clinic at Bridgeport Hospital, purchase x-ray devices at St. Vincent's Medical Center, provide dental services for the indigent at Park City Hospital, and a litany of other community projects. Lions Clubs in New Haven, Greater Hartford, New Britain, New London, Greenwich, Waterbury, Meriden, Torrington, and Bristol would soon follow. Today, approximately 160 clubs with over 4,600 Lions are serving their communities, many collaborating with local governments to act as dependable volunteer arms.

In 1925, a future Connecticut resident, Helen Keller, would have a profound impact on the mission and very future of Lions Clubs International with her simple plea: ``Will you not help me hasten the day when there shall be no preventable blindness; no little deaf, blind child untaught; no blind man or woman unaided? I appeal to you Lions, you who have your sight, your hearing, you who are strong and brave and kind. Will you not constitute yourselves Knights of the Blind in this crusade against darkness?'' Connecticut Lions not only embraced her message, but also did much more, donating monies and time to support their communities locally and globally. Lions Clubs across the State have sponsored parades, festivals, and school projects, as well as raised funds for building equipment to improve the quality of life for children, the disabled, seniors, and veterans. Connecticut Lions have taken families in need shopping to make their holidays brighter. In support of the health and well-being of their communities, Lions Clubs have donated ambulances, school buses and other vehicles, and vital

equipment to our local emergency response teams, senior centers, and social services agencies.

Perhaps the most critical area of focus for Lions Clubs has been in vision care. In their ``crusade against darkness,'' Lions Clubs have raised enormous sums for research into blindness and eye disease. The Connecticut Lions Eye Research Foundation was chartered in 1956, establishing an eye research clinic under the auspices of Yale University, and later helped establish a second research facility with the University of Connecticut. Thanks to the work at these clinics, thousands of children and adults have benefitted from quality care and research.

Connecticut Lions have also established three District Lions Low Vision Centers to improve the quality of life and independence of those suffering from low vision. I have personally visited one of these centers and listened to healthcare providers and patients discuss how important and valuable these centers are.

For those still struggling with hearing and vision issues, the Connecticut Lions have supported the Connecticut Radio Information System with donations, volunteer readers, and other assistance. Guide and service dogs have been sponsored by Connecticut Lions, helping to restore the independence of the blind and visually impaired in their communities.

Connecticut Lions have also been deeply involved in providing relief from disaster and tragedy. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut Lions secured sizeable grants from Lions Clubs International Foundation to purchase and distribute critically needed equipment for our first responders and healthcare workers. When Hurricane Sandy devastated much of the State's shoreline, our Lions Clubs provided meals for first responders and volunteers who worked tirelessly to rescue people and restore services following the storm. Immediately following the Sandy Hook tragedy in December 2012, the Newtown Lions established a community fund to address the short-term and long-term needs of individuals arising from that tragic event. To date, they have raised more than $11 million for those affected by posttraumatic shock disorder, including many children of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Connecticut Lions recognized the desperate need of Hurricane Katrina victims, donating thousands of dollars and making multiple trips with shipments of vital supplies. Connecticut Lions have collected and provided food year-round, working with meal centers, food banks, and food share programs to distribute directly to our homeless and those in need. Police and first responders in many towns were provided with ``Homeless Kits.''

In the face of tragedy and immense need, the Connecticut Lions have never forgotten the importance of looking to the future. Connecticut's youth have been a significant part of Lions Club service programs. Leadership, Experience, Opportunity--LEO--Clubs give our youth an opportunity to serve their communities and develop their leadership skills. The Lions Quest program brings schools, families, and communities together to promote the development of healthy and responsible young people through social and emotional learning, character development, and a commitment to community service. The International Peace Poster Contest has provided an opportunity for children to express their visions of peace through art and creativity. Outstanding students striving to reach higher academic achievement have been provided significant scholarships as rewards for their incredible work.

We are proud of our Connecticut Lions who are, each one, a solid citizen contributing significantly to their community and beyond. They strive for new ways to serve others and to address the needs of their communities. Connecticut Lions are adept at recognizing needs, planning projects, organizing fundraisers, and rolling their sleeves up to get the job done. ``Where there is a need, there is a Lion!'' For 100 years, our Connecticut Lions have proudly demonstrated their motto: ``We Serve''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 27, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Miller nomination, postcloture; that at 11:30 a.m., all postcloture time be considered expired; that following the cloture vote on the McCabe nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that if cloture is invoked on the McCabe nomination, all postcloture debate time be considered expired at 2:30 p.m.; finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman and whip, Senator Durbin, who has fought so hard for the principles and values that are embodied in the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, which is part of the legislation. It is, indeed, bipartisan, and, hopefully, we will pass it today.

The fact is that this August marks two excruciatingly sad anniversaries. It will be 4 years since Heather Heyer was killed when a White nationalist drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters, and it will be 5 years since Khalid Jabara was shot and killed on his own front porch by his neighbor, an avowed and virulent racist.

The temptation is to get lost in the numbers and statistics about hate crimes. Make no mistake, these statistics are horrifying, especially the surge in hate crimes directed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

The FBI reported just over 7,300 hate crimes in 2019. The Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that there was an average of 198,000 hate crime victimizations in 2017. Hate crimes are vastly underreported. One of the objectives of the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act is to spur greater reporting so we know the horrifying dimensions and magnitude of this problem and we can better fashion solutions to fight them.

But what is most important to remember about each of these 198,000 incidents is that they involve real people, real communities, lives torn apart, communities torn asunder. In the most heartbreaking cases, they involve real lives that are lost forever, real families who will never see their loved ones again.

The NO HATE Act that the Senate is considering today is named for two of those people: Heather Heyer and Khalid Jabara. For just a few moments, I would like to spend this time on the Senate floor honoring them and their families. We are here because of them.

Heather Heyer was counterprotesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA, on August 12, 2019, when she was murdered by a White supremacist who purposefully ran his car into a crowd of protesters, also injuring 19 other people.

Heather is remembered as a young woman with a big heart. She devoted her life to the fight for justice and equality. The foundation named in her honor notes that ``Heather was a young woman deeply involved in taking a stand against injustice when she didn't have to do so,'' who ``spoke passionately'' about what she believed in. She was just 32 years old when she was murdered.

Khalid Jabara was shot on the steps of his own home, his family's home in Tulsa, OK, by a neighbor who had been harassing the Jabara family for months. That family had come to America to flee civil war and religious persecution in Lebanon, only to be terrorized here by their racist, murderous next door neighbor.

Khalid is remembered for his sense of humor and unfailing devotion to his family.

He cared for our entire family, our friends, and people he

didn't even know. He created every Jabara family joke and

filled their lives with love and laughter.

Jabara was 37 years old when he was murdered.

Today's vote honors the memory of those two individuals and the thousands of other individuals who have been victims of similar hate crimes--un-American, abhorrent, unacceptable. Today, we make a statement that we will not accept those kinds of hate crimes in America.

I am grateful to the entire Jabara family and to Susan Bro, Heather's mother, for their unfailing devotion to ending hate and their courageous advocacy in support of the NO HATE Act. I also want to thank my partner in this legislation, Senator Moran of Kansas. We would not be here today without his support and bipartisan cooperation on this bill.

There will always be hateful people who want to lash out violently at the world. They will lash out at Muslims, at Jews, at African Americans, at Asian Americans, at Pacific Islanders. But America is above it. America is better than they are. And we owe Heather Heyer, Khalid Jabara, and every other victim of hate crimes--from the Orlando nightclub massacre to the shooting in El Paso--the kind of action we are taking today.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it essentially shreds the bill. It removes core provisions.

It would prevent the Department of Justice from tracking hate crime incidents that don't rise to the level of criminal conduct. That provision is contrary to policy of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It would eliminate a provision from the NO HATE Act that I have advocated that funds creation of State-run hotlines so we know more about these hate crimes.

It would eliminate a judge's ability to order that a person convicted of hate crimes undertake educational classes and provide that kind of remedy as a condition for supervised release.

In short, it eliminates some of the most important provisions of this bill.

I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Madam President, I feel very privileged to be here today to speak on behalf of Vanita Gupta, a dedicated public servant who is devoted, deeply devoted, to equal justice, civil rights, and the rule of law.

I have seen firsthand, and I know I am not the only one who has done so, her consummate dedication to the integrity of the Department of Justice, which is so vital to be restored at this moment in our history.

The support for her reflects a broad, professionally and ideologically diverse coalition of individuals and organizations that know she is eminently qualified to be Associate Attorney General.

When she is confirmed, she will not only be the first civil rights lawyer but also the first woman of color to serve as Associate Attorney General.

She is, in effect, the leader we need in that position now. And we need it right now. The Attorney General needs her right now. He has said so. And we should be proud to confirm this eminently qualified woman. Hers is the character that the Department of Justice requires to help restore trust and credibility.

Now, the fact is that she has been a target of a smear campaign, a vial and despicable campaign of lies and deception that are completely unfounded. These attacks are based on demonstrable lies and mischaracterizations.

Her previous tenure in the civil rights division makes absolutely clear her commitment to enforcing the law with integrity and honesty, with balance and insight. She has a proven record as a consensus builder and as a leader.

And her work with law enforcement is the reason why she has such support among law enforcement leaders, and that support is across party lines. In fact, every major law enforcement organization refers and supports her nomination.

Try as they might, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues continue to smear her. She has never--she has never called for defunding the police. She has never said many of the lies that are attributed to her. And even more than being unfounded, these attacks are really the height hypocrisy. It is unconscionable that Republicans would criticize this lifelong public servant and Justice Department veteran after they silently sat by when there was no Senate-confirmed Associate Attorney General for nearly 3 years during the Trump administration. The outrage that they feign should fall on deaf ears.

Our moment of reckoning is soon. It is not just our moment of reckoning; it is a moment of reckoning for the Nation because, in the last year, we have faced a global pandemic. We have grappled with racial justice issues that have been ignored for too long, and we have defended against an onslaught of hate and extremism.

We are at a pivotal moment. We urgently need her kind of leadership to combat domestic terrorism, extremist violence, and hate crimes. In fact, we are in the midst right now of considering a measure that will help combat hate crimes, including my No Hate legislation. We know hate crimes are surging, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been the target of them, particularly the alarming wave of vitriolic attacks most recently.

Vanita Gupta has been a leader in the fight against hate crimes. As the head of the civil rights division, she was the Nation's chief civil rights enforcer and prosecutor. And while leading that division, she also headed the first prosecutions under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which expanded the Federal hate crime law to include, among other things, crimes motivated by a victim's sexual orientation--crimes motivated by whom a person loved.

During her confirmation hearing, she committed to using the Department of Justice tools to investigate and prosecute hate crimes where they happen and to use its bully pulpit to prevent hate from festering in communities around the country.

The plain truth is that Vanita Gupta is the right person at the right time for this job. The Senate should confirm her as supremely qualified for this eminently important assignment, and it should do so swiftly with bipartisan support.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.