Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues Senators Murphy and Bennet, two fellow champions of this cause.

Again, again, we have stood here so many times to advocate for measures that very simply would make Americans safe.

And I don't accept that it will be our last gasp. I don't accept that we will ever go away, that we will ever abandon this cause, no matter how long and how hard it is.

Senator Murphy and I were in Sandy Hook the afternoon of that massacre. We went through an excruciatingly heartbreaking, gut- wrenching, stunning experience, but nothing compared to the children who were taken out of the school. Nothing compared to the teachers who shepherded them. Nothing compared to anyone who lived through it or the emergency responders who had to see the scene of carnage that day and, of course, nothing approaching the trauma of parents and loved ones.

So our club, as he called it, is one that pales in significance to the club of survivors and victims. It is more than the names we read tonight. It is the children who take cover when that code is rung. It is the teachers who suffer the apprehension of wondering whether that day will be the one when there is a shooter. It is the parents of all children who send their kids to school and wonder whether, at the end of the day, they will see them again. At some level, maybe not all, maybe not

always, not every day, but that fear in the gut, that powerfully important apprehension is there for many.

When I was in elementary school, the fear was of nuclear annihilation. And the drills we did were to dive beneath our desks, as though somehow those desks could be protected in the midst of a nuclear attack. Absurd as it seems looking back, every one of us, during those years, wondered would that be the day. And on the days before the Cuban missile crisis, it became more real than ever.

And for that generation, it was the fear For this generation, gun violence is the fear that lurks constantly in the heart, in the back of the mind, and always a presence.

The names that we are going to read tonight are a very partial list of the injuries because we are reading the ones who died, but many others were injured severely and horrifically: bones shattered, flesh torn, futures changed forever, and, of course, the emotional trauma of living through it. But we have to read these names because it is part of our responsibility to make them real and to remind ourselves, as much as anyone, that this issue is a matter of life and death in the way that few others that we debate in this Chamber evoke.

At the beginning of the Judiciary Committee hearing the other day, just this week, we had a moment of silence. But we cannot be silent. Yes, we will offer thoughts and prayers, but we cannot be silent, and we must do more than speak. We must act--honor with action.

We cannot let these brave, wonderful souls go gently into this good night. We must rage, rage against the dying of the life. And that is what we are doing by reading these names, reminding ourselves that we cannot accept these deaths as a normal. Even with the pandemic receding, we hope, the epidemic of gun violence continues.

A gun, a firearm, especially an assault weapon, makes fatal and irreversible some of the most serious problems. Whether it is domestic violence, suicide, or simply a profoundly disturbed young man walking into a grocery store, or a racist and misogynist man going into a spa, the involvement of guns and firearms makes those incidents deadly.

The names that I will read will be of all ethnicities and religions and backgrounds and races because firearms can be an equal opportunity killer. But Senator Murphy is right that communities of color suffer disproportionately. And in Atlanta, who can doubt that a hate crime turned deadly, potentially, because of that gun.

Dominick Boston, Brad Keel, Ildiko Papp, James Ray Huddleston, Glenda Swain Toms, Kayla Marie Keatts, Ethan Delicat, Paula Marie Booth, Raymond Robinson, Delaina Ashley Yaun, Hyun Jung Grant, Daoyou Feng, Soon Chung Park, Suncha Kim, Xiaojie Tan, Young Ae Yue, Paul Andre Michels.

Last week, eight lives were taken by gun violence, and they should be remembered and their lives counted.

Delaina Ashley Yaun was a 33-year-old newlywed and mother of two, including a daughter she gave birth to this summer. She put her family above all else and cared for family members and friends who needed help or a place to stay during tough times.

Her manager said:

Her heart was so big. She loved people.

He describes how she would feed diners at the restaurant where she worked who were homeless and bring them home to offer them showers and clean clothes.

One friend described Delaina as ``a light. She just made everybody happy. She loves to smile and joke and hang out with her kids and make sure they always had fun. She was a happy person.''

Hyun Jung Grant was 51 years old. She worked as a schoolteacher in South Korea before immigrating to the United States. She was a hard- working and loving single mother of two, who loved karaoke, dancing, and electronic music, and made the world's best kimchi stew.

One of her sons, Randy, wrote:

She was a single mother who dedicated her whole life to

providing for my brother and I. It is only my brother and I

in the United States. . . . She was one of my best friends

and the strongest influence on who we are today.

Daoyou Feng was 44 years old. What we know about her from her friends is that she was sweet and kind. That is how she was described by her coworkers as well.

Soon Chung Park was an active 74-year-old mother and mother-in-law. She lived in Atlanta. She moved there several years ago to be closer to friends. And she was well on her way to living past 100. Because of the pandemic, she missed chances to visit her family in the Northeast but was planning to move back this summer to be closer to relatives and friends.

Her son-in-law described that Soon ``just liked to work. It wasn't for the money. She just wanted a little bit of work for her life.''

Suncha Kim, 69 years old. She was married for more than 50 years, and she was a fighter and a rock for her two children and three grandchildren. She was a hard worker and enjoyed line dancing.

Suncha came to the United States around 1980. She spoke little English and worked two to three jobs, putting her children first and always seeking to help others. She volunteered by cooking and fundraising. One of her grandchildren wrote:

My grandmother was an angel. . . . As an immigrant, all my

grandmother ever wanted in life was to grow old with my

grandfather and watch her children and grandchildren live the

life she never got to live.

Xiaojie Tan, killed that day, before her 50th birthday. She was a dedicated wife, mother, friend. She was devoted to her job and dedicated to her fellow employees. Her husband said:

She donated and gave money to her employees and treated

them so well. She was always celebrating their birthdays,

doing good things for them.

She was curious, hard-working, and caring, always filled with joy. She worked long hours, every day, to give her family a better life. Her daughter said that Xiao was her best friend and that ``[s]he did everything for me and the family. She provided everything.''

Yong Ae Yue, 63 years old. She was an amazing mother of two sons and loved to cook Korean food. She came to the United States in the 1970s, and after being laid off during the pandemic, she was excited to be back at work. She enjoyed visiting friends, watching movies and soap operas, and reading. She always loved to read and have her dog at her side.

Paul Andre Michels. He was a 54-year-old Army veteran, one of nine children, and he had been married for more than 20 years. He loved to fish and collect rare coins. He treated everyone like he was their uncle and did what he could to help others.

One friend said of Paul that ``[h]e would give you the shirt off his back.''

His younger brother, John, said:

He'd loan you money if you needed it sometimes. You never

went away from his place hungry.

My home State of Connecticut is not immune to gun violence. Sandy Hook is the best known of the tragedies, but there are others--many, many, many others--all around the State, in big cities, in small towns, in rural areas, suburban.

Nobody is immune. Nobody is protected against gun violence so long as the pipeline, the iron pipeline, even with Connecticut's strong laws, draws guns across State borders.

Here are some of the names and stories of people whose lives have been taken in Connecticut:

Jaqhawn Walters was killed on September 19, 2020, in Hartford. He was 24 years old. His mother Trician writes:

There was an altercation with someone inside a store. The

fight was broken up, but the other young man still shot him

and then stood over him a second time and shot him again.

Jaqhawn was a college graduate. He was known as a big

basketball player for Albertus Magnus. He played overseas for

two seasons before COVID hit.

My son saw a lot of gun violence growing up in the city,

and he became victim to it even though he tried his best to

beat all odds with a bachelor's degree in communications.

He even played in Argentina as a professional basketball

player, mentored kids through basketball. He got a

proclamation for his work at the Parker Memorial Center and

the Village, where he worked with troubled kids.

Jaqhawn's coach at Albertus Magnus described him as ``the type of kid that got along with everyone. His likability crossed every age generation. When I ran camp, 8-year-old kids, instantly, he was the guy. They'd all gravitate toward him. Same thing with our team.

They loved him. Opponents loved him. I've gotten a lot of texts, and I got one from a Northeast coach who said, `He had that thing where he'd drop 30 [points] on you, and every opponent not only respected him but genuinely liked him.' ''

Another coach said:

Jaqhawn was very, very rooted in the Hartford community,

and he loved his town. So he was always going to be one of

those people that came back and gave as much as he was able.

Another coach said:

He had such an impact. The guy had so much more to give.

That is the story of every one of these victims: so much more to give; so much more to give back, whether to Hartford or sons and daughters or parents.

Ethan Song was killed in Guilford on January 31, 2018, 12 days after his 15th birthday, with an unsecured firearm in his neighbor's house. He lived a life filled with laughter, adventure, and passion. He lived with adoring family members Kristin and Michael Song.

Ethan loved to ski and hike and play spikeball too. He helped his mom Kristin in finding homes for abandoned puppies. Ethan loved food. He and his dad Mike ventured to find the best lobster roll in New England. They sampled 15 locations.

He loved lacrosse, and he was good at it, making the all-star team one season. He was always interested in his family's history. He tried to learn all that he could about his grandmother's experience as a Holocaust survivor and went so far as to divert a family trip to the UK to see the Anne Frank house in the Netherlands.

Ethan was also fascinated by his grandfather's experience as a decorated intelligence officer in the Korean war.

I am always so inspired by Kristin and Michael Song and Ethan's sister, their strength and courage, their joy in life, and their unquenchable loyalty and love for Ethan. I have stood on the green in Guilford announcing my introduction of Ethan's Law, a safe storage law that they have championed with grace and dignity and power beyond words.

And let's say it out loud: This gun violence is every parent's worst nightmare, every parent's worst fear--going to school, going to a neighbor's house, going to a grocery store--wrong place at the wrong time: a neighbor's house where a firearm was unsafely stored, watching the emergency response team pull to that neighbor's house and knowing something is terribly, terribly wrong. Every parent's worst nightmare.

And Lori Jackson's parents know very graphically about that nightmare because their daughter, Lori Jackson, of Oxford, CT, came to their house seeking refuge from an estranged husband. And that night, while her infant children slept, Lori Jackson was gunned down by that husband, who was under a protective order which should have barred his having a firearm, but at that point Connecticut law applied only to permanent protective orders.

She was killed by that man even though he was under a protective order. She was 32 years old. She was a loving daughter and a mother of twins. And her mother also was severely injured.

And her parents, with that same grace and dignity and strength and courage, have championed protection for domestic violence victims and survivors.

She had so much to give--like Ethan, like so many others.

And we remember Noah, Charlotte, Jack, Olivia, Dylan, Catherine, Avielle, Jessica, James, Josephine, Caroline, Benjamin, Chase, Ana, Grace, Emilie, Madeleine, Allison, Daniel, and Jesse--20 beautiful, innocent children taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown more than 8 years ago.

We remember them for bringing bursts of light and laughter into the lives of their family and friends, for bringing love into the lives of all who knew them, and for their joy and boundless energy. Only 6 years old, but they had so much to give, and their lives cut short at Sandy Hook that day.

And we remember the heroism of those brave, courageous educators that December morning: Victoria, Lauren, Anne Marie, Rachel, Mary, and Dawn. We remember their courage, some of them physically shielding students with their own bodies, running unhesitatingly toward danger, barricading classrooms, drawing on all their reserves of calm and professionalism to protect and shield the children in their care.

We read these names, I feel, almost as a form of prayer. We cannot save any of these victims, but we know we can save others. And that is our work.

As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural speech, ``here on earth God's work must truly be our own.'' Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Casey for his very powerful remarks and all of my colleagues for coming to the floor tonight in this event that Senator Murphy and I are helping to lead.

Now I recognize Senator Van Hollen of Maryland, a great friend and colleague who knows a lot about this topic.

Mr. President, there is no last word tonight. There is no final saying here. There are no final names. Nora Beller, Tito Roman, Aaliyah Eubanks, Dominick Boston, Brad Keel, James Ray Huddelston--we could be here a long time. But the tragedy is there will be more names, 100 more, at this time tomorrow night.

And every one of these names is a future cut short. Every one of them is a life that could have given so much, bringing more light and joy, pride, grace, dignity.

My colleagues have come to the floor with great eloquence. I want to thank them. But the most eloquent part tonight is the names. And we should take inspiration from the courage of their families, the strength of the survivors, advocates, and activists who are forming a political movement that is creating ripples turning into waves that will overcome. They will overcome the intransigence and cowardice of colleagues who fail to heed the American public, and they will be held accountable.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are working today in the shadow of a truly hideous, horrific series of murders that occurred yesterday in Atlanta, GA, and I want to start by expressing my sympathies to the families that are affected, families of innocent women who were gunned down heinously by a murderer there. Eight lives were taken by that gunman, six of them Asian women.

There is an active, ongoing investigation, and I have no intention of prejudging the outcome. Justice must be done, and I have confidence in the law enforcement authorities of Atlanta that they will assure that justice is done.

So we don't know for sure what the gunman's motivation was, but we know eight of the women were Asian, and we know for sure that this horrific shooting rampage is only the latest egregious incident in a sickening, despicable trend of anti-Asian-American, or AAPI, violence that has terrorized the Asian-American community over recent months.

And we know many of these incidents were, in fact, hate crimes motivated by

bias, bigotry, and prejudice. Now, hate-motivated violence, as Attorney Garland said at his confirmation hearing, ``tear[s] at the fabric of our society . . . make[s] our citizens worried about walking [on] the streets and exercising even the most normal rights.''

And he is absolutely correct. It tears at our society. It degrades our trust in each other and in the fairness of America and the survivability of values and rights that are central to our democracy.

The increase in violence against Asian Americans must end, and we all know it. We all say it, but we must do it. In Congress, we must do everything in our power to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with the resources and the tools they need to overcome it, to successfully fight it, which they can do. And they need the will and determination to wield the tools and resources that we give them because they have to not only investigate, as they will this gunman, but also to effectively prosecute and assure just punishment.

We don't know for sure the motivation. We have evidence. And we can't say for sure how many hate crimes there have been against Asian Americans or others in our great country, but we have a pretty good idea where it all came from.

The rise in anti-Asian-American violence started with the previous administration, who failed to address and manage the COVID-19 pandemic, and rather than listen to the scientists and work to stop its spread, it sought to scapegoat a part of our country. It sought to scapegoat Asian Americans with xenophobic and hate-filled rhetoric.

Words have consequences. We all say it. We all know it. And we must denounce the words that spur and spew hatred and cause or contribute to hate crimes. Hate crimes are a growing scourge. The numbers are surging, whether it is against Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans, Black Americans. When it is against Americans, it is against America. Words do have consequences.

Stop AAPI Hate, which tracks violence and harassment against the AAPI community, Asian Americans, received more than 1,100 reports of COVID- related harassment, discrimination, and assault in its first two operational weeks last March. And now it has recorded more than 3,800 incidents since the start of the pandemic--3,800 incidents of harassment, discrimination, and sometimes physical assault--spurred and encouraged and condoned by public officials who used that hate-filled rhetoric to cover their own failures in dealing with the pandemic.

As the investigators and prosecutors go forward, we will learn more, and we need to let them do their jobs. But that doesn't mean we should remain silent, nor does it give us an excuse to be inert. We need to denounce that kind of rhetoric. We need to take action.

I have proposed a measure called the NO HATE Act, which would provide more training for investigators and more resources for hotlines because these hate crimes are typically and repeatedly unreported, and it would provide more incentives for reporting and new penalties--or encourage the imposition of penalties--that truly fit the crime.

Hate crimes are corrosive to our social fabric. They corrupt the pillars of our society, and their effect is unmistakable.

They traumatize and terrorize the communities that are their targets--in this case, Asian Americans, who have become more and more fearful as these incidents have multiplied. We all have a part to do in stopping this scourge. And we know that it is rampant, in part, because of the White supremacists and domestic terrorism and violent extremism that showed its ugly face in this Chamber earlier this year. It showed its brutal, cruel force in this building.

It is the same virus and cancer that is metastasizing in this country today. And its visible forms are the assaults, harassment, and discrimination that may well have been reflected in those murders yesterday.

I hope the NO HATE Act passes, but it won't be for a while. I hope we can take other action, but it will take time. And in the meantime, we can all take it as a moral imperative as our duty to denounce--not condoned by our silence--these groups and their extremist ideologies in White supremacists that perpetuate and expand the virus and cancer of hate crimes and hatred. Hate speech--fighting words--incitement in our society.

Mr. President, today I recognize Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a dedicated public servant who is celebrating 25 years on the Federal bench on March 11.

Born and raised in Montana, Judge Thomas's skill as a decisionmaker was evident from the start. Even as a high school debater, he earned the respect of competing schools with the combination of his success at meets and affable spirit. Both his tenacity and good nature would be enduring legacies. Judge Thomas went on to attend Montana State University and obtain his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law. He was twice appointed to the Board of Regents of Higher Education as a student member.

After graduating, Judge Thomas entered private practice. A quick learner with a deft ability to understand even the most complex cases, he became a senior partner. During his tenure in private practice, Judge Thomas specialized in commercial litigation, along with bankruptcy, government, and media law. He further applied his expertise as the standing bankruptcy

trustee for all bankruptcy cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's Billings Division. Judge Thomas also helped shape future lawyers by serving at Rocky Mountain College for over a decade as an adjunct instructor in law.

On July 19, 1995, recognizing Judge Thomas's outstanding record, President Bill Clinton nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Thomas in January 1996, and he served as a judge for nearly two decades, before becoming chief judge on December 1, 2014.

Throughout his impressive career, Judge Thomas has earned the confidence of his colleagues and the American people. He is a respected leader who is trusted for his sound judgment and integrity, as well as beloved for his warm personality and wit. These qualities landed Judge Thomas on President Barack Obama's short list of candidates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010.

Thanks to his extraordinary commitment public service, his intelligence and legal acumen, and his commitment to justice, Judge Thomas is a credit to our Nation's judiciary. His fairness on the bench, along with his tireless work ethic and compassion, sets a model for all of us.

I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas on attaining 25 years on the Federal bench.

Madam President, I couldn't be prouder to stand in the Senate Chamber today and speak on behalf of Miguel Cardona, shortly to be confirmed by this body as the next Secretary of Education.

Miguel Cardona is a man of deep commitment to his community and, with pride, a product of the Connecticut education system. I couldn't be prouder to support him because President Biden couldn't have made a better choice to be the next Secretary of Education.

Miguel Cardona's story is inspiring and compelling, a testament to the extraordinary support he has enjoyed from his parents, from the community of Puerto Rico, who lived in Meriden, the support he enjoyed from the public schools and institutions of higher education in Connecticut. His powerful and compelling story should be inspiring to all America because he has lived the American dream. And for anyone whose language may be something other than English as their first language, he has shown that people coming to our public schools, with English as their second language, should see no bounds to what they can accomplish.

He came to the public schools of Meriden as a second-language learner of English. He was raised in Meriden by Puerto Rican parents. He found an early passion for education. And his skill and dedication went beyond his own life. He did extraordinarily well and attended two Connecticut institutions of higher education--Central Connecticut State University and the University of Connecticut--eventually earning his doctorate in education. But he went back to Meriden. He dedicated his life to the education of others, beginning as a fourth grade teacher in Meriden and then becoming principal--the youngest in the State--and eventually assistant superintendent before just about a year ago being appointed as commissioner of education in the State of Connecticut.

His climbing looks meteoric and miraculous, but it was based on hard work and a dedication and passion to education for others, because he saw it in his own life and how it enabled him to live the American dream.

For all of his accomplishments and that meteoric rise, he has remained deeply rooted in the Meriden community, deeply committed to his roots in Puerto Rico, and deeply committed to his family. His parents, who should be so proud of him, are an inspiration to all of us who know them and who have seen their work in Meriden continue. Even as he has climbed the professional ladder, they have remained rooted and active and energetic in benefiting others in Meriden.

So to his parents, I say thank you for sharing with us Miguel. To his family, thank you for supporting him throughout his enormous journey and adventure.

His extraordinary accomplishments have led him to this place of consummate prominence in the educational professional community, and now he will do great things for the cause of education in our country, not just Connecticut.

His service never stopped in the classroom. He brought that knowledge of what happens in the classroom to establish policy in Connecticut in an enormously challenging time. He took over as commissioner of education on February 26, 2020, at the time of COVID-19 lockdowns and school closures, which began just a couple of weeks after he assumed that responsibility.

But as he has done throughout his educational and professional career, he consistently reaffirmed his commitment to students, parents, and teachers because they are the core of our educational system, especially students who have been potentially left behind. His bold vision and dedication to students and their families is exactly what we need now in an Education Secretary, providing direction and support to our Nation's public schools--direction and support after a time when leadership was so sorely lacking and commitment to public education was so unfortunately inadequate.

As we know, COVID-19 has challenged educators, students, families, and school administrators, day in and day out, during this very difficult and painful period. Disadvantaged students who lack support and resources at home have been left behind. Teachers are strained and stressed by changing environments and a lack of resources. Parents are concerned and overwhelmed, managing their children's schooling and their own work at home. Students in higher education are drowning in student debt that has left them crippled financially and unsure about their future.

These challenges pose a grave threat to the future of our children and our educational system, and we need a leader just like Dr. Cardona--one whom we have lacked, one who can regain our Nation's trust and reestablish faith in the leadership of our educational community at the very top in the Department of Education.

He is someone who will put students back on their feet, in their confidence and their trust in education. He is someone who will put teachers, parents, and students first, above special interests, because he has lived American education as the American dream.

In Connecticut, he has seen firsthand in his own life how education can transform futures and enable all of us, through our children, to live the American dream just as he has done. And he

will do it in a way that is inclusive, that respects the drive for racial justice, because he has lived that movement in his own life--the movement for racial justice. To end disparities and inequities are part of Miguel Cardona's agenda because it is his life. It is in his DNA, and it is part of his heritage and his family. And that is the reason why I am so proud of his success, but also of his vision and his dedication to the future of American education.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes for his confirmation. You will be proud you did, just as I am proud to stand here in support of him. He has lived the American dream, and he will open it through his vision and his courage for countless other young people who desperately need that faith in their country and its schools.

Today, American public education has a future that is bright and promising with Miguel Cardona's leadership. I am proud to say he is a product of Connecticut. His roots are there, and so is his vision and hope and faith.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in this impeachment trial, every Senator was a juror, but also a witness and victim of the violent insurrection Donald Trump incited. The case was straightforward. Former President Trump instigated an armed riot seeking to overthrow a lawful election and possibly even injure or assassinate elected officials.

I spent most of my career enforcing laws, including two decades as Connecticut's attorney general. In this

role, I learned the power and the significance of accountability. When wrongdoers enjoy impunity for their actions, they and others like them are emboldened.

The first time former President Trump was impeached by the House, he had pressured a foreign government to corrupt the American election process, extorting a vulnerable, fledgling democracy to help him cheat in a Presidential election.

This time, former President Trump's attack on American democracy was more direct and violent. The insurrectionists forced us to flee for our lives, to place desperate, seemingly final calls to loved ones. A Capitol police officer died protecting us.

I have the same fear now, only greater, that I felt at the close of former President Trump's last impeachment. By again refusing to hold former President Trump accountable, the Senate is paving the way for another would-be tyrant to break laws and norms to retain power.

We in the Senate are obligated to uphold our oaths to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our oaths obligate us to hold former President Trump to account for his incitement of a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, the symbol of American democracy around the world.

The case against Donald Trump was proven convincingly with videos and voice recordings so powerful that this printed word can never capture their force. The former President's offense in this case is as dangerous as it is straightforward. He spent months of his Presidency telling and retelling the ``Big Lie.'' The lie that no matter how the American people voted at the ballot box, he was the only legitimate winner of the 2020 Presidential election. That the election was stolen from him, that anyone who disagrees is un-American, a traitor.

As Manager Lieu explained at trial, at a certain point in his efforts to undermine the 2020 election, ``Trump ran out of non-violent options to retain power.''

Donald Trump encouraged, emboldened, and even helped build a mob of violent extremists that he invited to Washington, DC, and incited to storm the Capitol. While some Members of Congress were serving the former President in seeking to subvert American democracy by objecting to vote counting, Trump was imploring the mob to do the same. He told supporters to ``never give up'' on the ``Big Lie.'' He told them that ``this election was stolen from you, from me, from the country.'' He said, ``if you don't fight, you are not going to have a country anymore.'' He told the insurrectionists to go to the Capitol, and he even lied to them that he would be going with them.

The resulting violence, clearly foreseeable, was horrifying. They marched to the Capitol. Rioters broke windows and breached the building. They killed a 42-year-old Capitol Hill police officer and Air Force veteran, Brian Sicknick. They did stop the vote counting, if only temporarily. They injured many.

Members of Congress removed congressional pins to avoid identification from the mob. Senators ran from the Senate Chamber. They ran for their lives. Rioters flew a Confederate flag, a symbol of hate that did not fly in the Capitol even at the height of the Civil War.

Donald Trump watched this deadly attack unfold with glee from the Oval Office. On national TV, he told the insurrectionists that he loved them. ``I know you're hurt,'' he consoled the rioters. ``We love you. You're very special.'' He did not lift a finger to help anyone threatened with violence, including his Vice President.

As a result of former Donald Trump's incitement, an angry mob stormed the Capitol with every intent to harm elected officials and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Not only has the world lost Brian Sicknick, two other Capitol Police officers have died by suicide. Several members of the mob were killed.

The Senate's failure to convict increases the specter of another would-be tyrant, as well as Donald Trump, seeking again to mobilize a mob to overthrow democracy. Violent extremism has been emboldened. It is a present, immediate danger.

My colleagues know that former President Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election. They know that more than 60 courts tossed out his attempts to drum up baseless allegations of voter fraud. They know that the director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a lifelong Republican, certified the election was safe and secure. And they know that former President Trump incited the insurrectionists to attack the Capitol on January 6.

Democracy is not our default state of being. Democracy thrives only so long as the institutions that support it thrive. And democratic institutions will only thrive and persist through hard work, active work, dedicated work of our elected officials. For 4 years, former President Trump continuously attacked our basic norms and institutions of democracy. For 4 years, he normalized chaos. Our job now-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents--is to restore. We must dedicate ourselves to restoring the rule of law, the protections of rights, and the integrity of institutions. And that task starts with accountability for all those who perpetrated the damage.

Mr. President, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. President, I am really honored to follow my colleague from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, one of the premier founders-- the father--of E-rate, who knows better than anyone how investment in online learning and connectivity can make a crucial difference in all of our lives--in the lives of seniors, in the lives of people who live in communities of color, and in other underserved areas of our country. Most importantly, it can make a crucial difference in the lives of schoolchildren. Most crucially, right now, the simple, stark fact about this pandemic is that it has locked out of classrooms millions of students around the country. We need to get those students back into the classroom, and it has to be done safely.

In the meantime, online learning is going to be critical for them. Yet substantial numbers--most especially in communities of color--lack the connectivity and the devices they need to open classroom doors. In many of those households, working parents simply can't be around to supervise their children. It is more than just the nuts and bolts of devices; it is learning about how to learn online, but at the very least, the nuts and bolts have to be there, and that is why this American rescue program is so critical to the lives and learning of these millions of students.

The simple fact is that this homework gap is no longer a gap--it is a chasm. The homework gap has turned into a homework chasm and a homework crisis that threatens to set back students by months and even more. The fact is, right now, students are estimated across the country to have lost 3 to 5 years. In communities of color, that loss may be even worse, and once students have suffered that loss in learning, catching up, overcoming it, and bridging that gap is very difficult and sometimes impossible to do, which is a lifelong potential setback for them.

We are, in effect, disadvantaging American education by allowing this homework chasm to continue.

The American rescue program provides a model--it provides money but also a model in how the homework gap can be bridged and the chasm avoided.

We have made a promise. America makes a promise to its students that the basics of education will be provided so they can have an equal chance at the American dream. We are failing to keep that promise.

Now, there is really nothing mysterious about how to bridge this gap. In fact, I am proud to say that my State of Connecticut has done it very significantly--I am tempted to say ``has done it,'' but nobody is perfect.

Connecticut has built a program called Everybody Learns at the initiative of our Governor, Ned Lamont, who has used Federal money from the CARES Act. We have used significant private philanthropy--for example, from Ray and Barbara Dalio, great citizens of the State of Connecticut, and their foundation, which has contributed mightily, particularly in the Hartford area, where the leadership of Mayor Luke Bronin has been absolutely critical. What they have done, very simply, is provide tens of thousands of tablets, the kind of devices that are necessary for students to connect, and they have provided hot spots so that students have that way of reaching the internet. No mystery-- simply hard work and money. Most important, commitment.

I am asking my colleagues today for that same commitment to our Nation and to Connecticut, which needs to finish the job of connecting.

The Secretary of Education--or the nominee for that position--Miguel Cardona, knows very well the importance of online learning. He has championed it in Connecticut. Yesterday, he testified about it to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and he is going to be a very steadfast advocate, a trusted champion for online learning. But he, too, needs the tools and the resources.

Think of it not as a spending item, not as a funding measure; it is an investment. It is an investment in the basics of devices and connectivity. It is an investment in our young people.

Connecticut has made that investment, and we should not be skimping or cutting corners on our young people. We should not be, in effect, shortchanging them at this critical time when connectivity, broadband, online learning are really the lifeline for them.

Let's put them online with this lifeline and give them the ability to continue their education, even as the pandemic locks them out of classrooms. They may be physically no longer in person, but online, they can connect. If they are denied that online access, they will be truly locked out of learning, not just locked out of their classroom, and that would be a disgrace for this Nation.

I thank my colleagues for what I hope will be their commitment to continuing American teaching and education online during this unparalleled, uniquely painful and difficult time in our Nation's history. We can make it is easier for students. We can save them the homework chasm and the homework crisis.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized, in relation to the pending impeachment trial of former President Trump, to print as Senate documents those documents filed by the parties to be immediately made available to all parties, and that at the conclusion of the trial, those douments be printed together as a Senate document.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague Senator Brown on an issue that should be close to all of our hearts, which is strengthening our VA so that it can provide more assistance, more help, and more support for our Nation's heroes.

I had the great opportunity last Sunday to spend time at the West Haven VA Hospital, where literally thousands of vaccines are being administered hour by hour to our veterans. Around 25 percent of the veterans of Connecticut eligible to receive it have had vaccinations administered to them. That 25 percent is way above the 10 percent of the entire population of our State, and it is a great beginning. Under the leadership of Al Montoya at the West Haven VA and his remarkable team, our Nation's heroes are receiving the vaccinations they need and deserve. More than 8,000 already--and the staff of the VA, 2,500--have received vaccinations. Not all want it, but the VA is reaching out to them--literally, person by person--to ask them to come and ensure them that this vaccine is safe and effective. Most assuredly, it is.

So the VA is moving forward, but much more needs to be done. A lot of that VA target population is among the most vulnerable by virtue of age, by virtue of preexisting conditions, by virtue of their service and exposure and comorbidity. That is why this plan, the American Rescue Plan, in its distributing COVID-19 vaccines to veterans, is so critically important. There are 9,000 VA patients who have died of coronavirus. Although 1 million nationwide of our veterans have received vaccinations, there are many, many more who have not. These vaccines are reaching the arms of veterans, but the VA system needs support and the investment to do its job.

Likewise, this pandemic has imposed mental health burdens on our veterans. The veterans who are shut in--likewise, the veterans who have no homes and veterans in all parts of the country--have been stressed and strained just like everyone else--in fact, maybe more so. Medical health services available through telemedicine are more important than ever, but they alone are not going to accomplish this purpose. Again, what we have seen in Connecticut through the CBOCs, what is accomplished from telemedicine, and what is provided through counseling all show additional investment will produce even better care for our veterans.

A lot of our veterans have debts. Some of them are medical debts. They need help. This American Rescue Plan provides assistance for them. I have been a longtime advocate of extending VA healthcare to more veterans. I am proud this plan would allow struggling veterans to get more healthcare at the VA, but relieving veterans from the burden of medical costs is not enough. We need to deliver stimulus payments, unemployment insurance, and aid to small businesses so that we can lift the broader economic pain brought on by COVID-19. Veterans are part of our general population, and those general programs are part of what we owe them.

All of these programs need more oversight and more vigorous scrutiny as we go forward in order to prevent the kind of waste or delay that we have seen sometimes in veterans' programs. That is why the funds for the VA would be directed, in part, to oversight by the VA Office of the Inspector General. Through oversight by the inspector general, in combination with rigorous congressional oversight, we can ensure that these dollars are being spent effectively and in accordance with congressional priorities in a way that best supports our veterans.

A broader plan is also necessary, a broader infrastructure plan that will, for example, reconstruct and rehabilitate the West Haven hospital. It dates from the 1950s. It has a new shell, but its structure is aging and aged, degrading and sometimes, in some ways, decrepit. The VA has done a great job of sustaining and maintaining it, but this reconstruction is absolutely necessary. A capital investment must be made as our VA facilities, our ports and airports, roads and bridges all are in need of vital repair and reconstruction. That is part of the broader plan that must be undertaken. Priority must be given to those VA facilities.

Just a few months ago, we suffered in Connecticut a tragic accident when two workers at that VA hospital were killed while they were doing maintenance. It was unnecessary, avoidable, preventable, but it demonstrated the weaknesses and defects in the construction that remains in that hospital. It must be remediated and improved. The best way to do it is through a new building, not just a new exterior, not just cosmetic work but, truly, an infrastructure program that keeps faith with our veterans.

There is no excuse for delaying this COVID-19 rescue plan. Delay is unconscionable. Time is not on our side. We need decisive, bold, and big action to meet the needs that our veterans have and that all of the American people have in this time of unique, painful, and continuing crisis.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, this measure, essentially, is a pretextual, ideological, and extreme step that really detracts from what should be our primary purpose at this moment in our history.

Literally, we are fast approaching 450,000 deaths in this country, and people continue to die at the rate of more than 3,000 per day. Our economic progress continues to be stalled. In fact, it is declining, with joblessness increasing across Connecticut and the country. People are struggling to stay in their homes, put food on their tables, and pay for the medicine they need. Our goal should be making sure people have vaccines and the economic support that they need. Instead, we are here on a measure that would, essentially, take away rights, burden rights, for people--women--who need that right.

We ought to be focusing our energy and attention on winning our fight against this pandemic, but, instead, we are here, debating a pretextual and ideological bill, another anti-choice bill--yet another attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose about when and whether to have a child. This bill purports to be about protecting individuals with Down syndrome, but it is merely a pretext for requiring healthcare providers to scrutinize women for their decisions to seek an abortion. The pretext is to take away those individual rights.

As a matter of fact, this bill has nothing to do with protecting people with Down syndrome, and it has nothing to do with addressing discrimination. If my colleague would like to genuinely help people with Down syndrome, he would ask for unanimous consent on legislation that the disability community actually has supported. The National Down Syndrome Society wants increased funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. It wants better educational opportunities and settings for people with Down syndrome. It wants laws and policies that ensure economic self-sufficiency and better workplaces and a fight against discrimination.

Those are the legislative priorities of this disability community, but what this bill actually does is it essentially requires healthcare providers to interrogate women about their decisions to seek an abortion. Healthcare providers who might violate this bill, if it ever became law, would incur fines, imprisonment, or both.

In conclusion, people have a right to make these kinds of deeply personal decisions. Those rights are protected under our Constitution. We should be protecting people with Down syndrome, and we should be expanding their opportunities and fighting discrimination, not using them as a pretext for restricting and burdening a woman's right to choose.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I am really pleased to follow my colleague Senator Murphy after that very articulate case and to build on the case for keeping our promises to America. The Presiding Officer knows that promises made must be kept, including another $1,400 in stimulus payments to every individual, bringing that total to $2,000, which is what we promised; to make sure that vaccines are available broadly across this country and that schools become places of learning again, in person for students and teachers in a safe learning environment.

What we are doing in this package, which is big and bold--and it has to be--is to put money in people's pockets, put vaccinations in people's arms, and put children back in schools safely. And I emphasize ``safely.''

Now, I was very excited over this past week or 10 days to travel throughout the State of Connecticut and visit clinics where vaccinations are being

provided to thousands of people in Connecticut, raising our rate to one of the highest in the country--about 10.3 percent.

I saw nurses and doctors at Danbury Hospital, led by John Murphy, making promises real for people.

I visited Rentschler Field, a former runway turned into a vaccination site for people receiving those shots in their arms from the Community Health Center, headed by Mark Masselli.

I saw vaccinations at Griffin Hospital, a wonderful team headed by Pat Charmel. But here is the story at Griffin Hospital. Last week they did 6,000 doses. This week it will be 2,000, not because of any lack of skilled vaccination person power, not because of any lack of determination--because of lack of vaccine.

Shortages in Connecticut and around the country are impeding and setting back our effort. They are lengthening the tunnel. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but it is longer as we delay the vaccine that is necessary to do the job.

There is not enough. It is not reaching the people who need it in enough supply, and it is not being delivered equitably. The numbers in Connecticut show that people in communities of color are nowhere near as likely to receive that vaccine--in fact, perhaps three times less likely.

We need to make sure that delivery is fair and effective in this country, or we will never conquer this pandemic and put America back to work. Using the national Defense Production Act is absolutely necessary, but so is the commitment of $160 billion in this big and bold relief program.

It has to be big and bold. It also has to be done now. Time is not on our side. I have no tolerance for delay or dithering. I have no patience for cuts in this package; $1.9 trillion ought to be our floor, not our ceiling. And if there is a need for targeting those stimulus payments, the money ought to be reallocated to vaccines and to creating safer environments to work and to learn.

Vaccines are important to our schools. Teachers are essential workers. They are on the frontlines. They are putting their lives at risk. They have been demonstrating the courage and conviction to come to school, but they should receive this vaccine.

A safe learning environment means also personal protective equipment, barriers such as we are seeing in restaurants and other public places-- plexiglass and other kinds of dividers. These kinds of essential equipment are the reason that we are advocating $130 billion for our schools.

There are many other steps that must be taken to ensure not only that our learning environments are safe but also that students have the connectivity they need remotely because for some period of time, that will be the way they learn.

More than a third of communities of color in the State of Connecticut, which is thought to be a very sophisticated and advanced State, still lack that connectivity--a third of our seniors. Safe and fair learning environments mean broadband, and that is also another reason for that $130 billion in this package.

Many of these students face serious gaps--1 to 3 months and even longer for some students who have lacked that connectivity--up to 6 months in basic skills: reading, writing, and arithmetic. These kinds of gaps have to be filled.

We need a major effort to focus on our students who have been left behind, and that is why this kind of package is a moral imperative. It is a social obligation. We will lose talents and skills, but students will also lose their future.

We should come together on a bipartisan basis. There is nothing wrong with cooperation, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will join with us as we move forward, but we will move forward. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when efforts to wait meant unconscionable delay. We have no such luxury in this humanitarian crisis. We must move forward, and we will.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today I rise to recognize Ms. Helen Eugenia Hagan, a remarkable pianist and pioneer for BIPOC women in music.

Her passion for performing began at a young age, and Ms. Hagan became the organist for the Dixwell Avenue Congregational Church when she was around 11 years old. Ms. Hagan's talents earned her a spot at the Yale School of Music. In 1912, she was the first African-American woman to graduate from Yale University.

At the request of General John J. Pershing, Ms. Hagan traveled to France during World War I as part of a group led by preacher Henry H. Proctor. Ms. Hagan was the only Black performing artist sent to France during the war. Continuing to break barriers, she was also the first Black pianist to perform a recital at a New York concert venue. Ms. Hagan's compositions and concert work received outstanding praise. The then-Dean of the Yale School of Music credited Ms. Hagan with ``rare promise,'' and critics commended her creativity and originality.

Struggling to find work during the Great Depression, she took graduate-level courses at Columbia University's Teachers College while still giving performances. In 1933, Ms. Hagan took a teaching position at Bishop College in Texas and gave private music lessons in New York. She remained committed to musical composition, performance, and education until her passing in 1964.

On February 6, 2021, the New Haven Symphony Orchestra will honor Ms. Hagan with a History Award. Alongside Yale University, the symphony has been dedicated to sharing the life story of this incredible woman, who performed her ``Piano Concerto in C minor'' with them in 1916. This award is a tribute to Ms. Hagan's extraordinary legacy, which will be enduring.

I applaud her many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Ms. Helen Eugenia Hagan.

Mr. President, today was a stomach-turning, gut- wrenching moment in our history. Truly, it was an assault on the heart of our democracy.

I want to join in thanking the first responders and the police.

I also want to thank others who have been heroes of our democracy-- unsung in many instances. First, they are all of the election officials, all of the poll workers, all of the members of boards

of election who actually counted the votes--who went to the polls and made sure that votes could be cast--and who, ultimately, stood firm for the integrity of that voting system.

I want to thank the judges. There are now about 90 of them who, except for one or two who ruled the other way on a technicality, have stood firm for the integrity of that voting system. In those 60 to 70 cases, except for that one who ruled on a technicality, they went with the integrity of our voting system and the rule of law.

Today was, indeed, disgusting and sickening. It was shocking and despicable. It was heartbreaking, but it was not surprising. In fact, today's assault on our democracy--the mob violence, the riots, the thugs and goons who were inspired and incited by the President of the United States--all were of a piece, in these past 4 years, of a President who has no respect for the truth or the rule of law.

Donald Trump's Presidency is coming to a close in the very same way it began--with an attack on our democracy. In 2016, the Trump campaign welcomed hostile foreign interference with our election. The President refused to acknowledge that he would accept the results of the election if he lost. Then, again and again, he demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and for laws themselves. He obstructed justice, and he would have been charged with it had he not been the President of the United States. He invited a foreign government to interfere in our elections and find dirt on his political opponent.

Most disturbingly, these actions by a President who demonstrated that contempt for the rule of law were met with silence from many political leaders, our colleagues here in the Senate among them--silence in the face of that contempt for the rule of law and disrespect for the law enforcers.

So we could have seen today coming. In fact, we did. I warned about it, and others did because the fantasies and falsehoods that drove those rioters--not protesters but the mob who assaulted the temple of democracy--were fueled by the President's misstatements and lies and contempt for the truth, and he was enabled. He had enablers.

Today, we are stopping, in one instance, that enabling, but we must also make sure to stop it going forward. The political stunt that brought us here today offers no great solace that it will. These stunts have consequences. We say words have consequences, and the actions today will have significant consequences. They are an attack on our democracy that undermines the core tenets of our American Government and a disrespect for the will of the people and a peaceful transition of power. The political stunts themselves, driven by opportunism, blaze a path that can be followed by more competent challenges just as the dictatorial instincts and actions of this President can be followed by more effective would-be tyrants intent on destroying our Republic.

Yes, we have more important tasks that we should be addressing as well--the pandemic, the economic revival. Yet, today, we must be mindful of the threat to our democracy that we face down and come together on a bipartisan basis, but silence is never excusable in the face of lawlessness at the very top of our political structure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about insulin. You may wonder why someone would talk about insulin, given all the weighty and pressing issues we have before us in this Chamber and even more so in the world today. I will not begin to recite them, but insulin for millions of people--in fact, 30 million people in the United States--is a matter of life and death.

Many of us are fortunate because we never have to think about insulin. Our bodies make enough of it to keep us healthy, and we go about our lives without a second thought concerning blood glucose or how our pancreas is functioning, but for those 30 million people--and quite a few of them visited us this morning in our offices, and they were present in the Committee on Aging at our hearing--insulin is a constant worry. It is top of mind. It is always present as an issue for them, in fact, on a daily basis. Patients with diabetes need to carefully monitor and adjust their insulin levels along with managing their physical activities, their diet, stress, pain, sleep levels.

Many of those young people who came to the Committee on Aging today-- by the way, I want to thank Senators Collins and Casey for holding that hearing and giving them an opportunity to come to the Nation's Capitol and make us more aware--were wearing monitoring devices, hidden but a constant concern. They depend on insulin as a matter of life and death. It is not a luxury for them. It is not like ice cream or ball games. It is life and death. They are fortunate, too, because they have access to insulin, unlike a lot of people around the world and unlike the whole world, including America, about 100 years ago when diabetes was, in fact, a death sentence, not in a matter of years ahead but right then and there. Diabetes was lethal.

That changed when two researchers, Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best, succeeded in isolating insulin from an animal pancreas in 1921. By the next year, they had collected enough to treat their first patient. He was a 14-year-old boy with diabetes, and he lived miraculously for another year. That was unheard of at the time. It was a tremendous breakthrough--an extra year of life because of their discovery.

So Dr. Banting and Dr. Best filed a patent. They patented their discovery in 1923, and they stated their goal was not to make a lot of money, not to make profit but to make insulin available to the world, make it available to everyone who needed it, make it available to patients, regardless of their means and circumstance. Do you know what they did with that patent? They sold it for $1--just $1.

Dr. Banting said: ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.''

He was right. Insulin belongs to the world of people, whatever their ages, whatever their circumstances, whatever their means, wherever they live. Certainly, in the greatest country in the history of the world, where that patent, about 100 years ago, was sold for $1, shouldn't it be affordable and accessible to everyone?

Well, this story has a really discouraging sequel, which is today in real time. The price of insulin has skyrocketed. When I say ``skyrocketed,'' there are different numbers. It doubled, according to one authoritative site, between the years 2012 and 2016. There is another study that says it has risen 10 times in price over just the last several years. Beyond question, it has risen and not just by a little bit but by literally hundreds of dollars for the average American who has to afford it, day in and day out. Those yearly costs are forcing people to choose, literally, between putting food on the table and buying insulin, between paying mortgages and buying insulin, between the kinds of fun that ordinary young people would enjoy and buying insulin.

I know we say this about choices made by Americans, but today in this very Capitol, just steps away, I listened to the parents of Logan and Emma talk to me, along with them, about the real-life consequences of these exploding insulin costs, and it broke my heart. Their experiences are truly heartbreaking and gut-wrenching.

Logan is 12 years old, and he told me in the reception area right here about his diagnosis at 18 months. He talked about the advances in technology around diabetes treatment with extraordinary technological knowledge--impressive not just for someone our age but truly for somebody who is 12 years old. These advances are a tribute to American science, innovation, and ingenuity. They are groundbreaking, but at the end of the day, if his family cannot afford insulin, even the best, most groundbreaking technology means nothing. That is Logan's reality.

His mom told me about sitting in a CVS parking lot and crying while she held a box of pasta because that was all she could afford--pasta for the rest of the week for dinner for that family. It was all she could afford after the insulin costs. For their family, Logan's insulin has cost as much as $750 a month. That is their deductible. That is what they pay even with insurance. So they have sacrificed not only in terms of what they eat but how they live. He was with Emma, and the two of them are extraordinary ambassadors for the Junior Diabetes Research Foundation, the JDRF, which does so much wondrous work for diabetes patients.

Emma is 15 years old, and her father told me about a similar struggle to afford insulin. In fact, her own dad was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in his midthirties after Emma's diagnosis. He told me that ``the price of insulin is illogical.''

There is no reason why the cost keeps going up. In fact, Emma and Logan, both from Connecticut, have become world-wise--not world-weary but world-wise--about the American drug industry. They know those costs are rising without any reason in terms of the cost to the manufacturer. There are costs and prices rising for consumers without any justification in the real cost of producing the insulin they need.

Last week, I held an event on insulin with other diabetes patients to discuss the skyrocketing costs. One of my constituents who spoke was a little bit older than Logan and Emma. Dr. Kathryn Nagel, a physician and resident at Yale University, was also diagnosed with diabetes when she was 18 months old. She is a resident now, training to become a pediatrician, among other specialties. As she put it to me, ``Banting would be ashamed of the state of things now.'' Dr. Banting said, ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.'' He would be outraged and embarrassed by what is happening in America today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Nagel's full remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Kathryn Nagel--who will be an extraordinary physician because she has not only a great mind, but she also has a great heart--is absolutely right. Drug companies today have moved far from the outreaching motives of insulin's original discovery. Advancements in biotechnology have allowed manufacturers to make slightly more purified and precise versions of insulin, but it works the same as Dr. Banting's original insulin from the 1920s because that is what our body needs to do its work.

Even incremental changes to an insulin product open up new patent opportunities for manufacturers and companies that have been taking advantage of these loopholes in our patent system for too long at the expense of patients and their families.

Let me give one particularly egregious example. Sanofi manufactures the insulin product Lantus. Sanofi filed a total of 74 patents on Lantus, with 95 percent of those applications happening after Lantus was introduced to the market in the year 2000. That is a variation of insulin--almost 20 years old--protected by 74 patents way beyond the life of the original patent on a medicine discovered 100 years ago by a doctor who said, ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.'' Sanofi has constructed such an elaborate web and tangle of patents surrounding their product that they could have a competition- free monopoly on their particular version of insulin for 37 years. They are exploiting it relentlessly and tirelessly and inexcusably.

The effect of elaborate patent thickets like Sanofi's--constructed by companies--are felt by consumers in the form of higher drug prices. It is that simple. Create a monopoly without competition, and the prices can be raised without real limit. Lantus has increased in price 24 percent from 2016 to 2018. In 2 years, there was a 24-percent increase unrelated to the cost of the product. In fact, the overall costs of insulin have doubled in recent years, with patients having paid an average of $2,864 for insulin in 2012 and $5,705 in 2016. That is the average out-of-pocket for insulin patient. That is the story I heard from Emma Del Vecchio of Orange and Logan Merwin of Haddam, as earlier today they shared their life-and-death struggle with the cost of insulin.

One more story that has resonated with me over the past few days is from Kristin Whitney Daniels. She is from Shelton, CT.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the remarks of Kristen Whitney Daniel and Jonathan Chappell printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Kristen is the chapter leader of Connecticut #insulin4all and attended the event I mentioned. She was inspired to become an advocate for affordable and equitable access to insulin after facing tough barriers in her own medical treatment. She was forced to become one of the one in four patients with diabetes in the United States who has resorted to insulin-rationing in the face of high drug costs.

Let's be clear about insulin-rationing. It means reducing the dosage--rationing the consumption--to lower the cost. When we talk about folks who have to cut pills in half or seniors who take a pill every other day instead of every day, that is rationing. That is

what Kristen had to do in the face of these rising drug prices.

In order to pursue her dream internship, Kristen had to purchase the only health insurance she could afford, which was a high-deductible plan whose monthly payments consumed 15 percent of her income. To try to prepare for the realities of this kind of coverage, she had to hoard her insulin and other diabetes supplies for months in advance, deliberately starving her body of the medicine she needed in order to keep her head above water financially.

I have submitted bipartisan legislation that was recently approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, along with my colleague Senator Cornyn, that would end these abusive practices surrounding patents-- patent-thicketing and product-hopping. You don't need to know the details of those abuses or of our legislation to understand the need for protection and the need for security and safeguards for these kinds of patients--the 30 million who suffer from diabetes and who are paying exploding costs for insulin that are rising exponentially and astronomically for not only insulin but also many other drugs, as we know from listening to our constituents.

All of our colleagues understand the high cost of prescription drugs that continue to plague America across all walks of life. Every day, patients are forced to choose, in fact, between paying for the medicines they need and the needs of their families. Drugs to treat everything from depression, to arthritis, to cancer, and even basic saline solution for IVs have increased in price in recent months. They are not new, wondrous, magic discoveries; they are workhorse medicines. Insulin has been around for 100 years. Many of these other drugs have been around for decades as well. We owe it to Americans.

As citizens and as patients ourselves, we know that these rising prescription prices are ruining families, tearing apart communities, and destroying the basic trust we have in our healthcare system. Nothing is more basic. Healthcare is a right. Prescription drugs should not be available just to the wealthy.

The bill Senator Cornyn and I are hoping this Chamber will pass is just one step toward making prescription drug prices more affordable; making these cures that are America's pride--developed by great researchers and wonderful minds--available to all of our citizens.

Logan Merwin, Emma Del Vecchio, and all of the children in America who suffer from diabetes understand something maybe we don't as well: that insulin is a matter of life and death and that they are alive because they live in the greatest country in the history of the world, where insulin is available to them even at times when it is difficult for their families to afford. They know, too, that with the great advocacy of Kathryn Nagel, Kristin Whitney Daniels, Jonathan Chappell, and others who are taking their cause to America, as well as the JDRF, which is supporting wonderful discoveries, we will be a better country. We will make these prescription drugs affordable.

Insulin will be available to all. Insulin does not belong to me or to you; it belongs to the world. And I hope America will be an example of making insulin belong to the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the American Legion as it celebrates 100 years of dedication to serving and advocating for veterans on a local and national level.

Chartered and incorporated by Congress in 1919, the American Legion has grown to support veterans nationwide. The American Legion Department of Connecticut was established in the same year and is home to some of the first posts in the country.

Over the past century, the American Legion has established itself as our Nation's largest veterans service organizations. As a nonpartisan and not-for-profit organization, the Legion uniquely offers a multitude of local programs devoted to our servicemembers and their communities. Through youth mentorship and athletics, reintegration assistance for wounded veterans, and many other critical activities, the Legion plays an important role in their communities throughout the United States.

With around 150 posts across Connecticut, the organization helps bring together and shape the lives of many veterans, their families, and their neighborhoods. The Department of Connecticut follows the four pillars of the American Legion: supporting Americanism, national security, advocating for veterans' affairs and healthcare, and preparing children throughout our state for future success.

In particular, they generously help children of all ages in Connecticut explore their potential with activities such as State Police Youth Week, an oratorical contest focused on deepening high school students' understanding of the U.S. Constitution, American Legion Baseball, and summer government education programs.

As a member who has regularly attended events for the Legion, including several of their youth programs, annual conventions, Veterans Day events, and mid-winter conferences, I can proudly attest firsthand to the impressive work they accomplish on behalf of Connecticut veterans and their families. As the American Legion and its Department of Connecticut recognize and celebrate their rich and productive 100- year history, the dedicated staff and volunteers continue to look toward the future and expand the positive impact of their outreach and programs.

Committed to serving veterans and their communities throughout our State, the American Legion Department of Connecticut provides essential advocacy and services that help to better lives and create new opportunities. I applaud the accomplishments of the American Legion's devoted officers and volunteers, and I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the American Legion and the American Legion Department of Connecticut on a century of excellence.

Madam President, I am very pleased to follow my colleague from Connecticut and to continue his thoughts about the utter chaos and catastrophe that would be caused by the success of this lawsuit now before the court of appeals--chaos and catastrophe that would, in effect, turn back the clock to days that I remember well because I was attorney general when preexisting conditions were used as a ruse to deny lifesaving medical care and coverage to people with cancer, brain tumors, and literally lethal diseases.

In those days, as attorney general, I took their fight and made it my own, even sometimes calling presidents of insurance companies over weekends to go to bat for those individuals.

Those bad old days--the days of no protection against preexisting conditions--are over now, but they will come back if this lawsuit is successful. If this lawsuit wins, young people who are now covered by their parents' policies up to the age of 26 will be without it. If this lawsuit wins, the annual and lifetime caps on benefits will come back. If this lawsuit is successful, preexisting conditions again will come back to haunt people who need and deserve coverage. If this lawsuit wins, millions of people--tens of thousands in Connecticut--will be at risk.

One of them is a young man, Conner Curran, an 8-year-old boy in Ridgefield. His picture is right here. I met Conner 3 years ago when he was 5, and his parents noticed he was lagging behind his twin brother. They brought him to a doctor, expecting maybe a simple diagnosis. Instead, they were told that Conner had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. That is a degenerative, terminal disease. It has no cure. It is life- threatening. In fact, most people with the disease don't survive past their midtwenties.

Conner's family wrote to me, telling me that their beautiful, young, sweet child, at the time just 5\1/2\ and full of life, would slowly lose his ability to run, to walk, to lift his arms. Eventually, they said, he would lose his ability to hug them.

Conner needs care--complex care--from multiple specialists, costing tens of thousands of dollars per year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there is no denying him coverage. There is no denying him coverage because of his illness, and he will receive the care he needs.

His family also wrote to me that the reinstatement of lifetime caps or elimination of essential health benefits will hinder his family's ability to access the care Conner needs. In fact, if this lawsuit wins, there will be virtually insuperable obstacles to Conner receiving that vital lifesaving care. If this disease progresses, as seems very possible, he will need access to Medicaid in offsetting costs of living with that disability.

For his family, the question is, Will Medicaid even be there? If that devastating day comes, will he receive the care he needs?

Conner's family shared their concern over what would happen if the repeated and reckless attempts to undermine healthcare succeed and if repeal of the ACA becomes a reality. He and his family are not giving up. They have come to my office since he was diagnosed to fight for a cure and for the Affordable Care Act. They have demonstrated strength and courage, sometimes with tears in their eyes. They raise awareness and fight for their son. I know they would do it a million times over if it meant Conner could have a long and healthy life.

Connor and millions like him are the reasons I am here to fight back against any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Whether it is in Congress or in the courts, make no mistake, this effort in the courts is another means of repealing the ACA. The people of Connecticut get it. They understand the agenda here. They want all of us--and I think most of our constituents do as well--to make sure this kind of care is there for Connor and for all of us because all of us will be at risk if the ACA is repealed, whether it is in Congress or the courts.

In Connecticut, there are 1.5 million people living with preexisting conditions. That includes 182,000 children like Connor. If this Republican-backed lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act succeeds, their protections will be eviscerated; they will be lost, not just for a year or two but likely for their lifetime.

The Affordable Care Act ban on lifetime coverage caps is so important to kids like Connor. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the ACA is successful, he will be one of the more than 1.2 million people in Connecticut who would meet a lifetime coverage limit and be forced to worry about how and if they can pay for their necessary medical care.

In Connecticut, about 25,000 young people get their healthcare coverage under their parents' plans, thanks to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that children can be covered until the age of 26. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the ACA succeeds, these young adults will be left without coverage.

In Connecticut, over a quarter of a million people have healthcare coverage because of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Another 110,000 have coverage through the Connecticut ACA exchange. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act succeeds, their healthcare coverage will be gone.

If the Republican-backed lawsuit succeeds, the uninsured rate of Black Connecticut residents would likely double. One in five Latinos under 65 will go uninsured.

All of these people, like Connor, represent our Nation--the best of our Nation--with their dedication to the people they love, and they deserve to be heard. Their voices need to be heard here. They are the true faces of the Affordable Care Act. Every one of them, like Connor, is a life that will be enhanced by continuing the Affordable Care Act. If this Republican-backed lawsuit succeeds, their lives will be at risk, and we will be a lesser nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow this body faces an opportunity, in fact, an obligation to reassert its proper constitutional role in warmaking.

I urge my colleagues to support the Udall-Kaine amendment, a provision to prohibit funding for unauthorized and unapproved military operations against Iran. No vote will be more important during this session than the one we cast tomorrow. It is not only the imminence of potential conflict, it is the reality that we would be surrendering our proper constitutional responsibility and our right if we fail to adopt this amendment. The American people already believe we have ceded too much authority to the executive branch; that we are implicitly, if not directly and explicitly, approving an imperial presence. This amendment puts us to the test before the American people.

The Congress has a job to do. We should do that job tomorrow. We should insist that we have the authority and we have the obligation to consider whether there are military operations against Iran.

We can talk about policy. There is no question that Iran is a malign and treacherously bad actor in that part of the world. There is no doubt that it poses a clear and present jeopardy to the world community. Iran may well have installed mines on the two tankers that were severely damaged recently and may well be the culprit in shooting down an American drone in the past week, but the United States is on a perilous course. We are on a dangerous course toward continued escalation and possible miscalculation that may create a spiral of uncontrollable military responses.

It isn't that we have a dangerous policy, it is that we have no policy, no strategy, no endgame articulated by the President of the United States or anyone in this administration. To resort to military action rather than reliance on diplomatic approaches is a recipe for potential disaster.

This unintended escalation could result from more miscalculation or it could result from purposeful desire on one side or both sides among a small number of advisers or military leaders that there be a resort to kinetic activity, but we have, in the meantime, an opportunity to resort to diplomacy, to enlist our allies and partners. This situation is the result of our putting those allies, in part, in an extraordinarily difficult position.

The current tensions with Iran today are the direct result of President

Trump's ill-conceived policy toward Iran ever since he carelessly and recklessly discarded the Iran nuclear deal last year. His approach to foreign policy has been indecisive and chaotic, and that is partly the reason why tensions have escalated with an adversary rather than preserving key nuclear agreements and engaging in diplomacy.

We must now deescalate and resort to diplomacy. Even if one disagrees with that point, puts aside the President's bellicose and bullying rhetoric, and even if there is the thought that Iran is solely and completely responsible for this situation, the United States should not engage in military operations without the authorization of Congress. Yes, it may defend against or deter an immediate attack that is so urgent that defense of the country has to be undertaken by the Commander in Chief. But this Senate should prevent the President from entering and starting and engaging in another war in the Middle East under the misguided idea that there is a 2001 authorization that allows him to do so legally.

Let me be perfectly clear. A failure of the prohibition funding amendment we will consider tomorrow is not itself an authorization for the President to wage war with Iran. The Constitution trumps any statute. The Constitution requires action by Congress. Without congressional authorization and anything short of specific authority for declaration of war from Congress, starting or waging a war with Iran would be unconstitutional.

But the NDAA on the floor this week is an opportune time--in fact, a perfect opportunity--for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over the role of the declaration of war. We must seize this moment. We can't simply allow or rely on the outdated 2001 authorization for the use of military force. We cannot allow its intent to be so distorted and stretched and our constitutionally required oversight to be disregarded. We have an obligation to conduct oversight continually and push back on an administration that makes false claims to advance its warmongering agenda.

The NDAA we passed today gives us the authority to undertake our defense of the Nation.