Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 203, S. 66.

I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 219, S. 2299.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 10; and that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

The Senate will not be in session tomorrow.

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

I would ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about Black History Month and, in particular, to talk about a program that my office has been presenting every February for many years now.

Each February, it has been my privilege to honor several Pennsylvanians as part of the celebration of Black History Month. This year, we pay tribute to four esteemed Pennsylvanians who have helped their community and the Commonwealth build resilience.

And I will list them first, and then I will be talking about each of them in greater detail: First, Tyrone Holmes, from my hometown of Scranton, PA; Della Clark of Philadelphia, PA; Julius Boatwright of Pittsburgh; and Theo Braddy of Harrisburg--all Pennsylvanians. And their work is demonstrative of this year's theme for our program: ``Resilience in the Face of Adversity.''

As their persistence and strength has helped their communities surmount significant difficulties this year, their enduring leadership is an encouragement to me after a year where, sadly, resilience has been sorely needed throughout our Commonwealth and throughout our country.

Now, in some ways, we have made some progress in the last year. Just consider this: The national economy created 6.7 million jobs, the most ever in the first year of a Presidency. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate went way down from 7.1 to 5.4. Tens of thousands of jobs have been added just in Pennsylvania. Wages are up, and child poverty is down. The number of fully vaccinated Americans has increased from 2 million to 213 million in just the last year. And we have more tools to manage COVID-19 and keep us safe.

And, finally, the number of schools open for in-person learning has skyrocketed from just 46 percent a year ago to now 95 percent of schools. Some believe it is as high as 98 percent.

However, despite those measures of progress, we are still grappling with so much--grappling with a virus that is adaptable and still deadly, especially for people with preexisting health conditions, and even more so for those who are unvaccinated.

And as COVID-19 has lingered, so, too, have the attendant direct effects. Our schools still struggle to teach our kids and to maintain the regularity that is critical to learning.

Our businesses must contend with fluctuating demand and a fragile supply chain. Many of our children have fallen behind on their other critical vaccinations and routine doctor visits. Many children and adults struggle with isolation and pandemic-related mental health challenges.

We know that much of the adverse impact of COVID-19 has been particularly acute for communities of color. In the United States, Black Americans have experienced higher rates of COVID-19 hospitalization and death compared to White Americans. And

Black Americans have had higher levels of COVID-19-related unemployment.

Beyond the pandemic, other challenges remain. Systemic racism persists in our economy, in our schools, in our healthcare system, and, of course, in our criminal justice system, just to mention a few. And even as we strive as a nation to achieve our high ideals of liberty and freedom for all, we must openly acknowledge a history of discrimination and racism and reckon with its present-day manifestations and implications, including disturbing efforts around the country to turn back the clock on voting rights.

It is only the challenges brought about by adversity that occasion the rise of resiliency and the triumphs of the human spirit and of community action that can lift all of us.

The late Member of Congress, Shirley Chisholm, once said:

Leadership is to have the vision for what is necessary and

the courage to make it possible.

Leadership is to have the vision for what is necessary and the courage to make it possible.

Following a year of difficult challenges, it is fitting that as part of our Black History Month celebration, we honor innovative, courageous, and enterprising Pennsylvania leaders who have both the vision and the courage to help our communities and our Commonwealth to exhibit resilience in the face of that adversity.

Mr. President, let me start with Ty Holmes, our first honoree. I am proud to honor Ty as a fellow resident of Scranton, and the President of the Lackawanna branch of the NAACP. Ty Holmes is well known in Scranton as an avid volunteer and advocate for diversity and inclusion through his work with multiple community organizations, including as a Penn State advisory board member, the vice president of the Scranton Rotary, and as a Lackawanna County Democratic Committee member.

Following the death of George Floyd in 2020, community members were inspired to make change in Northeastern Pennsylvania and establish the Lackawanna County NAACP. Since its founding in 2020, this NAACP branch has grown to 131 members. Under Ty Holmes' leadership, the branch is working to be a voice for underrepresented groups and serve as a bridge between them and the broader community in Scranton.

Ty also has a particular interest in bettering the lives of young people in Scranton, leading him to run for the Scranton School Board. This past November, he was elected to the board and sworn in last month. With his election, Ty Holmes becomes the first African American to ever be elected to public office in the city of Scranton. He also serves as a board member for the Northeastern Pennsylvania Youth Shelter, which provides quality emergency shelter and related services to unaccompanied youth, ages 14 through their high school graduation.

The Northeastern Pennsylvania Youth Shelter has a specific focus on social justice and advocacy and is welcoming to young people from all backgrounds, especially LGBTQ+ youth in the area.

Ty Holmes' life has been one of service, both to his community and to his country. He retired after 25 years of Active Duty in the U.S. military, where he received numerous decorations from both the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army. He began his military career in 1991 with the Navy and served in various duty stations throughout the South Pacific and the Middle East.

In 2003, he crossed branches and entered the U.S. Army, deploying in the Middle East. He also worked as part of the support and rescue operations in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Through his work with many community organizations and his role on the Scranton School District Board of Directors, Ty continues to build the Scranton institutions that provide support to people and those institutions that lift them up during times of adversity.

So I look forward to seeing Ty Holmes' continuing contributions to my hometown for years to come.

Mr. President, our second honoree is Della Clark from Philadelphia, PA. Della Clark is a true community shepherd. I am not the first to recognize Della's exemplary work, and I certainly won't be the last, but I am honored to add my voice to her chorus of admirers. Her work in the city of Philadelphia, particularly in West Philadelphia, has undoubtedly been a saving grace 100 times over.

Della is indefatigable, a true force of nature who has shown true dedication and steadfast leadership.

Since January 1, 1992, Della Clark has served as president of the Enterprise Center. This center supports minority entrepreneurs and underresourced communities and is one of the most trusted organizations in the region to advise and deliver transformative economic development and community wealth-building initiatives.

Under Della's leadership, the Enterprise Center has experienced tremendous growth. Among its accomplishments is its purchase of a dilapidated building at 46th and Market Street in West Philadelphia, which was completely renovated and now serves as the center's state-of- the-art center for business and entrepreneurship.

Additionally, affiliate organizations have been added to the center's portfolio, including the Enterprise Center Community Development Corporation and the Enterprise Center Capital Corporation. Today, the Enterprise Center is leading a project that will be transformative for the city of Philadelphia--the 52nd Street Initiative.

This commercial corridor along 52nd Street in West Philadelphia has been an important historical and cultural hub, but unfortunately has seen significant decline and recent disinvestment just over the last number of years.

Further exacerbating the already existing troubles for business owners and residents, the COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest have made recovery and revitalization challenging at best. The Enterprise Center has a bold vision for this 52nd Street Initiative, which will transform this street--52nd Street--into a national model for integrating technology to improve public safety, enhance visitor experience, and support businesses and residents.

With Della Clark at the helm, I am confident she will move mountains to see to it that this project reaches its full potential and that this vital neighborhood and its residents can thrive once again.

Della Clark speaks eloquently--yet fiercely--on the importance of investing in Black and Brown businesses and is a tireless advocate for equitable distribution of and access to resources and capital. For that, I thank her for being a champion, a leader, and a true servant for her community.

Mr. President, in Southwestern Pennsylvania, our third honoree is Julius Boatwright. Not only has the pandemic taken a toll on the Nation's physical health, but many Americans struggle with mental health challenges, particularly isolation and grief. Julius Boatwright knows that good mental health is fundamental, foundational, to overall well-being.

He has made delivering critical mental health services his life's work. At a time when the pandemic has left many Americans feeling isolated, alone, and depressed, Julius's mission has renewed urgency.

In his work as a licensed social worker, community-based therapist, and outpatient therapist, Julius Boatwright has led with profound vulnerability and understanding. His passion for mental health is derived from a deeply personal place. Julius has bravely discussed his own mental health struggles in an effort to open up a conversation about mental well-being. His experience of growing up in a household and a community where mental health was never talked about planted the desire for him to address silent suffering.

In college, the death of a friend by suicide could have disrupted Julius's journey to becoming a mental health professional. Instead, this deeply personal challenge spurred him onward. He would go on to earn a bachelor's degree in communications and a master's of social work, with a certificate in human services management, from the University of Pittsburgh, as well as establish the Pittsburgh-based nonprofit Steel Smiling.

Julius is now the founding and managing director of Steel Smiling. The organization's mission is to bridge the gap between Black people and mental

health support through education, advocacy, and awareness. Steel Smiling has an ambitious goal, to connect every Black person in Pittsburgh to a positive mental health experience that improves their quality of life by the year 2030.

Julius's empathy and vision is encouraging and inspiring, and I look forward to witnessing the transformative impact of his work. Steel Smiling has already begun to improve the mental well-being of Pittsburgh's Black community. Since 2019, the organization has been a significant provider of community services, helping Black Pittsburghers to receive mental health treatment, training, and support.

The implementation of culturally sensitive programs, trainings, and workshops have helped combat the cultural stigma that exists in Black and Brown communities surrounding mental health.

The need for sensitive, stigma-free mental health support has been a longstanding one, but there has been a long gap between the need for services and the availability of them.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has even more starkly illustrated the critical need for behavioral health services, especially for people of color. So I am grateful to Julius for not just recognizing the need but for stepping up and working to address critical community need.

(Ms. SMITH assumed the chair.)

Mr. President, as our Nation battles another wave of COVID-19, I want to detail my efforts to lower barriers for Americans to access lifesaving vaccinations against this terrible disease.

The Special Committee on Aging's investigation forced the largest commercial health insurer in the United States to reverse course and make whole providers who were paid far below the market rate for administering COVID-19 vaccines. These efforts will help ensure that every provider who can administer COVID-19 vaccines is doing so, helping get more shots in arms.

Last year, news reports detailed how UnitedHealth had been shortchanging pediatricians who were vaccinating children against COVID-19. In short, Medicare set reimbursement rates for participating providers at $40 per dose in mid-March 2021. The Federal Government strongly recommended that private carriers do the same and most appear to have done so within weeks, but UnitedHealth did not.

The committee's investigation found that UnitedHealth paid in-network providers roughly 40 percent below the Medicare rate until July 1, 2021. Further, the company delayed action to make providers whole. During the investigation, pediatricians in Pennsylvania and beyond raised concerns that UnitedHealth's original reimbursement rate could dissuade providers from administering the vaccine.

UnitedHealth covers 26 million people in employer and individual market health insurance plans, with 1.4 million

in-network providers and an estimated 14 percent market share. UnitedHealth's decision to reimburse providers below the Medicare rate had the potential to harm families across our Nation at a critical juncture, just as the Food and Drug Administration prepared to expand the availability of vaccines to children ages 5-11.

For parents with questions about vaccines, pediatricians are trusted advisers who can play a key role in overcoming lingering concerns or hesitancy, which remains a major issue in our Nation.

In the long term, ensuring that all hands are on deck to deliver vaccines will help end this pandemic. Data has shown time and again that being vaccinated against COVID-19 reduces infections, severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Vaccinating children also will help protect adults by increasing the number of Americans shielded from the virus, reducing its spread. It also reduces the chance for the virus to mutate and spawn variants, like Omicron, that has led to another wave of illness and death. These concerns are particularly important for older adults who are more likely than the general population to experience both severe COVID-19 and breakthrough infections. Vaccinating children helps protect older generations, particularly older adults living in multigenerational households, including more than 7 million grandparents who live with grandchildren under the age of 18.

Providing more parents with the information they need to ensure they are comfortable vaccinating their kids will help protect all of our children. While pediatric hospitalizations remain relatively rare, there has nonetheless been a significant increase of such hospitalizations as the Omicron variant has spread in recent weeks. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that pediatric hospitalizations due to COVID-19 reached pandemic highs in the United States.

Vaccinating more children is essential to keep schools open for in- person learning, a live issue for schools throughout our Nation that have been forced to return to online classes in the face of the Omicron variant. We must do all that we can to safely keep students in the classroom so that they can receive the high-quality education they deserve. School closures also cause a disruption in the lives of families, with parents often struggling to find childcare or forcing them to take time from work. Vaccinating children will help schools remain open, protect students and educators, and help parents stay in the workforce.

After Aging Committee investigators reached out to UnitedHealth, the company quickly and voluntarily committed to change course, commitments I detailed in an October 20, 2021, letter. In response to my letter, UnitedHealth confirmed its plans to retroactively increase reimbursements for approximately 2 million COVID-19 vaccine administration claims to the Medicare rate across its entire commercial network, including individual plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. On January 14, 2022, the company reported that it had processed 1.64 million claims in connection with its commitment to the committee--more than 99.8 percent of the affected total--at an average cost of $14.55 per claim for a total of $23.9 million. The company expects the remaining claims, which number less than 2,900, to be processed by February 1, 2022.

UnitedHealth also committed to more quickly update reimbursement rates for future emergent vaccines and therapeutics, whether for COVID- 19 or the next pandemic. The company added that it is ``redirecting additional internal resources and automating updates whenever possible,'' while noting that their new processes still might involve withholding claims ``for a short time,'' which it characterized as no longer than 30 days. On January 14, the company went further, stating that it will implement new billing codes in a national public health emergency ``faster than industry standard,'' while noting that it has ``learned over the past few months the required technology and human resources that need to be brought forward to accelerate'' adoption of new billing codes in a public health emergency.

While lacking some details, the steps UnitedHealth has described appear to be an appropriate response. However, UnitedHealth has not adequately addressed an issue that a senior company official raised when speaking with Aging Committee investigators in September, that the company's size and numerous claims systems presented a barrier to quickly updating COVID-19 vaccine reimbursement rates in the first place. In its responses to subsequent questions about the issue from committee staff, UnitedHealth has cited reasons such as contracting language for the delay, but has failed to provide additional information or explanation in their written responses. The fact that a senior UnitedHealth official told the committee that the company's size negatively affected the quality and efficiency of its interactions with the market is concerning and a matter that deserves continued oversight from Congress and regulators.

In recent weeks, the world has been upended by the Omicron variant. Case rates have skyrocketed, and hospitals are once again filling up, primarily with people who have not gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or booster. In order to leave the tragedy, the disruptions and the closures of the pandemic behind, every person who can be vaccinated has a duty to the country to roll up their sleeves and get the shot.

We will continue to learn more about the Omicron variant and variants to come. However, there is one thing about this variant, past variants, and future variants that will not change: The key to ending this pandemic is getting more people vaccinated.

I remain committed to removing future roadblocks that may emerge to widespread vaccination against COVID-19.

This body should do the same.

In closing, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following documents: a September 3, 2021 Modern Healthcare article detailing UnitedHealth's under reimbursement for COVID-19 vaccines compared to most other major carriers; my October 20, 2021 letter to UnitedHealth; UnitedHealth's November 5, 2021 response to my letter; a November 12, 2021 supplement to the company's original response; and a January 14, 2022 email from UnitedHealth providing further updates.

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

Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the voting legislation that we are debating on the floor. Like so many of my Democratic colleagues, I rise along with those Democratic colleagues in calling for comprehensive Federal legislation to turn back the avalanche of voter suppression legislation in various States, all of it--all of it--animated by the Big Lie about the 2020 election. We will talk more about that in a moment.

It is clear to me that Republican politicians across the Nation in State capitals and even here in Washington are attempting to make it harder for tens of millions of Americans to register to vote, to cast their vote, and they are even making it harder, of course, for every vote to count.

This is a subversive threat. It is a subversive threat to our democratic institutions. I believe it is a clear and present danger to our elections and also a clear and present danger to our stability as a nation, and, of course, it is a clear and present danger and a direct threat to our democracy itself.

Just by way of a significant example, consider what happened in just one State in the last couple of years, in Pennsylvania. I will start with a historical backdrop.

Pennsylvania, like a lot of States, had a high-water mark of voting in 1960 in the election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, and then in 1964, the numbers were very high as well. So in 1960, about right at--almost exactly 70 percent of the voting-age population voted, but after 1960 and 1964, you had a precipitous drop that occurred every 4 years. Some years, it would go up a little higher; other years, it would go back down. But we never got, in 60 years, to that level again.

For example, just the most recent two elections before 2020 in Pennsylvania--in the 2012 election, 5.74 million

people voted. That was 57 percent of the voting-age population, so down from that high-water mark of 70 percent in 1960. Twenty-sixteen was a big turnout in our State.

The year 2016 was a big turnout in our State. We had more voters than 2012. It was 6.1 million voters, and it went from 57 in 2012 to 61, so it got over that 60 mark, but, of course, 61 is not 70--so we got nowhere near, even in 2016, when you look at the percent of the voting age population. That is the backdrop of 2016: big turnout but not the turnout level we saw in 1960 or 1964 or a few other years.

Then, in October of 2019--this is just an example of why the voting measures we are debating here are important in a positive way for helping people to vote. In October 2019, Governor Tom Wolf, in Pennsylvania, signed Act 77. This was a historic and comprehensive election reform bill that sailed through the general assembly with strong bipartisan support.

Consider this: 133 Republicans voted for this bill, when you add up the number who voted in the State senate for this bill who were Republicans and then you add them to the number in the State house who were Republicans who voted for the bill. When you look at it across the whole general assembly--both parties, both houses--about 70 percent of the general assembly voted for it. So there is a lot of give-and-take and a lot of compromise, and they voted on a strong election reform bill.

Remember, that was October of 2019, well before the onset of the pandemic. But thank goodness we had that bill in place during the pandemic. In addition to enhancing election security, the Pennsylvania law, so-called Act 77, established ``no excuse'' absentee voting, better known today as mail-in voting. That applied to all voters. Finally, we had a mechanism that people could vote by mail, especially in a pandemic.

But, of course, when they voted on the bill in 2019, no one could have predicted how useful this legislation would be just a year later. This law was passed before COVID, but, of course, it was in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic during the runup to the 2020 election, but it proved to be, of course, particularly important.

Now we get to 2020. We have had--over many, many years, many, many Presidential elections--nowhere near the percent of the voting-age population voting in the Presidential election compared to 1960 and 1964.

What happened in 2020? In the middle of a pandemic, when everyone was predicting, not just in my home State of Pennsylvania but other places as well, that turnout is going to be low because people are worried. They are worried about--and this is, of course, before vaccines. They are worried about contracting the virus. So they won't vote; the turnout is going to be low; and we will see what happens. Well, it didn't happen that way.

In Pennsylvania, in 2020, 6.9 million people voted--6.9 million people. That is an increase of roughly 800,000 votes from just 4 years earlier, and that was a pretty good turnout, a really good turnout in 2016. That 6.9 million votes amounted to 71 percent of the voting-age population of Pennsylvania, which was a point higher than 1960. No one--no one--thought that was possible. The only way it was possible was because we had better voting procedures in place.

In other words, if you look at it not just from 2016 to 2020 but even from the most recent election before 2016--2012, the 2012 election--the 2020 election from the 2012 was a 20-percent increase in voter turnout. So there can't be any dispute that Pennsylvania's record-setting 71- percent turnout was made possible only through expanding opportunities to vote for all voters--all voters young and old and so many others in between. Mail-in voting enabled almost 3 million Pennsylvanians to safely and securely cast their ballot.

By any measure, Pennsylvania should be celebrated as a success story of why these voting provisions help people vote. I hope that we never fall below that 71 percent of the voting-age population. That ought to be the standard for voting in a pandemic or not. In fact, that number should go higher when we are outside of the pandemic because people have different ways to vote.

A Republican-controlled legislature and a Democratic Governor came together and enacted strongly supported bipartisan election reform legislation to increase election security and ballot access.

Unfortunately, we know that the story doesn't end there. We all know what happened in the next chapter, and it is not unique to Pennsylvania. In response to the 2020 election, we have seen a new chapter, one focused on election subversion and voter suppression written in statehouses across the country. Again, it is attributable to the Big Lie about the 2020 election.

I want to note for the record that when we voted here on January 6, the evening of January 6, 2020--after the violent insurrection in the Capitol where we had people marching through this building, calling for the death of the Vice President, trying to locate Members of Congress to bring them harm, and also the whole effort was directed at stopping the counting of the electoral votes--but I want to note for the record that a number of Republican Senators, in fact, most Republican Senators, stood up on January 6 that evening to vote to certify the election.

Unfortunately, since January 6 of 2020, despite having voted the right way for democracy that night, a lot of these Republican Senators since then have only validated the Big Lie. They may have voted the right way that night for our democracy, but since that time, they haven't disputed the Big Lie enough--some of them, not all of them, but some of them. And, of course, now they have at least turned a blind eye to efforts at the State level that I just spoke of.

I think it is also important for the record to note--I won't read all of this--but to note what the Associated Press found about the election of 2020. Here is a copy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Associated Press story titled: ``Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds,'' dated December 14, 2021, by Christina A. Cassidy.

Mr. President, I will just read the first paragraph of this Associated Press story dated December of this past year:

An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter

fraud in the six battleground states disputed by former

President Donald Trump has found fewer than 475--a number

that would have made no difference in the 2020 Presidential

election.

And, of course, Pennsylvania was one of those States that they looked at. We know what happened in the election, and we know why we can say with certainty that the Big Lie is nothing but a lie. After the election of 2020, in June of 2021, Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature became one of the many legislatures across the Nation passing a voter suppression law. Here is what they would have done if they were successful. If they would have passed it, this bill would have imposed unconstitutional voter ID restrictions, restricted mail-in voting--the mail-in voting they just voted in favor of in 2019, the same legislators--and this bill would essentially have eliminated the use of drop boxes. Furthermore, it rolled back several successful provisions of the bipartisan Act 77, including reducing the number of days permitted to register to vote, and eliminating an option to opt in to receive an annual mail-in ballot.

While this bill was, fortunately, vetoed by Governor Wolf, the threat to suppress the vote in Pennsylvania remains ever present as the legislature continues to work on another omnibus election bill.

Once again, the Big Lie animates the work of Republican politicians in Pennsylvania and throughout the country. It is not simply a lie; it is a lie that engenders fear. Sometimes fear of losing your election in a primary--we understand that fear. We have seen it play out here as well. But sometimes the fear is deeper than that; that your own security will be at risk if you don't espouse the Big Lie.

In light of these efforts, it is fair to question, How did Pennsylvania go from a shining example of bipartisan election reform in 2019 to ground zero in the fight against voter suppression and election misinformation in 2021 and continuing into 2022?

In the months leading up to the 2020 general election, the former President led an assault on our election system, sowing seeds of division, and, without evidence, questioning the legitimacy of voting methods, including mail-in voting, which has been utilized in the Nation for decades. By the way, mail-in voting allowed us to set a turnout record, as I said before, in Pennsylvania, for the first time in 60 years to go that high--of the voting-age population.

The former President lost his election to President Joe Biden, but instead of honorably conceding the race, he created the Big Lie that the election had been stolen from him by raising unfounded allegations of voter fraud, election irregularities in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. Of course, there is simply no evidence to justify these claims of widespread voter fraud or irregularities, as suggested in the AP story and in their investigation that undergirds their conclusions that support that.

The Big Lie is the fraud. If you want to talk about fraud, that is where it is. That is the fraud. The Big Lie is the falsehood and the con job. It is a deliberate, ongoing attempt to sow instability. We know that over 60 cases in court after court--from State courts to district courts, to circuit courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court--all those courts refused to indulge the unprecedented,

loopy, legal arguments and false conspiracy theories that were put forward by the President's campaign and some Republicans after the election.

Despite the lack of any evidence to support claims of widespread fraud, we continue to hear these baseless conspiracy theories in calls to roll back Pennsylvania's Act 77 for one reason and one reason only: to disenfranchise voters. So in order to please one man, rather than support positive reforms that worked in Pennsylvania, that increased turnout in Pennsylvania exponentially like no other law has, lawmakers have introduced, all over the country now, some 400 voter suppression bills.

There are three types of corrupt proposals that I would like to summarize. No. 1, shifting election authority; that is one measure of a corrupt practice. No. 2, attacking election workers; that is corrupt, and that is what they are trying to do. And No. 3, restricting mail-in voting.

First and foremost, many of the bills attack the most fundamental foundational element of our democracy: administering our elections.

According to a report from Voting Rights Lab, in September of 2021, more than 180 of the bills introduced across the country are an effort to subvert our current election administration. Some of these bills would allow the legislature or other partisan actors--really, purveyors of the Big Lie--to exert greater control over elections and interfere with local election administrators.

For example, Georgia's SB 202, which has already been enacted into law--not just proposed--this law will allow a partisan State election board to remove and replace local election administrators. The new law empowers the State legislature--the State legislature--to appoint the chair of the election board, ensuring that the majority of the board reflects the partisan will of the legislature.

We have also seen numerous lawmakers, including in Pennsylvania, initiate or attempt to initiate partisan election ``audits'' into the 2020 election results without any evidence of fraud. The better word for this type of approach is ``fraudit.'' That is what it is. It is a fraudulent attempt, and it is nothing more than a ``fraudit.''

These efforts fueled by the Big Lie have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars, money solely in an attempt to further call into doubt the 2020 election and create instability in our elections. Republican effort to shift election authority undermines people's faith in elections, and it injects partisanship into our election administration.

The second area of corruption we have also seen in some of these bills is efforts to pass legislation that create or increase civil and criminal penalties against election workers. Election officials across the Nation--Republicans and Democrats alike, from blue counties and red counties--should be accorded the respect and commendation they deserve. These are public servants. They should not be subjected to threats, either legal or otherwise. In the middle of the pandemic, these same Americans risked their own health and their families' health to ensure that the elections were conducted safely and efficiently. These Americans--Republicans and Democrats and Independents--did their job honorably. Rather than receiving appreciation for their efforts, they and their families have been threatened with threats of violence, fueled by the deliberate falsehoods of which I spoke before.

The same falsehoods spread by politicians here in Washington and in State legislatures across the country. These threats were particularly relevant in my home State of Pennsylvania when then-Philadelphia Commissioner, Al Schmidt, a Republican, his family, and his colleagues were subjected to death threats--death threats--for doing their job.

This is a Republican elected official in Philadelphia subjected to death threats after election day, simply because he was trying to fulfill--and the others who worked with him were trying to fulfill--an essential part of their basic duty, which is counting the votes in that city.

So despite the widely reported threats against our election officials and concerns about mass resignations due to the stresses on our democratic institutions, Republican legislatures have enacted laws that further threaten these officials with felony prosecutions, and they also threaten civil penalties for not complying with the election rules, even inadvertent or technical mistakes.

We have never seen this before in America, but that is what we are talking about today. So these attacks are a clear attempt to further undermine our democracy and counter the efforts of many election officials to help make voting safer and easier during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Finally, the third issue, which I would consider a corrupt practice that is embedded into these bills, is the question of mail-in voting. As I have already shared, Pennsylvania's record turnout in 2020 was a direct result of the bipartisan efforts, 133 Republican legislators voting for mail-in balloting, so that we would have universal mail-in voting, and early voting in addition to mail-in voting.

Rather than embracing its success, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania and across the country have worked to greatly restrict or eliminate--or eliminate--mail-in voting through a variety of methods. Seven States have reduced the timeframe in which voters can request mail-in ballots. Another four States limited the use of ballot drop boxes.

Some States have gutted or tried to gut the ability of voters to automatically register to receive a mail-in ballot for every election they are eligible to vote in.

Republican politicians just keep on lying about the 2020 election. Not a single Republican politician has come forward with evidence of the type of widespread systemic voter fraud that would necessitate any of the changes that these laws are predicated on and these proposals are predicated on.

In reality, these changes are about one thing and one thing only-- making it more difficult to cast a ballot.

Every single American should be alarmed by these efforts. If we allow voter suppression efforts to go unchecked, they will, eventually and simply, impact everyone.

I think it was Martin Luther King who talked about injustice--an injustice that would be validated by these corrupt proposals. ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''

Voter suppression efforts would make it harder. Here are just a couple of examples from my home State, and this is true of a lot of States. Voter suppression laws make it harder for a 90-year-old living in rural Pennsylvania who can't get to her county election bureau to vote or to a polling place. She will have a harder time voting in Pennsylvania and in every other State, if Pennsylvania goes in the direction of some of these other States.

Pennsylvania has over 800,000 veterans who fought for our freedoms, including the right to vote, the freedom to vote. Shouldn't that veteran continue to have the option to vote early or to vote by mail? After they have served our Nation, shouldn't they continue to have that option? Or should we just go back to the old ways where that veteran is limited to one day a year, for a certain number of hours a year, to vote in a general election?

So these proposals--these voter suppression and subversion proposals--will impact everyone. It will impact a farmer in Pennsylvania who might have a very busy day on election day and can't get to vote for one reason or another.

So, if they are not able to vote, their vote gets cancelled out because we decided not to have early voting, which we have now; we decided not to have mail-in ballots, which we have now? All in the service of one man and one Big Lie, that is what this is all about.

So we can't go back to those days.

How about just another example from Pennsylvania? We have had a long tradition where men and women serving overseas have voted by absentee ballot. Guess what an absentee ballot is? An absentee ballot is a mail- in ballot. It is the same thing. We just broadened the category of folks who could use that same method.

So do we want to go back to a time when we can't have the kind of mail-in ballots that we had in 2020 that led to that great turnout? And it is entirely possible that we could go back to a time when even the votes of men and women serving overseas would be put at risk, because when you eliminate

mail-in ballots in a State like Pennsylvania, you are eliminating absentee ballots, as well, by doing that.

So I don't think we want to do that to our fighting men and women. So we can't go back to the days when farmers and small business owners and veterans and busy moms juggling their kids' schedules and seniors who may have trouble voting and need another option to vote--we can't go back to those days when they couldn't vote if they didn't have the time on that one single day.

It is one of the reasons why we had such low voter turnout, even in Presidential elections, for all these years in Pennsylvania and in so many other States. So we know what we have to do. We have to go back to our founding principles. And voting is a foundational pillar of our democracy. And, as elected officials, it is our responsibility to do all we can to expand voter access and remove institutional barriers to voting.

But we have got to be clearer about what is happening. Our democracy, by virtue of these suppression bills, is under siege right now. The attack here on January 6 continues. What was a violent attack on that day is now in the form of legislation to attack our elections, to attack the right to vote, to make it harder to vote.

So attacking democracy at an earlier stage was always met by the right response. Today, that right response--the correct response--is to pass the Freedom to Vote and the John Lewis Act to prevent these kinds of attacks on voting rights.

It would protect election officials by criminalizing intimidation, threats, or coercion of election officials. It would mandate systematic, nonpartisan, risk-limiting audits to combat against the unfounded partisan approaches by Republicans.

It would create national standards for early voting, mail voting, voting restoration, voter identification, and voter registration. It would also include some of the provisions of my bill--the Accessible Voting Act--to create an accessible voting experience for every voter, ensuring that the needs of people with disabilities are met.

That is another category of Americans whose votes will be suppressed--people with disabilities--if these Republicans get their way.

This bill we are trying to pass reflects feedback from State and local officials to ensure that people responsible for implementing these reforms can do so effectively.

And, furthermore, it would restore the full strength of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after the Supreme Court gutted several of the Voting Rights Act provisions in recent years.

These provisions work hand in hand to improve access to the ballot and protect against election subversion. We should restore the Senate at the same time, by allowing plenty of time for debate, as well as a robust amendment process, so the minority party in the Senate has full opportunity to debate issues like voting rights.

So we have got to do more than just simply move a bill forward tomorrow on voting rights. We should also change the Senate rules appropriately to allow that bill to be passed by a majority after we have a robust debate. Debating voting rights has never been more important. The time to do that is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, as so many of us have done, on this day to do a couple of things--No. 1, to reflect and remember. That is important for so many reasons, but we are also here, I think, to express gratitude and commendation for so many who work in this building, the staff and the Capitol Police and so many others who kept us safe 1 year ago today on that awful day.

I will get to some other issues in a moment, but I want to start with just some reflections on what I remember about that day but also what I think the country experienced on a day of horror and terror and desecration--a day when a group of Americans came to this building to stop the counting of the electoral votes, and they were told to do that by the then-President of the United States.

We know all the death that ensued from that, especially of law enforcement officers; something on the order of 140 injures, some of them grievous, permanent injuries to law enforcement--all based upon the violence based upon a Big Lie, a deliberate falsehood that started long before even election day. It started during the course of the 2020 election.

But despite that Big Lie--I don't want to spend all of today talking about that--despite that Big Lie and the violence that flowed from that Big Lie and the near collapse of our democracy, despite that, we know that something on the order of 60 judges throughout the country-- Federal judges and State judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans and even some appointed by the former President--called out that Big Lie by rejecting the arguments based upon that Big Lie in about 60 different matters before those judges.

So we know what happened, and I think the January 6 Commission will continue to put the evidence on the record and hold people accountable, but I think on a day like today, I want to focus on two issues. One is to express that gratitude that I mentioned before for the thousands of Americans who work in this building, the thousands who are not Members of Congress who helped us on that day, everything from getting us to safety to making sandwiches for us when we were in a safe, secure room--something that basic.

But, of course, so many Americans now know, after all these months have unfolded, about the sacrifices made by so many on that day, especially law enforcement, but people in this building, who work in this building--have done so for years--they, too, were terrorized on that day. It wasn't just Members of Congress and the Nation more broadly.

We even had the image--the horrible, disturbing, racist image--on television of an American walking through the halls of this building with a Confederate flag. It never happened before. Not even during the American Civil War had that happened.

So when we talk about those who have done so much, here is what we are talking about: We are talking about people who suffered devastating injuries, as I said before, some of them lifelong. The emotional toll that this violence imposed upon members of the staff here in the building, both during the siege and in its aftermath, is almost incalculable. So we are grateful for their service on every day, every day of their work, but especially on that terrible day.

I also want to thank--and we can't do this enough; we can do it a thousand times, and it wouldn't be enough--the U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department for all they did to protect us, to ultimately quell the violence, and to literally protect our democracy. These officers were bruised and beaten. They were attacked with bolts and bricks and bats and bear spray, as we saw so much, as well as stun guns. They had broken bones. They had concussions, chemical burns, scars, stitches, and on and on. That is what violence does to a human being.

They were also subjected to--those who happened to be Black Americans in law enforcement or in communities of color--they were subjected to horrific racial epithets, the kind of language that should never be tolerated not only here in the Capitol but anywhere in our country. Some of them were even attacked by an American flag--by a flagpole with an American flag on it.

So what this all adds up to is, unfortunately, not just a mob going into a building; this is about domestic terrorism. I think it is an important day to be thankful that so many stood up to that domestic terrorism in law enforcement. So we both offer our gratitude and try-- as inadequate as it is by mere words--on a day like today to bestow some measure of both gratitude and commendation for what they did on that day.

Finally, Mr. President, I think today is a day for resolve, to be determined to take action, legislative action. The best way we can do that is by passing the Freedom to Vote Act. That is the best thing we can do, not only for the next couple of weeks, but really it might be the most important thing any of us work on.

I want to thank Senator Klobuchar and so many others who have worked on these issues, not just in the aftermath of January 6 but for thinking about the future--the future of our democracy, literally the future of whether someone will have a clear pathway in the right to vote, the ability to vote in ways that so many Americans were able to vote in the midst of the pandemic.

There were a lot of people back in 2020 who said: Oh, you know, in Pennsylvania, you had a big turnout for President in 2016, but that turnout is going to go way down because it is a reelection, and there is a pandemic, and people won't vote, and people will be afraid to vote.

Guess what happened. We went from about 6 million votes in 2016 to almost 6.9 million votes. Almost 900,000 more people voted in Pennsylvania than did just 4 years earlier--probably the highest turnout in more than 120 years in our State, just like it was for the Nation.

Now, that didn't happen in our State just because people were more interested; it happened because we had pathways by way of a change in State law to allow them to vote, very similar to what we are trying to do by enacting into law the Freedom to Vote Act--being able to vote early, being able to vote by way of a mail-in ballot, having a drop box.

What if you are 90 years old and you live in a rural area in Pennsylvania? We have 48 rural counties, by the way. What if you live in a rural area, and you can't get to the county election bureau to drop off your mail-in ballot? Shouldn't you have a drop box if you are 90 years old and you want to vote? What if you live on a farm? What if you are running a farm and you have a busy life or you are running a small business? Shouldn't you have the opportunity to vote or should you just be restricted to 1 day in the year, 1 day every year for a general election, and if you can't get to vote that day, then you are not able to vote? Why would we go back to those days? But apparently a lot of people in this Chamber are supporting efforts all across the country--hundreds of voter suppression bills.

As Reverend Warnock said, seems like some people don't want some people to vote. I don't understand that, after we had record turnout in Pennsylvania from 2016 to 2020 because we had different pathways for people to vote. That is what we are trying to do with the Freedom to Vote Act, to have national standards so people will have a chance to vote in the way that they want, in a way that is helpful in terms of their family life or their work life. But we are at a point now where the Big Lie is perpetuating itself in more ways than one.

Let me conclude with one thought. My hometown newspaper, the Scranton Times-Tribune, published an editorial today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record and as part of my remarks an editorial entitled ``Long year after 1/6/ 21, it continues,'' which is dated today.

I won't read all of it, obviously, but the point that this editorial makes is that the attack continues today. It is not over. It is not some event in the past that we are just reflecting upon, as important as it is to reflect and remember and offer gratitude and commendation. Here is what the editorial says, and I will just read a short portion of it. It says:

[T]he attack continues. It carries on in statehouses like

Pennsylvania's, where lawmakers continue to question the

outcome of the 2020 presidential election--the most

transparent and heavily scrutinized vote in [our] nation's

history--craft bills to diminish the sort of heavy turnout

that carried . . . Joe Biden to victory, waste public money

on fraudulent searches for fraud, and gerrymander

congressional districts in the cause of minority rule.

It goes on from there, saying that the attack continues by all of this work to lie about the election of 2020 and to pass voter suppression bills all across the country.

The good news is, that is not going to happen. We are not going to allow a partisan minority to prevent us from passing legislation to keep that pathway to the right to vote clear in the ways that it was clear so that so many Pennsylvanians and many Americans--as I said, in my home State, hundreds of thousands more voted in a pandemic than voted just 4 years earlier.

So on this day when we remember with horror that day just a year ago and we say thank you to those law enforcement officials and others who work in this building and did so much for us and for the Nation, we also are determined to move forward to protect our democracy and ensure that this great American experiment continues for generations.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as this year draws to a close, I rise today to recognize my staff and their exemplary service to Pennsylvania in the face of immense challenges. Even under the best of circumstances, public service can be challenging work. For the past 2 years my staff have, like all Americans, grappled with the daunting uncertainty and isolation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and grief for the more than 800,000 lives lost.

Despite these difficulties, they have risen to the demands of the moment to support, advocate for, and empower the people of Pennsylvania. The end of the year is a time for reflection on all that we have overcome and an opportunity to express gratitude for those we hold dear. This December, I would like to express my gratitude for the men and women who have served in my office--some of whom have since moved on--and their indelible contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during such an extraordinary time.

I am grateful for my administrative staff, who build and maintain the solid foundation on which an effective congressional office is built. These are the people who tirelessly ensure that everyone on our team has the support and resources needed to do their jobs effectively. While the work that they do may not be noticeable to everyone, they are truly the connective tissue which allows the rest of the office to function.

Similarly, the office's executive staff are tasked with ensuring my time is used as efficiently as possible and that my day runs smoothly. From building schedules that balance constituent engagements, committee hearings, floor votes, and travel; to managing the flurry of briefing memos on any given day and drafting my constituent greetings, I could not be nearly as effective on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania without their hard work.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the work of the constituent services team, who walk with constituents in their darkest moments in pursuit of a brighter resolution. Day in and day out, these are the men and women who help Pennsylvania seniors navigate issues with Social Security checks, help veterans secure benefits owed to them and medals they have earned, among so many other things. During COVID, they have continued to assist with routine cases while also working tirelessly to connect Pennsylvanians with testing and other resources, apply for small business relief, navigate unemployment systems, and so much more.

The outreach staff, spread out over seven offices across the Commonwealth, serve as a vital resource in ensuring the needs of all 67 counties are met. These individuals are my liaisons to local communities across Pennsylvania, representing me in their regions every single day. Throughout the pandemic, they have been in constant contact with local elected officials, sharing information back and forth and bringing to bear Federal resources when they have been needed most. Their relationships across the Commonwealth, and their granular knowledge of communities large and small are extraordinary. I am grateful for innumerable phone calls and meetings that they lead and attend every year and the thousands of miles that they drive as they crisscross their regions to show up for the communities they represent.

The legislative staff fight daily for policies that will improve life for every American, but especially those who are too often overlooked and left behind. These men and women bring their expertise to bear to help inform my policy positions and floor votes. In answering constituent correspondence, they parse through complex matters of policy to help constituents better understand how critical legislation will impact Pennsylvania. I am deeply grateful for the benefit of their extraordinary minds and their dedication to improving the lives of working families with sound policy.

It is through the tireless work of the communications staff that Pennsylvanians understand how I am representing them in Washington. These men and women are a vital bridge between the work that I do in the Senate and the people of Pennsylvania, helping me connect the voices of the Commonwealth to the halls of Congress, and in turn bringing our legislative work back into communities across Pennsylvania.

Since 2017, I have had the privilege of serving as the lead Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. During the pandemic, this team has relentlessly demanded accountability from the programs and institutions that serve older adults and people with disabilities. As COVID devastated nursing homes, they pushed for increased transparency to protect residents and workers. They now lead the call for transformative investments in life-changing home and community-based services.

There is an inscription on the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, that has guided me during my time as a public official. It reads: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Each and every day, my staff demonstrate their commitment to that trust with tireless work and personal sacrifice. They are hard-working and talented individuals who form a distinguished collective of honorable public servants whom I respect and whom I am grateful to work alongside.

Today, I am proud to list them alphabetically by name to memorialize their service to our Commonwealth and our country during this pandemic:

Tad Abramowich

Natalie Adams

Sandra Aguilera Garcia

Jennifer Baker

Jordan Ball

Rob Bielunas

Kim Bierly

Hulan Bikales

Regina Brennan

Sydney Brooks

Jessica Butherus

Kathi Caber

Jenna Carmen

Alyssa Charney

McKenzie Cliatt

Christian Clesi

Bob Coomber

Connor Corpora

Rory Daly

Stephanie DeLuca

Teresa Dennis

Josh Dubensky

Thomas Eagen

Micah Escobedo

Erika Felix

Marlon Ferguson

Lara Flynn

Adam Fountaine

Michael Gamel-McCormick

Peter Gartrell

Kristen Gentile

Ben Gilsdorf

Jasmine Goodman

Veronica Goodman

Ian Graham

Rashage Green

Jack Groarke

Andrea Guscott

Kyle Hannon

Hans Hansen

Kristen Harfield

Doug Hartman

Corey Husak

Sean Hyland

Maurya Incavido

Narda Ipakchi

Brian Jennings

Aisha Johnson

Christopher Johnson

Robert Joyce

Liz Kishbaugh

Samantha Koehler

Molly Krafcik

Josh Kramer

Trace Ledgard

James Lee

Jose Leoncio

Nefetia Lundy

Mairead Lynn

Ian Madigan

Kristin Magnotta

Shoshana Marin

Ben Martin

Lindsay Martin

Sara Maskornick

Robbie Matesic

Cindy Matos Beltre

Jae'Von McClain

Jake Medvitz

Alina Meltaus

Carolyn Mendez-Luck

Leah Mercik

Datnilza Metz

Kate Mevis

Derek Miller

Keith Miller

Gillian Mueller

Janet Murphy

Grace Nelson

Paul Nestler

Stephen O'Brion

Kennedy O'Dell

Max Olender

Hector Ortiz

Panini Pandya

Reecha Patel

Isabel Perez

Joycelyn Pickens

Nikki Rai

John Rizzo

Rahmon Ross

Ryan Ross

Kate Samuelson

Stacy Sanders

Valli Sanmugalingam

Judy Schaechter

Abigail Seibert

Julia Sferlazzo

Zach Shaw

Livia Shmavonian

Sara-Paige Silvestro

Madison Sloat

Allegra Smith

Cam Thompson

Amanda Toth

Jenna Valle-Riestra

Lieke van Heumen

Landy Wade

Caitlin Warner

Tia Watson

Aimee Wechsler

Ebony Staton Weidman

Madison West

Wesley Whistle

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

Madam President, I rise today to talk about legislation that we are going to be considering in this month of December, critically important legislation for the country. The name of this legislative proposal, which as many people know has passed the House of Representatives, is the Build Back Better Act, which will lower costs for families in ways that I, certainly, have never seen in the time I have been in the Senate. It will also cut taxes for families with children, especially, but for other families as well.

I wanted to start today by talking about a Pennsylvanian because I think

sometimes the only way that we can make sense of some of the policy that we are talking about is to talk about it in terms of its impact on individual Americans and in this case, my case, individual Pennsylvanians.

This is about a mom and her son from a town in Southeastern Pennsylvania, not far from the great city of Philadelphia, Downingtown, PA. Victoria Farrell. There is Victoria and her son Cole. Her son Cole was born with a mitochondrial disease. Cole faces health challenges every single day of his life.

Now, because of her son's condition, Victoria receives help from nurses day and night. Here is what Victoria said about the impact of those nurses on her son Cole and their lives together. She said those nurses are the ``keystone of our lives.'' Victoria also said that the nurses have ``become family.'' That is what these nurses mean to these families every day.

Now, in the case of Victoria and Cole and their family, home- and community-based services allow Cole to remain an active part of his community and to stay at home--to stay at home where he belongs, certainly where Victoria, as any mom, would want him to stay. She is able to have Cole at home instead of being at a place far from their home. These services keep their family together and strengthen their bonds, the bonds between a mother and her son and the bonds between and among other family members.

At its core, Build Back Better is about helping families. But in a particular way, Build Back Better is about caregiving and whether or not we are going to meet our obligations to invest in caregiving in ways that we have talked about a long time here in Washington but have never done. For far too long, our Nation has viewed caregiving as a personal problem for each family to solve on their own.

Caregiving is an economic issue. It is not just an issue for one family to solve. It is an economic issue that affects all of us. And if quality caregiving isn't provided to one family, we are all diminished by that failure. And that is why Build Back Better provides such an opportunity, such a bright opportunity to provide better caregiving.

Caregiving is an economic issue, and it is also a workforce issue. This is one of the problems that stands in the way, a real impediment to getting people back to work, especially in the grip of--and we hope soon in the aftermath of--the pandemic. Caregiving is about getting people back to work, and caregiving is about preparing the workforce of the future.

We know that the pandemic, as horrible as it has been--all of the death, all of the suffering, all of the suffering endured by families, either suffering by way of death or disease or suffering by way of job loss or loss of a small business--with all of that horror, a spotlight was put on some problems that, frankly, a lot of people knew about before, and we all may have pointed to or talked about, but the spotlight finally was imposed upon so many challenges. The spotlight on the Nation's caregiving crisis was one of the most pronounced spotlights that we saw in the whole pandemic.

American workers, but women in particular, are leaving the workforce. This is not out of choice. It is because they cannot find quality, affordable childcare or they can't find quality care for an aging parent or even the option of getting quality care for a parent, a loved one, in a home- or a community-based setting. Many parents can't find the care they need for a child with a disability. Many families don't have the same opportunities that Victoria and other moms have benefited from.

I am the first one to say that it was a great breakthrough when we got the infrastructure legislation passed. I could rattle off all the examples of how it would help Pennsylvania. I will just give you one. That bill we know is separate from Build Back Better, but we are going to be able to repair and replace a lot of bridges in our State. That is a good thing. We are going to have a lot of money to do that. But for some families, for some Pennsylvanians, that bridge to work won't simply be a physical bridge that connects that person to their work-- where they have to physically get to work--for other people, their bridge to work will be quality, affordable childcare. Too often because of where we are in America today, it is not their bridge to work; it is her bridge to work. Her bridge to work will literally be quality, affordable childcare. The physical bridge won't be enough. She is going to need--her family is going to need, for her to get back to work, quality, affordable childcare. Too many families don't have that today.

Her bridge to work also might be making sure or having the peace of mind to know that there is someone home with her mom providing quality care in her mom's home or in another setting. Her bridge to work might be care for a son or a daughter who has a disability or might have multiple disabilities. That is the peace of mind that every mother should have--every parent who is trying to get to work every day--the peace of mind that we can provide by making the right investments. So their bridge to work and her bridge to work is caregiving and so much else.

We also know that we can, in the midst of debating legislation about getting people back to work and lowering costs for families and, frankly, cutting taxes for families raising children--we can also lift up the workforce. The workforce is paid just $12 an hour doing work for all these people we claim to care about.

Every politician that any one of us know, every leading policy advocate will talk about how much we have to care for children, how much we have to invest in better caregiving for seniors and people with disabilities. But then there is no action or hasn't been action until this legislation to lift up the pay of the people who are providing that care. If we really care about those people, we will lift the pay of those taking care of them. You have to ask yourself in America: Who is taking care of the caregiver? We are not taking care of caregivers if they are making 12 bucks an hour to do the most difficult, heroic, and always essential work. We can do that as part of this legislation.

Let me go to some numbers because I think these are relevant. The numbers that I am talking about are waiting lists. You have people on waiting lists who are technically eligible for home- and community- based services, but they are waiting. They are not waiting days or weeks or months; many of them are waiting years on a waiting list. The latest number we saw--and I think this is a big understatement or undercount, but I will just go with the latest number we have--820,000 Americans on a waiting list. Here is the map of the United States. There are 820,000 older Americans and people with disabilities on waiting lists. They are on waiting lists for that section of Medicaid, Medicaid section 1915(c), home- and community-based services waivers. They are waiting for a waiver from their State to have the benefit that Medicaid would provide.

Now, if they were going to a nursing home, they wouldn't have to wait for any waiver. They would be granted that opportunity to have care in a nursing home. A lot of families choose that, and there is great care in those settings. But we should have a similar policy in place--and we don't, but we will, I hope, by the end of December--that doesn't have that waiver, I will just say, impediment or that step that these families are waiting for.

Here are some of the numbers across the country. You can see Pennsylvania. There are about 1,600 on the waiting list. That is a big number. Here are some bigger numbers. I have three for you, just three States that tell a big part of the story: Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Florida's waiting list is 70,000 people. Seventy thousand seniors and people with disabilities are waiting for services; Louisiana, 65,000 people are waiting; Texas, 385,000 people. They make up, obviously, the largest share of that 820,000-person waiting list.

So you have three States--just three States, those three--that comprise two-thirds of the waiting list in the United States of America. Those three States have something else in common. They are not just three States with big waiting lists--Texas, Louisiana, and Florida--but they are three States represented by Republican Senators, six to be exact, two in each State, as we know. Republican Senators represent these hundreds of thousands of Americans who are waiting for care.

I hope, when it comes time for voting--because that is how you demonstrate what you are for around here. It is great to give speeches, but it is how you vote that indicates what you support. I hope that when voting starts on Build Back Better, the Republican Senators from Louisiana, Texas, and Florida will vote in support of this legislation. The more important thing is they are voting to support those seniors and people with disabilities in their States on waiting lists.

We have some work to do when it comes to persuading some of our colleagues who today, we have no one on the record saying they are even willing to consider this legislation. We will see. There is still some time, still a couple of weeks for consideration.

I mention the home care workers making $12 an hour. These essential workers that I spoke of earlier are mostly women of color doing this back-breaking, heroic, essential work. They are long overdue for a raise. We have some work to do to make sure that we bring that to the attention of the American people.

I wanted to make one--tell one final story. Then we will move to some of our colleagues who are joining us here today. This story is particularly meaningful for me because I just happened to be with, in this case, Brandon and Lynn, and the person on the left side of this picture is the President of the United States. He just happened to be in his hometown of Scranton, PA, where I still live. We were talking about all of these issues under the broad heading of either infrastructure or the Build Back Better legislation, all the benefits that would come from passing these bills. At the time, there were individuals who were lined up in this old train station in Scranton greeting the President, in many cases, telling the President about their own families, their own struggles, their own challenges and how Build Back Better would help them.

At the very end of this long line, Brandon--right here sitting in a wheelchair--came right next to the President, and then Lynn, his caregiver, was right behind him. Brandon Kingsmore is his name and Lynn Weidner is his caregiver. I met Brandon months earlier--we were all doing Zoom calls, right--talking about issues in Zoom calls and other ways of getting the message out.

But I knew that the President had not met Brandon, and I knew that he had not met Lynn, and I knew that he had not heard their story, because it is a story of two people. It is someone who is a caregiver and someone who is the beneficiary of that caregiving, that heroic work.

So I knew that the event was about to end, and I knew that it would be wonderful for the President to greet Brandon and say hello, but sometimes at these things there is a greeting and an exchange of conversation and then people have to move on.

So just before the end of our greetings of people coming through the line, I leaned over to Brandon, because I knew his story, and I said, ``Brandon, before we go''--we were literally ready to head out the door--I said, ``Please tell the President what you told me about what Lynn means to you, what her caregiving means to you.''

And that is what it says right there. He was talking about the importance of the caregiving that Lynn provides to him, and I quoted him on the poster right here:

I would not be able to live the life I have.

And then he broadened it to all caregivers later on in his discussion with the President. He said: ``They''--meaning caregivers, ``They give us a substantial life.'' ``A substantial life.''

I think Brandon's words, more than any long speech, reminds us of our obligations. If we care about people with disabilities--truly care--if we care about seniors, if we care about those workers, like Lynn and tens of thousands of them across the country, we will pass this legislation because we can help all three and even a lot of other Americans. We can help seniors have opportunities to get care in their home. We can help people with disabilities get the care they need, either in their home or in a community setting, and we can help the workers to lift them up, to invest in them because we claim to value them by our statements year after year, decade after decade.

We have an opportunity with this legislation to give meaning and integrity to what Brandon said to the President of the United States.

The President of the United States has met a lot of people in his time as the U.S. Senator from Delaware, as Vice President, and now as President.

All of us know when the words spoken by one person in a setting like this has an impact on someone. And I knew Brandon's words had an impact on President Biden that day, and those words should be ringing in our ears, that these caregivers give someone like Brandon Kingsmore--in this case, it is Lynn who gives him this--a substantial life, that is a great American idea--that we are going to advance policy that is consistent with the values we claim to hold as Americans, that we really care about seniors, we really care about people with disabilities, and we really care about those who are providing that care.

So we will have more time a little later to cover some other topics, but I wanted to--if the Senator from Maine is prepared to speak--

We will come back to him because we have some other colleagues who are going to be here later.

I wanted to tell another story about another Pennsylvanian, Theo Braddy.

Now, Theo is another person I met because we were talking about these policies back home, and we had a lot of Zoom calls, and I hadn't heard Theo's story until--I guess the first time was June 2020.

And one of the points we have tried to make in this whole debate about quality, affordable childcare, care for seniors and people with disabilities, a whole range of caregiving issues we are trying to address and policies we are trying to advance, one of the refrains that so many of the advocates who have been traveling the country and knocking on doors and making the argument all across the country about why caregiving is important, they have been saying over and over again that care can't wait, that there should be an urgency to providing better caregiving.

So ``care can't wait'' is a pretty good way of expressing it. And when I think of Theo, I think of that phrase, ``care can't wait,'' because Theo has a story that a lot of families can identify with.

He is now a resident of south central Pennsylvania--Harrisburg, PA, our State capital. And he came before our Aging Committee back in June, and I heard his story then, and I have heard it more than once since then.

Theo was injured in a football game in the late 1970s. Theo and I happen to be the same age--I think almost exactly--and that is where his story really began, with that football injury. And as he was telling the story, I was thinking about myself. I was thinking: My goodness.

He was talking about high school, and I thought: All these years he has lived with that injury.

And this is what it means to him: He ultimately started talking about what it meant to him years later when he was sitting on the third floor of his apartment building. He said: ``Just looking out the window for weeks at a time.'' ``Looking out the window.''

And there are a lot of Americans who have a disability who are doing something very similar: looking out a window, hoping, praying maybe, waiting for a better day when they are not limited to that room and that one view of the world.

That is, for many of them, the full scope and full expanse of their world because they are limited to that one place. A lot of them want to get good care in their home or in the community where they can be close to the people they love and still be the beneficiary of good care.

So Theo talked about looking out that window for weeks at a time. Now, when he completed his physical rehabilitation, he was still not able to feed himself or push his manual wheelchair. So even despite some help, he still had a long way to go.

You know what changed his life?

Home- and community-based services.

Here is what Theo's life has been since receiving those home- and community-based services: He was able to obtain both his undergraduate and graduate degree. He has been a professor. He has been an advocate. He has, in essence, run businesses. He is, because he received those services, leading a full life.

He is one of our best advocates for this policy because he doesn't just talk about it in a personal way, he can talk about the mechanics of the policy. He can talk about the challenges that are in the way of so many people with disabilities.

So Theo has been able to, as he said, because of these services, ``live a full life.''

Sounds a lot like what Brandon said about, because of the care that Lynn provides to Brandon, he is able to lead--and so many others are able to lead--a life that is a ``substantial life.''

So these stories highlight why caregiving is an investment in that great American idea. A simple idea, but significant in the context of what we are talking about: the idea that we are going to have policy that is consistent with the values we claim to hold.

No one would say to us we have the--we have a value in America of advancing the cause of freedom--freedom here at home and freedom around the world. That is what America has stood for all these generations. No one would say that you only have to express that; you don't need a policy to advance it in furtherance of that goal of promoting freedom.

Same is true here. If we say we care about those Americans, we care about Brandon, we will help Brandon and Lynn providing this care.

We will care and advance policy that will benefit Theo. Thankfully, Theo has already received those kinds of benefits.

We will advance polices that will help mothers like Victoria have the peace of mind to know that her son Cole is going to get the care that he needs in the setting that she prefers and that anyone would prefer, that they have that choice.

I am going to turn to our colleagues in a moment.

I talked earlier about that bridge to work--her bridge to work, the bridge of quality, affordable childcare; her bridge to work being care for her mom and care for a son or a daughter who has a disability, or other bridges to work that allow her to get to work.

Well, this bill, fortunately, has so much in it that will lift up families in addition to caregiving, that in so many ways this bill can be a bridge to the future for families, can be a bridge to the future for workers.

Once again, I mean, we can't simply talk around here about having the best workforce in the world. We can't simply talk around here about outcompeting China or any country. We have to advance policy in furtherance of that goal, that value.

And that is one of the reasons why this bill is a bridge to the future. It keeps our promise--the promise we claim to make--or we do make and claim to uphold for families, for seniors, for people with disabilities--really, just for families across the country.

So I think, in a very real sense, this legislation will advance the cause of justice--the justice that comes with knowing that you can lead a full life. You can have a substantial life because you are an American, and we have expressed these common values and we have passed legislation and moved policy in furtherance consistent with and paying allegiance to those values.

So I want to thank our Democratic colleagues who are working on this bill with us as we just begin the debate over the next couple of weeks.

And I will turn first to the Senator from New York, who has been a great fighter for families all the years that she has been in the Senate. I know that because I remember when she got to the Senate. I was only here about 1 year--2 years, I guess, when Senator Gillibrand came to the Senate. And I want to thank her for her leadership and her strong voice for families and for caregiving.

I want to thank my colleague from New York, both for her remarks about paid leave and the compelling case that she made. Just as we were talking about earlier, paid leave is not only a care issue, it is an economic and workforce issue. I want to thank her for her advocacy and the fight she has waged. And, of course, I thank her for the wonderful comments about the majority leader's dad, who just passed away.

I will turn to my colleague from Maine next.

Senator King has been fighting battles on behalf of the people of Maine for a lot of years now, but I am particularly grateful for his most recent advocacy for home- and community-based services. He was one of a small group of Senators and staff that came together week after week after week on Zoom calls to talk strategy and to advance the policy. And I am grateful for Senator King's leadership and advocacy on home- and community-based services, as well as on so many other issues.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maine.

I want to turn now to the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Oregon. Senator Wyden has been with us every step of the way in Build Back Better but, in my case, in working on home- and community-based services. This would not be possible without his leadership.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add 5 more minutes to our time.

Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Oregon.

The chairman of the Finance Committee had to work, obviously, not simply on the better care and better jobs provisions to the home- and community-based services provisions but so many others as well and also to work on the financing of the bill, so a big job to undertake.

I want to thank him for his continuing leadership and thank all my colleagues today for making the case for Build Back Better and in this case, one of the component parts, but mostly our discussion was about home- and community-based services. But there is so much more to talk about. We don't have time tonight to get to all of it.

I think what you heard from our colleagues--from Senator King, from Senator Gillibrand, from Senator Wyden, and I know the Presiding Officer shares these concerns and has made these issues a priority--we heard it right from the mouths of Americans, whether they live in Oregon or Maine or New York or Pennsylvania, wherever they live, and, I will remind our colleagues, all those folks on the waiting list in those three States I mentioned--Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, where two-thirds of the waiting list is, just three States.

When you hear Brandon talk about a substantial life that Lynn's caregiving

provides him; when you hear Theo Braddy talk about the life that he has because of home- and community-based services; when you heard Senator King talk about the savings--you want to pay $90,000 or $26,000 in terms of what taxpayers will pay over time in the case of 1 year's care, $90,000 versus $26,000. Twenty-six thousand is what they pay for home care.

So when you hear from individual Americans what these services mean; when you hear about the arguments we are making on cost and that this is an investment--this is an investment in America in furtherance of those values that we claim to hold. Senator King spoke so eloquently about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That says it all. That is what Brandon Kingsmore was talking about, that Lynn, his caregiver, allows him to have a shot at life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we have a lot of work to do between here and there, between our advocacy and our work on a bill and passage, but we are going to get there because this kind of care can't wait any longer. The American people have been waiting for this for all the years that Senator Wyden has made the case when he was a slightly younger man, making the case with the Gray Panthers all across the State of Oregon. People have been waiting for a long time. It is about time we deliver.

Let's pass Build Back Better, not only because of home- and community-based services but for other reasons as well, which we will get to in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.