Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the Lebanon American Club of Danbury, CT, as they celebrate 100 years of devoted cultural engagement and civic service in their community. The Lebanon American Club--or ``the Club,'' as it is affectionately known as by its members--was founded in 1922 as the Syrian American Club. In its early days, this organization assisted members in becoming American citizens, learning English, and served as a vital social support system for Lebanese and Syrian immigrants. After initially meeting at various locations across Danbury, the Club established a permanent home in ``Little Lebanon'' on New Street in Danbury in the 1930s, before moving to its current West Street location in 1993. Highly active in the civic and cultural life of the Arabic speaking community in Danbury, the Lebanon American Club boasted many members who were major contributors to the economic, professional, and social fabric of the region. After the election of Chicory Buzaid as Danbury City Sheriff in 1937--the first Lebanese American elected to public office in the State of Connecticut--the Club's members became more politically active as well. From the 1940s through the 1960s, the Club's activities expanded with regular dinners, scholarship programs for students, fundraisers to aid members in need, and an annual Labor Day weekend ``Mahrajan'' festival celebrating their Lebanese and Syrian heritage. In the 1970s, a new wave of Lebanese immigrants sparked a revitalization of the Lebanon American Club and their activities expanded. New Club programs were established--and continue today-- including a children's Christmas party and a scholarship award dinner which has grown tremendously over the years, providing tens of thousands of dollars in college scholarships to high school graduates. Additionally, the Lebanon American Club Ladies Auxiliary routinely holds dinners and wine tastings and is a significant contributor to the Club's overall activities. In recent years, the Lebanon American Club has continued to expand and flourish. The Lebanon American Teacher Exchange program was established in 2002, and the annual Lebanon American Day flag raising ceremony was first held the next year in 2003. In 2009, the Club established a heritage monument committee to pay tribute to their immigrant ancestors, and the monument was unveiled at city hall during the 2010 Lebanon Day celebration. The Club has continued to thrive of late, including hosting regular blood drives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to provide lifesaving aid to the community. For a century, the Lebanon American Club has provided cultural, civic, and social support to its members, the Lebanese community, and the Danbury community at large. I have attended many Club activities and greatly appreciate and admire their long-standing commitment to preserving and promoting their cultural heritage while selflessly serving their community through their many activities and programs. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Lebanon American Club of Danbury, CT, on this momentous occasion of their 100th anniversary.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the New Britain Lions Club as they celebrate 100 years of devoted community service and positive impact on countless families and organizations in New Britain, CT, and the surrounding area. The New Britain Lions Club is one of the five original Lions Clubs organized in Connecticut. Since their founding in 1922, the Club's core focus has been to meet the needs of children, although they have touched the entire community over the years. As a testament to their far-reaching impact, President Herbert Hoover sent a telegram in 1930 which read: ``There is hardly an institution or community effort where the New Britain Lions Club has not been involved, including the library, Salvation Army, Scouts, sports, the American School for the Deaf, community festival, and literally scores of others.'' The Club has developed leadership skills in its membership and ten of the Club's members have served as District Governor, displaying extraordinary leadership ability and helping establish programs that continue to this day to serve New Britain. Among these leaders was Lion Thomas Leonard, one of the founders of the Connecticut Lions Eye Research Foundation--CLERF--Lion Howard Wry, who began the annual eyeglass collection and initiated the New Britain Lions Emergency Food Bank in 1981, and Lion Otto Strobino, who served as President of the Lions Eye Research Foundation and initiated the planting of the Lions Memorial Forest at the University of Connecticut. The New Britain Lions Club has set the standard of excellence in Lionism through their history of exceptional leadership and commitment to public service. Over the past 2 years, despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, the New Britain Lions have continued to operate their free eye clinic, oversee the local Warm-The-Children program to provide winter clothes for children in need, and facilitate vision screening services to over 5,000 school children in the New Britain Public School system. Their most recent initiative is a collaboration with Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Yale New Haven, and the Meriden YMCA Mountain Mist Camp to create a weeklong Diabetes Camp to help children and young adults manage the disease. In addition to their local impact, the New Britain Lions Club has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Lions Club International Foundation to reach those in need all over the world. As the New Britain Lions Club celebrates its centennial this September, I applaud them on their extraordinary contributions--not just to the city of New Britain and State of Connecticut, but to our great Nation and the world. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the New Britain Lions Club on 100 years of committed public service.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ as it celebrates 202 years of spiritual leadership in New Haven, CT. I am honored to join Dixwell Congregational Church's congregation and supporters in celebrating the church's bicentennial, 2 years later than planned due to the COVID-19 pandemic--just the latest obstacle the church has overcome in its long and remarkable history. Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ is the oldest African-American Congregational UCC church in the world. It was founded in 1820, when Black residents in New Haven were unwelcome at the city's traditional churches. Seeking the freedom to worship, a group of 22 Black New Haven residents persuaded a Yale student and abolitionist named Simeon Jocelyn to conduct religious services with them at his home. Together they formed the city's first Black congregation and, after meeting house to house for 4 years, began renting a small church on Temple Street in New Haven in 1825. In 1837, the Rev. Dr. James W. C. Pennington became the first Black pastor of Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ. After fleeing from slavery, the Yale-educated Pennington became internationally renowned as a skilled orator. Under his leadership and the pastorate of his successor, the Rev. Amos G. Beman, the church became one of America's most eminent civil rights organizations and a cradle of the abolitionist movement. Not only did the church serve as a stop on the Underground Railroad, but many of its members were active on the Amistad Committee, which supported the defense in the landmark 1841 case United States v, The Amistad, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court granting the enslaved people onboard the ship their freedom. The church moved to its current home on Dixwell Avenue in 1886 and continued to work for the social betterment of the community. In the early 20th century, the church donated the land on which the original Dixwell Community House was built, ensuring that generations of area residents had access to enriching education and recreation, as well as vital social services. One of the central figures in the church's recent history is the civil rights activist Rev. Dr. Edmond R. Edmunds, who led the church for nearly 40 years beginning in 1959. Under his pastorate, the congregation established daycare and afterschool programs that encouraged academic achievement in the Dixwell neighborhood. He also helped initiate the Dixwell Housing Development Corporation which, for many years, provided affordable housing to local, low-income families. The church's current pastor, the Rev. Dr. Frederick ``Jerry'' Streets has carried forth the congregation's tradition of serving its community. Reverend Streets has fostered civil and constructive conversations about race in New Haven, developed faith-based rehabilitation programs for individuals with substance abuse disorders, and initiated summer STEM education programs for Dixwell neighborhood youth, amongst other good deeds. I have had the privilege of visiting Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ on a number of occasions and have always been welcomed as one of the congregation. This kindness, free from judgement, has helped countless people in need over the past two centuries. As Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ celebrates its bicentennial plus two this September, I applaud them on their extraordinary contributions--not just to the city of New Haven and State of Connecticut, but to our great Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Dixwell Avenue United Congregational Church of Christ on 202 years of committed worship and service to their community.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today because Republicans are seeking a national ban on abortion. And if we say it once here, we should say it 10 times, 100 times, because literally months ago it would have been virtually unimaginable--first, that Roe v. Wade would be struck down and, second, that Republicans would propose a national ban on abortion. Women across Connecticut and the country are scared and angry. And to those who say those fears and outrage are illusory or unjustified, all you have to do is read their words. Listen to what they say. They are promising the American people that there will be a national ban on abortion. And to the people of Connecticut who think we have a safe haven because our legislature and Governor have courageously established protections for Roe v. Wade and for women who come to Connecticut seeking abortion services and for doctors who depend on our safeguards, there will be no safe haven in this country--none, nowhere--if Republicans go where they say, explicitly, they are heading. I trust women with their doctors and their clergy and their family to make decisions about when and whether to become pregnant, whether to have children, and when to terminate a pregnancy short of term. I trust women--not the government, not politicians--to make these preeminently important decisions. And I promise the people of Connecticut I will not back down. I will not stand for this kind of national ban on abortion. Republicans have said, historically: We will let the States decide. It should be a matter of State legislatures making these decisions. This ban on abortion takes away power from women and from States, contrary to their promises over years and years about States' rights. But more than a theoretical or hypothetical argument about the powers of State legislatures or the allocation of responsibility in our Federal system, this law will have destructive and catastrophic consequences for millions of women. It will impair the everyday lives of women and families across America. It is not just a woman's issue. It is on all of us to say we will not back down; we will not stand for a national ban on abortion. It is part of a tireless and seemingly boundless campaign against women's rights, but these attacks on reproductive rights and personal freedom apparently know no limits. Remember, first, Republican- controlled State legislatures moved to outlaw abortion entirely, forcing women suffering from ectopic pregnancies to bleed out in hospitals and refusing to care for child rape victims. But now Republicans are moving forward with plans to ban abortion everywhere, under any circumstances, and they are wresting a woman's right to make her own personal healthcare decision, sometimes a decision made during a devastating medical diagnosis out of her hands, putting those decisions into government's hands. Make no mistake, the 15 weeks--all of the technical stuff that Republicans invoke, doesn't take away from the fact that it is a national ban that will eviscerate Connecticut's law. Congressional Republicans will decide whether or not women can access this vital help. Eliminating access to abortion services as a result of the Dobbs decision has already caused devastating consequences. The loss of reproductive services in some States has caused a ripple effect for healthcare providers across the United States, which proves, for anyone who doubted, that banning reproductive services doesn't stop women from seeking those services. It just adds additional barriers and danger. In fact, it unnecessarily puts their lives at risk. This bill would place a ban on abortion across the country, and it would include New York and Massachusetts, not just Connecticut and Delaware. Go across the country and pick those States where these rights have been protected. When I was in the State legislature, and then as attorney general, I helped write the law that incorporates and codifies Roe v. Wade in Connecticut statute. And now Connecticut has moved beyond that statute to provide a safe haven. But all of it would be gone. All of it would be overwritten by this law. Americans should have no doubt about where Republicans stand now on this issue. They want to punish women. They want to punish doctors. They will do it at the State level. They will do it at the national level. No State, not even Connecticut, is safe from this threat. They are coming after our laws in Connecticut. They are coming after women in Connecticut and men who believe in the rights of women as a matter of constitutional and personal freedom to make these decisions. Our laws should protect the rights of women seeking to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health in consultation with medical providers, and I will fight tooth and nail this effort and any other effort that seeks to control, criminalize, and dehumanize women making this choice and the healthcare providers compassionately giving them care. The American people are in our corner. American people--whatever they may think about abortion in their own lives, for their own family, for their daughters or wives or others--they support the rights of those women to control their own healthcare decision. It is an intensely personal decision, when it has to be made, and sometimes a threat of life, something going horribly wrong in a pregnancy, is the reason for it. I will continue to fight for all in Connecticut who believe in this fundamental right. It is a matter of our constitutional DNA in Connecticut, beginning with Griswold v. Connecticut, which laid the groundwork for the right of privacy which is the underpinning for that constitutional freedom. And all of us, I hope, will reject this effort to ban abortion in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Mr. Curtis D. Robinson, a long-time resident of Connecticut and outstanding entrepreneur and philanthropist who turns 80 on September 21, 2022. As a teenager, Mr. Robinson left Birmingham, AL, and the segregation of the Jim Crow South, arriving in Hartford, CT, in 1958 with little more than the clothes on his back. Mr. Robinson began working two full- time jobs and one part-time job and, after several years, was able to purchase a grocery store at the age of 18. By the time he was 22, Mr. Robinson also owned a restaurant, a cleaning service, an apartment building, and a construction supply company. He used this experience to start the Small Business Development Program in 1969, creating over 100 small businesses in the Hartford and Springfield areas. This remarkable success is a testament to Mr. Robinson's extraordinary industrious spirit and tremendous work ethic. Today, Mr. Robinson is the owner, operator, and president of C&R Development Company, the largest minority construction management company on the east coast. He also owns several shops within Bradley International Airport and runs other businesses, including R&G Services, which operates the shuttle bus service at the airport, and R&G Parking, which operates one of the largest parking lots in downtown Hartford. In addition to his entrepreneurial endeavors, Mr. Robinson is also an advocate for health equity. As the cofounder and chairman of the Curtis D. Robinson Center for Health Equity--CDRCHE--he expands the provision of critical health services in underserved communities, serving over 10,000 people since 2010. Expanding on this firsthand experience in addressing health inequities, Mr. Robinson sits on the boards of Trinity Health of New England, Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, and the Connecticut Hospital Association. Mr. Robinson is also an extraordinary philanthropist and has contributed greatly to the civic life of Connecticut. Along with his wife, Mr. Robinson founded the Curtis and Sheila Robinson Foundation, which provides financial support across a variety of areas--offering assistance with food, rent, clothing, transportation, and scholarship funds for individuals in need. Over the years, they have championed many worthy causes, including efforts to combat food insecurity, domestic violence, and poverty. The Robinsons have also assisted individuals with medical and hospital care, donated buses to churches and schools, and adopted a homeless shelter for displaced children. Their charitable contributions are truly too numerous to list, and I applaud their remarkable efforts to give back to their community. Mr. Robinson's incredible achievements--building a life for himself through hard work and determination--truly embody the American dream. His willingness to use his hard-earned success to give back to others serves as a model for all of us. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Curtis Robinson on this milestone of his 80th birthday.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 1:45 begin immediately.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Burton ``Burt'' Albert, a Connecticut native and remarkable man. Sadly, Mr. Albert passed away in 2019, at the age of 86. He will be remembered for his tireless commitment to community service and his deep devotion to his wonderful family. Born in Waterbury, Burt spent much of his life in Connecticut, attending Cheshire Academy and Amherst College, where he graduated with a bachelor of arts in 1954. A member of the ROTC program, Mr. Albert went on to serve for 2 years as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force. Burt remained proud of his time in the military, and I applaud his strong sense of patriotism and record of military service. It was also in the Air Force where Mr. Albert met the love of his life, Sylvia Meisel, who would become his wife of 61 years. They would go on to build a wonderful family together, having three children-- Eric, Jonathan, and Debbie--and many grandchildren they adored. Mr. Albert was a remarkable family man and cherished time with his loved ones above all else. Mr. Albert returned to Connecticut to work in his family's scrap metal recycling business. Burt became the third generation of Alberts to lead Albert Bros. Inc., a company that recently celebrated 125 years of outstanding industry in the State of Connecticut. I have visited Albert Bros. and seen firsthand the amazing new methods for turning waste material into a useful new resource. The company is an integral part of Waterbury commerce. Under Mr. Albert's leadership, Albert Bros. grew substantially, and he was respected by employees and customers alike. Amid all his success, working with his sons and grandson in the family business was one of the highlights of Mr. Albert's professional career. Mr. Albert devoted much of his time to serving the Waterbury community, bringing his tremendous leadership skills to many organizations including St. Mary's Hospital, the Jewish Federation of Western Connecticut, the Harold Leever Cancer Center, and the Connecticut Community Foundation. Mr. Albert was also very active in the United Way of Greater Waterbury and B'nai Israel Synagogue. In these endeavors, Burt generously gave so much of his time and resources to helping others. Burton Albert leaves behind a remarkable legacy of service--to our country, the State of Connecticut, and his community. But he will be remembered most by his loving family as an extraordinary husband, father, and grandfather. Burt's sense of humor, passion for learning, and conviction in his beliefs are models for all of us. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating the life of Mr. Burton Albert.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am so proud to be here today to speak in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act, which hopefully we are on the cusp of passing. It is historic. We will save lives, save money, save taxpayers. It will lower costs for all Americans in healthcare, particularly prescription drugs. It is the most important action to cut medicine costs in our history--certainly, in recent history. It is the most significant tax fairness measure in recent history, and it is the largest investment and most important action to fight climate change in our history. So it is a big deal, and it will be measurable for all Americans in what they pay to keep themselves healthy, to keep the planet inhabitable, to keep the highest income people from avoiding or evading taxes, and, in so many ways, it will make a difference in people's lives. But it is a compromise, like many measures that we have passed that have accomplished very significant improvements in people's lives. It is an agreement where some people get some of what they want and others don't get what they want. And one point where I think a number of us wanted to advance was the cause of childcare, and we see an absence. But listening to Senator Schumer, especially, I am more confident than ever that we will fight and win more aid for childcare, and Senator Murray and Senator Kaine have spoken so eloquently. I will simply say to what they said that I agree whole-heartedly because childcare is critical to kids. It is essential to early development, education, and physical and mental well-being. It is essential for families because they need it to go back to work, particularly moms who have been out of the workforce. It is essential to our economy because employers--big, small--all need more workers, and they need to train those workers, and the way to find those workers and give them the skills they need to fill those jobs is to enable them to be secure in knowing their children have good childcare. It is important to the men and women who form the childcare workforce. I have been all around the State of Connecticut--to Torrington, Hartford, Bristol. In fact, I accompanied the President of the United States to visit one of Connecticut's childcare facilities. They do great work. They have been doing great work during the pandemic, reporting for duty, taking care of children, even as their industry was impacted by smaller amounts of children being able to go there because parents had smaller amounts of income to afford it. And the fact of the matter is, in Connecticut, the yearly cost of childcare is about $20,000. We have lost a major part of our childcare workforce, and this measure is essential to those men and women who take care of kids in those childcare facilities with their courage and diligence and strength that befits the enormous responsibility that they have. We are determined to make childcare affordable and accessible for every American family. The proposal that no more than 7 percent of any family's income be required for childcare is one that I still think makes eminent good sense. We need to recognize that childcare facilities need to be sustained and supported, and those families need that same support and resource. So I am absolutely determined that we will move forward on childcare. As frustrated as I may be that this great compromise we see in the Inflation Reduction Act fails to include it, I am proud to support it and vote for it, and to continue this fight which we can and will win. And I thank my colleagues who will be joining us for their support as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague and friend from the great State of Minnesota for being such a steadfast champion of this issue over so many years and such an articulate and eloquent spokesman. I am proud to join her and other colleagues, as we have done, week after week since the Dobbs decision, trying to protect a woman's right to decide when and whether to have children, a woman's basic control over her own body, a woman's freedom that the Dobbs decision stripped away and put in the hands of politicians. The politicians in robes on the Supreme Court, in effect, took those rights away from the women of America, after 50 years of precedent and after everyone thought these rights were absolutely secure. When I first introduced the Women's Health Protection Act in 2013, the idea that Roe v. Wade would be overruled was absolutely unimaginable. We were trying to fight the disruption of rights piece by piece through State laws that required admitting privileges or width of hallways or waiting times or other kinds of restrictions that constituted an unconstitutional burden on women's rights. Now, we are in the post-Roe world where the unthinkable has become real. The unimaginable is with us right now, and worse is to come. The hit list of this Supreme Court includes contraception, marriage equality, the basic right to privacy that is enshrined in the Constitution, the right to be let alone from government interference. So my Republican colleagues who think we are being alarmists, the unthinkable is with us right now. And we need to provide assurance and certainty to the women of America that they can travel to seek abortion services; that family planning options will be available to them; that contraception rights will be secure. And each time we have come to the floor to seek that recognition of basic rights, the Republicans have blocked us. So now we are here on a measure called let doctors provide reproductive healthcare--Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care. There is a really cruel irony to this effort. The doctors and nurses and healthcare providers who were our heros and remain our heros--even more so now--during the pandemic and afterward, can be prosecuted criminally for trying to save a woman's life. An abortion that is necessary to that woman's life may be the mission of a doctor who then can be prosecuted criminally. Now, in Connecticut, we have said--our legislature has made it absolutely clear that nobody in Connecticut is going to be prosecuted, no law enforcement official in Connecticut is going to cooperate with Texas or any other States that criminalize abortion services, no evidence from Connecticut is going to be made available to an overly zealous or aggressive prosecutor hell-bent on going after a doctor or a healthcare provider or a woman who seeks abortion services, but Connecticut is the exception. Its safe harbor makes it unusual, not common. So we need a national law, Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act, that protects the healthcare givers and providers of our Nation to do their job. The Hippocratic oath is, for them, something that goes as deep as our oath of office for us. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution; they, in effect, take an oath to save lives. That is their job, and their lives should not be in jeopardy, nor should their livelihood, simply because they are doing their job. We have seen, time and time again, that this Supreme Court has no respect for precedent. We have seen State legislators who have no respect for reproductive rights and healthcare. We cannot rely on false reassurances made by Republican colleagues here or anyone around the country because history has already shown us that this Supreme Court has on its hit list these fundamental rights and expanding the restrictions on them. So I ask my colleagues to join us in unanimous consent for this measure. That motion will be made shortly. I hope that we can join in ensuring that individuals have access to quality healthcare regardless of their ZIP Code, no matter where they live. The women of America deserve this basic right, and the healthcare providers who enable them to protect themselves and who save lives deserve the assurance that they are not going to be the target of a prosecutor hell-bent on making a name for himself or a State legislature seeking to make political points at the expense of a healthcare provider. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, a group of us will be speaking and then asking for unanimous consent on a measure called the Right to Contraception Act. It is called the Right to Contraception Act because it guarantees the right to contraception. If you had asked me a year ago, 6 months ago, would we need a Right to Contraception Act, I would have thought not in my lifetime. But the fact is we live now in the post-Roe era. It is a unique moment in our Nation's history, not just because the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade in the recent Dobbs decision but because, for the first time in our history, we are rolling back rights. The history of our great country, the greatest in the history of the world, is that we advance and expand rights. From the time of our founding, the ethos and tradition of America is that we increase rights and liberties that are protected from governmental interference. And now with Dobbs, one of the core freedoms--the right to decide when and whether to have children--has been stripped from women and given to government officials. But it isn't only reproductive rights under Roe, because the U.S. Supreme Court has very carefully, deliberately sent signals about where it is going in this rollback of rights and liberties. And it isn't just Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion, which now has become infamous for its signals. It is the opinion of the Court itself that clearly shows that this Court threatens not only abortion rights, but also contraception rights. And in addition to mentioning Griswold v. Connecticut, Clarence Thomas also--or I should say Justice Thomas, with all due respect--mentioned Loving, Lawrence, Obergefell--all of them on the chopping block, all those rights on this Supreme Court's hit list. And perhaps the most deeply rooted of them all in Griswold v. Connecticut is the right to contraception. Now, let's be clear. The right to contraception wasn't stated in the Constitution, but the right to privacy is at its core. ``Don't tread on me.'' The right to be left alone--that is the reason that we have the Bill of Rights. That is the reason why the Founders rebelled against England--undue, unjustified interference in their personal lives. And so the right to privacy is referred to often as a conundrum; but, actually, it is at the core of the Constitution. It is so fundamental to the mindset and the mantra of those constitutional guarantees from the very founding of our Republic, and the respect for the right of privacy should be bipartisan and, indeed, has been bipartisan throughout our history. The simple fact is that the most important decision any of us make, at least in my view, is whether to become a parent. And it ought to be a decision--not something that just happens. It should be a decision that is made deliberately. Every American should have that right to decide when and whether to have children. And politicians shouldn't be the ones to make it. They shouldn't be allowed to infringe or interfere on that decision. And women can't be truly equal if they don't control their lives, their reproductive lives. If they don't control their bodies, if they lose that right, they simply cannot be equal. So it is not just privacy; it is equality that is at stake here. My Republican colleagues are adamant in dragging this country back to a time when women had little or no autonomy over these choices. And I am shocked--and I think many of my colleagues are, the American people are as well--that American women today will have fewer rights than their mothers and even their grandmothers. We are living through a world where healthcare providers can't do their jobs and save lives without risking criminal penalties, and much of our Nation will be at risk of losing these fundamental liberties. Let me be clear. This should not be controversial. This issue should not be one that provokes verbal jousts on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Griswold v. Connecticut--yes, it is Griswold v. Connecticut--has held for decades. It is enshrined in case law, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court that individuals have a right to use contraceptives. But we have seen after assurances by three of the members now sitting on the Supreme Court that respect for precedent really is no longer deeply felt--in fact, may not be felt at all. What one nominee, Justice Kavanaugh, referred to as ``precedent on precedent'' and, therefore, it is well-established law, that was Roe v. Wade. Now it is gone. It was, in Justice Alito's words, ``egregiously wrong.'' But none of those three nominees expressed any feelings whatsoever that it might be wrong, let alone egregiously wrong. So to all my colleagues who say that the right to contraceptives is unnecessary, I would simply say, Look at Dobbs. When I introduced, along with the Presiding Officer, the Women's Health Protection Act in 2013, the idea that Roe might be overruled was unthinkable. Our goal was to prevent the growing restrictions on that right that imposed excessive burdens. What was unthinkable then is reality now. The Court overruling Griswold might have been thought unthinkable, but that danger is our present reality in the post-Roe world. So I urge my colleagues to join in approving the Right to Contraception Act today to provide certainty and reassurance to women across the United States that they will have those rights. They can be sure of them; they can rely on them; they will know that having children will be a decision they make--not somebody else telling them when and whether to start a family. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to appear with a group of my colleagues on behalf of the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act. We are here to talk about this essential measure in the post-Roe world. That is a phrase I never thought I would ever utter anywhere, not to mention on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But we are living in the post-Roe world where reproductive rights are under assault as never before and critical reproductive healthcare services are more necessary and also are more at risk than ever before. That is why a consistent, strong source of funding for title X Family Planning Programs are absolutely critical and urgent. That is the purpose of the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act. What it means for the State of Connecticut is, in the past, $2.5 million in title X funding, allowing patients, mostly women--45,000 of them--critical access to comprehensive family planning and preventive healthcare services. What we are talking about here is not only family planning but also testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, lifesaving cancer screening, and other essential health services. And they are all now at risk. What they need is the strong and consistent source of funding that this measure would provide, doubling--literally, almost doubling the number of dollars but also guaranteeing over a 10-year period that clinics will receive this funding. In the State of Connecticut, most of this funding in the past has gone to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England. The Cornell Scott- Hill Health Center has received some. They have done absolutely extraordinary work in delivering health services, particularly to women who are uninsured, women who are of lower incomes, and women who are younger--under 30. And that is the primary patient pool that needs these services. Let me be very blunt. If my Republican colleagues truly care about supporting families, they can show it by supporting this measure and funding title X. In the past, since its inception 50 years ago, it has been bipartisan because people agree that families ought to be a priority, that decisions about when and whether to have children are the most important that we make, that caring for families and particularly prenatal care, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening--these health services are vital to all of us, whether we are the patient or not, and that they stay funded in the long run. Preventive healthcare is pound-wise, and it will save money. We know that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs strips women of a vitally important freedom and puts it in the hands of government bureaucrats: the decision about when and whether to have children. The least we can do now is to fund the reproductive healthcare services that will save lives and save futures. Dobbs has put women at risk. It has put reproductive healthcare in grave jeopardy. This measure is necessary to mitigate the effects of Dobbs--more necessary now than ever before. We will never stop fighting for a woman's right to choose when and whether to have children. We will never stop fighting to protect a woman's right to access healthcare that is vital to her own and her children's health. In the face of mounting attacks on women's health, now is the time to strengthen title X, and that is why we need this legislation. Passing the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act will strengthen our entire healthcare system. It is simply critical for this $500 million--providing birth control, cancer screening, other kinds of testing and treatment--to be passed. And if my Republican colleagues are serious about supporting families, they ought to be eager to join us. And I am proud to be supporting this measure, and I am eager to see it signed into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on July 11, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 243, Executive Calendar No. 599, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 244, Executive Calendar No. 599, the confirmation of the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 245, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 246, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the confirmation of the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 247, Executive Calendar No. 975, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 248, Executive Calendar No. 975, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 249, Executive Calendar No. 976, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 250, Executive Calendar No. 976, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 251, Executive Calendar No. 676, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export- Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 252, Executive Calendar No. 676, the confirmation of the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 253, Executive Calendar No. 908, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination as General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 254, Executive Calendar No. 908, the confirmation of the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm her nomination to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 255, Executive Calendar No. 968, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today I rise to recognize Mr. Adolph ``Bob'' Hirsch, a remarkable man and World War II veteran who turns 100 on July 23, 2022. In September 1942, at the age of 20, Mr. Hirsch enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard. He would go on to attain the rank of seaman first class, serving this Nation honorably throughout World War II until 1945. During this time, Mr. Hirsch served as a gunner's mate on the Coast Guard Patrol Frigate Annapolis. It was aboard that vessel in the American theater of operations that Mr. Hirsch was engaged in combat action against hostile enemy submarine forces. In September 1945, Mr. Hirsch was also involved in a daring rescue while serving on the Annapolis. After the Steamship Prince George caught fire in Ketchikan, AK, several U.S. Coast Guard vessels responded to the incident, including the Annapolis. Mr. Hirsch was engaged in lifesaving and port clearance operations, further demonstrating his remarkable bravery. Following his time in the Coast Guard, Mr. Hirsch continued his outstanding legacy of service. He joined the New York City Police Department and served that city honorably for over 20 years. Since 1976, Mr. Hirsch has resided in Bethlehem, CT, and we are proud he has chosen to call our great State home. Mr. Hirsch's tireless service will be an enduring legacy. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Bob Hirsch on this milestone of his 100th birthday.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Texas as well as the team that worked with him--Senators Murphy, Tillis, Sinema, and all of us who worked with them. Where he is surely right is that we have shown that democracy works, at least that it can work, when people come together seeking common ground and responding to the overwhelming sense of urgency from the American people about solving a problem. And that democracy working stands in stark juxtaposition to the tableau on the other side of Congress, the House Commission that is investigating the near-overthrow of that democracy. So for all who are doubting and all who may have doubts in the future, we are providing some reassurance that we can get things done and solve problems. My mind goes back to watching that Gallery almost 10 years ago in the wake of the Newtown tragedy--the unthinkable murder of 20 beautiful children and 6 brave educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And when we failed to take action then on a very modest improving the background check system--we had 55 votes but not enough to reach 60--I will never forget the cry of ``Shame, shame'' that came from that Gallery. I remember the Sandy Hook families were in that Gallery, and at least two of them are here today, Mark Barden and Nicole Hockley. And it is not only those families that are in the Gallery, it is the movement that those families, through their immeasurable grief and unthinkable trauma, created in the wake of that unimaginable murder. That movement is here, comprised of survivors and first responders, medical professionals, educators, advocates, and so many others. And today when the U.S. Senate passes the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we won't hear cries of ``Shame,'' there will be cries of relief, finally. I am proud to have been part of the team that negotiated this measure and to have worked with colleagues on the other side of the aisle like Senator Cornyn. This is not the measure I fought for. It is not the measure I would have written if I had been doing it alone, but it marks meaningful progress. If you wait to get everything in the U.S. Senate, chances are you will get nothing. Progress is better than nothing. This measure will save lives--not all the lives that we want to save, but it will save lives, and I will be proud to vote for it today. After 30 years, hundreds of thousands of gun deaths after Sandy Hook and dozens of failed legislative proposals, we are finally taking this step forward. The Sandy Hook victims, the Parkland victims, the Uvalde victims, and so many more deserve so much better, and they deserve more, but the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is that significant step forward that responds to the Nation's sense of urgency to get something done. One way the legislation will do so that I am particularly proud of is investing in crisis intervention programs. This bill will increase funding for these programs, including red flag laws and programs already in place in 21 jurisdictions like Connecticut, which was the first. These laws will keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others. It is separating those guns from people who say they are going to kill someone or themselves. More than half of all gun deaths are suicides. Red flag laws are practical and proven and they prevent not only suicides but school mass shootings and other violent crimes. Just last week, Connecticut probably saved tens of lives by separating an individual who told his parents that he was having those thoughts again about killing people, and he was separated from a firearm. I have worked on the red flag issue for years with Senator Graham and with Senator Feinstein in the bipartisan negotiations that led to this bill. We worked collaboratively and closely to develop the funding framework that can support States that already have these laws and States that choose to enact these laws going forward. Implementation is so important, and the resources necessary for implementation are key to making them work effectively. In fact, very arguably, the failure of the New York red flag law to prevent the Buffalo massacre was due to a lack of resources commitment. To alleviate concerns among some of my Republican colleagues and some gun owners, we reached a bipartisan agreement to include provisions that specify that, for States to be eligible to use funding under red flag programs, those programs have to include minimum due process protections. These protections are consistent with due process safeguards provided in the 21 jurisdictions that already have these laws, and several have already been upheld in the face of constitutional challenges. The Constitution already applies to these laws. The due process guarantees would apply in any event, but we had no problem spelling it out. That explicit protection in the legislative text is added for reassurance. In so doing, our bipartisan group agreed that all 21 jurisdictions that already have red flag laws will all qualify for funding under this bill. So, too, we agreed that any future jurisdiction that enacts such a law must at least meet the same constitutional due process minimum to be eligible. I spell out this legislative history because it is important to understand not only the context but also the intention of these provisions. Let no one doubt that States like Connecticut, which already have these laws, will receive funding. I am also pleased that, among other measures, we have substantially shrunk, even if not eliminated, the boyfriend loophole. We made straw purchasing and trafficking illegal at the Federal level--a measure that I know, as a former U.S. attorney and chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut, is enormously important. We are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in community violence intervention and in the STOP School Violence Program. We have been meeting just this week and throughout these past years with community groups and educators and others who want to stop mental health issues upstream before they create violence downstream. I know how enormously important these measures can be for Connecticut and other States. Finally, let me say that I have come to the Senate floor too many times--too many times to count--to call on us to honor with action those incredibly strong, brave families from Sandy Hook and from all around the country who have created this movement that we have now. It is a movement that will go on. They are not stopping. Neither should we. We need to continue with the same sense of urgency and purpose-- that movement--toward making America even safer. This bill is a breakthrough that builds a foundation for the future. It opens the door. Hopefully, it will show colleagues who have, perhaps, been reluctant to stand up to the gun lobby in the past and have helped to maintain the vice-like grip of that gun lobby on the Congress that their power is done. They have not only waned in their impact, but their intimidation and threats will no longer hold sway here. So we are saving lives. It is a proud moment for the U.S. Senate, and I thank all of my colleagues for supporting this breakthrough measure.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, I rise to recognize Gaylord Specialty Healthcare as it celebrates 120 years of outstanding service in Connecticut. Throughout its existence, Gaylord has changed with the healthcare needs of the people of Connecticut and indeed across the Nation, while maintaining a reputation for excellence and superior professionalism. The health system was first founded in 1902 as a tuberculosis sanatorium. Gaylord Sanatorium provided long-term treatment for half a century when the disease was endemic, treating patients including playwright Eugene O'Neill. In 1926, the U.S. Public Health Laboratory National Research Committee selected Gaylord's facilities as the first they used in the country. In 1948, Gaylord Farm Sanatorium was renamed to Gaylord Hospital, restructuring to treat people with chronic illnesses. By 1954, Gaylord Hospital became the first hospital in New England to specialize in comprehensive rehabilitation. Today, Gaylord Specialty Healthcare is an extensive health system across the State of Connecticut that focuses exclusively on medical rehabilitation. The hospital in Wallingford is a leading center for rehabilitation, and it is one of only two long-term acute care hospitals in the world--and the only one in the United States. Gaylord received certification from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities in recognition of its outstanding patient care. They offer an extensive breadth of treatment and accreditation opportunities. Gaylord is further certified by the Joint Commission and the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation thanks to its exemplary standards. I have had the privilege of visiting Gaylord Hospital on a number of occasions. This April, I was proud to join members of their staff to celebrate their new physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians residency program, made possible thanks to $1.2 million in Federal funding. This program will be the first of its kind in Connecticut, and it will play a critical role in ensuring our State has sufficient resources for specialty medical professionals. Having spoken with staff and patients at Gaylord, I can attest firsthand to the extraordinary care, compassion, and expertise demonstrated there. Gaylord Hospital's work is a credit to our State. As Gaylord Hospital celebrates its anniversary this October, I applaud them on their extraordinary record of accomplishment. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Gaylord Specialty Healthcare on 120 years of excellence.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Nelson W. Milner, Sr., and Clarence R. Milner, Sr. Both men were beloved relatives of former Hartford, CT, mayor Thirman L. Milner, the first elected African-American mayor in New England. They passed away earlier this year and leave extraordinary legacies of thoughtful, compassionate work. Nelson was born in Hartford, CT, and was the brother of former Mayor Milner. Upon graduating from high school, he joined the Air Force, serving for 3 years. Stationed in Riverside, CA, Nelson remained in the State with his late wife, Arthurrine, following his service. In the 1980s, Nelson returned to Hartford in support of his brother's mayoral campaign. Passionate about serving others, Nelson became an ordained deacon and taught Sunday school. He also played the keyboard with the East Hartford senior center band. Nelson focused his final years on strengthening his relationship with his family, including his 10 children, 5 stepchildren, and many grandchildren and great- grandchildren. He passed away on February 15, 2022, at the age of 90. Nelson and Arthurrine's son, Clarence, was born in California. He would go on to have 10 children of his own, as well as 4 stepchildren, 41 grandchildren, and 7 great-grandchildren. Clarence dedicated his life to his Christian faith and volunteered as a firefighter. Just like his father, he moved back to Hartford to work on his uncle's mayoral campaign. In addition to supporting his uncle's successful bid to become the city's first African- American mayor, Clarence also committed himself to running several businesses. Family was at the heart of everything Clarence did. He was inseparable from his identical twin, Carl, for many years. Clarence met his wife in Hartford and spent as much time as possible with all of his children and grandchildren. He passed away on January 11, 2022, at the age of 64. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to former Mayor Milner and all of Nelson and Clarence's loved ones. May their many wonderful memories of both men provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Nelson W. Milner, Sr., and Clarence R. Milner, Sr.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Joseph L. ``Joe'' Murchison, Jr., an extraordinary public servant who passed away last year and who would have turned 92 on June 19, 2022. Joe was born in North Carolina in 1930 and enlisted as early as he could in the U.S. Army. Determined to commit himself to his Nation, Joe eventually joined the all-Black 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion. The members of this battalion were called the ``Triple Nickles.'' In 1947, a year before the Army was desegregated, Major General James Gavin oversaw the troopers' transfer into the 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. This was the first step toward integrating the 82nd Airborne Division and made the Triple Nickles some of the first Black soldiers to train alongside White soldiers. Even after this trailblazing shift, the troopers continued to consider themselves Triple Nickles. Despite the racial separation of most soldiers, the paratroopers gained the respect of many units as a result of their special airborne status. As Joe said, ``We knew we had something to prove and we had to be better than the best.'' In 1958, Joe retired from the military as an officer. He followed his impressive service by starting several successful businesses across the United States and helping to found a newspaper in Greensboro called the ``Carolina Peacemaker.'' As part of these endeavors, Joe was one of the first Black owners of a North Carolina automobile dealership and worked with a major car manufacturer to promote an alternative fuel vehicle. Joe founded the 555th Parachute Infantry Association, Inc., in 1979. The organization enables the paratroopers to stay connected. Throughout his three terms as president of the association, Joe saw it grow to include over 1,500 members across 26 chapters. Throughout his remarkable lifetime, Joe dedicated himself to sharing the importance of the Triple Nickles, even visiting the White House. While he was alive, Joe was pleased to see Juneteenth--also his birthday--be named a Federal holiday by President Biden. He passed away on November 11, 2021, Veterans Day. My wife Cynthia and I extend our best wishes to his daughter, Joelle, along with her 10 siblings, as well as Joe's grandchildren, great- grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren as they celebrate his outstanding life this Sunday. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing Joseph L. Murchison, Jr.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues who have worked with us on a bipartisan basis to bring the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 to the floor for a vote. That is a mouthful. The PACT Act is the way it is known more colloquially. The PACT Act is a profoundly significant measure. It is a milestone in our dealing with the health and benefits that our veterans deserve. We know that the modern battlefield is filled with toxins and poison that could cause grave injury, and many of the afflictions that result from those toxins or chemicals are manifested only years after a veteran leaves Active-Duty service. In fact, cancer, hypertension, skin disease--the list is long, and so are the number of years when the illnesses can arrive. They are latent. They are hidden. Like many wounds of war, they are invisible at the time. But these brave men and women who serve us on the modern battlefield experience them at higher rates because there are more of those toxins and chemicals. We have seen them, for example, in the burn pit. One of my sons, a Marine Corps officer in Afghanistan, saw them firsthand, described them to me, and worried about the effects on him. So far he is fine, but the years ahead are an unknown for him and for countless other men and women who may have been exposed. In fact, they may not even know that they have been exposed to these chemicals and toxins. The fact of the matter is that the Veterans Administration has resisted taking responsibility for these illnesses. It has erected thresholds of proof and barriers of evidence for veterans who suffer the effects of the burn pit and the other sources of toxic chemicals that can inflict such grievous pain and worry on so many of them. That is why this legislation is so significant--because it will begin to right the inaction of the government in helping veterans afflicted by toxic exposure. We have been here before. We have fought year after year after year for veterans who were afflicted with the results of Agent Orange over the resistance and the opposition of the VA. And even after we passed the measure, righting those wrongs, the VA resisted implementing the law, not under this administration, fortunately, but previous ones. I am immensely grateful to this VA for its seeming support of this measure, but I am most grateful to the veterans themselves, the veterans service organizations that have been at our side and have had our back, including the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, their organization. The IAVA has played an important role; likewise, the VFW--Veterans of Foreign Wars--the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and others. They are among the main rulers who deserve predominant thanks. Chairman Tester and Ranking Member Moran and our counterparts in the House Committee on Veterans Affairs have been instrumental in this measure. In fact, I worked with Senator Moran on this issue when I was the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He saw, along with me, the importance of moving forward on this issue. This inaction has affected countless families like Sergeant First Class Robinson's family. I received a handwritten note from his young daughter yesterday urging me to vote yes on ``my dad's bill.'' Let there be no mistake, I am going to be voting yes on this bill, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will overwhelmingly join me in voting yes. I want to say, in particular, how proud I have been to lead legislation, along with colleagues like Senator Tillis, to advance particular causes of groups of veterans who have been specifically affected. For example, the Palomares nuclear accident in 1966 caused huge suffering and pain to men and women in uniform who were sent to clean up a crash or a release of bombs. They didn't explode, but they were nuclear weapons, and they had to be cleaned up. Their remediation exposed those veterans to radiation, and the PACT Act will provide them with much needed relief. Similarly, there are an estimated 16,000--that is right; 16,000--U.S. servicemembers deployed to a base in Uzbekistan known as K2. It was an old Soviet base, which became a dumping ground for all kinds of toxic substances, and they were exposed to those substances when they served there. Now, the old Soviet Union didn't care much about its people--Russia not much more--about its people in uniform, but we should, and we do. That is why the PACT Act would provide care to them. In the United States at Camp Lejeune, many of our veterans and their families were exposed to toxins in the water supply. They have been left without any real recourse. My friend and colleague Senator Tillis and I worked together on legislation to help these thousands of veterans and their families impacted by those toxins at Camp Lejeune. It was an uphill battle. We had to overcome a lot of resistance. Again, some of our VA friends didn't see it our way, but my feeling is that we had to fight as tenaciously for those Camp Lejeune families as marines do for us. The PACT Act essentially regards these kinds of illnesses and inflictions as part of the cost of war, and it puts the presumption of service-connected cause on the side of the veteran because many of them are making claims after the fact, indeed, well after they have left the battlefield. The proof is much more difficult for them to make and much easier for the VA to resist, so the burden should be on the VA to prove that these illnesses are not service connected, not the other way around. The presumption has to be in favor of the veteran. That is the basic fairness here. It levels the playing field so that veterans have a fair chance at making sure that they receive the healthcare and the benefits that they deserve and need. I am proud that this measure is bipartisan. It is long overdue, but it moves us in the right direction, and maybe it helps to prove that we can continue to work productively together. Certainly, as to veterans, we need to do the right thing in recognizing these costs of war. This measure is not only an important milestone as legislation, but it also represents an opportunity to educate our country about invisible wounds, about brave men and women who serve in combat and come home without necessarily a visible wound but experience a different kind of hardship and burden. Their sacrifice must be recognized. They need healthcare, and they deserve it. The benefits that they are receiving as a result of this measure are extraordinarily and deeply well deserved and should be available promptly. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Donald K. Ross, a tireless organizer for democracy. Sadly, Mr. Ross passed away on May 14, 2022, at the age of 78. He will be remembered for his lifetime of civic service and advocacy. Born in the Bronx, NY, Mr. Ross was a leader from an early age. As student body president, he successfully revived Fordham University's football program, an experience he credited with teaching him how to organize. Upon graduation, Mr. Ross spent 2 years with the Peace Corps in Nigeria, before graduating from New York University's law school in 1970. From there, Mr. Ross joined consumer advocate Ralph Nader's Public Citizen movement, becoming one of the original ``Nader's Raiders.'' In 1971, they co-wrote ``Action for Change: A Student's Manual for Public Interest Organizing,'' which led to the organization of Public Interest Research Groups--PRIGs--across the country. These organizations combine research and public action, encouraging public citizens to get involved in important advocacy issues. Mr. Ross became the director of the New York PRIG, where he advanced a number of political reforms and advocated for increased government transparency. Mr. Ross was also an outspoken anti-nuclear advocate. After the tragic accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, Mr. Ross organized anti-nuclear rallies that drew hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. That he was able to mobilize so many people in mere weeks after the accident is a testament to his leadership skills and passion for the cause. In addition to his organizing expertise, Mr. Ross was also a dedicated philanthropist. From 1985 to 1999, he was director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charitable organization where he worked to expand access to grants for charitable causes. Additionally, Mr. Ross cofounded and managed the Environmental Grantmakers Association, which has grown to include over 200 member foundations around the world. A champion of numerous causes, Mr. Ross directed the National Campaign to Reform Juvenile Justice Systems from 2009 to 2017. In my home State, Mr. Ross organized the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, a statewide organization dedicated to actively engaging residents to build a more sustainable, just society. In this and every endeavor he undertook in his remarkable career, Mr. Ross was on the frontlines of democracy, fighting to make our world a better place. Connecticut and the Nation have lost a great civic organizer and champion of democracy. Mr. Ross's tireless devotion to many worthy causes--from environmental protection, to consumer advocacy, to criminal justice reform, and so many others--serves as a model of dedication and civic engagement. Through his work and his writings, Mr. Ross has inspired a generation of citizens to become engaged in their communities and fight for a more just world. While he will be sorely missed, his legacy will live on in those who continue his work. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Donald's family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife Helen, and his children Katherine, Margaret, and Mike. May their many wonderful memories of Donald provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Donald K. Ross.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes on the Padin and Sweeney nominations be at 11 a.m. tomorrow, May 25; further, that the remaining cloture votes for the motions filed during Wednesday's session of the Senate occur after disposition of the Sweeney nomination.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 649 submitted earlier today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are nearing the end of the session, when we will go back to our homes for the evening, but when the families of 18 children and 4 great educators go home tonight, their homes will never be the same again. There are no words in a place filled with words during today and every day in this place when we are in session. There are no words today to capture the heartbreak, the gut-wrenching grief and pain that those families will feel and that I remember feeling almost 10 years ago when we stood in the space just outside the firehouse in Sandy Hook, as parents learned that their 20 children would not be coming home that night. The same bottomless grief is hitting the families in Texas, in Uvalde, where they have lost children. And there are no words also to capture the deep, abiding pain that will last forever. That pain will be with them--a hole in their hearts, a place at their tables, a room in their houses that never will be filled again, and hugs that they will never feel, cheeks that will never be kissed. This Nation, like their families, is torn apart by violence-- needless, senseless gun violence--every day in America. And the mystery is why the greatest Nation on Earth continues to tolerate it. It is no longer surprising or stunning. It is no longer unfathomable or unforeseeable. It is incomprehensible that this great Nation is blocked by Members of this body from taking action that can forestall and prevent it. Why, the outrage that we feel, the grief that pervades America on these occasions has not caused action. And this body has been complicit by its inaction. In fact, it isn't this body. It is Members of this body, principally on the other side of the aisle. Let's be blunt. I will never forget hearing from that gallery those words: ``Shame. Shame on you,'' when we failed to adopt commonsense measures--a background check proposal, even though we had 55 votes. I can still hear those words. ``Shame.'' And had we acted, who knows what tragedy could have been averted? We don't know and we can't tell and we never will be able to fathom whether specific measures would have prevented specific tragedy. Charleston or San Bernardino, Pulse or Las Vegas, Parkland or Santa Fe, or Pittsburgh or El Paso or Dayton or Boulder or Indianapolis or Oxford or Buffalo or Uvalde--we will never know because the false reason to object is this measure wouldn't have prevented that shooting. But that is not the way to approach gun violence reform, because we know there is no panacea; there is no single measure. What we know is that stopping gun violence requires that we act with these measures and that commonsense, sensible steps can prevent a senseless, needless violence. There is no panacea, but there are actions we can take. We are not without agency. Now, we need to be very blunt and recognize that opposition to these measures is bankrolled and emboldened and enabled by the gun lobby's dark money, by its threats and intimidation, by its encouragement. And until my colleagues have the courage to stand up to that gun lobby, they will continue in its thrall and its grip, and they will continue to be complicit. And some on our side, some who have demonstrated the courage to stand up and speak out, have shown that we have the power to take action. We lack facts about the shooter and about the killing, all the circumstances in Uvalde, but we know enough to say that those families and that community will be torn apart. It will never be the same. They will never be whole again because they have lost something precious, and there will always be that hole in their hearts. Already some of our Republican colleagues are saying we are politicizing the issue, but they are the ones who, for decades, have tied themselves to the NRA's fanatical devotion to unrestricted, unyielding firearms ownership for political purposes at the expense of real lives. Tying themselves to firearms ownership is unnecessary for law-abiding citizens to own firearms. There are commonsense actions we can take to separate dangerous killers from firearms that are absolutely consistent with the Second Amendment, as judged by the Supreme Court, and absolutely consistent with gun ownership by law-abiding people. We know these actions won't save everyone, but there can be no doubt that each of them will save some lives: expanding background checks and closing glaring loopholes in our background check system; getting untraceable ghost guns and military-style assault weapons off our streets; protecting domestic violence survivors from gun violence; keeping guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists and violent extremists and individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others, red flag statutes; preventing kids from accidentally and unintentionally shooting themselves with unsecured firearms, Ethan's Law for safe storage; investing in community violence intervention programs--we know they work in Hartford, New Haven, all around the State of Connecticut; reducing the number of firearm suicides--more than half of all gun deaths are suicides; red flag statutes, separating firearms from people who are dangerous to themselves as well as others. We need to do all these things and more. We need to do them right now because every day that passes without action means more of the same. Not surprising, not stunning--more of the same. Those measures are written, they are fully drafted, vetted for their constitutionality. My subcommittee on the Constitution has had hearings on them, many of them: S. 529, the Background Check Expansion Act; S. 591, the Background Check Completion Act; S. 1558, the Untraceable Firearms Act to stop ghost guns; S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban; S. 527, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act; S. 2169, the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act, a hearing just last week on it; S. 2090, the Disarm Hate Act; S. 4278, the Age 21 Act; S. 190, Ethan's Law; S. 2982, the Child Suicide Prevention and Lethal Means Safety Act; S. 1819, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act--the red flag statutes. Let us do one of them. Let us vote to make one of them law. That is our job: to vote. It is how we change this gut-wrenching, heartbreaking status quo, and it is how voters know where each of us stand when push comes to shove. So we have no words, but words will mean nothing without action. We have created a political movement. It is a movement that is growing as young people say: Enough is enough, as the hand wringing and the tears are translated into action at the grassroots level, action by State legislatures. Almost 20 states now have red flag statutes in the wake of Parkland. And as communities and States show that they will no longer tolerate the hypocrisy of thoughts and prayers without action, all of us who have advocated for years--indeed, for decades--that this body must act, we cannot lose courage or heart. We cannot lose the hope, and we must match our thoughts and prayers with real action. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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