Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have reached a really important point in our relationship with one of our great allies in the world. The United States has before it the challenge--and this Congress can meet that challenge--for $1 billion of supplemental security assistance to replenish Israel's Iron Dome system. That funding is provided in H.R. 5323, the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, passed by the House of Representatives by an overwhelming--and I emphasize ``overwhelming''--bipartisan support. I want to thank my Connecticut colleague Rosa DeLauro of New Haven for her leadership and all of the Members of the House of Representatives for their vision and courage in separating this measure and passing it. And we should do so now, as quickly as possible. All of us know that the 2016 memorandum of understanding negotiated between Israel and the United States provides $500 million per year in security assistance for Israel's missile defense. The MOU allows Israel to request additional funds to replenish and restore missile defense capabilities in exceptional circumstances. We all remember vividly the May 2021 conflict between Israel and Hamas, and in our minds still vividly and graphically are the pictures of that Iron Dome system intercepting missiles aimed at civilians in Israel. The Iron Dome defense system intercepted about 90 percent of those potentially lethal missiles targeting populated areas of Israel. In total, about 4,400 rockets were launched by Hamas. Should the Iron Dome have failed, countless Israeli civilians would have been killed. This system performed with such extraordinary and exceptional prowess, showing its necessity for both humanitarian and defensive purposes. I recently returned from a trip to Israel, where I talked to the top leadership of the new government, including Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. I was inspired and excited by the determination of the Israeli leadership and, I believe, the Israeli people to inaugurate a new era where we are even closer to Israel than we have been in the past. There have been some bumps in the road; there have been some potential disagreements in this body; but we should focus on making sure that Israel's defense is completely bipartisan; that our relationship with Israel crosses party lines. We have that opportunity today to renew the sense of bipartisanship in our unshakeable relationship with Israel. And that relationship goes beyond just security concerns. We are bound by culture, heritage, faith, and a common commitment to democracy. And Israel has that commitment in perhaps the most constantly dangerous neighborhood in the world. Iron Dome is a defensive system. It is solely defensive, and it defends against the loss of civilians on both sides, in Gaza as well as Israel, because the loss of life in Israel, if it occurs, if Iron Dome is lacking, will lead to escalating violence that will cost lives in Gaza as well. The Iron Dome prevents escalating hostilities that will cost lives among both Palestinians and Israelis. So its defensive value is indisputable, and that is why it does have bipartisan support here. It has the President's support. He stated: We're also going to discuss Israel's unwavering--unwavering commitment that we have in the United States to Israel's security. And I fully, fully, fully support replenishing Israel's Iron Dome system. A quote from his meeting prior to meeting with Prime Minister Bennett at the White House. Just 2 days before he made those remarks, Secretary Austin also expressed his support: You can also see that commitment as we advocate for the replenishment of the Iron Dome missile defense system. The administration is committed to ensuring that Iron Dome can defend Israeli civilian population centers targeted by terrorist attacks, and we're working closely with Congress to provide all the necessary information to respond positively to your request for the--for $1 billion in emergency funding, and it's going to save more innocent lives. I am concerned that Members of the U.S. Senate are blocking passage of this bill. Senator Paul has demanded that we add unrelated language to rescind funds from the Department of State and the Department of Defense before he will agree to a unanimous consent decree. We should prevent this sacred relationship from becoming a political football. We should make sure that we preserve it as a bipartisan source of consensus. And that is not to say necessarily that we agree with every single act, every single measure that our Israeli allies take. We can be friends and family and still disagree. But our aid should not be conditioned on agreeing with every single policy or action taken by our Israeli friends. This measure is a defensive platform that saves lives. It is a humanitarian step that should be regarded for what it is--essential to our alliance, our relationship, and our bond with Israel. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up to 2 hours of debate; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, let's set the record straight. There is no possibility of this money or any other money going to the Taliban. Section 9021 of the fiscal year 2021 Defense Appropriations Act--we all voted for it--makes funding the Taliban illegal, and if any Pentagon official breaks that law, they could go to jail under the Antideficiency Act. Whatever the Secretary of State may have answered to Senator Paul's question at a hearing, we should know and he should know that spending money in any way that enables it to go to the Taliban would be breaking the law, and he would have to come to Congress to use any of that money to aid the Taliban. So this is a false issue. The funds that the Paul amendment seeks to rescind have actually not yet been appropriated. He targets the $3.3 billion in the fiscal year 2022 request. You can't rescind funds that haven't yet been appropriated. So the amendment falls of its own weight, but I want to deal with the merits. No. 1, the Paul amendment seeks to rescind funds from the Department of Defense's Afghan Security Forces Fund. Those funds are still needed to complete the withdrawal. They are in an account that is urgently needed to terminate contracts that are already in place and secure military equipment that has been withdrawn from Afghanistan. All of the complaints about the withdrawal and all of the complaints about the need to secure that military equipment are met by this funding. Defunding the Pentagon in this way will, in fact, disrupt the shutdown of these activities and open the United States to legal action from contractors. I have been advised, for those reasons, that the Department of Defense strongly opposes the Paul amendment because it makes ending the war in Afghanistan more difficult. Let me just close by saying that there is a need for humanitarian support in areas where the Palestinians live. There is a need for aid for water treatment and vaccines and health and all of the needs-- humanitarian needs--of the Palestinian people. One of the encouraging parts of my visit with the Israeli leadership was their recognition that Israel has a humanitarian obligation in this area. They recognize, as well, that we may not always agree on every facet of our relationship, but this measure should be unconditional because it is defensive, and it is humanitarian to support the Iron Dome. I wish my Republican colleagues were here to refute Senator Paul, because I know many of them support it. Therefore, I will not modify my request.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Daniel W. Crowley, a remarkable patriot, war hero, role model, and public servant. Dan passed away on September 16, 2021, at the age of 99. Dan was born in 1922 and raised in Greenwich, CT. He lived through the Great Depression and enlisted in October 1940 in the U.S. Army Air Corps. In March 1941, he was sent to the Philippines and assigned to Nichols Field, which was destroyed by Japanese forces the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. In the following months, Dan fought with the U.S. Army's Provisional Air Corps Infantry Regiment to fend off three amphibious Japanese landings on the Bataan Peninsula. On April 9, 1942, the peninsula was surrendered, and Dan swam to Corregidor Island through shark-infested waters. Upon arrival, he became part of the 4th Marines, where they fought valiantly to maintain the shore, until the fortress fell on May 6, 1942. In 1944, following several brutal work details in the Philippines, Dan was sent to Japan on a hell ship. In the many months that followed, Dan mined copper as a slave laborer. Surviving the harsh, demanding conditions, he was finally liberated on September 4, 1945. After, in 1958, Dan joined Northwestern Mutual insurance. His acumen and quick wits earned him fast recognition as one of the company's top producers, and he even became a member of their million dollar club. Dan has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to preserving the memory of his fellow soldiers. In 2013, he played a key role in renaming a bridge in Simsbury, CT, the ``Bataan Corregidor Memorial Bridge'' in their honor. I had the privilege of meeting Dan at the dedication for this bridge, and I can attest firsthand to what a remarkable model of public service he is. The next year, Dan returned to Japan as part of the fifth Japanese- American POW Friendship Program. Furukawa executives refused to meet with him, but he was given the opportunity to visit one of the mines where he had previously worked. Later, in 2016, Dan attended the Veterans' Day breakfast hosted by President Obama at the White House. I have been fortunate to visit with Dan on a number of occasions since our initial meeting. My office and I assisted him with obtaining a prisoner of war registration for his license plate in recognition of his extraordinary service to our country. I also had the honor of speaking with Dan and meeting his wife, Kelley, this year. On January 4, 2021, I attended a ceremony at Bradley Air National Guard Base, where Dan was promoted to sergeant and received an honorary Combat Infantryman Badge and the Prisoner of War Medal. It was a poignant and powerful moment. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Dan's family during this difficult time. May their many wonderful memories of Dan provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am so proud and honored to be with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Warnock--all of us who are championing the Senate version of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I think any of us would be honored to be spearheading a bill named for one of our heroes. This bill has particular significance to all of us because we lived through the time--the summer of 1965--when States mercilessly attacked John Lewis and 600 others as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in peaceful protest to protect their right to vote. In the wake of that attack, as the Nation came together to grieve, President Johnson joined with Congress to pursue, as he put it, ``an end to voting discrimination in America.'' Roughly a week after the attack, President Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. Two days later, Congress announced that it would take up that legislation. So by early August, just 5 months after ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support and became, again in the words of President Johnson, ``one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.'' Today, with the introduction of this legislation, we honor the legacy of John Lewis. We honor everyone involved in that great movement at the time that advanced civil rights and liberty, the most fundamental being the right to vote, and we honor the fight itself to protect the franchise. A century after the Civil War ended, our Nation had failed to eradicate the blight of racial discrimination in voting. The promise of equality--political equality as well as economic equality--remained unfulfilled for Black citizens. The Voting Rights Act did what even the 14th and 15th Amendments failed to do, proving to be a uniquely powerful tool with the capacity to meet ever-new forms of discrimination through its preclearance regime. Then, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County--well known to all of us--gutted, absolutely eviscerated the highly effective preclearance regime, jeopardizing the progress the Voting Rights Act made over the course of half a century. As Justice Ginsburg said in her moving and powerful dissent in Shelby, until Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, early attempts to cope with the vile infection of racial discrimination in voting ``resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in their place.'' Today's reinvigorated efforts to deprive members of minority groups from equal access to the ballot box through more subtle, second- generation barriers prove that a new preclearance regime is needed now more than ever. This year alone, we have experienced the most destructive legislative session for voting rights in generations, with States and localities enacting a torrent of new voting restrictions, all of it designed to suppress the vote, to curtail the franchise, to move back the clock on voting rights. Between January 1 and July 14 of this year, more than 400 voting restriction bills have been introduced in 49 States--49 States--and 18 States successfully enacted 30 laws that make it harder for people to vote. These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult. They manipulate the boundaries of districts to reduce minority representation, and they have led to the purge of up to 3.1 million voters from the rolls in areas that were once covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement. In short, this threat is more than just speculative, far from imaginative or suggestive. The threat is real and urgent. In fact, it is more than a threat. It is action now moving forward in States. Today's legislation would confront this resurgence of voting restrictions very directly. The new John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act includes new formulas to revive preclearance. By focusing specifically on jurisdictions with a proven history of discrimination and on preventing specific known discriminatory practices from taking effect in areas of increasing diversity before they can do damage, this new preclearance coverage formula responds to the Supreme Court's concerns and will allow the Voting Rights Act to keep pace with present conditions and America's rapidly changing demographics. The bill also reinvigorates the Department of Justice's ability to challenge discriminatory laws already in effect, reversing the Supreme Court's latest attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. That 6-3 partisan decision was a stunning display of judicial overreach--a highly political, highly partisan decision that gives new meaning to the phrase ``judicial activism,'' a case of judicial overreach. Protecting the right to vote, very simply, should not be a partisan issue. In fact, voting rights are widely supported throughout American society--on the left, right, center, private, and in public sectors. Since the original inception of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both Houses of Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times. Let me repeat: Both Houses of Congress, bipartisan majority, overwhelming vote, five times since the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. And for nearly a century after the Civil War and before the Voting Rights Act, the scourge of racial discrimination in voting challenged our Nation's core commitment to these ideals of democracy. From that century of sacrifice and suffering came the Voting Rights Act and its extraordinary commitment to realizing our Nation's highest ideals; and for decades, it worked with bipartisan support overwhelmingly. The Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy, has documented powerfully the need for this Act. And my Subcommittee on the Constitution has held one hearing already. We will have another shortly that will set the record--in fact, provide the evidentiary support--that the Supreme Court erroneously found lacking in its Shelby decision. As a tsunami of voter suppression bills crashes against the shores of our democracy, my hope is that today we can renew a bipartisan commitment to protecting voting rights in this country. I am proud to help lead this effort in the Senate, and I want to thank my colleagues again for being on the floor today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am so proud and honored to be with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Warnock--all of us who are championing the Senate version of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I think any of us would be honored to be spearheading a bill named for one of our heroes. This bill has particular significance to all of us because we lived through the time--the summer of 1965--when States mercilessly attacked John Lewis and 600 others as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in peaceful protest to protect their right to vote. In the wake of that attack, as the Nation came together to grieve, President Johnson joined with Congress to pursue, as he put it, ``an end to voting discrimination in America.'' Roughly a week after the attack, President Johnson called for comprehensive voting rights legislation. Two days later, Congress announced that it would take up that legislation. So by early August, just 5 months after ``Bloody Sunday'' in Selma, the Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress with broad bipartisan support and became, again in the words of President Johnson, ``one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom.'' Today, with the introduction of this legislation, we honor the legacy of John Lewis. We honor everyone involved in that great movement at the time that advanced civil rights and liberty, the most fundamental being the right to vote, and we honor the fight itself to protect the franchise. A century after the Civil War ended, our Nation had failed to eradicate the blight of racial discrimination in voting. The promise of equality--political equality as well as economic equality--remained unfulfilled for Black citizens. The Voting Rights Act did what even the 14th and 15th Amendments failed to do, proving to be a uniquely powerful tool with the capacity to meet ever-new forms of discrimination through its preclearance regime. Then, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County--well known to all of us--gutted, absolutely eviscerated the highly effective preclearance regime, jeopardizing the progress the Voting Rights Act made over the course of half a century. As Justice Ginsburg said in her moving and powerful dissent in Shelby, until Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act's preclearance requirement, early attempts to cope with the vile infection of racial discrimination in voting ``resembled battling the Hydra. Whenever one form of voting discrimination was identified and prohibited, others sprang up in their place.'' Today's reinvigorated efforts to deprive members of minority groups from equal access to the ballot box through more subtle, second- generation barriers prove that a new preclearance regime is needed now more than ever. This year alone, we have experienced the most destructive legislative session for voting rights in generations, with States and localities enacting a torrent of new voting restrictions, all of it designed to suppress the vote, to curtail the franchise, to move back the clock on voting rights. Between January 1 and July 14 of this year, more than 400 voting restriction bills have been introduced in 49 States--49 States--and 18 States successfully enacted 30 laws that make it harder for people to vote. These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult. They manipulate the boundaries of districts to reduce minority representation, and they have led to the purge of up to 3.1 million voters from the rolls in areas that were once covered by the Voting Rights Act preclearance requirement. In short, this threat is more than just speculative, far from imaginative or suggestive. The threat is real and urgent. In fact, it is more than a threat. It is action now moving forward in States. Today's legislation would confront this resurgence of voting restrictions very directly. The new John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act includes new formulas to revive preclearance. By focusing specifically on jurisdictions with a proven history of discrimination and on preventing specific known discriminatory practices from taking effect in areas of increasing diversity before they can do damage, this new preclearance coverage formula responds to the Supreme Court's concerns and will allow the Voting Rights Act to keep pace with present conditions and America's rapidly changing demographics. The bill also reinvigorates the Department of Justice's ability to challenge discriminatory laws already in effect, reversing the Supreme Court's latest attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. That 6-3 partisan decision was a stunning display of judicial overreach--a highly political, highly partisan decision that gives new meaning to the phrase ``judicial activism,'' a case of judicial overreach. Protecting the right to vote, very simply, should not be a partisan issue. In fact, voting rights are widely supported throughout American society--on the left, right, center, private, and in public sectors. Since the original inception of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both Houses of Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times. Let me repeat: Both Houses of Congress, bipartisan majority, overwhelming vote, five times since the original passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. And for nearly a century after the Civil War and before the Voting Rights Act, the scourge of racial discrimination in voting challenged our Nation's core commitment to these ideals of democracy. From that century of sacrifice and suffering came the Voting Rights Act and its extraordinary commitment to realizing our Nation's highest ideals; and for decades, it worked with bipartisan support overwhelmingly. The Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Durbin and Senator Leahy, has documented powerfully the need for this Act. And my Subcommittee on the Constitution has held one hearing already. We will have another shortly that will set the record--in fact, provide the evidentiary support--that the Supreme Court erroneously found lacking in its Shelby decision. As a tsunami of voter suppression bills crashes against the shores of our democracy, my hope is that today we can renew a bipartisan commitment to protecting voting rights in this country. I am proud to help lead this effort in the Senate, and I want to thank my colleagues again for being on the floor today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the Very Reverend Father George Poulos, a deeply admired community leader, who turns 100 on September 30. Born in Massachusetts to Greek immigrants in 1921, Father George joined the priesthood in 1943. He began his studies in Connecticut at the Holy Cross Seminary in Pomfret. Upon graduating in 1948 from the Holy Cross Seminary in Brookline, MA, Father George served as a pastor of the Holy Trinity Church in Norwich, CT. Then, in 1956, he was assigned to the Church of the Archangels in Stamford, CT. In 2009, after over six decades of remarkable service, Father George retired. He still plays an active role at the Church of the Archangels, serving as pastor emeritus. I have been privileged to know Father George as a leader of courage and conviction, whose great work has touched countless lives. His vision and dedication enabled the Church of the Archangels to build an amazing, 11th Century Byzantine-style Greek Orthodox Church, which was consecrated in 1959. Later, in 1976, the church campus opened the Greek Cultural Center, which offered athletic amenities for church youth and banquet facilities for the entire community. In 1995, this center became the Stamford Athletic Club, providing invaluable services to the public. Father George oversaw the creation of Ionian Village, a summer camp youth program in Greece. Since 1970, it has hosted thousands of Greek- American campers, giving them the opportunity to further explore their cultural history, religious roots, and language. Father George also established ``Byzantine Fellowship'' in America, and in his 30-year tenure as executive director, helped sponsor Greek cultural events in the United States and pilgrimages. Father George's tireless dedication to helping others has earned him enormous respect and affection, as well as official recognition. He was appointed as vicar general of the churches in Connecticut by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and in 2017, he received an honorary doctorate of divinity from Holy Cross Seminary. Father George is a prolific author and is actively involved in community service, as chaplain of the Stamford Fire Department, vice president of the local Council of Churches and Synagogues, and a major in the U.S. Air Force Civil Patrol. I am honored to know Father George and his family for many years-- indeed, decades. I can attest firsthand to his wonderful generosity and loyalty as a friend and his love for humanity, as well as the warm and welcoming spirit of his congregants. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Very Reverend Father George Poulos, his wife, Christine, their five sons, and their six grandchildren on this milestone of Father George's 100th birthday.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, there will be one rollcall vote at 2:45 p.m. today. That vote will be on the confirmation of the Batchelder nomination. There will be two rollcall votes at 6:30 p.m. tonight. Those will be on the confirmation of the White nomination and cloture on the Pan nomination. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the stated purpose of this amendment is a pretext. It is a pretext for restricting reproductive rights and interfering with women's decisions about whether to have an abortion. For all of us who care about people with Down syndrome, we ought to listen to the National Down Syndrome Society and devote more resources to research at NIH, to funding better settings and care for people with Down syndrome, and better opportunities for their employment. There are ways to serve that community without this pretextual restriction of reproductive rights. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3331

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am here to talk about the Build Back Better proposal and the budget resolution that we will shortly take up, but let me just respond briefly to my good friend and colleague from Iowa's remarks on the interview that was conducted with Jeffrey Rosen on Saturday and the previous interview with Rich Donoghue. I agree completely that the facts and the evidence are what are important here, and this investigation is supremely significant. I hope that we will join, on a bipartisan basis, to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead and encourage voluntary cooperation by the witnesses and collect all of the documents and other evidence that is necessary to fairly and fully present the truth to the American people. They deserve to know what we have heard so far, which amounts to a chilling and shocking picture of a President seeking to corrupt the Department of Justice and overthrow an election. That much has been clear from the evidence that we have seen But I agree that we should not talk about the specific facts at this point because it is an ongoing investigation. And I hope that we will join, in a bipartisan way, not only to encourage voluntary cooperation but to seek testimony and documents by subpoena where necessary, where, as a matter of resort, if that evidence is denied, we need to do so because the interests of our Nation are best served by the truth. All of it should be made public. Eventually, these transcripts from interviews and other evidence should be made public so that the American people can see the truth. I know that my colleague from Iowa has been a staunch and steadfast champion of whistleblowing, of making available the truth to the American people. Nobody in this body has been a stronger advocate of whistleblowers and protecting them so that the American people could see the truth than my colleague from Iowa. So I am hopeful that we will work together toward that end. Budget Reconciliation Madam President, the Build Back Better proposal that will soon be coming before the Senate is literally a milestone for this country. The bipartisan infrastructure proposal that we will shortly pass is transformative for our Nation and for Connecticut. It will enable us to do long-overdue work on our roads and bridges, our railroads and broadband, on the physical assets that are essential to this country creating jobs and remaining competitive around the globe. This work has been too long delayed, and I will be proud to support it. I thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have contributed so critically to making this vote possible; final passage of a measure that will enable the bridge across the Connecticut River to be truly safe and reliable; the Mixmaster in Waterbury--so-called because it mixes several roads at once--to be finally done; a proposal that will enable, we hope, eventually, the tracks between New Haven and New York to be really reliable, to be maintained properly. On every one of those transportation byways, there are people who depend on them, people who are going to work or to visit their family. Those people are, at the end of the day, who this infrastructure serves. And the freight that will be on railroads or the goods and produce transported on our highways go to people. They serve our economy. They create jobs. We need to do much more for those people. Just today in the New York Times, in the Business section, there is an article about a young mother who wants to go back to work, reenter the workforce, but she has two children. One is awaiting the beginning of school, and the other, she feels, needs and deserves daycare before she can go back to work. That road that enables her to drive or the railroad, to commute, won't be a link to the workplace for her until she has daycare. Our economy is interconnected in ways that we understand intuitively when we look at individual people, but too often, we have mounds of paper--no longer for all of us truly paper but mounds of print--and numbers and statistics. The real story is in that young mother whose account is so important to us, the human story. Universal daycare, paid family leave, affordable medical care, and housing--they are also the stuff of human needs. They are part of our human assets. Seniors need dental care and eyeglasses and hearing aids so that they can appreciate all of the benefits that we are trying to bring them through this infrastructure program. The American people need jobs so that they can afford prescription drugs, and the cost of prescription drugs needs to be lower so they don't have to make these choices that we describe day after day between paying the mortgage and putting food on the table and clothing their kids. The pandemic has affected health, food, shelter, and the financial and overall security of families across the country. It has taken a toll on small businesses. They, too, need help. The Restaurant Revitalization Program should be replenished and small businesses given a lifeline they need because they have been so direly injured and threatened. We need to build back America and the assets--the roads and bridges but also the systems--that serve Americans, and we need to build it back better. I am proud to support this budget resolution that will make investments for working families, the elderly, our environment. Over the past year, I have spoken to countless families who need that childcare and providers who furnish it across the northeast. Childcare is critical not only to those jobs and the people who fill jobs, but also to the emotional and educational development of children--allowing moms and dads, and grandparents, to go back to work, but also for children to have the basics in preparation for education that they need. By establishing a universal pre-care system and providing families with incentives, like the child care tax cuts, to help them afford care, we can ensure that children are prepared for success and parents can go to work. But it isn't enough to ensure that families can just afford childcare. We have to ensure they are able to live healthy lives. And we know healthcare is complicated; it is confusing; it is expensive, especially for our aging seniors and people with disabilities and our fellow Americans with preexisting conditions. Over this past year, we learned clearly and dramatically how resource-deprived our healthcare system has become--individuals forced to make choices between keeping a roof over their head or going to the doctor or paying for medications. No American family should be forced to make those choices. And we need to invest. It is not about spending; it is investing in our healthcare system. This budget proposal will accomplish exactly that goal. Lower prescription drug costs, lowering those burdens, providing broader access to medical providers, including that dental care, hearing aids, and vision for individuals--all individuals--on Medicare should be our paramount goal. And it is critical that home healthcare workers and patients understand their value. Individuals with disabilities were left struggling to find affordable home- and community-based services throughout the pandemic. We need to appreciate the home care workers and support them and pay them adequately, just as we need to provide that home care for seniors who need it. Healthcare is more than access to care; it is the basic system that provides that access. And there should be no delay when we are talking about the air we breathe and the water we drink, because those assets also are essential to healthcare. Rail will be supported--better railroads, tracks, cars--by this proposal that we are passing today or tomorrow, but there is more that needs to be done to ensure high-speed rail. Right now, the link between New Haven and New York is slower than it was 50 years ago. We need to make sure that it is quicker--not just more reliable, but faster and more reliable and safer. Too often, the impacts of unsafe air and unhealthy drinking water fall on minority and low-income communities. They have disproportionately faced adverse impacts from public and environmental health grants, and the American people are counting on our leadership to authorize funding for investment in programs that support clean energy resources. Climate change is an enemy that we must conquer, just as we are working to conquer the pandemic. In the Senate, I have worked with the administration to meet the goal of conserving 30 percent of our country's lands and 30 percent of our waters within the next decade. That goal is ambitious, but it is a vital effort that takes an important step toward reducing environmental justice and ensuring healthy lives for all. This proposal is comprehensive, and that is exactly what is needed now--a comprehensive program that deserves our support and our leadership. We must invest in our country's leadership by putting the American people and what they need--childcare, healthy homes, and environments--put it first. I am proud to support this proposal, and I look forward to advancing it on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Before I begin the remarks that brought me here today, I want to say a word about Richard Trumka, a hero to all of us who care about working people and a good friend to many of us. I am proud to call him a friend and proud to have been with him as an ally in causes and principles that are so important to the present of America and the future of America. I am proud to have been with him on picket line and platform, to have stood with him and behind him in supporting the rights of working men and women to decent pay, fair treatment, and safety on the job. He came from America, and he never forgot where he came from. His life is a lesson to so many of us who seek to emulate his devotion to the public interest. As a leader of the labor movement, his life also reminds us that unions count; that collective bargaining means something; that the rights of working men and women succeed because they come together in unions, and we ought to respect those unions and listen to them and champion their right to represent fairly and freely and to organize men and women on their jobs. So we will miss Richard Trumka, but his legacy is going to be an inspiration to all of us--certainly to me--in fighting even harder for the great convictions, sense of conscience, the wonderful heart and spirit that embraced people who disagreed with him. A life's lesson for all of us. (The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 2654 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. We are fast approaching 9/11, the 20th anniversary of that horrific, unspeakable murder of thousands of our fellow citizens, including Terry Strada's husband and Brett Eagleson's father. Brett Eagleson put it very, very starkly and simply. I am not quoting, but essentially his warning to us ought to reverberate in these Halls. Public officials on that anniversary will be making speeches about how we should never forget, about how we need to commemorate the memories of all who perished in 9/11. But, as he said, their words will ring shallow or hollow if their own government continues to refuse to disclose documents and evidence needed for them to seek justice. Those families deserve better. And the cause is bigger than just those families. It is the American people who deserve better. They deserve and they need to know the truth about whether the complicity and other kinds of potential criminal activity can be proved in a court of law, can be used to learn about future action to be taken. If Agencies of the U.S. Government, including our intelligence Agencies, knew about those attackers and the danger they posed and failed to take sufficient action, we should know those facts as well. It is incomprehensible why the U.S. Government has failed to provide this truth to the American people. There has been no explanation for the failure to declassify. There is no explanation for invoking the State Secrets Act. The courts have said that that privilege, the state secrets privilege, cannot be invoked unless it could reasonably be expected that there would be a harm to our national security. No Agency, no official of the U.S. Government has ever said what harm could result, especially 20 years after that attack. The idea that sources or methods could be endangered seems farfetched. Certainly, there has been no such contention. The idea that maybe the Saudis would be embarrassed is a possible explanation, but it is no excuse--none--for refusing to declassify and disclose this information. The fact that the Saudis may be embarrassed or they may be held liable is no valid reason to withhold this truth from those families and from the American people. The administration, at the very least, owes us an explanation. We demanded it again and again at the Attorney General's confirmation hearing, at the oversight hearings for the Director of the FBI, at hearings for confirming lower but top-ranking officials of the Department of Justice, and every one of them has promised to look into it but nothing back--no explanation, no justification. So Senator Menendez and I, along with our colleagues Senators Cornyn and Grassley, have introduced the September 11th Transparency Act. It wouldn't require the declassification of any document, but it would require the review, and it is not unprecedented, because this Congress, 7 years ago, passed and President Obama signed the Intelligence Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2014. It had a similar provision requiring the Director of National Intelligence to complete a declassification review of documents collected during the Osama bin Laden raid in Pakistan in 2011. This measure should have broad bipartisan support, just as JASTA did and the resolution calling for declassification in 2018, and I have been proud to stand with my Republican colleagues in favor of simple justice. As Senator Schumer said today at that meeting in front of the Capitol, ``Justice, justice, justice.'' That is what these families deserve. That is what the American people should expect of their government, not concealment or obstruction and obfuscation. Right now, these families are in a struggle against the Government of Saudi Arabia but, equally so, against their own government in seeking fairness and transparency, disclosure, when it counts for them and when it should count for the American people. We will continue this fight. I don't expect any single speech will persuade administration officials--certainly no single speech of mine-- but they are going to be making speeches as we go closer to 9/11. Let them keep in mind that the voices and faces of those families--Brett Eagleson and Terry Strada and others who were there that day and many others in Connecticut, as well as New Jersey and New York and all around the country--will be there as well, and ultimately, our government must be held accountable for telling the American people the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, I was very proud to introduce with my colleague Senator Menendez, who is leading this effort, and Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley the September 11 Transparency Act. Members of this body have heard me talk about this issue before. It has been a repeated issue for me but for this body as well. We passed JASTA because we wanted the 9/11 families to have access to the courts and have their fair day in court. We passed the resolution in 2018 to require that the government declassify, to the maximum extent possible, all of the information surrounding 9/11. JASTA was passed over President Obama's veto. His veto was overridden on a bipartisan basis. The resolution demanding more declassification was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by the President. The letters that we have written, the questions that I posed in hearings, the press conferences held, the constant effort to provide documents and information to those families so they can have their fair day in court has been a continuing and constant one and, so far, completely unavailable. Administration after administration--Obama, Trump, and hopefully not but apparently Biden--have resisted these calls for declassifying and disclosure. That information is evidence that those families need to seek justice in their effort to hold accountable the Government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged complicity, its aiding and abetting, its support for the 9/ 11 attack. They want to hold them liable in an American court, which JASTA enables them to do. They want to pinpoint responsibility and liability so that we will know, as Americans, whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was, in fact, complicit and supportive of those attackers. The truth they seek is not just for themselves; it is for the American people, and the concealment by successive administrations denies the American people the truth they deserve and need. Today, I was proud to stand with Senator Menendez and some of those families led by Terry Strada and Brett Eagleson in front of this Capitol as we announced our introduction of the act, the September 11 Transparency Act, that would very simply require the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the Director of the CIA to conduct declassification reviews of certain investigative documents in their 9/11 file. It is a baby step toward full disclosure and truthtelling. But I was so proud to stand with these families, represented by Terry Strada, among others, when she said: Yes, we know the Kingdom played a major role in supporting, and financing al Qaeda and evidence demonstrates that Saudi agents who the Kingdom sent here aided and abetted some if not all the 19 hijackers leading into the attack. It is an indisputable fact the hijackers were living in our country 12-18 months prior to 9/11 planning and plotting the murder of thousands and that the FBI and the CIA knew of at least two of them, Nawaf Al-Hamzi and Khalid Al-Midhar. She further said: By keeping evidence hidden that will shed light on the brutal murder of our loved ones, our own government is not only perpetuating our continued pain and suffering, but it is also leaving the facilitators of the attacks unaccountable and our nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Her remarks were so powerful, I hope that every one of my colleagues will read them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the remarks from Terry Strada be printed in the Record

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a few weeks, our Nation will come together to remember September 11. It will be the 20th anniversary of that unspeakable act of horror, an attack on our Nation that devastated us and, most particularly, the families and loved ones who lost members of their family and friends--the fallen--who will be remembered on that day and honored. And I have been honored to stand with those families over the years, as many of us have, as they remember their loved ones and continue to face the trauma and immeasurable grief of their loss. And in these years, many of those families have sought justice. They have tried to honor their loved ones with action to vindicate not only their individual grief and mourning but also justice for our Nation, truth, and truth-telling in the courts of law in this country. They have brought legal action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the face of mounting, significant credible evidence that, in fact, the Saudis aided and abetted that attack on our Nation. As a Congress, we have acted to support that effort, and I was proud to help to lead the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, when we passed it overwhelmingly here, and then on a bipartisan basis, we overrode the President's veto. It was President Obama who vetoed it, and many of us, including the Presiding Officer, voted to override that veto, I believe. We opened the courthouse doors to the 9/11 families in their legal effort to hold Saudi Arabia accountable in the face of that evidence of its potential complicity. Again, I was proud to stand with these families in 2018 when I introduced, with the help of Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Menendez, a resolution urging that documents related to the September 11 attack be declassified to the greatest extent possible. That resolution passed the U.S. Senate unanimously--unanimously-- because all of us recognized that the survivors and the families of the fallen and the American people deserved answers, the truth about what happened on September 11, who was behind it, who supported it, who aided and abetted, and who was complicit in enabling that handful of terrorists to do such a devastating attack and unspeakable horror on this Nation. Many of us have stood with those families to ensure that the 9/11 families not only get their day in court but are also able to go to court with all the evidence they need to have a fair chance to prove their case. I have asked questions at oversight hearings, including of Director Wray of the FBI. I have sought commitments from nominees like Attorney General Garland. I have written letter after letter after letter, with Democrats and Republicans alike, calling on the Department of Justice and the FBI to provide information that the 9/11 families have requested. I am proud to continue to stand with those families as we approach this 20th anniversary date, but I also, in fairness to this administration, want to say that the moment of truth-telling now has arrived, and there is a moment of reckoning here. These families, since JASTA, have been engaged in an epic legal struggle against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, but now that struggle is also one against their own government, our government, because while Congress did our job in passing JASTA, opening the courthouse door to give those 9/11 families a chance at justice, the last administration invoked the state secrets privilege without explanation to shield the documents and information the 9/11 families need to make their case. The last administration denied them their fair day in court, and I say with great regret that the current administration seems intent on doing the same. My hope is otherwise. That is the reason I have raised this issue publicly and privately repeatedly, not only in the last years but in the last weeks. To deny information to the 9/11 families and, equally important, to the American people is unacceptable, and it is unconscionable. The requests that I and so many of my colleagues have made to the Department of Justice and the FBI to disclose and declassify what can be disclosed and declassified in the national interest--those requests have gone unanswered. Sadly, the executive branch across administrations has repeatedly failed to provide any explanation--let me repeat: failed to provide any explanation--let alone meaningful justification for why there has been no disclosure. That denial of explanation or justification is itself also unacceptable and unconscionable. These families will never get their loved ones back, but at the very least, they should get answers. In fact, they deserve answers. They deserve the truth. The American people deserve the truth. Now, what the executive branch has done is to invoke broadly and unspecifically something called state secrets privilege. State secrets privilege was and remains intended to prevent court-ordered disclosure of government information when genuine and significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations is at stake but only to the extent necessary to safeguard those interests. It is also clear under the Department of Justice rules that it should be invoked only upon sufficient showing that it is necessary ``to protect information the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security and that the invocation be narrowly tailored for that specific purpose.'' Here is the problem: We don't know if that is what happened in the 9/ 11 families' case or in many other cases. We don't know whether decisions to invoke this privilege met this high and exacting standard or were narrowly tailored. And we don't know because in the 9/11 families' case, the Department of Justice and the FBI have claimed that even the Trump administration's ``justification for secrecy needed to remain secret'' and the ``public discussion of the issue `would reveal information that could cause the very harms [the] assertion of the state secrets privilege is intended to prevent.' '' These blanket assertions and vague justifications undermine both public confidence that our government will only invoke the privilege to protect national security and the pursuit of justice. Now, let's be very clear. There are times when disclosure can imperil methods and secrets and sources in information gathering. There are times when secrecy is important to protect an ongoing investigation. We are talking here about disclosure of information relating to an attack 20 years ago. There is no indication of any ongoing investigation into the attack on our country. There has been no explanation that sources and methods may be imperiled. There has been no justification whatsoever. Similar rationales, blanket assertions of protection, have prevented explanations in other cases as well and in some instances have led to the withholding of documents or information and outright dismissal of cases, depriving victims of an opportunity for justice. In 1948, three civilians were killed when a B-29 aircraft testing secret electronic equipment crashed in Waycross, GA. Their grieving widows did the only thing they could, bringing a wrongful death action in Federal court against the government. But the invocation of the state secrets privilege prevented them from receiving justice and the truth. In 2003, Macedonian officials abducted a German citizen at the request of the CIA. In that instance as well, justice was sought unsuccessfully, and the case was dismissed because the government invoked the state secrets privilege. In 2006, the FBI allegedly engaged in the targeted religious profiling of Muslims in Southern California. If true, it was and it remains an egregious abuse, one that led these individuals to sue the FBI. But rather than let the case proceed and rather than let the truth come to light about what the FBI did and why, the government asked the trial court to dismiss the case on the basis of the state secrets privilege, and the trial court agreed. This case, however, is not yet over because the Supreme Court will hear it in the fall after it has wound its way through the lower courts. As we know, justice is often delayed. In this instance, justice delayed is justice denied, again because of the state secrets privilege. Let me close with a bit of history. On September 11, 2019, the then- President of the United States, Donald Trump, made a promise. He made a promise to the 9/11 families. He made a promise to them to their faces. He looked them in the eye, shook their hands, and he told them that the Department of Justice would disclose documents relative to their case against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The next day, the Attorney General of the United States, William Barr, in a sworn declaration to the Southern District of New York Federal Court, invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent the release of the very information that the President of the United States had promised those families, the same documents, the same evidence that the President of the United States had vowed to disclose. The very next day, the Attorney General of the United States went into the Federal District Court in New York and said no. The 9/11 families, whom I have come to know and admire, deserved so much better from the last administration. But it is not about one administration or another. It is about the United States providing them with the truth. It is about our government providing the people of the United States with the truth. I will be coming back to the floor in the weeks ahead, and I hope my colleagues will join me in raising this issue, in calling on the Department of Justice and the FBI to review their decision invoking this privilege, to declassify and disclose information that they have withheld. They have yet to explain why the national interest is served by this blanket, unjustified, and unexplained invocation of the state secrets privilege. The 9/11 families and the American public deserve that much and more. And this case is about accountability. It is about holding accountable the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I am not here to argue the case in court. I am not here to take issue with any legitimate, urgent, narrowly-tailored interest that may be served by this Privilege, but there is no indication of any such interest and, in fact, neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice should stand in the way of justice for these families in court. They owe the American people an explanation, and they owe the 9/11 families the truth so they can bring it to bear in their quest for justice. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, there is a reason that the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act bears his name, and the reason is that John Lewis was truly a civil rights hero, an icon, a trailblazer, a model, and a mentor to so many of us, not because of what he said but because of what he did. In marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where he was beaten and bloodied in leading those civil rights activists, in fighting for equality and justice here in the Halls of Congress, he set a model of courageous public service that inspires us today. It has inspired voting rights since 1965, when those acts of courage led the Congress to adopt that Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was bipartisan then; it has been a bipartisan cause since then. In fact, it was most recently reauthorized in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. There should be nothing partisan about voting rights, which go to the core of our democracy. They are the lifeblood of our democracy, as we know better or as well as anyone in this Chamber, because we know that we act here with authority by the consent of the governed, as the Founders said. We govern by the consent of the people who elect us, hopefully fairly. That is the reason we need now the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, because the U.S. Supreme Court, in two decisions, Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, has in effect eviscerated--more bluntly, gutted--two key sections, 5 and 2, of the Voting Rights Act. Now, we have the opportunity--in fact, we have the obligation to make sure that the memory and the cause of John Lewis in advancing voting rights are upheld. We have that obligation not for ourselves but for the country, which is why John Lewis fought so hard and so well. Today, State legislatures are taking advantage of the gaps and defects opened by those two Supreme Court decisions to attack America's right to vote. What we are seeing is the greatest assault on voting rights in the history of this country, maybe with the exception of Jim Crow. I know some have called these laws a second Jim Crow. It may be the son of Jim Crow or the nephew or niece of Jim Crow, but the goal is the same: suppression of voting rights, discriminating against individuals who have that right to vote. Last week, I chaired a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee on the impact of these two Supreme Court decisions on voting rights. What we heard from the witnesses appearing there was nothing less than a call to action to protect our democracy and live up to America's founding ideals. We heard from men and women who have been litigating-- in the trenches, on the frontline of this battle to preserve voting rights--about the impact of these two Supreme Court decisions and the lower court decisions that have been in their wake. Since Shelby County in 2013, approximately 21,000 polling places nationwide serving the people of the United States on election day have been eliminated. Millions of voters have been purged from the voter rolls. This year alone, 17 States have passed 28 laws to restrict voting rights. This assault on the right to vote, this effort to suppress men and women who by law should have that right, is purposeful, relentless, unremitting, and it is supported, unfortunately, by elected officials across the country. We have seen it in Arizona, in Florida, Texas, but many more State legislatures are moving in this direction. The voting rights of this Nation are at stake because what we are seeing is a deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult to register to vote and particularly for people of color to have this right. It is an attempt to subvert our democracy and attack the lifeblood of our Nation. We know in theory that the Founders intended that, in fact, our government ``derives [its] just powers from the consent of the governed.'' But more than an exercise in theory, this effort is a direct, clear attempt to defend against the tsunami of voter suppression bills now crashing on our Nation. That is why the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act should be bipartisan. I have no illusions about it being so, but one way or the other, we ought to follow the advice of John Lewis, who said: The right to vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument we have in a democratic society. In memory of what he said but more in tribute to the ideals of democracy that he advanced by his actions, we should stand up to this assault on our democracy and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. There is no time to waste. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I was tremendously proud and grateful to be at the bill signing last week in the East Room of the White House with the President of the United States, at his side when he put his approval on a measure that took years to pass, the NO HATE Act--known as the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, named after Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer, who perished as a result of the most vicious and vile hate crimes in this Nation's history. The occasion was centered on legislation addressing protection for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. It was a tremendously moving and powerful event when the President spoke passionately and unequivocally that hate has no safe harbor in the United States. I was reminded of those moments with the President of the United States as I witnessed just very recently this surge in anti-Semitic hate crimes across this country. We have seen them again and again and again. The Anti-Defamation League has been tracking anti-Semitic incidents in the country since 1979, and the past three annual reports have included two of its highest tallies. Last year's report recorded more than 1,200 incidents--a 10-percent increase from the previous year. These assaults and insults, brawls, and vicious desecrations have occurred across the country to individuals in synagogues and places of worship, and we should be rising to condemn them now unequivocally and clearly, condemn all of these acts of hate, because we are all in this perilous time together. We know from the acts of hatred directed against Asian Americans that they follow similar kinds of assaults and incidents involving Muslim Americans, Black Americans, and Jewish Americans. An assault on one is an assault on all of us. But the assaults and the acts of hatred against Jewish Americans have been particularly vile and venomous over these last 2, 4 weeks and months. We have seen not only the physical attacks but also Holocaust denial and distortion, including intentional efforts to excuse or minimize the impact of the Holocaust. These kinds of vicious and intolerable statements have grown. That is one reason why I continue to support the Never Again Education Act, which was signed into law almost 1 year ago, to expand the United States Holocaust Museum education programming and the development and dissemination of accurate, relevant, and accessible resources to improve awareness and understanding of the Holocaust. But prevention through education is not enough. We must do more. We must act. What is most important to remember about every one of these incidents is that they involve real people, real communities, and real victims whose lives are torn apart in the most heartbreaking cases. They involve real lives that are lost forever and real families who will never see their loved ones again. That is what happened to the families of Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer. They were in the East Room of the White House with us, graciously and generously lending their presence, their faces, and their voices to this effort against hate crime. They expressed gratitude for the actions we are taking. Now we must move forward to provide the funding for the NO HATE Act so we have greater reporting of these vicious acts and so that we have better training and more prevention and action--not just condemnation but action against anti-Semitism in this country. I read recently that a 5-year-old was constructing a Lego of a synagogue and, using those Legos, added a security force around the synagogue. What kind of America is it that requires a 5-year-old building a place of worship out of Legos to include a police security guard? And what kind of America is it that has double the number of reported anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism, and violence just over a 2-week period most recently when there were clashes in Israel and Gaza? It is not the America we know and love, and it is not the America we deserve. We must do better, and I know my colleagues share this view. I heard and saw my friend and colleague Senator Cardin speak powerfully on this issue just moments ago. We know that we as a body can take action because hate is contagious, but so is courage. We must provide all of the people who have courage and good will in this country with the kind of support that we can, that we must, and that we will to fight anti- Semitism and to make sure that this America is the one that we know and love and that my father came to believe in as an immigrant at the age of 17 when he escaped persecution in Germany, coming here at 17 years old in 1935 with not much more than the shirt on his back, knowing no one, speaking virtually no English, but believing in that America that would provide him freedom and opportunity and, yes, protection against exactly the kind of anti-Semitism whose beginnings are in those kinds of vile and vicious assaults and words we see around the world today. Let us all come together and fight anti-Semitism just as we have done with the hate crimes against our brother and sister Asian Americans and make sure that our country is the one that we know and love. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, our colleague and friend, for those really eloquent and powerful remarks. I thank her and our other colleague from Iowa, who has been beside us from the very start of this cause 8 years or more ago. But most importantly, I thank my colleague from New York, who has been unstoppable, steadfast, and resolute in this cause. We are here today with that overwhelming, bipartisan support because of her advocacy, her eloquence, and power. Above all, we are here today because of the survivors and victims who have come forward with tremendous courage and strength. As much courage as it takes to be in the military--and I pay tribute literally every day to the men and women in uniform who defend our country, who raise their right hand, willing to give their lives--it is equally if not more difficult to come forward as they have done over these years and speak their truth to us. I have been so impressed by their bravery and by their truth-telling. I know as a prosecutor how difficult reporting this crime is in the civilian world, in universities, in the workplace. It is excruciatingly difficult to come forward and overcome the stigma and sometimes shame and the threat of retaliation. It is that threat of retaliation that we need to counter and stop because reporting of this crime is always difficult. Underreporting is a chronic problem in prosecuting it. So taking it out of the chain of command, eliminating the prospect of retaliation, implicit fear, even if it is not spoken--it may be unspoken--and that is what our purpose is. It is not just taking sexual assault out of the chain of command of decision but also felonies, serious crimes that may be intertwined and interrelated with sexual assault, as they so often are in the civilian world, whether it is obstruction, intimidation of witnesses, assault, other crimes that may be related to it. So I believe sincerely that this Secretary of Defense is committed to ending sexual assault. I talked to one of the nominees for a prominent position in the Department of Defense; I believe he is firmly committed. I have talked to others who have been confirmed or who will be nominated; they are firmly committed. Let's make that commitment real and approve this legislation because the numbers have belied the promises. The results have betrayed the good intention, and now it is time for action. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in just hours, we will be voting on the nomination of Kristen Clarke to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the United States Department of Justice. I am proud tonight to advocate for her, not that she needs my voice in her support. She is a brilliant leader and advocate. She has dedicated her entire career to protecting the civil rights of all Americans, and she has an extraordinary record to show for it. She reminds me of the legal warriors in the Department of Justice during the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s who battled for the rule of law in supporting children who were trying to gain entry to desegregated schools, in voters who sought to uphold the franchise, and in men and women who challenged the denial of their rights in the South and throughout the country. The Department of Justice became a beacon of law enforcement in its upholding of the civil rights of America, and she is in that great tradition--fierce and fearless, strong and unyielding and tenacious in defending and advocating for the rights and liberties of Americans when they are denied those rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution and our statutes. She served as the civil rights chief for the New York Attorney General in the civil rights bureau. She served as assistant counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. She served as a Federal prosecutor during the Bush administration in the Civil Rights Division's Criminal Section and Voting Section, the very divisions that she has been nominated now to lead. She knows these issues. She knows civil rights and civil liberty issues and law because she has worked on them for more than two decades. She cares about these issues because her life has been dedicated to them, and she understands these issues on a deeply personal level. She knows them inside and out because she served to fight for them inside and out of the DOJ, inside and out of the New York Attorney General's Office, inside and out of the organization whose mission is to protect them, and she is the daughter of immigrants who grew up in the Nation's largest public housing complex. She is also the mother of a 16-year-old son, who is growing up in this moment of reckoning for racial justice, equality, and equity in America. If memory serves me, she also once took a field trip to the Hartford area, in Connecticut, and watched a then comparatively young State attorney general who was arguing in court in a desegregation case. Now, I have no illusions that this experience played any part in her desire to use her extraordinary skills and talents and gifts and education as a public servant and lawyer for the public good, but that has been her career, and that is exactly what we need now at the helm of the Civil Rights Division. There is no excuse for waiting another moment to confirm her to this most important post. She is the civil rights chief for this moment because we are in a moment of reckoning. Justice, equity, and equality are on the line now, and her strength and tenacity meet this moment. Unfortunately, there are some on the other side who have used Ms. Clarke's nomination to make baseless allegations against her, including allegations that she supports abolishing the police. To support this distortion, they have repeatedly invoked a 2020 op-ed written by Ms. Clarke and published by Newsweek. I want to meet that article head on because, at our Judiciary Committee's markup just 2 weeks ago, Senator Cruz selectively excerpted portions of that op-ed, claiming that they demonstrated that Ms. Clarke ``explicitly'' advocated abolishing the police. There is only one problem with this argument: Ms. Clarke never wrote that. It just isn't true. Ms. Clarke's piece is a thoughtful call to rethink how we approach law enforcement in a country that is going through a moment in which thousands of Americans have called out for real reform, real change, real action. I have been proud to be involved in peaceful demonstrations and rallies throughout the State of Connecticut--probably 20 or maybe more of them over the last summer--when young people led these public calls for justice in policing, justice in housing, justice in the workplace, and justice in healthcare--all of them implicated in this moment. The fact is the word ``abolition'' appears only once in the entire op-ed. That word appears once in the op-ed--``abolition''--when it is used to describe the huge range of views held by others, activists and local governments. That is it. That word ``abolition'' is used to describe the views of others, not her views. Senator Cruz has also distorted her record in another way in claiming she had written a provocative email comparing the police to the Ku Klux Klan. That is simply not true. In reality, the passage Senator Cruz quoted was written by someone else--an activist--in an essay that Ms. Clarke had simply forwarded in an email. In the email, the subject line includes the actual author's name, and the essay is signed at the end by the author. Had Senator Cruz bothered to look at the entirety of the email and of that document instead of cherry-picking a line to fit his preconceived narrative, he would have known, and it would have been truer to the facts here. Ms. Clarke no more wrote the words Senator Cruz attributed to her than he did. At a time when the country faces a moment of reckoning over racial justice, the Civil Rights Division needs someone with Ms. Clarke's knowledge, skill, dexterity of thinking, life experience, heart, and dedication because these challenges are immense and they need to be addressed. She is the person for this moment. That is exactly what she will do, address the need for equity and equality in civil rights enforcement. She will be tenacious but thoughtful and insightful and true to the law, serving the rule of law. She is a dedicated and devoted public servant, committed to equal justice, civil rights, and the rule of law. I have seen that firsthand, and I know I am not the only one who thinks so. The letters the Judiciary Committee has received in support of her nomination reflect a broad, professionally and ideologically diverse coalition of individuals and organizations that know that she is, without a doubt, eminently qualified for this position. That support includes law enforcement, like the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and 71 former attorneys general from red States and blue States. The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives wrote: Ms. Clarke has displayed the qualities of leadership, empathy, excellence, and persistence in supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution while ensuring equal protection and justice for all Americans. The 71 former attorneys general wrote: Kristen Clarke is someone with immense credibility among community leaders in each of our states--she has handled cases of hate crimes, constitutional policing, human trafficking, and voting rights, and, most recently, has done effective work on violent extremism and the threat that it poses to our citizens. I believe strongly that Kristen Clarke should be confirmed right away, without delay, and I encourage all of my colleagues to see the baseless allegations against her for what they are--a distortion--and I urge them to support her nomination. I have confronted those allegations. They are unworthy of repetition, but I think my colleagues should know the truth behind them. The Civil Rights Division and the American people need Kristen Clarke. For me, this vote feels very personal. Two of my four children are graduating literally today and during this week from law school. I hope they will use the great gifts that they have, the skills that they have acquired, and the advocacy that they have been learning to advance the public interests in the way that Kristen Clarke has done throughout her extraordinary career. I hope they will regard her as a role model because she has sought justice. She has fought to uphold the rights of people who are vulnerable, Americans who are voiceless, and ordinary Americans, who all too often have been denied their rights. She has stood up for them; she has spoken out; and I hope we will confirm her tomorrow with a bipartisan vote. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Dr. Saul Hertz, a pioneer for medical uses of radioiodine, RAI. The son of Jewish immigrants from Poland, Dr. Hertz graduated from Harvard Medical School in 1929. While serving as director of the Massachusetts General Hospital's thyroid unit, he attended a presentation about the use of physics in medicine. Inspired by the concept, Dr. Hertz worked alongside Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Dr. Arthur Roberts to discover the potential for iodine radioisotopes in thyroid disease diagnosis and treatment. On March 31, 1941, after years of experiments, Dr. Hertz administered the first therapeutic use of radioiodine to a human patient. Never before had humans been successfully treated with an artificially produced radioactive material. In 1946, Dr. Hertz was the lead author of the May issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which featured a 5-year study following 29 patients he treated through this method. Today, medical uses of RAI remain the gold standard of targeted precision oncology. Dr. Hertz made a number of other outstanding contributions to the medical field. Notably, his research played an essential role in the developing field of nuclear medicine, which was critical during World War II and beyond. In 1949, he established the first Nuclear Medicine Department at the Massachusetts Women's Hospital. Dr. Hertz passed away on July 28, 1950, but his legacy is enduring. Not only does his work continue to support extraordinary medical work, but his memory also encourages other researchers through the Saul Hertz, MD, Award. Bestowed by the Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Engineering, this eponymous award honors individuals who make phenomenal strides in the radionuclide therapy field. Dr. Hertz's archives are kept in Greenwich, CT, offering a rich history of research in this critical field and a testament to his brilliant, lifesaving work. This year, Greenwich, CT, First Selectman Fred Camillo issued a proclamation, naming March 31 ``Dr. Saul Hertz Nuclear Medicine/Radio Pharmaceutical Day.'' This recognition is a tribute to Dr. Hertz's remarkable legacy and the impact he will forever have on this field. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Dr. Saul Hertz.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, Senators Murkowski and Sullivan have ably represented the very serious plight of the people of Alaska. I am very sympathetic to the economic and humanitarian situation that prompts this effort, the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. But I must say that the cruise line industry has a very inconsistent--that is a nice way of putting it--and deeply inadequate record on consumer protection and worker safety. We worked out a number of amendments that are incorporated into this measure. They are basic protections during the pandemic and a negotiated compromise, and I thank my colleagues from Alaska for doing it in a way that really is a win-win for everyone, and that is the measure that is before us now. So I will offer no objection. I understand that our colleague Senator Lee has an objection--I am not sure what they are at this point, but if he does, I look forward to working over the recess with my Alaska colleagues to see if we can reach agreement with Senator Lee and resolve his objection.