the more you talk, the more trump supporters you are creating. the fact that you are still trying to pretend that the election was stolen -- wasn't stolen simply amazing to me. there is evidence, video evidence all -- >> we are going to leave "washington journal" to take you live to the u.s. senate. as lawmakers return from their weekly party lunches. mr. markey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i would for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is is not in a quorum call. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. in the after math of the supreme

court's draft leak, we are facing one of the lowest moments in history for our nation's highest court, an illegitimate far-right majority on the court is poised to overturn roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey and take away a fundamental constitutional right that has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, the right to a legal, safe abortion. every american deserves the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. while the leaked opinion may only be a draft, we cannot ignore profound threat 20 poses. -- which it poses. that's because the opinion is outrageous in its culmination of a right-wing campaign to take away the court and take america back to the days of a loss of life when seeking abortion care. it validates a the supreme court seats by president trump. it confirms that conservative

justices lied to the congress and the american people about their compliment to the court's precedented and the rule of law. overturning roe v. wade will undermine the health, safety, and freedom of millions of americans and will create horrific pain and hardship for people across the nation, especially those without the means or resources to travel to states where abortion will remain safe and legal. already for pregnant americans in red states across the country, access to abortion is functionally denied because of a lack of funds, geography, immigration status and other barriers. this war on people of color and the poor is already being waged, and we cannot let the supreme court provide deadlier weapons. if the extremist right wing of the court is willing to abandon something as fundamental as the right to privacy and the right for an american to make decisions about their own body, then we are on a slippery slope to the undoing of other fundamental rights the court has recognized as grounded in the

right to privacy, including the right to use contraception or the right to marry whoever you love. but this was the goal of the republicans and the right wing all along -- steal a supreme court seat, steal an election and steal the rights of americans. this is the direct consequence of an anti-majoritarian and antidemocratic national electoral system that allowed two presidents who each lost the popular vote to nominate more than half of the current justices to the united states supreme court and allowed them to be confirmed by senators representing a minority of the nation's population. this is the racist, misogynistic, citizen phobic manifestation of a radical right wing extremist vision of america that is out of step with the vast majority of americans. in fact, by a 2-1 margin americans say roe v. wade should be upheld. this egregious and overtly political act cannot be allowed

to go unanswered. faith in our judicial system is in jeopardy. so we are left with no other choice. we have to immediately pass federal legislation that protects millions of americans' right to choose, that lifts dangerous and discriminatory bans on abortion, and that removes unnecessary limits on reproductive freedom. the women's health protection act will do all of that, by codifying roe, to affirm it as the law of the land. the women's health protection actence shrines in federal law a health care provider's right to provide abortion services and a patient's right to receive them. among its provisions, the bill would prohibit pre-viability bans designed to undercut the right to an abortion, like the 15-week ban imposed by the mississippi law at issue in dobbs or specious heartbeat bans like the one imposed by texas' sb-8.

the women's health protection act would prohibit bans that do not make exceptions for the woman's health or life. i am appalled that any member of congress could call themselves in support of women and then support a ban that explicitly devalues life. this bill would also ban so-called trap laws that targeted regulation of abortion providers that impose onerous and unwarranted requirements on facilities and providers that do nothing to prevent health -- to promote health but, rather, make it nearly impossible for health care providers to keep their doors open. the bill would also prohibit requirements that providers share medically inaccurate information and impose medically unnecessary and manipulative tests and procedures like mandatory ultrasounds. it would prohibit limitations that prevent providers from caring for patients by telemedicine, a service that we've all learned to be invaluable over the course of the pandemic and one that is all the more necessary for abortion

care given the already draconian laws in some red states across the country. it would bar other unjustified, onerous and discriminatory practices intended to place obstacles in the path of those seeking abortion services. in short, the women's health protection act will safeguard the rights established by 50 years of supreme court precedent and would protect abortion access even if roe is overturned. this bill is all that's standing between the america we've known for decades and the one that plunges millions of people back in time into despair, pain, poverty, and forced parenthood. if we fail to act, we know republicans will. if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, 28 states are poised to ban abortion outright. of those, 13 states already have trigger bans in place, activating laws that would ban abortion automatically when roe is overturned. these bans and attacks fall

hardest on those most marginalized including people of color, lgbtq people, people with low incomes, those in rural communities. many of these states would criminalize abortion. though seeking abortions and those performing them would face the prospect of prison. and i.t. not just at the state -- and it's not just at the state level. the republican leader in the senate has said the quiet part out loud. if republicans gain control of the senate, they could consider federal legislation banning abortion, passing on the floor of this senate. we can't sit idly by and wait for the worst to happen. it's already at our doorstep. we must make the right to safe and secure reproductive health appeared freedom the law of the land. we must do it now. madam president, i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i have eight requests for committees to meet during the session of the of today's senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. manchin: okay. i'm pleased to support the nomination of dr. as mehrest

berhe to be the director of the office of the science. the department of energy is as much a department of science and technology as the department of energy. for nearly 50 years it has been at the forefront of scientific discovery and technology innovation. as a seedbed for science, the department has given us the technologies to increase our energy production and use our resources in a cleaner and more efficient way. and the office of science lies at the heart of the department of science's mission. it's the nation's largest federal supporter of basic research into physical sciences. its mission is to discover the major sign tools to transform the understanding of nature and to advance the nature and economic and national security of the united states. leading this calls for scientists of vision. i believe dr. berhe is very

qualified for this very important job. judging from the long list of academic honors and rewards she received and the long list of scientific papers she has written, dr. berhe has the creditdentials that this job requires. these a professor at the university of california and associate dean of graduate education and holds an endowed chair in earth sciences and geology. the office of science itself has long engaged in basic research relating to civil science and broader questions, whether tracing radioactive elements through the atmosphere or the float of energy, water, and carbon through the earth's natural systems. so her background is an asset. she is also an adjunct professor at the salk institute of buy lodge logical professor and has been a visiting professor where albert einstein studied physics.

she has authored over 100 scientific papers and has received over two dozen honors and awards for her scientific achievements. she is incredibly well qualified thor this important post leading the office of science. i strongly support her nomination. i urge a favorable vote on her nomination. thank you, madam president. i notice the absence of a quorum. i yield back all time. the presiding officer: is there further debate? hearing none, the question is on the nomination. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 45, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not agreed to on executive calendar 844, the nomination of lisa denell cook. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to

proceed, to the motion to reconsider. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. majority leader. mr. schumer: i move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on calendar number 844. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to reconsider. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to close debate on executive calendar number 844, lisa denell cook, of michigan, to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate the debate on the motion of lisa denell cook, of

michigan, to be a member of the board of governors of the federal reserve system shall be brought to a close upon reconsideration. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 49 and the motion, upon reconsideration, is agreed to. the -- the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, federal reserve system, lisa denell cook, of michigan, to be a member of the board of governors. ms. warren: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: madam president, i rise today to urge the senate to -- the senate to defend our constitutional rights. a far-right extremist supreme court wants to force their views on every american. roe v. wade has protected the right to a safe, legal abortion

for nearly 50 years. the republicans have tried to challenge it in court many times. the supreme court has reaffirmed roe over and over again until now. so what changed? why is something that is repeatedly referred to as settled law on the threshold of being swept away like so much dust? why is a law that is literally protects tens of millions of people, and they have depended on it to protect access to a safe, legal abortion suddenly about to evaporate? we don't arrive here accidentally. we are here because republican politicians have spent decades plotting for this moment .this they have cultivated extremist judges. groups like the federalist society have screamed possible -- screened possible candidates and drawn up lists of which possible candidates could and could not be counted on.

extremist donors spent billions in dark money so that their preferred idealogues could chip away at people's fundamental rights and do it from the bench. republican candidates for office pledged to support justices who would get rid of roe v. wade. and, finally, when all of that still wasn't enough, republicans stole two seats on the supreme court. all to force their unpopular minority agenda on the rest of america. i'm here to sound a warning. republican extremism has been carefully nurtured for years. now republican extremism is spreading and now it is obvious that republican extremism knows no bounds. let's talk about the facts. the facts of republican extremism. and let's begin with who pays

the price for republican extremism. changes in abortion laws will have terrible consequences. but those consequences will not fall equally on everyone. no. those with money will always have the option to leave the state or leave the country to travel where abortion is safe and legal. the people who will pay the biggest price will be the most vulnerable among us, the momma already working two jobs to help make ends meet to support the children she has, the women working jobs who have no paid leave and who can't take three days off work to go to another state. the women in south dakota scrambling to make an appointment at the only abortion clinic in the entire state. the 12-year-old who's been molested. the person who has been raped. the women in texas who need lifesaving care if their doctors can't provide. and the women all across the

country, especially women of color, already facing shamefully high maternal mortality rates because in america, carrying a pregnancy to term is 43 times riskier than a legal abortion. these are the facts about overturning roe v. wade, and these are the people disproportionately, low-income women, women of color, and women in rural communities who will pay the price for republican extremism. overturning roe, just the beginning. republican state legislatures all across the country have already been emboldened by this supreme court introducing hundreds of antiabortion bills this year alone. states are now introducing bills to declare it a crime for someone to obtain an abortion, for someone to provide an

abortion, or for someone just to help someone locate where they might get an abortion. and where will the republican extremists turn next? will they investigate every miscarriage? will they put every obstetrician and gynecologist on a watch list? will they monitor location data for every person who pulls into the parking lot of a planned parenthood clinic? let's be absolutely clear about what will happen if this decision stands. republicans want to do more than criminalize abortion. they want to criminalize women for making decisions about their pregnancies and their own health. this isn't theoretical. it is already coming to pass. in texas where abortion has been virtually inaccessible to millions of texans for the last eight months, a young woman has been charged with murder for an alleged self-induced abortion.

an oklahoma law has passed that would outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest. but what republicans are really after is criminalizing women's very bodies. in louisiana republicans are pushing for the most extreme bill yet, legislation that would classify abortion as a homicide. if enacted this bill could criminalize women for using certain forms of birth control or even for having a miscarriage that she had no control over. and we know who will be the most affected by the overcriminalization of women's bodies. it will be women of color who are already overpoliced and face the greatest barriers to accessing health care. the intrusiveness of these state laws is vile.

efforts to give fertilized eggs personhood rights and criminalize abortion could make i.v.f. procedure rs criminal. depriving someone who wants to get pregnant the only option available to her. as some states get more and more aggressive about intruding into the private lives of millions of women, just this weekend the republican leader, mitch mcconnell, signaled he's open to even more extremism. he said that a nationwide abortion ban was, quote, possible if republicans retake the majority. a nationwide abortion ban available in every state, including those states that are currently working overtime to protect access to abortion, a nationwide abortion ban applicable to girls who have been molested and to people who

have been raped and to women who are already working three jobs to support the children they have. republican extremism is spreading. republican extremism knows no bounds. for me this isn't about politics. this is personal. i have lived in a world where abortion was illegal. i learned early on that when the law bans only -- when the law bans abortions, only safe and legal abortions will actually be banned. i've lived in a world in which women bled to death from back-alley abortions, a world in which infections and other complications destroyed women's futures, a world in which women's educations and lives were derailed by an unplanned pregnancy, a world in which some women took their own lives

rather than continuing with a pregnancy they could not bear. i have also lived in a world where abortion is legal. for decades expanded access to abortion has allowed people to make decisions about their own bodies and lives, promoting access to life cha -- life-chang careers that seemed out of reach. but republican extremists and the extremist justices they have put on the supreme court just don't care. they want to send us back to the days when women's rights to control their own bodies and their own futures simply did not exist. american freedoms are under attack. the liberty of more than half our population is under attack. republicans have planned long and hard for this day, and now that it is here, we must stand

and fight. tomorrow the senate will vote on the women's health protection act to enshrine the right to an abortion in federal law. we need the women's health protect act to prevent radical right-wing state legislatures from ever enacting extreme bills like texas' s.b.8 or mississippi's 15-week ban. with whippa, we will take the steps necessary to protect our human rights. it is just that simple. for everyone who says we don't have the votes in the senate to get this done, i say get in the fight and give us the senators who will get it done. don't tell us what we can't do to stop republican extremism. get in the fight to help us beat these abortion restrictions into the dirt. get in the fight to recognize

the dignity and liberty of every american. after this vote, there will be no ambiguity. every american will know exactly where their elected representatives in congress stand. and every senator will have to explain whether they defend the right of every person to have control over their own bodies and their own futures or whether they will stand by as women's constitutional rights are brazenly stripped away. whenever this court strikes down freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution, congress must defend americans every single time. i'm angry that a group of unelected ideologues on the supreme court think that they can turn current law upside down and dictate to tens of millions

of people across this country the terms of their pregnancies and their lives. but the supreme court does not get the last word on the right to a safe and legal abortion. the american people through their leaders right here in congress can take action. and that is why i will vote to support the women's health protect act. that is why i will fiercely oppose any threat to our liberty, and that is why i will continue to fight with every bone in my body to protect the right of every woman to control her own future. republican extremism is spreading. republican extremism knows no bounds. tomorrow we have a chance to fight back and we will fight back. i have lived in a world where abortion is illegal, and we are

not going back. never. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. when i introduced the women's health protection act in 2013, yes, in 2013, almost ten years ago, the idea that roe v. wade would be overturned by the united states supreme court was virtually unthinkable. we accepted 50 years of established precedent, long accepted law in this country as

something that was virtually unimaginable. women relied on it. our society took it as a core principle of our constitutional law. as much as brown v. education, marlboro v. madison, roe v. wade, tenets and pillars of constitutional law in this country. and when we ask nominees to the united states supreme court, the three most recent of them, and i personally asked this question, is roe v. wade established law, they said to us that they would rely on stairee decisis which -- stare decisis which for everyday americans is we will follow established precedent as articulated year after year by

the united states supreme court. the now well reported alito draft of an opinion overturning roe v. wade came like a thunder bolt, an earthquake, a seismic blow that constitutional scholars thought was unthinkable. the draft itself is strident and brash. it's disrespectful in a way that supreme court opinions never are. it's unprecedented in its tone and approach saying that roe v. wade was egregiously wrong, failing to accurately portray what it held and the reasons for

its holding. no question in my mind that the court in its final opinion will smooth the edges of that draft. it will try to down down the rhetoric. it will dress it up but the result will be the same. no matter how the court may try to dress it up, it will have the same impact on millions of americans and their families because the united states supreme court is poised to issue the most radical ruling in recent history, perhaps in the entire history of the united states, the most extreme contraction of fundamental constitutional rights in the history of the united states. and let's indulge ourselves for a moment in a belief in the

american dream and the exceptionalism of america, which is to expand rights and liberties. the story of america is expanding freedoms and liberties for all of us, not reducing and restricting them. but this supreme court is poised to eradicate a fundamental right that millions of americans have relied on for half a century, and the court has signaled that it will inflict an enormously backwards with incalculable costs and chaos for countless women and their families. if the court indeed overturns roe, 23 states have laws that would immediately go into effect to be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.

today 90% of american counties already lack a single abortion provider. not one in 90% of american counties. and 27 cities have become so-called abortion tesserts because people who -- deserts because people who live there have to travel 100 miles or more to reach a provider. without the protections of roe, this situation will become even worse for millions of americans. women in louisiana, just to take one example, will be 630 miles from an abortion clinic. women in florida, utah and many other similar states will be in a similar situation. access to reproductive freedom will depend on a woman's zip code, not on her personal choices or her needs.

abortion bans without roe will disproportionately impact low-income women in those 23 states poised to ban abortion, and justice alito -- perhaps not surprisingly -- fails to address the ways that the court's rule willing disproportionately impact communities of color all around the united states. there's an issue here of racial justice because these restrictions disproportionately affect black women and other racial minorities -- communities. today fewer than one in ten abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are black. that's a simple, straightforward fact of life. and the closure of clinics will make it only worse. the simple fact is that dobbs

will turn back the clock. it will roll back protections relating to fundamental rights. and may i say that the same people who argue that mask requirements designed to protect public health infringe on their fundamental liberties are perfectly happy sending the government into a hospital room as a couple makes an incredibly difficult personal life decision. the same people who see masks as an infringe regiment on bodily autonomy are perfectly happy with the government telling a woman who comes to a hospital possibly in mortal danger of internal bleeding from an ectopic pregnancy, you will have to die. no doctor can help you. that's not bodily autonomy. that's not liberty.

after the court's final decision in dobbs, today's young women and young women of 2022 will have fewer rights than their grandmothers. young women today will have fewer rights than two generations ago. to someone who recalls the seminal decision in roe v. wade in 1973 and the promise of that moment, it is unacceptable. i was a law clerk to be author of roe v. wade in the term after he wrote the opinion, and justice blackmun and the court decided by a 7-2 majority -- 7-2. justice blackmun was appointed by a republican president --

that this right is fundamental. and whether you criticize the decision -- and there have been plenty of people who criticized that opinion -- it has been established law, relied on, incorporated in precedent after precedent. and now in the women's health protection act we ask that it be incorporated in statute. the roe v. wade standard be enshrined and embodied in a statute much as connecticut did in its state statute in 1990, a law that i championed when i was in our connecticut state senate. in lieu of well-established supreme court precedent, justice alito relies on a 17th century english jurist who advocated for marital rape and who tried women for witchcraft. this isn't just judicial

activism. this is extremism. this is fringe. history cloaked in a judge's robe. and you know what is conspicuously absent from justice alito's radical draft opinion? what's absent is women. justice alito gives absolutely no credence to the beeral evidence before the court -- empirical evidence before the court. the ways in which women have relied upon abortion access to make decisions about their health, their lives, their careers and their futures. instead, he gestures at the fact that women have the right to vote as evidence. they don't need the right to control their lives and their own bodies. i'm sorry, but the right to vote

is where rights begin. it's not where they end. and we know the truth. whether or not justice alito acknowledges it, the court's world without roe would not just impact one segment of society, one demographic, one geographic area. it will affect all of us. one in four americans -- one in four american women will undergo an abortion in their lifetime. one in four. and to the men of america, all of you love someone. you know someone. you treasure someone who has had an abortion, who has needed an abortion. you can't sit this one out. it's all of us -- men as well as

women. we all have a stake in this radical decision that will affect all of america and make us a lesser nation with fewer rights and liberties. the court's draft opinion in dobbs is just the next step in a multi-decade fight that the court has waged on abortion access. it's already shown its willingness to dramatically curtail the right of a pregnant person to decide whether and when to have a child. just ask women in the state of texas. they're living in a state without the protections of roe v. wade, with a dangerous antiabortion law, sb-8, which contains a six-week abortion ban. six weeks is far before many women even know they are

pregnant, as all of us in this chamber know. texas' dangerous law deputizes private citizens to enforce a state's onerous abortion law. in texas, a rapist can sue a doctor if they provide an abortion to a rape survivor, someone who drove their sister to a health care clinic where she has an abortion could be sued again by anyone in the united states -- anybody -- with a $10,000 government prize money waiting for that bounty hunter. this is extremism, extremism in a judge's robes. and i am proud to say that the state of connecticut, today has a law -- literally, the governor

signed this law today -- making sure that people are protected in connecticut against those kinds of bounty hunters, and my hope is that other states will follow connecticut in providing that kind of basic protection. it has never been more urgent for the congress at the federal level to pass the women's health protection act. the women's health protection act would the protect rights established by 50 years of supreme court precedent, protecting the right to an abortion prior to fetal viability. it would put an end to laws like the 15-week ban on abortion that's now before the court in the dobbs case. importantly as well, the women's health protection act would put an end to medically unnecessary restrictions, posing as health

restrictions,, that single out abortion care with one goal in mind -- to block and impede access to safe, needed health care. laws like this so-called trap laws or targeted regulation of abortion providers such as minimum measurements for room size or hallway width that have no rationale other than transparent desire to curtail access. laws that require providers to offer medically inaccurate information when providing abortion care, like in alaska, kansas, mississippi, texas, and west virginia, where health care professionals are forced to tell women, give them medically inaccurate information about links between abortion and breast cancer. it would put an end to a reality where our doctors are required by law to lie and mislead about

the risks of a safe medical procedure, and it would restore an evidence-based approach to informed consent. in short, it would essentially guarantee the right that exists now, and it will exist until the supreme court rules that you can decide whether and when to have children. so let us be very clear about what the women's health protection does and what it doesn't do. it does not force any unwilling medical provider to perform abortions if they wish not to do so. it says that doctors, nurses, and hospitals may provide abortion care, not what they must do. this measure is an evidence-based, scientific approach to the protection of

women's health care and it restores a future where all of us are free to make personal decisions that shape our lives, our futures, our families with dignity and respect without political interference in a decision made between a doctor and a patient, much as all health care decisions should be. the implications of the court's draft decision in dobbs and what we're expecting from the court in coming weeks simply can't be overstated or ex-obstruction of justice rated -- ex-obstruction of justice rated. -- exaggerated. but it would be foolish to believe that the court's supermajority will stop even as roe. justice alito's draft opinion,

even if it is never issued by the court, is the road map where this court will go in the future. it's permeated with support for the notion that fetal personhood, a dangerous theory furthered by states like louisiana, which seek to make abortion a crime of homicide from the moment of homicide, if adopted, the court's novel invented theory of personhood could and may well lead to nationwide prohibitions on abortion and most recently, just over the weekend, the minority leader of the senate has made clear that in a post roe -- post-roe world, a federal ban abortion is on the table. so did state officials who spoke over the weekend. it is more than a cloud on the horizon.

it is an impending, real, imminent storm upon us. a ban nationwide on abortion that will override even the states like connecticut that are seeking to legislate protections for women that will make us a safe harbor and haven. the draft opinion also invites challenges to a host of fundamental rights that were also not widely recognized in 1868, the moment in which justice alito freezes us in time. he literally freezes constitutional rights regarding reproductive liberties in that long-gone moment. the draft opinion invites

challenges to a host of fundamental rights including contraception -- see gris world. connecticut, and sexual intimacy between consenting adults, lawrence v. texas. you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand the clear and present danger to american democracy in this draft opinion. this court may dress it up, but the results and the reasoning will be the same -- radical, extreme fringe, and directly contrary to what three nominees testified in their confirmation hearing. oh, we respect established

precedent, of course, stare decisis, fundamental principle. the legitimacy and credibility of this court is deeply imperilled at this moment. and our democracy really depends on the credibility and respect that the american people accord the supreme court of the united states. it has no armies or police force. it has no power of the purse. its authority depends directly on trust and credibility, the sense of legitimacy that the american people accorded. in the united states, public support for legal access to abortion is at the highest it has been in two decades, a cruel irony for this court. and today the overwhelming majority of voters believe that

everyone should have access to the full range of reproductive health care, including annual screenings, birth control, pregnancy tests, and abortion. it's a matter of health. and at the same time millions of americans across this country are absolutely terrified. they are anguished and horrified about what the supreme court is poised to do, because they depend on accessible women's health care. if the supreme court overturns roe and we have taken no legislative action, we will find ourselves in a nation where young women of this country not only have fewer rights than

their grandmothers, they have fewer rights than any of them thought possible. we have to resolve that we are not backing down. we are not going away, we are not going back in time. it has never been more urgent to elect people, members of this body who will protect fundamental rights. and i guarantee that in elections to come, reproductive rights will be on the ballot. the women and men of america will mobilize. they will be galvanized on this issue because the women's health protection act will be on the ballot, and we will have more votes in this body so that members will be held accountable

for what they do or fail to do. and ultimately the american people and the world are watching. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: the national prayer breakfast in 1994, mother teresa famously said, and i quote, i feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against a child, a direct killing of the innocent child. she went on to say, and i quote, any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. and that is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. that is mother teresa at the national prayer breakfast here

in d.c., 1994. i agree with those words. frankly it's shameful that the democrats and pro-abortion activists resorted to despicable actions in a last ditch effort to get the outcome that they want. what began with the unprecedented leak of the majority draft opinion last monday has quickly devolved into protesting at the justices' homes, threatening and disruption church services, vandals centers that offer support for pregnancy moms and throwing molotov cocktails at organizations. it's chilling, unacceptable. we cannot left the far-left behavior obscure the fact the dobbs draft opinion is the rule of law. there is no right of abortion in

the text. the draft opinion masterfully marshals 98 packages of argument and evidence to demonstrate that very fact. this watershed decision would be a tremendous victory for the fight for life and turn the page on a dark chapter of our nation's history in which more than 62 million unborn children have been tragically killed. if the draft opinion stands -- and i pray that it does -- it transfers that power from unelected judges and gives it back to the american people, back to legislators and elected representatives to enact compassionate laws that protect unborn babies and their mothers. if the democrats exploiting the unprecedented leak of the majority draft opinion, if it is to stir up far left base and intimidate judges, if that's not bad enough, they are now trying to pass a radical bill to impose abortion on demand without limits on the entire country even up to the moment of

birth. leader schumer has scheduled a vote for tomorrow on abortion on demand until birth act. my distinguished colleague from connecticut used the words radical and extreme a number of times in his remarks. let me tell you about what's radical and extreme about what's going to be voted on tomorrow. this is a radical abortion bill that would mandate that every single state be a late-term abortion state like california or new york, where unborn children can be brutally aborted until the very moment of birth. it would allow abortion up until the very moment of birth itself. the democrats' radical abortion bill would confer special benefits on the predatory abortion industry and eliminate popular state laws that protect both preborn children and their mothers. commonsense laws requiring parental involvement in abortions for minors, health and safety standards for

abortion facilities, informed consent laws, late-term abortion limits, bans on sex selective or down's syndrome selective abortions and conscious protection for doctors who don't want to perform abortions would be eliminated. that's how radical this bill is that will be voted on tomorrow. under this radical abortion bill, an unhatched sea turtle would have more protections than an unborn human baby. if you look at federal law, if you were to take or destroy the eggs of a sea turtle -- i said the eggs, not the hatch lintions. that's also a penalty, but the eggs. the criminal penalties are severe, up to $100,000 fine and a year in prison. now why? why do we have laws in place that protect the eggs of a sea turtle or the eggs of eagles? because when you destroy an

egg, you're killing a preborn baby sea turtle or a preborn baby eagle. yet, when it comes to a preborn human baby, rather than a sea turtle, that baby will be stripped of all protections in all 50 states, under the democrats' bill we'll be voting on tomorrow. is that what the america, the left wants? i would ask my democratic colleagues, if the preborn child in the womb is not a living human being, then what is it? unborn babies feel pain. unborn babies have a heartbeat. they smile, they yawn. in fact, just last week in a telling slip of the tongue, president biden himself admitted that abortion involves a child. a child, that is correct. this is in a fact that the truth that every abortion kills a precious child. the democrats tried for democrats to avoid admitting this. and the science is clear, it has come a long way since 1973.

it's time for the law to catch up with great advances that have been made in science and technology, in medicine that indisputably show the ht humanity of an unborn child. instead however the democrats' radical abortion bill denies the science. it would completely erase preborn children from the law. that is chilling. under the democrats' bill, a preborn child simply for the crime of being unwanted, inconvenient, or unplanned, could be subjected to brutal dismemberment procedures in which the unborn child bleeds and feels excruciating pain as she dies being pulled apart limb from limb. the democrats' abortion bill would codify an extreme abortion regime that is aligned with seven nations that would have the most brutal, the most

brutal laws that relate to abortion. it would impose abortion up until the moment of birth without any limits in all 50 states. in a nutshell, this radical bill would make the united states of america one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a preborn child. as i asked my colleagues in the hallway, on the democrat side, give us just one restriction you might put in place for abortion. you just don't hear a response to that. in tomorrow's vote, i pray that my colleagues would check this horrific and barbaric legislation and take a stand for the most vulnerable among us. as the justices continue to deliberate in the dobbs case, i pray the court resists intimidation tactics of the far left by sticking to the constitution and repudiating the roe and casey decisions, the court has the opportunity to make history and strike a blow for justice for the most defenseless among us. the american people, those born

and millions yet unborn deserve nothing less. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: late last monday an unprecedentedded leak opinion in the case of dobbs v. jackson women's health organization was published. in reaction, scotus blog, a leading supreme court blog stated, and i quote, this leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin, end quote. chief justice roberts called the

leak absolutely appalling. yet, the white house is moot on this point. and folks back home in kansas, well, they are aghast as well. they all agree, at least every kansan i've talked to, this leak is a below to the integrity of the court and a blow to our faith in this hallowed institution. in the days since the leak, we've seen democrats and their activists utilize another frequent strategy they deploy with things don't go their way. violence and disruption. we've all seen the disgusting multitude of images of pro-life offices being vandalized and bombed and we all bear witness of catholic masses disrupted on mother's day. on mother's day of all days. is nothing sacred in this country anymore? we've seen the threatening violence at the personal homes of supreme court justices and yet for days the white house was

quiet and just like the riots of the summer of 2020 and the looting that continues today, the white house turns a deaf ear to violence and they swallow their tongue when the violence supports their own agenda. listen, these threatening so-called protests at the justices' homes are a violation of the law of this land. they're not valid protests. these are attempts to intimidate and influence the court to destroy the independence of this judiciary. this violence is wrong. it's evil. it's an attack on christianity. it's an attack on the faith and values of this nation were founded upon. americans know it. we all feel the hatred. and i have to note americans understand the majority leader has provided no such condemnation but rather has decided to once again bring back his abortion on demand act to the senate floor. this bill is the most egregious, the most horrific attack on the

lives of unborn children and the health of moms in american history. if democrats had their way, these babies, these twin babies i delivered more than a decade ago, could have been aborted the moment prior to the c-section. the overturning of roe v. wade simply returns this emotional issue back to the states, to the elected voices of the people, no more, no less. and the mississippi dobbs case simply protects life after 15 weeks when a baby can feel pain, when a baby can recognize its mom's voice, when a baby can recognize the voice of its sibling. but let me tell you exactly what the democrats' extreme abortion on demand act would do. it goes far and beyond roe v. wade. this bill invalidates any and all state laws that protect not just the unborn child but the

health and well-being of the mom as well. it likely leads to american taxpayer dollars funding abortions at home and around the world. it's truly an attack on our faith. this bill will tie up faith-based hospitals in courts for not offering abortion services. this bill will allow sex-based abortions. it eliminates the requirement for informed consent of the patient or parental consent. this bill eliminates conscious protections. as an obstetrician myself, this hits near and deer to -- dear to my heart. this bill is an attack on my faith and an attack of the faith of many doctors and nurses who refuse for take part in abortions. they would be forced out of their professions. they would be forced out of medical schools, out of residency programs, so many aspiring students would decide not to go into medicine. this bill is a total disregard to the mother's health.

by placing no value on the mom's life and well-being, this radical bill eliminates the health standards of a surgery center for this surgery to be performed in a surgery center. in fact this bill would allow these services to be offered in a garage or back-room apartment. shockingly it provides the right to provide abortions to any health care provider, not necessarily a physician but to certified nurse mid wives, nurse practitioners, a physician assistant. this bill will lead to the death and infertility of many, many women. this procedure is not a simple procedure. it should not be the -- not be placed in the hands of inexperienced people. this is a procedure, this type of procedure is only done after four years of undergraduate, four years of medical school and probably two or three years of residency. in the most skilled of hands, this type of procedure can lead to serious loss of life.

and finally and more specifically, this bill strikes down state laws that restrict telehealth abortions. these are chemical abortions, and they would become a common means of birth control, again leading to many, many more visits to the emergency rooms for these women who were taking medicines unsupervised. finally i have to correct something one of my friends across the aisle said. he stated that we from the pro-life community would not treat women with ectopic pregnancies. nothing is further from the truth. this case of roe v. wade has nothing to do with treating ectopic pregnancies. i personally have treated hundreds of women with ectopic pregnancies. i believe that life begins at conception, but treating an ectopic pregnancy is a life threatening situation for the mom and the catholic church supports the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. but that's the type of scare

tactics my colleagues across the aisle want to use. finally, mr. president, just let me conclude with this. i never imagined i'd be fighting harder to save the lives of moms and babies on the floor of the senate than i did in the emergency room or the delivery room in my obstetrics practice for some 30 years. thank you and i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, my colleagues and i are here today to highlight the fact that our democratic colleagues have shown the american people how truly radical they are when it comes to abortion. the women's health protect act, what i believe should be better known as the abortion on demand until the moment of birthing act, cast a vision of abortion in america, one utterly without limitation. federalism is one of the truly genius ideas behind the u.s. constitution. federalism means that we make the majority of our decisions at

a more local level rather than at the national level. when we rely on the principle of federalism, more people across the country have more reason to be content with the laws they - they have. people have a greater say in the legislative process at the local level which means they get more of the kind of government they want and less of the kind of government they don't want. for nearly the last half century, the decisions in roe v. wade and planned parenthood v. casey have abused the constitution by reading into the constitution a right that exists nowhere in the constitution. these wrongly decided cases have wreaked havoc on public trust in government, on the republican nature of our government, on the public's understanding of the constitution. more greatly these decisions have permitted the euphemistically described, qu

quote/unquote -- information of 50 million lives. that's more than four times of american lives lost in war since the founding of our nation, every war combined. 45 times that. let that sink in for a minute. abortion is a tragedy. it's one that's scarring our nation's history because of what it says about how we respect human life. scores of millions of lives represent each and every one of them, unique and unrepeatable genetic makeups and identities and potentials. they represent the loss of americans, of all races, varying physical and mental abilities, all political affiliations and professions with many targeted because of their race, sex, or disability. their termination is a loss of ideas, of innovation, and of

compassion. those abortions erase all potential families and communities. those abortions represent the loss of infinite potential connection and love. abortion is a tragedy that scars our history. so when i read justice alito's opinion in dobbs v. health organization, irwas elated because it relies on federalism and a sound reading of the constitution, to reassert that there is no constitutional right to an abortion just because a combination of lawyers wearing robes 48 years ago decided that would be the case does not make it so. our constitution is difficult to amend and it's deliberately that way. they didn't follow this procedure. they tried to circumvent it and they were wrong. regulating abortion is a matter reserved for the american people

and their elected representatives, not nine elected -- unelected judges. for that very reason a number of people have turned against it, and because they can't characterize it the way it actually is, they mischaracterize it and they go as far as to encourage people to show up at the homes, the private residences of the supreme court justices in question. there is no reason to do this that doesn't involve an implicit threat of violence. when you show up at someone's home, you're sending an unmistakable message, we know where you sleep. that's why it's expressly prohibited under federal law. there is a federal law section 1507. now stunningly, the white house, the white house, the president's personal spokesperson, jen psaki in the last few hours has repeated this charge, encouraged people to do this saying, quote, we certainly continue to

encourage protests outside of judges' homes. this is wrong and i call on the president of the united states personally to undo this. he's encouraging unlawful behavior that is inherently dangerous and is inherently threatening. this radical bill that's emerged in the days immediately following the leak of the dobbs draft opinion is shrouded in the lie of protecting women's health while allowing for killing babies by any means however gruesome, violent, atrocious, heinous, or cruel right up until the moment of birth preempting any state lous that might choose -- state laws that might choose to protect life. those late-term abortions not only kill viable babies but they're unreasonably, needlessly cruel, and they are extremely

dangerous procedures for the mothers themselves. unlimited abortion is also widely unpopular. only 17% of americans believe that that's the right policy. among medical professionals, the feelings are similar. research shows over one-third of ob/gyn's in america would not even refer a patient for an abortion. but this bill as written would require those same doctors not only to refer but also to provide abortions or risk their employment. notwithstanding any ethical objection they may have to it, notwithstanding any religious objection they may have to it. by waiving the religious freedom restoration act, carving it out, the religious freedom restoration act, a religious liberty protection enacted by an overwhelming supermajority of democrats and republicans, this

bill would require hospitals and health care workers to perform abortions in violation of their own religious convictions. with this bill democrats in the house and the senate are attempting to take this issue away from the people, away from the states and force their radical abortion agenda on the american people as a whole. now make no mistake, this is their vision for america, fully funded by the abortion industry. it also perpetuates the tragedy of abortion, one that's a scar on our country's history. i hope and pray that state legislatures across the country will follow the example of the state of utah and pass laws to protect the lives of preborn babies and their mothers. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: every year in schools around our country, students are taught about the declaration of independence. this remarkable document outlines the ideals on which the united states was founded and the principles on which our government and our very identity as americans are based. perhaps best known and most quoted from the declaration is that line about all being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. from our earliest days when such a concept truly was revolutionary to the present day as americans we believe in the dignity and value of every human person. this is an ideal that we should always aspire to and in the

spirit of that conviction, i believe that our nation has a moral responsibility to protect unborn children, to protect l life. through amazing advances in science, families and medical professionals now know that at 15 weeks, a baby can feel pain, a baby can move fully formed fingers and toes. a baby has a fallly developed heart pumping 26 quarters of blood pump ago day. despite what these advances in modern science tell us, the current abortion policy in the united states is more in line with communist china and north korea. we are only one of seven countries around the world that allow abortion to take place past the point at which a baby can feel pain in the womb. one of seven countries in the world. some americans might be surprised to learn that even in progressive europe, 47 out of 50

countries have limits on abortion after 15 weeks. yet the legislation before the united states senate would block states from he can prosecuting the unborn -- from protecting the unborn and enshrine late-term abortion into our federal law. going beyond codifying roe v. wade, this sweeping legislation would strike down commonsense, broadly supported laws that many states have adopted since that decision, including laws meant to protect the health and safety of mothers. this bill does nothing to protect the health and safety of women, and it would certainly not protect the unborn. and it would make these sweeping changes contrary to the wishes of the majority of americans. in fact, recent polling found that 61% of americans say abortion should either be

illegal or that the policy decisions associated with abortion should be left up to the states. so i would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, given our increased knowledge and understanding of how babies develop, given our understanding of the science. this is simply the wrong direction to take public policy. i also want to take a moment and acknowledge that the issue of abortion is a very tough one for so many americans. and given recent developments, this is a topic on the minds of many hoosiers and many americans. i understand that. and i want to reiterate my commitment to helping mothers and families choose life and supporting them in that choice. we must ensure mothers and unborn children are cared for, loved, and supported. and this includes increasing the

resources available to help women facing unexpected pregnancies. we must support america's 2,700 pregnancy centers that provide vital services to millions of people each year at virtually no cost as well as provide more support for adoptive services. these steps are vital as we seek to further promote a culture that values and protects life. now, let's remember and live up to that founding american ideal -- we believe in the dignity and value of every human person. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i thank the senator from indiana and join him and my other colleagues in

decrying the legislation that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow. but before i speak on the substance of the bill, it needs to be reiterated why this bill is even before us. the only reason we're debating this bill today is because of an extreme and unprecedented breach of protocol that took place in the supreme court. the leaked draft in the dobbs case was a full-blown assault on the united states supreme court and on the independence of our judiciary. it was an attempt to incite mob pressure against the justices, which has in part succeeded -- by inciting pressure against the justices and an attempt to bullying them into changing their final votes. and i do trust, based on the

information we have about the nine justices, that that attempt will not be successful. we saw over the weekend disturbing videos of protesters outside their homes, outside the homes of supreme court justices. there's growing concern for the safety of our supreme court justices and the safety of their families. this is shameful, mr. president. a supreme court justice should never have to fear for his or her safety or the safety of their families for doing their jobs. we, as elected members of the congress, are subject to public opinion. the supreme court is not supposed to be subject to public opinion and should never have to fear for their safety. the leak and the mob reaction should be condemned by both parties in the strongest

possible terms, and yet there have been very few voices on the other side of the aisle addressing this matter. certainly the majority leader of the senate has not said a word about the outrage of the leak or the mob protests, nor has the president of the united states. what happened to respect and care for our institutions? instead of protecting the court, our democratic friends seem to be, whether inadvertently or not, legitimizing this attack on the court by moving to consider extreme legislation which is out of touch with the mainstream of americans. and so now met me speak briefly -- and so now let me speak briefly about the legislation. it has been said that this is a mere codification of the court's holding in roe v. wade.

that is in fact not the case. instead, the bill that we will be asked to move to the floor tomorrow is an attempt to expand abortion dramatically across this country, to expand abortion in a way that only a small handful of the most repressive governments on the face of the earth permit. the bill would eliminate even the most modest protections for unborn children across our 50 states -- across all 50 states. it would force all 50 states to allow gruesome late-term abortions that even the political left all over europe have long ago outlawed. as my friend from indiana said earlier, some 47 european

countries generally ban abortion after the first 15 weeks. banning abortion after 14 weeks are our allies of france and spain. banning abortion after 13 weeks, finland. banning abortion after 12 weeks, germany, belgium, italy, switzerland, certainly not governments that are thought of as prisoners of the extreme right. the nation of portugal generally bans abortion after ten weeks. of course, as we know, the mississippi law that brought this case to the supreme court, the dobbs case, has a slightly

more permissive provision than even these friends that i just mentioned in western europe. it would be a 15-week ban. but what this bill that we're asked to vote on tomorrow and which certainly will fail would push america further outside of the global mainstream than we already are, and we already are way outside this mainstream. because of scientific advances, we know that an unborn child's heartbeat begins at six weeks. we know a child can feel pain as early as 20 weeks. many of us, including my wife and i, have put the sonograms of our grandchildren, have displayed them on you are a

refrigerators in our -- in our refrigerators in our homes. what we know about the development of children, their faces, their eyelashes, has brought about a change in the minds of many americans. in 1996, 56% of americans called themselves pro-choice. only 33% said they were pro-life. but because of science and because of those sonograms and because of what we know about their ability to feel pain, their movements, their eyes blinking, their eyelashes, today the two sides are just about evenly split -- pro-choice and pro-life. but even those who identify themselves as pro-choice are deeply opposed to late-term abortions. and make no mistake about it, if

somehow the schumer bill tomorrow were to pass, late-term abortions would be legal in all 50 states. 81% of americans think late-term abortions should be illegal. our friends on the democratic side should think about that. this bill goes against 81% of american public opinion in that regard. 65% say abortions should be illegal in the second trimester. not the third trimester, in the second trimester, 65% of americans. i hope our democratic friends across the aisle think about that before they vote for this extreme piece of legislation brought by the democratic leader, which would put us in league with the people's republic of china, with all of their respect for life, with north korea, with its deplorable

record of respecting human life. with those two countries and five others on the extreme left, it would put us in league with them. that's not where the american people want us to be, mr. president. if a state has a 2446 hour waiting period, for example -- has a 24-hour waiting period, for example, the schumer bill would outlaw that. taxpayer funding of abortion, the hyde amendment which prohibits this and has done so for decades and decades, would be abolished. the parental rights of teenage girls to have a say and to be able to counsel their daughters on the pivotal decision about having an abortion would be eliminated by this and religious

exemptions. a practicing catholic who deep in their soul understands this to be infanticide would be required if they're a physician, to perform an abortion with no religious exemption. is that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hoping for? it's what they would get if the schumer bill were to pass. mr. president, this is not a serious attempt at consensus building. this bill simply reflects, regrettably, the iron grip that planned parenthood has on one of our major political parties in this country. we will reject this effort tomorrow. i commend my colleagues who intend to stand with the american people and vote no on this attempt to ranking -- to

rank us with those with the worst records. i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i am on the floor here today to address the same topic as my colleague who just spoke, and before i jump into prepared remarks, i wanted to offer just a few points of rebuttal because on this topic, it seems so frequently that we all talk past each other and don't genuinely listen to one another. the women's health protection

act of 2022, which i lead with senator blumenthal, would indeed codify roe v. wade, but it would additionally give clarity to the states about what further restrictions they could put in place. i hail from the state of wisconsin, where our state legislature over many, many years has brought forth all sorts of measures, some of which have been signed into law, many of which have been challenged in court, some of which have been vetoed, but these are restrictions on access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, that limit access, that

make it much more difficult, which is what roe v. wade intended to prevent. and they have nothing to do with the health or the life of the mother. in fact, in some cases they actually do harm to maternal life and health. there are measures in places across the united states that deal with the corridor width of clinics. the corridor width. it would force -- if these laws went into effect -- many clinics to have to either reconstruct themselves or move. this is something clearly meant to limit access. there are laws and bills that relate to admitting privileges at local hospitals which are absolutely not medically

necessary and will allow all the area hospitals to team up to deny those privileges and then the clinic won't have a physician able to work there. there are 24-hour waiting periods. i listened to what my colleague had to say about a blanket overturning of roe v. wade, and it would mean that when a woman's life was in jeopardy at some point into her pregnancy, she wouldn't have the ability to save her life and her reproductive health because she wouldn't have access to abortion

care. and to characterize this bill as extreme, in my mind, is so opposite the truth. because to me what is extreme is forcing, say, a teen to bring a rapist child to term, or forcing a young woman to give birth to her sibling in cases of incest. my colleague talked about the polls. i don't know what he was looking at. he was talking about pro-choice versus anti-choice. everything i've seen showed that the overwhelming majority of americans believe that roe v. wade is settled law and should remain in place, and only a small percentage believe it should be overturned in its

entirety. on to my prepared remarks, mr. president, i rise today to join my colleagues, senator richard blumenthal, in support of women's health protection act of 2022, a bill that would protect a woman's right to access safe abortion care throughout the united states, no matter where she lives, without unnecessary and unwanted political interference. congress is responsible for enforcing every american's fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. throughout history, when states have passed laws that make it harder or even impossible to exercise those rights, congress has taken action to put in place federal protections. i want to remind my colleagues of this responsibility, and i

also want to share a story from one of my constituents. angela and her wife abbey knew they wanted to start a family, so they sought treatment at a fertility clinic in wisconsin. in 2019, after years of trying, angela became pregnant. it was a pregnancy they had wanted more than anything. but angela soon found out that she had what is called a molar pregnancy. this occurs when a tumor forms instead of a healthy placenta. her pregnancy was not viable. her doctors moved quickly, and angela had a safe and legal abortion. she wrote to me earlier this week, and i quote, had abortion been illegal, i would

have died. access to a safe abortion saved angela's life. for others, an abortion kept a family out of poverty or allowed them to complete their education or start a career. abortions have protected women from being tied to their rapists and spared them of the emotional and physical trauma of carrying an unviable pregnancy to term. i was only ten years old when roe v. wade was decided. for 50 years just about, this decision has stood. in the words of justice kavanaugh, it is, quote, settled as a precedent of the supreme court. but apparently precedent means nothing. access to safe and legal abortion is under direct attack as an activist supreme court appears poised to legislate from

the bench and take a constitutionally protected right away from tens of millions of americans. for women like angela, the gravity of this draft decision from the supreme court cannot be overstated. americans can remember when back alley abortions killed and sterilized women across the country. this decision, if finalized -- this decision if finalized, will not stop abortions from happening. it will only prevent safe abortions from happening, and it will disproportionately impact poor women and women of color who will not have the privilege of making their own health care decisions. if roe is overturned, 13 states would immediately ban abortions

and oarts of course would move -- and others of course would move to do so. if roe is overturned and we don't pass the women's health protection act, wisconsin women will be taken back into the mid1800's. what do i mean by that? we have a law on our books in wisconsin which criminalizes the abortion procedure. if roe is overturned, doctors in wisconsin would be charged with felonies for performing abortions and face up to six years in prison and $10,000 in fines. the rights of victims of rape and incest would be taken away. the right for women to choose for themselves and their families would be taken away. i sure am not taking women in wisconsin back to 1849, and we not allow an activist supreme

court to leave this generation of women behind with fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers enjoyed. the women's health protection act is the only bill that can put an end to the restrictive state laws that have already put thousands of women in jeopardy. the legislation meets the urgent need to protect the provider-patient relationship, protect the health care professionals who provide care, and protect the freedom and constitutional rights of women to access this care. i believe a woman's right to choose is protected under the constitution, and so do the clear majority of americans who want roe v. wade to be upheld. it is our responsibility to take action for women like angela and

on behalf of the american people, and i urge my colleagues to h vote yes on the motion to proceed to the women's health protection act of 2022. and with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i ask unanimous consent that melanie tam and sarah in my office, fellows be admitted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection,so ordered. ms. smith: thank you. and thank you, senator baldwin, for your thoughtful remarks. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to join us in standing up for fundamental rights to freedom, autonomy, and self-determination.

make no mistake, that is what this vote is about. who has the power, who has the freedom to decide when your own health, livelihood, and life are on the line. there is nothing more american than the value of freedom and individual autonomy. and yet, the united states supreme court is about to declare that women in this country are not guaranteed the freedom to make their own private decisions about abortion. justice alito, mitch mcconnell, and senate republicans, and radical republicans in state legislatures around the country believe that they should have the power, that they know better than american women whose lives and stories they will never know. to that i say, how dare they. when i worked at planned parenthood, i saw firsthand the capacity of women to make good decisions about their health, their body, and their lives. to suggest otherwise is insulting to the dignity of women as full adult human beings

and as equal citizens in this nation. but that's where we are. justice alito's draft opinion is a wake-up call and a call to action. reading his opinion was like a gut punch, but it is not a surprise, and it didn't just happen. this is the result of a decades-long campaign by republicans and their dark money donors to put anti-choice justices on the supreme court, to overturn roe, and to strip women of their constitutional rights. and this is why this vote is so important, mr. president. for the first time in my living memory, the supreme court is about to take away a fundamental constitutional right, and it is important that americans see who is on their side and who is responsible for this. extremist republicans have been working for this goal for decades, and yet now that this moment is almost here, they keep trying to change the subject. in fact, they want to talk about anything but, including

when they spread misleading information about what the women's health protection act would really do, which is to put the protections of roe into statute. so why are republicans running from this issue after having campaigned on it for years? well, because americans don't want to overturn roe, and anti-choice republicans, they know this. they know that they're on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of public opinion, and over half the american electorate. and that is why this vote is so important. we will not let them dodge their responsibility for this outrageous attack on women's freedom. now, some republicans are saying that this all a bit of a tempest and a teapot, and they say don't worry, all the supreme court is about to do is to hand power back for the states to decide on abortion. so, colleagues, do not believe this. the american people deserve to know where this goes next. today we are fighting on the senate floor to preserve in law

the basic protections of roe v. wade, but extremist republicans, they have been clear. their end goal is to secure a nationwide ban on abortion, as senator mcconnell said this weekend, it's not a secret that senate -- where the senate republican caucus are, they are opposed to reproductive rights. and if senate republicans win the majority, a nationwide ban is, quote, worthy of debate. that is the post-roe future if republicans are in charge. now even though a majority of americans in all states believe that abortion should be legal, republicans have been clear that a nationwide ban, that's their goal. and at the same time republican state legislatures are brazenly moving forward. they're moving forward extremist policies that go way beyond depriving women of their essential freedoms. they punish and criminalize women. take, for example, a missouri mother of two facing a high-risk pregnancy who travels to

illinois for an abortion because she is worried about being there for her existing children. missouri republicans want her to be labeled as a felon when she returns home. or take a woman in louisiana who has an abortion after her i.u.d. failed and she had an unexpected pregnancy. louisiana republicans want her convicted of homicide. or take the texas woman who hoped and prayed for years for a baby only to have her doctor find a fatal fetal anomaly at 22 weeks, texas republicans want her to carry that for another 18 weeks no matter the risk to her life or the trauma she faces when people congratulate her with when she knows she will never know that child. how dare republicans think they know better than the women who live these stories. this is the post-roe world that

republicans want and we won't stand for it. and if you think this struggle doesn't affect you or someone you care about, think again. one in four american women will have abortions, women who are democrat, republicans, independents, women from all places and all religious faiths. for these women, abortion isn't about politics, it's about health care. most of them never expected to be part of this statistic, but life doesn't always go as we plan and every day women deal with situations they never imagined and they deserve the freedom and the autonomy to decide for themselves what to do and what is best for them. with this vote to pass the women's health protection act, we are showing who we stand with and what we believe, the fundamental freedom of people to make the best decisions for their health, their families and their future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for the following senators to be permitted to speak prior to the vote, myself, senator toomey for five minutes and senator brown for five minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i'm not sure i will use all 20 minutes, but you never know. on a subject this important and vital to women and families across america, it may take more than a few minutes to talk about this issue. and that is that 70% of americans believe we should not overturn roe v. wade or a woman's right to her own reproductive choice. this is so critical that 70% of americans are in agreement. this was part of a pew research report. 25% don't agree and about 5% don't know what they think. because this is not about settled law or mainstream views in america, it's wrong. it's about almost 50 years of settled law and it is what mainstream americans believe are their constitutional rights. and that is why it is so

important for us to listen to those americans and their long-held beliefs, starting with the laws that we got from england and baked into our constitution, the right to privacy. yes, people are right, the word privacy isn't mentioned. but it is in various amendments believed to be rights within the constitution, but we have a supreme court made up of men and ivy league institutions, who now made a decision and we don't know exactly where it came from that a woman's right to her own reproductive choice somehow doesn't allow starries decides

is -- stare decisis and somehow isn't in the constitution. if you have a supreme court who's going to take a run and run from privacy in the constitution, as this decision does -- as this decision does, it barely mentions the case law predicated that made decisions about a woman's right to privacy based on those issues. it's barely mentioned. now, i'm sure it's because those justices decided if they had to agree that privacy was really there as a right, which we, as americans, believe it is against the government unwarranted search and seizure on you, the government spying on you, the government taking action against you that has not been followed in law. you know, i spent two years on the judiciary committee and i really couldn't believe this. somebody told me -- actually a

conservative judge passed this information on. if you ask them whether they believe in roe v. wade or settled law, they'll tell you, oh, yeah, it's been there. but if you ask them whether they believe in the rights to privacy enumerated in the constitution and the number of rights that give us this right that casey versus planned parenthood was decided on, a true, true conservative that wasn't going to uphold the law will tell you they didn't believe in that. so that's the ka fund -- he coud fund in rum, we had a bunch of people who came here and hood winked the senate and said i think stare decisis is very important yet the same people are about to put their name on a document that says we don't think there's any strongholding here. we don't think there's any

strong case. well, there is a case. there is a case for privacy. i remember my first days on the judiciary committee when john ashcroft, then attorney general, tried to come before the committee and make light of the fact that the government was spying on americans. and when i said to him, mr. ashcroft, this is a serious issue of the f.b.i. and others using software technology to spy into the lives of americans, he said, you remind me of a joke. i couldn't believe it. i remind him of a joke? and he went on to tell this story about how a little boy sat on santa claus' lap and said, i know whether you've been bad or good and he says, oh, you're not santa claus, you're john ashcroft. he thought this was hi layerus and i -- hilarious and i reminded him not everybody in america was laughing and here we

are some 20 years later on the rights to privacy we have in the united states and how we have to fight every day for those rights to privacy. i know the presiding officer knows this because he's joined me on this issue particularly as it relates to children's online privacy issues and so many issues that this body is going to have to decide on. americans know that this is a mainstream settled issue and now are shocked to find that somehow somebody is proposing something to overturn it. i'm not sure people understand. "just had a conversation with somebody who said oh, you mean they're going to give some rights to men in determining the pregnancy and some rights for women? i said no. they're talking about making abortion illegal. they're talking about passing a law that takes the reproductive

rights and choices of women and turn them back into the dark ages. this person got it right away. they said who do you want caring for women, someone in a back alley or a trained health care professional? that's really what we're talking about here. american health care technology has come to the point that women who do not want an unwanted pregnancy can have the choice of a morning after pill. lots of different ways for them to deal with planned and unplanned pregnancies. and yet this institution wants to tell them by this supreme court that they don't have a privacy right, that it doesn't exist, that connecticut versus griswold, if you think about it, mr. president, it was about conception. it was really about whether women at the time had the right to have contraception and

planned pregnancies. i know the presiding officer knows about all this time period because we both come from big families. so we know all about big families. and all of a sudden in that decision in connecticut v. griswold, the right to privacy was determined to say that women had the right to control their bodies and have contraception. the fact that this is not the basis of upholding the law after almost 50 years, i can't even explain how unbelievable that somebody would not fully discuss and cite and if they don't believe in the penumbra by i'm guessing they don't want to discuss the penumbra of rights because they know darn well we live in an age and time which

privacy needs utmost protection and individuals need, people like us, to be voting for things that are going to protect individuals' rights and privacy in the era of big government, of big corporations, of undue intrusions and, yes, even on your own health care. we need a protection. so we're now here talking, though, about overturning these rights that affect the health care lives of women. we're not talking about the health care of men. we're not sitting here -- i can't tell you how many times in the last 15 years that i've been here that every budget decision, every major almost going over the fiscal cliff when john boehner was the speaker. oh, if we didn't have a vote to get rid of a woman's right to choose, every budget issue down to the last wire is always about whether you're going to get rid of a woman's right to choose. it's been the fight of the other

side of the aisle all along to try to say they are going to control women's bodies and women's health care choices. so we know that you're not going to get rid of abortions if you pass this law. you're not going to get rid of them. when we passed connecticut v. griswold and casey, that is when we basically went down the road of not making -- making sure that women weren't killed in back-alley abortions. so we actually saved lives of women and we started getting people to take care of planned pregnancies and make progress of having people on contraception. so we're not going to get rid of abortions by listening to the supreme court or passing something. they will happen. it will go back to any

back-alley approach or other issues to try to deal with it. so i ask my colleagues what are you thinking when you are advocating for a return to pre-roe? what exactly do you think is going to happen in the united states of america. i can tell you you're going to leave women without the ability to control their own bodies, without the ability for they and their doctor to make decisions. so many of these issues are about that woman and her doctor making a dec decision. it's not, you know -- we make laws to deal with the parameters and the exception to the rule. this is a process by which we have laid out what we think is reproductive health care choice

and then directed people to deal with their physician on these issues. but the other side would like to take these issues into the extreme and say that women have gone too far on their own health care choices, and i guarantee you there's many times where it is a decision between the life of the mother and the life of a child. and we really want government making that decision or do we want the physician and the individual woman making that decision? so i ask my colleagues do you believe the right of privacy exists within the constitution or are you like the supreme court? you don't want to base -- you don't believe in the decisions of previous supreme court justices. you don't think they have solid standing because you don't believe that privacy is a

long-held view of the united states? i guarantee you it is fundamental to who we are as a country, and it is fundamental to who we are today and why individual women should have that right and have that protection. but people aren't even thinking about the broader impacts. secretary yellen testified today, quote, eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades enabling many roe v. wade -- enable many women to finish school and increase their earning potential, end quote. no one's even talked about exactly how this would work. i'm confused about how it would work in state by state. i'll also tell you this supreme court really -- i don't even

know what to say about it except for when i interviewed one of the supreme court justices who i'm pretty sure is making this decision, i said this is very important to the state of washington because the people of the state of washington have voted to make roe v. wade the law of our state. and he said, oh, senator, senator, you're mistaken. i said i'm mistaken about my state, about what happened? he said you mean your legislature voted. i said no, sir, the people in my state voted by initiative in the 1990's to codify these rights into our state law because that is what the people of my state believe. so the arrogance of this court you can see continues, not to

listen to the views of 70% of americans. now, i believe that you should be able to ask justices what their judicial opinion and philosophy is. they should tell you. if these justices did not believe that this was the law of the land and should be upheld, if they didn't believe in these rights of privacy, they should have told everybody clearly, but it is hardly in the mainstream view of americans. so tomorrow we'll have a chance to say whether we believe in these privacy rights, whether we believe in a woman's reproductive choices, whether we believe that 50 years, just about 50 years and 70% of the american people are worth listening to. i would listen and pass this legislation tomorrow because i guarantee you if it's not just

this privacy right, why are you going to trust them on any other privacy decision in the future if they're not going to be fighting to uphold your privacy rights on women's reproductive health? i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise today to speak on the nomination of professor lisa cook to serve as a governor of the federal reserve board. two weeks ago senate democrats tried to cancel the vote that was scheduled on professor cook's nomination.

in the floor remarks the chairman of the banking committee stated that senate republicans have been, quote, awol in the fight against inflation for months, end quote. the irony of that, of course, is that it was democrats who wanted to cancel the vote. republicans were ready to vote. and not just on professor cook, mind you. we wanted to vote on the other fed nominees as well. so i objected to canceling the vote because we were ready to vote and we wanted to vote. so the vote took place. professor cook's nomination failed that day on a procedural vote by a margin of 47 to 51. then immediately after that, i asked consent to vote on the two remaining fed nominees that have been processed in the committee but haven't been voted on, those would be chairman jerome powell who has been nominated to be chairman again, and professor

phillip jefferson who both could have been confirmed to the fed that day as they could have been confirmed months ago, but the democrats objected to us having a vote a couple of weeks ago. it's really pretty amazing. so let me be clear for the record. the democrats hold the majority. democrats control the schedule on the senate floor. and our democratic colleagues have tied up for months the nominations of multiple nominees, including two, two fed nominees who have either unanimous or very nearly unanimous support, that is jer home powell and philip jefferson. if confirming nominees is so important in the flate against inflation -- inflation -- makes you wonder about holding votes and not involving votes when republicans are trying to confirm nominees. i have a theory, mr. president, as to why this is.

and i think it's because our democratic colleagues know that professor cook is simply unqualified to serve as a governor of the federal reserve board. and they don't want to leave her stranded as the final fed nominee after all the other nominees get confirmed. so they're holding the nominations of chairman powell and professor jefferson hostage in order to push through their preferred candidate, their top priority. i want to address the specific point that the chairman has made in the past because he's made this several times. he suggested that somehow republicans oppose professor cook's nomination because she's a black woman. let me be as clear as i can. that is a very offensive charge to make. it's actually outrageous. it's also blatantly and demonstrably false. this congress alone a little over one year, banking

republicans have unanimously supported eight black nominees, six of whom were women. cecelia rouse, the first black woman to serve as chair of the c.e.a., muriel fernandez, adrian todman, alana mccargo, ms. gibson, the first to serve as director of the u.s. mint. republican banking committee members voted unanimously in favor of confirming each of those, six black women. but we still hear their absurd and outrageous charge. philip jefferson if our democratic colleagues ever allow us to have a vote on him will be the fourth black man to serve as a fed governor. he was voted out of the committee 24-0. let me just be very clear. banking committee republicans

didn't support these nominees because of the color of their skin. that's not the criteria by which we evaluate candidates. we supported them because each of them was qualified for the roles to which they were nominated. frankly that ought to be the criteria for nominating any candidate including professor cook. let me tell you some of the arguments regarding professor cook's qualifications. my colleagues like to point to her educational attainments as evidence of her qualifications. she was a marshall scholar, attended oxford and earned a ph.d. in economics from u.c. berkley. there is no question these are impressive credentials, but they do not by themselves qualify her or anyone else for that matter

to serve as the governor of the fed, especially a the a time when we -- especially at a time when we need a fed that is able to tackle 30-year inflation that is devastating american families every selling day now, our democratic colleagues have proclaimed that professor cook is and i quote, a leading economist, end quote, with years of experience with monetary policy, banking and financial crises. but those claims are simply untrue. first of all, 75% of professor cook's assignment at michigan state, including her tenure, is in the international relations department. it's not even in economics. second, her experience in monetary policy is literally nonexistent, not a single one of her publications concerns monetary economics. when asked to highlight for the banking committee her top works on monetary policy, she provided one -- a book chapter on nigerian bank reforms published

11 years ago. according to the white house, her main qualification on monetary policy is her service as a member of the chicago fed's board of directors. she joined the chicago fed's board two weeks before president biden nominated her to serve as the fed governor. third, her experience handling financial crisis has basically been limited to writing ago cursory overview of the eurozone crisis and working in africa over 20erings i do not. -- 20 years ago. now, mr. president, you don't need to be a trained economist to serve on the fed board necessarily, but if you're going to serve on the feet board, you do need to have some views on monetary policy. you'd think that would be especially the case for someone who is an economist. giften professor cook's glaring

lack of experience in monetary policy, it's perhaps not surprising that proffer cook hasn't -- professor cook honduran able to articulate any opinion at all on how the fed should tackle inflation. throughout the nomination process, she repeatedly refused to endorse the fed decision, to to pull back its you will trillion easy money policy. she also refused to suggest any alternative policy. and only on the actual day while at her hearing did she finally begrudgingly say that she agreed with the fed's path right now as we're speaking. professor cook's answers to very basic questions about what the fed shooed do to tame inflation, to paraphrase the late justice scalia, amount to nothing more than logical applesauce. professor cook has continued to insist that she would need to be confirmed to the fed board before she can have a view on inflation, because in her words,

quote, we don't have access to all the data that the fed harks end quote. and she also said, and i quote, wees don't have access to the deliberations at the time they're being made, end quote. now, these things are just bewildering for someone who's been nominated to address the most pressing inflationary threat in nearly two generations. and let's be clear. the fed what is -- the fed has no secret data. monetary policy including the recent increase in the money supply is extremely is transparent. anyone who wants to know has all the data available to him or herself. just about every economist in the country right now has an opinion about inflation. every remember nominee to the -- every other nominee to the fed has an opinion about inflation, including what to do about it. and since we know very little about her views on inflation, my

grave concern is that professor cook will serve as an inflation dove on the fed at a time when american families continue to be ravaged by these continued price increases. bloomberg wrote, asked if she would endorse the current rates trajectory, she did not provide a straight answer but said she would look at data once the decision point arrives, end quote. another quote from her analysis, when asked how she would get inflation under control, she answered, by eliminating the risk of financial crises, end quoted. mr. president, the american people deserve better than this. they deserve a serious nominee who understands monetary economics, has a firm grasp on how to combat inflation and restore stable prices, and will serve without a political agenda. so if lisa cook doesn't have any

expertise in monetary policy, then why would democrats want her on the fed board? well, that brings me to my second point. professor's cook's history of extreme left-wing political advocacy which i think make her unfit to serve on the fed. it's exceptionally toern to keep politics out of monetary policy. but, unfortunately, we have seen the encroachment of politics at the historically independent federal reserve. there are people on the left, including in the biden administration, who openly advocate that the fed use its supervisory powers to resolve complex political issues like what to do about global warming and social justice, even education policy. mr. president, these are all very important issues, but they are wholly unrelated to the fed's limited statute h. statutory mandates and expertise. professor cook's record indicates that she's likely to inject further political bias into the fed's work at a time

when we need the fed to be focused on fighting inflation. in her statements, her tweets, retweets, professor cook has supported race-based reparations, promoted conspiracies about georgia voter laws and sought to cancel those who disagree with her, with her views. she specifically and publicly called for the firing of an economist and colleague who dared to tweet he was opposed to the idea of defunding the chicago police. the fact is the fed is already suffering from a credibility problem because of its involvement in politics and it's departure from its at that time editorial prescribed role and its failure to keep inflation under control. i'm concerned that professor cook will further politicize an institution that really needs to get back to being apolitical. i urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of lisa being school system -- of lisa cook. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio.

mr. brown: i ask that the missile of floor be granted to my three staff members. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i kind of heard it all today. i'm not going to engage with the ranking member when he calls her unqualified. we know this is about a history of this committee's republicans voting against very qualified african american women. we've won that debate. we've won it with the american people. and i was just handed, because i remember this, i remember hundreds, literally hundreds of prominent people in the economics field and outside the economics field that supported lisa cook, that wrote letters. we got more letters i believe in support of lisa cook than any nominee for the fed. the ranking member has voted for some pretty unqualified people and that he would decide this is one he's voting against is kind of sad. let me give you some examples.

35 marshal and truman scholars are supporting her. the national bankers association. ben bernanke, a bush nominee, who was chair of the fed reserve, all kinds of organizations, some political, some not political, many of them bank-based. i will send these to the ranking member so he can get a look at them. i know he's seen them before. but they seem to have slipped his mind. she teaches at michigan state, the presiding officer's proud institution. she would be an historic confirmation to the board of governors. we know that. she understands how economic policy affects all kinds of different people in different parts of the country, from the as you recall south where she grew up, to the industrial midwest where she built a career. one of the things i like about her, the federal reserve -- i understand that economic conservatives in this body -- and i think the ranking member would proudly define himself

that way, i admire his courage in voting for the removal of president trump, so i admire his courage. i just think he is wrong on these kinds of nominees. but i just -- i look at her and i see how -- what i like -- one of the things i like about her is the fed for years has just practiced this top-down economic policy. the people who sit on the fed, they almost all look like me historically. in fact, lisa cook will be the first black woman in 109 years ever to sit on the fed. seven members on the fed at any one time and the terms are -- usually they say five to ten years. you can see how many people are cycling up. but they almost all believe in the trickle-down economics. that you give tax cuts to riff people, it will trickle down. lisa cook is different. she doesn't come from the coast. she comes from what some people on the coast would call flyover country, michigan or ohio, mr. president. she grew up in a small town in

georgia. she went to college at spelman, one of the best colleges in the country. she was a marshal and truman scholar in engelland. she got her ph.d. at berkeley. now she is teaching at michigan state. that tells me she has a sense of this country. he criticized her because of her emphasis on international relations. i like it that we have somebody at the fed that not only knows the country, knows the industrial midwest, michigan or ohio -- sort of the same in some ways -- i like it that she's studying the midwest, i like it that she spent some overseas instead of the cookie cutter people we always get on the federal reserve, some very important, speaks very seriously, but they don't know real people. lisa cook knows real people. she has years of research in international experience and monetary policy, banking, financial crises. she served as an economist under

administrations of both policies. all kinds of people have endorsed her. more letters supporting her than any fed nom that i remember in front of this banking committee. i have been on the banking committee for the a decade and a half. she's demonstrated her commitment to fed independence, the importance of making decisions based on fact. she agrees with chairman powell that the most important task is to tackle inflation. she supports american families, businesses and our economy. those are her words. take a moment again -- let me go back to why this is historical. first black woman in 109 years to serve on the fed reserve. think about that. think about the first black woman in 0109 years. this country is 12% black. we have had dozens and dozens and dozens of fed noms, yet we're going to need -- probably need the vice president to come in here and cast the tiebreaking vote because every single republican -- everybody on this

side of the aisle sitting behind every one of these desks is getting against the first african american woman ever on the federal reserve, as spelman college, truman collar, marshal scholar, ph.d. at berkeley, tenure at one of earthquake in's great universities, michigan state university. and they say she's not qualified? and judy shelton was? really? she knows workers. she, like this breadth, understands you focus on workers. you put workers at the center of our economy. that's the kind of fed governor she's going to be. she understands when everyone participates in our country, it grows faster and stronger for all americans. mr. president, we need her on the job today. i would add the other senator from michigan, a senator has a. been a strong p, strong supporter of professor cook's, i join my two colleagues from michigan and everybody on this side of the aisle to support

lisa cook for the federal reserve. the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. mr. durbin: madam president.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, pursuant to senate resolution 27, the judiciary committee being tied on the question of reporting, i have to discharge the judiciary committee from further consideration of the nomination of charlotte n. sweeney of colorado to be u.s. district judge for the district of colorado. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. under the provisions of senate resolution 27, there will now be up to four hours of debate on the motion equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with no motions, points of order, or amendments in order. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to discharge the sweeney nomination occur at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday, may 11, and that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the senate ripen following disposition of the motion to discharge. further that if cloture is invoked on the bedoya nomination, all postcloture time be considered expired at

2:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 552. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 552 designating march 2022 as irish american heritage month and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the murphy amendment at the desk to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 594. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 594, honoring the lives of fallen

missouri police officers and expressing condolences to their families. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 627 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 627 designating may 6, 2022, as united states foreign service day, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all opposed no, the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 628 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 628 designating may 21, 2022, as kids to parks day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent 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. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i rise to express the urgent need to pass the women's health protection act and put an end to the constant attacks that have chipped away at women's constitutional rights in this country. now more than ever it is vital to codify reproductive rights and protect other hard-won civil

rights as they face renewed threats. last week "politico" published supreme court associate justice alito's draft opinion in dobbs v. jackson women's health organization, which while not final, would strike down roe v. wade. this would have an immediate and devastating consequence for the health and well-being of tens of millions of women of reproductive age across the nation. women in low-income families who cannot overcome the financial and logical barriers to travel to states with abortion access will suffer the most, increasing existing health disparities. while this draft opinion is a reminder of what is at stake, we have seen the erosion of reproductive rights for decades. despite the clear constitutional rights the supreme court established almost 50 years ago in the landmark roe v. wade decision, each year legislatures across the country

have passed harmful abortion restrictions in an effort to impede a woman's fundamental right to make the best-informed health care decisions for herself and her family. this goes against what i believe to be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the court which is to expand rights, not restrict it. implementing the bill of rights, we've seen the federal courts, over a period of time, protect americans against the abuse of power, including the abuse of power in excess of government. should this opinion go into effect, this will be the first time in memory that the court would act to take away the constitutional rights of americans. it would also be the first time in our country's history when women now would have fewer rights than their mothers. the reasoning used in this draft decision could also be used to undermine other dearly held civil rights in the future. justice alito's leaked draft

opinion laid out a road map to overturn other landmark decisions that expanded rights, including obergefell versus hodges which affirmed marriage equality. justices gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett testified under oath with the judiciary committee, that supreme courts should stand a bedrock principle known as stare decisis, when you they -- but they clearly arrived with the agenda to overturn roe. former president trump bears responsibility for damaging our confirmation process in the public -- and the public faith of the supreme court as an impartial arbiter of our nation's laws. senate republicans deliberately stole the seat that president

obama elected merrick garland to fill. senate republicans then turned around and rushed the confirmation of justice amy barrett after the death of ruth bader ginsburg even though voting began in the 2021 elections. a recent poll of "the washington post" and abs showed that -- abc showed that 70% of americans say that the supreme court should uphold roe. now more than ever it's essential for the senate to pass the women's health protection act. the legislation would protect the right to abortion, free from medically unnecessary restrictions, and create a

statutory right for providers to provide and patients to receive care. this would codify roe v. wade and prevent states from continuing to enact restrictions on reproductive freedoms. despite the opinion just being a draft and abortion still being a constitutional right, states are already seizing on the momentum of this draft opinion and moving to limit women's constitutional rights. since the leak of this draft opinion, legislatures around the country are rushing to criminalize abortion. just last week a louisiana legislature would classify abortion as homicide. half of our states have already passed laws to restrict and ban abortion access. there are more than -- set to take effect if the supreme court strikes down roe v. wade.

the republican leader mr. mcconnell stated, and i quote, if the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies not only at the state level but at the federal level certainly could legitimate in that area. end quote. thanks to five unelected active justices on the supreme court, women are facing the prospect of a federal nationwide ban on abortion services. we go back to those days where abortions were performed illegally in back alleys. we can't let that happen in this country. while many states, including my state of maryland, have acted to extend abortion care, we cannot rely on a patchwork of state laws to protect a basic constitutional right. the right to choose is fundamental and a decision a woman should make in consultation with a doctor and other health care providers free from interference with federal,

state, or local government. i urge president biden and the department of health and human services and department of state to act safely to safeguard the rights of americans. there is no denying this is a bleak moment. we know this has been an ongoing struggle with previous setbacks. we saw this just a few months ago, the antichoice pro vigilante law which will give fines for what is still a constitutionally protected medical care for women. we cannot wait longer. we need to do what we can to ensure access to reproductive sses now. i ask my colleagues to pass the women's reproducing act and --

reproduction act. regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's vote or the supreme court's final decision, i will continue to do everything within my power to ensure that women can have access to the care that they need. madam president, i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: madam president, i also rise to speak about the need to pass the women's health protection act. the senator from maryland outlined a very strong argument as to why this fundamental protection, this fundamental right needs to be protected. we know right now we may see the supreme court come out with a decision to basically end roe v. wade and in the process end a fundamental right that women in this country have had available to them for 50 years.

you know, we can hear all the arguments, and my colleagues will present an awful lot of arguments tonight and tomorrow as to why we need to pass this act, but for me this is personal. a personal experience that i have had, and it's an experience that,unfortunately many, many families had. in fact as i shared this story, i've been overwhelmed by people reaching out to me and saying they too had a similar story and how he me talking -- and how me talking about it brought out the -- their willingness to share the experience as well. and in addition to that, they understand how important it is that we protect roe v. wade and we protect the right for women to make critical decisions for themselves, along with their doctor, and not have politics interfere with those decisions. so my story involves my first wife. when we were -- she was pregnant

with a child that we very much wanted, looking forward to have a second child. and in the fourth month, toward the end of the fourth month, her water broke. clearly a very dangerous situation. she went to go see her physician. her physician examined her and said with this water breaking, the amniotic fluid left the uterus, there's no way the baby can survive in this situation. they examined her, there was a very faint heartbeat. he said there is a faint heartbeat, but there is no way this baby will survive. you will have a miscarriage. go home tonight, you will have a miscarriage and come in and see me tomorrow. you can imagine the anguish, the horrible evening and the -- the

despair that she was in and i was in. it was a long, long night. the next morning nothing happened. she went back to the physician. we went back to the physician. he examined her again and said, i'm really surprised. i don't know why you didn't miscarry because it's clear that there's no way this baby can survive in this situation. the amniotic fluid is gone, the cushion is gone. he said i don't think i can do anything because there's still a faint heartbeat here. i don't know why. go home tonight. i think tonight will be the night you have a miscarriage. we went back again. it didn't happen. another horrible night -- horrible. the mental health anguish is intense and families who have gone through this know exactly what i'm talking about. we went the next day.

again, he examined her. he said i can't understand this, but this is going on, i'm really worried there is going to be an infection. there isn't the protection there. you could go into septic shock and your health is definitely in danger, the baby can't survive without the amniotic fluid, the baby could lose his limbs. i will say, that even though there is a heartbeat, we have to do a d.n.c. abortion to protect your health and your life if we don't take care of this. i'll go to the hospital, go home and i'll call you and let you know when i can bring you in. he called and i will never forget the voice mail. he said, i'm sorry to say this, i went to the hospital board and explained the medical necessity and what you're going through

and how we need to take care of this because it could clearly be a serious situation if you go into septic shock. and the board said, no, as long as there is a heartbeat, you can't perform this procedure. and then he said, he goes, there is no reason for this decision from the hospital board. it is not based on sound medicine or medical practice or what is best for your health, this is based on politics, plain and simple, this is politics. he goes, i'm ashamed that this happened and i'm embarrassed i have to call you and tell you i can't do it because the hospital will not grant me privileges to do it. he said my advice to you is find a doctor now, immediately, that can take care of this procedure. well, you can imagine how scary that is, how frightening that is and what we're going through. who do we call in that situation? we were fortunate in the fact that we had a friend, a hospital

administrator at another hospital and he got us in to see the gynecologist, ob obgyn. and he examined her. he said i have to do the procedure now. this is incredibly dangerous. we have to do the d and c abortion. if we don't do this quickly, you will lose your uterus and if we don't do it quickly, you could lose your life with an infection that could occur here. so he immediately germd the procedure. think -- performed the procedure. think of that. one, if we didn't have the opportunity to see another doctor who was able to perform and understand the severity of it. my wife could have lost her

uterus, had severe health impacts and could have lost her life. it rang in my head about this is about politics and this is not about caring for someone's life. it was about politics. and that is why we have to protect roe v. wade. we have to protect the right for women to control their bodies, to control their reproductive health. it cannot be a decision made by politicians here in this body or other places. and this is a real situation that families face, as i mentioned, the outpouring of folks that have come to me facing similar situations. michigan has a law on the books that was written in 1931 that says all abortion is prohibited in our state. it doesn't matter whether or not it involves the health of the

mother, it doesn't matter if it's the life of the mother or if the woman is the victim of rape or incest, it is not allowed. it is unconscionable. it is a real life situation that could happen if the court goes forward and reverses roe v. wade. situations like what my former wife went through and families all across america will not be able to have that kind of option. you think about the no exception for rape or incest that you will have a 17-year-old girl in michigan who was raped. she will have no options. i know a majority of people in the united states believe that is unacceptable. i know a majority of people in the united states believe that women have the right to make these most personal, these most intimate decisions themselves with the advice of their physician and whoever else that they want to consult.

this is not about politics. this is not about the opinions of folks who think that they know better. let's preserve the right of women to do what they think is best. that's why we have to pass the women's health protection act, and why i would urge all my colleagues to search their heart and listen to the stories that people will tell them, and understand that the right thing to do is to protect reproductive freedoms and rights in america. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: madam president, first, i want to thank my friend and colleague, the senator from michigan, for coming to the floor to share his own powerful and personal story and the stories of his constituents about why so many of us are here on the senate floor this evening. and it's because eight days ago our country received a terrible wake-up call, a leaked draft opinion from the supreme court of the united states indicated that a majority of five justices may be on the verge of overturning the constitutional protections of reproductive freedom set forth in roe v. wade we don't know if this draft opinion will be the final decision, but we do know there's a very high chance that the supreme court of the united

states will soon blow up 50 years of precedent and strip women of their constitutional right to make choices about their own bodies. and their own self-determination. and while the content of this opinion is shocking, it's not totally surprising. this is the premeditated outcome of years -- years -- of plotting and planning by the right wing legal movement and the republican party. candidate donald trump promised the nation he would handpick justices who would overturn roe v. wade. on the campaign trail, he even claimed that roe would be overturned, quote, immediately, once he assumed office, and he stated on national television that women who receive abortions should be punished.

leader mcconnell and senate republicans made up their own rules and then broke their own rules in order to play their part in this scheme. first senate republicans refused to even hold a hearing on president obama's supreme court nominee, merrick garland. on the grounds that it was a presidential election year. four years later, senate republicans rushed through one of president trump's own supreme court nominees just weeks before the 2020 election. and in between, senate republicans carved out an exception to the senate filibuster rule so they could push through all three of trump's antichoice supreme court picks -- neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. each of these nominees raised their right hand before the

senate judiciary committee and swore under oath that they respected the weight of judicial precedent. in fact, when brett kavanaugh was asked about roe v. wade, he pointed to plan parenthood v. casey which affirmed the court holding in roe establishing a constitutional right to abortion, and he called the decision in casey precedent on precedent. a double precedent. but, madam president, let's be very clear, this draft opinion has no respect for judicial precedent. if the draft holds, all three of president trump's nominees to the supreme court, along with some others already on the bench, will have deliberately deceived and defrauded the american public. right wing ideologues set out to stack the court with justices ready and willing to overturn roe v. wade.

now this right wing establishment, this machinery is on the verge of achieving their goal, even though their win will be a horrible loss for the reputation of the supreme court, a horrible loss for the integrity of our constitution, and most of all a horrible loss for the american people. madam president, more than half of the women and girls of reproductive age in our country live in states that would likely ban or severely restrict abortion if the supreme court overturns roe v. wade. 13 states have so-called trigger laws that will kick into effect automatically the day roe is overturned. nine states have passed laws that were struck down in the past because they violated the protections of roe, but those laws could come back if roe v. wade is overturned.

many of these laws we're talking about are extreme. one trigger law in kentucky would ban all abortions at any point in pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, or a situation in which a child could be born with a fatal birth defect. another trigger law, in idaho, would make providing an abortion at any point in pregnancy, and under almost any circumstances, a felony crime punishable by five years in prison. a texas law that's on the books right now would put doctors in jail or fine them up to $10,000 for prescribing pills for medication abortions through tele-health or the mail for women more than seven weeks pregnant. and a law that's been on the books since 1931 in michigan would snap back into effect, making nearly all abortions at

any point in pregnancy a felony. and women who undergo medication abortions would be made felons, even in the case of rape and incest. just last week state legislators in the louisiana house advanced a bill through committee that would allow women who obtain aboringses at any time in -- abortions at any time in pregnancy to be prosecuted for murder, for murder. experts say this extreme law could also be used to restrict emergency contraception and in vitro fertilization, which is aity cal process that helps -- is a critical process that helps couples with infertility build their families. i've been hearing from my constituents, my constituents in the state of maryland who learned how dangerous the situation is, for women and families across the country. one constituent, named connie,

shared her story of taking emergency contraception after she was attacked and raped by a stranger at the age of 18. she told me about the importance of being able to make that choice about her body and her future. instead of potentially becoming pregnant because of a rape. today, connie is a social worker, a therapist, and has a wonderful son. i've received other testimonials from constituents across the state of maryland who shared their stories and expressed their deep concern and fear about the court striking down roe v. wade. madam president, if roe is overturned, women living in states where safe and legal abortion is banned will have to travel away from their homes, away from their communities, away from their families simply to exercise control over their

own bodies. those who lack the money or the time will either be forced to carry an unwanted prance why i to term -- pregnancy to term, or find somebody performing abortions in the shadows in their states. a throwback to the dangerous back alley abortions. in 1965, eight years before the roe v. wade decision, illegal abortion accounted for 17%, 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth. that past could soon be our present. so, madam president, you see, this supreme court decision doesn't just turn back the clock on precedent. it turns back the clock on public health as it strips women of their reproductive freedoms.

and in a world where roe has been overturned, as you drive across our great country, your rights will change from state to state as you cross each state border. that's the result of taking away a constitutional right, and that's why polling shows the great majority of the american people do not want the supreme court to take away the rights under roe v. wade. now, i'm proud to represent a state that has codified a woman's right to reproductive choice. in fact, during my very first campaign for public office the right to reproductive choice was the defining issue in my election to the maryland general assembly. it was another time when there was great fear that a supreme court might overturn roe v. wade and so i ran on the pro-choice

ticket, and after i was sworn in, in a matter of months, my colleagues and i passed a bill in 1991 codifying roe v. wade as a matter of maryland state law. but here's the thing -- laws like the one we have in maryland, laws like the one we passed back in 1991, will be on the chopping block if these decade -- if this decades-long right wing project continues to go according to plan. because the republicans' ultimate objective isn't just to overturn roe v. wade. it's to enact a federal law passed in this senate and in the house banning abortion nationwide. last week leader mcconnell acknowledged that a national ban on abortion was a real possibility, during an interview

with "usa today." that should sound alarm bells all over america. this has been a two-step process. step number one, strike down the constitutional protections of roe v. wade that prohibit elected officials, whether in state legislatures or in congress, from enacting laws that prohibit or restrict unnecessarily the right to choose. that's step one. seems we're on the verge of that happening. once you clear the way, step two, enact a federal law in congress banning abortion everywhere in the country. and we've seen exactly how extreme those laws can be from the state examples i cited earlier. that could happen here if this republican right wing project

sees its logical end. that federal law would supersede maryland's law. if congress passed that law and it was enacted, state laws like those in maryland protecting the right to choose in maryland would be knocked off the books. that's true of other state laws, statutes, that protect a woman's right to choose. no woman in america would be safe to attain a safe and legal abortion if such a national law were enacted. now, madam president, everyone should also understand another huge danger posed by the draft. it's flawed logic not only -- its flawed logic not only would dismantle the right to an abortion. it could also be used to strip away other rights protected by

the constitution. i've read justice alito's draft opinion. i read all 98 pages of it. in this opinion, justice alito tries to extinguish, he tries to distinguish this case on abortion from other cases involving other individual rights. alito claims that this case is special because it involves abortion and the states interest in protecting life, while other cases do not. well, that's obvious on its face, but it misses the bigger danger in alito's opinion, because it doesn't change the fact that justice alito's reasoning for dismantling the right to obtain an abortion can be used to dismantle many other

rights that we currently take for granted as well. justice alito claims that even as you look at the entire constitution, you you cannot fia right to choose for women, you cannot derive that from the constitution. in fact, on page 5 of the draft opinion, justice alito writes, and i quote, the constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, end quote. and if we follow justice alito's flawed logic, the same could be said of a host of other rights that are not specifically named in the constitution. the constitution doesn't have the word contraception in it. the constitution doesn't talk

about consenting adults engaged in sexual relations. look, this is the thing -- over time the supreme court has recognized components of liberty through a close analysis of the bill of rights in the 14th amendment, and that includes the right to use contraception, the right of consenting adults to have sexual relations with whom they choose, and the right to marry who you love. these are rights the american people don't want elected officials to take away, whether they're state legislators or members of the senate or the house. but they're all at peril too if the logic of alito's reasoning is played out. and the terrible irony, the terrible irony here is those who most claim to oppose government

regulations of any kind are now the ones rushing to regulate the most intimate, personal, and private aspects of american life they say they don't want government having any role in their life. get out of my way except for when it comes to them taking away this right and planning to pass laws that would ban abortion nationally. and as i said, opening the door to go after other liberties as well. so those are the stakes that we're facing as we gather here this evening in anticipation of tomorrow's vote. and that's why we're taking this vote tomorrow. that's why we need to pass the women's health protection act. but even if we fall short this time, having a vote now is

important. it's important to the country. democracy requires accountability, and it's important that the american people know where each of the senators stands on this issue. it's a fundamental question. so, madam president, as we move into november toward the midterm elections, the american people will be watching closely how members of this body vote on this fundamental constitutional question. and they will look to see who voted to strip away constitutional rights and who rose to protect them. madam president, i believe that the majority of this country, the overwhelming of this majority of this country wants to stand up to protect fundamental liberties in the constitution of the united states. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. madam president, i will probably get in trouble with somebody for saying this, but the the question of when life begins, the deeper question of what defines life, which biological entities are alive or

possess independent existence versus which biological entities are simply part of something else that is alive, man, those are really hard questions. i heard my colleague, senator daines, on the floor earlier tonight talking passionately about his belief that life begins at conception and that humans have an obligation to defend a day-old fetus equally to our obligation to defend the life of someone who has been born. now, i disagree. i believe that life begins at birth. i believe that our legal obligation towards a born human is different than our legal obligation toward an unborn fetus. but on that narrow question of when life begins, i don't cast any particular judgment on

senator daines for believing what he believes. his belief system is shared by millions of americans. not the majority of americans, but a significant share. this disagreement that he and i have over when legally protected life begins, though, is as significant and as important a disagreement as exists, right? because it's about the most foundational questions in human existence. what is life? who decides whether a woman bears a child? who has control over that woman's body? who has control over the most sacred and critical function of a human being, the act of giving birth? it just doesn't get any more important than that set of questions.

and given this fundamental disagreement, given the weightiness of these questions, given the large number of americans who sit on either side of these questions, i come to one simple conclusion. no government, no group of politicians should make this decision for anyone else. this decision about whether to boater a -- aboater a pregnancy, so socially divisive should and must be left to individuals. in this case to women to decide. over the course of history, millions of have died in fights over another weighty moral issuf whether god exists. and if a god exists, exactly what form that being takes and what it requires of humans. disputes over religion have

eradicated entire civilizations. what does this have to do with roe v. wade? well, our founding fathers decided that there were some topics that were so personal, so subject to disagreement and controversy that government should just be barred from registering judgment. that's part of the reason why our civilization has not been plagued by wars between religious groups, a reality that continues to paralyze societies to this day in other parts of the world. because we keep government out of the question of which god is the right god. that's up to every american to decide for themselves, even though many americans believe that the consequence of observing or following the wrong god is serious, internal damnation for some. the stakes are huge when it comes to religion, but

government sits on the sidelines. to me, that's an imperfect but instructivive corollary to the debate over choice and abortion. the decision about whether to have an abortion is so personal, and a lack of consensus in the country on the question is so unavoidable as to make government intervention just as illegitimate as it would be if government tried to dictate to someone which religion they should follow. that's not the exact route that the supreme court traveled to get to the roe decision, but it helps me understand why from 1973 until today the decision about whether or not to have an abortion has been a constitutional right of the individual, not the constitutional right of the government to decide. frankly, it's always been really hard for me to square how

republicans, who so readily evangelize about small government, about the importance of putting families and their decision-making processes first, about the evil of public-sector overreach, are so enthusiastic about the government micromanaging personal decisions, about pregnancy or marriage or adoption. small government is great, i guess, for corporations, but it's not so great when it comes to the most intimate decisions that families make. and as i've said on this floor before, it's also hard to take seriously republicans passionate pleas for this body to defend the existence of an unborn fetus when they seem to care so little about many of the existential threats that are posed to every american after they are born. today, this day, over 100 americans are going to die from gunshot wounds, from murders and suicides.

and whether my republican colleagues agree with me or not that stricter gun laws is part of the solution to this uniquely american epidemic that plagues those that are born, i don't know that i've ever heard a republican speech dedicated to this crisis on the floor of the senate, and for dozens dedicated to the cause of those before birth. it seems that after birth, life matters a little bit less to some people in this body. so that's what i think. as i said, i'll probably get into some hot water for admitting that i understand the arguments that people like senator daines make. i don't agree with his views, but i understand them. and my hope is that as we begin this debate over the future of reproductive choice and health in this country, as this debate heats up, because it's not

going away, we're taking a vote tomorrow, but this is a debate that's going to consume this nation if the alito opinion becomes law, which i believe it will. my hope is that we're honest about the complexity of this debate. but the republicans are equally honest in the claims that they make. let me just briefly tell you what i mean. today i heard republican senators making a whole bunch of claims that are just so ungrounded in truth as to diminish the quality of what should be a very important debate on a very weighty subject. for instance, i heard senators make the claim that the protesters who were protesting outside or near supreme court justice' homes, slettened violence -- threatened violence

against those justices. some might have heard it on some unreputable website. it's not true. you can object to protesters being outside of public officials' homes. it's happened to all of us, by the way, but don't make up threats of violence just because it makes for a better story. i heard one senator say that the women's health protection act, for which i will proudly vote tomorrow, allows for garage abortions. that's not true. that's just plainly not true. every state requires that abortions be performed in licensed health care facilities, and nothing in the bill changes it. don't say that just because it makes a better story. many republicans claim that the bill we're taking up tomorrow allow abortions up to the date of birth. that's not true either. the women's health protection act, it does codify roe v.

wade, but roe only protects a woman's right to have an abortion without restriction until viability. and then afterward, protects for the woman's health or risk of doath. the bill does not -- death. it does not expand beyond what currently exists in case law. so i'm going to be honest with my colleagues about the admitted complexities, the political, moral complexities of this debate, but i expect opponents of the bill that we are debating tomorrow to be equally honest in the arguments they make as well. so i'll -- i'll have a lot more to say about this topic as we begin what i think is a debate that will consume this nation, rightfully, over the course of the coming weeks and months, but

today i will leave it there. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm here for the 14th time to keep unmasking the scheme to control our supreme court, a scheme that is now poised to destroy a woman's right to make her own reproductive health choices and to smash foundational supreme court precedent to get there. last week "politico" confirmed a fear many of us have had for many years many we now see -- years. we now see that the supreme court has five votes toker eradicate roe v. wade. for nearly half a century, women in this country have relied on roe's recognition that our constitutional right to privacy

includes the right to decide when to have a child. this is one of the most profoundly personal and life-changing decisions anyone can make. now the draft opinion from justice alito shows in black and white how the court plans to steamroll over that right and afterwards probably many others that are anchored in that same american right to privacy. if justice alito's draft opinion becomes law, women in this country will have a well-established constitutional right stripped away. that has not happened before. already 13 states have trigger bans that will snap into place the moment that roe is overturned and 13 more will ban or restrict abortions in the near future.

it won't stop there. for example, louisiana's republican lawmakers advanced a bill that will criminal size abortion as homicide and allow prosecutors to charge women seeking abortions as criminals. in the week since this news broke, a lot of americans have expressed just how strongly they disagree with the path this court is headed down. they are disappointed, they are stunned, they're outraged and they're right. when you take a second to remember what these same justices told us about roe in the past, you can be doubly outraged. i know that senators on the judiciary committee are. we saw the last three republican justices testify in the committee and asked what they thought about roe. each justice came before the

committee, each was specifically asked about roe v. wade. here's what they told us. neil gorsuch, roe v. wade is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. brett kavanaugh, it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. amy coney barrett, roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling has never ceased, but it doesn't mean that roe shouldn't be overruled, it means that it doesn't fall into the cases that other cases. and add in alito himself, roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. yet here's what justice alito's draft opinion says. i quote, roe was ee greedgesly

wrong -- egregiously wrong from the start and its decision has had damaging consequences. there was no mention of wrong from the start when we asked about roe. does seriously think that this was a sudden new epiphany that came over the federal society justices in the last few weeks? none -- none managed to mention their belief that roe v. wade was ee -- egregiously wrong from the start. whether it was outright lying or confirmation hearing hide-the-ball tricks. it was dishonorable and dishonest. if that is what you believe as a judge, own it. don't keep your views secret until you have the votes to make

your move. that may be clever politics but it's politics, not judging. it is a big tell about this captured court. since the news broke, republicans have tried desperately to change the subject. the minority leader says, the real outrage is not the obliteration of women's rights but that we found out about it a month early. he says, this lawless action should be investigated and punished as fully as possible. other senate republicans called for the f.b.i. to have the person identified. it was called an egregious affront to the court and those who work here. look, as to the leak, mr. chief justice, go for it. investigate away.

send the marshals. but to my republican colleagues sharpening their pitchforks and calling for criminal prosecutions, spare me. spare me the faux outrage. as former white house ethics counsel explains, the supreme court has no code of ethic ethics. so what crime would the f.b.i. investigate? as for the affront to the institution, i suggest everyone consider the real rot at the core of the supreme court. if you care about the independence and integrity of the court, it's not this leak you should be outraged about. it's that for the first time in the history of the united states supreme court the selection of

supreme court justices was farmed out, handed off to a private organization. and justices were selected in some back room with zero transparency into how the selections were made, how the lists were assembled and zero transparency into the dark money that flowed into that private organization while the selections were being made. who paid what to have a seat at the federalist society's judicial selection turnstile. we know from new reporting that it was the federalist society's leonard leo who laid out the road map for trump on the federal court system with the goal of, and i quote, transforming the foundational

understanding of rights in america. so much for balls and strikes, huh? leo came up with the list of judges that would please the republican base from among what he called what was the decades of conservative lawyers in the pipeline. he became a team with trump's white house counsel and mitch mcconnell to keep the judicial nominations effort moving. it was leo who took to the white house where he had extensive access the revised nominee's list that included kavanaugh and barrett. the picks were made by advisors said senator mcconnell with trump's role merely signing off on them. but he never veered from the list of candidates suggested by leo and others. again, this was not about

calling balls and strikes. if you want, and i'm quoting here, to have the longest possible impact on the kind of america you want, said leader mcconnell, impact on the kind of america you want, you look at the courts. that's their goal, to change the kind of america we have. more accurately the kind of america the far-right mega donors want, i would say. trump noticed. mitch mcconnell, judges, judges, judges, the only thing he wants is judges said trump. we know this happened because the trump white house right up to trump himself said so. trump's own white house counsel joked that he insourced the federalist society into the selection process. as one prominent conservative said this was an enterprise, an enterprise of building a supreme

court that will overturn roe v. wade. once the anonymous donors behind the federalist society justice pecking got what they wanted, then came the dark money to jam those nominations through the senate. anonymous donations of $17 million, $18 million, $19 million went to phony front groups to promote those backroom chosen federalist society nominees. then once the federalist society of justices were stacked on to the court, flotillas of dark money front groups appeared before them both as litigants and as amicus curiae, orchestrated to signal the

republican justices how to rule. and it's pretty likely the same donor network was behind the nomination turnstile, the propaganda machine, and the flotillas. and, oh, by the way, they are winning -- winning with these hand-picked justices at an astonishing rate, 80-0 by one count. you see the results of the scheme in this very case, the sponsors of the mississippi abortion law admitted that they passed the law because they knew the new supreme court justices would uphold it, just like a new legislative body had come in. after justice barrett's nomination came in, they changed its -- mississippi changed its position on roe. it all smells of fixry. no wonder that justice sotomayor

asked if the constitution and its reading are just political acts. so if colleagues want to talk about demolition of the integrity and independence of the court, then they better have something to say about turning the supreme court over to dark money special interest, about special interest capturing the court to serve their right-wing enterprise, a captured court that is delivering for the special interest that stacked it and helping to keep their secrets has had its integrity and independence pretty well demolished already. the last gasp of the scoundrels is to pretend that it's democrats calling out this dark money mess who are the ones undermining the integrity of the court. they even point to a brief of mine where several colleagues and i quoted to the court a poll showing that a majority of

americans feel the court is, and i quote the poll here, mainly motivated by politics and that is it all the to be, quoting the poll, restructured to reduce the influence of politics. that's a poll, not a threat. and the court better start paying attention to why the american people feel that way rather than quarreling that anyone is threatening or bullying the court by pointing that out. by the way, if threatening is what you want to fuss about, have the decency to be consistent. here's a quote from fox news' host laura ingraham discussing this actual abortion case after the oral arguments were done. forgive my bad language to the pages here. i am quoting her verbatim. we have six republican appointees

on this court after all the money that has been raised. the federalist society, all these big fat-cat dinners. i'm sorry, i'm pissed about this. if this court with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then i think it's time to do what robert bork said we should do, which is to circumscribe the juris disk of this court -- jurisdiction of this court, and if they want to blow it up then that's the way to change things finally. far from pushing back on that threat to blow it up and change things finally, the senate colleague she was talking to said, in a heartbeat. when you're treating an accurate quotation of a poll as a threat, and ignoring a public threat to blow up the court and change things finally, after all the

fat cat money spent on the federalist society, no less, forgive me for doubting your sincerity. as senator padilla said in the judiciary committee last week, have the decency to be consistent, at least. justice alito spent over 98 pages trying and failing to justify overturning the decision protecting these rights, overturning a decision he told the united states senate was an important precedent of the supreme court. his opinion isn't persuasive to me at all. it reads as snide and cruel. but that's not going to stop these justices from trying to throw us back into an age where women aren't free to make their own choices about their own bodies and their own futures. it looks like the fix went in on that a while ago. and we just weren't told about

it in the hearings. so tomorrow, the majority leader will bring before this chamber legislation to protect those rights nationwide, to protect that freedom across this country, and i'm eager to vote for it. we've got to stand against this assault on women's constitutional rights, and i hope some republican colleagues will join us, and particularly i hope in the weeks and months ahead that we can find ways to unravel the dark money scheme that has brought this court and our country closer to the brink, because the court that dark money built, it's not done. it's not done trying to reshape america against our will to suit the extreme ideology of the right wing billionaires behind the scheme. there is one good thing in all this darkness, and that is that

the american people see this nonsense and have had enough. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. madam president, the recently leaked draft opinion in dobbs v. jackson women's health organization signals what many of us have feared would happen happen -- at least five right wing supreme court justices seem poised to overturn roe v. wade and abolish the constitutional right of women to have an abortion. in my view, the united states senate cannot and must not allow that to happen. we cannot go back to the days when women had to risk their lives to end an unwanted

pregnancy. we cannot go back to the days of back alley abortions. we cannot go back to the days of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy or go through a childbirth that could cause her illness or death. that we cannot go back to. in america today it is estimated that one out of every four women will choose to have an abortion by the time they turn 45. in 2019, over 625,000 women in america chose to have an abortion. while no one can say with any degree of certainty how many deaths there will be if abortion is made illegal and women are forced to carry unsafe

pregnancies to term, there is no doubt that over a period of time many thousands of american women will die. now, i get very tired of hearing the hypocrisy from the extreme right wing who say, to quote, guest the government off our backs. how often have we heard that? get the government off our backs. we want small government. well, i say to those right-wingers, if you wants to get the government off off -- off of of the backs of the american people, then understand that it is women who control their own bodies, not politicians. during the covid crisis, how many times have we heard on this floor, throughout this country,

the extreme right wing say the government must not force us to wear a mask? how dare the government do that? government must not force us to have a vaccine. we have the right to do what we want with our bodies. well, hypocriteically these very same right wing politicians, who worry so much about their masks and vaccines, they now want the federal government, the state government, and their own local governments to mandate what women cannot and can do with their bodies. how hypocritical can you be? the decision about an abortion must be a decision for the woman and her doctor to make, not the

government. and that is why i rise this evening in strong support of the women's health protection act. this legislation would make roe v. wade the law of the land. this legislation would begin to put an end to the relentless assault on the reproductive rights of women that is taking place all across this country. but let me be as clear as i can be, madam president. it is not good enough to just talk about passing this bill. if there are not 60 votes in the senate to pass this legislation, and there are not, we must end the filibuster and pass it with 50 votes. you know, i hear a lot of talk from my democratic colleagues about the need for unity. well, if there was ever a time for unity, now is that time.

according to poll after poll, year after year, 60% of the american people believe that roe v. wade should be upheld. moreover, according to a recent "washington post"/abc poll, 75% of americans say decisions on abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor, including 95% of democrats, 81% of independents, and 53% of republicans. in other words, if the united states senate was truly a representative body of the american people, which for a variety of reasons clearly it is not, we would easily have 60 votes to pass this bill and

women would be protected. madam president, it is important for us to remember how we got to where we are today. five years ago, senator mitch mcconnell, republican leader, and the republican party in the senate, ended the filibuster for supreme court nominees in order to do what they could not do legislatively, which is to make abortion legal. they didn't have the votes to do that. so in order to get supreme court justices nominated, they ended the filibuster. candidate donald trump promised that he would only nominate supreme court justices who supported overturning roe v. wade. and unfortunately, out of the

many lies, endless number of lies trump made during his campaign and presidency, it turns out that this is the one promise that he kept, the one honest statement that he made. further, while it hooks like -- looks like in this rare instance trump kept his promise, the republican supreme court justices during their senate confirmation hearings did not. in fact, justice alito and the three justices nominated by president trump, all called roe v. wade an important precedent. during their confirmation hearings. let me quote justice alito at his senate confirmation on january 11, 2006, quote, justice alito, roe v. wade is an important precedent of the supreme court. it was decided in 19373 -- in

1973. so it has been on the books for a long time. it is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. it has been challenged. it has been reaffirmed. that's alito. in 2017, justice gorsuch said at his confirmation hearing, quote, roe v. wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other, end quote. 2018, justice kavanaugh said at his confirmation hearing, quote, i said that roe v. wade is settled as a precedent of the supreme court, entitled the respect under principles of stair decisis -- stare decisis.

one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade it is that it has been ereaffirmed over the past 45 years, and most prominently, most importantly reaffirmed in planned parenthood v. casey in 1992, end quote. that is justice kavanaugh. today it has become increasingly clear that despite these statements to the contrary, the three justices nominated by trump were hired specifically to overturn roe v. wade. and with justice alito at the helm, nominated by president george w. bush, that is precisely what it appears they are set to do. four justices, all appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. is it any wonder why americans all over our country are losing faith in their democracy?

well, you know what i believe, madam president -- if republicans can end the filibuster to install right wing justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn roe v. wade, democrats can and must end the filibuster to make abortion legal and safe. let's be clear. if the supreme court strikes down roe v. wade, abortion bans will immediately go into effect in 22 states throughout america, with four others likely to follow suit. in ten of these states it will be illegal to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. for example, in the state of texas, if roe v. wade is struck down it will be considered a felony for any texas doctor to

perform an abortion for a woman who was raped or impregnated by a family member. furthermore, that law would actually criminalize abortion, perk both women and doctors -- punishing both women and doctors, who could face years in prison if they are found guilty. other states have passed similar type legislation. mississippi's governor has even refused to rule out the banning of contraception as a next step, the banning of contraception. but madam president, let us be clear. the supreme court no matter how it ends up ruling will not be able to ban abortion. if you are wealthy and if you have the means to get on an airplane or drive hundreds of

miles to a clinic, you will have access to a safe abortion. but if you are poor or a member of the working class, it is likely that you will not. the reality is that overturning roe v. wade would be devastating to low-income and working-class women who do not have the means to travel long distances to get an abortion. madam president, the issue we are discussing tonight is often framed as a woman's issue. i disagree. this is a human rights issue. and if there has ever been a time in american history when the men of this country must stand with the women of this

country, this is that moment. madam president, i do find it what amusing that the loudest voices in the republican party demanding that women be forced to give birth against their will are exactly the same people who oppose virtually every effort here in congress designed to improve life for children and their mothers. these republicans are opposed -- and some democrats -- are opposed to paid family and medical leave in america. they literally believe that it is acceptable for an employer to force a mother to go back to her job a week after giving birth.

our republican colleagues want women, regardless of what they believe, to have a baby, but they could care less about those babies once they are born. these same republicans, without exception, are opposed to extending the $300 a month child tax credit that expired in december and went a long, long way to make it easier for working-class families to raise their children with dignity. these same republicans are opposed to universal child care and free prek -- pre-k. madam president, it is no great secret that women throughout the history of our country have had to fight valiantly for their basic human rights against all forms of pay trar can i. patriarchy. let us never forget that when our country was formed women

were not just second-class citizens. they were third or fourth class citizens. women have been fighting for equal rights in this country since the 1800's. they didn't receive the right to vote until 1920. if you can believe this -- and people don't know this -- women needed a male cosigner on bank loans until 1974. women had to get a male cosigner for a bank loan until 1974. throughout the 1960's, the 1970's, and way, way before that women had to fight for entry into certain professions from which they were barred. the fight for equal pay continues to this day. so, madam president, let us be clear. when it documents rights of

women -- when it comes to the rights of women, we cannot go back. we must go forward. we cannot go back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control. we cannot go back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence against women. the time has come for all of us to protect and expand women's rights in america. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the ms. cortez masto: madam presiden t, we are living in the twilight of roe v. wade and the incredibly important protections for americans that flow from it. for almost 50 years the supreme court held that the constitution safeguarded women's access to critical reproductive health care, including abortion, and rightly so.

most american women have never lived without the ability to control their bodies, their health, and their family's economic well-being. as we learned last week from a draft opinion, the supreme court is poised to strip away these fundamental freedoms from women around the u.s. by overturning its own precedent. this would be one of the very few times in american history where the court has taken away rights rather than expanding them. if this draft stands, young women today will have fewer choices than their mothers and grandmothers had. the senate has an opportunity to pass federal law to protect the right to choose across this country, and i urge my colleagues to take and pass this legislation and do what a large majority of nevadans and americans want -- to let women make their own decisions.

now here's what could happen if the supreme court draft becomes law. if the supreme court overturns long-standing precedent in june, the rights to choose will immediately cease to exist in about 18 states and others will act quickly to pass new bans on critical care. and within months restrictions on reproductive choice will be in place in approximately half of the states, meaning that around the world half of women around the country, half of women of child-bearing age will not be able to get critical care where they live. the women who have the money and the time will travel to states like mine that have legal protections for reproductive health care. in nevada, we're already seeing women traveling from texas where an extreme law offers a $10,000 reward to vigilantes targeting anyone who aids and abets

abortions. if roe falls it will automatically trigger abortion bans in neighboring idaho and utah. you'll see women traveling from nevada this those states too. the vast majority of women seeking reproductive care won't even have the option to travel for care. we know what happens to these women. the research shows that when people cannot get essential reproductive care, their physical, their emotional, and economic health suffers, as does the health of their families. they can face life-threatening pregnancy complications and long-term health impacts. this court decision will strip away women's power to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. that means women will not have the same control over their lives and bodies as men do, and that is just wrong. nevadans understand something fundamental about the right to

choose. the fact is that you can never know what circumstances another person faces until you walk in their shoes. and that's why most nevadans want to preserve women's freedom to decide what health care they receive. they know it's not right to impose their own beliefs on others. when americans have such divergent religious views, economic and family circumstances and medical histories. and this is why family planning is so important. we've seen it again and again over the years. far-right extreme republican lawmakers want to target the entire spectrum of reproductive health care and family planning services. the laws they are proposing in states like louisiana and tennessee would keep women who want to become pregnant from getting fertility treatments. they could stop women who are raped from getting the morning after pill to prevent a potential pregnancy. these laws could block access to contraception for women who have painful menstrual cycles or

other health conditions, or who simply don't want to have a child. it seems that these effects on women don't matter to many on the far right, including mitch mcconnell who is already discussing a nationwide abortion ban that could threaten even nevada's legal protections. that's why my colleagues and i are standing up for legislation that will codify women's reproductive freedoms into federal law. the women's health protection act will preserve the right to choose nationally and assure women have access to critical care. if we want our daughters to grow up with the same freedoms we have had for 50 years, we have to act now. we need to stand up for women in america and trust them to make their own decisions about their health, their families, and their lives.

madam president, i believe in american women, and that's why this fight for us is now. i thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. padilla: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: thank you, madam president. colleagues, this past week, following the leaked supreme court opinion that threatens to overturn roe v. wade, thousands of californians have reached out to my office in the form of phone calls, in the forms of letters, in the forms of

e-mails, all to voice their support for the right to choose. it's abundantly clear that congress must pass the women's health protection act and codify the right to an abortion into federal law. countless californians and other americans have spoken up, many in public, many in private, to share their own abortion stories. think about students who want to finish high school before starting a family. think of survivors of sexual assault whose abortion reaffirmed their right to choose for their own bodies. think of parents who desperately wanted a child, but upon

becoming pregnant learned the devastating news about dangerous health risks associated with that pregnancy. think of the women whose lives were saved by an abortion because abortion is often critical medical care. and think about women who remember a time a half a century ago before roe v. wade secured this right, a time when -- don't get me wrong -- abortions still happened but they were unsafe secrets at the time, when women risked their lives for the choice that they needed. madam president, i believe that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right, and i'm

proud to represent a state that seriously defends abortion access. california is committed to safe, respectful abortion care for all who need it. that's why californians have stepped up this year with some even traveling to aid women who were threatened by sb-8, the texas law that prohibits abortion at six weeks. this is the very law that senator cortez masto referenced a few minutes ago and it's why so many californians are speaking up now. we know that your right to choose should not end at a state border. and it certainly shouldn't rely on your income or your transportation options or whether or not you can afford to take time off from work.

all across america, a strong majority support a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. we can't stand by and watch while right-wing politicians and judges seem to roll back the clock on women's rights. that's why i'm voting for the women's health protection act and why i urge each and every one of you to do the same. we must secure the right to abortion nationwide. we must protect the fundamental rights of women across the country, not just in a few states but across the country. congress can and must do this by passing the women's health protection act. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. padilla: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc. calendar number 807 and 809,

that there be two hours for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nominations en bloc, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. padilla: thank you, madam president. i also ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, may 11, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the senate proceed to

executive session to resume consideration of the motion to discharge the sweeney nomination, as provided under the previous order. further, that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. padilla: for the information of senators, there will be two roll call votes at 11:00 a.m., up to three roll call votes at 2:30 p.m. with additional roll call votes in the evening. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until the senate confirmed that lisa cook today is a first black

woman to serve on the federal reserve board. that nomination required vice president harris to cast her 18th tie-breaking vote centers also proves president biden's nominee to have the u.s. maritime administration and the office of science of the energy department. tomorrow the senate is back to vote on legislation to protect a woman's right to have an abortion that would require the support of 60 senators. we expect that vote to occur around 3:00 p.m. eastern. file the senate life when they return here on cspan2. correct c-span as your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including media come. >> the world changed in an instant. media com was ready, internet traffic soared and we never slowed down but schools and businesses might virtual and we powered a new reality. because at media, we are built to keep you ahead. >> media comp support c-span as

a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next print charles stands in for queen elizabeth at the state opening of the british parliament. it is the first time in nearly 60 years the queen has been absent from the event. [background noises]