my republican colleague, young. we had talked in the gym, and i said let's work together on legislation to to revive america's commitment to science and innovation. together we drafted the first version of the endless frontier act, a bill whose policies shaped today's legislation. a year later we joined with senators cornyn and warner to begin addressing our nation's chip crisis by pushing for an authorization of new federal chips as an incentive as part of the ndaa. and senator kelly of arizona has been a major advocate for getting these chip programs done. so even before this congress began, members on both with sides knew that we had to work together if we were to keep america competitive in the 21st century. we also knew that if we didn't get there first, our rivals -- chief among them, the chinese communist party -- would likely beat us to the punch and reshape the world in their authoritarian image. frightening, a frightening

prospect. a month after i became majority leader i direct canned the chairs and members of our relevant committees to start drafting a package to create new american jobs with the endless frontier act serving as the core of this earth. i also -- this effort. i also said to everyone, to people on both sides of the aisle, that if both sides worked together, i'd put a bill on the floor of the senate later that spring, and that's what happened when we overwhelmingly passed the act in june of 2021. it took three weeks, lots of debate, amendments. just as the senate ought to work even on major and difficult legislation, as this has been. senators cantwell and wicker were tremendous leaders in this effort and skillfully managed the floor process. they deserve a great deal of praise not only for passing last year's bill, but for their

efforts this year as well. a year later the legislation we're passing today contains many of the critical investments in that bill. both bills make historic investments in science and innovation, the original endless frontier bill and the bill we're passing today, chips plus science. both bills make those investments. we will plant the seeds for developing the tech hubs of tomorrow in places with great potential but which have been overshad shadowed by cities -- shadows by with citied like san francisco, boston, austin or new york city. the bill will help turn cities like buffalo and indianapolis into new centers for innovation, and the result will be countless new good-paying jobs and a bright future for those areas for years to come. both bills will help end the chips crisis by offering tens of billions of dollars to encourage american chip manufacturing and r&d. and, if anything, this year's version is stronger because of

the itc provisions. it will create tens of thousands of high-tech manufacturing and davis bay congress -- bacon construction jobs. from albany, new york, to new albany, ohio, and beyond, it's going to lower costs for cashes, washing machines and so much more in the long run because of our, because with our chip shortage will be alleviated. both bills establish the national foundation tech directorate and provide foundine department of energy to achieve new breakthroughs into technologies like a.i., quantum computing, are renewable energy, 5g, biotech and other discoveries yet unknown. and both bills provide funding to build wireless communications supply chain to counter huawei. this was a top priority of my colleague, mark warner, and i thank him for his efforts in this regard. the bottom line is this: today's legislation is one of the largest investments in science, technology and advanced

manufacturing in decades. now, of course, while this bill contains many critical investments in chips and scientific research, there are other major proposals from both sides that are still in the works within the conference committee. that important work must continue. it will. and it's my intention to put conference committee on the floor many september after work is complete. so let me be clear, today is a very good day for the american people and for the future of our country. i believe firmly that when signed into law, this bill will reawaken the spirit of discovery, innovation and optimism that made america envy of the world and will continue to do so. because of the investments we're approving today, america will be the place where the next transformational breakthroughs in industry and science occur. if nearly 80 years ago dr. bush, the head of the u.s. office of scientific research, wrote in a report to president truman that,

quote: without scientific progress, no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity and security in the modern world. the name of aha report? it was called science: the endless frontier. it's the inspiration for much of the work we've dedicated to passing bill -- we've dedicated to passing bill today. in the wake of dr. bush's report, we created the national science foundation, funded the national energy laboratory, split the atom, spliced the gene, landed a man on the moon and unleashed the internet. we generated decades of american prosper it and foresterred an innate sense of optimism in the american spirit. today we face great task of renewing and strengthening that legacy in a world of fierce competition. it's no longer a situation where we can just leave it up to corporate america because we didn't have competition. now there are nation half stateg and aiding their corporations

and authoritarian governments around the world are doing that and cheering for us to fail, cheering for us, hoping that we'll sit on our hands and not adapt to the changes in the 21st century. they believe that squabbling democracies like ours can't unite around national priorities like this one. they believe that democracy itself is a rell lick of the past and that by beating us to emerging technologies, autocracies around the world hope to reshape the world this their own image. well, let me tell you something, i believe in america. e believe in our system. i believe that they will not succeed. i believe this legislation will enable the united states to outinnovate, outproduce and outcompete the world in the industries of the future. and i believe that the strongly e bipartisan work on this bill revealed that in this chamber, that a we all believe, all of ud

republicans -- that another american century lies on the horizon. for this, these many worthy reasons, let us pass the chips and science bill today to. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. >> mr. president, when it comes to america, i'm an optimist. finish always. you see, i can't help but a approach the future with great hope. after all, as americans we've never let obstacles stand many our way or -- in our way or accepted that problems can't be solve. no, our citizens are the world's most ingenious. our military the mightiest, our economy strongest and our innovators the most creative. but last century was defined by our accomplishments and our ideals. and i believe this one will be too. but i have to say, mr.

president, this path is not guaranteed. now as then america's success depends on unleashing the potential of our people and outcompeting and outinnovating global rivals who don't share our values or our economic interest. right now we're in the middle of a great power competition. with an thortarian -- authoritarian regime in beijing that seeks global primacy and rejects democracy. chinese communist party is currently investing $1.4 trillion in frontier technologies that will dominate the 1 -- 21st century. artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonics among other key technologies. its innovators are earning patents and publishing research

in a.i. at greater rates than our own. its schools are producing four times the s.t.e.m. graduates as america's, and the chinese communist party's computer and science universities are regularly outranking our own. its military is making advances in cyber warfare and the development of hypersonic weapons, autonomous vehicles, electronic and cyber warfare and orbital bombardment systems. these are the technologies that will dominate the 21st century economically and militarily. china's government is planning on winning the a.i. race, winning future wars and winning the future. and the truth is, if we're being honest with ourselves, beijing's well on its ato accomplishing these goals. its way to accomplishing these goals. america's at risk of falling behind to a world power that

doesn't value liberty or even human life. so how should we respond? for too long when it comes to chinese aggression, america has relied on a strategy of deterrence, taking steps like blocking huawei from doing business in the u.s., tightening export controls and improving foreign investment rules. now, these are importantish -- important measures, but they're no longer enough. you see, it's time, mr. president, to go on fencive. and -- on the offensive. and that's exactly what this legislation, which has gone by many names from the endless frontier act to the u.s. innovation and competition act to chips plus, will do. unleash private sector innovation while significantly boosting federal national security investments. let me highlight a few specifics.

finish first -- first, this bill greatly encourages domestic investment in semiconductor production. right now the united states of america is almost entirely reliant on other nations for high-tech computer chips the that power our smartphones, automobiles, household appliances and military platforms. in fact, the recent shortage of these chips has hobbled our economy. it's hit our pocketbooks. for example, a shortage of computer chips forced general motors to idle its assembly plant in fort wayne, indiana, twice the already this year. u.s. semiconductor production, once accounting for nearly 40% of the world's supply, has dropped to just 12% while china's production share is increasing rapidly. 90% of the chips used in our military technology are made overseas. met me say that again.

90% of the chips used in you are to military -- used in our military technology are made overseas, most in south korea and taiwan. but an increasing number are produced in china. this is a very real economic and national security vulnerability. and this bill will reassert america's place this in this industry and take a giant leap towards insuring that our supply chain and national defense will never be at the mercy of technology produced overseas. another important aspect of this bill is critical applied research funding. legislation -- this legislation reforms and invests in the national science foundation the partner with the private sector and universities to develop critical emerging technologies that will transform the global

landscape. we know that national success and competitiveness in the 21st century economy will be built on emerging technologies like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. funding research, crucial to keeping america safe, is one of federal government's responsibilities. and this legislation will help us not just catch up with, but overtake china in these critical areas. and this bill will establish regional technology hubs across our country which'll become centers for the search, development, entrepreneurship and manufacturing of new, key technologies. this is incredibly important at a time when too many americans in the heart aland -- heartland feel left out and too many areas overlooked with only a handful of cities accounting for nearly 90% of job growth in these advanced sectors. simply put, this bill make

america stronger, strafer and more -- safer and more prosperous. and it's desperately needed. how do we know? because the chinese communist party has actively lobbied against this legislation. they know this bill is bad for china and good for the united states of america. this bill's about securing our country, giving our people the tools to flourish and insuring america continues its global research role. it's been a long are journey to get to to this point, but history will show that by passing this chips plus bill, we're confronting challenges of today and building a prosperous and secure form for all americans. i urge my colleagues to support legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor.

>> i have heard time and again my republican colleagues and a number of democrats voice their serious concern about the deficit and our national debt. we are told that because of the deficit, that at a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost my major country on earth, we cannot extend the child tax credit to help working parents and and substantially reduce childhood poverty. at a time that over 600,000 americans are homeless and some 18 million families are spending half of their incomes on the high cost of housing, we are told over and over again that because of the deficit, we

cannot build the low income and affordable housing we desperately need. at a time when millions of senior citizens of this country desperately need help to go to a dentist because their teeth are rotting in their mouths, hay can't afford hearing aids, they can't afford eye glasses, we are told that we cannot afford to expand medicare because of the deficit. at a time when the average family in this country is spending $15,000 a year on childcare, an unimaginable amount of money for a working family, we are told that we cannot reto form a dysfunctionaa dysfunctional childcare system because of deficit. at a time when some 70 million americans are ununsured or

underinsured, we are told that we cannot guarantee health care to all mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, in a moment i'm going to propound a unanimous consent request. before i do, i want to make some brief remarks. right now we have an administration that is killing oil pipelines. slow-walking natural gas licensing, illegally halting lease-sales, and writing rules that congress never gave the executive branch the authority to write. this is how president biden regulates our energy industry. in the morning he complains that gas prices are too high, and he chastises oil and gas companies to produce more. then he takes a nap, wakes up, and says the very existence of oil and gas companies offends him, and it's our duty to put them out of business.

it's absurd. but today i want to focus on the biden administration's reckless release of our emergency crude oil stockpile, the strategic petroleum reserve. the president's energy policy has been a failure, so much so that today the united states produces 1.5 million fewer barrels a day of oil than it did in november 2019. that's why oil and gas prices are high. it's no mystery, and it's not principally because of the war in ukraine, as much as joe biden and the democrats want to blame it on that. at the same time that president biden has tried to strangle u.s. energy production, he has simultaneously graveled to saudi arabia and to venezuela, asking them to increase their production, and he's attacked small business gas stations around the country and told

them, just lower your prices. then he's taken the unprecedented step of releasing an arbitrary amount of our emergency crude oil stockpile in order to try to lower gas prices before the midterm elections. the biden administration has even sold at least two million barrels of oil to the chinese communist party's state-owned oil and gas company, cinapac. one million barrels in april of this year, another million barrels in july sold to communist china. china at this very moment has created the world's largest stockpile of crude oil, which, according to bloomberg, totals 926 million barrels. in comparison, under joe biden, our own reserves have fallen to 492 million barrels of

oil. that's the lowest level since december of 1985, according to the u.s. department of energy. of course no mention of china in the administration would be complete without noting that hunter biden's private equity firm, bhr, has a major stake in cinopec. but there is something we can do. i'm calling on this body to pass the no emergency crude oil for foreign adversaries act, which is cosponsored by 11 of my colleagues. this bill takes the commonsense step of prohibiting the secretary of energy from selling our emergency crude oil stockpile, there to protect the national security of the united states, to communist china and also to other foreign adversaries including iran, north korea, and russia. it would also require a full accounting of where our crude

oil has been sent for refining since the biden administration began releasing the oil in the strategic petroleum reserve last november. it's important to note we have no issue with exports in general. in fact, we want to continue to help our european allies remove themselves from their reliance on russian oil. a recent study found that since 2015, u.s. oil exports increased oil and natural gas development in the united states, reduced global oil prices by $1.93 per barrel over a six-year period, added $161 billion to our gdp, and added nearly 50,000 jobs here in america. but under no circumstances should we be giving our emergency stockpile to our enemies, particularly at a time when they are benefiting from

stockpiling cheap russian oil and gas. this poses a direct threat to american national security, and the biden administration shows zero interest in stopping it. that's why congress needs to act. this should be a simple and easy bipartisan measure to say we're not going to sell our strategic reserve to communist china to use it against america. therefore, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of s. 4515 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. reserving the right to object,

i appreciate the senator's interest in trying to make sure that american energy resources don't go to benefit communist china. it's interesting because i don't think a lot of americans know that prior to 2015, the united states didn't allow for the export of american oil. we sought, prior to 2015, as a strategic asset, all of the oil produced in the united states prior to 2015, we decided that the oil produced in the united states would stay in the united states, that it should benefit u.s. consumers. and i have heard my republican colleagues come down to the floor over and over again and call on the biden administration to do more drilling, do more exploration, authorize more permits under the belief that drilling in the united states will produce results for

american consumers. but the reality is we have done more drilling in the united states, but much of that drilling and exploration has benefited, you guessed it. china. prior to 2015 the united states didn't export oil to china. in 2013 we we we exported.3 miln barrels, the next year more, then 84 million, dipped down to 50 and back up to 176. in 2021, 91 million barrels of oil shipped from the united states to china. and so if we're sincere about trying to make sure that american produced oil benefits american consumers rather than the chinese communist party, then let's make that our policy. let's not limit the policy to

the strategic petroleum reserve. let's just make the decision that american oil is going to benefit american consumers. that change was made in 2013 as part of a compromise. republicans wanted the ban on oil exports lifted. democrats wanted the extension of some tax incentives for renewables. it was a bipartisan compromise. but now that we seem to have greater consensus around stopping american exports of fuel benefiting china, let's not just do this halfway. let's make it a clear policy. and so i just learned of the senator's unanimous consent request this morning, and i'll commit to him to learn more about the more targeted approach that he's making. but i'm going to plan to object to it today unless we can modify it to make this policy

universal. senator markey has a piece of legislation that would reimpose that ban on the export of oil. this seems like a pretty important time to do that. if we have oil in the united states, why don't we keep it here to benefit the people of the united states instead of shipping it to china. senator markey's bill has language in it that would allow for national interest exemptions so that if we needed to get oil to ukraine, for instance, we could still do that. 91 million barrels of oil is, that's a lot of oil to be sending to china every year. so i'm going to ask that the senator modify his request to pass senator markey's legislation instead which would, frankly, get at the concern that senator cruz is articulating, but do it in a much more comprehensive way. i expect he may object to that modification. and if he does, i will object to his original request but commit to him to spend some time

looking at his more targeted approach, given a little bit more of a window. i'm going to make this request right now, which is that the senator modify his request and instead that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1415 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. cruz: i do not. reserving the right to object, debates on the senate floor sometimes can be clarifying. over the course of the day, my office and i engaged in good faith negotiations with a number of democratic senators. we engaged in extensive negotiation with senator

manchin, the chair of the relevant committee. senator manchin proposed minor alterations to this bill and agreed to support it if we made those alterations. i agreed to accept senator manchin's alterations, and we then had what was going to be a bipartisan bill. senator cantwell likewise, we negotiated with her office today and had reached what we thought was an agreement. and then at the last moment the senator from connecticut raised this objection. and i think what he is asking this body to pass really clarifies where the extreme left wing of the democratic party is, which is the green new deal democrats want to destroy american energy jobs. they want to destroy the american oil and gas industry. they want to destroy our own production. and bizarrely, they

simultaneously want to benefit energy jobs of our enemies. there's some irony that the senator from connecticut is leading this objection because it was earlier this year when the senator from connecticut led the effort in this body to block sanctions on russia and vladimir putin on the nord stream 2 pipeline, sanctions that had stopped that pipeline, sanctions that had prevented putin from invading ukraine, sanctions that hurt russia and hurt putin until joe biden became president and decided to waive the sanctions on russia and putin to capitulate to russia and putin. when biden did so, when biden waived those sanctions, the government of ukraine, president zelenskyy said if you waive these sanctions, russia will invade ukraine. the government of poland said if you waive these sanctions, russia will invade ukraine.

and in january of this year i forced a vote on imposing the sanctions. at the time the government of ukraine begged us. there were tanks on the border of ukraine. the invasion hadn't happened, and the government of ukraine begged us, please pass these sanctions. every democrat in this body voted for my sanctions, not once, but twice, they supported it when the president's name was donald john trump and then they had a democrat in the white house, joe biden on the day of the vote, came to capitol, it's the only day i know he's done this, to personally vote lobbists to vote to green light a natural gas pipeline for putin and russia. and the senator from connecticut led the fight on the senate floor urging his democratic colleagues, flip your votes, give an enormous present to

russia and putin and sacrifice ukraine in the process. i stood on this floor and said, if you do this -- the 44 democrats who cast the vote -- we will see russian tanks in the streets of kyiv. i wish that prediction had proven wrong, but it did not. what the senator from connecticut just came back with is we should prohibit all energy exports from america. in fact, i'll read from the bill he called up. it is the president may restrict exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas or petrochemical feed stocks, shut down -- shut it down. i want to show the difference between my bill and the one the senator from connecticut is it asking to pass. my bill is don't sell our oil to

commune china, russia, north korea is our economy, let's not he'll sell our oil to our enemies. this is a reasonable commonsense proposition. i am confident that any one of us at home with our constituents, if you ask your constituents should the president of the united states be selling oil that the american taxpayers paid for, that is kept in a strategic reserve to keep safe, should we sell it to communist china? the overwhelming majority of our constituents an mine, democrat or republican, would say, absolutely not. that's idiotic. my bill says don't sell our oil to our enemies, the senator from connecticut responded with, don't sell our oil to anybody. don't sell our natural gas to anybody. don't sell it to our friends. let's be clear. there have been a lot of democrats in this chamber who once the war in ukraine started, stood up and said the key to defeating putin sf exporting

our -- is exporting our liquid natural gas to europe so they can get off of dependency on russian oil and gas. i can't count how many democrat speeches i heard saying what is absolutely true. we want our friends and allies purchasing energy produced here in america and not purchasing energy from our enemy. and what the senator from connecticut has just said is, we should abandon our friends in europe. we should abandon our friends that want energy. we should tell them, you know what? you're better off buying oil from russia. you're better off buying oil from iran, you're better off buying oil from venezuela, which i guess makes sense because joe biden's state department was asking venezuela, the biden administration is asking our enemies to produce more oil. so the effect of the senator from connecticut's proposition

would be to hurt jobs in america, hurt energy prices in america, by the way, would drive up gasoline prices. if the extremes in the democratic side will see $6 gallon of gasoline. pete buttigieg said this is the cost of transition. we've got to make gas expensive. in politics that's saying the quiet part out loud. for too many extreme democrats they want working men and women to pay $100, $150 at the gas pump. why? they don't like some moms choose to drive minivans, they don't like that some americans drive a truck or s.u.v. and want to support you to sell your suburban and buy a prius.

and their strategy is that they will make it so expensive and miserable that you can't afford your bills until you explie with what they -- comply with what they want. it is cynical, but it does make transparent, the stickers at the gas pump with joe biden saying, i did this. that is what they intend. we should not be selling oil to communist china. everyone in this body knows this. but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abandon our friends and send our friends and allies to become customers of vladimir putin. that is spectacularly ill-conceived. and, therefore, i decline to accept the modification. the presiding officer: objection to the modification is heard. is there objection to the

original request? mr. murphy: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: madam president, reserving the right to object. here's what the senator from texas is saying. it's fine to sell russia to china so long as you're a big american oil company and profiting off of it. that's the bottom line. the senator had the chance to endorse a policy that would have stopped all american exports to china. if the priority is to not enrich the chinese government, then let's enact that policy. but senator cruz -- what senator cruz is essentially saying is that if the end result is massive profits for the oil company, then we're going to look the other way. the strategic petroleum reserve, we're going to keep that oil here. that can't go to oil. that would be a moral abomination if the chinese got their hands on that oil. if they got to -- if the oil

companies got to pad their pockets by selling oilg, that's fine. -- oil, that's fine. if the policy is not to sell oil to china. let's make that the policy. but the policy is to have the oil companies make as much money as possible. exxonmobil expects to make $10 billion in profit. not revenue, in profit in the second quarter of this year. i don't apologize for a second for making my priority, the people of this country, not the prophets of the -- profits of the oil companies. yes, i want to keep american oil here. i want it to benefit american consumers, not the oil companies' bottom line. spare me the rewrite of history on nord stream 2. those sanctions that we passed, they were ready to go for donald trump. what i objected to was the

senator being silent when donald trump sat on the sidelines and refused to implement those sanctions, and then taking a hard-line when a democrat was in the white house. senator cruz held up every state department nominee that president biden offered as hostage in order to to get a change on nord stream 2 policy. the senator did not do that when donald trump was in office. during the period of time in which the pipeline was being built, by the time that donald trump left office, that pipeline was 95% built and had senator cruz taking the same policy during the trump administration, arguably we could have been in a different place by the end of 2019. so i don't apologize for saying, you know what, the oil companies are making too much money. our prices are -- our constituents, our consumers should come first. and if we're serious about not

exporting oil to china, let's be serious about it and make the policy universal. so for that reason, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from texas. mr. cruz: john adams famously said facts are stubborn things so let's clarify a couple of facts. the bill the senator from connecticut was pushing is a bill entitled, quote, the ban oil exports act. in his remarks a moment ago, he suggested it was about china. this bill is not about china. this bill is about banning oil exports, natural gas exports, coal exports across the board to anybody. it is authored by senator markey, cosponsors by senators merrickly, sanders and -- merkley, sanders and warren. this is an extreme bill.

as i pointed out in my remarks, what the senator from connecticut was asking, is let's refuse to sell oil or natural gas to our friends and let's make our friends buy them from russia instead. in response to that, he said precisely nothing, nada, nothing, he said exxonmobil is bad. he said don't sell to china. my bill says, don't sell to china. his bill says, don't sell to anybody. and as for his revisionist history on nord stream 2, he is right that the pipeline was over 90% completed by the senate and house took up my sanctions legislation. and the russian disinformation put out was that it was over 90% completed so there was no way to stop it. putin stopped building nord stream 2 the day that president

trump signed my sanctions legislation into law. literally that day they halted construction. a 90% complete pipeline is zero percent complete. it's a hunk of metal in the bottom of the ocean. the pipeline laid dormant, it was dead for over a year. he complains that i didn't hold donald trump's nominations, i didn't need to. the sanctions worked. we stopped the pipeline. and then joe biden became president and he immediately began signaling weakness to russia. he foreshadowed what he did in may which was waive the sanctions. joe biden was sworn into office on january 20, 2021. putin recommenced building nord stream 20 -- 2 on january 21. i find it curious that

democrats, number one, ignored the pleas from our allies and stood with russia and putin to help putin build a pipeline to generate billions for his war machine, but at the same time are willing to stand up and say, we like russian and oil gas jobs but we don't like american oil and gas jobs. we should not be selling oil or natural gas to our enemies. this is an obvious proposition. it ought to be bipartisan. it was bipartisan until this last-minute objection. but the fact that we shouldn't sell to our enemies doesn't me we shouldn't supply energy to our friends. our friends are desperately asking for it and sending them to buy from russia is spectacularly foolish. i yield the floor.

mr. blumenthal: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you so much, madam president. a group of us will be speaking and then asking for unanimous consent on a measure called the right to contraception act. it's called the right to contraception act because it guarantees the right to contraception. if you had asked me a year ago, six months ago would we need a right to contraception act, i would have thought not in my lifetime. but the fact is we live now in the post-roe era. it is a unique moment in our nation's history.

not just because the supreme court has overturned roe v. wade in the recent dobbs decision but because for the first time in our history we are rolling back rights, the history of our great country, the greatest in the history of the world, is that we advance and expand rights from the time of our founding, the ethos and tradition of america is that we increase rights and liberties that are protected from governmental interference, and now with dobbs, one of the core freedoms, the right to decide when and whether to have children has been stripped from women and given to government

officials. but it isn't only reproductive rights under roe, because the united states supreme court has very carefully and deliberately sent signals about where it is going in this rollback of rights and liberties. and it isn't just clarence thomas' concuring opinion, which now has become infamous for its signals. it is the opinion of the court itself that clearly shows that this court threatens not only abortion rights but also contraception rights. and in addition to mentioning griswold v. connecticut,

clarence thomas also, or i should say justice thomas, with all due respect, mentioned loving, lawrence, obergefell, all of them on the chopping block, all those rights on this supreme court's hit list. and perhaps the most deeply rooted of them all in griswold v. connecticut, the right to contraception. now, let's be clear, the right to contraception wasn't stated in the constitution. but the right to privacy is at its core -- don't tread on me. the right to be let alone. that's the reason that we have the bill of rights. that's the reason why the founders rebelled against england, undue, unjustified interference in their personal

lives. and so, the right to privacy is referred to often as a upon up brum -- a ponumbrum, but it's at the core of the constitution that is so fundamental to the mindset and the mantra of those constitutional guarantees from the very founding of our republican and the respect for the right of privacy should be bipartisan, indeed has been bipartisan throughout our history. the simple fact is that the most important decision any of us make, at least in my view, is whether to become a parent. and it ought to be a decision, not something that just happens. it should be a decision that is made deliberately. every american should have that

right to decide when and whether to have children, and politicians shouldn't be the ones to make it. they shouldn't be allowed to infringe or interfere on that decision. and women can't be truly equal if they don't control their lives, their reproductive lives, if they don't control their bodies, if they lose that right. they simply cannot be equal. so it's not just privacy, it's equality that is at stake here. my republican colleagues are adamant in dragging this country back to a time when women had little or no autonomy over these choices. and i am shocked, i think many of my colleagues are, the american people as well, that american women today will have fewer rights than their mothers

and even their grandmothers. we're living through a world where health care providers can't do their jobs and save lives without risking criminal penalties, and much of our nation will be at risk of these -- of losing these fundamental liberties. let me be clear, this should not be controversial. this issue should not be one that provokes verbal jousts on the floor of the united states senate. griswold v. connecticut, yes, it is griswold v. connecticut, has held for decades. it is enshrined in case law, reaffirmed by the supreme court, that individuals have a right to use contraceptions. but we've seen, after assurances

by three of the members now sitting on the supreme court, that respect for precedent really is no longer deeply felt. in fact, may not be felt at all. what one nominee, justice kavanaugh, referred to as precedent on precedent, and therefore well-established law, that was roe v. wade. now it's gone. it was, in justice alito's words, egregiously wrong. but none of those three nominees expressed any feeling whatsoever that it might be wrong, let alone egregiously wrong. so to all of my colleagues who say the right to contraceptives act is unnecessary, i would simply say look at dobbs. when i introduced, along with

the presiding officer, the women's health protection act, in 2013, the idea that roe might be overruled was unthinkable. our goal was to prevent the growing restrictions on that right that imposed excessive burden. what was unthinkable then is reality now. the court overruling griswold might have been thought unthinkable, but that danger is our presents reality in the post-roe world. so i urge my colleagues to join in approving the right to contraception act today, to provide certainty and reassurance to women across the united states that they will have those rights, they can be sure of them, they can rely on them, they will know that having

children will be a decision they make, not somebody else telling them when and whether to start families. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: as we focus on contraception rights this afternoon, listen to some of the comments made by my republican male colleagues. they're not going to change the law on contraception. there is zero threat of contraception being taken away. pure hysteria. i have no reason to believe these precedents are going to fail. these are some of the statements made by my republican colleagues, all of them male, by the way, have made regarding contraception. pure hysteria, they say. this is not pure hysteria to the millions of women across the

country who woke up one morning in june and no longer had a constitutional right. when it comes to this par right agenda-driven supreme court, nothing is off the table, and nothing is pure hysteria. last month, the far-right majority on the supreme court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to get an abortion. this decision was the result of a decades-long effort by far-right republicans and right-wing groups to pack the courts with politicians in robes. and they're just getting started. for this maga majority, controlling women's bodies doesn't stop at forcing women to give birth. they actually want to ban contraception. we know this because in his

concuring opinion to overturn roe justice thomas wrote that the supreme court should reconsider, reconsider, the rules that protect same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and, yes, contraception. this kind of signaling by a justice of the supreme court should be taken seriously. so, my republican colleagues saying they have no reason to believe precedent will be overturned is resorting to magical thinking that no one should believe. after all, the supreme court just overturned a nearly 50-year precedent that women in this country relied on for nearly half a century. half a century. that's two generations. in fact, radical maga republicans in state legislatures across the country

are gearing up. in ohio, house republicans introduced a bill that would effectively ban all abortions from the moment of conception. and potentially other forms of birth control, like iud's. other republicans have refused to rule out banning certain forms of contraception. we are living in a postroe world where our rights -- in a post-roe world where our rights are on the chopping block. so, no, this is not pure hysteria. the american public knows this. democrats know this. so, i say to my republican colleagues, if any of you object to this bill, come down to the senate floor and tell the american people the truth. just be honest. if you do not support guaranteeing the right to contraception. because in this post-roe world

any suggestion that this court won't overturn precedent is no longer something to hide behind. but if my republican colleagues do support the right to contraception, then they should have no problem with supporting our bill, which would create a statutory right for individuals to access contraception, protect the right to health care providers to provide contraceptives to their patients, and empower individuals by extending a private right of action against any state or government official that hinders these rights. today my republican colleagues have a choice -- do they support the right to contraception and an individual's right to make decisions about our bodies and our health care? or will they allow the government to tell millions and millions of women what to do?

madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank you, madam president. an illegitimate, stolen, and radicalized united states supreme court is putting the fundamental rights of americans in jeopardy. last month, the extremist court took away the right to abortion, a right on which millions of americans have relied for almost

50 years, undermining their health, their safety, their freedom. the right wing majority that overturned roe v. wade owes its control of the high court to then leader mcconnell's and donald trump's and senate republicans' theft of two seats on the supreme court. the justices used their ill gotten power to cast aside decades of precedent, precedent which during their confirmation hearings they promised to honor, respect, and follow. if anyone thinks this newly empowered court's decision to strip americans of a long-standing constitutional right won't be shamelessly repeated, they are wrong. what the supreme court just did with roe is a preview of coming atrocities from this supreme court. justice clarence thomas wrote a

concuring opinion in dobbs v. jackson women's health organization. the decision overturning roe v. wade. and that concurrence is like a movie trailer for an upcoming horror film that americans are going to be forced to watch, written, produced and directed by a captured, illegitimate supreme court. in his opinion, justice thomas made clear that he believed americans had too many privacy rights under the united states constitution, that the supreme court had erred in recognized those rights, and that the court should take them away as well, just as it did with the right to abortion. this bears repeating. a sitting justice on the supreme court of the united states is arguing that americans have too many rights.

what mistakes was justice thomas talking about? well, justice thomas urged the court to correct the error the court committed when it recognized the right to same-sex marriage. in its 2015 business in obergefell v. hodges. he told the court to fix the mistake it made when it recognized the right of americans to engage in private consensual sexual activity in its 2003 decision in lawrence v. texas. and he said the court got it wrong when it recognized the right of americans to use contraception in its 1965 decision in griswold v. connecticut. but it is justice thomas who is in error, who's wrong, who's made a mistake. these are all fundamental

privacy-based rights which the supreme court correctly recognized. they should all remain the law of the land. today i want to talk about the right to contraception that this extremist and out-of-touch supreme court and legislatures in red states are taking aim at. the supreme court has recognized the constitutional right to contraception for mar than half a century. since its decision in the griswold case in 1965. and over time the court has afirsted and expanded that -- affirmed and expanded that right. in its 1972 decision, a massachusetts case, eisenstat v. baird recognizing the right of all people to access contraceptives regardless of marital status and in its 1977 decision in carrie v. population services international which held that a state could not

constitutionally prohibit the distribution of contraceptionives to minors -- contraceptives to minors. the right to contraception is a fundamental right that the court has repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed. it is a right that is central to a person's health, to their well-being, to their life, liberty, equality, and economic and social freedom in our country. it is a right grounded in the need and ability to make decisions about one's own body, one's own family, and one's own future. it is a right that is woven into the fabric of a free pluralistic and modern society. and it is a right that we must codify and make part of our law so that far-right extremist judges and elected officials cannot take it away in order to advance their own blatantly political agendas. that is why i have proudly introduced the right to confra session act with my colleagues -- contraception act with my

colleagues senators mazie hirono and tammy duckworth and with senator blumenthal and chair patty murray on the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions and joined by more than half of the democratic senate caucus. the right to contraception act would codify the supreme court's decision in griswold recognizing the right to obtain and use contraception, the right to contraception act would enshrine that right in federal law and it would guarantee a health care provider's right to prescribe contraceptive products and services and information related to them. the bill would also protect a range of contraceptives that are legally marketed under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act and the right to contraception act would authorize the u.s. attorney general as well as individuals and health care providers harm by unlawful restrictions to go

to court to enforce the rights the bill establishes. in short, the right to contraception act would safeguard the rights established by more than 50 years of supreme court precedent and would protect access to contraception, even if griswold were overturned. the concerns that have led to the introduction of this bill are not merely hypothetical. justice thomas' concurring opinion was a call to action that some republicans and red states are eagerly heeding by continuing to attack and to restrict the right to contraception. several states have already gone after access to contraception by cutting off public funding for it, by seeking to define abortion broadly enough to include contraception, and by allowing health care providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception based

on their own personal beliefs. and the harms that would flow if abolishing the right to contraception aren't merely theoretical. attacks on health care, especially reproductive health care, falls hardest on historically marginalized communities, including black, indigenous, and other people of color. lgbtq people, people with disability, people with low incomes, those living in rural and underserved areas and immigrants. last week we all on our side proudly watched the house pass its version of the right to contraception act by a vote of 220-195. and though it is dismaying, only eight house republicans, only eight voted to codify that right. with the right to abortion stolen and the right to contraception threatened, and the need to protect and expand

access to contraceptionive methods and information -- contraceptive methods and information on contraception, it makes it more imperative than ever that we pass this legislation. we can't wait for the next hammer to drop. we have to -- we have an urgent obligation to take the first exit off this slippery slope that leads to the loss of our most important personal freedom, chief among them the right of every american to make their own decisions about their bodies, their family, and their own futures. we can't sit idly by and watch as decades of precedent, privacy rights, and progress are violated. we can't wait for the worst to come because it's already at our doorstep. to my antichoice republican colleagues, if you would deprive americans of the choice to end a pregnancy, how can you also deprive them of the ability to prevent a pregnancy in the first

place unless your ultimate aim is really to exert control over the bodies of others, especially the bodies of women. then i expect to hear no objection to the unanimous consent request to pass the right to contraception act. otherwise the republican position will be clear to everyone. no abortion but no birth control to prevent the need for one. that is where the republican party is today. i urge my republican colleagues not to object to our unanimous consent request and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4612 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is

there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the junior senator from ie iowa. ms. ernst: reserving the right to object, madam president. here we are again. another day, another sympathetically titled bill offered by my democrat colleagues where the talking points don't really give you the full story. case in point, the right to contraception act. the so-called right to contraception act purposefully goes far beyond the scope of contraception. it includes provisions that could guarantee the funding of abortion providers and defines contraceptive in such a broad way that it could include drugs to induce an abortion weeks or months into a pregnancy. this definition also could

include nonfda approved drugs that would actually put a woman's health at work. the bill also flies in the face of decades of work providing for conscious protections. it would require organizations to administer contraceptions despite contra -- contraceptives despite their moral or religious beliefs. madam president, there's something insidious with this bill but don't take it from me. look to the bill's text itself. the findings section of this bill notes the work of an organization that many of my colleagues will recognize, the united nations populations fund. this is the same organization that contributed over $10 million to a mass sterilization

campaign in peru in the 1990's. that campaign was rife with coercive practices. quotas were set. cash bonuses were paid to health workers for each client sterilized and poor women were bribed with nutritional supplements and clothes for their children. and let's not forget the former fund director's high praise of china's one-child policy. but let's be clear here. routine use contraceptives should be more easily available, and the fact that they aren't has the biggest impact on women in rural areas where a doctor could be dozens of miles away. a woman in rural -- in a rural area doesn't need a platt attitude-filled --

platitude-filled messaging bill like we have here. they need over-the-counter access to routine use of birth control. luckily republicans have a solution. my bill, the allowing greater access to safe and effective contraception act incentivizes manufacturers of contraceptives to file an application for over-the-counter access. it also allows priority review for these applications and waives the fda filing fee. that means cheaper, quicker, and more available access for women across this nation. with my bill women 18 and over can walk into their local pharmacy whether that be in sidney, iowa, or the deepest parts of manhattan, and get the routine use birth control they need. madam president, when your doctor is 30 miles away and gas is $6 a gallon, you don't need a

messaging bill. you need access. and, therefore, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. ernst: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 4638 which is at the desk. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. markey: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the junior senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. i do reserve the right to object, and i thank the senator from iowa, but her bill would not ensure access to birth control and it fails to codify the constitutional right to birth control across the united states. in fact, her bill would actually restrict access to birth control

for individuals under the age of 18 requiring a prescription, even if the food and drug administration has approved an over-the-counter option. and we cannot lose sight of the fact that this bill does nothing to address the reality that for many women, true access means being able to afford birth control as well. last month i cosponsored a bill that would guarantee that insurers fully cover over-the-counter birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. no one should jump through ridiculous hoops or pay extra to get the birth control they need. not to mention that this bill would do nothing to prevent states from restricting or even banning access to birth control. the reality is that republicans refuse to acknowledge and that is to over-the-counter option doesn't help patients if their states are chipping away at their right to birth control.

so would the senator from iowa's objection to my unanimous consent request and with her counter unanimous consent request, republicans have made their position crystal clear. no abortion but no birth control to prevent the need for one. republicans have just shown the american people where they stand on their right to contraception while republicans won't protect our fundamental rights as the supreme court and right-wing state legislatures take them away. my democratic colleagues and i will continue to make it our efforts to keep in place the fundamental privacy-based rights that americans have had for decades and codify into federal law the right to contraception. as a result, for those reasons i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard.

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. madam president, it has been nearly 60 years since the supreme court decided griswold v. connecticut and affirmed americans' right to privacy and, with it, their right to contraception. so you'd think this would be a settled issue. and for the vast majority of americans, it is. the right to birth control is overwhelmingly popular. it turning points out, people want to be automobile to control their own bodies -- to be able to control their own bodies and make their own decisions about starting a family. yet, as we just saw, somewhere in the year 2022 this is not a settled issue for republican politiciansment we have seen some of my republican colleagues not only block this but try to deny reality, try to say this isn't an issue or claim that democrats are somehow wasting

time. well, that's pretty rich because i can't help but remember how we all heard some republicans saying the supreme court would not overturn roe as well, how they tried to claim democrats were overreacting, even as they stacked our courts with antiabortion judges and worked for decades to chip away at abortion rights. and now we are seeing the nightmare we warned about become reality. women unable to control their own bodies and get the abortion care they need, a nightmare republicans tried to deny and are still trying to deny, even as it happens, even as 10-year-olds are having to travel across state lines for an abortion after being raped, even as women are now being left bleeding for days waiting for treatment for their miscarriage. so when republicans say they support the right to birth

control, my issue isn't simply that i'm skeptical; it's that i know better. and let's be clear. when i say i know better, i don't just mean in my gut. i mean i have heard republicans' own words. i am watching their own actions. justice thomas said explicitly in his concurring opinion in dobbs that he wants with a the court to the reconsider griswold, which affirmed the right to contraception. the senior senator from tennessee said the griswold decision was unsound. that alone would be scary enough. but republicans aren't just talking about undermining access to birth control. they are already taking action. read the legislation from republicans in idaho, missouri, louisiana, arkansas, michigan which would in fact outlaw plan

b and iud's. talk to women who've already gone to the pharmacy only to be denied their birth control or plan b. yes, this is already happening to people. and just last week 195 house republicans voted against the right to contraception act. and now today they've blocked it in the senate as well. the evidence of where republicans actually stand on birth control is overwhelming. they aren't standing for women. they aren't standing for families. they aren't standing for a right nearly all americans support. they are simply standing in the way. i want to thank the junior senator from massachusetts, the junior senator from illinois, and the junior senator from hawaii for their work with me on the right to contraception act the republicans just blocked. i know we're going to all keep working on this, and i do want to set the record straight because so many of the arguments

we have seen from republicans don't add up. they're trying to distract from their extreme position. we won't let them. madam president, this bill is incredibly straightforward, so you simply cannot say you support the right to birth control and then block this bill. i hope everyone will listen closely because here's what this bill actually does. it simply codifies americans' right to birth control into law. that's it. and you don't have to take my word for it. read it yourself. it's all of 15 pages. it protects a right people depend on and makes sure no one can take that away. and we're talking about a really basic and really fundamental right here. since that right was affirmed a half a century ago, generations of americans have used contraception to control their own future, to manage and treat

their health care needs and start a family when they are ready to. for them, it is not political, and it shouldn't be political here in congress either, especially when protecting this right is supported by a majority of democrats, a majority of independents, and, yes, even a clear majority of republicans. madam president, the american people are watching closely. they were watching previously when senate republicans blocked us from protecting the right to travel across states to get abortion care. they were watching last week when senate republicans blocked expanding support for our nation's long-standing family planning program. they were watching when the vast majority of republicans in the house voted against the right to birth control. and they're watching right now as republicans block a bill that preserves the right to use

condoms, take the pill, get iud's and buy plan b. as republicans refuse to let us protect that right and pass this bill and continue denying the rights that are already undermining that right, this is a basic, fundamental right. and, mark my words, the american people will not forget republicans for blocking us getting this done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the junior senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: madam president, in 1963 americans could be arrested in some states simply for buying birth control pills. 60 years later, if many states have their way, americans may face that reality once again. the supreme court's overing it up of roe v. wade is so sweeping, so unprecedented that

it now threatens the right to contra-openings -- contraception. iud's and other contraception could all be banned. we're going backwards in time to when women did not have control of their own bodies, nor the freedom to decide how and when they wanted to begin their families. who really believes a woman shouldn't be able to use birth control? , that a woman shouldn't be able to decide whether or not she wants to get pregnant, or a couple can't decide they aren't ready for a family? how many children should each woman have? should it be as many as possible? are they alaud to stop reproducing? , is it a lifelong duty? politicians should not be making these decisions. this is a bill that guarantees a woman's right to access legal

contraception. that's it. there is no trick, no sleight at hand. you can pass it into law -- we could pass it into law today. the house has passed it already. starting a family is among the most private and personal decisions a person can make. it changes your life in ways that most of us can't even imagine. and yet there are people who want to force this restriction on women. for women everywhere, but especially in rural and low-income areas, birth care -- birth control is essential health care. if you want to prevent unintended pregnancies, well, that's where you start. when i was governor, colorado made contraception like iud's available at little or no cost. that reduced unintended pregnancies by 54%.

54%. yet now in colorado, some republicans are campaigning to put an initiative on the ballot this november that could make contraception and contraceptives illegal. many other states are considering similar moves with bills and amendments waiting in the wings. i think this is far, far beyond the mainstream of of what most americans believe. in fact, 92% of americans in a recent gallup poll said that contraception is morally acceptable. my mother was born in 1921, a child of the great depression. she skimped and saved every penny, but she always, always made it a point to make some donation to planned parenthood. some years it might only be $10, but she believed there were few burdens harder for a woman to bear than being compelled to start a family before she was ready. as a mother of four, she knew

how important it was for women to be able to make that decision for themselves. who are we, as politicians, to tell american women who has children, how many, and when? madam chair, i yield the floor. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i rise in support of the right to contraception act. 33 days ago the supreme court issued a rule shredding nearly five decades of precedent protecting a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. now women, as we have seen over the last weeks, are at the mercy -- are at the mercy of a patchwork of state laws governing their ability to access reproductive care, leaving them with fewer rights than their moms and their grandmas. so now a woman in minnesota as

different rights when it comes to her reproductive care than a woman in missouri. a woman in north dakota has different rights than a woman in indiana. that's what we're dealing with right now. two weeks ago i joined several of my democratic colleagues on the floor to push for legislation to preserve a woman's right to travel to other states, to access reproductive care led by senator cortez masto. unfortunately, republicans on the other side of the aisle blocked us from that vote. so we came back last week to push for legislation, led by my colleague, senator tina smith, to protect and expand funding for a program created under a republican administration, a republican presidential administration, to fund clinics that support maternal care, conduct cancer screenings, and provide contraception. but again that vote failed

because we were not allowed to move forward with it. so we came back to the floor today, because if the supreme court won't protect people's fundamental rights -- that's why we have three branches of government; that was the concept of our founding fathers -- so if the supreme court isn't going to protect people's fundamental rights, then everyone in this chamber has to decide whether or not they're going to do it. and that includes making sure everyone can access contraception. i am concerned that the worst is yet to come. right now state and local legislatures are literally, racing, along with governors, to say what rights can we take away? sadly, it is not too hard to guess. in his concurring opinion in dobbs, justice thomas actually laid how the a road map -- laid how the a road map with clear

directions for how the court could overturn the right to contraception. he said that the supreme court and this is a quote should reconsider. should reconsider. those two words, they should reconsider. whether the constitution -- why? because he talked about looking at other cases with regard to right to privacy. the supreme court has recognized the right to access contraception for more than 57 years but the conservative justices on the supreme court have shown they don't hesitate to overturn decades' old precedent, no matter what they say at their supreme court hearings. this threat is not a hypothetical. last year the missouri state legislature tried to cut out public funding for widely used contraceptives like iud's and plan b. mississippi's governor has refused to rule out banning contraception and a bill was introduced in louisiana this

spring that could be used to make iud's illegal. these radical proposals don't just hurt those in the states that implement the bans. since the dobbs decision, we have now seen how state bans create an uncertain legal environment for doctors and strain resources at clinics in states like minnesota because the north dakota clinic had to literally start a gofundme page to be able to be able to get -- to be able toest go the costs paid for, the cost of course of moving the clinic from fargo, north dakota, to morehead. that's what's happening in my state. we cannot settle for a situation where people in my state have different rights than people in mississippi or missouri. and with so many extreme politicians out there racing to state capitals to be the first to take people's rights away, we need to explicitly protect the right to access contraception and information about

contraception. i will note that more than 80% of americans support access to contraception. that's why i join with senators markey, hirono, murray, and duckworth in cosponsoring this bill, to protect the right to access contraception and information about contraceptives. this bill safeguards a patient's ability to seek contraceptions and a health care provider's ability to provide those critical services. the right to contraception can't just be an empty promise. that's why the bill gives the department of justice, as well as patients and doctors, the power to make sure that we don't infringe on the right to contraception. i'm proud to join my colleagues, and for the last 33 days i've been thinking about all the women in this country facing an unacceptably uncertain future. today, each and every one of my colleagues had the opportunity to make clear where they stand, but when given the opportunity

some seized the opportunity to protect the right to contraception, some did not. i hope that some of our colleagues will change their minds and we can move forward with this and put in place these laws, protecting the right to travel, protecting the right to contraception, and of course, in the end, protecting a woman's fundamental right to make her own reproductive decisions about abortion. is with that,mr. president, i ye floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled roll call vote -- myself up to 15 minutes, senator blackburn up to 10 minutes, senator tester up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, coming to the floor and listening to some of my colleagues talk about their

concern for lack of access to contraception, and some have said we need to pass a bill codifying same-sex marriage when that is currently the law of the land by virtue of a supreme court decision, the obergefell case, reminds me of the old story about the little boy who cried wolf. he cried wolf when there wasn't any danger, and then once there was danger people didn't come to his aid because they thought it was another phony crying wolf. i can understand how our colleagues, given inflation, given crime, given the broken borders, wanting to change the subject to something else, but that's all this is. this is mere posturing,

pre-november, premidterm open lexes. this isn't about changing the law, because the law already permits ready access to contraceptives. the law already permits same-sex marriage. and so this idea that we ought to spin scarce -- spend scarce time here in the congress, which we have in limited supply, reaffirming rights that already exist, is a clear political narrative designed to divert the american people's attention from things that really are at risk. that is, the paychecks of every american family, because of inflation, because of failed energy policies. we know the price of gasoline, dicele and fuel -- diesel and fuel to fill up your car to go to work or take your choo ild to school or summer camp -- your child to school or summer camp. we know our cities are on fire due to spiking crime waves connected to drugs coming across the southern border. of course, we know that the

southern border is completely open, with a big red carpet and a welcome mat out for anybody who wants to come to the united states illegally. the cartels that are rich and getting richer because of the flow of their human traffic are also getting rich because of the flow of illegal drugs that took the lives of 108,000 americans last year alone. we know where those drugs are coming from, and that the biden administration is doing absolutely nothing to stop them. i would want to change the topic too. mr. president, on a more positive note, the senate approved funding this morning to bolster semiconductor manufacturing by a vote of 64-33. this funding will help kick start the development of these

microprocessors, these chips that go into everything from your cell phone to the f-35 to javelin and stinger missiles that we send to ukraine to defend their country from russian aggression. this funding will help kick start a defense production of these semiconductors in a way that will prevent a vulnerability of our supply chain, since 90% of those advanced semiconductors currently come from asia, with 60% coming from taiwan alone. one other benefit to this bill is that this bill could create roughly 185,000 jobs every year as these new facilities are constructed. long term it could bring another 280,000 jobs online. once these foundries are operational they will supply made-in-america semiconductors that can be used on everything from smartphones to cars to

airplanes to missile defense systems. semiconductors are the cornerstone of this legislation, but the bill also takes a range of other steps to help propel innovation in the competition we're currently in with the people's republic of china. this bill makes -- allows investments, authorizes investments and research that will support everything from robotics to next-generation wireless technology. it also authorizes nasa programs that will keep america at the forefront of space exploration. it extends the authorization for the international space station to 2030. this is very important, especially now that russia has said it will end its commitment to the international space station after 2024. this bill also lays the groundwork for america's continues presence in space

after 2030, including language i championed requiring gnaws to have a -- nasa to have a strategy to retire the space station and to a successor platform. it also enhances existing platforms that support future space exploration, including the moon to mars program, leading efforts to get an american astronaut on the surface of mars. texas is the proud home to the johjohnson space center, the hoe of human space flight, but also a range of other universities and companies that are leading the way in human space exploration. enabling these partnerships saves money, drives innovation, and gives us a competitive edge over countries like russia and china. the broader bill, including the chips act, will support both our economic and our national security and strengthen our

efforts to lead the world in scientific innovation. the way we are going to compete with china and to beat them is to outinnovate them, because no country in the world has better human capital, better brains, and a better system to encourage innovation, which will keep us ahead of the people's republic of china. they don't play by the rules. they certainly don't observe the rule of law. they steal all the technology they can get. but it's important for the united states to be in the game and not be left behind. i want to thank senator warner, the senior senator from virginia, for launching this effort with me two years ago. we introduced the chips for america act in june of 2020, which demonstrates how long it takes to get important legislation passed here in the united states congress. since the time we introduced it,

i've worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to secure the necessary funding so we could deliver the benefits for our country. countless colleagues have been part of the process over these last few weeks, particularly senator young, senator portman, senator wicker, senator sinema, and countless others, senator cantwell, certainly senator schumer as well, and numerous others have led the charge on this legislation, and their hard work and willingness to work cooperatively together and to find common ground is the reason for our success. this has been a long, winding road with a lots of twists and turns along the way, but the end is finally in sight. speaker pelosi has promised to bring this legislation up for a vote in the house, and i hope our colleagues across the capitol do not dally and get this bill voted out of the house and to the president's desk.

chip manufacturers are watching congress and waiting to see if this bill passes before they decide where to build new fab manufacturing facilities. and we've been told that unless this bill passes, these hoped-for manufacturing jobs and these semiconductor manufacturing fabs will not be built here in america, but will be built in europe and other places around the world. secretary raimondo, the secretary of commerce, assured our colleagues that the united states will miss out on big benefits in terms of jobs, national security, and our economy, if congress doesn't pass this bill by the start of the august recess. mr. president, once this bipartisan legislation passes the senate, our democratic colleagues are reportedly planning a dramatic pivot, from

bipartisanship to an ultrapartisan reconciliation process. apparently, they're willing to work together when it's convenient, but they're also willing to abandon the notion of working together and are preparing to go on another reckless partisan spending spree. this isn't the first time. at the start of last year, democrats spent nearly $2 trillion in uns in -- in unnecessary spending on a party line basis. people wonder why we have 9% inflation? part of it is our democratic colleagues are willing to shovel money out the door and chase limited goods with supply chain problems, which means that prices get driven higher and higher. as well as i mentioned, flawed energy policies that look for the kingdom of saudi arabia to increase production, rather than to produce more american oil and gas here at home.

well, our democratic colleagues succeeded in that $2 trillion bill, and they tried to pass another partisan bill at the end of the year, which would have cost the american people nearly $5 trillion. but thankfully, that entire effort failed. now some of our colleagues are committed. this is their last chance before the august recess to take advantage of the rules of the senate and to go on a partisan spending bonanza. certainly, they don't want to miss this opportunity. we're hearing that our colleagues are frantically piecing together a bill that has not yet even been written yet. and completed, and pass the so-called byrd bath test with the senate parliamentarian. so we're waiting to see whether they can meet the time deadline of the end of next week or not. as i said, the bill is still reportedly being prin, so we don't even have a -- being

written, so we don't even have a good picture of everything that's in it. but we do have an understanding of the general framework, and it's not looking good for the american people. for example, our colleagues have said their proposal will implement government price controls on lifesaving drugs, a move that will stifle innovation and end up with scarcity. that's what price controls always do. then we've heard that they plan to expand and extend the obamacare tax subsidies. this all started with a partisan spending bill that became law last year. it expanded the amount of taxpayer assistance people received, which gave more money to more people, including lifting the cap on individuals who could receive those subsidies, above $400,000. of course, at the time the nose -- the camel's nose under the tent was that it was designed as a temporary provision.

but here we are, a year and a half later, and they're already trying to extend it, indicated that there was nothing temporary intended by it. they claim it's not a permanent extension and that it will only last two or three years, but i have no reason to believe that democrats will give up on extending those provisions when they expire. in the words of ronald reagan, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. once created, they will not die, even if they are no longer necessary. and of course, a permanent extension will cost the american people a lot of money. last week the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation released a report of the true cost of a permanent expansion, and it's pretty shocking for a number of reasons. first is the financial cost.

by expanding the obamacare premium tax credits and making them permanent, democrats will add $248 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. mr. president, my age and your age, we're not going to have that pay that money back, but these young people will have to pay the price and everyone will pay the price by adding fuel to the fire of inflation. for whatever reasons, reasons i can't fathom, the national debt are of no concern to our democratic colleagues. they seem not to care. they act as though we're playing with monopoly money that we can print and borrow like there's no tomorrow because none of this really matters. but we know that's not true.

every dollar we spend is paid for by taxpayers and every ounce of debt will be accrued and repaid by our children and grandchildren, but none of this seems to matter to our friends across the aisle. they're plowing ahead with this legislation and the spending isn't even the worst part. our colleagues say this legislation will allow more for health care. but the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation told us that under this plan some 2.3 million americans will lose their current coverage provided by their employer. 2.3 million americans will lose their coverage provided currently by their employer. hardworking americans whose health insurance is currently covered by their employers would be told, you're on your own now. and no matter what you

negotiated when you negotiated your salary with your employer, if you're -- presumably if you're a union member and subject to a union bargain agreement a generous health care plan, all of that will be in jeopardy by this reckless expansion of the obamacare subsidies. our democratic friends want to subsidize health care for six-figure earners, people at 600% above the poverty level would be eligible for taxpayer funded health care. our government would essentially pay healthy people to pay for health care so they can end up

on the subsidy. that is crazy policy. driving up the deficit and kicking people off health plans and subsidizing health insurance for the rich. this isn't about helping the uninsured, it's a backdoor way to have medicare for all. president biden may be president, but it's the bernie sanders agenda at work here. they couldn't get it through -- instead of attempting to pass a massive unpopular bill all at once, they're trying to serve it to the american people in spoonfuls. bit by bit they're trying to push america closer to a single-payer health system. the american people do not want medicare for all. people with health care covered

by their employer want to keep it and they don't want the government to subsidize wealthy people who can afford to pay for their own health care. mr. president, this is a bad idea that i hope whose time has not come. and i hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will give up on this massive partisan taxing-and-spending spree bill that will do no good and will do a lot of harm. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until july 28, 2022. alex vogel and katelyn wall street. the presiding officer: without objection -- katelyn wall. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you,

mr. president. my colleague from texas was talking about how spending seems to increase and before us we have a bill that was going to be $50 billion, and then $72 billion and it comes out and it is almost $300 billion. and this is a piece of legislation that has had a variety of different names, and i have found it so interesting that it's had so many different names. it's been called, chips, chips plus, chips and science, usica, endless frontier and end china competes. there was a new name given when you thought you could rename something and make it fit. i know d.c. is just famous for having these bills with the acronyms and the fancy-sounding names. but when i talk to tennesseans,

it is so apparent, mr. president, they're tired of that. what they want are the facts. they want someone that is going to tell them to -- the truth. and what they know is that china is an adversary, they are not a competitor. they know that we have to work diligently to stay competitive with china and not let them get the upper hand. but when we talk about these issues sometimes we lose sight of that big picture and i do feel that as we talked about the chips bill and semiconductor supply chains, this is something we lost sight of. you know, there are some of us that have worked on the issues of dealing with china going back into the early years of this century. looking at i.p. theft, looking at reverse engineering, looking

at the way the communist china -- chinese communist party would dip in and grab great ideas from american innovators and off to the races they would go. we have a lot of companies that learned a lot of tough lessons trying to manufacture in china. and then we come up near the pandemic, when i was over in the house, and before that period of time, we had an issue and realized our active pharmaceutical manufacturing was where? in china. we couldn't get penicillin. why was that? it was because there was one factory in china that made this and the factory had an explosion, so we had a shortage on that. and then we had an issue with heparin and we had some deaths caused by a tainted product that was coming out of a factory

there. so senator menendez and i had a piece of legislation that would have insenlt viezed -- incentivized returning pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured in the united states and then we got into the issues of the pandemic and then everyone was saying, critical supply chains, we need to bring them back. and, indeed, that is something important to do. chips is an important part of that. our laptops, our electronics, our automobiles all need chips and there was a shortage. and people began to realize that our military aircraft, our radar systems, our major defense systems all needed the chips. but likewise we needed active pharmaceutical ingredients, we needed our telecommunications supply chains, we needed

polysilicon, we needed ag chemicals. all of these are critical supply chains. personally, i was optimistic about the possibility that we were finally going to begin to unravel this relationship that we have had with the chinese communist party. i see it as a dangerous relationship. but like many pieces of well-intentioned legislation, it became a victim of some of the same compulsion to squeeze money from the american taxpayer and put it into a very narrow silo. so after more than two years of working on these issues and multiple failed iterations, what we have is a bill that spends

about $300 billion and is a gateway to industrial planning. i know that many of my colleagues have read some of the postmortems on this as people realized, this isn't about chips, it wasn't $72 billion, there was authorization language in there that was going to balloon this. there was a beefing up of the national science foundation and we have national labs that do a lot of that work. there were protections for u.s. manufacturing, some anti-china provisions, security provisions that, mr. president, guess what, oppose in the night a line drawn through them. they're out. and wasn't that to be the purpose of this legislation? of course it was.

let's bring the manufacturing back to the united states. and that is what we should have done. we should have looked at ways that we could bring manufacturing back across the range of critical supply chains. we all know that china's control over our active pharmaceutical ingredients and other pharmaceutical products, that is a problem. control over our telecom equipment, yes, that is a problem. huawei equipment that we're having to rip and replace in this country, control over our supplies of minerals and chemicals for the communist china party to control that, that is a problem. so many who worked on this have

spent two years looking at, working on supply chains and competition and now what they have is legislation that invests billions of dollars in one industry -- one industrial sector. and promises hundreds of billions of dollars more to the nsf that will duplicate many of those efforts that are already in progress at our national labs and other doe facilities. -- d.o.e. facilities. so we're two years and $280 billion into this and about $80 billion of that goes into one industry. honestly, it does not add up. we could have spent that time

and a lot less money so much more wisely. we could have used tax credits to incentivize multiple industries to come home to set up shop in business friendly states like tennessee and create thousands of jobs for american workers. this is what you called a missed opportunity, and, unfortunately, the new axis of evil, they are watching. and, mr. president, i think they like what they see. i think they like it. i think they like it when we don't appear to be focused, when we don't appear to take the steps to challenge them across the board. we are running out of time to truly unravel ourselves from the influence of the chinese communist party. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana.

mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. it seems a bit like deja vu all over again. we've been here before. we were here before the 4th of july talking about the pact act. the pact act, the toxic exposure bill, the bill that has been in the works for 15 years and that the ranking member and i have worked on very hard over the last 18 months, year and a half. we're going to vote on again here in a moment. this is a bill that has been talked about a lot on this floor and just about everything's been said about this bill. it is a bill that allows us, the american people, to live up to the promises we make to our active duty military when they come home with an injury, in this case toxic exposure. and we've had toxic exposuring

well, in world war i, it was mustard gas, radiation world war ii, agent orange in the vietnam war. we've had toxic ex pures. -- exposures. we've had many hearings on this bill. we had a gentleman testified that had a lung disorder. he was in tough shape and in fact he passed away a few months ago. the truth is, this bill is a bill that we need to pass and we've passed already with 84 votes, and i think we had a couple of senators gone or it would have had 86. it is a bill that is bipartisan in nature and it is a bill that i think every senator that votes for this bill can be proud that we're supporting the men and women who have felt the wounds of battle and are now trying to get their life book to normal.

but it's more than just the folks who serve in our military. it's also their families. and so i would encourage all the members of the body to support this bill. it costs $27 billion a year, but it is a cost of war. if we're not willing to take care of our men and women when they come back from battles that we send them off to, then maybe we ought to rethink whether we are going to send them in the first place. this bill is a bill that was pushed by every veteran service organization out there. it was their number one priority. we listened to the veterans and we ended up with a piece of legislation that is very, very good. if we're able to pass this out of the senate again, this time it won't be going to the house, it will be going right to the president's desk. and we will have done right by our veterans in this country. we will have done right by the

next generation of fighting men and women who will become veterans. and we will have had our veterans' back along the way. with that i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: 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 a close debate on the motion to concur on the house amendment s. 3373, an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373, an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant shall be

brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 55, the sphais are 31 sshes the nays are 42. the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: i enter a motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. i note -- no, i just yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i rise to discuss mr. robert storage, miss

johnson and mr. r. russell rumbaugh. they have been on the executive calendar for months, yet i am unaware of any objections to these nominees related to their qualifications for the positions for which they have been nominated. i need not remind my colleagues with russia's invasion of ukraine and the increasingly aggressive actions of china, how critically important it is to ensure the defense department has the manpower, the people power it needs to do its job well. i would also like to note that in the past my colleagues have been very cognizant of this need for the smooth workings of the defense department, and nominees to the department, both civilian and military, have been voted out of committee and off the floor quickly, typically by unanimous consent. i find it ironic now, at a time when we see unparalleled threats to our national security that nominees to the department of defense would be held on months

on end with no objections on qualifications, without any path to confirmation other than a cloture vote. there are presently eight defense department nominees waiting on the executive calendar. at the end of next week it will be 12. and today i would like to discuss these three individuals. mr. robert storch is nominated to be the department of defense inspector general and was favorably reported out of the armed services committee on march 8, 2022. the defense department has not had a senate-confirmed inspector general since january 8, 2016. i'll repeat that. the defense department has not had a senate-confirmed inspector general since january 2016. the last nominee put forward by then-president obama was withdrawn by president trump on february 28, 2017. mr. trump designated the

honorable sean o'donnell as the acting dod i.g. on april 6, 2020. but the gao issued a decision that mr. o'donnell's acting service have is a violation of e vacancies act. as such there is no inspector general at the department of defense, the largest agency in the federal government. for these reasons, in addition to the fundamental importance of the i.g.'s work, the senate needs to confirm mr. storch as soon as possible. the department has been without a senate-confirmed i.g. for more than six years, and we cannot wait any longer. ms. tia johnson was reported out of the committee on april 5, 2022, and would become one of five judges on the court of appeals of the armed forces, often referred to as the supreme court of military law. the court's next hearing is scheduled for october 12,

2022, where it will consider important jurisdictional and substantive issues in military criminal law. importantly, the f.y. 22 ndaa i am i am flected -- implemented changes. johnson will play a critical role on the court of appeals in reviewing challenges and issues with recent sexual assault and sexual harassment statutes, including defendants' rights under the uniform code of military justice. without ms. johnson, the court risks deadlock which will further hamper the military's ability to provide good order and discipline, which is fundamental to any military force. mr. russell rumbaugh was nominated on march 21, 2022, to serve as the assistant secretary to the navy for financial management and

comptroller. this nomination was privileged, so it did not require a hearing and was intended to move expeditiously. the committee sent policy questions to mr. rumbaugh and received his answers on april 25, 2022. the committee-reported out his nomination on may 12 and pursuant to senate resolution 116, his nomination was moved ten days later to the appropriate section of the executive calendar and was ready for confirmation by the full senate. so his confirmation has been waiting for two months. the navy has not had a confirmed assistant secretary for financial management and comptroller since july 2020. this role is critical to managing the budget and financial readiness of the navy and the marine corps to include the department's audit, and so many will point out and criticize, with some reasonableness, the fact the department of defense has not

yet passed an audit. it's very difficult to pass an audit if you have critical individuals who are not in place to help you prepare for and pass such an audit. that's another reason i think we need, the navy needs a comptroller. each of these positions are critically important to the department of defense. the sooner they assume their offices, the better for the department's ability to tackle these challenges on behalf of servicemembers and their families and the nation. and indeed the sooner they are there, the more we will be able to support the men and women in uniform in the united states who are deployed across the globe. they need that kind of support here in washington. with that, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc bloc -- numbers 843, number

861 and number 972, that the nominations be agreed to without intervening action or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reed: mr. president, the senator from missouri has objected, and i believe he's the only individual member of the senate who objects. in that case, i think i would be prepared to offer another unanimous consent that would allow debate upon these members because that, i think, should

be satisfactory to the senator because it will give him an opportunity to express his objections to these individuals and why they're not qualified to be in office. with that, mr. president, i renew my above request, except that i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session, that there be one hour 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 on nominations in the order listed and the following disposition of nominations -- excuse me. and that following disposition of nominations, the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hawley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from missouri the senator from rhode island has the floor. mr. reed: i believe i retain the time. if the senator would like to make a short statement and then object. i think the easy thing to do is let me yield such time as the senator requires. mr. hawley: i thank the chairman. it's always a privilege to be on the floor with the senator from rhode island and to serve with him on the committee. so thank you for that. i would just say this, it has been nearly a year now since the events, the catastrophe in kabul that claimed the lives of 13 servicemembers, including from my home state of missouri. this was a catastrophe of this administration's making, and it has been now nearly two weeks, maybe three, since i began to enter into the record page by

painstaking page this report undertaken by u.s. central command about that disaster at abbey gate in kabul, about those deaths, not to mention the hundreds of american civilians who were left behind. i'm entering this report into the enter so the american people can see it, because i cannot convince my friend from rhode island to hold a public hearing on this report. and i cannot convince the white house to stop their coverup of the events at abbey gate and the role they played in it. and it's not for lack of trying. for months on end i have come to this floor and asked for a public hearing on this report. i have asked my colleagues, i have written to the chairman, i have spoken to members of the committee who, by the way, say they have no objection. and just last week the white house reached out to me and said what is it that you want. and i said i want accountability

for what happened in afghanistan and abbey gate, and specifically i want a public hearing on this report. to which the white house said, it's up to the chairman. so i hope we can make some progress on actually getting accountability from what happened for the service members whose lives were lost and we can end this continual a vietnam ee effort, to ignore it as if it never happened. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. reed: i reserve my time. while i respectfully disagree with the senator, the committee actions on afghanistan include seven public and closed hearings

regarding the afghan war, lessons learned and ongoing regional antiterrorism requirements since last august and senator hawley has p participated in all of these. the national defense authorization act contained a provision, section 1092, that the department of defense deliver quarterly briefings in classified and unclassified on the security situation in afghanistan and ongoing counterterrorism efforts. it was taken place on apri april 20, -- february 14 and april 25. an additional unclassified hearing will be held tomorrow, coincidentally and senator hawley has full access to all of these briefs. the national defense authorization act also contained a provision, section 1069, which

requires a yearly assessment of our over the horizon of our capabilities in afghanistan. while it has not yet been delivered to the committee, senator hawley will have access to it. the national defense authorization act further mandated the establishment of the afghanistan war commission which will examine all aspects of the war in depth. all commissioners have been appointed and we expect the commission to commence work in the near term and senator hawley will have the same access to the commission's finding as fn else. what -- as everyone else. what i think that the senator does not understand is that the events that took place at abbey gate was not unique, it was the

culmination of actions by commanders on both sides and in order to understand what truly happened at abbey gate, we have to look at all of those issues. what was donald trump's agreement with the tawbl, secluding -- taliban to essentially lead and what other events created a situation that led directly to the situation at abbey gate? without that context, this will be a way to vilify the administration, a way to point out shortcomings, and it won't get to what we really should be focused on. what profound lessons can we learn from 20 years in afghanistan that will assist us in the future, that will protect our men and women in uniform? again, if the focus is on political retaliation and

retribution, that's part of this organization, but if we want to focus on protecting today the life of men and women who serve and their families who will grieve if they are lost, then we have to take a broader view, which we are in the commission, which we are when we bring our experts in on a frequent basis to talk about afghanistan. and which we must do by filling these positions in the department of defense. without the support of a functioning department of defense, we will be in a situation where we are putting at risk the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians that protect this nation. and, with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i arrived to make just a brief comment about the cloture vote that just occurred shortly before the senator from rhode island sought the unanimous consent agreement, and as you know, cloture was denied on that bill and as you know that doesn't mean the bill was defeated. it means the opportunity to amend it doesn't -- isn't eliminated. there haven't been any amendments. that's unfortunate. but i wanted to stress my concern about this bill has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. it's not about the $280 billion -- approximately $280 billion of new spending that is meant to be required under this bill for the v.a. to cover medicare and other -- health care, i should say, and other benefits for veterans who are exposed to toxic burn pits.

what i want to change has nothing to do with that. i see the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, i think he understands i have no interest in modifying the purpose of this bill. all the work that he and many others have done. by the way, i suspect there's 85 votes for this bill, for the underlying bill, if we fix this problem. and here's the problem. completely unrelated to the $280 billion of new spending, there is a mechanism created in this bill, it's a budgetary gimmick that has the intent of making it possible to have a huge explosion in unrelated spending, $400 billion. this budgetary gimmick is so unrelated to the actual veterans issue that has to do with burn pits that it's not even in the house version of this bill. so the fact is we can fix this tonight. this is relatively easy fix.

there might be a few technical things we could iron out, and we could get this done tonight. and i know the chairman of the committee very much wants to get this bill done. this is the path to do it. if we fix this, as i say, i recommend we fix it tonight, we could do it by a unanimous consent request or any number of ways once that is done, this bill sails to the chamber and goes to the president and gets signed into law. i want to urge my democratic colleagues to join me in working this out. this is not what this bill is about. we can fix it. we can do it immediately. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you for the recognition, mr. the good senator from pennsylvania is correct. i want to see this bill passed, and i want to see this bill passed for all the reasons i talked about in committee and on this floor. this is about living up to the

promises for our veterans. this is about making sure that the veterans come back when they come back from exposures to burn pits or oil well fires or to agent orange that they don't have to go to the v.a. and fight for their health care and their benefits. it impacts 3.5 million veterans in this country. by the way, there will be a few more die before we get this bill passed. and i would also say that, as the senator from pennsylvania says, you know, i'm all for the $278.4 billion over ten years on this pill, i've got -- bill, i've got no problem with that. the fact is he does have a problem with that. the fact is by doing what he did today on the floor, the real issue here, and make no mistake about it, is the money spent to take care of our veterans. i said it before and i will say

it again, if you have the guts to send somebody to war, you better have the guts to take care of them when they get back home or don't send them in the fist place. let's talk about the -- first place. let's talk about the $400 billion. what this is about, it's about not even trusting the people in this body. we have an appropriations committee and we vote on appropriations bills and we set the levels in the accounts based off of appropriations. let the process work. let's not tie the hands of appropriators, let's make sure we let the process work. that's what we've always done. but the good senator from pennsylvania's amendment ties the hands of the appropriators. make no mistake about this. the american people are sick and tired of the games that go on in this body. they're sick an tired of us --

and tired of us working for democrats or republicans and not working for the american people. this is bigger than that. we have an all-volunteer military in this country. if you don't think young people are watching what we're doing that are thinking about signing up for the military, you're sadly mistaken. if we don't take care of our veterans when they come home, they will say, why should i sign on the dotted line? because the promise that by made and the country made, only half of that is being respected. my half. this is a sad day in the united states senate. this is the biggest issue facing our veterans today. make no mistake about it. if it wasn't, every veterans service organization wouldn't be talking to us and have been talking to me for the last 15 years. so we can make up all sorts of excuses about how this is going to move money around, but let me tell you something, we're the ones that decide that. if we want to move money around,

we will, if we don't, we won't. in the meantime, let's pass this bill. let's get veterans the health care they've earned. if it isn't, it's political malpractice. what we're here to do and with this policy by putting this policy off does nobody any good whatsoever. i yield the floor. mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: i would just briefly and simply reiterate my request that our democratic colleagues, including the chairman who obviously is passionate about this, just engage with us to fix this, this problem that has nothing do with the bill he wants to pass. this problem that wasn't in the house version of this bill.

the chairman's argument that, well, it's always ultimately subject to appropriations, well, that's really an argument that says, let's not have a budget at all. let's not have any rules. it's true a future congress can always do whatever it wants. so by that logic, we should have no rules, no procedures, no paygo, no efforts whatsoever to have any management of our federal budget. because any congress can come along and waive it. i don't agree with that, especially at a time when inflation is running rampant an we're spending -- and we're spending money like nobody ever imagined. if we have an important need, we'll do that. the chairman said people are sick and tired of games. i agree. this is one of those games where you've got a bill that's going to pass, so let's sneak in this change in the budget rules so it will be easy to spend money on other things in the future.

that's ridiculous. that is not defensible. i would stress there is a very easy path to have a vote in this bill, it could probably happen later tonight or certainly tomorrow, and the path is to let's fix this problem. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you for the recognition, mr. president. i'm going to reiterate what i've said before. the concern that the senator from pennsylvania has is a concern that there's not at lot of trust in this body and i agree. as far as having rules, i believe in having rules, but i don't believe we should have rules that tie the hands of our standing committee.

that says, you can't do it, i don't care what you see, what issue comes down the road for veterans, in this case martin hen richt and the -- henrick and that's what the senator from pennsylvania wants to do. that's not how the process should work. we should deal with issues as they arise. that is a fact. i've said for some time we should cutting the programs that outlived their life span the we should cut those programs. we don't do that well. but we've been at war for 20 years. with that war, by the way, all put on the credit card that that fair amount of it was funded by an oco account and now we're going to say, no, no, no, we're not going to use the money to spend on our veterans and i will

use this to say the appropriations committee might spend too much money. that's on us. and while that's on us, we have veterans dying of cancers and lung conditions because a bill that should have been passed before the 4th of july is still on the floor today. you can frame it any way you want, but in the end this budgetary gyming is called -- gimmick is called how the congress works. appropriators appropriate. if you don't believe me, ask senator shelby. that's what we do. if we appropriate too much, this body votes it down. or if we don't appropriate enough, this body votes it down and amends it up. that's what appropriators do. that's how this process is supposed to work. we should not be using that excuse to deny benefits to the men and women who have served

this country in a god-awful place in the middle east. i yield.

mr. ossoff: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia is recognized. mr. ossoff: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to recognize a giant of the great state of georgia, which the presiding officer and i both have the distinct honor of serving, to recognize a true legend of the u.s. senate, an extraordinary father, husband,

and representative of our state, the late senator johnny isakson. mr. president, senator isakson served georgia all his life. born in atlanta, senator isakson attended the university of georgia, then listed in the georgia air national guard. he was a successful private businessman, growing his real estate enterprise to one of the largest in the state. he served in both the georgia house of representatives and the state senate, and governor zell miller, a democrat, appointed him, a republican, to chair the state board of education. in 1999, senator isakson was elected to the u.s. house of representatives, where he worked to improve american k-12 education, and in 2004 he was elected to this body, where he would serve for almost 15 years with courtesy, dignity, and

kindness, supporting and championing bipartisan efforts to better serve our nation's veterans, and his service culminated in his chairmanship of the senate veterans' affairs committee and of the senate ethics committee. mr. president, as we will hear from our distinguished colleagues who served alongside senator isakson, like senator blunt, senator isakson, through his uncommon decency, his generosity of spirit, his commitment to integrity and service of others over service of self, won universal respect in this body, won respect in the state of georgia that crossed party lines, and earned the reputation, not just nationally, but around the world, for statesmanship, effectiveness, and hard work.

but mr. president, even more important than his work as a statesman, senator isakson was a father and a husband. and i want to recognize senator isakson's extraordinary family, including his wife of more than 50 years, diane, his sons, john and kevin, his daughter, julie, all of whom i've had the pleasure of speaking or corresponding with in recent months, and all of whom in their lives carry on the senator's legacy. senator isakson had a saying, mr. president, that there are just two kinds of people in this world -- friends and future friends. i hope we can all be inspired by that aspiration and that outlook, by his resilient desire to see the good in everyone, to see the opportunity to work with

anyone, to try to find where our interests align, where we can meet eye to eye, where we can get things done together. senator isakson's courtesy, collegiality and integrity will forever serve as an example to all of us who serve in this chamber today and in the future, and that is why in recognition of senator isakson's tremendous contributions to american veterans, to the state of georgia, and to the united states it has been my privilege to introduce, alongside my distinguished republican colleague from missouri, senator blunt, and the presiding officer, senator warnock, the senator johnny isakson v.a. regional office act, to rename the atlanta v.a. regional office after senator isakson, as part of our nation's ongoing recognition of his service, and

as an example to those who follow in his footsteps of the virtues that his representation embodied. i thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this legislation. we will hear from senator blunt, senator warnock, to share their experiences working alongside and knowing senator isakson, in just a moment. but now, mr. president, let's get this done and take this action to demonstrate our enduring respect and admiration for this extraordinary american statesman, gentlemen. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 4359, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4359, the bill to

designate the regional office of the department of veterans affairs in metropolitan atlanta as the senator johnny isakson department of veterans affairs atlanta regional office, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. ossoff: mr. president, i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ossoff: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i'm

glad to join you, and senator ossoff today, and joining both of you in sharing some thoughts about senator isakson. senator ossoff has already said a lot of thing that are easily said, not that they were easy for him to say, but anybody that new johnny isakson would make many of those very same points, and hopefully make them as well. i was glad to join him as the original cosponsor of this bill. johnny and i served together in the house from 1999 until 2005. i was the majority whip during most of that time, and he was one of the half-dozen deputies that were really our key to getting things done. and johnny isakson liked to get things done. in 2005, he came over here to be in the senate and brought that same determination to get things done, to find the place, wherever that place was, where something could happen, and he

was a master at making things happen. when i joined him in the senate in 2011 i was pleased to get a chance to serve alongside him again. he was a fast friend and a friend that was -- you could count on. he knew how to bring people together. he did view, as senator ossoff said, people as his current friends or people who, the only reason they weren't his friend is they hadn't become his friend yet. that's quite a way to approach life, and johnny did it really well. i don't think there was anyone more respected by the other members of the senate than senator isakson was. september last year, i had the opportunity to join you, mr. president, along with senator coons and senator graham in hosting a bipartisan lunch that johnny first started 13 years ago. i think we're going to do that again in september of this year, and we have democrat lunches, we have republican lunches.

the johnny isakson every year was the bipartisan lunch, and i think that's a great tradition to, at least one more time, do in honor of his service here and his friendship. he understood the value of sitting down over a cup of coffee or a meal, talking to one another, finding the things you agree on, then working together. one thing i found here, i think one of the ways i found it was watching what johnny did, when a democrat and republican senator find something to do together and get it done, invariably, they start looking for the next thing to do together. and their staffs start looking for the next thing their bosses can do together, and it is an infectious kind of thing that gets things done. that was one of the great understandings of the legislative process that johnny brought to the senate. i think when johnny was in the georgia house there were a handful of republicans in the

georgia house when he got there. he told me he got to be minority leader pretty quickly. maybe it was because he didn't show up in the room that day before they chose who their leader was going to be. he understood what it took to bring things together. he liked to help people. he liked to get things done. he especially liked to get things done for his fellow veterans. we are going to approach this veterans issue this week, and i'm sure we're going to get it done. we just had a discussion about veterans and our commitment to veterans. as chairman of the veterans' affairs committee johnny really led efforts particularly to increase accountability at the v.a., and there was an accountability problem at the v.a. that johnny was intent on making sure we got to the bottom of it, to be sure that veterans received the care that they were entitled to, and the benefits they had learned -- they had earned.

under his leadership, congress also passed the mission act, legislation that gave veterans real and permanent choice in their health care. this is something that particularly younger veterans care about. they want to go to the doctor that they want to go to. they want to go to a doctor close to home, or they want to still have the option as they would have to go to a veterans facility or be referred from that facility to another place where their care would be more easily available to them. but what veterans really want was the idea of having not just a pilot project on choice, which was the case before johnny isakson as chairman decided, no, we're going to have a permanent process where veterans are going to have those choices in the future. so here we have just passed legislation designed to really designate the v.a. facility in decatur, georgia, the senator

johnny isakson department of veteran affairs atlanta regional office. certainly proud to join my colleagues today as we sought and received unanimous consent for this legislation to pass. i really can't think of a more fitting way today, as we talk about veterans, to honor johnny's legacy than to have his name associated with an issue he cared deeply about. another issue he cared deeply about and we worked closely on was health research and what was happening at the cdc. there will be a building, the ground is being broken right now as i understand it for the cdc headquarters in atlanta that will also be named for johnny isakson, and those are two very fitting areas of focus for what he did for people in georgia, what he did for veterans in georgia, what he did for health care in georgia and what he did

for all of those things as it related to the entire united states of america. and so i'm glad to see this legislation pass. mr. president, i'd yield the floor. mr. warnock: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: mr. president, i come to the floor today to honor a friend, our late senator from

georgia, my predecessor, senator johnny isakson, as we work across the aisle just as he did to rename the department of veterans affairs atlanta regional office in his honor. i thank you, my brother and fellow senator from georgia, for leading this effort. without a doubt, senator isakson loved georgia, and he cared deeply for our country. he was a patriot, a public servant, and i'm proud to say that there are members of my staff who used to work for johnny isakson. and they will tell you that he never hesitated to show up. in my other job as a pastor, i

talk often about the ministry of presence. sometimes it's not about what you say, because there are some situations, quite frankly, for which there are no adequate words. when someone has lost a loved one and you're standing there at graveside, or standing in a hospital at bedside with a patient, sometimes the issue is really showing up -- the ministry of presence. johnny isakson had it. he knew how to show up. and whether it was paying a visit to an ill patient or seeing a disabled veteran, he was there. senator isakson, the consummate public servant, dedicated his years of service to our beloved georgia, to veterans, to our families, and to our children.

and he always made it a point to show up at ebenezer baptist church, every year in january, as we celebrate georgia's greatest son -- the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. johnny isakson without fail was always in the house. now to be sure, when the king holiday rolls around, politicians do tend to show up. but what was so impressive about johnny isakson is that not only did he show up for the service, he stayed for the whole service, a service which i will admit is long even by baptist standards. he stayed there the whole time, and he was unafraid to work across ideological and political differences in our state, in our country.

i shall never forget his example of public service. we talk from time to time, in fact it occurs to me that the first time i stood in this chamber, i stood not as a senator but as chaplain of the day. and it was at johnny isakson's invitation. i remember his graciousness on that day and on so many occasions. and when he announced his retirement, he called me and said raphael, i'm retiring, and i want to drop by ebenezer and say goodbye. when he came that sunday, he asked the members of our church who are veterans to stand. and as he looked across the audience and saw all the veterans that were in our church, he said i want to leave a special offering for the

veterans ministry in this church. that was johnny isakson. and so i'm thrilled that today with great appreciation and admiration for senator johnny isakson, our bipartisan legislation honors his life and his legacy by renaming the department of veterans affairs atlanta regional office in his honor. and i'm thrilled that it has passed the senate in a bipartisan way with unanimous support. and isn't that fitting. johnny isakson is doing now in death what he did in life -- bringing us together. and in this moment in which we are in a debate about what to do for our veterans, isn't it appropriate that his spirit summons us to common ground and

to higher ground so that we can do all we can for those who have our back in dangerous places all over the globe. senator isakson cared deeply for georgia's veterans and for veterans all across our country. he understood that there are some things bigger than politics. and so we recognize his amazing service, his incredible legacy of life and self-sacrifice by renaming the atlanta regional office of the department of veterans affairs in his honor. i am proud to sit in the seat where he sat. and it is my honor to help lead the passage of this bipartisan piece of legislation that will help preserve the legacy of our late and dear friend. long live the spirit of johnny

isakson. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate having received h.r. r h.r. 1842, the bill is considered read a third time and the questions occur on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye.

all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the bill is passed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. under the previous order, the senate having received h.r. 1057, the bill was considered read a third time and the question occurs on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is pfd. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table. mr. kelly: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from. mr. kelly -- the senatorfrom ar. mr. kelly: i ask that the senate proceed to calendar number 433, s. res. 623. the clerk: to designate russia

as a state sponsor of terrorism. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: i know of no further debate on the amendment. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it and the relation as amended is agreed to. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 725, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: s. res. 725, to authorize testimony, documents, and representation in the state of ohio v. houston. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. kelly: i further ask that the relation be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 726, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 726, to authorize testimony and representation in united states v. herrera. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. kelly: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, july 28, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to consider executive calendar number 922, the nomination of constance millstein to be ambassador to the republic of malta, as under the previous order. further at 1:45, the senate vote on confirmation of the milstein nomination with all of the previous orders remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kelly: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand

adjourned under the previous order. order. >> the senate today think the chips bill, providing billions in grants to u.s. computer chip manufacturers, they help them compete with china, and the task by 64 - 33 vote later in the day, lawmakers the bill increasing benefits for toxin exposed veterans, that bill was 55 - 42 falling short of the required, 60 yes votes and some news this afternoon, virginia democrat joe manchin, announcing that is reached a deal with majy leader, chuck schumer on the bill seeking to decrease healthcare cost fight climate change interchange and address the federal deficit in the washington post rights, under the deal, mentioning democrats, have agreed to support roughly $433 billion in new investments, much of which is focused on climate change, and energy

production and in total, democrats say their proposal now is that inflation reduction act of 2022, good lower energy costs, increase clean energy production, and reduce carbon emissions roughly 40 percent by 2030. majority leader schumer said he hopes to bring the bill to the floor for about next week i will have more fiber senate coverage remembers gavel back into session here on "c-span2". drug policy officials testify on the continued rise of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl, watch the senate health committee hearing, tonight at nine eastern, on "c-span2". c-span now, free mobile app or mine, at cspan.org. >> cspan now, is a free mobile app featuring your unfilled review of what is happening in washington life demand, keep up

the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings with hearing from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts and campaigns and more from the world and all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling affirmation for the tv networks and c-span radio, was a variety of podcasts and c-span now is available at the apple store and google play and download it for free today, c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime anywhere. >> cspan is your unfiltered view of government, by these television companies and more, including media,. >> the world changes in an instant, immediate home was ready and internet traffic soared and we never slowed down, schools and businesses we powered a new reality, we are

keeping you had. >> media comp supports cspan's public service along these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. the senate today passed legislation that provides grants to the u.s. leadership industry, to better compete with china. in the final vote was 64 - 33 prayed and now has to the u.s. house for final approval and up next we will show you floor rems prior to passage of the bill. >> for the last century, the wholeness injury america's prosperity was anchored on a countries unmatched commitment to science, research, technological growth, innovation, advanced manufacturing and the question before the sentencings is simple, will that prosperity on in the centuries to come.n the centuries to are we on