A resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs operation and remembering the members of Brigada de Asalto 2506 (Assault Brigade 2506).

Madam President, yesterday, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I had a chance to share the story of this fallen hero from Chicago, IL. Her name is Ella French.

Officer French joined the Chicago Police Department in 2018. A true public servant, she was always eager to help. She loved people, loved her family, and loved animals, particularly stray dogs. She would often pick them up in her squad car and ferry them to safety at the end of the day.

Last year, tragically, Officer French was shot down during a traffic stop. She was 29 years old. Her partner, Carlos Yanez, Jr., was seriously wounded. The gun that was used to shoot both of them had been straw-purchased in Indiana, a State adjoining Illinois. A straw purchase takes place when someone without a criminal record, who can pass a background check, buys a gun for someone who cannot. In this case, the purchaser was turning the gun over to a convicted felon who used the gun to kill Ella and seriously wound her partner.

During yesterday's hearing, which focused on law enforcement officer safety, we were joined by Officer French's mother, Elizabeth. She is a wonderful

person. I want to take this opportunity to thank Elizabeth French for her bravery and her commitment to honoring her daughter's legacy.

I want to thank our witnesses, including Chief Angel Novalez of the Chicago Police Department, who himself was shot in the line of duty, for participating yesterday in the hearing.

Every time law enforcement officers put on their uniforms and badges, they put their lives on the line, especially in a country that is now awash in guns, America, the country of 350 million people and 400 million firearms. In fact, guns are not only the No. 1 cause of death for America's children, they are the leading cause of death for officers in the line of duty, second only to COVID.

We have made some progress in recent months in reducing the risk of gun violence for police officers and our families. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act included a provision I have long supported, cracking down on straw purchases, like the gun that was used to kill this amazing young woman.

We still have a lot of work to do. Yesterday, I introduced legislation--and I have named it in Officer French's honor--that would provide funding to multijurisdictional task forces to combat straw purchasing: the Officer Ella Grace French Task Force Support Act. I am glad her mother was there to hear that.

I hope every Senator who prides himself on supporting law enforcement will join me in this legislation. I can think of no better way to honor the service and sacrifice of our officers, to protect our families and our children, and to demonstrate to America that this Senate is serious about stemming the tide of gun violence in our country.

Right to Contraception Act

Madam President, in the United States of America, nearly all women-- 99 percent--use some form of contraception in their lifetime to prevent unplanned pregnancy. They use birth control pills, IUDs, condoms, and other devices. Many women who are not sexually active still use birth control to manage medical conditions.

Further, almost every woman who identifies as religious has used a contraceptive method in her lifetime--99 percent of mainline Protestants, evangelical Protestants, and Catholics--and 96 percent of people with other religious affiliations.

In short, women in all stages of life in America and of all religious backgrounds rely on birth control. It is their constitutional right. It is their decision. But this right, this decision, is now under attack.

Over a month ago, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, revoking for the first time ever an established constitutional right: the right to reproductive healthcare. And I fear that the Court's assault on our fundamental freedoms is just beginning.

In his concurrence in the Dobbs opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the Supreme Court to ``reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.'' He made reference in that statement to three Supreme Court decisions which have been on the books for over 50 years. That is an explicit threat by Justice Thomas against the very right to same-sex marriage, the right to consensual relationships between LGBTQ people, and the right to contraception, which has been protected by the Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut for 55 years.

In that case, Griswold, a supermajority of seven Supreme Court Justices ruled that married couples have a right to access contraception. They based it on a word which you will not find in the Constitution: ``privacy.'' Now, more than half a century later, we are living in an America where women are no longer guaranteed this right to privacy, this right to reproductive healthcare, and where their very right to contraception is now in doubt and in jeopardy.

This is not some alarmist rant. At this very moment, women in America are being denied their constitutional right to contraception. How could that possibly be in this country? Well, look no further than your local pharmacy.

This past weekend, USA TODAY reported on the story of Abigail Martin, a young woman who has been taking birth control pills for the past 6 years. She went to a Walgreens pharmacy to refill her birth control prescription, which had been prescribed by her doctor. She was turned away by a pharmacist at Walgreens. It took 4 days before she was finally able to access her medication by going to a different pharmacist. That is a dangerous delay in healthcare. Apparently, Walgreens allows its pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription for which they have ``a moral or religious conviction . . . [and] to refer the customer to another employee or manager on duty who will complete the transaction.''

Since Abigail's story went viral, other Walgreens customers have come forward to say that cashiers refused to ring up their condoms because they announced it violated their faith.

A pharmacist should not be able to unilaterally decide that their personal moral or religious beliefs can delay or interfere with the medical needs of a patient standing at the cash register, buying a legal medication, which is why this week I sent a letter to the CEO of Walgreens, an Illinois corporation, for an explanation of their policy.

If Walgreens is going to allow its individual employees to dictate what legal medical products customers can purchase, then the company should make this policy known to the public. They should be required to display signs at their cash registers alerting customers and the public that they may not be able to fill their prescriptions or buy healthcare products in a timely manner. Given this information, customers may decide to take their business elsewhere--to a pharmacy that does not allow individual staff members to restrict or interfere with their customers' legal purchasing decisions.

A woman's right to essential healthcare should not differ based on which pharmacy she chooses, who fills her prescription, or who rings it up. Her right to this personal decision in her life is fundamental-- fundamental. That is why Congress must pass the Right to Contraception Act introduced by Senators Markey and Murray. This is a commonsense proposal, and I have cosponsored it. It would codify the right to contraception in America nationwide--a right that has been undisputed for 55 years.

We need this legislation because now women in America are living with the consequences of six unelected Justices erasing the constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, and pharmacies, like Walgreens, are allowing their employees to dictate what healthcare products consumers are able to purchase. Walgreens says they want to be respectful of the moral judgment of their employees and staff. Should they not also be respectful of their customers?

Politicians and pharmacists have no business standing between a woman and healthcare. If protecting this right sounds like common sense to you, then join us in supporting the Right to Contraception Act.

If the Supreme Court will not respect this fundamental personal right, you have the right to demand that your Member of Congress will.

CHIPS Act of 2022

Madam President, across America, tens of thousands of cars are lined up bumper to bumper in a total standstill. This is not an ordinary traffic jam. You see, these cars are brand new. They were assembled by some of the finest names in American manufacturing. But they are missing something, a key, essential component: microchips.

If you are in the market for a new car or even a fridge or a smartphone, there is a good chance you have felt the semiconductor shortage. These tiny pieces of silicon power nearly everything around us. But with the coronavirus epidemic, supply chains have been snarled and foreign factories have been shut down, which has led to a global shortage of microchips.

This has had a devastating impact on American consumers, businesses, and workers. Over the past 2 years, the price of a new car has skyrocketed by 20 percent--40 percent for used cars. We have seen the repercussions of this firsthand in my home State of Illinois, which is one of the leaders in the auto industry. Companies like Stellantis, which runs an assembly plant in Belvidere, have been forced to shut down production several times this year because of these shortages.

Today, the Senate did something remarkable: We passed a bill, a bipartisan bill. How about that. And it is important. We came to the rescue of job creators like Stellantis and to the rescue of American consumers. We voted on this legislation to invest billions of dollars into making microchips right here in America.

This bill is critical for the future of our economy. It is even critical for our national security. And we need it desperately for more scientific breakthroughs. But in the near term, the CHIPS Act is imperative for shoring up our Nation's supply chain and strengthening our defense system. Why? Because microchips are essential not just for cars and refrigerators and smartphones but for guided missile systems and fighter jets.

Right now, America has to rely on foreign suppliers like China to supply the chips that power the next generation of defense in America. That wasn't always the case. In 1990, America produced almost 40 percent of the world's supply of microchips. Today, make that 12 percent. Somewhere along the way, we settled for outsourcing semiconductor production to Asia. That is just unacceptable, and it is unsustainable. Imagine our turning to the Chinese Communist Party to determine whether or not we can buy the microchips that fuel our economy and protect our Nation. That is a dangerous scenario.

I have heard a few colleagues voice concern about the subsidies in this bill, but--let's be clear--this is no reckless corporate giveaway. The CHIPS Act will bring American factories back to life, creating good jobs in our country.

The fact is, our competitors in Asia and even Europe are already investing billions of dollars in luring chipmakers away from America. We need to fight fire with fire. The CHIPS Act will. It will incentivize the biggest names in technology to manufacture right here in America, and if any company breaks their commitment to make it in America, we reclaim all of the funding that we give them under this bill.

But beyond this economic and national security imperative, the CHIPS Act is important for another reason, one that really strikes at the heart of America: pioneering innovation. The CHIPS Act includes historic funding authorization for groundbreaking scientific research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

This has been a particularly important issue to me personally as a Member of the Senate for many years. It was 7 or 8 years ago when I decided to try to push for increasing medical research funds at the Federal level. I concentrated on the National Institutes of Health, with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who was just on the floor before me, joining me in a bipartisan effort with Patty Murray in an effort to make this bipartisan and effective. It worked. We dramatically increased the investment in the NIH. But I knew that wasn't enough. We needed the Department of Energy's Office of Science, as well as the National Science Foundation, to have the same increase in funding. Today, with the passage of the CHIPS and Science bill, we are finally moving in that direction.

We know how important scientific research is. We have learned it over and over. For instance, finding that vaccine for COVID-19 in recordbreaking time was a result of investing in science and medical research years and years before.

We also know that we have launched some things which are going to change the world. The James Webb Space Telescope is one of those things. The deepest and sharpest photos of our universe are finally coming home to the United States and the rest of the world.

What is NASA doing with this trove of data being collected by this telescope now? Well, since NASA is funded by taxpayers, they are sharing it with researchers throughout the country. One professor at the University of Chicago, Jacob Bean, says that he is planning on using this data to learn more about exoplanets orbiting faraway stars, whatever the possibilities may be that they can host a life.

This one image of our universe has unleashed a flood of new ideas and just countless questions for researchers around the world. It shows how funding and scientific research can really change the place we live in.

When we support scientists and researchers, we are paving the way for new discoveries. NASA was critical for developing so many products. Imagine, if you will, that they had a lot to do with developing athletic shoes, CAT scans, and smartphone cameras. These staples of American life and more were unintended discoveries pioneered in NASA's labs.

With the CHIPS Act, we can kick-start a new generation of discovery. I am happy to say that, in Illinois, in the Chicagoland area, we have two of the best research operations in our country: the Argonne Lab and Fermilab.

With this funding, these facilities will break new ground in researching emerging technology, like AI and quantum computing. In fact, Argonne and Fermilab already partnered together with the University of Chicago to launch the most advanced quantum network in the world. They are planning to expand it to other parts of the country, bringing more research into this cutting-edge research technology.

And much like space exploration 50 years ago, quantum computing is the new frontier in science. We have only begun to explore techniques like teleporting qubits, which may sound like a line from Star Trek, but it has profound implications.

Quantum computing could revolutionize the way we design electric batteries for cars, even solar technology, to maximize energy efficiency. These are the possibilities that lie before us. The passage of the CHIPS and Science Act today on the floor of the U.S. Senate is a vindication of our commitment to this Nation's future and an investment that generations will thank us for.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, in a moment, I am 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 is our duty to put them out of business. It is 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\1/2\ million fewer barrels a day of oil than it did in November 2019.

That is why oil and gas prices are high. It is no mystery, and it is 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 groveled to Saudi Arabia and to Venezuela, asking them to increase their production. And he has attacked small business gas stations around the country and told them: Just lower your prices. Then he has 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 2 million barrels of oil to the Chinese Communist Party's state-owned oil and gas company, Sinopec. 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 is the lowest level since December of 1985, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Of course, no mention of China and the administration would be complete without noting that Hunter Biden's private equity firm, BHR, has a major stake in Sinopec.

But there is something we can do. I am 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 is 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 6-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 is why Congress needs to act.

This should be a simple and easy bipartisan measure to say we are not going to sell our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to communist China to use it against America.

Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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.

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 is 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 I had authored and passed into law, not once but twice; 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.

Now, every Democrat in this body had voted for my sanctions not once but twice. They had supported it when the President's name was Donald J. Trump.

But then they had a Democrat in the White House, and a Democrat, Joe Biden, who, on the day of the vote, came to Capitol Hill--it is the only time I know of that he has done this--to personally lobby Democrats to vote against sanctions on Russia, against sanctions on Putin, 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.

And, in fact, I will read from the bill he called up. It is:

The President . . . may restrict exports of . . . coal,

petroleum products, natural gas, or petrochemical feedstocks.

Shut down all exports.

So I want you to understand the difference between my bill and the bill the Senator from Connecticut is asking us to pass.

My bill says: Don't sell our oil to our enemies. Communist China is our enemy. Russia is our enemy. Iran is our enemy. North Korea is our enemy. Let's not sell our oil to our enemies.

This is a reasonable, commonsense proposition. I am confident any one of us at home with our constituents, if you asked your constituents, ``Should the President of the United States be selling oil that the American taxpayer has paid for, that is kept as a strategic reserve to keep America safe, should we be selling it to communist China,'' the overwhelming majority of your constituents and mine, whether Democrat or Republican, would say: Absolutely not. That is idiotic.

My bill says: Don't sell our oil to our enemies.

The Senator from Connecticut has responded with: Don't sell our oil to anybody. Don't sell our natural gas to anybody. Don't sell it to our friends.

Now, 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 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 have 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 that we should abandon our friends in Europe. We should abandon our friends that want our energy. We should tell them: You know what. You are better off buying oil from Russia. You are better off buying oil from Iran. You are better off buying oil from Venezuela, which I guess makes sense because Joe Biden's State Department was asking Venezuela, led by an illegitimate Nicolas Maduro, an enemy of America--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, it would drive up gasoline prices. If the extremes in the Democratic Party have their way, we won't just see $5-, $6-, $7-a-gallon gasoline, we are going to see $10-a-gallon gasoline. That is where they want to go.

And, by the way, the Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg, said publicly: This is the cost of transition. We have got to make gasoline expensive.

In politics, that is called saying the quiet part out loud--that for too many of the extreme Democrats, they want working men and women to pay 100 bucks, 150 bucks at the gas pump. Why? Because they don't like that some moms choose to drive minivans. They don't like that some Americans choose to drive a pickup truck or an SUV, and they want to force you to sell your Suburban and buy a Prius. And their strategy is: We are going to make it so expensive, so miserable that you can't afford your bills until you comply with what they want.

It is cynical, and it is misguided, but it does at least make transparent that the little stickers on the gas pump with Joe Biden pointing at the price 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 is 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.

Madam President, you know, John Adams famously said: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' So let's clarify a couple of facts.

No. 1, the bill that the Senator from Connecticut was pushing is a bill that is entitled 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--energy exports across the board to anybody.

By the way, the bill is authored by Senator Markey. It is cosponsored by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Sanders, and Warren. The Senator from Connecticut is not a cosponsor of the bill.

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. 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 percent completed by the time the Senate and the House took up my sanctions legislation, and the Russian disinformation that was put out was: It is over 90 percent completed; so there is 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-percent complete pipeline is zero percent complete. It is a hunk of metal on the bottom of the ocean. The pipeline lay 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 had stopped the pipeline.

Then Joe Biden became President. He immediately began signaling weakness to Russia. He began foreshadowing what he actually did in May, which is to waive the sanctions.

Joe Biden was sworn into office on January 20, 2021. Putin recommenced building Nord Stream 2 on January 24, 2021, 4 days after Joe Biden put his hands on the Bible.

I find it very curious that Democrats, No. 1, 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 oil and 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 mean 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: myself for up to 15 minutes, Senator Blackburn for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Tester for up to 5 minutes.

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 our colleagues--given inflation, given crime, given the broken borders--wanting to change the subject to something else, but that is all this is. This is mere posturing pre-November, pre- midterm elections. This isn't about changing the law because the law already permits ready access to contraceptives. The law already permits same-sex marriage.

So this idea that we ought to 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 that the price of gasoline and diesel and fuel to fill up your car so you can go to work or take your child to school or summer camp has increased. We know that our cities are on fire due to spiking crime waves connected to drugs that are coming across the southern border. And, 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.

And 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.

CHIPS Act of 2022

Mr. President, on a more positive note, the Senate approved funding earlier this morning to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing by a vote of 64 to 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 domestic production of these semiconductors in a way that will prevent a vulnerability of our supply chain, since 90 percent of those advanced semiconductors currently come from Asia, with 60 percent 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. And 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 are currently in with the People's Republic of China. This bill authorizes investments in 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 continued presence in space after 2030, including language I championed requiring NASA to develop a strategy to retire the International Space Station and transition to a successor platform. It also enhances existing programs that support future exploration missions. This includes the Moon to Mars Program, which is leading efforts to get an American astronaut on the surface of Mars.

Texas is the proud home to the Johnson Space Center, the home of human space flight, but also a range of other universities and companies 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 included in 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 out-innovate 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 is important for the United States to be in the game and not be left behind.

I want to thank Mr. Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, for launching this effort with me 2 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 U.S. Congress. Since the time we introduced it, I have 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; and Senator Cantwell and certainly Senator Schumer as well and numerous others have led the charge on this legislation. Their hard work and their 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 lot 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 have 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, has 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.

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 are willing to work together when it is convenient, but they are 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 unnecessary spending on a party-line basis. People wonder why we have 9 percent 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, 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, and certainly they don't want to miss this opportunity.

We are hearing that our colleagues are frantically piecing together a bill that has not yet even been written and completed and passed the so-called Byrd bath test with the Senate Parliamentarian. So we are 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 written, so we don't even have a good picture of everything that is in it. But we do have an understanding of the general framework, and it is 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 is what price controls always do.

Then we have 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 receive, which, in short, 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 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 are already trying to extend it, indicating that there was nothing temporary intended by it.

They claim it is not a permanent extension and that it will only last 2 or 3 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 is 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 are not going to be the ones who have to pay that money back. But these young people sitting down here are going to have to pay the price for the profligate spending today, and all Americans will pay the price by adding fuel to the fire of inflation.

For whatever reason--reasons I really can't fathom--the Federal debt and the national debt are of no concern to our Democratic colleagues. They simply don't seem to care. They act as though we are playing with Monopoly money, that we can print and borrow like there is no tomorrow because none of this really matters. But we know that is not true. Every dollar we spend is paid for by taxpayers, and every ounce of debt we accrue will be carried and repaid by our children and our grandchildren. But none of this seems to matter to our friends across the aisle. They are still plowing ahead with this legislation.

Unfortunately, the irresponsible spending isn't even the worst part. Our colleagues claim this extension will allow more Americans to afford healthcare, 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. Some 2.3 million Americans will lose their coverage provided currently by their employer. Hard-working Americans whose health insurance is currently covered by their employers would be told: You are on your own now. And no matter what you negotiated when you negotiated your salary with your employer, presumably if you are a union member and subject to a collective bargaining agreement where your union negotiated a generous healthcare plan, all of that will be in jeopardy by this reckless expansion of the ObamaCare subsidies.

Our Democrat friends want to continue subsidizing healthcare for six- figure earners. People earning 750 percent of the Federal poverty level would be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies--750 percent of the poverty level, you would get cash from Uncle Sam. Our country would be essentially paying wealthy people to lose their current employer- provided healthcare so they can end up on the government subsidy.

This is simply crazy policy: driving up the deficit, kicking people off of their employer-provided health plans, and forcing taxpayers to subsidize health insurance for the rich. This isn't about helping the uninsured; it is a backdoor way to implement Medicare for All. Yes, Joe Biden may be President, but it is the Bernie Sanders agenda at work here.

Of course, Democrats couldn't get enough support for this radical plan, so they are trying to jam it through on party-line votes. Instead of attempting to pass a massive, unpopular bill all at once, they are trying to serve it to the American people in spoonfuls. Bit by bit, they are trying to push America closer to a single-payer health system.

American people do not want Medicare for All. People who have their employer-provided coverage want to keep it. And the American people don't want the Federal Government subsidizing wealthy people who can afford to pay for their own healthcare.

This is a bad idea whose time I hope has not come, and I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will simply give up on this massive, partisan tax-and-spending spree bill that will do no good and will do a lot of harm.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss three civilian nominees: Mr. Robert Storch, Ms. Tia Johnson, and Mr. Russell Rumbaugh, who are each nominated to hold critical positions within the Department of Defense. 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 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 for 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 for the Department of Defense would be held for 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. 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 will 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 IG on April 6, 2020, but the GAO recently issued a decision that Mr. O'Donnell's continuing service as the acting inspector general is in violation of the Vacancies Act. As such, there is really no effective inspector general in the Department of Defense--the largest Agency in the Federal Government.

For these reasons, in addition to the fundamental importance of the IG's work, the Senate needs to confirm Mr. Storch as soon as possible. The Department has been without a Senate-confirmed IG for more than 6 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 for 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 FY22 NDAA implemented extensive changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including a statute that would criminalize sexual harassment under some circumstances. Ms. Johnson will play a critical role on the Court of Appeals in reviewing challenges and issues with the recent sexual assault and sexual harassment statutes, including defendants' rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Without Miss 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 of 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 S. Res. 116, his nomination was moved 10 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 2 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. Many will point out and criticize, with some reasonableness, the fact that the Department of Defense has not yet passed an audit. Well, it is 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 is 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: No. 843, No. 861, and No. 972; that the nominations be agreed to without intervening action or debate; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has objected, and I believe he is 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. 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 are not qualified to be in office.

With that, 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 1 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 the nominations in the order listed; and that following disposition of the nominations, the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I believe I retain the time, but if the Senator would like me 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. President, I reclaim my time.

I respectfully disagree with the Senator from Missouri on this matter. The Senate Armed Services Committee conducts and has conducted extensive oversight on Afghanistan. Committee actions include seven public and closed hearings regarding the War in Afghanistan, lessons learned, and ongoing regional counterterrorism requirements

since the withdrawal last August. And Senator Hawley has participated in all of these.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 contained a provision, section 1092, that mandated the Department of Defense deliver quarterly briefings, in both unclassified and classified form, on the security situation in Afghanistan and ongoing counterterrorism efforts.

The classified briefings have taken place on January 20, April 14, and July 21. The unclassified briefings have taken place on February 14 and April 25. An additional unclassified briefing will be held tomorrow, coincidentally, and Senator Hawley has full access to all of these briefings.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 also contains a provision, section 1069, which requires a yearly assessment of our over-the-horizon counterterrorism capabilities in Afghanistan. While the first installment has not yet been delivered to the committee, Senator Hawley will have access to those assessments, as well as will all of my colleagues.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 further mandated the establishment of the Afghanistan War Commission, which will spend 3 years examining all aspects of the 20-year war in-depth. All the 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 findings as everyone else.

What I think the Senator does not understand is that the events that took place at Abbey Gate were not unique to that moment in time. They were the culmination of 20 years of actions by Presidents from both sides, by commanders on both sides. And in order to understand what truly happened at Abbey Gate, we have to look at all of those periods.

What was the effect of Donald Trump's agreement with the Taliban, excluding the legal government of Afghanistan, to essentially leave? And what other events created the situation that led directly to the situation at Abbey Gate? Without that context, this will simply 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 is part of this organization. But if we want to focus on protecting today the lives 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 doing in the Commission, which we are doing 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 who protect this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, an illegitimate, stolen, and radicalized U.S. 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 rightwing majority that overturned Roe v. Wade owns 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 longstanding 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 concurring 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 forced to watch written, produced, and directed by a captured illegitimate Supreme Court. In his opinion, Justice Thomas made clear that he believes Americans have too many privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution, that the Supreme Court had erred in recognizing 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 this right to same-sex marriage in its 2015 decision 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.

Then 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 is wrong, who has 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 legislators in red States are taking aim at.

The Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to contraception for more than half a century, since its decision in the Griswold case in 1965. Over time, the Court has affirmed and expanded that right: in its 1972 decision, a Massachusetts case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, recognizing the right of all people to access contraceptives regardless of marital status; and in its 1977 decision in Carey v. Population Services International, which held that a State could not constitutionally prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to minors.

The right to contraception is therefore 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 Contraception Act with my colleagues Senators Mazie Hirono and Tammy Duckworth, with Senator Blumenthal and Chair Patty Murray of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and have been 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 healthcare 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. The Right to Contraception Act would authorize the

U.S. Attorney General, as well as individuals and healthcare providers harmed 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's concurring opinion was a call to action that some Republicans and red States are eagerly heeding by continuing to attack and restrict the right to contraception.

Several States have already gone after access to contraception by cutting off the public funding for it, by seeking to define abortion broadly enough to include contraception, and by allowing healthcare providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception based on their own personal beliefs.

And the harms that would flow from abolishing the right to contraception aren't merely theoretical. Attacks on healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare, fall hardest on historically marginalized communities, including Black, indigenous, and other people of color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, 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 to 195, though it is dismaying that only 8 House Republicans--only 8--voted to codify that right.

With the right to abortion stolen, the right to contraception threatened, and the need to protect and expand access to 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 an urgent obligation to take the first exit off this slippery slope that leads to the loss of our most personal freedoms--chief amongst them: the right of all Americans to make their own decisions about their bodies, their families, 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 is already at our doorstep.

To my anti-choice 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 4612 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, 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 without any out-of-pocket costs. No one should have to jump through ridiculous hoops or pay extra just 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 that Republicans refuse to acknowledge is that an over- the-counter option doesn't help patients if their States are chipping away at their right to birth control.

So, with the Senator from Iowa's objection to my unanimous consent request and with her counter unanimous consent request, the 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 rightwing State legislatures take

them away, my Democratic colleagues and I will continue 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 and for those reasons, I object.