Floor Statements

Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, the United States of America has long been at the vanguard of global scientific and technological innovation, and that leadership has helped power our economy and strengthen our leadership position in the world.

That competitive edge is now at risk. It is at risk because we have failed to renew our national commitment to one of the key tools that has brought us that success in the past: making robust Federal investments in scientific research and development.

The bill before the Senate, called the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, aims to stop this downward drift and propel us forward again in the area of discovery, in areas of innovation and manufacturing. It honors a long, long tradition of American excellence in research and invention.

If you look back over our history, America has always been on the leading edge of science, of technology, of engineering, and mathematics. That spirit has been with us since our founding, but it truly flourished in the decades following the Second World War, with new inventions springing from American minds every year and moving us forward at an accelerated pace.

American astronauts took humanity to the Moon for the first time. American computer scientists invented the internet and changed the world. In fact, it was during this explosion of discovery that an American engineer created the first integrated circuit in 1958, and that invention would pave the way for the microchips we use today and which are a big part of the legislation before us.

In the 20th century, the United States was the innovation capital of the world. In 1960, America generated 69 percent of all research and development on the entire planet. This golden age flowed from the ingenuity of American visionaries, and it was fueled by our system of free enterprise and private investment.

But we cannot ignore another key ingredient in the success of that period, and that is the very large investment in cutting-edge research and development made by the Federal Government on behalf of the American people. Federal funds accounted for two-thirds of all American research and development investment in 1968--two-thirds from the Federal Government. In fact, all three of the American-made inventions and innovations I just mentioned--from building the rocket and the systems to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth to inventing the internet, to creating that first microchip--those were fueled, in large part, by Federal Government investment, taxpayer investment, to strengthen the entire country.

For example, if you look at the history of the microchip, you will see that between 1987 and 1997--that decade--the R&D arm of the Department of Defense, what we call DARPA, disbursed around $870 million in Federal funding to 14 ship manufacturers across the country, which, in turn, made the American ship industry more competitive than ever.

That was then. Today, we see a changing story. We are still a leader in innovation, but we are at risk of falling behind and falling behind quickly. And, in doing so, we are ceding ground to our global competitors and adversaries. This is a time where standing still means going backward and going backward fast.

The U.S. share of global research and development has dropped by half, by a full 50 percent, in the last six decades, and the most recent figures available reveal that the Federal investment in R&D as a share of our gross domestic product has dropped by one-third over the last 40 years.

While we have been slipping, other countries are dramatically boosting their investments in these critical areas, fueling huge resources toward innovation. China's most recent 5-year plan calls for ramping up investments in research and development by more than 7 percent every year. China has made no secret of its desire to corner the market in AI, in quantum computing, in clean energy tech, and much more. And the Chinese Communist Party is putting resources where their plan is, mobilizing the investments needed to try to achieve that goal.

This is not only an issue of falling behind in the areas of innovation and discovery because, even if Americans are inventing new technologies, the benefit to the American worker of leading in the invention of new technologies is much diminished if the manufacturing of essential products that use those technologies simply goes offshore.

We spend a lot of time inventing new technologies here, but over the last many decades we have seen the offshoring of those technologies and the manufacturing of products with

those technologies to other parts of the world, at the expense of the American worker. We have seen that dramatic offshoring of jobs for decades, including in many areas that are critical to the success of our entire economy and to the needs of our national security.

An American may have invented the microchip, but today we produce only 12 percent of the world's microchips. And that is at a time when these chips are absolutely essential to almost every aspect of modern life, from running our washing machines to powering our military. At the same time, competitors like China are pairing their rising R&D investments with major funding for manufacturing, putting the money in for invention and putting the money in to make sure those inventions stay and are manufactured in China. China has put $150 billion toward manufacturing microchips over the last 8 years. And today, 19 of the world's 20 fastest growing microchip firms are in China.

So you can see how this creates an enormous challenge for America's competitiveness, for our economic strength, and for our national security. The technology we need today for our cars, our homes, our businesses, and our military is, in large part, produced overseas.

We have already fallen way behind in the manufacturing of strategically important technologies, and now we are also at risk of losing our edge in developing the critical technologies of the future.

This has got to change. In the face of these challenges, we have to ask ourselves two fundamental questions: One, how can we ensure that we continue to invent the key technologies of the future; and, second, how can we make and manufacture key products using those technologies right here in America?

That is why it is time for us to take a page out of our own history and reignite a golden age in American research, development, and manufacturing through robust Federal investments. And the bill before the Senate begins to take us down that road.

First and foremost, it includes $53 billion to supercharge microchip manufacturing in America. That will bolster our economic security and our national security.

For American families, more American-made microchips means we will be able to ease some of the strain on our supply chains that are leading to increased wait times for everything from cars to smartphones, to dishwashers. And in the long term, boosting our domestic production of chips will help spur homegrown manufacturing jobs and lower the prices of a wide range of goods and services.

More American-made chips also means we will be less reliant on foreign manufacturers to meet our military needs. Today, 90 percent of the high-end microchips--the most sophisticated microchips--are made in Taiwan. These are advanced chips on the market that power everything from consumer electronics to sophisticated military software and hardware. These microchips are in our jets. They are in our radar systems and much more.

So with this additional funding, America will have increased capacity to produce these high-end microchips right here at home so we are not relying on foreign countries to power the things our communities and our country rely on every day.

But while supporting the manufacturing of chips here at home is important, it is not enough to keep us competitive on other key fronts. As I said earlier, we need America to get back on the leading edge of research and development in a whole range of areas on technology's frontier.

Now is the time for us to boost innovation and to sharpen our edges across every technological front, from quantum competing to artificial intelligence, to so much more. And that is why this legislation calls for significant new investments in major scientific institutions. It would authorize an increase of $36 billion for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $5 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in my home State of Maryland, and an increase of $12.9 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. These increases represent roughly a doubling--a doubling--of the Federal resources dedicated to these important Agencies. It also includes an increase of $11 billion for the Department of Commerce over 5 years to develop regional technology hubs around the country so that every part of the United States and communities in every corner of the country can benefit from these investments.

These are major increases. These are authorized increases--these parts with respect to future technologies as opposed to the chips portion of the bill. So, No. 1, we need to make sure these funds are actually appropriated; and, second, we need to ensure that these funds are deployed in the most strategic and effective way. That is why our bill includes a bipartisan provision that I authored with Senator Blunt of Missouri to ensure that the United States has the tools it needs to monitor and address new frontiers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

This portion of the bill includes two elements: First, it directs the National Academy of Sciences to identify the critical emerging technologies before us; and, second, it directs the National Academies to assess how well the United States is meeting those science and technology challenges through our global leadership and through the investments we are making here at home. I think we all recognize that we can't determine the path that we should chart as a country without getting a good look at the terrain and the horizon and even try to peer over the horizon. And charting that course is only helpful if we monitor our progress along the way to see if we are meeting our goals.

That is about developing a national early warning system for technologies in which our country's best minds are focused on the technologies of the future so that we don't get caught flat-footed in the face of emerging opportunities.

We have seen in the case of 5G technology what can happen when we are not tracking the possibilities, and we get blindsided. The reality is China beat us in the transition from 4G to 5G networks, and it wasn't because we lacked the talent or the skill or the resources or the drive to win the 5G race. We failed to build a comprehensive system for 5G deployment fast enough because we did not have a national strategy. We had blind spots. The market didn't fill them. It requires a national plan of action. That provision in the legislation will address that shortcoming.

And as we revitalize innovation here at home, we have got to get all of our talent on the field. We need to deploy all of our brainpower in order to fuel this renaissance in American technological leadership. This bill will provide major investments in our 21st century workforce to create jobs and inspire the next generation of our innovators.

I am pleased that a bipartisan provision is included in here that was authored by our colleague Senator Warnock, which will direct additional Federal funds toward emerging research institutions of higher education, including our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and our minority-serving institutions.

On top of that provision, I am pleased that this bill includes a bipartisan measure that I wrote with Senator Tillis of North Carolina. Our provision would help advance the research classification of HBCUs around the country that already have strong research programs and make them competitive among the highest caliber of research universities for more Federal funding--to take them from R2s to R1s. This will open the doors of opportunity for more students, faculty, and staff across the country. In my State of Maryland, we have two HBCUs that would directly benefit from this provision: Morgan State University and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. This is an investment in our future.

These are just some of the elements in this bill that will help foster a sustained American leadership in emerging technologies into the future. But even when this bill is passed--and I urge all my colleagues to vote for it--our work is not over. The Senate and the House have spent the last 2 years working on a package to sharpen America's competitive edge on the world stage. The bill before us does not include many of the other important measures that also enjoy bipartisan

support and are still part of the conference committee. So we need to get to the remainder of those provisions and get them over the finish line.

For example, one of the pieces of that larger bill that is not included in the measure before us would help protect American intellectual property and protect our technology secrets against theft by foreign companies or other countries. We know that in today's high- speed, fast-paced economy, where information zips around the world at the speed of light, it is easier than ever to steal someone else's technology for your own purposes. At a summit in London earlier this month, FBI Director Chris Wray warned companies from across Europe that Beijing is developing more advanced strategies to ``ransack'' Western companies, pillaging intellectual property, and stealing inventions from Americans and others around the world in the high-tech sector. We have to do everything we can to protect ourselves against that malign conduct.

For example, if you are an American company and a foreign company in China steals your intellectual property, the only recourse you currently have at your disposal is to file a lawsuit--file a lawsuit and go to court. It is like taking a peashooter to a knife fight, especially when you are dealing with a foreign government, like the Government of China. That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Sasse to arm the U.S. Government with the authority to impose tough sanctions on companies that systematically plunder U.S. technology secrets and intellectual property.

That measure, as I said, is part of a larger package, and we need to get that done by the end of the year. For now, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill that is before us this week. It is a key step forward to ensure that America remains the world's leading developer of key technologies and will help bring that important high-tech microchip manufacturing back here to the United States.

We have the brainpower. We have the institutions. We have a system that can fuel tech entrepreneurs. We need to match those very important assets with a willpower for national success and progress.

History tells us that a key ingredient in America's innovation success story has been Federal investment in R&D--much of the R&D that companies will not invest in because it is sometimes too risky. It is an investment that we make on behalf of the American people to ensure our national success and our global leadership. We are today witnessing the efforts of our competitors and, in many cases, our adversaries to overtake us in these key areas. And we should not and we must not surrender our leadership in those places that shape our economy and shape our world.

We must harness the full power of American innovation, as we have done in the past, to meet the challenges of our time. And this bill is an important part of that effort. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 924, 979, 982, and 983; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that 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 immediately be notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 710, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 711, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be considered expired on Executive Calendar No. 968 and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader, or his designee, following consultation with the Republican leader; further, that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, July 18; 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 and resume consideration of Calendar No. 1035; and that cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Madam President, finally, for the information of the Senate, the 5:30 p.m. vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the Wang nomination to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Colorado.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Sullivan, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of a dedicated public servant and a champion for education: Mr. Reginald ``Reggie'' M. Felton from my State of Maryland. Our community lost Reggie only a few days ago, at the age of 75. Today, I would like to take a moment to celebrate his extraordinary life and pay tribute to his lasting legacy of good works.

The story of Reggie's life can be defined by one word: service. He served our Nation in the military as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard and, later, as a Senior Executive within the Department of the Navy. He served his town and county as president of a local citizens association, as chair of the Silver Spring Center Citizens Advisory Board, and as chairman of the Freedom Fund Dinner organized by the Montgomery County Branch of the NAACP.

But most of all, Reggie served our students. With the trust of his community behind him, Reggie won a seat on the Montgomery County Board of Education in 1994. He would serve on the board for another 20 years, winning reelection in 1998 and 2002 and rising to become the first African-American president of the Montgomery County Board of Education, a position he held for three terms.

Reggie's commitment to the mission and spirit of the school board led to real results during his tenure. The Montgomery County School Board earned national recognition for excellence while Reggie served on the board, and it is no wonder why. Under his leadership, the Montgomery County Public Schools, which make up the largest school district in my State, saw major improvements in the quality of education and in the process for selecting and onboarding superintendents. Reggie also focused his efforts on establishing higher standards in curriculum, and those higher standards continue to inform a tradition of excellence at Montgomery County Public Schools that lives on to this day. In short: Reggie's time as president of the Montgomery County School Board helped make Montgomery County schools some of the best in the Nation.

Throughout his extraordinary life, Reggie Felton nurtured his talent for leadership, stepped up to serve his community and his country, and did all that he could to improve the lives of

his fellow citizens. He was beloved by all--respected across our communities for his kindness, his good humor, his brilliance, and his grace.

On a personal note, Reggie was a good friend whom I admired greatly. I will always remember his warm and generous spirit, his wonderful smile, and his determination to serve others. I know I speak for Marylanders everywhere when I say our State is eternally grateful for his service and sacrifice.

Today, Reggie's legacy lives on in every young student who benefits from his good deeds--whether they know it or not--and his story will continue to inspire us all. Thank you, Reggie. We love you.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 100th birthday of my constituent the Reverend Doctor Phillip Webster Davis, Sr. It is my pleasure to celebrate him on this special occasion and to share the details of his extraordinary life, his dedication to our community, and his service to our country.

The Rev. Dr. Davis grew up in a household guided by family and faith. He was born the seventh of eight sons--and even at an early age, he quickly learned the values of brotherhood, community, loyalty, and love. His father, Reverend James William Davis, pastored at Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Rockville, and together with his wife Mary, the older Reverend Davis instilled in his children many core teachings of the scriptures, among them: love thy neighbor, pursue a life of service, and strive to achieve your inner potential.

The Rev. Dr. Davis marshalled the wisdom of those core teachings to steer the course of his extraordinary life and career. The arc of his career began in the Armed Services. In 1944, the Rev. Dr. Davis was drafted into the U.S. Army and served in the New Guinea and Philippines region during World War II. In a moment of crisis, he was called by his country to fight back against the forces of fascism and totalitarianism that had pulled the world into war--and he answered that call with action. The State of Maryland is deeply proud of the Rev. Dr. Davis' service to our country, and our entire Nation is grateful for his commitment to defending freedom everywhere.

After he was honorably discharged from the Army, the Rev. Dr. Davis entered the private sector and owned several businesses over the years, including a restaurant, a barber shop, a charter bus service, and an automotive body shop.

The Rev. Dr. Davis has been many things: a protector of freedom overseas, a community leader at home, an entrepreneur, and a business owner. But today, the Rev. Dr. Davis is most well-known throughout Marylander as the founder and former senior pastor of the Inter- Denominational Church of God. In building that community from the ground up, the Rev. Dr. Davis set out to grow a congregation that would accept all people, regardless of background and culture. His vision has been realized through the many dedicated parishioners of the Inter- Denominational Church of God, who continue working together to create an inclusive community of worship. After 38 years of exceptional service, the Rev. Dr. Davis stepped down as senior pastor during the week of his 90th birthday. Now, his legacy lives on under new leadership that will sustain and build on the Rev. Dr. Davis' vision for years to come.

As a result of the Rev. Dr. Davis's work in the ministry and community, he has received numerous recognitions and honors. But despite these achievements, the Rev. Dr. Davis has always stayed humble and remained true to those guiding principles of family and faith that he first learned a young boy growing up in Rockville. To the Rev. Dr. Davis, the greatest recognition he could ever receive is in knowing he is the best husband and the best father to five children, six grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.

The Rockville community, the Maryland community, and our country are indebted to Rev. Dr. Davis for his faithful service. On his 100th birthday, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating this extraordinary milestone and sending our deepest gratitude to the Rev. Dr. Phillip Webster Davis, Sr., for all he has done.

Madam President, first, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Michigan, for coming to the floor to share his own powerful and personal story and the stories of his constituents about why so many of us are here on the Senate floor this evening, and it is because 8 days ago, our country received a terrible wake-up call. A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States indicated that a majority of five Justices may be on the verge of overturning the constitutional protections of reproductive freedom set forth in Roe v. Wade.

We don't know if this draft opinion will be the final decision, but we do know there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court of the United States will soon blow up 50 years of precedent and strip women of their constitutional right to make choices about their own body and their own self-determination.

And while the content of this opinion is shocking, it is not totally surprising. This is the premeditated outcome of years--years--of plotting and planning by the rightwing legal movement and the Republican Party.

Candidate Donald Trump promised the Nation he would handpick Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. On the campaign trail, he even claimed that Roe would be overturned ``immediately'' once he assumed office. And he stated on national television that women who receive abortions should be punished. Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans made up their own rules and then broke their own rules in order to play their part in this scheme.

First, Senate Republicans refused to even hold a hearing on President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, on the grounds that it was a Presidential election year.

Four years later, Senate Republicans rushed through one of President Trump's own Supreme Court nominees just weeks before the 2020 election.

And in between, Senate Republicans carved out an exception to the Senate filibuster rule so they could push through all three of Trump's anti-choice Supreme Court picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Each of these nominees raised their right hand before the Senate Judiciary Committee and swore under oath that they respected the weight of judicial precedent. In fact, when Brett Kavanaugh was asked about Roe v.

Wade, he pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which affirmed the core holding in Roe establishing a constitutional right to abortion, and he called the decision in Casey ``precedent on precedent,'' a double precedent.

But let's be very clear, this draft opinion has no respect for judicial precedent. If the draft holds, all three of President Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court, along with some others already on the Bench, will have deliberately deceived and defrauded the American public.

Rightwing ideologues set out to stack the Court with Justices ready and willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Now, this rightwing establishment, this machinery, is on the verge of achieving their goal, even though their win will be a horrible loss for the reputation of the Supreme Court, a horrible loss for the integrity of our Constitution, and most of all, a horrible loss for the American people.

More than half of the women and girls of reproductive age in our country live in States that would likely ban or severely restrict abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

Thirteen States have so-called trigger laws that will kick into effect automatically the day Roe is overturned. Nine States have passed laws that were struck down in the past because they violated the protections of Roe, but those laws could come back if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Many of these laws we are talking about are extreme. One trigger law in Kentucky would ban all abortions at any point in pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest, or a situation in which a child could be born with a fatal birth defect.

Another trigger law in Idaho would make providing an abortion at any point in pregnancy and under almost any circumstances a felony crime punishable by 5 years in prison. A Texas law that is on the books right now would put doctors in jail or fine them up to $10,000 for prescribing pills for medication abortions through telehealth or the mail for women who are more than 7 weeks pregnant.

And a law that has been on the books since 1931 in Michigan would snap back into effect, making nearly all abortions at any point in pregnancy a felony. And women who undergo medication abortions would be made felons, even in the case of rape and incest.

Just last week, State legislators in the Louisiana House advanced a bill through committee that would allow women who obtain abortions at any time in pregnancy to be prosecuted for murder--for murder.

Experts say that this extreme law could also be used to restrict emergency contraception and in vitro fertilization, which is a critical process that helps customers with infertility build their families.

Like many of our colleagues, I have been hearing from my constituents, my constituents in the State of Maryland, who have learned just how dangerous this situation is for women and families across the country. One constituent named Connie shared her story of taking emergency contraception after she was attacked and raped by a stranger at the age of 18.

She told me about the importance of being able to make that choice about her body and her future instead of potentially becoming pregnant because of a rape. Today, Connie is a social worker, a therapist, and has a wonderful son.

I have received other testimonials from constituents across the State of Maryland who have shared their stories and expressed their deep concern and fear about the Court striking down Roe v. Wade.

If Roe was overturned, women living in States where safe and legal abortion is banned will have to travel away from their homes, away from their communities, away from their families simply to exercise control over their own bodies.

Those who lack the money or the time will either be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or find somebody performing abortions in the shadows in their States, a throwback to the dangerous back-alley abortions.

In 1965, 8 years before the Roe v. Wade decision, illegal abortion accounted for 17 percent--17 percent--of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth. That past could soon be our present.

So, you see, this Supreme Court decision doesn't just turn back the clock on precedent, it turns back the clock on public health as it strips women of their reproductive freedoms.

And in a world where Roe has been overturned, as you drive across our great country, your rights will change from State to State as you cross each State border. That is the result of taking away a constitutional right, and that is why polling shows the great majority of the American people do not want the Supreme Court to take away the rights under Roe v. Wade.

Now, I am proud to represent a State that has codified a woman's right to reproductive choice. In fact, during my very first campaign for public office, the right to reproductive choice was the defining issue in my election to the Maryland General Assembly. It was another time when there was great fear that a Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade.

And so I ran on the pro-choice ticket, and after I was sworn in, in a matter of months, my colleagues and I passed a bill in 1991 codifying Roe v. Wade as a matter of Maryland State law.

But here is the thing, laws like the one we have in Maryland, laws like the one we passed back in 1991, will be on the chopping block if this decades-long, rightwing project continues to go according to plan because the Republicans' ultimate objective isn't just to overturn Roe v. Wade; it is to enact a Federal law passed in this Senate and in the House banning abortion nationwide.

Last week, Leader McConnell acknowledged that a national ban on abortion was a real possibility during an interview with USA TODAY. That should sound alarm bells all over America.

This has been a two-step process. Step No. 1, strike down the constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade that prohibit elected officials, whether it is State legislatures or in Congress, from enacting laws that prohibit or restrict unnecessarily the right to choose. That is step No. 1. It seems we are on the verge of that happening.

Once you clear the way, step No. 2, enact a Federal law in Congress banning abortion everywhere in the country, and we have seen exactly how extreme those laws can be from the State examples I cited earlier. That could happen here if this Republican, rightwing project sees its logical end; that Federal law would supersede Maryland's law. If Congress passed that law and it was enacted, State laws like those in Maryland protecting the right to choose in Maryland would be knocked off the books. That is true of other State laws, statutes, that protect a woman's right to choose.

No woman in America would be safe to obtain a safe and legal abortion if such a national law were enacted.

Now, everyone should also understand another huge danger posed by the draft. Its flawed logic not only would dismantle the right to an abortion, it could also be used to strip away other rights protected by the Constitution.

I have read Justice Alito's draft opinion. I have read all 98 pages of it.

In this opinion, Justice Alito tries to distinguish this case on abortion from other cases involving other individual rights. Alito claims that this case is special because it involves abortion and the State's interest in protecting life, while other cases do not. Well, that is obvious on its face, but it misses the bigger danger in Alito's opinion.

Because it doesn't change the fact that Justice Alito's reasoning for dismantling the right to obtain an abortion can be used to dismantle many other rights that we currently take for granted as well. Justice Alito claims that, even as you look at the entire Constitution, you cannot find a right to choose for women; that you cannot derive that from the Constitution.

In fact, on page 5 of the draft opinion, Justice Alito writes:

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no

such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional

provision.

And if we follow Justice Alito's flawed logic, the same could be said of a host of other rights that are not specifically named in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have the word ``contraception'' in it. The Constitution doesn't talk about consenting adults engaged in sexual relations.

Look, this is the thing: Over time, the Supreme Court has recognized components of liberty through a close analysis of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment, and that includes the right to use contraception, the right of consenting adults to have sexual relations with who they choose, and the right to marry who you love.

These are rights the American people don't want elected officials to take away, whether they are State legislatures or Members of the Senate or the House. But they are all at peril too if the logic of Alito's reasoning is played out. And the terrible irony--the terrible irony-- here is those who most claim to oppose government regulations of any kind are now the ones rushing to regulate the most intimate, personal, and private aspects of American life. They say they don't want government having any role in their life--get out of my way--except for when it comes to them taking away this right and planning to pass laws that would ban abortion nationally, and as I said, open the door to going after other liberties as well.

So those are the stakes that we are facing as we gather here this evening in anticipation of tomorrow's vote. And that is why we are taking this vote tomorrow. That is why we need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, but even if we fall short this time, having a vote now is important. It is important to the country. Democracy requires accountability, and it is important that the American people know where each of the Senators stands on this issue. It is a fundamental question.

So as we move into November toward the midterm elections, the American people will be watching closely how Members of this body vote on this fundamental constitutional question. And they will look to see who voted to strip away constitutional rights and who rose to protect them. And I believe that the majority of this country--the overwhelming majority of this country--wants to stand up to protect fundamental liberties in the Constitution of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a constituent, a trailblazer, a pillar of the Montgomery County community, a neighbor, and a dear friend: Ms. Marcine D. Goodloe. Ms. Goodloe has spent over 40 years advocating for the interests of volunteer firefighters and first responders across Maryland. She has been a special champion for Montgomery County, the place where I raised my family and where I still live. It is my honor to recognize her extraordinary life and dedication to our community and to the safety of all Americans.

Marcine D. Goodloe has made service her mission. She began her career as the executive secretary for Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services and later served as executive director for the Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Commission. Over the years, Ms. Goodloe's commitment to community service moved her up the fire-rescue ranks. At the height of her career, she oversaw the operations of 19 local volunteer fire and rescue departments and more than 2,400 fire, rescue, EMS, administrative, and auxiliary members serving over 1 million Montgomery County residents.

Following years of exemplary service, Ms. Goodloe made history as the first woman elected president of the Montgomery County Volunteer Fire- Rescue Association in its century-long history. Her distinguished tenure lasted 16 years. As president, Ms. Goodloe worked tirelessly to advance the priorities of the entire association family. She partnered with community leaders at all levels of government--from the county council to the U.S. Congress--and delivered real results. At the local level, she successfully advocated for innovative policy solutions that helped strengthen physical standards, first responder training, and drug and alcohol testing. She raised the concerns of the Montgomery County volunteer fire-rescue community in Washington D.C. too, working with Members of Congress to secure Federal resources for first responders. Ms. Goodloe's commitment to service also reached beyond my State. In 2005, she raised more than $20,000 for a fire department in Mississippi that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Ms. Goodloe has been a vocal ambassador for first responders everywhere, and her leadership has been nothing short of inspiring.

Throughout her decades of service, Ms. Goodloe has always brought dignity, strength, and kindness to her work. She has toiled in the trenches, working day-in and day-out to ensure that the men and women who stand guard over our communities get the support they need to do the job and come home safe. Ms. Goodloe has not only served her community honorably, but she has also empowered women across the Nation to enter a career in fire service. Her legacy of good works have earned her numerous accolades including the Mason Fire Lankford Fire Service Leadership Award, the Chief Leslie B. Johnson Community Service Award, and a spot in the Maryland State Firemen Association's Hall of Fame. On a personal note, I always look forward to meeting with Marcine on her visits to Capitol Hill to champion Federal programs that support all firefighters. She always did her homework. No one could say no to Marcine.

I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest gratitude to my friend Marcine Goodloe for her outstanding service to Maryland's Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service and in recognition of all she has done to keep our communities and our first responders safe.

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

Madam President, later this week, the full Senate will take up and vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over the last several weeks, the Congress and the country and, indeed, the world have gotten to know Judge Jackson. We have learned about her broad life experience, her exceptional career, her deep love of the law.

Judge Jackson endured a verbal marathon of intense questioning from members of the Judiciary Committee. She endured challenging and sometimes specious lines of questioning from some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but through it all, she shined. She approached every moment of the hearing with grace, with wisdom, and with brilliance. Her good judgment and sharp mind were on full display for all to see. She was unshakable; she was inspiring.

If confirmed, she will make history as the first Black woman to sit on the highest Court of the land. With Judge Jackson on the top Bench, we will get one step closer to ensuring that the Supreme Court of the United States looks like the Nation it serves; and with Judge Jackson on the highest Court, we will be even closer to realizing the noble ideal inscribed on the face of the Supreme Court building: ``Equal Justice Under Law.''

Her confirmation will be a victory for all of America.

My State of Maryland is also proud to have a small connection with Judge Jackson. Not only did she reside in Maryland for a period of time, but her brother served on the Baltimore Police Department for 7 years, and he has also served two tours of duty as a member of the Maryland National Guard. Other members of her family also pursued careers in public service. Two of her uncles were police officers, and her parents were public school teachers.

Like her family members, Ketanji Brown Jackson has taken up the mantle of public service as a public defender, as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as a district court judge, and as a Federal circuit court judge.

It is no mystery as to why her nomination has been met with widespread praise. She has been lauded by the Fraternal Order of Police and by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Prominent Republican-appointed judges and lawyers have spoken in favor of her confirmation. The American Bar Association listed her as

``well-qualified'' for the position to which she has been nominated-- their highest rating.

There is no question in my mind that she will serve our Nation well and with distinction as the newest Justice of the Supreme Court, and I will vote in favor of her confirmation this week, proudly.

I have watched many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle strain to find some justification for voting against Judge Jackson. They know she is highly qualified. They know she is a person of integrity. They know she has the training and judgment required of a Supreme Court Justice.

Last week, one Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee called Judge Jackson a ``person of exceptionally good character, respected by her peers, and someone who has worked hard to achieve her current position.''

Another Republican member of the committee noted that she had ``impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law.''

You would think these were words leading up to state support for Judge Jackson, but in both of those cases, those Senators have announced their decisions to vote against her. The pattern is the same for too many of our Republican colleagues. They come out and praise Judge Jackson and then announce they are voting against her.

So the question is, Why? What is the reasoning here? And I have been listening carefully.

Many of our colleagues tie their opposition to what they have called her ``judicial philosophy.'' They say Judge Jackson will push her own political ideology at the expense of the law. They say she is going to be an activist instead of a judge. They say she will create ``new rights from the Constitution out of whole cloth.'' In fact, that was a quote from my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, who took to the floor last week in opposing Judge Jackson's confirmation.

When my friend from Texas made that statement, I happened to be sitting where the Presiding Officer is right now, as I was presiding over the Senate, and I listened very closely to his arguments and others that were made along similar lines. None of the claims that I have heard hold water when you look at the facts because here is what Judge Jackson herself said during her confirmation hearing when asked about judicial restraint:

I am acutely aware that, as a judge in our system, I have

limited power, and I am trying in every case to stay in my

lane.

This is not just a hollow promise. Judge Jackson has explained to this Senate her clear methodology for ruling on cases to ensure that she stays in her lane. The methodology is simple.

Step 1, start from a position of neutrality.

We have all seen the scales of justice. We want them to be evenly balanced. Everybody who walks into a court should get a fair shot. That is step 1.

Step 2, evaluate all of the facts from various perspectives.

Step 3, apply the law to those facts.

That is it. She was clear. That is how she makes decisions. That is how she rules from the bench.

So what about the Constitution itself, that great document? What about this notion that she would be a runaway Justice, ``creating new rights from the Constitution out of whole cloth''?--to use the language, the expression, of some of my colleagues.

That, too, is just plain wrong.

Here is Judge Jackson again when she said:

I believe that the Constitution is fixed in its meaning. I

believe it is appropriate to look at the original intent,

original public meaning of the words when one is trying to

assess because, again, that is a limitation on my authority

to import my own policy.

Judge Jackson understands the boundaries of her authority as a judge. She has stayed within those boundaries for over a decade on the Federal bench.

So enough of the spurious arguments that she is going to be an activist on the Court. Her method is clear; it is fair; it is balanced and honest, and I am confident that her rulings will be clear, fair, balanced, and honest.

Let's not forget this: There are certain rights that most Americans would acknowledge are central to our Nation's traditions and values but that are not specifically and expressly enumerated in the Constitution, not each and every one with its own sentence.

I have a short list here: the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to privacy, the right to marry. None of these rights are explicitly, expressly referenced in the text of the Constitution, but all of them have been derived by a close analysis of the letter and spirit of our Constitution and laws. These are rights we all embrace. These are rights the American people don't want elected officials to be able to take away from them.

Let's not forget that the First Amendment, as written, only protects Americans from Federal action, from congressional action, that would violate their right to freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly.

Over time, the Court has taken action to protect these rights in the face of all government action, whether Federal or State or local, to make sure that those rights are protected against all government action no matter what its source.

Justices appointed by Presidents of both parties have worked to protect rights Americans hold dear.

President Reagan's appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which protects the rights of same-sex couples to marry. His fellow Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor joined the majority in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the reproductive liberties guaranteed under Roe v. Wade.

Let's be clear: The Supreme Court considers the most challenging questions in American law. Judge Jackson will have to take on these challenging questions, like her peers on the Court, if she is confirmed; but one thing is crystal clear from her testimony and from the record: She will apply the law based on the facts. She will not be a partisan in a robe. She will be a fair, independent Justice of the Supreme Court, and she is very deserving of that title.

I had the great privilege of meeting with Judge Jackson just yesterday. During our conversation, I was struck, again, by her brilliance, her intelligence, her kindness, and resolve. That came across on television during the hearings, but it was very evident in our one-on-one meeting. I thought about another Supreme Court nominee who broke barriers nearly 55 years ago, a man from Baltimore, MD: Thurgood Marshall. He was the first Black man to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, during my conversation with Judge Jackson, I invited her to join me in West Baltimore at P.S. 103. This is public school building 103. It is in West Baltimore. It is the school where Thurgood Marshall learned to read and write. It is no longer an active school. The building is in bad condition. Just this year, as part of the omnibus appropriations bill, Senator Cardin and I were able to secure some Federal funds to help renovate that building and to turn it into a living memorial to Justice Thurgood Marshall and to expand opportunities for people in West Baltimore. So I told Judge Jackson that once she gets settled, it would be a great honor and privilege to bring her, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, to the place where the first Black man on the Court grew up and went to school.

Justice Thurgood Marshall inspired a generation of leaders and public servants to enter the legal field. Soon, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will do the same. Young people from all across our country will look at the Supreme Court of the United States and feel more included. Her presence on the Court will be a victory for ``we the people.''

In 1978, Justice Thurgood Marshall said to a group of university graduates:

This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.

I am deeply honored to work alongside my colleagues in the Senate to advance that vision, as we all strive to form a more perfect Union. And there is no doubt in my mind--no doubt at all--that elevating Judge Jackson to Justice Jackson will make our Union a little more perfect.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 659, Katherine Vidal,

to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.