Floor Statements

Madam President, I have 10 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:

The following executive report of a nomination was submitted:

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following

nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date

indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of

reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie

at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Coast Guard nominations beginning with Alaina M. Accumanno

and ending with Kristen E. Zelman, which nominations were

received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional

Record on March 14, 2023. (minus 1 nominee: Andrew D. Ray)

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about a court decision that is likely to come down anytime now that could be an attack on abortion rights and access to healthcare across the country. This is an important issue affecting the removal of access to mifepristone, a drug that can lead to a termination of a pregnancy but in the comfort of someone's home. The latest is an example of a radical court in Texas trying to further restrict access to safe and legal medication for abortion, which has been safely used by millions of women over the past 22 years. Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, abortion patients and providers across the country have faced a growing challenge, misinformation, threats, and inability to get reproductive care--even in States like mine where abortion is still legal.

Last week, I and Senator Murray met with abortion providers in Seattle who told me about the growing fear and confusion among patients since Roe has been overturned. The medical director at a clinic told me, in the past 9 months, it has become routine for patients to ask whether it is OK to even talk about abortions in the exam room. Patients have been more hesitant to say where they live in fear of legal retaliation. Mind you, this is in a State where the people in the State voted to have abortion rights protected in a vote in 1991. This assault on women's reproductive health is already having an impact on women, even keeping them from talking about their options with their healthcare providers.

Anti-abortion extremists are now turning their attention to Medicaid abortion. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the FDA approved mifepristone, a drug that is safer, in some people's minds, it says, than Tylenol. Today, more than half of all abortions and procedures in the United States, including 55 percent of those in the State of Washington, are performed through this medication.

This drug is not only safe and legal to use, but it also makes abortion more accessible, but we know that this access could be threatened through areas like telehealth, where a patient doesn't have to travel long distances to see a provider. The access is important for Planned Parenthood clinics. The medical director of Planned Parenthood told me a story of a patient who traveled thousands of miles from her home State to Washington to get abortion care. She couldn't afford a hotel room, so she stayed with a friend, and the patient had to take off time from work to make this trip. After all this effort, the woman had a miscarriage while waiting in the waiting room.

People shouldn't have to travel all the way across the country just for the kind of healthcare they deserve. This is why the court case on Medicaid abortion is so dangerous. Should one judge in Texas decide to overturn the FDA's approval of this safe drug from more than two decades ago, it would effectively ban the drug on a nationwide basis.

The kinds of things that are already happening to intimidate or not provide this in the pharmacies in our State are alarming. This ruling would mean that every State, including those like mine that have already expressed their opinion with the codification of Roe v. Wade, could have some of its healthcare denied. The ruling would mean that in Washington State, where abortion has expressly been under our State law for more than 30 years, a person who needs or elects to terminate their pregnancy could no longer safely do it at their home if they can't get access to this drug.

Indeed, we will continue to fight for these issues. We want women in America to have access.

This judge's decision in Texas could cost people in our State. It could cost them time to travel, cost them time of healthcare, and certainly we are seeing an uptick in the number of people coming to Washington to get access to care.

We are also seeing people upping the ante in places like Spokane, where they are trying to publicly humiliate people coming to clinics by protesting. This is not a way to run healthcare. And we can't have a judge in Texas deciding what FDA and scientists nearly a quarter of a century ago said was a safe procedure.

We know that this is depriving women even in States where their rights are guaranteed. It is impacting their access to safe and legal abortions. There is a reason why we have an FDA and the science, and we need to continue to listen to them.

Let's be clear. We are not going to let a decision like this go unchallenged. People will not stop getting pregnant. And if this one judge decides to substitute his opinion for the FDA's, women will continue to look for this drug, and they will look for safe options.

I hope we can continue to educate people on how this is affecting people in States that have already voted by law to protect a woman's right to choose. This is eroding our rights, it is impacting our providers, and it is basically telling young women that we are not sure if you are going to be able to get access to this drug.

I hope the courts will not go down this errant path, and I hope that we here will get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote with us to clarify and protect a woman's right to choose at the Federal level.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I join my colleagues this afternoon who come to the floor and speak about the introduction of the Women's Health Protection Act and codifying access to reproductive freedom for women in America.

It has been a little over 8 months since a radical Supreme Court overturned the 50-year-old landmark ruling guaranteeing the right to privacy and the right to obtain an abortion.

I want to take this time to highlight the impacts that this decision has had, not just on our country but even in my State, in the State of Washington.

We in Washington voted in 1991 to codify abortion as a legal right. We did that by a vote of the people. But we still need to worry about this issue because the problems that are causing the erosion of abortion rights in some parts of the United States are even causing hardship in our State.

Abortion clinics in Washington are facing rising caseloads and rising costs. Planned Parenthood in Spokane reported that in January, their clinics saw a 75-percent increase in the number of Idaho patients who were traveling across the line to get abortions. Physicians are rightly concerned that they could be arrested or sued for providing reproductive care to patients from abortion-restrictive States.

Pregnant women have it worst of all. If they go to a reproductive clinic for whatever reason, they can face a gauntlet of protesters. Yes, there are protesters right outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Spokane. They are trying to set up fake clinics with fake names to divert women into their facilities instead of the actual care that they need.

I will note that it wasn't that long ago--just a few years ago--that the Planned Parenthood clinic was bombed in Whitman County, just south of Spokane. So these issues are a problem.

We even have had healthcare officials tell us that Washingtonians trying to get access to the morning-after pill had to go to four different pharmacies, only to find that it was not available. This drug has been an FDA-approved drug for decades, but all of a sudden, in Washington, it is not available.

Since this ruling was released last summer, 24 States have enacted near-total bans or stringent restrictions on the ability to get an abortion. People are still getting pregnant, and they are coming to Washington to exercise that opportunity, and we want to make sure we have a healthcare system that can deliver.

You know, employers are starting to avoid these abortion-restrictive States. I don't know if someone has thought through this issue. But I recently spoke to the cofounder of a very successful aviation company that just had one of the best demonstrations of the future of aviation. They are building a new facility, and he told me point blank he won't even consider locating in a State that doesn't provide reproductive freedom. He said he couldn't imagine having to ask an employee, who was enjoying that right in the State they live in now, to transfer to a State where that freedom was lost. He said it is absurd.

We know that people are aggressively trying to restrict access to abortion. They are aggressively pursuing even more anti-choice policies, such as restricting the use of the FDA-approved abortion drug even though 5.6 million patients in the United States have used that drug successfully since the year 2000.

It is plain to see that they are not going to stop, and that is why we are introducing this legislation and continuing the fight and awareness for reproductive health for women in the United States of America. We must put an end to these practices by passing the Women's Health Protection Act, which would make this a decision left up to women and their families and allow the future to be decided by them and not the interference of our government.

Madam President, I know you know--because you have been a law enforcement officer in the State you represent--you know the challenges of having individuals' privacies protected. This now is up to us to make sure we are protecting these rights and protecting women's access to reproductive freedom.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to support the nomination of Jamal Whitehead to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Mr. Whitehead is extremely well qualified and has demonstrated an allegiance to the rule of law throughout his very impressive law career.

My Senate colleagues on the Judiciary Committee saw what an exceptional judicial candidate Mr. Whitehead is, and they recognized how valuable his perspective would be on the Federal bench. I was pleased to see that he was voted out of committee with a bipartisan vote of 11 to 9.

Mr. Whitehead has spent his entire career in the Western District, making him uniquely knowledgeable of the district in which he will be serving. Throughout his career, he has defended workers from discrimination and enforced Federal employment discrimination laws. He has been dedicated to ensuring equal justice under the law and has demonstrated a profound commitment to public service.

Mr. Whitehead has also sought to promote diversity in the legal field through outreach and education and is deeply involved in the community. He serves on the Executive Committee for the ACLU of Washington as well as on the board of Amara, a child welfare organization in the Seattle and Tacoma area dedicated to meeting the needs of children and families who have been impacted by foster care.

In addition to his outstanding qualifications, Mr. Whitehead's confirmation continues the President's commitment to ensuring that the Federal bench better reflect the American public. Mr. Whitehead is the first judicial nominee by President Biden to have a physical disability. Now confirmed, he will be one of only a handful of Federal judges with a disclosed disability.

Jamal Whitehead is well prepared to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. This is a historic confirmation. I am pleased to see that my colleagues supported Mr. Whitehead's confirmation to our Federal court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 49.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 66, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions introduced earlier today: S. Res. 67, S. Res. 68, S. Res. 69, and S. Res. 70.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 15, S. Res. 59.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 16; 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; further, that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Martinez-Lopez nomination postcloture; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, there will be two rollcall votes at 11:30 a.m. and one rollcall vote at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 118th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Biden administration and their historic step to permanently protect Bristol Bay, AK. More than a decade after the Pebble Mine was proposed, the Environmental Protection Agency, today, is finalizing a Clean Water Act protection that will permanently protect Bristol Bay. No company will ever be able to stick a mine on top of some of the best salmon habitat in the world.

Salmon fishermen from Alaska and from my home State of Washington will continue to earn their livelihoods from Bristol Bay salmon, as they have for generations. No Bristol Bay salmon will ever have to swim through toxic soup just to get to its spawning grounds.

This scientific decision today by the Environmental Protection Agency puts a final nail in this mine's proposal.

It is difficult to understand and to really know the importance of Bristol Bay. In an average year, 40 to 60 million sockeye salmon swim into or out of the bay. Last year was a blockbuster run. Nearly 80 million sockeye salmon returned to Bristol Bay.

That is why Bristol Bay is known as the holy grail of salmon. Today, Bristol Bay salmon fisheries are a $2.2 billion annual industry. They support over 15,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide, and that is through commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourism, seafood, restaurants, shipbuilding, and other associated industries.

I know the Presiding Officer knows this well because northern California also benefits from these salmon sectors and the salmon industry.

Salmon are one of the most important products that we in the Pacific Northwest have. It is the symbol of our region. So Bristol Bay salmon, being a powerhouse and supporting nearly half of the sockeye salmon harvested around the globe, is certainly worth fighting for.

So, as you can imagine, when a mining corporation decided to try to build a mine in the headwaters of this most powerful salmon run on the planet, fishermen in my State and in many other States were outraged. Estuaries and mines really don't mix, and they certainly don't belong together at the headwaters of one of the most important salmon runs and spawning grounds in the Nation.

For fishermen, the destruction wrought by Pebble Mine would have swept away their businesses and their way of life, and they certainly raised their voices and came to ask me and others in Washington for help.

In 2011, I was proud to stand with fishermen and Tribes from my State and from Alaska to speak out against Pebble Mine and to call for permanent protections under the Clean Water Act if the science showed that the mine would have irreversible impacts on salmon. Well, sure enough, the science is damning, and that is what is being released as part of this decision today.

In 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency found that more than 185 miles of streams and over 3,800 acres of wetlands would be permanently damaged or destroyed by Pebble Mine due to its toxic waste and habitat destruction, and that is just if the mine operated the way it was supposed to. That wasn't considering the kind of degradation that could happen if an accident happened. Those statistics don't account for a potential mine disaster that could really wipe out this irreplaceable ecosystem.

So despite the clear science, the mining company has continued to claim that protecting Bristol Bay is a partisan government overreach. Their executives believe that stripping all the gold and copper out of Bristol Bay is a worthy goal, more important than our wild salmon or more important than the generations of Washington and Alaska fishermen who earn their livelihood from that.

Protecting our fishing economy should not be a partisan issue, and that is why Congress created a fail-safe Clean Water Act provision called section 404(c). This provision says that if disposal or dredging in a waterway would destroy fisheries, municipal water, or have other serious impacts, the Environmental Agency could step in to stop the project.

It is a simple concept, really: Let's not destroy a profitable, sustainable industry that keeps the water clean for the sake of just temporary extracting.

Still, this authority in 404(c) isn't used lightly. Since 1972, millions of Clean Water Act permits have been approved, compared to only 14 times that this provision has been used to stop major projects like the one today that is being stopped at Pebble Mine.

Republican Presidents have used this Clean Water 404(c) authority 11 times. Let me say that again.

It has only been implemented 14 times in our history, and 11 times it was used by a Republican President. Ronald Reagan alone used the Clean Water Act 404 authority 8 times.

So there was a time when people believed in this conservation. They believed in making sure that we preserve what is so unique about our planet.

To sum it up, a multinational corporation thought that it could go to one of the most iconic salmon runs on the planet and decimate those jobs that we rely on in Bristol Bay and tear a hole in the culture of our Northwest fabric. And fishermen and we here said: No.

I am proud of the scientific work done by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden, the University of Washington, and so many of the environmental partners that fought so hard to stop this project.

I am proud to have stood with the fishermen and Tribes of Bristol Bay in saying we need to protect this unique place forever.

I want to thank some of our greatest champions: The United Tribes of Bristol Bay, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the fishing families in Alaska and Washington.

I want to thank my staff, Nikki Teutschel, Amit Ronen, and Jeff Watters, who, through a decade, all continued this fight to make sure that every administration was listening to this cause.

It seemed like a ``David and Goliath'' many times, this battle, but we know today that the voices of fishermen at Bristol Bay provided the leadership that we needed to preserve this area forever and said no to this project.

Fishermen know that the Pacific Northwest salmon is worth more than copper, and today, salmon is even worth more than gold. It is our Pacific way of life, and thanks to this administration, it will be protected.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.