Floor Statements

Madam President, while we are waiting, I understand, for one of our colleagues to come and do a live UC, I just want to echo my colleague Senator Blackburn's thanks to all of our friends and colleagues in this body for their support.

We have reached 70 cosponsors, and I anticipate with gratitude an overwhelming bipartisan majority in favor of this bill. I want to thank in particular Senator Schumer, who has provided leadership on this bill that I think is going to be long remembered. Certainly, it will be remembered by the parents and children who have driven advocacy for this measure. They may be in the gallery now. I don't know for sure. But I think on behalf of all of us, we owe them a great debt of thanks.

And, again, this bill addresses a long-standing problem for this Nation. We can no longer rely on the promises of Big Tech. We can no longer take at face value the promises of ``trust me.'' ``We will take care of it.'' We are giving choices, and we are empowering young people and their parents, providing

safeguards, tools to disconnect from the blackbox algorithms, more transparency for those algorithms, and a duty of care and accountability for social media--for the first time, a real duty of care and accountability for them so they have to prevent harms that are destroying lives, literally destroying lives. And I think we are on the road, and we are going to keep pursuing this measure as long and hard as it takes to impose that accountability on Big Tech.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be deemed expired; further, if cloture is invoked on the Neumann nomination on Tuesday, July 30, that upon disposition of the nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 with amendment No. 3021; further, that if cloture is not invoked on the Neumann nomination, the vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 2073 with amendment No. 3021 occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 30.

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

Madam President, I have six 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:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 774, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made laid and 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 3 p.m. on Monday, July 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Neumann nomination; further, that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the Landy nomination as provided under the order of July 23, 2024, and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Lankford on this historic day.

Thank you to my colleague, Leader Schumer. The leader has been working tirelessly to get this bill done. I have seen the work up close, and I have seen the benefit. After pushing and cajoling, we are much closer to ultimate success.

This bill, which has nearly 70 cosponsors, is a set of safeguards and accountability measures to protect kids from the clear and horrific harms created by social media and other online platforms. The bill is responsive to the countless stories that we have heard from bereaved parents and young people about the terrible consequences these platforms have had on their lives.

And just to repeat, I want to thank my colleague, Leader Schumer. The leader has been working tirelessly to get this bill done. I have seen the work up close, and I have seen the benefits. After pushing and cajoling, we are much closer to ultimate success.

As the leader said, we have made significant progress in resolving outstanding issues. This work is hard, but I think it is, without doubt, that we are closer under his leadership.

I also thank my partner in this effort, Senator Blackburn, as well as the amazing parents and youth advocates who have worked so hard on this bill.

Put plainly, I am confident, based on my conversations with Leader Schumer, that we are going to get this bill done.

Mr. President, when I introduced the Women's Health Protection Act a little more than 10 years ago, the idea that Roe v. Wade might be reversed was unthinkable--in fact, unimaginable. We are living now in the post-Dobbs era, which is one of horror and heartbreak for women across the country.

Let's be very clear that the ramifications in our law, in our families, in bedrooms of Americans are widespread and real. The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling is absolutely horrifying to women and families who want IVF to give them the miracle of childbirth, the wondrous magic of a new life as part of their family.

Now, a lot of people are going to look to today's Supreme Court decision and say: Isn't it comforting? No, it is not. This decision on mifepristone was made on a legal technicality. It does nothing to restore the reproductive rights and access to abortion that the Supreme Court dismantled in Dobbs, and it does nothing to reassure families that IVF will be accessible and affordable to them. That is why we need the Right to IVF Act--to reassure Lisa, who lives in Norwalk, CT, who has a healthy and happy baby girl as a result of IVF and cannot imagine life without it. Families like Lisa's wouldn't exist if it weren't for IVF, and many will not exist if we do not pass this measure.

Those who vote against this measure are not in favor of life; they are anti-women, anti-choice, anti-science. This miracle is the result of scientific advance.

I am going to close by just recalling a trip that I recently took to Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Walking through the American cemetery, row upon row of gravestones, white, silently eloquent testimony to the importance of freedom and the American determination to expand freedom and liberty across our country and the world, and then to walk on Omaha Beach and see the absolutely insurmountable, three-football-field-long terrain that those soldiers had to confront and overcome on D-Day. I would guess that few, if any, of those young men knew of Roe v. Wade--they were kids, 17 and 18 years old, had never been away from home before, farm boys, mechanics--but they knew they were fighting for freedom. That is why they jumped into that 8 feet of water, under a hail of bullets and mortar fire, fighting for the ideal that America respects and expands the frontiers of freedom.

If we have one-tenth, one-hundredth of their courage and determination, today this body will vote for the Right to IVF Act because it is about freedom.

One Justice of the Supreme Court called the right of privacy ``the right to be let alone,'' and that is what American families want--the right to

be let alone from politicians or government bureaucrats telling them what to do with their families.

We owe it to Americans. We owe it to the great tradition of our veterans of military service, to all who have given their lives to preserve America, the ideal and the beacon of freedom around the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse. I have been proud to be part of their team in working for the most minimal kind of ethical standards for the highest Court in the land. Right now, that Court has no enforceable code of conduct, unlike any other court in the Federal system, unlike any other branch of government. It is so elemental as a matter of simple ethical conduct and appearance.

The Supreme Court has squandered its almost mystical authority, its unique power in the Federal Government. In a sense, that power was not envisioned by the Founders. The idea of judicial review came after the Constitution was written. We can thank Justice Marshall for the idea that the Supreme Court can literally strike down what we do here. It is the most powerful branch of government--not the least dangerous but the most powerful.

Think of it for a moment. In a democratic republic, it is unelected; it has life tenure. Nobody can tell a Justice: You are too old to do this stuff anymore. It is the most anti-democratic or undemocratic institution in a democratic system of government that you could possibly imagine. So its power is really dependent on its adherence to standards of integrity to gain respect and credibility. It has no army. It has no police force. People follow those orders that it issues because its wisdom and integrity have gained respect.

This Supreme Court is different than any other we have seen, and it is not just two Members of the Supreme Court; it is the institution as a whole that is responsible, and it is the Chief Justice of the Court that is most responsible.

So I ask Chief Justice Roberts: Please endorse this legislation not just for the sake of your legacy--we know Chief Justice Roberts cares about his legacy--but for the sake of the Court.

This Court is doing things and its Justices are committing errors of extraordinary misjudgment--not to mention the corrupt taking of gifts and trips and all the rest--that are, to use my colleague's words, blowing to smithereens the credibility and trust that this Court needs. It needs it for its decisions to be followed and respected.

What we are doing here is very simply saying to the Court: You must have a code of conduct that is enforceable.

We are not telling them what to do. We are not telling them to decide a case in one way or another. We are not interfering with their docket. We are not in any way affecting the substantive decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is simply telling them to conduct themselves as public officials--whether they take gifts, whether they go on trips paid by somebody else, whether they accept tuition grants. It is common sense. You don't need to be a law school graduate to understand it.

In fact, this idea is more comprehensible and more impactful to the folks who go to work every day. Nobody gives them college tuition. Nobody takes them on private jets to islands that cost thousands of dollars to reach. To the ordinary American, the everyday American, this legislation not only makes sense, I think most people assume there already is legislation like the one we are debating today.

I am not going to belabor the specific provisions of this bill, but I believe that we are going to have to go further. I think there ought to be an inspector general for the courts as a part of the Judicial Conference, just like there is in other government entities. I think there has to be Court reform that casts light on the shadow docket. There are a series of reforms, and some are a lot more draconian in their scope, but this act is simple in requiring disclosure rules for gifts, travel, and income that are at least as strict as those we comply with here in Congress; a code of ethics; recusal--and Alito and Thomas should have recused themselves long ago from decisions involving Donald Trump.

This comprehensive judicial ethics legislation is long overdue, and my biggest regret as I stand on the floor of the Senate today is that it is not bipartisan, because it should be.

I have argued four cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have been a law clerk there. I have immense respect, unshakable respect, for the institution--the institution. I have reverence for what it reflects in America. Sadly, the Court has inflicted wounds on itself that will be difficult--and my fear is, impossible--to repair, but this measure will at least begin that process.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me ask permission, if there is no objection, that Amanda Padgett--Senator Merkley's intern--be granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

Mr. President, on June 3, 2024, I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 183, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Christopher T. Hanson, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the term of five years expiring June 30, 2029.

Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

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

Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues and the Presiding Officer, whom I thank for his leadership, in voicing my support for the Right to Contraception Act.

Truth be told, we shouldn't be here debating this issue. We shouldn't have to vote for legislation on it. Just 2 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that we would be turning the clock back not to the early 1970s, when Roe was decided, but to the 1960s, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Griswold v. Connecticut--yes, Griswold v. Connecticut--striking down the criminal prohibition against the use of contraception.

That decision had a profound impact on women and American families, and it was all to the good. It, in effect, struck down a prohibition that was disregarded widely but still followed, with consequences that were both tragic and detrimental to women's health.

Now we are in an era that regards the unthinkable as perfectly realistic, when my Republican colleagues here and across the country are working to ban or restrict access to abortion care and attempting to limit the ability of families to have children through IVF. No one could have thought that was possible just a couple of years ago.

But in the post-Dobbs era, it is not only possible, it is common. Griswold v. Connecticut is still the law of the land, but it has been undercut deeply by Dobbs, and it has undermined the ability of families to decide when and whether to have children. We are talking here, not about abortion but about contraceptive care which gives women a chance to choose their own path in life and select their own timeline to pursue or continue an education or trade or advance further in the workforce. It gives them the freedom they

deserve as to when to have children as well as whether.

This decision is deeply personal. I shouldn't have to say it. It should be a matter of assumption, but politicians in this building and in State capitols around the country take on the right to make that decision for everyone else, not just themselves.

If my Republican colleagues really care about families and children, I would suggest they turn their attention to improving their lives in this world and support families rather than forcing people to have children that maybe they are not prepared to care for. And if they really care about women, how about maternal healthcare? I am struck by the fact--in fact, I am haunted by it--that maternal mortality rates in this country have actually been rising. Maternal mortality rates in the United States of America have been rising over recent years. It seems incomprehensible. Yes, we have cut infant mortality rates, but women still face heart disease, hemorrhage, infection, other kinds of complications, either before they give birth or within the year afterward and, of course, the mental health issues that can arise.

To my Republican colleagues, if you care about women, let's support the moms who decide to have children but leave to them the decision about whether and when.

In addition to determining their own futures, access to contraception is also access to critical healthcare. Since the landmark decision in Griswold, millions of women have safely used contraception to improve health outcomes for themselves, and birth control is revolutionary to anyone who has a life-threatening condition that prevents them from having a healthy pregnancy. Restricting access to birth control puts people in danger, preventable danger. Nearly 90 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, and an overwhelming percentage of voters believe access to contraception is a basic right. It is a basic right.

Overturning Roe represented a significant regression in our law, in morality, in practical health outcome. In the blink of an eye, younger generations were set back before their moms in their basic rights and protection, their access to healthcare.

We have a responsibility in this body, at the pinnacle of our Federal system, to make sure that there is Federal protection against the attacks on reproductive care and ensure that generations of Americans don't have fewer rights than their parents. This bill is urgent in light of the continuing attack in State legislatures on women's access to healthcare and reproductive rights.

I wish we weren't here, but we are, and we need to do the right thing. My colleagues have a choice. They can either support a woman's right to access contraception or they can oppose this bill and oppose that right. I think there really is no question about how that choice should be made, and I hope they will make it tomorrow when we vote on this measure.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have seven 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: