Floor Statements

Madam President, I understand that there are two additional bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 25; 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 conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Thompson nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the University of Connecticut School of Law as it celebrates 100 years of extraordinary legal education.

In 1921, George William Lillard and Caroline Eiermann Lillard founded the Hartford College of Law to provide Hartford insurance company employees with a legal education. Among the members of the first graduating class was Miss J. Agnes Burns, who was the first female attorney to present to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The college continued to grow during the 1930s, even amid unstable economic times. It reached a student body of 100 part-time night students with three full-time instructors. In September 1933, the American Bar Association--ABA--approved the college, and the examining committee of the Connecticut

Bar Association accredited the institution. The Hartford College of Law also appointed their first full-time dean, Thomas A. Larremore. Within the decade, the school amended the charter to organize the college as a nonprofit educational corporation and added the day division program to allow for full-time study.

During World War II, when enrollment dropped dramatically, the University of Connecticut, based in Storrs, CT, agreed to take responsibility for the Hartford College of Law to prevent it from closing. The initial lease was for 5 years, and the full title was conveyed to the university on September 1, 1948, renaming the college as the University of Connecticut School of Law. The first class at the newly established school of law was also the first class to have all of its members pass the State bar.

In 1964, a new home for the law school was opened, with a modern look designed by the architect of the Storrs campus' renowned Jorgensen Auditorium, Frederic C. Teich. The West Hartford News called the law school's new campus reveal a ``most significant event in our state's history.'' The opening received an entire section in the local newspaper, including a two-page photo layout and an article praising the building's lighting and the library's book collection and technological elements.

With the new building came a 40-percent increase in admissions. Soon, the new building was overflowing, and by the late 1970s, the ABA expressed concerns about the facilities meeting accreditation standards. In June 1978, Governor Ella Grasso signed legislation that allowed for the purchase and renovation of the then empty Hartford Seminary campus to accommodate the increased demand for legal education. The law school remains at that location, housed in a beautiful campus, with ornate structures befitting a century old, august institution.

Since its founding, the University of Connecticut School of Law has grown exponentially in both size and stature. It opened its first clinic, the Criminal Clinic, in 1969. Further degree programs were also established: in 1994, its first LLM program, in U.S. legal studies; and in 2013, the doctor of the science of laws program.

Many illustrious alumni have entered public service, working on behalf of the State and the Nation. Others have contributed to the ongoing evolution of the law, especially in areas such as property, tax, and insurance law. The law school, through its clinics, has assisted many Connecticut residents who otherwise could not afford lawyers.

As the former Connecticut Attorney General, I can attest to the fact that many of the assistant attorneys general, who graduated from the law school, provided the State with dedicated and insightful legal representation.

On October 25, 2021, hundreds of students, alumni, faculty, and staff celebrated Founders' Day, in honor of the Lillards. The event began a yearlong celebration, which culminates on June 11, 2022, with the centennial gala.

The University of Connecticut School of Law has had an immeasurable impact on our State and countless residents. As the school celebrates its centennial, I applaud its exemplary record of success and achievement. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the University of Connecticut School of Law on 100 years of excellence.

I want to thank my friend and colleague who has been such a leader of this bipartisan effort, Senator Graham, for the question and for his powerful and passionate remarks just now.

Very simply, the reason for this bipartisan initiative to designate Russia a state sponsor of terrorism is because of what the American people and the world have seen day after day after day, not only this assault on Ukraine, trying to deprive it of its freedom and independence, but also the mass atrocities that its soldiers have committed at the direction, potentially, of Vladimir Putin: holding women and children hostage when bombs are falling, tying people's hands behind their backs and shooting them in their heads, raping and torturing innocent civilians, making them the targets of warfare in a purposeful and direct way, in a reign of terror. Make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism in the same way that Iran and Syria and Cuba have been. Vladimir Putin should be part of that club.

It will give individuals who are victims rights of action. But equally important, it will impose additional support controls and sanctions and other kinds of measures and send the world a message that, literally, anybody who deals with Russia is dealing with a terrorist cabal, a terrorist organization that is beyond the pale, that is to be treated as a pariah and is a member of a club that no one should want to be a part of.

It costs nothing to give Russia this well-merited label. It also works very much in favor of not only Ukraine but American taxpayers and our NATO allies to have the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act, a bipartisan initiative, that will enable not only seizure but also sale of Russian oligarch assets as a part of this package.

I am disappointed that it wasn't included, but I am very optimistic that we will move forward because people have seen on their TVs, day after day, the seizure of the superyachts. We have seen those pictures--the mansions, the

jets, the fine art, other ill-gotten gains. They have bought these items with money they have stolen from the people of Russia and elsewhere around the world. Those ill-gotten gains are sometimes in bank accounts that can be seized, and they should be used for Ukraine's defense against this invasion and for reconstruction of Ukraine.

Their use should be humanitarian reconstruction efforts, as well as the ongoing fight. They are resources that Putin has, in effect, enabled his oligarchs to take in this kleptocracy known as the Russian regime. We should be cracking down on those beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains and enablers of Putin's cruel and kleptocratic regime.

Let's be clear. Once enacted, this measure would enable law enforcement agents from around the world to seize those oligarch assets and enable them to liquidate--that is to say, sell those assets--to be used immediately to provide more weapons for the brave Ukrainians who are fighting Russian aggression and to deliver humanitarian aid to displaced Ukrainians.

I have been to the border and seen those refugees coming from Ukraine--literally crossing the border, carrying their pets and stuffed animals, women and children--because the men are staying to fight--with just the clothes on their back. They need help. Those assets should be used to help them, as well as the men who are left behind to fight with a ferocity and bravery that is the awe of the world. Literally, our own military has said how deeply impressed they are with the fierceness and courage of Ukrainians who are pushing back not only from around Kyiv, but now in the Donbas, Lutsk, and Luhansk. Literally, they are winning victories.

But those victories are occurring because of aid we have provided. If we cease that aid, they will be deprived of the tools they need to win this war.

Yes, our objective should be Ukraine winning this war. We are not going to have troops on the ground. We are not going to be engaged through NATO. We are not going to be a party in the combat. But we can be the arsenal of Ukraine's democracy. We can step up and stand up for democracy.

My colleague has made the point very well that history teaches about bullies. They are stopped, or they will continue. That is a lesson throughout history, whether it is World War II or any of the other conflicts where aggression has been stymied and halted.

Vladimir Putin is a thug. He is a KGB operative. He understands only one thing: force--economic force, military force--and that force needs to be brought to bear before he moves against countries that are at risk.

What does it mean that Finland wants to join NATO? What does it mean that Sweden is talking about joining NATO? They see the threat. They need that protection. They know they can't do it alone. They know that Putin will pick them off if we do not stand together.

As Benjamin Franklin said at the time of our Revolution: We will hang together, or we will hang alone.

That has to be the mantra that we take to our allies and to the American people. One last point. We need to bring together this body and our Congress in the bipartisan way that the three of us are doing today. This issue is way above partisan politics in its importance to our future as a nation.

The American people understandably are focused on inflation, which is a serious challenge. They are fatigued and tired of COVID, which is not only irksome but threatening. Our job is to make them aware of the threat that is posed by Putin's Russia. It isn't the Russian people's Russia. They have no idea what is actually happening. They believe because they have been told that President Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, is actually a Nazi. That is what they have been told.

We visited Ukraine not long before the invasion. One of my colleagues in this bipartisan trip said to President Zelenskyy: Are you fearful about a Russian invasion?

This was January of this year.

He said: The Russian invasion began in 2014. The Russian invasion has been ongoing and has killed 14,000 of our people.

This latest threat of an assault on Ukraine is just another phase of the same war, and Ukrainian people have fought on behalf of democracy for these years. They have lost blood and lives and treasure, and we have an obligation to stand strong for our democracy at this moment. We have an opportunity and an obligation.

I am proud to stand with my colleagues in favor of using the proceeds of selling oligarchs' ill-begotten gains so that we can benefit the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom and their effort to reconstruct their country.

I would like to yield the floor back to my colleague, hopefully, having answered his question and pose a question to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Will the proceeds from the sale of these ill-gotten gains potentially benefit Ukraine in a way that will be meaningful and will help save American taxpayers' funds that are necessary to support the freedom of that country?

Mr. President, when I introduced the Women's Health Protection Act in 2013--yes, in 2013, almost 10 years ago--the idea that Roe v. Wade would be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court was virtually unthinkable. We accepted 50 years of established precedent, long-accepted law in this country--as something that was virtually unimaginable.

Women relied on it. Our society took it as a core principle of our constitutional law, much as Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, tenets and pillars of constitutional law in this country. And when we asked nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, the three most recent of them--and I personally asked this question--is Roe v. Wade established law, they said to us that they would rely on stare decisis, which for everyday Americans is, basically, we will follow established precedent as articulated year after year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The now well-reported Alito draft of an opinion overturning Roe v. Wade came like a thunderbolt, an earthquake, a seismic blow that constitutional scholars thought was unthinkable.

The draft itself is strident and brash. It is disrespectful in a way that Supreme Court opinions never are. It is unprecedented in its tone and approach, saying that Roe v. Wade was egregiously wrong, failing to accurately portray what it held and the reasons for its holding.

There is no question in my mind that the Court, in its final opinion, will smooth the edges of that draft. It will try to tone down the rhetoric. It will dress it up. But the result will be the same. No matter how the Court may try to dress it up, it will have the same impact on millions of Americans and their families because the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue the most radical ruling in recent history--perhaps in the entire history of the United States--the most extreme contraction of fundamental constitutional rights in the history of the United States.

Let's indulge ourselves for a moment in a belief in the American dream and the exceptionalism of America, which is to expand rights and liberties. The story of America is expanding freedoms and liberties for all of us, not reducing it, restricting it. But this Supreme Court is poised to eradicate a fundamental right that millions of Americans have relied on for half a century. The Court has signaled that it will inflict an enormous leap backwards, with incalculable costs and chaos for countless women and their families. If the Court indeed overturns Roe, 23 States have laws that would immediately go into effect to be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.

Today, 90 percent of American counties already lack a single abortion provider--not one in 90 percent of American counties--and 27 cities have become so-called abortion deserts because people who live there have to travel 100 miles or more to reach a provider. Without the protections of Roe, this situation will become even worse for millions of Americans. Women in Louisiana, just to take one example, will be 630 miles from the nearest abortion clinic. Women in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Utah, and many other States would be in a similar position. Access to reproductive freedom will depend on a woman's ZIP Code, not on her personal choices or her needs.

Abortion bans without Roe will disproportionately impact low-income women in those 23 States poised to ban abortion.

Justice Alito--perhaps not surprisingly--fails to address the ways that the Court's ruling will disproportionately impact communities of color all around the United States. There is an issue here of racial justice because these restrictions disproportionately affect Black women and other racial minority communities. Today, fewer than 1 in 10 abortion providers are located in neighborhoods where the majority of residents are Black. That is a simple, straightforward fact of life. And the closure of clinics will make it only worse.

The simple fact is that Dobbs will turn back the clock. It will roll back protections relating to fundamental rights.

May I say that the same people who argue that mask requirements designed to protect public health infringe on their fundamental liberties are perfectly happy sending the government into a hospital room as a couple makes an incredibly difficult, personal life decision. The same people who see masks as an infringement on bodily autonomy are perfectly happy with the government telling a woman who comes to a hospital, possibly in mortal danger of internal bleeding from an ectopic pregnancy: You will have to die. No doctor can help you.

That is not bodily autonomy; that is not liberty.

After the Court's final decision in Dobbs, today's young women, the young women of 2022, will have fewer rights than their grandmothers. Young women today will have fewer rights than two generations ago. To someone who recalls the seminal decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and the promise of that moment, it is unacceptable.

I was a law clerk to the author of Roe v. Wade in the term after he wrote the opinion. Justice Blackmun and the Court decided by a 7-to-2 majority--7 to 2; Justice Blackmun was appointed by a Republican President--that this right is fundamental. Whether you criticize the decision--and there have been plenty of people who criticized that opinion--it has been established law, relied on, incorporated in precedent after precedent. And now, in the Women's Health Protection Act, we ask that it be incorporated in statute, that the Roe v. Wade standard be enshrined and embodied in a statute, just as Connecticut did in its State statute in 1990--a law that I championed when I was in our Connecticut State Senate.

In lieu of well-established Supreme Court precedent, Justice Alito relies on a 17th-century English jurist who advocated for marital rape and who tried women for witchcraft. This isn't just judicial activism; this is extremism. This is fringe history cloaked in a judge's robe.

And do you know what is conspicuously absent from Justice Alito's radical draft opinion? What is absent is women. Justice Alito gives absolutely no credence to the empirical evidence before the Court-- evidence offered by health experts and economists who demonstrate the ways in which women have relied upon abortion access to make decisions about their health, their lives, their careers, and their future. Instead, he gestures at the fact that women have the right to vote as evidence they don't need the right to control their lives and their own bodies. I am sorry, but the right to vote is where rights begin; it is not where they end.

And we know the truth, whether or not Justice Alito acknowledges it: The Court's world without Roe would not just impact one segment of society, one demographic, one geographic area; it will affect all of us. One in four American women will undergo an abortion in her lifetime--one in four.

To the men of America, all of you love someone, you know someone, you treasure someone who has had an abortion, who has needed an abortion. You can't sit this one out.

It is all of us, men as well as women. We all have a stake in this radical decision that will affect all of America and make us a lesser nation with fewer rights and liberties.

The Court's draft opinion in Dobbs is just the next step in a multidecade fight which the Court has waged on abortion access. It has already shown willingness to dramatically curtail the right of a pregnant person to decide whether and when to have a child. Just ask women in the State of Texas. They are living in a State without the protections of Roe v. Wade, with a dangerous anti-abortion law, SB 8, which contains a 6-week abortion ban. Six weeks is far before many women even know they are pregnant, as all of us in this Chamber know.

Texas's dangerous law deputizes private citizens to enforce the State's onerous abortion law. In Texas, a rapist can sue a doctor if they provide an abortion to a rape survivor. Someone who drove their sister to a healthcare clinic where she has an abortion could be sued, again, by anyone in the United States--anybody--with a $10,000 government prize money waiting for that bounty hunter. This is extremism--extremism--in a judge's robes.

I am proud to say that the State of Connecticut today has a law-- literally, the Governor signed this law today--making sure that people are protected in Connecticut against those kinds of bounty hunters. My hope is that other States will follow Connecticut in providing that kind of basic protection.

It has never been more urgent for the Congress at the Federal level to pass the Women's Health Protection Act. The Women's Health Protection Act would protect rights established by 50 years of Court precedent, protecting the right to an abortion prior to fetal viability. It would put an end to laws like the 15-week ban on abortion that is now before the Court in the Dobbs case.

Importantly, as well, the Women's Health Protection Act would put an end to medically unnecessary restrictions posing as health restrictions that single out abortion care with one goal in mind: to block and impede access to safe, needed healthcare--laws like the so-called TRAP law, or targeted regulation of abortion providers; such as minimum measurements for room size or hallway width that have no rationale other than the transparent desire to curtail access; laws that require providers to offer medically inaccurate information when providing abortion care, like in Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia, where healthcare professionals are forced to tell women--give them medically inaccurate information about links between abortion and breast cancer. It would put an end to a reality where our doctors are required by law to lie and mislead about the risks of a safe medical procedure, and it would restore an evidence-based approach to informed consent.

In short, it would essentially guarantee the right that exists now, and it will exist until the Supreme Court rules that you can decide whether and when to have children.

Let us be very clear about what the Women's Health Protection Act does and what it doesn't do. It does not force any unwilling medical provider to perform abortions if they wish not to do so. It says that doctors, nurses, and hospitals may provide abortion care, not that they must do so.

This measure is an evidence-based, scientific approach to the protection of women's healthcare, and it restores a future where all of us are free to make personal decisions that shape our lives, our futures, and our families with dignity and respect, without political interference in a decision made between a patient and a doctor, much as all healthcare decisions should be.

The implications of the Court's draft decision in Dobbs and what we are expecting from the Court in coming weeks simply can't be overstated or exaggerated, but it would be foolish to believe that the Court's conservative supermajority will stop even at Roe.

Justice Alito's draft opinion, even if it is never issued by the Court, is the road map where this Court will go in the future. It is permeated with support for the notion that ``fetal personhood,'' a dangerous theory furthered by States like Louisiana that seek to make abortion a crime of homicide from the moment of fertilization, if adopted, the Court's novel, invented theory of personhood could and may well lead to nationwide prohibitions on abortion. And most recently, just over the weekend, the minority leader of the Senate has made clear that in a post-Roe world, a Federal ban on abortion is on the table; so did State officials who spoke over the weekend.

It is more than a cloud on the horizon; it is an impending, real, imminent storm upon us. A ban nationwide on abortion, that would override even the States like Connecticut that are seeking to legislate protections for women that will make us a safe harbor and haven.

The draft opinion also invites challenges to a host of fundamental rights that were also not widely recognized in 1868, the moment in which Justice Alito freezes us in time. He literally freezes constitutional rights regarding reproductive liberties in that long- gone moment.

The draft opinion cast invites challenges to a host of fundamental rights, including contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut; interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia; same sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges; and sexual intimacy between consenting adults, Lawrence v. Texas.

You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand the clear and present danger to American democracy in this draft opinion.

This Court may dress it up, but the results and the reasoning will be the same: radical extreme fringe--and directly contrary to what three nominees testified in their confirmation hearing. Oh, we respect established precedent, of course, stare decisis, fundamental principle.

The legitimacy and credibility of this Court is deeply in peril at this moment, and our democracy really depends on the credibility and respect that the American people accord the Supreme Court of the United States. It has no armies or police force. It has no power of the purse. Its authority depends directly on trust and credibility, the sense of legitimacy that the American people accord it.

In the United States, public support for legal access to abortion is at the highest it has been in two decades, a cruel irony for this Court. And today the overwhelming majority of voters believe that everyone should have access to the full range of reproductive healthcare, including annual screening, birth control, pregnancy tests, and abortion. It is a matter of health.

And at the same time, millions of Americans across this country are absolutely terrified. They are angry and horrified about what the Supreme Court is poised to do because they depend on accessible women's healthcare. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe and we have taken no legislative action, we will find ourselves in a nation where young women of this country, not only have fewer rights than their grandmothers, they have fewer rights than any of them thought possible.

We have to resolve that we are not backing down, we are not going away, we are not going back in time. It has never been more urgent to elect people, Members of this body, who will protect fundamental rights. And I guarantee that in elections to come, reproductive rights will be on the ballot. The women

and men of America will mobilize. They will be galvanized on this issue because the Women's Health Protection Act will be on the ballot, and we will have more votes in this body so that Members will be held accountable for what they do or fail to do. And, ultimately, the American people and the world are watching.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Edward Leonard Marcus, an extraordinary public servant who passed away on May 5, 2022, at the age of 94.

Born in Brooklyn, NY, Ed was a shining star from an early age in the classroom and on the sports field. He attended Yale University as an undergraduate, where he also played football, baseball, and basketball, as well as managed the wrestling team. In 1950, he obtained his LLB and LLD from Yale Law School. Inspired by the community involvement he enjoyed while at law school, Ed successfully ran for the board of alders, and, demonstrating his tremendous leadership skills, he quickly was elected majority leader. At the same time, Ed established the Marcus Law Firm, which would gain recognition for legal excellence throughout New England.

Following his initial city political success, Ed was elected to the Connecticut Senate, where, again, his leadership acumen and political prowess resulted in him serving as the majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate for an impressive six terms. In 1992, he became the Democratic State chairman.

Throughout his time in public service, Ed thrived most when given the opportunity to debate with his peers and learn from those around him. He had a reputation as an obstinate, tough leader, a credit to his well-earned confidence and determination to help the people of Connecticut. Outside of work, Ed was a caring and compassionate man who valued his family above all else.

Ed's wife and three daughters exemplify the same generous spirit he embodied. His wife, Jill, was elected chair of the Branford Police Commission in 2015; his daughter, Shelley, is a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court; his daughter, Susan, enthusiastically supports the work of Ed's law firm; and his daughter, Nicole, is a dedicated teacher. I have had the privilege of knowing the Marcus family and witnessing firsthand their unstinting work to better Connecticut and the Nation. Ed's tireless efforts will be an enduring legacy, and his wife and daughters continue this remarkable lifetime of service.

My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Jill, Shelley, Susan, Nicole, and all of Ed's loved ones during this difficult time. May their many wonderful memories of Ed provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead. I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering Edward L. Marcus.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to recognize an outstanding public servant, Mr. Ralph White, who has dedicated his career to providing bidders for government contracts with an inexpensive and expeditious means to seek accountability within the government contracting process. Mr. White will retire on May 29, 2022, after a distinguished, 39-year career in public service, including serving 33 years at the Government Accountability Office--GAO--where he is currently a managing associate general counsel for the procurement law division.

As a Senate staffer during the beginning of his career, Mr. White was instrumental in the drafting of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, which establishes statutory authority for GAO's bid protest function, under which thousands of bid protests are filed each year. Since joining GAO in 1989, Mr. White handled bid protests as a writing attorney/hearing officer, as an assistant general counsel leading a team of GAO attorneys, and since early 2010, as a managing associate general counsel leading GAO's bid protest forum. Since becoming a managing associate general counsel, Mr. White has successfully led GAO's procurement law division through numerous large and complicated bid protests and has been recognized by the government contracting community as a preeminent legal mind in this field. In recognition of this expertise and knowledge, he is regularly sought out to speak and provide insights into the bid protest process throughout the government, academia, and industry. Throughout his tenure, Mr. White has managed the resolution of protests that have touched upon nearly every aspect of federal procurement spending. In addition, Mr. White has received numerous awards during his GAO career, including GAO's Distinguished Service award in 2013 and the General Counsel's Award in March 2010 for outstanding leadership on several initiatives relating to GAO's bid protest process, as well as contributions to many significant bid protest decisions.

Thanks to the dedication and expertise of Mr. White, our government contracting process provides bidders with an inexpensive and expeditious means to report violations of procurement law and regulation, to the benefit of all that value transparency, accountability, and functionality in government.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Mr. John James Lenehan, Jr., a remarkable man and Korean war veteran who graduates from college on May 21, 2022, at the age of 88.

The son of Irish immigrants, Mr. Lenehan was born on April 5, 1934. He was raised alongside his four siblings in a one-bedroom apartment in Queens. Upon graduating from high school, Mr. Lenehan was drafted into the U.S. Army, serving at Fort Dix. Thanks to the GI Bill, he was able to pursue his dream of higher education and enrolled at Fordham University. Mr. Lenehan took night classes while working at KLM Airlines, where he met his future wife, Lillian. When KLM transferred Mr. Lenehan to the Houston office, the couple moved to Texas the day after their wedding, and Mr. Lenehan had to pause his studies.

The Lenehan family lived in Wallingford, CT, for 6 years. While there, Mr. Lenehan began working for Xerox, where he quickly gained recognition for his determination. During this time, he took several classes at Sacred Heart University and Yale University, but never had a sufficient chance to complete his degree. He eventually retired in 1991, only to start a new company with his wife before long. Mr. Lenehan retired a second time, moving with Mrs. Lenehan to a cottage in the west of Ireland.

Last spring, Mr. Lenehan decided he wanted to make the time to obtain his college degree, so he wrote to the president of Fordham University, requesting the opportunity to finish his studies nearly 70 years after he began. The university accepted him, and this month, Mr. Lenehan will achieve his dream of completing his undergraduate education. He will be Fordham University's oldest ever graduate when he receives his diploma on May 21, 2022.

Mr. Lenehan's lifelong commitment to pursuing his studies and supporting his family will be an enduring legacy. He and his wife instilled a love of learning in their children that they in turn have passed on to their own children. I now join his 6 children and 13 grandchildren in saluting Mr. Lenehan. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. John Lenehan, Jr., on this milestone of his graduation.

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

Mr. President, I come here with real pleasure, pride, excitement, joy, and real exuberance not often felt on the floor of the U.S. Senate because we are going to be making history this week. As confident as I am of anything ever in the U.S. Senate happening, this week we will confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let me, first of all, thank President Biden for nominating her. His wisdom and courage are one of the reasons that she is before us as a nominee in this historic vote. And to all my fellow Members of the Judiciary Committee, we have labored a long time, through many hours, and I particularly thank Senator Durbin for his leadership.

Now, ``historic'' is a word that is often overused, even in this Chamber, where a lot of history is made, but Judge Jackson's nomination truly merits that word. It is a joyous, exciting moment for all Americans because Justice Jackson will make the U.S. Supreme Court look more like America and, hopefully, think more like America at a time when Black women and people with diverse backgrounds, races, religions have broken many barriers.

Her confirmation will be a giant leap into the present. She stands on the shoulders of many who have come before her, as she recognized so explicitly in our hearing. One of them is Constance Baker Motley, a daughter of New Haven, CT, the first Black woman to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court and the first Black woman to be appointed as a judge on the U.S. district court.

Now, she was also instrumental in the well-known and profoundly significant case of Brown v. Board of Education, argued by Thurgood Marshall, and she won every one of the cases that she argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. I have argued four; she argued ten. Her record surpasses almost any of the litigators who have become judges.

Not only will she be the first Black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Jackson will be the first public defender. What does that mean? She has represented people who couldn't afford a lawyer. There is nobody on this Court who has represented people who couldn't afford a lawyer as a full-time profession or public defender. She has more experience as a trial lawyer and a trial judge combined than anybody on the U.S. Supreme Court now and probably over the last century.

She has academic credentials that are superlative. She has written and taught and counseled in ways that give her insights into the real- life meaning of the law and its real impact on people.

It has also given her an emotional intelligence. There is no question that she is qualified by virtue of intellect and intelligence. Book smart--there is no question that she is book smart, but she is also people smart. She understands, as Justice Breyer has, as well, that all of these abstruse legalisms, all of the abstract concepts in law, all the technical distinctions, all of the verbiage--they have a real-life impact when they are words in a statute, when

they are words in a legal opinion, when they are words from the mouths of judges or Justices--Federal or State. She understands that real-life impact, which gives her more than intellect. It gives her emotional intelligence.

I will say that I have talked to Judge Jackson about her feelings, her instincts at critical decision points as a judge. In sentencing, when she knew that another person's life was in her hands, metaphorically, and when another person's future was within her decision-making power, she has looked at sentencing decisions with all of the data points, all of the emotional intelligence, all of the judgment that she has advanced so movingly in her conversations with us, as well as her appearance before our committee.

She has that capacity for empathy that very few people have. A lot of people can go to school and can graduate with honors. They can be book smart, but she understands the impact of law on real lives and real people. It is those people whose lives are touched by the justice system. Whether they are victims or criminal defendants or litigants dealing with personal or professional conflict, their stories shone through her conversations with us and her testimony before our committee and her enthusiasm for the law, because judges are the face and voice of justice, and representation matters.

It matters for the legitimacy and credibility of our judicial system that our judges look like America, that somebody coming into a courtroom sees that that Justice has that face and voice that can relate to them.

Judge Jackson will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court all those immensely important qualities and, certainly, she will bring a lot of patience and perseverance. She has shown those qualities, but also grace and dignity, in the way that she responded to some of the abusive, demanding questions that she was asked during our hearing. She has weathered that storm with extraordinary distinction and diligence. When some of our colleagues went low, she went high, to paraphrase Michelle Obama.

When she was attacked for not claiming a ``judicial philosophy,'' she pointed to the decisions and opinions and disclaimed a judicial philosophy, just as Chief Justice Roberts did when he was asked in his hearing about judicial philosophy and he said he had no ``overarching judicial philosophy'' and, instead, described his role as ``call[ing] balls and strikes.''

She said she knew her lane. She does, indeed, know her lane. She maybe didn't use the same terminology, but it is that objectivity and impartiality that Chief Justice Roberts described that will also guide her as a matter of principle and philosophy.

There were other criticisms of Judge Jackson, and one conservative commentator described these attacks as ``meritless to the point of demagoguery.'' He was right. The concocted outrage, the straw man, the old grievances, the ancient complaints about past hearings and the treatment of nominees, all will fade and be forgotten because what shone through her performance was her integrity, her depth and warmth, her grace and dignity.

Far from being soft on crime, very movingly, she described what it is like to have a family member who walks a beat because her brother is a cop and her uncle, a chief of police. She described the worries, concerns, even fear that family members have when their relatives are police--when their brother or uncle puts himself in harm's way. And that is probably the reason she has been endorsed by the largest rank- and-file enforcement organization in the country, the Fraternal Order of Police, as well as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, high-ranking officials from the Department of Justice, and nearly 100 former assistant U.S. attorneys, many of whom observed her work as a judge firsthand.

Some may have tried to smear her, but they failed abysmally, fortunately. She had a reversal rate of about 2 percent, well below the rate that the average district judge has in the DC Circuit. And she has been endorsed, as well, by former colleagues who were appointed by Republican judges--well-respected conservative judges who disagreed with her in the outcome of cases but who deeply respected the way she called those balls and strikes in the best and truest sense of the term.

And she has shown her independence. She has ruled for and against the Trump administration. She has ruled for and against labor and collective bargaining, for and against qualified immunity, for and against class certification, because her philosophy and her ``methodology,'' to use her word, is to follow the facts and the law, and that is what she will do as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let me just finish, finally, with, maybe, what I think is going to be most important about Justice Jackson.

She is a unifier and a consensus builder. She is someone who can build bridges among colleagues and even adversaries. She has been confirmed on a bipartisan basis three times already by the Senate because she is a bridge builder, and the Court needs a bridge builder now more than ever. It has been politicized and polarized in a way that undermines respect and trust in the American people. Partly, it is the self-inflicted wounds of the Court, which have been dominated in many decisions by a far-right coalition that have made it look political, and that perception is deeply important because the Court's trust and respect depend on the public perceiving it to be above politics.

So the Court has inflicted wounds on itself, but so have the Congress and the political branch inflicted wounds on the Court by dragging it through a seemingly political process and making nominations and appointments seem to be the result of partisan politics, so that it may be perceived as just another political branch.

I said at the very start that I have reverence for the Court and deep respect for it as an institution. It has no armies or police. It has no power of the purse. Its authority depends on its credibility.

My hope is that Judge Jackson as Justice Jackson will help elevate it in a way that it needs now more than ever. I asked her about a code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court, and she said she would talk to her colleagues about it. I feel she has an understanding of the need now for the Court to adopt a code of ethics.

It is the only judicial body that lacks a code of ethics. It has none. Unlike the appellate courts, the district courts, the U.S. magistrate, the court of claims--all of the minor judicial bodies in the United States--it has no code of ethics because it has resisted a code of ethics. Its credibility now depends on its having a code of ethics.

Recent events have severely imperiled credibility and trust, and that peril will grow as more becomes known about some of these events. But the Court can help itself by supporting a code of ethics rather than resisting it.

Judge Jackson's commitment to talk to her colleagues about it is a very welcome and important step. She said it in response to a question that I asked. I was the only member of the committee to ask about a code of ethics--surprisingly, to me. But restoring credibility and trust will be important to our Nation. Her service will help restore and inspire confidence. Her presence and active participation on the Court will help that task of reinvigorating credibility and trust.

Her confirmation will be, indeed, a giant leap forward into the present and the future. It will inspire lots of young girls, lots of young women, lots of Black women, lots of Americans to believe in the American dream and to believe and see the law in different ways. That is what one of the young girls who wrote to Judge Jackson said in her letter, indeed, that she would look at the law in a different way.

We will look at the law in a different way, and we will look at the Court in a different way because the Court will look and hopefully think more like America.

I am looking forward to that vote. I will never cast a vote in this body that I am more proud and excited to do.

I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and hopefully there will be more on the other side of the aisle joining us for this historic achievement for our Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my very able legislative fellow Alexander Nabavi-Noori be granted floor privileges until the end of August 2022.

Mr. President, on March 14, 2022, I was unable to cast a vote on rollcall vote No. 79, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 726, the nomination of Shalanda D. Young of Louisiana, to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I was on a bipartisan congressional delegation visit to Poland, meeting with refugees displaced by the violence caused by the current, illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination as Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Madam President, I want to thank my really distinguished and able colleague and friend from Ohio, Senator Portman, and Senator Wicker, and also Senator Klobuchar, who accompanied us on this trip and enabled us to be so much more effective because of her very perceptive and insightful wisdom on these topics and her experience with the issues that we confronted, and a special thanks to Senator Portman for so ably organizing us and also to enable us to meet with senior members of the Polish Government, our own Ambassador, Mark Brzezinski, who is doing such a great job there, along with his team at the embassy, the brave men and women of the 82nd Airborne Division and, heartbreakingly, the women and children who are fleeing Ukraine with nothing more than what they could carry on their backs.

I want to thank, as well, Senator Schumer for bringing to the floor this resolution, and Senator Graham for his leadership. This resolution is a very powerful and compelling message to the world that the United States will stand strongly with the people of Ukraine against this brutal, insidious invasion by Vladimir Putin and Russia.

And, tomorrow, we will hear from President Zelenskyy, whose passionate and powerful plea for action will no doubt elicit more words of support. But we need more than words now. We need more than declarations of support. We need action--action that will make a difference on the battlefield. And let me just say very bluntly and simply: The Ukrainian resistance has proved to be more courageous, resilient, tough, and effective than Vladimir Putin ever imagined.

It has become the wonder and admiration of the world. It is not only their trained army, it is the men and women who took to the streets and the fields using weapons that we have supplied--the Stinger and Javelin missiles--to hit Russia's most advanced weapons system, their aircraft, as well as their tanks, and take them out.

If the Ukrainian people have a fair fight on the ground, they will win. They will drive Russia out of their precious land. But right now there is no fair fight. Right now, in the skies, Putin dominates. He has the aircraft, the missiles, to do insidious damage and to wound, damage, and destroy the Ukrainian ground forces.

And he was using that air superiority with consummate recklessness while we were in Poland. Just hours before we visited the border crossing at Korczowa, 30 of his missiles rained down on a training center in Yavoriv, 12 miles away. Let me repeat: 12 miles away from that border crossing. The Polish authorities there told us the ground shook with the tremor of those bombs hitting a training center just 12 miles from the Polish border.

Vladimir Putin was literally playing with fire. One of those missiles going astray into Poland could have triggered dramatic escalation, nuclear confrontation, and destruction of unknown magnitude.

Vladimir Putin is recklessly taking this fight westward in Ukraine, to the very border, the very doorstep of a NATO ally that we have an obligation to defend. And part of our trip was to visit with the 82nd Airborne--so impressive, these young men and women, in their intelligence, as well as their dedication and bravery. They are holding the line. More and more of them are there. And they are also enabling support for Ukraine in the kind of arms--Stingers and Javelins--that are needed.

But we must do more than what we are doing now. And in that respect, I join my colleagues. We have a common message. I personally appreciate what the administration has done in its providing support--those Javelin and Stinger missiles, the ammunition, night goggles, drone spare parts and more--but we must do more to counter that air superiority, the dominance in Putin's missiles and jet fighters.

I personally believe that we should provide more aircraft, the jet fighters that President Zelenskyy has desperately requested. But I also think there are tools that we can provide: anti-air batteries to bring down the planes and the missiles, defense mechanisms that Vladimir Putin cannot call escalatory under any possible definition, and, likewise, means of defense that the people of Ukraine desperately need and deserve to successfully defend.

There is no way any of these weapon systems are offensive. They are defensive, whether it is planes, Stinger and Javelin missiles, drones-- all of it is to defend their country and do it effectively and have a fair fight on the ground against Putin's air dominance.

We saw, heartrendingly, women and children coming from that bombing in Yavoriv at the border crossing. Literally, we visited with them, spoke with them, saw and heard the grief and misery, the tragedy and trauma that they are enduring.

Almost all were women and children because the men have stayed to fight, and they brought with them bags of clothing, their pets, stuffed animals--all they could carry but no more--facing a future of total uncertainty, not knowing when, if at all, they would return, and when, if at all, they would see their husbands, brothers, sons who were left to fight.

We must make sure that Ukraine stays in that fight, and we can do it if we raise our commitment.

I appreciate what the administration has done in its skillful use of public intelligence, its uniting of our allies, its adroit rallying of America, but now is the time to do more, and it must be done urgently. The time is now. Days, weeks--not on our side. Time works against us the longer we allow Putin to command the skies in the way that he does now, the longer innocent people will be slaughtered in their homes, in hospital, in maternity wards, and the longer the world will be put at risk of another attack on a nuclear facility that could spread radioactive contamination throughout the country and even through Europe.

The trauma and terror on the faces of those women and children, the tears that we saw, will stay with me forever. I was reminded of my own family, my dad who came to this country in 1935 to escape the Holocaust. He, too, came with not much more than the shirt on his back. He spoke virtually no English. He knew no one. He brought his entire family--his immediate family, but he lost much of his other family.

America has always been a nation of immigrants and refugees, and we have always spread our generosity to them, and now, likewise, in Connecticut we see the Ukrainian-American community providing clothing and blankets, donations, along with the Polish-American community. Indeed, throughout the State of Connecticut and throughout the country, America's hearts are going out to these refugees in this humanitarian crisis. That is what we do in America.

That is what we saw, in fact, Americans and others doing at the World Central Kitchen in the reception area that we visited. My colleagues and I served chicken, vegetables, rice, potatoes for a couple more hours to these refugees, and we had, I think, a tremendously uplifting experience.

I mention it because, as Senator Portman has said so eloquently, even in the midst of this evil, we saw good in that team at the World Central Kitchen; in the 82nd Airborne; our men and women in uniform; and the Embassy staff who were willing to risk their lives in Kyiv and stay in Lviv and finally move from Lviv to Warsaw; our Foreign Service; our men and women in uniform; and of course the people of Poland who have welcomed these refugees, literally welcomed them into their homes, 2 million of them, 10 percent or more of the population of Warsaw alone--an effort of unprecedented magnitude in recent history.

And as we returned home, so grateful for the good in those people, it was brought on me again to realize that this invasion was a war of choice. That evil in Moscow is one man.

I still believe the Russian people, if they knew what was going on in Ukraine, would throw him out. That is not to say that he should be assassinated or that he should be attacked.

I believe that if there were a democratic process with full and fair information in Russia, there is no way that Vladimir Putin would survive a democracy.

And so I think we must continue to tighten the economic sanctions to bring that pain home to the Russians to make them feel the hurt they have inflicted on others and to know that they have a responsibility to end this conflict.

They must do more, as we must do more, and our action must tighten and broaden economic sanctions to stop Vladimir Putin from continuing to reap the revenue of sales of oil and gas.

I commend the administration for stopping importation of Russian oil and gas to this country, but other Western countries continue to do it and other countries around the world, and therefore I am partnering in a measure with Senator Blackburn of Tennessee, urging the President to work with our allies to halt Russia's ability to sell its oil and gas on Western markets, to stop the connection of all Russian banks to the SWIFT financial system, which is the means for him to reap that revenue.

If he is cut off from it, his ability to sell that oil and gas and reap the revenue and finance, his war machine is broken.

And a bill--a second measure--introduced today with Senators Whitehouse, Graham, and my colleague from Mississippi Senator Wicker, provides the President with authority to seize and sell all of the superyachts, the jets, mansions, and luxury possessions of Putin's criminal kleptocracy as well as his cronies, his family, and others. These ill-begotten gains will be used to support Ukrainian freedom fighters, rebuild Ukraine, and provide humanitarian assistance to those refugees we saw escaping.

I have no illusions that Putin can be forced right away to the negotiating table, but these measures will eventually force him to respond.

We must give the people of Ukraine a fair fight. We must act immediately to provide them with the support they need to stop Putin's war in the air. Much as Winston Churchill rallied Britain in the Battle of Britain to survive and resolve at the beginning of World War II in the Battle of Britain to resist Hitler's onslaught from the air, so, too, the people of Ukraine are fighting their battle, and we must respond with action. Our security is at peril. Our defense is at risk. The economic implications are perilous, and the world order is threatened.

This time is a turning point, and we must enable Ukraine to chart its own course to remain as a free and sovereign nation and to have a fair fight.

I yield the floor, and I yield back to my colleague from Mississippi.

Madam President, I want to add one more quotation to the very stirring and powerful words that my colleague from Ohio has just given us.

Decades ago, President John F. Kennedy went to Berlin, and in a statement of resolve and commitment that mobilized the world, he said then, ``I am a Berliner.'' And he spoke for America.

Today, we are all Ukrainians. Just as he said that he, as an American, was a Berliner, today, we are Ukrainian.

My colleague from Ohio is absolutely right that this fight is ours and there are actions we can take--not just words--that will make a difference: actions that should not and will not involve American troops or an escalatory response, actions that will be in the best tradition of the United States, going back to our own Revolution when we overcame a more massive British force. We didn't need to defeat them; we simply needed to survive. And by surviving, George Washington understood that the British would be defeated.

And so we can enable resilience and resolve of the Ukrainian people to defeat the Russians, if we give them what we need, if we give them more of what we have been giving them. And today, truly, this bell tolls for us; and it is the world's fight, not just the Ukrainians'.

I thank my friend and fellow Senator from Ohio for leading us on this trip, and I hope that our colleagues, a few of them may have heard us tonight at this hour--but I hope they will come to the floor and that we will continue this conversation because it is a debate that really unites all of us across the aisle, as did the resolution which passed overwhelmingly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Myself for up to 5 minutes, Senator Murray for up to 5 minutes, and Senator Schumer up to 3 minutes.

Madam President, we will be voting in just a few minutes on the Women's Health Protection Act, which I have proudly sponsored, first introduced in 2013. I want to thank particularly Senator Schumer for his leadership and Senator Murray for enabling us to have this historic vote. It is historic, the first vote that we will take guaranteeing the right of a provider to provide abortion care, which is healthcare, and the right of a patient to receive that care. There are very few votes that we will take in the U.S. Senate in the course of our career that will have as profound and dramatic an impact on the lives of all Americans.

Yes, reproductive healthcare is women's healthcare by and large, but it is human healthcare. Women's rights are human rights. And the decisions that women make about when and whether to become pregnant are intensely personal. They should not be interfered with by any of us, anyone from the government, anyone else. That right is protected by the Constitution. Today's vote comes at a time of unparalleled attack on equal access to abortion care in this country.

I clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court in the term after he wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. And at that time, we all believed that the decision would put an end to this controversy, this debate, once and for all. And yet here we are, five decades later; what was then unthinkable now has happened.

The U.S. Supreme Court has voluntarily taken a case that calls into question a woman's right to choose. And

the U.S. Supreme Court seems to be on track, based on its refusal to stop implementation of the Texas 5-week ban on abortion, to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court will never say that ``we hereby overturn Roe v. Wade.'' This majority, influenced by rightwing ideology, will, in effect, overturn it without saying so because across the street in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Healthcare Organization, the question of whether Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks is constitutional is squarely before the Court. And, make no mistake, if the Court upholds that Mississippi law, Roe v. Wade will no longer be the law of the land. Planned Parenthood v. Casey will no longer be the law of the land. Fifty years of jurisprudence will be gone without ever telling us that Roe is overturned. The Court will move that goalpost, and Roe will fall. And at least 20 States, through trigger laws, are prepared to immediately prohibit abortion completely and entirely.

If you don't understand this threat, just ask the women of Texas. They are currently living in a State without protections of Roe. That dangerous anti-abortion law, SB 8, contains a 6-week abortion ban--6 weeks--far before many women even know that they are pregnant. And even worse, the law's divisive bounty hunter provision deputizes a woman's neighbors, friends, family, and acquaintances.

Last year alone, 19 States enacted 106 restrictions, including 12 abortion bans. For the first time ever, States enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in a single year. My bill--the Women's Health Protection Act--would put an end to this relentless and ever-growing attack on reproductive rights. It would create a Federal statutory right for healthcare providers to provide abortion care. It would provide a right for patients to receive that care, free from medically unnecessary restrictions that single out and impede abortion access.

Let's not forget for one moment the reality on the ground. The reality is for millions of Americans, their futures--in some cases, their lives--depend on accessible abortion care. And the implications and ramifications affect men as well as women, families as well as moms.

We have had enough meddling by politicians and politically motivated judges getting between Americans and their personal healthcare decision. We have had enough with the shameful assaults on people's freedoms and futures. We can't go back, and we need this action now. It is time. It is time to pass the Women's Health Protection Act.