[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S365-S367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 654, Leonard Philip Stark, of 
     Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal 
     Circuit.
         Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Gary C. Peters, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Martin Henrich, Sherrod Brown, 
           Patty Murray, Tammy Duckworth, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth 
           Warren, Mazie K. Hirono, Alex Padilla, Tina Smith, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, Jon Tester.
  Mr. SCHUMER. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, January 20, be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 401

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this weekend is the anniversary of the 
landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It is a decision that, without a doubt, 
changed lives for the better. It prevented a lot of harm and helped 
keep many patients healthy. It opened doors for women to pursue their 
career and education goals and affirmed the right to control our own 
bodies and our own futures.
  Roe was a giant leap forward, and a majority of Americans want to 
protect it. But since Roe was decided, extreme Republicans have peddled 
blatant misinformation, filled our judicial system with anti-abortion 
judges, and passed State laws designed solely to make it harder to get 
abortions--laws that are now hurting people of color, the LGBTQ+ 
community, immigrants, young people, people with low incomes, and 
people with disabilities the most. And they are not stopping at 
abortion. They are pushing to make it harder to get birth control and 
defund family planning clinics--including Planned Parenthood--which 
provide critical healthcare for so many communities.
  In Texas, Republicans have passed, and the Supreme Court green-lit, a 
law that essentially bans abortions and is enforced by pitting neighbor 
against neighbor. And even though medication abortion pills are safe to 
take at home, extreme Republicans are now pushing to pass laws that not 
only dictate what happens in a doctor's office but also make it harder 
for patients to take a pill in their very own living room.
  You know, Republicans do like to talk about Big Government, but 
overriding people's individual decisions and science to dictate what 
people can do in their own homes sounds like a lot of overreach.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is here with a bill today that has one 
goal: to make it harder to get abortion care by allowing someone else's 
personal beliefs, rather than a patient's best interest, to determine a 
patient's care. And that is just one example of the extreme agenda 
Republicans are pushing, today and every day.
  I have heard from so many people about the problems and the harm this 
has caused in their lives. I have heard from many patients who had to 
jump through unnecessary or even harmful hoops to get the abortion care 
they needed: patients who had to endure invasive ultrasounds that were 
medically unnecessary before they could get an abortion; patients who 
were harassed going in and out of a clinic; patients who had to drive 
hours or even days to get to the nearest abortion provider or who 
zeroed out their bank account to afford a plane ticket or childcare; 
patients, including many in Texas, who didn't have the means to get the 
abortion care they needed and were forced to stay pregnant when they 
did not want to be.
  And then the Supreme Court took on a direct challenge to Roe that 
threatens the constitutional right to abortion. I have heard nonstop 
from people who are very anxious about their future, people who are 
scared and frustrated, people who, like the majority of Americans, want 
to protect Roe, who want to live in a country where everyone can make 
their own decisions about pregnancy and parenting--free from political 
interference.
  That is exactly why I am fighting so hard to protect the right to 
abortion at the Federal level by passing the Women's Health Protection 
Act. That bill will safeguard Roe and help make its promises a reality 
for everyone, no matter their ZIP Code, by ensuring their 
constitutional right to abortion is not undermined by State abortion 
bans and restrictions.
  But Republican attacks from every angle, like the one we will witness 
now, means there is no one easy fix.
  We have got to do everything we can to undo the damage the extreme 
Republicans have caused in our laws and in our lives. And that is why I 
am fighting so hard for the over-the-counter birth control and to make 
health insurance companies follow the law rather than forcing patients 
to pay out of pocket for contraception.
  It is why I am fighting to make a historic investment in title X 
family planning centers, which help make healthcare like birth control, 
STI screenings, and more available to everyone, regardless of their 
income.
  And it is why I am asking for everyone to join me in this fight. It 
is going to take all of us working together to protect reproductive 
rights, and there is no action too small.
  Share your story. Speak up about what reproductive rights mean to 
you. Support a local organization helping to get patients the 
reproductive healthcare they need. Work to combat Republicans' 
misinformation. Fight to pass local and State laws protecting abortion 
rights.
  And here is something to remember while you do it: It is true that 
extreme Republicans have worked nonstop to roll back progress on 
reproductive rights and that abortion access is at risk like never 
before.
  But this is also true: Since Roe, millions and millions of American 
women and men grew up knowing access to abortion is a constitutional 
right. Millions and millions more saw how much Roe opened doors for 
women and empowered people to make their own personal decisions about 
their body and their future.
  The vast majority of Americans believe people should be trusted to 
make their own decisions about whether or not to get an abortion and 
that whether and when to get pregnant is a personal decision, not a 
decision that should be made by any politician or taken away from them 
because of how much money they have or where they live.

[[Page S366]]

  We can make this a reality, but we have got to fight for it. That is 
what I am doing; that is what I am going to keep doing; and I am very 
glad to have so many people alongside.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I guess I am one of those extreme 
Republicans that believe that a child who sucks their thumb, wiggles 
their toes and fingers, feels pain, has a beating heart, has a 
functioning nervous system, has DNA that is different than the mom or 
the dad is a baby.
  I didn't think that was an extreme position to see a child as self-
evident. That is a child. Now, I understand Americans are divided on 
whether children in the womb are convenient or inconvenient, and if 
they are inconvenient, they can be thrown away as medical waste, but if 
they are convenient, they are kept.
  I just think every child is precious, and I think every child should 
be honored and protected. So I guess that makes me extreme.
  The bill that I bring today is a bill that just looks at the millions 
and millions and millions of Americans who believe like I do. Many of 
them work in hospitals, and they joined the healthcare profession and 
got a medical degree because they wanted to save life. They wanted to 
be a part of protecting individuals at their most critical times, but 
they also had this real belief--that is a science-based belief, by the 
way--that a child in the womb is just like a child outside the womb, 
the only difference is time.
  Forty weeks ago, you were 40 weeks younger. That child in the womb at 
conception and the child outside the womb is just 40 weeks older, just 
like you are 40 weeks older than what you were 40 weeks ago. It is 
still a child.
  For the millions of Americans who believe like that, we have had 
conscience-protection laws on the books, for a long time. In fact, 
there are 25 conscience-protection laws on the books in America right 
now. Many of these have not been controversial. In fact, if we go 
through the church amendments, when they were done, they protect the 
conscience rights of individuals and entities that object to performing 
or assisting in the performance of abortions or sterilizations against 
their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
  When that passed, almost 50 years ago now, it passed 92 to 1 in this 
body. It just wasn't that controversial. We understood that people 
disagreed on the issue of abortion. And why would you ever compel 
someone to be able to perform an abortion when their conscience objects 
to that?
  In 2004, Congress created the Weldon amendment. It is on all of our 
annual appropriations bills. The Weldon amendment bars Federal 
Government, State and local government, and recipients of Federal funds 
from discriminating against healthcare entities that refuse to provide, 
pay for, or provide coverage or refer for abortions. It has not been 
that controversial.
  In fact, it was on the Consolidated Appropriations Act last year, 
which passed 92 to 6. This has not been that controversial to be able 
to honor the rights of individuals.
  Now, there are some things that have changed. Some of these 25 laws 
have not been enforced. In fact, these 25 conscience protections that 
are on our books right now are dependent on the executive branch to 
actually enforce those laws. If I go back during the Trump 
administration, they confronted California because California mandated 
that insurance providers had to provide abortion coverage. Well, that 
is not consistent with our law.
  And so the administration pushed them and said: No, you can't compel 
a religious institution that has a moral objection to abortion in your 
State; you can't make them buy abortion coverage and actually pay into 
that system--though California is.
  So the Trump administration said to them: No, you have got to allow 
those folks to have the option; that is the Federal law. And that was 
in the process of being enforced until this administration took the 
leadership and Xavier Becerra, who was the attorney general of 
California, then moved to HHS and immediately dropped the suit against 
California, his old State--curious.
  So the religious entities don't have any recourse in California 
because the executive branch won't enforce it.
  Let me give you another example. There was an employer, University of 
Vermont Medical Center. They were pressed with a lawsuit against them 
for knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly violating the Church 
amendments. They had nurses that were there that said: I have a 
conscience issue. I don't want to participate in abortion, and the 
University of Vermont Medical Center would compel them to perform 
abortions or they would lose their job.
  It is in direct violation of Federal law and the conscience 
protections. So there was a lawsuit against them to be able to have 
them actually carry out Federal law.
  When the Biden administration came in, Xavier Becerra immediately 
dropped that lawsuit. There was no settlement. There was no statement 
about it. Though it is Federal law that you can't violate someone's 
conscience protections, they said: We are not going to enforce that 
Federal law--though it was in the process of being enforced.
  So the question is, For religious entities in California or for a 
nurse in Vermont, where do they go? If the entity that is charged under 
Federal law--25 Federal laws, to be exact, to actually allow people to 
have conscience protections--if that entity says, ``We won't do it,'' 
what happens?
  Well, this bill is very straightforward. It just gives the ability 
for that individual to be able to press a suit for their own rights.
  If the Federal Government will not enforce the law, this allows that 
individual to step up and say: Then, I will then file charges that you 
are in violation of Federal law for this--to protect their rights as a 
citizen.
  Quite frankly, it is not any different than what any other citizen 
would do anywhere else--that if they had some civil violation against 
them that was clearly in violation of their rights, they would be able 
to go to court and be able to say: My rights have been violated; here 
is the statute. And they would have their day in court.
  That is not allowed currently in Federal law. It has to be the 
executive branch to carry it out. And, as we have learned, it is under 
the whims of the executive branch whether they are going to carry that 
out or not.
  But, listen, this is really not that controversial in America. The 
most recent survey that was done by the Knights of Columbus that 
actually just came out this week asked a question about conscience 
protections. It was a very straightforward question. And the answer 
came back: 75 percent of the individuals surveyed said that doctors and 
nurses should not be forced to perform abortions if they have a 
religious objection.
  Now, we are very divided on the issue of abortion, but our Nation is 
really not that divided on the issue of conscience protections. This 
is, Can an employer compel someone to do something that violates their 
religious beliefs or moral beliefs? And if they don't, they lose their 
job. That is the only question that is in this, and that is why I bring 
it to this body today. That is my simple request.
  Now, this body knows, and Senator Murray, who is on the floor with me 
today, knows full well of my beliefs about the value of every single 
child. I do look forward to a day that we are post-Roe as a nation and 
the Supreme Court of the United States is not compelling every State to 
have abortions carried out that are elective abortions in their State.
  A post-Roe nation is not a nation that has no abortion. It is a 
nation where, State to State, each State makes those decisions.
  I have brought bills dealing with everything from chemical abortions 
to 20-week, pain-capable bills dealing with Down syndrome children, 
dealing with Planned Parenthood, dealing with all sorts of different 
issues.
  This issue today is very specific, though--just about conscientious 
objectors. Should they be compelled to violate their beliefs by their 
employer?
  So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 401 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third 
time and

[[Page S367]]

passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, to the Chair, we will as a nation 
process through this in the days ahead. This body has very strict laws 
that cover my State and many other States for a lot of other things.
  In my State, if you go to build a building in the southeast part of 
my State, you have to do frequent inspections to make sure the burying 
beetle is not going to be harmed in that area because it is considered 
threatened.
  If you are in the western part of my State, you can't build certain 
buildings in certain places or carry out certain farming activities 
because the lesser prairie-chicken is there.
  If you are in California, they pour their water--their great water--
out of the mountains into the ocean because if they don't, it may harm 
the smelt.
  If you are building a bridge in Oklahoma, at certain times of the 
year, and a migratory bird puts up a nest in that construction area, 
you have to stop construction, because migratory bird eggs are 
valuable, burying beetles are valuable, prairie-chickens are valuable, 
smelts are available, but we throw children in the trash.
  We have got to figure this out as a nation, and, currently, we seem 
to be afraid to talk about it or even to protect the rights of 
individuals who disagree about this in the workplace. We have got to 
figure this out as a nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The Senator from Wyoming.