Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Laura Taylor-Kale, the President's nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I know that growing and sustaining our industrial base is a critical aspect of the resilience of our national security, and it is critical also to maintaining our competitive advantage with China and other near-peer competitors. A resilient defense industrial base is also vital to the support the United States is providing to Ukraine. Dr. Taylor-Kale is well suited for this role, having served in the Obama-Biden administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing in the International Trade Administration and as the senior adviser for policy and operations at the U.S. Development Finance Corporation. She has significant professional experience at the intersection of business and government and has a thorough understanding of industry challenges and their impact on supply chains most crucial to our national security. Her experience across government, the private sector, multilateral organizations, and academia leave her well suited to help ensure the Department of Defense continues to deliver secure and resilient capabilities to our forces. Filling this position is important. It is vital to addressing critical vulnerabilities in industrial supply chains, to reducing reliance on foreign adversaries, and securing domestic industrial capacity--all actions that are key to U.S. economic and national security. If we are serious about the role of the United States as a global competitor, we need a fully staffed and capable team managing the current and future needs of our military forces. Dr. Taylor-Kale will help complete that team. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1152, Laura Taylor-Kale, of California, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. (New Position); that there be 10 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; and that the Senate resume legislative session.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my colleague from Alaska as he objected, and I just want to add a couple of comments in response. I had a chance to share with him that there was a Wisconsin conflict between the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior, something that when I was a Member of the House of Representatives I worked on for 14 years and could not get it shaken loose--finger pointing, finger pointing. And then I had the honor of being elected to the U.S. Senate, where we have the power to place holds on nominees. And I had the opportunity, and took advantage of that opportunity, to place a hold on a nominee who was absolutely in the position to resolve the issue. And it is a powerful tool. In this case, the person who is being held could be doing so much to advance and grow our defense industrial base and help to improve our national security and resiliency. And this particular person is not in a position to, if confirmed, resolve the issue that I heard my colleague describe. So I am disappointed that we cannot move ahead with this confirmation at this time. I understand the power of the hold, but it is much more powerful when the person being held is also in a position to resolve the issue. And with that, I yield the floor.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be extended an additional minute so that I might recognize the leader after my remarks.

Ms. BALDWIN. Senator Lankford's amendment would eliminate the only practical recourse for same-sex and interracial couples to protect their marriages under the Respect for Marriage Act. It would create an exemption far beyond current law for partnerships between government and faith-based organizations, the latter of which continue to enjoy robust religious liberty and conscience protections that remain intact under the Respect for Marriage Act. This amendment would upend a carefully negotiated, bipartisan compromise that protects the interests of religious organizations and individuals while affording the dignity of marriage recognition to same-sex and interracial couples. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield back. Vote on Amendment No. 6496

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I want to express, as did my colleague Senator Collins, that there are many thanks to go around. I thank the leader. I want to thank the original bill sponsors in the House and Senate--Congressman Nadler and Senator Feinstein--and the team of Senators Collins, Portman, Sinema, and Tillis for your unrelenting commitment that has brought us to this final vote to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. I want to thank the advocates who have been fighting for marriage equality for decades, and I want to recognize the millions of same-sex and interracial couples who have truly made this moment possible by living their true selves and changing the hearts and minds of people around this country. Many of these same-sex and interracial couples are fearful. They are worried that the rights, responsibilities, and freedoms they enjoy through civil marriage could be stripped away. Right now, the Senate has the opportunity to put those fears to rest and give millions of people in same-sex and interracial marriages the certainty, dignity, and respect they need and deserve. By passing this bill, we are showing that the American Government and people see them and respect them. I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the Respect for Marriage Act and move our country forward. I yield to our leader.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking and recognizing the House Judiciary chairman, Jerry Nadler, and the entire House Equality Caucus for introducing the House bill and starting up this effort. This legislation passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote of 267 to 157, with all Democrats and 47 Republicans supporting the bill. I also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my Senate colleagues who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. I want to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, Senator Feinstein, and also thank and recognize the hard work and effort of Senator Collins, Senator Portman, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis for their steadfast commitment. We couldn't be where we are right now without their efforts. I also want to thank the staff of all of these offices for the long hours and hard work that went into this legislation, including my own counsel, Becca Branum, and my chief of staff, Ken Reidy. Lastly, I want to thank all of the advocates who have fought for marriage equality for decades. We are on the cusp of a historic vote in the Senate because of everybody's efforts. I decided, in thinking about what I wanted to share today, that I wanted to put a face on this debate; actually, more accurately, three faces. Let me introduce you to my dear friends Margaret, Denise, and their daughter Maria, and just tell you a little bit about them and then how this underlying issue impacts them. The marriage and long partnership that my dear friends Denise and Margaret share began in Oklahoma in 1981. They were there as organizers, working to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in that State. They were organizing support for the ERA so that we might add a few simple words to the U.S. Constitution, specifically, ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' That they met one another during a struggle for social justice surprised no one who knew either Denise or Margaret, for, really, the pursuit of equality and equity and justice has defined each of them as individuals as well as life partners. Their professional and personal lives and the movements for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, educational equity, affordable housing, economic justice--they are all inextricably linked. Their first date occurred in December of 1981 over coffee in Oklahoma City. And as that ERA campaign came to an unsuccessful close in 1982, they chose to move together to Madison, WI. I vividly recall meeting them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984. Denise hailed from Milwaukee, WI--this is Denise--Margaret, from Webster City, IA. They were incredibly and are incredibly committed to one another, but they also determined, as they got a little older, that something was missing. Actually, I want to say someone was missing. Denise's and Margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous. Yet they never gave up. In 2003, after working with an adoption agency for many years, Denise received a video of their daughter, this lovely, brown-eyed Maria. And the family you now see here--this is, actually, several years old. Maria is now a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin, Madison campus, so a little bit dated. But I wanted to put a face or a series of faces on this because it is such an all-American family and an all-American story. But as everyone knows about the debate we are about to enter, marriage was not an option for Margaret and Denise until after the Obergefell decision. The things that most married people take for granted are things that couples like Margaret and Denise had to think about and had to figure out how do they protect one another, how do they protect their family. We often think, when we think about marriage, of the wedding and the ceremony and the celebration, but we don't often think about the hundreds upon hundreds of rights and responsibilities that civil marriage confers upon couples. Margaret and Denise were telling me about their recollection of when the city of Madison passed a domestic partnership ordinance allowing them to register. And when that happened, for the first time, they could be on one another's health insurance. That is something that married couples kind of take for granted--that they could have one another on their health insurance. They had to think a lot about what they would do in an emergent situation where one might be in the hospital because without marriage, you are technically legal strangers. And, literally, if Margaret were in the hospital after an accident, for example, Denise, without having the appropriate papers--a healthcare power of attorney--would be viewed as a legal stranger and potentially denied access. Adoption is something that has made many a family in the United States. Yet prior to marriage rights, Denise and Margaret had to make a choice of only one who would have the official adoption, but then they had to go through a whole bunch of legal rigamarole, if you will, so that Margaret, if need be had to go to a parent-teacher conference or to pick Maria up at school, had some documentation at the school that she, too, was a parent. Estate planning, you have to think about that. You had to think about that intently prior to marriage rights being conferred. I wanted you to get a quick chance to meet Margaret and Denise and Maria because they reflect the experiences of literally tens of millions of people in the United States. It is why the Obergefell decision was so key. I want to switch to focus on why it is so critical that we adopt the Respect for Marriage Act--because Obergefell right now is the law of the land, but there is great concern that that legal precedent could be in jeopardy. Some of my colleagues have questioned the urgency and maybe even the necessity of passing the Respect for Marriage Act. Some have asserted that there is no threat to these rights in America. Some have said that there is no case currently making its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging these rights so there is nothing really to worry about. Others have suggested that proponents of the Respect for Marriage Act are raising the issue just to drive further divisions among Americans. I believe that there is an urgency to pass the Respect for Marriage Act in order to heal such divisions and provide certainty to married interracial and same-sex couples that the protections, rights, and responsibilities that flow from their marriages will endure. Right now, millions of Americans--our family members, our neighbors, our congressional staff members, and, certainly, our constituents--are scared; scared that the rights they rely upon to protect their families could be taken away. And they are scared for good reason. Let's face it. Regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, the highest Court of the land has just overturned a precedent of nearly 50 years. There is no questioning that. And the same legal arguments that the Supreme Court rested upon to reverse Roe v. Wade could just as easily be applied to reverse numerous other cases related to families, related to intimate relations, to contraception, and marriage. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, in the Dobbs case access to abortion care or denial of such care has been left in the hands of the States. By the way, in Wisconsin, we are subject to a criminal abortion law that was passed in 1849, 1 year after Wisconsin became a State and before women had the right to vote and certainly before women served in the legislature that serves to rule upon their rights. There are landmark cases related to marriage that could be threatened should the Supreme Court consider cases challenging those earlier decisions. One such case is Loving v. Virginia, which was decided in 1967. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving that State laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional based upon the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment and its liberty provisions. At the time of the Loving decision, 16 States had laws banning interracial marriage. And you might be surprised to learn that it took until the year 2000 for the last State to repeal the law on its books banning interracial marriage. Another landmark case relates to same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decided in 2015 that the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment prohibit States from outlawing and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages. Some 35 States across the country prohibit same-sex marriage in their laws, constitutions, or both. And the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that bars Federal recognition of same-sex marriages and was ruled unconstitutional by a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court--that law is still on the books. Given this landscape, it is not unreasonable for same-sex and interracial couples to be fearful that the protections of their marriages are in real jeopardy. The fact that the constitutional principles of liberty, privacy, self-determination, and equal treatment under the law, upon which Roe v. Wade was originally decided, are the same constitutional principles on which the Loving and Obergefell cases were decided makes the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade all the more shocking and frightening to those in interracial and same-sex marriages. Several of my colleagues have maintained that, even if the Court may someday revisit these cases, there is no urgency right now since there is no case challenging interracial or same-sex marriage that is currently making its way up to the Supreme Court. But think about today's world. Given the Supreme Court's use of procedural mechanisms like cert before judgment or use of a shadow docket, cases often reach the Supreme Court faster than ever before. And when it comes to the merits, one needs to pay attention to the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas in the Dobbs decision. In his opinion, Justice Thomas explicitly said that the rationale used to overturn Roe v. Wade should be used to overturn cases establishing rights to contraception, same-sex consensual relations, and same-sex marriage. He was essentially providing an open invitation to litigators across the country to bring their cases to the Court, inevitably instilling fear among millions of Americans. The Supreme Court should not be in a position to undermine the stability of families with the stroke of a pen. So now Congress must act, and Congress is acting with a full-throated endorsement from the American people. More than 70 percent of Americans support marriage equality, including a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. This legislation unites Americans. With the Respect for Marriage Act, we can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away. By passing this bill, we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal and that they will continue to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that all other marriages are afforded. And this will give millions of loving couples the certainty, the dignity, and the respect that they need and that they deserve. For my dear friends Margaret and Denise and their daughter Maria, passing this legislation will remove the weight of the world from their backs. While they worry just like the rest of us about the cost of living and staying healthy and saving for retirement, passing this bill will take away a worry that someday their marriage might be on the chopping block at no fault of their own. By the way, I think I failed to mention it, but I was so honored back in December of 2018 to be a copresider at their wedding. The wedding took place 37 years after they first met and became a couple, and it happened on Maria's Sweet Sixteen birthday. But for the millions of other Americans in same-sex and interracial marriages, this shows that the American Government and people see them and respect them. With that, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the Respect for Marriage Act and to help come together to move our country forward. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. BALDWIN. I ask unanimous consent that the vote previously scheduled for 3:15 p.m. be called immediately. Cloture Motion

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the reclamation of Wisconsin Point from the city of Superior to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe. Wisconsin Point, a narrow strip of land separating Allouez Bay from Lake Superior, is a small portion of the Tribe's ancestral home and also an indigenous burial ground dating back 400 years. At least seven generations were laid to rest at the Wisconsin Point cemetery, including the Tribal community's leader Chief Joseph Osaugie. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior--or Wayekwaa-gichigamiing Gichigamiwininiwag--Lake Superior Men at the far end of the Great Lake--is an Anishinaabe--Ojibwe--band located near what is now known as Cloquet, MN. The Fond du Lac Band are one of six Tribes who comprise the federally recognized Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, which was organized in 1934 with a new constitution under the Indian Reorganization Act. In 1918, approximately 180 Ojibwe graves buried on Wisconsin Point were exhumed by the U.S. Steel Company and reburied in 29 plots south of the St. Francis Cemetery to make way for industrial development. Living Tribal members were also uprooted and removed. Now, more than 100 years later, significant work has been done by the city of Superior and Tribal leaders to acknowledge the trauma of the lives and culture lost. On August 18, 2022, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe and the city of Superior jointly host a celebration of the return of Wisconsin Point's sacred burial ground, as well as the mass grave near St Francis cemetery to the Tribe. Please join me in celebrating this historic moment, where once again the Wisconsin Point lands return back to Lake Superior Ojibwe.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the Herrnstadt nomination, the vote on confirmation occur at 5:30 p.m. and that the Senate recess from 4 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, Senators can expect two votes at 5:30 p.m. Those votes would be on the confirmation of the Herrnstadt nomination and cloture on the Heinzelman nomination to be general counsel of the CIA.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Honor the Earth Homecoming Celebration and Powwow. The story of Honor the Earth begins with a small group of Lac Courte Oreilles who wanted a better future for their tribe and their people. The Lac Courte Oreilles Tribe--Ojibwe: Odaawaa-zaaga'iganiing--is one of six federally recognized bands of the large Ojibwe Nation that originally occupied the upper eastern woodlands area of the North American continent. The Treaty of 1854 established the LCO reservation. In 1971, the LCO community, and other people from neighboring bands and Tribes took over Winter Dam in protest of flooding lands, broken treaties, and desecration of LCO land, people, and traditional livelihood. Eddie Benton-Benaim, supported by the American Indian Movement, helped lead the 5-day effort to take over the dam. This effort led to the renegotiation of the dam license which helped the tribe recover several hundred acres of land, compensation for damages, and the development of Tribal hydro generating project. The following year, 1972, there was a reunion of the people who had occupied the dam; they called it Honor the Earth powwow. Every year since, the Ojibwa people come together as they have always done; they celebrate with prayers, feasting, songs, dances, and honoring. The 1972 and 1973 powwows were organized as contest powwows and were sponsored by a handful of individuals and then by LCO AIM, LCO Tribal Governing Board, and the St. Paul Red School House, of which Benton was director. In 1974, grounds were broken for what would eventually become one of the largest traditional gatherings of Tribal peoples in the region. In 1982 the first annual Miss Honor the Earth's ladies competition began at the powwow to showcase the strong and beautiful Anishinaabekwewag--Ojibwe ladies--perform a woodland dance while wearing historical deer dresses. This year, 2022, we celebrate the 50th Honor the Earth Powwow and the 40th Miss Honor the Earth ladies competition. In so doing, the Anishinabeg, the Lac Courte Oreilles or ``Ottawa Lake'' Tribe continues to sustain heritage, preserve and utilize the strong Ojibwe language, honor strengths of the past, and embrace a good future. Please join me in celebrating this historically and spiritually important community.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life, career, and achievements of Anna Mae Robertson. Her service to the American people during World War II in the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, known as the Six Triple Eight, is a shining example of hard work and courage in the face of cultural grievance. In her youth, Robertson lost her mother suddenly, leaving her and her brother alone. Her mother had instilled the values of hard work and service in her children, which inspired Anna Mae to devote her time and dedication to the U.S. Army. In service, she worked strenuous hours, filing over 65,000 pieces of mail for every shift. Robertson's battalion consisted solely of Black women who excelled at their work in their respective department. Despite wartime anxieties and cultural unrest, Robertson and her team would complete 6 weeks of hard work in half the time needed, all while being stationed in Birmingham, England, amidst enemy attacks and wartime fears. Had it not been for Robertson and her team's success, wartime communication would have been convoluted and inefficient. She handled the passage of information in the most dire of conditions at the darkest of times when communication was a necessity. Her service did not end there. While stationed in France, she served as a hospital aide, continuing to assist and nurse American soldiers. Robertson's passion for helping those who have served would follow her home. When returning to Milwaukee, Robertson dedicated her time to working as a nurse aide at the Milwaukee VA Medical Center. She also joined the ``I Am Not Invisible'' campaign headed by the Center for Women Veterans, advocating for equal recognition, awareness, and resources for women who have served in the American military. Robertson served despite facing racial bigotry and discrimination. She stood for the American people unconditionally when some may have not stood for her. Robertson was previously been decorated with six awards for her service, and I am pleased that she, along with the members of Six Triple Eight, will now receive a Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of their service. Anna Mae Robertson is an inspiring example of hope and service in the United States. I am pleased to share my congratulations and heartfelt gratitude with Anna Mae Robertson for her lifetime of service and devotion to our Nation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am on the floor here today to address the same topic as my colleague who just spoke. And before I jump into prepared remarks, I wanted to offer just a few points of rebuttal because on this topic it seems so frequently that we all talk past each other and don't generally listen to one another. The Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which I lead with Senator Blumenthal, would, indeed, codify Roe v. Wade, but it would additionally give clarity to the States about what further restrictions they could put in place. I hail from the State of Wisconsin, where our State legislature, over many, many years, has brought forth all sorts of measures--some of which have been signed into law, many of which have been challenged in court, and some of which have been vetoed--but these are restrictions on access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, that limit access, that make it much more difficult, which is what Roe v. Wade intended to prevent. They have nothing to do with the health or the life of the mother. In fact, in some cases, they actually do harm to maternal life and health. There are measures in places across the United States that deal with the corridor width of clinics--the corridor width. It would force, if these laws were to go into effect, many clinics to have to either reconstruct themselves or move. This is clearly something meant to limit access. There are laws and bills that relate to admitting privileges at local hospitals, which are absolutely not medically necessary and will allow all the area hospitals to team up to deny those privileges, and then the clinic won't have a physician able to work there. There are 24-hour waiting periods. I listened to what my colleague had to say about the blanket overturning of Roe v. Wade. It would mean, when a woman's life is in jeopardy at some point in her pregnancy, she wouldn't have the ability to save her life and her reproductive health because she wouldn't have access to abortion care. Then to characterize this bill as extreme, in my mind, is so opposite the truth because, to me, what is extreme is forcing, say, a teen to bring a rapist's child to term or forcing a young woman to give birth to her sibling in cases of incest. My colleague talked about the polls. I don't know what he was looking at. He was talking about pro-choice versus anti-choice. Everything I have seen shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believes that Roe v. Wade is settled law and should remain in place and that only a small percentage believes it should be overturned in its entirety. In going on to my prepared remarks, I rise today to join my colleague Senator Richard Blumenthal in support of the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022--a bill that would protect a woman's right to access safe abortion care throughout the United States, no matter where she lives, without unnecessary and unwanted political interference. Congress is responsible for enforcing every American's fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Throughout history, when States have passed laws that make it harder or even impossible to exercise those rights, Congress has taken action to put in place Federal protections. I want to remind my colleagues of this responsibility. I also want to share a story from one of my constituents. Angela and Abby, her wife, knew they wanted to start a family, so they sought treatment at a fertility clinic in Wisconsin. In 2019, after years of trying, Angela became pregnant. It was a pregnancy they had wanted more than anything, but Angela soon found out that she had what is called a molar pregnancy. This occurs when a tumor forms instead of a healthy placenta. Her pregnancy was not viable. Her doctors moved quickly, and Angela had a safe and legal abortion. She wrote to me earlier this week: Had abortion been illegal, I would have died. Access to a safe abortion saved Angela's life. For others, an abortion kept a family out of poverty or allowed them to complete their educations or start careers. Abortions have protected women from being tied to their rapists and have spared them of the emotional and physical trauma of carrying an unviable pregnancy to term. I was only 10 years old when Roe v. Wade was decided. For 50 years, just about, this decision has stood. In the words of Justice Kavanaugh, it is ``settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court,'' but, apparently, precedent means nothing. Access to safe and legal abortion is under direct attack as an activist Supreme Court appears poised to legislate from the bench and take a constitutionally protected right away from tens of millions of Americans. For women like Angela, the gravity of this draft decision from the Supreme Court cannot be overstated. Americans can remember when back alley abortions killed and sterilized women across the country. This decision, if finalized, will not stop abortions from happening; it will only prevent safe abortions from happening. It will disproportionately impact poor women and women of color, who will not have the privilege of making their own healthcare decisions. If Roe is overturned, 13 States would immediately ban abortions, and others, of course, would move to do so. If Roe is overturned and we don't pass the Women's Health Protection Act, Wisconsin women will be taken back to the mid-1800s. What do I mean by that? We have a law on our books in Wisconsin which criminalizes abortion procedures. If Roe is overturned, doctors in Wisconsin would be charged with felonies for performing abortions and face up to 6 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The rights of victims of rape and incest would be taken away. The right for women to choose for themselves and their families would be taken away. I sure am not taking women in Wisconsin back to 1849, and we cannot allow an activist Supreme Court to leave this generation of women behind with fewer rights than their mothers and their grandmothers enjoyed. The Women's Health Protection Act is the only bill that can put an end to the restrictive State laws that have already put thousands of women in jeopardy. The legislation meets the urgent need to protect the provider, patient relationship; to protect the healthcare professionals who provide care; and to protect the freedom and constitutional rights of women to access this care. I believe a woman's right to choose is protected under the Constitution, and so does a clear majority of Americans want Roe v. Wade to be upheld. It is our responsibility to take action for women like Angela and on behalf of the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022. I yield the floor.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I suppose I prematurely gave my reasons for objecting as I responded to Senator Braun's objection to passing the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act; but, again, this is pretty much the status quo. If it is a voluntary program, it is not an enforceable OSHA standard; and these frontline heroes who have endured so much over the past few years, with increases in violence and during the pandemic, deserve the legislation that I have sponsored, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. The House passed it over a year ago, and that is what we should be taking up. So I object.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, on April 16, 2021, the House passed H.R. 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Healthcare and Social Service Workers Act. That legislation, sponsored by Congressman Joe Courtney, passed the House 254 to 166 with the support of 38 Republicans. This legislation directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard requiring healthcare and social service employers to write and implement a workplace violence prevention plan to protect employees from violent incidents. In the year since that legislation passed the House, we have been unable to generate the same level of support from our Republican colleagues needed to pass this legislation in the Senate. This is disappointing because the issue of protecting our healthcare and social service workers has never been more important. Roughly three-quarters of all nonfatal workplace injuries happen to healthcare workers. While it is too early to have comprehensive data from the pandemic, evidence from healthcare organizations suggests that workplace violence has exploded during the pandemic, nearing crisis levels for healthcare and social service workers. This workplace violence crisis is surely contributing to the staffing shortages that many healthcare employers have warned us about. In Wisconsin, vacancy rates for healthcare positions have been increasing, and threats against healthcare workers are viewed as the main culprit. These workers care for our loved ones and comfort us in our most trying times. They deserve to have the safe environment in which to do their work that this legislation provides. 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 H.R. 1195 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, obviously, I am very disappointed, and I would point out that a voluntary measure, as my colleague on the HELP Committee just described, is not what we need when we step up to help protect our frontline workers in emergency rooms and in multiple settings where there is, sadly, an increasing propensity for violence. Yesterday, I met with members of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the people who work on the frontlines in our emergency departments and emergency rooms across the country--as well as the emergency nurses. One after another, they shared stories of the violence they see and experience. I can't imagine walking into work every day knowing that this could be the day that someone was going to be struck or injured. A doctor talked about being strangled with his stethoscope. A nurse talked about hearing a fellow nurse being punched and then falling on the floor, unconscious, and now with a concussion. I met a nurse several years ago from Wisconsin who was beaten so severely by a patient that she can no longer work in nursing. We are not talking about studying a problem and coming up with a voluntary solution; we are talking about a crisis happening to our healthcare workers and at a time when they are also dealing with a pandemic. Healthcare workers, social service workers, nurses, and doctors have been here this week. We will have more coming next week. These frontline heroes, who have endured so much, deserve the protection of an enforceable OSHA standard, not just a voluntary program, which is already the status quo. I yield the floor.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, today I rise to honor someone who was a true leader and inspiring figure to many in my hometown of Madison, WI, and across our country. Scholar and activist R. Richard ``Dick'' Wagner sadly passed away on December 13, 2021, at the age of 78. Dick devoted his life to public service and advancing our common good. In 1980, he was elected as the first openly gay member of the Dane County Board of Supervisors, where he served for 14 years, including 4 years as chair. I first met Dick in 1984. Fresh out of college and looking to connect with the local political scene, I was invited to a gathering of local progressive elected officials, labor union leaders, and civil rights and environmental activists to strategize about candidate recruitment for city council and school board seats to be contested in the spring elections. We met on the second floor of a popular local establishment, Mother's Pub, which had long been a gathering spot for local progressives. I observed how much respect Dick had earned from his fellow progressive leaders. Following a discussion about the issues the group hoped to advance, we broke into small groups. Dick Wagner led a discussion on opportunities to advance policies, initiatives, and ordinances to counter discrimination against our community. That day, Dick became my role model and mentor, and a lifelong friendship ensued. As one of the first dozen openly gay officials in the Nation, Dick was a founding member of the International Network of Lesbian and Gay Officials, now known as the Victory Institute. With quiet determination and the utmost civility, he provided me and many others a path forward. Together, Dick and I cohosted the fifth Victory Institute conference in Madison in 1989. Dick had an expansive professional career in public service, serving on the Wisconsin Arts Board, the Wisconsin Humanities Committee, the National Board for the Assembly of State Arts Agencies, the Madison Landmarks Commission, Olbrich Botanical Society, Friends of UW Libraries, and the Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues. He also cofounded UW-Madison's LGBT Alumni Association; and the New Harvest Foundation, the LGBT foundation for south-central Wisconsin, and served on the board of Fair Wisconsin. Dick understood that change grows at local grassroots level, and he worked hard in a collaborative way to bring it to Wisconsin. His work as a leader in the gay community helped lead to a city gay rights ordinance in 1974 and a county ordinance in 1980 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He was also instrumental in establishing some of the State's first antidiscrimination laws against gays and lesbians. In retirement, he fully utilized his doctorate in history by authoring two groundbreaking volumes on gay history in Wisconsin: ``We've Been Here All Along'' provided an illuminating picture of Wisconsin's gay history from the reporting on the Oscar Wilde trials of 1895 to the landmark Stonewall Riots of 1969. ``Coming Out, Moving Forward: Wisconsin's Recent Gay History'' outlined the challenges that LGBTQ Wisconsinites faced in their efforts to right past oppressions and secure equality. It also powerfully told the stories of our State's LGBTQ pioneers who pushed back against injustice and found ways to live openly and proudly as themselves. Dick Wagner was a deeply inspiring person in my life as a role model, mentor, and lifelong friend. In fact, I may not have ever entered public service if not for the guidance and encouragement he provided me to walk the path he paved. He provided the opportunity for young people like myself and others growing up all over Wisconsin to know that they are not alone and that they stand on the shoulders of people who came before them. Dick lived a life that showed to all of us that history only moves in one direction: Forward. For that, I am forever grateful.