[Pages S267-S275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                      Nomination of John Ratcliffe

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, at some point, the Senate will vote on 
the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. I am 
here to outline for just a few moments why I oppose this nomination.
  Let me begin by saying I often vote for nominees who have different 
policy views than I do. However, my concerns with Mr. Ratcliffe are 
much deeper than that.
  In 2020, I opposed his confirmation to be Director of National 
Intelligence because I believe his partisanship and willingness 
essentially went to the proposition of doing what would please Donald 
Trump. Unfortunately, his actions as head of National Intelligence only 
confirmed my concerns. Today, I want to focus on John Ratcliffe's 
commitment to the law and his truthfulness with Congress. I will give a 
couple of examples to illustrate my concerns.
  In 2019, the Congress passed a law requiring the Director of National 
Intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible 
for the brutal murder of Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident 
Jamal Khashoggi. In 2020, after John Ratcliffe was nominated to be the 
head of National Intelligence, I asked him at his confirmation hearing 
whether he intended to follow that law. He responded that he needed to 
take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be 
released, and that is not the same as saying he would do as the law 
required.
  After Director Ratcliffe was confirmed as DNI, he decided that 
nothing more could be declassified about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. 
The effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that Saudi Prince 
Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation to capture or kill 
Khashoggi. The public only has the facts today because after the 2020 
election, then-head of National Intelligence Avril Haines abided by the 
law and released the report.
  But while John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence, the 
Saudi leadership was protected from public accountability. While he was 
Director of National Intelligence, Director Ratcliffe wrote to multiple 
Members of Congress saying that he had completed his review of the 
intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released. 
Despite the fact that the Congress passed a law, Director Ratcliffe 
insisted that there was only marginal public interest in 
declassification. He said this in three letters to me, to Acting 
Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner, and to the chair of the House 
Intelligence Committee. To me, this raises questions about John 
Ratcliffe's commitment to the law.
  Basically, I have concerns about his truthfulness with the Congress. 
As part of this nomination process, I submitted a written question 
asking him why he didn't obey the law. He responded that a review had 
been necessary to determine what could be declassified and I quote 
here:

       This review was not completed until after I left office.

  Madam President, that statement by Mr. Ratcliffe just wasn't true. 
Mr. Ratcliffe wrote three letters to the Congress saying that the 
review had been completed. That fact was even included in the ODNI's 
representations to a court in a FOIA case.
  So here is why I am opposing the Ratcliffe nomination. If John 
Ratcliffe is willing to make representations to the Congress that are 
contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would 
be for him to misrepresent classified matters behind a veil of secrecy.
  There are other aspects of John Ratcliffe's record as DNI that are 
troubling. He said during his confirmation hearing he would tell truth 
to power. The record suggests otherwise. For example, at the end of 
September 2020, he released intelligence about Hillary Clinton's 2016 
campaign. That was even though the intelligence community didn't know 
if it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or 
exaggerated by Russian intelligence. Needless to say, this was a major 
break from standard practice, and it is hard to escape the conclusion 
that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given 
the timing.
  I asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he had ever taken any actions that were 
actually in conflict with the positions of the President. His response 
was simply to offer nothing.
  Madam President, my concerns in 2020 that John Ratcliffe was too 
partisan to be confirmed as the head of an intelligence Agency have 
been validated by these specific examples I have cited today. As I 
said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the U.S. 
Congress and then misrepresenting basic facts about that decision.
  So when the Senate does vote on the Ratcliffe nomination, I want the 
record to show that I strongly oppose the nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                                 Hamas

  Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, on October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists 
shocked the human conscience when they carried out an attack on Israel

[[Page S268]]

that killed innocent men, women, and children and took hundreds of 
hostages, including Americans.
  I still remember waking up that day to horrific reports coming out of 
Israel--the heart-wrenching stories of people brutalized, of women 
raped, the mass murder of more than 1,200 people, and the abduction of 
so many men and women and babies and the elderly.
  These hostages, they are more than just names; they are more than 
just statistics. They are mothers. They are fathers. They are sons. 
They are daughters. They are friends. They are community.
  Since that horrific day more than a year ago, Hamas has kept them 
captive, enduring inhumane conditions that no one--I repeat no one--
should be subjected to. And in doing so, Hamas has inflicted an 
unimaginable amount of pain and suffering on the families of the 
hostages as well; families who have been living a nightmare--a 
nightmare. They don't know the fate of their loved ones, and they are 
tormented by every video that Hamas releases.
  For others, it meant the heartbreak of knowing their loved one was 
murdered by Hamas, but their body has remained captive. Families have 
been unable to properly bury and grieve their loved one.
  In the days, weeks, and months since that terrible day, I met with 
many of the hostage families repeatedly, both in Israel and the United 
States. Their resilience and their strength--I don't know how they do 
it. They wake up every day and they stand tall and they are resilient 
and they are strong and they speak out in the face of such pain and 
suffering. It is remarkable and unimaginable that they have to do this 
all at the same time.
  Each time I met with these families, I made it clear, I will continue 
to do everything I can to make sure that they are reunited with their 
loved ones.
  That is why the agreement between Israel and Hamas--which has paused 
the conflict and commits to bringing the remaining hostages home--is 
welcome relief. The deal is also helping to save civilian lives in 
Israel and Gaza by putting a stop to the fighting. It is ramping up the 
delivery of much needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.
  So let's be clear: This agreement was possible because of the 
steadfast and unwavering support of the United States for Israel. And 
it was brought about because of the advocacy of the hostage families, 
together with bipartisan diplomatic leadership.
  Now I am going to take a moment and speak directly to all of the 
families who have been waiting for nearly 500 days--waiting for news, 
waiting for a phone call, waiting for a moment that they could embrace 
their loved ones once again.
  Your pain, your perseverance, your strength in the face of heartbreak 
and tragedy and your tireless effort pushing forward for a deal, 
pushing forward for progress--you got us to this point. You did. You 
have made the difference.
  Though nothing can undo the devastation in the past 15 months, I can 
only hope that this agreement can begin to provide some form of relief.
  I know that we are all relieved to see three hostages finally freed 
over the weekend and reunited with their families. Romi, Emily, and 
Doron are finally home--finally home. The images of embraces with their 
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers filled our hearts; it fuels our 
resolve.
  We know that our work is not yet over, so I want to be clear: The 
United States will not rest until every single hostage is returned 
home. Now more than ever, we must continue being vigilant to make sure 
this agreement is fully carried out. The road ahead undoubtedly will be 
difficult, but with our continued, unconditional support of Israel and 
commitment to regional stability, this deal can bring some much needed 
peace of mind to the people of Israel, to the hostages, to their 
families, and to the region as a whole.
  We pray for the families who are still waiting the returns of their 
loved ones, and we hope to bring peace through strength.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Louisiana.


                              George Soros

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, President Biden--I wish him 
well--gave his farewell address to America. He said a number of things, 
but one in particular got my attention. He warned America about--his 
words, not mine--``a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a 
very few ultra-wealthy people.''
  President Biden went on to say:

       Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme 
     wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our 
     entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair 
     shot for everyone to get ahead.

  I don't know who President Biden was talking about, but I know one 
particular circumstance about which I am going to speak that fits his 
warning. Again, I don't know if the circumstance I am about to describe 
is what President Biden meant, but if the shoe fits, wear it, 
Cinderella.
  Let me cut to the chase. Mr. George Soros is an oligarch. He is one 
of the wealthiest people in the world. He is a friend of President 
Biden's--nothing wrong with that. In fact, President Biden just gave 
him I think the highest civilian honor that a President can give to a 
civilian--the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
  Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM radio in New Orleans. Let me say 
that again. That may not mean much to you, Mr. President, but it means 
a lot to my people in Louisiana. Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM 
radio in New Orleans.
  WWL AM radio is practically an institution in my State. It has been 
around since 1922--1922--over 100 years. It is a clear channel--what 
the communications experts call a clear channel class A station. Its 
transmitter output is about 50,000 watts. That is a lot, folks. That is 
the maximum for commercial AM stations in the United States. It is the 
lead station on the New Orleans Saints Radio network. It is an 
important station, and Mr. George Soros is buying it.
  What does that mean, and how did this happen? WWL is owned by a 
national company called Audacy. Audacy has about 220 radio stations 
nationwide, one of which, of course, is WWL--the second largest radio 
network in America. It reaches I think 45 different markets throughout 
our country, 165 million Americans. It is huge.
  Audacy borrowed too much money. They took on too much debt. They took 
on about $1.9 billion worth of debt, and they couldn't service that 
debt with their revenues. So what did they do? They did what many other 
corporations do when they can't service their debt: They went into what 
is called chapter 11 bankruptcy--not chapter 7. Chapter 7 is when they 
liquidate the company. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is when a company goes 
into bankruptcy in front of a bankruptcy judge and says: Judge, we want 
to get all of our creditors and debtors together and restructure our 
cash flow and our debt so we can come out of this bankruptcy a 
surviving entity.
  They went into chapter 11 with a bankruptcy plan. Mr. George Soros 
immediately pounced. Of that $1.9 billion in debt, he bought about $415 
million of it; cash on the barrelhead; paid 50 cents on the dollar.
  One of the tenets of the reorganization was that all the current 
shareholders would be wiped out. The new creditors would assume equity 
positions in the company. I know that sounds complicated, and it can 
be, but really what it means is that the bondholders--one of which is 
Mr. Soros after he bought it, bought the $450 million worth of debt--
became a shareholder, and Mr. Soros is now the largest single 
shareholder in Audacy radio stations, including WWL AM in New Orleans, 
an institution.
  In America, you can't just go do this. Why is that? Because those 
airwaves on which WWL and the other radio stations broadcast--they 
don't belong to the radio stations. They belong to you and you and you 
and you. These airwaves--the spectrum, if you will--are owned by the 
American people.
  Years ago, we created the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. 
We set it up to be in charge of the airwaves that belong to the 
American people to make sure that those airwaves were being used 
prudently by radio stations. For example, if a radio station is bought 
by a bunch of foreign nationals or foreign entities, the FCC has to 
approve it. For example, anytime a broadcast license, as is the case 
with Audacy, is transferred, the FCC has to approve it. So Mr. Soros's 
purchase of WWL Radio and the 219 other

[[Page S269]]

radio stations had to go before the FCC, and it did, and it went--the 
approval for Mr. Soros went through the FCC like green grass through a 
goose. It was a party-line vote. It was last September. All three 
Democrats--there are five people on the FCC--all three Democrats said 
let it go, and they short-circuited the normal process.

  Now, I am not an FCC expert, and I am not a communications law 
expert, but this has been widely reported, and I have read about it in 
many reports. Normally, on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations 
are being transferred--their licenses--using airwaves that belong to 
the American people and there is a substantial percentage of foreign 
owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. The FCC 
would do a complete investigation. Not this time--no. This time was 
special. What happened was what some members of the media have called 
the Soros shortcut. They just got together and rammed it through. Did I 
mention it was like green grass through a goose--3 to 2?
  Now, the two Republicans on the Commission--they are screaming the 
whole time: Whoa, Nellie! Whoa! Whoa! Why aren't we taking this 
seriously? Why aren't we investigating this? Why aren't we doing our 
due diligence?
  They were outvoted 3 to 2.
  You know, even in a democracy, when you have the votes--you can make 
a porcupine like hot peppers if you have the votes. That doesn't make 
it right.
  A number of people petitioned the FCC and said: Please don't do this.
  One of the groups that petitioned the FCC was a group called Media 
Research Center. The FCC--three Democrats, two Republicans--dismissed 
them. But this is what the Media Research Center said--their words, not 
mine:

       There is no question that George Soros and his affiliated 
     businesses are looking to control these radio stations to 
     advance their particular brand of activism.

  The MRC urged the FCC not to create a ``special Soros shortcut'' that 
would circumvent their rules and allow the deal to move forward. They 
did it anyway.
  Here is what Mr. Troy A. Miller, NRB president and CEO, said. He 
said--his words, not mine:

       The fact that the FCC is apparently willing to bypass the 
     usual protocols--

  That means the normal procedures--

     to get this transaction done just weeks before a presidential 
     election--

  And right after the President of the United States gave Mr. Soros the 
Presidential Medal of Freedom--

     seriously undermines the Commission's credibility and raises 
     warranted questions of whether administrative processes are 
     being manipulated--

  Manipulated--

     to exert political [interference and] preference.

  Here is what one of the Republican members of the FCC, in dissent, 
said--Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is soon to be Chairman of the FCC 
now that there is a new sheriff in town. Here is what Mr. Carr said:

       The Commission's decision today [approving Mr. Soros's 
     plan] is unprecedented. Never before has the Commission voted 
     to approve the transfer of a broadcast license--let alone the 
     transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations 
     across more than 40 markets--without following the 
     requirements and procedures codified in federal law.

  Pass me the sick bucket. This isn't right, but they did it.
  Now, this is America. You are entitled to believe what you want. If 
it is legal, you are entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is 
certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don't agree with him, but 
he is certainly entitled to it in America. I am not much into this 
cancel culture, and hopefully we have seen the end of it, but when you 
are acquiring radio licenses which can influence public opinion and you 
are doing it in part--not exclusively but in part--with foreign money, 
well, that is why we have the FCC.
  But I want to make this clear: I believe in free speech and free 
expression. You are not free if you can't say what you think. You are 
not free if you can't express yourself. Mr. Soros has that right. But 
here is where he stands. I want my people in Louisiana to know who is 
buying WWL Radio in New Orleans. Mr. Soros is a billionaire. God bless 
him. He made his money himself. He has poured much of his wealth into 
what, in my opinion, are radical causes.
  He is now working with his son, who I understand is a very smart 
young man. His name is Alex Soros. Mr. George Soros and Mr. Alex Soros 
hold some--how should I put this?--nonmainstream American beliefs.
  For example, Mr. George Soros has called the United States ``the main 
obstacle to a stable and just world.'' Mr. Soros believes that our 
country is ``the main obstacle to a stable and just world,'' not China, 
not Iran, not North Korea--the United States of America.
  Pass me the sick bucket.
  Mr. Soros has also said that China has--his words, not mine--that 
China has a ``better functioning government than the United States of 
America.''
  Mr. Soros does not believe that the United States should have secure 
borders. He once called national borders an ``obstacle'' to his plan 
for widespread immigrant resettlement.
  Mr. Soros and his family, as you probably know, have spent millions 
and millions of dollars to elect prosecutors throughout America who 
believe that violent criminals are the real victims. These prosecutors 
believe for the most part that if a cop has to shoot a criminal, it is 
always the cop's fault, but if a criminal shoots a cop, it is always 
the gun's fault. These prosecutors whom Mr. Soros has backed with 
millions of dollars all believe that if you are concerned about crime, 
you are automatically a racist.
  Mr. Soros and his son Alex--Alex in particular--have called for 
softer sentences on violent criminals. This is what he has said--his 
words, not mine. Mr. Alex Soros said:

       But if we are serious about ending mass incarceration, we 
     must also rethink our response to crimes that are more 
     serious, including violent ones. Even those who have been 
     victims of violence increasingly do not believe in long-term 
     prison sentences.

  In short, Mr. Soros--both George and Alex believe that America would 
be better off if we had open borders. They believe that America would 
be better off, in my opinion--this is how I read their writings--if we 
ended jails and if we ran our government like the Communist Party of 
China. I don't agree with that, but Mr. Soros--both of them are 
entitled to their opinion.
  But my people in Louisiana are entitled to know whose opinion they 
are hearing on the radio, and this has not been reported once in 
Louisiana. Let me say it again.
  Mr. George Soros, through an expedited procedure--I am trying to be 
evenhanded here--who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from 
President Biden and who is close to President Biden and all of my 
Democratic colleagues, on a 3-to-2 vote at the FCC, has been able to 
buy over 200 radio stations throughout America, including WWL Radio. I 
want my people to know about it, and I want us to make sure that it was 
done legally. I am not saying it wasn't done legally; I am saying that 
it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha--it looks weird the way this was done. 
It has the aroma of politics, and I hope the new FCC revisits this 
issue.
  These licenses and these airwaves do not belong to me or to the FCC 
or to Audacy or to WWL; they belong to you and you and you--the 
American people. We are supposed to make sure, through our FCC--that is 
why God created the FCC--that these licenses are not just given to 
anybody.


                             Chagos Islands

  Mr. President, let me say one other thing quickly. I didn't mean to 
go on this long. You have heard me talk about this before, and I am 
going to talk about it again.
  This is India. This is China. Right here are the Chagos Islands--
right now owned by the United Kingdom. America, the United States of 
America, with your tax dollars, has a very important military base out 
in the Chagos Islands, on an island called Diego Garcia.
  Now, the United Nations, as I have said before, has said to Britain, 
the UK, which acquired the Chagos Islands from France--the folks at the 
United Nations, with their whey protein powder and man purses, say: Bad 
United Kingdom. Bad United Kingdom. You are a bunch of colonialists. 
Give it back. Give the Chagos Islands back--not ``give them back to the 
people of the Chagos Islands''; give them back to this island down 
here, Mauritius, over 1,000 miles away. Give it back to Mauritius. That 
is who had it when France

[[Page S270]]

transferred--Mauritius was a province of France when France transferred 
all of its ownership to Mauritius and to the Chagos Islands in the 
early 1800s.
  The new government in the United Kingdom said: Oh, we feel so guilty. 
We are going to give it back. We are going to give it back--and our Air 
Force base with it, which we use to rearm and restock our submarines in 
Indochina--in the Indian Ocean to combat China.
  This kind of stupid takes a plan, folks. This kind of stupid takes a 
plan.
  The United Kingdom said: OK. We feel guilty. We are going to give it 
back. We are going to give it to Mauritius, and we are going to start 
paying Mauritius <brit-pound> 9 billion over 10 years. And you know who 
went along with it? The prior administration.

  Now, I have talked to President Trump about this, and I have talked 
to Marco Rubio about this--our esteemed new Secretary of State--and I 
am hoping they are going to do something about it.
  The United Nations has no jurisdiction over the United Kingdom or us 
in America, and this is our military base. And, already, if we give the 
Chagos Islands to Mauritius, Mauritius says they will lease to us our 
own base for about 9 billion pounds over 10 years. Already, China is 
circling Mauritius. Already, China is trying to be Mauritius' best 
friend.
  And I don't have anything against the Government of Mauritius. They 
are wonderful people. I understand they want the money. They want our 
money. They want your money. They want us to pay them for our own 
military base.
  We need to stop this deal. President Trump and Secretary Rubio need 
to pick up the phone and call Prime Minister Starmer in the United 
Kingdom and say to the Prime Minister: Mr. Prime Minister, with all due 
respect, stop dipping into your ketamine stash. Put down the bong. We 
need this military base to combat China. Don't do it.
  And if the President will do that and the Secretary of State will do 
that, I believe Mr. Starmer, who tried to ram this through the week 
before President Trump took office but was stopped--I believe that he 
will give in.
  I don't have anything against Mr. Starmer. I don't have anything 
against the people of Mauritius Island. I am sure they are all 
wonderful people.
  But our struggle with China is serious. It is as serious as four 
heart attacks and a stroke. And it is bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow 
stupid for us, because of guilt over colonialism, to bow to the wishes 
of the United Nations and give a military base that we built to 
Mauritius, which eventually will end up in the hands of the Communist 
Party of China. That is why I say that kind of stupid takes a plan.


                     Southern California Wildfires

  Mr. President, on a final point, I want to just highlight this. The 
people of Mexico have sent some of their firefighters to help us in 
California, and I want to thank our friends in Mexico for doing that. 
Other countries have sent their firefighters too. But because we are 
proximate to Mexico, their fighters were able to get here earlier, and 
I just want to thank the people of Mexico for their generosity.
  My work here is done. I will show myself to the door.
  And before I do that, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


              Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, families are looking to us to solve 
problems. They are looking at us to lower prices. They are looking for 
help getting food on the table or getting childcare or getting their 
prescriptions filled. But what they are seeing instead, today, is 
Republicans lying about women, lying about healthcare, and lying about 
the tragic realities that families face when they learn that their baby 
has a fatal diagnosis and cannot survive long after birth.
  Of all the bills that we could be voting on right now, it is an 
absolute disgrace that Republicans are spending their first weeks in 
power attacking women, criminalizing doctors, and lying about abortion.
  This bill would create a new government mandate that would override 
the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a 
fatal condition. And it would create new, medically unnecessary 
barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have 
their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive 
healthcare.
  Republicans' whole premise on this bill is a sham. Their whole bill 
is a disgrace, and we are here on the floor today to call it out.
  I am not going to let anyone perpetuate the so-called ``abortion 
until birth'' myths and lies about people who have abortions and the 
providers who care for them. That is not how abortion works, and 
Republicans know it.
  Killing a baby is already illegal in every single State. In fact, we 
passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because 
I was here. It passed unanimously. Doctors already have a legal 
obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in 
this country.
  And let's be clear: We already know Republicans' sham bill is not 
going to go anywhere, by the way. We have been here before. After all, 
Republicans held a vote on this bill a few years ago, and not a single 
Democrat who is still in the Senate today voted for it.
  The last time we voted on this bill, I spoke about something 
Republicans refused to acknowledge in this debate: the actual voices 
and experiences of women who receive a heartbreaking diagnosis late in 
pregnancy, what they actually go through, and how this bill would hurt 
them and their families.
  I spoke then about Judy. She is from Washington State. Her son's 
organs did not develop properly. One lung was 20 percent formed, and 
the other was missing entirely.
  I spoke about Lindsay. Her daughter had an aggressive, inoperable 
tumor growing into her brain, her heart, and her lungs.
  I spoke about Darla. One of her twins had serious medical 
complications. Not terminating that pregnancy would have put her other 
twin's health at risk. How you ignore something like that I will never 
understand. But instead Republicans are talking about things that 
simply do not happen.
  However, I have a different story to share today. You see, the last 
time I shared those stories of women who were able to make the choice 
that was right for their family, but the stories now are of women who 
were denied that choice. And that is because Republicans have ripped 
away abortion rights, and State abortion bans have forced some women 
into the kind of nightmare Republicans are now seeking to take 
nationwide.
  In Florida, Deborah learned, at 23 weeks, her baby had no kidneys, 
and it would not survive after birth. She felt an abortion was the 
right step for her family. But Florida gave her no choice about what 
happened next. They forced her to carry a doomed pregnancy for months.
  Do you know what it is like to go for months, pregnant with a baby 
you know will not survive, and getting questions and comments like: Oh, 
is this your first child? Are you excited?
  Do you know what it is like fighting back tears as you try to decide 
whether to just nod politely or explain that, actually, your world is 
falling apart and, all the while, knowing you have to go through all of 
this against your will because some politician decided they knew 
better?
  Deborah avoided going out. She was afraid to go to the grocery store. 
And she said:

       I just went into a really dark place, you know, essentially 
     planning my son's birth and funeral at the same time.

  That is what abortion bans do. That is what happens when we take 
choice away from patients, when Republicans decide they know better.
  And Deborah is far from the only woman to go through this. Infant 
deaths from birth defects jumped in Florida following their abortion 
ban.
  Now, Republicans have a bill here to take that issue nationwide. That 
is what we are voting on here tomorrow. That is their top priority, now 
that Trump is in office. And not only are they trying to take that 
abortion heartbreak nationwide, they are lying about what is at stake 
here and lying

[[Page S271]]

about what women like Deborah are going through, what their own 
policies will cause more women to go through.
  Shame on them. This is infuriating.
  Women like Deborah may not be billionaires, but they should still 
have their voices heard. And as long as I am here, they will be.
  So here is my message for Republicans: Families don't need less 
choice about how to handle tragic medical news. What families actually 
need is affordable groceries. What families actually need is childcare. 
What they actually need is paid leave, quality healthcare, access to 
programs like SNAP and Medicaid, which Republicans want to cut to the 
bone.
  Now, I can't predict what attack Republicans will launch on abortion 
next, but I can promise we will be here to call them out, both for what 
they are trying to do--lie about women and doctors--and for everything 
they are failing to do--lowering costs and making life easier for folks 
back home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I really want to thank my friend, 
our great leader on women's issues and on choice issues, Senator 
Murray, for leading this floor block. She has been indomitable on this 
issue. I can't think of a person who has done more to protect the 
rights of women than Patty Murray. So thank you for your great 
leadership.
  I want to thank all my other colleagues who will join me as well.
  Look, it is Donald Trump's first week as President, and Republicans 
are already escalating their war on women's reproductive freedoms. They 
didn't wait long. And the Republicans' desire to impose politicians' 
and their views on women's health and substitute their judgment for the 
judgment of the woman, her family, and her doctor continues.
  There are many different permutations and combinations of this, but 
it is always: Take the women's rights away. Let some politician for 
some ideological reason decide.
  This week, Senate Republicans will advance their so-called Born-Alive 
bill, a bill we have all seen before, which the Senate squarely 
rejected in the past. The bill is deeply pernicious because it attacks 
women's healthcare through false narratives and outright fearmongering. 
It seeks to make something illegal that is already illegal.
  In essence, the Republican bill would substitute the judgment of 
qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of women and 
their families with an ultraright ideology. It is the long hand of 
injustice reaching down and hurting women from afar.
  And so much of the legislation is passed, frankly, by men who have, 
really, no understanding of what women go through when they are through 
difficult situations like the one my colleague from Washington State 
has outlined.
  This would harm the ability of medical professionals to provide 
healthcare based on evidence and on science. It would expose medical 
professionals to the risk of punishment and prosecution if they don't 
comply with the hard right.
  So we are here because we need to expose this bill exactly for what 
it is: myth-based fearmongering. It is an attack on reproductive care.
  The anti-choice movement keeps trying to come up with these scenarios 
to try and scare people, but they misstate the facts and misstate the 
evidence.
  This bill is clear. It is an attack on reproductive care. It is anti-
women, anti-family, anti-science.
  I will tell my Republican colleagues this: Democrats will oppose any 
attempt to erode access to high-quality and safe reproductive care. 
Democrats will continue to fight for America's women, America's 
doctors, and America's families who sometimes have to make 
heartbreaking, difficult decisions when serious complications arise 
during pregnancy.
  That is what makes this bill so, so horrible. It basically takes a 
woman who is in a very serious, difficult situation and tries to use 
her as a political football. That is a bad, bad thing.
  So we should resoundingly reject this deeply partisan bill when it 
comes to the floor later this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have 
considered this measure on the floor nor the first time I have spoken 
about it.
  I want to thank Senator Murray for leading this conversation on a 
very serious topic.
  I want to thank Senator Schumer for joining in this conversation as 
well. I couldn't agree with him more when he said: What we are trying 
to do with this bill is to make illegal what is already illegal.
  I am going to make an invitation to anyone following this debate who 
wants to judge for themselves, to reach their own conclusion, as to 
whether or not there are laws existent in America today which cover the 
situation described in this bill.
  I am going to give you the name of a physician in Philadelphia who is 
serving a life sentence in prison for having violated the current law, 
and I want you to look it up and read it yourself. Don't take my words 
for it. His name is Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Write 
that down if you want to follow this debate and want to draw your own 
conclusions by doing some personal research. Look it up on the 
internet: Kermit Gosnell. I will tell you his story in a moment, but it 
proves the fact that we have existing laws that make this current bill 
unnecessary.
  Tomorrow marks the 52nd year since our Nation's highest Court issued 
a rule recognizing a woman's constitutionally protected right to 
choose. Roe v. Wade enshrined into law something that should have been 
a given in America: In America, women have the right to make decisions 
about their own bodies. And, as a result of Roe, America's women took a 
giant leap forward in gender equity. The decision in Roe afforded women 
the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family.
  But after nearly 50 years of progress, in June 2022, the Supreme 
Court overruled Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 
dragging women's rights half a century backward. Following that 
decision, we saw Republican-led States open the floodgates to abortion 
restrictions--laws that, in some cases, have had deadly consequences 
for women who could not access critical healthcare that they needed.
  Instead of addressing the healthcare crisis that Dobbs has unleashed, 
Republicans are now instead looking to make it even harder for women to 
access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare.
  Tomorrow, they will attempt to bring to the floor the so-called Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They want to bring it to a 
vote--this bill that, as Senator Schumer said, is already covered in 
law.
  The bill, they say, creates new standards of care for physicians 
providing reproductive healthcare that are not based in medicine, fact, 
or science.
  The goal of the bill that we will consider, introduced by the 
Republicans, is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare 
providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive and 
compassionate healthcare. This bill offers a poorly drafted and 
dangerous solution to a problem that simply does not exist.
  The authors of this bill will tell you that this legislation simply 
ensures that all children born alive as a result of a so-called 
attempted abortion are provided the same medical care as any other 
newborn of the same gestational age. They say that is all it does. But 
we already have a law on the books that ensures that any child born in 
America, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that birth, is 
afforded equal protection under the law.

  In 2002, the House and Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the 
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Do you know who signed that into 
law? Then-President George W. Bush. Put simply, it is already illegal 
to kill a child born alive in America. And in rare cases where a doctor 
does harm a baby in violation of State and Federal laws, they are held 
legally accountable.
  The year was 2013. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was 
convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for murdering babies 
after botched abortions. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison 
without possibility of parole under existing law, and he is currently 
serving that sentence at

[[Page S272]]

Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
  Do you know what else the authors of this legislation didn't tell you 
and won't tell you? Abortions late in pregnancy are incredibly rare. 
And when they do occur, it is most often because of a heartbreaking, 
late-breaking, fatal fetal diagnosis or because a woman's doctor has 
told her that she may not survive the pregnancy or because a woman 
lives in a State that prevented her from getting an abortion earlier. 
No, Republicans would rather have you believe that vast numbers of 
women are intentionally waiting until the final days of their pregnancy 
to have abortions.
  This is a cruel political contrivance. These are women who often 
already have had their baby showers, picked out names, persevered 
through morning sickness, back pain, swollen ankles, countless doctors' 
appointments and tests. These are women who wanted their babies.
  And what is the response from the actual doctors on this legislation? 
Ask the professionals to respond to the Republican bill that is coming 
to the floor, the so-called Born-Alive bill. The American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists said this when the House passed the 
bill last year:

       The offensively named ``born-alive'' legislation is another 
     cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based 
     medical decision making between patients and their 
     physicians.
       Laws that ban or criminalize evidence-based care and rely 
     on medically unsupported theories and misinformation are 
     dangerous to families and their clinicians. This bill 
     negatively affects all obstetric and gynecologic care.

  What I just read to you is a quote from the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given this reality, what would happen 
if this bill were signed into law by the new President?
  Take the case of Meredith Shiner, a constituent of mine in Illinois 
who was thrilled to learn a few years ago that she and her husband were 
going to have a little baby boy. However, at 22 weeks and 6 days, 
Meredith woke up with a terrible abdominal pain, rushed to the hospital 
thinking she had a bladder infection. She didn't realize the 
seriousness of what was happening until the doctor told her she was in 
labor. The prognosis was grim. Having the baby at 22 weeks and 6 days 
meant although the baby would be born alive, the chances of survival 
were almost nonexistent.
  Knowing medical interventions would be futile, Meredith and her 
husband made the difficult decision to take the minutes they had with 
their son to hold him, to touch him, to look at him until he gently 
passed away, as doctors provided palliative care.
  This bill is written in such an overly broad way, vague way, that had 
it been the law, those same doctors that provided compassionate care to 
Meredith, her husband, and their son could be subject to 5 years in 
prison.
  In these heartbreaking situations, it is not the time for politicians 
to dictate the course of medical treatment, as this bill would do. 
Those wrenching decisions, those personal tragic moments, must be left 
to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the 
only compassionate outcome.
  This week, we lost a lifelong advocate for women's rights, Cecile 
Richards. She spent her life fighting to keep politics out of 
healthcare and defending every woman's right to decide when and how to 
start their family. We lost Cecile to glioblastoma--the same brain 
cancer that took John McCain, Beau Biden, and Teddy Kennedy.
  If Senate Republicans truly cared about saving lives, they would be 
working with us to expand access to healthcare, increase funding for 
medical research that results in new cures, and implement policies that 
address our Nation's abysmal record of infant and maternal mortality.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator 
Murray and Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin and my close colleague 
from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar and others to stand up for women and 
for doctors in my home State of Minnesota and around the country.
  And I just want to appreciate Senator Durbin for raising Cecile 
Richards, who was a dear friend of mine and someone who I worked with 
closely when I worked at Planned Parenthood. And I was thinking about 
something that Cecile often pointed to. She would quote the great 
American poet, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and this poet would say: It is 
not one damn thing after another. It is the same damn thing over and 
over again.
  And here we have that being shown on the Senate floor. Once again 
Republicans are here introducing this bill--not to talk about what we 
can do to lower prices for Americans, not to talk about how we can 
lower the cost of housing, or how to help people's lives become more 
affordable.
  Instead, one of the very first bills that they are putting forward is 
for a vote in service of a national abortion ban that, I can tell you, 
the people in Minnesota do not want, the people in America have made it 
abundantly clear that they do not want. And I guess the nicest thing 
you could say about this is that it is out of touch with where 
Americans are.
  But let's talk about it a little bit more because I think it is 
important that we fight some of the myths and the disinformation that 
this legislation promotes.
  What this bill would do, it would put Congress and politicians in the 
middle of personal medical decisions that patients and doctors should 
be able to make together without political interference. It would 
override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for 
their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing 
criminal penalties if their judgment about what is best for their 
patients goes against what is described in this bill.
  So, colleagues, let's be clear. At the core of the debate here is 
whether or not we trust women to make the very best decisions for 
themselves and their families. And in difficult medical, challenging, 
often tragic, medical situations, should women and their physicians be 
making decisions about their lives and their health--often their very 
lives--or is this about politics?
  And I think Americans say this is not about politics. Politics should 
stay out of it.
  I know that everybody on this floor has talked to their own 
constituents who have experienced what really happens for women who are 
needing abortion care later in their pregnancy. These stories are 
inevitably heartbreaking and tragic, and they each are individual and 
unique. Every situation is different. But they always are about women 
and families that are thrilled to be pregnant. In some cases, as my 
colleagues have said, they have already picked out a name. They have 
decorated the nursery. They have planned a baby shower. But it becomes 
clear, as the pregnancy progresses, the devastating news that this 
child is not going to survive. And in some cases, the mother's life is 
also at risk; her health, her ability to have children in the future 
are at risk.

  And as I said, every situation is going to be unique because everyone 
is going to have a different diagnosis, different personal histories, 
different family circumstances, and that means everybody is going to 
need to have their own individual care. But what every single one of 
these women have in common is that each one of them deserves the 
dignity and the autonomy and the freedom to be able to make those 
decisions, make their own medical decisions, without a bunch of 
politicians getting in the way.
  But let's be really clear here. Women are not waking up in the last 
weeks of their pregnancy just to change their mind about that 
pregnancy. I mean, how disrespectful of women is that attitude? Because 
these are terrible situations where something has gone catastrophically 
wrong. They are not just changing their minds. They are doing 
everything they can to take care of themselves and their families.
  You know, I know that in this country, we don't tell oncologists how 
to treat their patients. We don't tell emergency room doctors what they 
need to do in any specific circumstances to save lives, and we 
shouldn't be telling women's doctors how to take care of their 
patients.
  But, colleagues, that is what this bill does. It would give 
politicians in this room a seat in the doctor's offices and in the ERs 
with women all over this

[[Page S273]]

country. And that has an intimidating impact on providers who are 
already desperately trying to keep their head down and do their jobs 
while operating under the chaos that has erupted after the Supreme 
Court overturned Roe.
  So, colleagues, this should be about treating women with respect. We 
should be all in agreement that decisions about women's healthcare 
aren't different from decisions about men's healthcare or anyone's 
healthcare. So why would we be treating women differently?
  Colleagues, let's get out of the business of dictating medical care 
for women. Let's trust women and their doctors.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues. I want 
to thank Senator Murray for her leadership, but also Senator Smith, who 
has long led on this issue and has stood up time and time again for 
freedoms and reproductive freedom.
  Yesterday, as she noted, we lost Cecile Richards, who was a true 
force of nature who spent her career fighting for reproductive freedom. 
We lost her just 2 days before what would be the 52nd anniversary of 
Roe v. Wade.
  But we all know that our country is now well into its third year 
without the protections of Roe. In the years since the Supreme Court 
overturned half a century of precedent and stripped away a woman's 
right to make her own healthcare decisions--going against 70, 80 
percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a 
woman, her family, her doctor, and not by politicians; who believe, as 
my colleagues just noted, that politicians should not be in the waiting 
room making the decisions for families--women are now at the mercy of a 
patchwork of State laws that are creating chaos when it comes to 
accessing reproductive care.
  So the solution is not the bill before us this week. The solution is 
not to take rare cases of the most tragic nature, as my colleagues have 
described.
  I am a former prosecutor. I know what murder is. Murder is murder, 
including murder of a baby.
  We are here talking about tragic cases where doctors have to make a 
decision in the moment with the family about how they are going to 
handle very, very tragic situations with a baby.
  Today, nearly 20 States have enacted some form of abortion 
restriction. The result, a third of women of reproductive age now live 
under extreme, dangerous bans. And in States across the country, women 
are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to travel hundreds 
of miles for healthcare. So adding to that situation, this idea that we 
are going to start intervening in these rare, tragic cases would be a 
horrible result for so many women.
  I am thinking about the pregnant teenager in Texas who died after 
being denied care in three hospital visits. I am thinking about the 
young woman from Florida who was forced to miscarry in a bathroom due 
to her State's restrictions. By the time she finally got to a hospital, 
she had lost almost half the blood in her body. And we will never 
forget the heartbreaking story of the 10-year-old in Ohio who had to go 
to Indiana in order to get a legal abortion after she was raped. People 
said that story was a hoax. It wasn't a hoax; it was true.
  Doctors are being threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs, 
an issue that will only get worse if we pass the legislation that 
Republicans have brought to the floor.
  We already know that there have been repeated attempts to restrict 
mifepristone. Just last week, a judge allowed Idaho, Kansas, and 
Missouri to proceed with their lawsuit challenging FDA approval of the 
drug, which is safely used in 90 countries.
  This is our reality right now, but it doesn't have to be our future. 
I call on our colleagues to join us in codifying Roe v. Wade into law. 
And simply because someone may have different views--I know many people 
in my own family who may be pro-life, but they don't believe that their 
views for what they would do in their personal life would apply to 
other people--and certainly not people--women--who at the very end of a 
pregnancy, something they have been so looking forward to, having a 
baby, have to have the Federal Government intervene and tell the doctor 
that we can't do this or she can't do that.
  This isn't about politics. This isn't about red States and blue 
States. People across the country are on our side on this, and we ask 
our colleagues to vote with us and reject this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues on 
the floor today in opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor 
Protection Act.
  If you are wondering whether that title to a legislation makes sense, 
the answer is, no, it does not. This legislation is simply a blatant 
attempt to interfere with evidence-based patient care and medical 
practices while enshrining lies about abortion care.
  My Republican colleagues spent the last 4 years calling Democrats 
alarmists. But here they are aggressively pursuing legislation that 
would persecute providers for doing their jobs and making a tragic 
situation for families even worse. Medical professionals are and have 
always been required by law to provide infants high-quality care from 
the moment they are born.
  There is absolutely no evidence that this law is being broken. To 
suggest otherwise is deeply offensive and dangerous. For any family--
all of us know families, if they are not our own--learning their child 
will be stillborn or not survive beyond birth is a profound loss, 
deeply grief-stricken.
  This legislation would deepen that loss. It would remove any control 
a woman may have over her pregnancy and force the family to endure 
unnecessary and unethical medical overreach at the hands of 
politicians--that is right, at the hands of politicians, not medical 
personnel.
  The bill would force physicians to provide invasive and hopeless 
measures, which are both medically and ethically inappropriate in these 
situations. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislative effort.
  Let's listen to the doctors, the scientists, the professionals, 
rather than trying to ``message bill'' an anti-scientific, anti-medical 
science stand.
  We have seen now how overturning Roe has emboldened Republicans 
across the United States and in this very Chamber to make policy based 
on their own personal beliefs instead of evidence-based practices. This 
legislation is just another opportunity for Republicans to stand on 
their soapbox and lie to the American people.
  It also creates fear and apprehension on the part of people across 
the country. These policies actively harm families. Pretending 
otherwise is a slap in the face to those who voted for all of us and 
you, in particular.
  Let me close by invoking the spirit of Cecile Richards, after losing 
her just yesterday. She was a giant. She modeled guts and grit and 
public service, showing courage and fortitude beyond words as a 
champion of women's reproductive freedom. I will always remember her 
smile, her fierce determination, her endless energy. They will be with 
me always, and they inspire me to say today to my Republican 
colleagues: Please leave alone the women who deserve doctor's care and 
that care alone, not our interference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
strong opposition to Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill.
  I want to commend Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done 
so much good work on this. This is not the first time the Senate has 
debated this bill on the Senate floor, and I doubt it will be the last.
  Republicans claim this legislation will protect women and children. 
The foundation of this Republican bill is that babies are forced to go 
without basic medical care after they are born. This is a disgusting, 
stomach-churning lie that is pedaled to fearmonger the American people.
  No child born alive in the United States is denied the healthcare 
they need to survive. It is already illegal to do so. In reality, what 
this bill does is turn what is already an impossibly difficult 
situation for countless expecting parents into a living hell.

[[Page S274]]

  Imagine you and your spouse get the good news that you are expecting. 
You are over the Moon until a few months later when you get the worst 
news you could possibly imagine receiving during pregnancy. For reasons 
out of your control, your baby has developed a terminal medical 
condition and will not survive once they are born. On top of that, to 
force the mother to continue carrying the baby to term would most 
likely be deadly for her.
  Many women and couples are all too familiar with the gut-wrenching 
decisions that come next. What a statement about Republican priorities 
that this is one of the first pieces of legislation brought to the 
Senate floor just a few hours after Donald Trump was sworn into office.
  Republicans talk a big game about being ``pro-life'' and being the 
party of family values. Their actions show reality couldn't be any 
further from the truth. For example, the Republicans recently blocked a 
bipartisan expansion of the child tax credit that would have really 
helped to lift kids out of poverty. Now they are gearing up to cut food 
stamps so kids go hungry. They put Medicaid and health insurance for 
millions of children on the chopping block.
  If Republicans really care about helping women and children, they 
would be using their new-found majority to vote on legislation that 
cuts housing and childcare costs or grocery bills and keep moms safe.
  Let me close this way, Mr. President, and colleagues. This deeply 
flawed Republican Born-Alive bill is the real Republican agenda on full 
display. While Republicans are full steam ahead with their crusade 
against reproductive freedom, all my colleagues who are here today, led 
by Senator Murray, are focused on fighting inflation, bringing down 
costs, getting to work for working families. I am proud to be 
associated with their efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today 
because I strongly oppose this legislation. I oppose it because it 
would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. And 
I oppose it because it would pose unnecessary and harmful obstacles to 
a woman's right--to all women's right to make our own decisions about 
our own reproductive health.
  This legislation has one purpose, and that is to make safe abortion 
services even more inaccessible by intimidating doctors with the threat 
of criminal liability. This is fearmongering at its finest.
  And by choosing to focus on this bill during President Trump's first 
week in office, some Republicans--and I say some because they don't all 
support this bill--are choosing to politicize a family's problem 
instead of focusing on making life easier, more affordable, and better 
for all Americans, which President Trump promised when he was 
campaigning when he said he wasn't interested in a Federal law that 
would outlaw abortions.
  Abortions performed later in pregnancy are rare, and they are done as 
the result of fatal diagnoses for the fetus, the mother, or both. These 
are tragic, heartbreaking situations that no one--I am going to repeat 
that--that no one wants. And by inserting new uncertainty and risk of 
criminal liability into the process, this legislation only further 
increases the risk that a woman will not be able to get the medical 
care that she needs.
  This bill ignores these important realities in hopes of scoring 
political points with anti-choice factions.
  And the timing is done deliberately because many of those groups are 
going to be here in Washington on Friday. So we should see this bill 
for what it is. It is a political stunt.
  Again and again, at every turn, some Republicans and the Trump 
administration have pushed forward dangerous policies intended to 
threaten access to abortion care. I think it is just shameful. They 
should be ashamed of themselves. This bill is just another battle in a 
long line of attacks on the ongoing war on women's health.
  Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and defend women's 
healthcare, make certain that abortions are safe and legal. And we know 
that banning abortions doesn't actually stop them. You just make them 
more dangerous for women. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation and its consideration on the Senate floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in opposing 
this legislation that is the Republican Party's latest effort to take 
away a woman's fundamental freedom to make her own healthcare decisions 
and take away a family's fundamental right to navigate heartbreaking 
and complex health decisions without government interference.
  I come from the ``Live Free or Die'' State. Granite Staters and 
Americans love freedom. Our country's promise is that freedom belongs 
to everyone.
  But today, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. 
Wade and the extreme actions by Republican legislatures in some States, 
women in America are not free. In a sense, this legislation that we are 
debating right now is disconnected from reality. This bill ignores a 
pretty basic fact: Infanticide is illegal in every corner of this 
country.
  The claim that this legislation will save lives is disingenuous, and 
the assumption underlying this bill that an expectant mother would seek 
an abortion after months of pregnancy for anything but the most dire of 
reasons shows a deliberate willingness to ignore the realities of 
women's health.
  So here are the facts. All that this legislation will do is make it 
harder for doctors to perform lifesaving care for their patients. And 
it will make it harder for families to make the best healthcare 
decisions for themselves in moments of great heartbreak as they face 
the final moments of a desired pregnancy or the final moments of a 
terminally ill newborn's life.
  It is also remarkable that this is among the first pieces of 
legislation that the Republicans have brought to the floor since the 
inauguration of the new President. This is, of course, legislation in 
search of a problem. But it is not in search of a motive.
  Some of my colleagues have decided that rather than address the most 
pressing issues facing the American people, they will, instead, push 
legislation to curtail the freedom of women--just the latest in their 
long line of effort since Roe was overturned to take away more and more 
freedom from half of the population.
  I am willing and eager to work with my colleagues to tackle the 
greatest challenges facing our country. That is what our constituents 
expect and deserve of us and something that this bill so clearly fails 
to do. This legislation will not bring down the price of groceries, nor 
will it reduce rents or do anything to make it easier for families to 
make ends meet. But it will make life harder for expectant mothers 
facing a painful choice.
  It won't make healthcare more affordable, though it provides that 
doctors can be put in jail for providing care for their patients. It 
won't keep our children safe from crime or fentanyl traffickers, though 
it will make our daughters less free.
  This legislation, in short, does nothing to address any of the great 
challenges that America faces. It seeks only to deny and diminish the 
freedom of our fellow Americans.
  But this is what some of our colleagues have decided to focus on 
during the first full day of the new administration. Across our 
country, in red States and blue alike, in the distant corners of the 
land of the free, there is no great clamor to further limit freedom; 
there is no great clamor to have Members of Congress substitute their 
judgment for that of a woman's, her doctor's, and her family's. But you 
wouldn't know it if you follow the action of the Senate majority today.
  We cannot lose sight of what this debate is ultimately about. At the 
center of this debate is a very simple question: Do we believe in the 
promise of our Declaration of Independence that we all are created 
equal? Do we believe that freedom belongs to everyone? And do we 
believe that women deserve to be free and equal citizens in the United 
States of America?
  This is America, the world's greatest democracy. Here, women should 
not be second-class citizens. In this country, each of us is supposed 
to have the freedom to chart our own future. We know

[[Page S275]]

well that that freedom includes the freedom to make personal, private 
decisions that others may disagree with.
  Our commitment to putting freedom first is part of what makes America 
different. Indeed, that is what makes us exceptional. The American 
people understand freedom's importance. Their leaders should remember 
it too. The American people have not asked for the extreme agenda that 
this legislation represents. They haven't asked the majority to further 
restrict their freedom.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people, to put aside 
this partisan agenda, and to get to work on tackling the challenges 
that are facing our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this 
deceptively named Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
  Tomorrow is the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that 
guaranteed fundamental rights to choose abortion before that right was 
stripped away. Now reproductive freedom is under attack in multiple 
States. Over a dozen States have passed abortion bans, and several 
pregnant women in Georgia and Texas have died because they could not 
access safe abortions. In some States, patients don't have access to 
legal abortion care even after they have been raped. Multiple States 
are currently suing to restrict access to even medication for abortion.
  We don't yet know how the new administration is going to handle 
Federal protections for pregnant women in medical emergencies. The new 
administration, yesterday, took down a government website that offered 
just information about reproductive care. This was one of the top 
priorities yesterday of this administration on day one--taking down 
that website.
  Instead of working to resolve any of the serious, real challenges, my 
colleagues are trying to force a vote on something that is completely 
unnecessary. It is already illegal to kill a child who is born alive in 
this country. I was a Member of the Senate when we passed, in 2002, the 
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to ensure that all infants have legal 
protections.
  The so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, as my colleague from 
New Hampshire just said, is legislation in search of a problem. It is 
deliberately misleading and offensive to pregnant people and to their 
healthcare providers.
  It is incredibly heartbreaking--these scenarios--where a baby is born 
with a fatal diagnosis, and the baby's parents must want to spend those 
precious moments holding and saying goodbye to their child, but under 
these extreme ideas, doctors would have to perform aggressive medical 
care that would only prolong a family's suffering.
  We need to honor that these are medical decisions left to the woman, 
her physician, and to her family. We trust that doctors and nurses know 
how to carry this out. We want to honor these--not politicians, not 
lawyers--so I will be voting against this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  We also need to make sure that here in the Senate, as my colleague 
said, we are working to lower costs. We need to make sure that they 
don't try to cut Medicare or food assistance or the neediest of issues 
for young families who are being impacted. Healthcare in the United 
States needs to be strengthened; drug costs need to be lowered; and we 
need to help and protect working families.
  I thank my colleagues for being here today.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________