[Pages S283-S299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Resumed

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 6, which the clerk
will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 4, S. 6, a bill to amend
title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care
practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of
care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or
attempted abortion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

52nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in early February 1972, when abortion
was not the issue it is today and probably after California had changed
its abortion laws under then-Governor Reagan, the Iowa Legislature
considered repealing Iowa's law about abortion. I cast my first vote in
that assembly. That year, our abortion law stayed in place on a vote of
44 to 44. Then, 1 year later, everything changed.
Today marks the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I invite my
colleagues to a moment of silence and somber reflection to honor the
millions of lives quietly lost to abortion since 1973.
(Moment of silence.)
I also invite my colleagues to share my heartfelt hope in this new
era we are in following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court
decision. Since then, we have witnessed the American people, in their
respective States, reempowered to protect lives in the womb.
These young lives are precious, vulnerable, and equal in worth to
each of our own who are here today and millions throughout this
country.
I recall with joy the moments that I learned that I was a father, a
grandfather, and now a great-grandfather. I am amazed at how technology
has changed over time to reveal the humanity of the unborn ever more
clearly.
Through ultrasound imaging, I saw my grandchildren and great-
grandchildren in the early stages of their development. These
ultrasound photos show how similar these little ones are to you and to
me. Their hands and feet were tiny, yet indistinguishable from mine. We
are all part of the same human family.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 119th Congress to
continue to support mothers, babies, and families through commonsense
legislation.

Iowa Legislature

Mr. President, I would like to proudly say that, 10 days ago, I had
the opportunity to see a great-granddaughter, Reagan Grassley, open the
Iowa legislative session. Her father, Pat Grassley, is the speaker of
the Iowa House.
I have had a chance, in his 6 years of being speaker, to see Reagan
Grassley, now only a freshman at Dike-New Hartford High School, give
the opening prayer at each one of those opening sessions.
And I would like to repeat for my colleagues her prayer:

Heavenly Father, we gather today with hearts full of
gratitude and hope as we celebrate the commencement of the
91st General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature. We thank You
for the trust placed in these new and returning lawmakers by
the people of Iowa.
Lord, we ask for Your wisdom to be upon each legislator.
Grant them clear thinking in their decisions, clarity in
their thoughts, and integrity in their actions. May they be
guided by the principles of justice, compassion, and truth as
they navigate the difficulties of lawmaking.
Bless them with the courage to uphold what is right, even
when it is not easy. Gift them with patience and perseverance
to address the pressing issues of our time.
We also pray for their families, that they find support and
strength in each other as they share in the sacrifices and
challenges that come with public service.
Lord, let this assembly be an inspiration of good
governance, where every decision made

[[Page S284]]

reflects a commitment to the welfare of all Iowans, now and
for generations to come.
In Your name, we pray.
Amen.

So you can see why I am proud of that granddaughter doing that from
sixth grade now to a freshman in high school.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The majority leader is recognized.

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will proceed to a
vote on whether to move to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection
Act.
It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an
attempted abortion must be given the same protection and medical care
that any other newborn baby would be given. That is it. A baby born
alive after an attempted abortion must be given the same protection and
medical care that any other newborn baby would be given.
This shouldn't be a controversial bill. We should all be able to
agree that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be
protected. And yet I fully expect that, later today, my Democratic
colleagues will vote no on this legislation.
They will vote against protection for a living, breathing newborn
baby simply because that child has been born alive after an attempted
abortion.
Now, why are they going to vote like that? After all, I think most
Democrats would still claim to oppose infanticide, even if the moral
line, at times, appears to be slipping. Yet Democrats are going to vote
against legislation to provide appropriate medical care to living,
breathing newborn children.
I am sure they will offer some vague justifications for their
opposition, like keeping the decision between a woman and her doctor,
even when the decision we are talking about is denying a child
appropriate medical care.
But I think it is safe to say that what it all boils down to is this:
Democrats will oppose legislation to provide appropriate medical care
to newborn children who survive abortions because they are afraid.
They are afraid if they recognize the humanity of a living, breathing
born baby in an abortion clinic, they might end up pointing to the
humanity of the unborn baby in the abortion clinic. That is what this
boils down to. Democrats are afraid that by recognizing the humanity of
the newly born child, they will inadvertently point to the humanity of
the unborn child.
I do understand where they are coming from. After all, once you
recognize the humanity of the newly born baby, it gets a little harder
to say that that child wasn't human just a few minutes ago simply
because he or she wasn't yet born.
So because there is nothing more important to Democrats than
abortion, they will vote against legislation to provide appropriate
medical care to babies born alive in an abortion clinic, just in case
such a law ends up jeopardizing their cherished ``right'' to an
abortion.
I think this should make Democrats--frankly, it should make all of
us--think.
When the supposed right to kill unborn babies starts motivating you
to vote against protections for born babies, perhaps you should start
questioning the whole abortion project, because if there is one thing
the controversy over this bill demonstrates, it is this: Once you start
denying the humanity of some groups of human beings, once you start
saying some human beings' lives aren't worth as much as other human
beings' lives, you jeopardize respect for all human lives.
And so we now find ourselves at a point where nearly 50 percent of
the U.S. Senate is unable to clearly state the humanity and value of
the born child, where nearly 50 percent of the U.S. Senate is going to
vote against protection not just for unborn children but for born
babies as well.
I have to say, this is a disturbing place that we have gotten to, and
I hope--I sincerely hope--it will lead us to reflect on what a lack of
respect for unborn children's lives has cost us.
Mr. President, we are better than this.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I pray for a day when we fully live up to that promise and when the
right to life of every human being, born and unborn, is respected.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The Democratic leader is recognized.

Trump Administration

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, Donald Trump made a lot of promises
on what he would get done on day one. Well, today is day three of
Donald Trump's Presidency. Nothing Donald Trump has done will help
lower grocery prices. Nothing Donald Trump has done will lower
prescription drug costs. Instead, President Trump's biggest
accomplishment to date has been to issue unconditional pardons to 1,500
lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol.
Why on Earth is the President already spending so much time focused
on the past, focused on his grievances, instead of focused on costs and
jobs and improving healthcare for the American people? The American
people have to wonder, how on Earth will pardoning January 6 rioters
help me pay for food at the grocery store, help me get a lower cost for
buying a home, or help me save more money for my retirement? How on
Earth will Americans feel safer if the President rewards lawbreakers
who assault police officers by setting these criminals free?
So much for focusing on lowering prices.
Pardoning lawless rioters is not what the American people signed up
for when they voted for Donald Trump. They wanted the President to get
to work quickly on issues that impact them--costs, safety, healthcare.
The first 3 days of Donald Trump's ``golden age'' has been golden for
everyone but working Americans. It is a golden age for big
corporations. It is a golden age for pharmaceutical companies. It is a
golden age for polluters. It is a golden age for lawlessness. It is
not--not--a golden age for hard-working Americans who want their costs
reduced.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. President, on nominations, yesterday, I met with President
Trump's nominee to serve as Director of OMB, Russell Vought. I walked
into my meeting with Mr. Vought, of course, skeptical. Then I walked
out of the meeting even more deeply troubled. Of all the extremists
President Trump could have picked for OMB, he picked the godfather of
the ultraright.
Mr. Vought's goal is clear and simple: He wants to dismantle the
social safety net and starve America with the most radical budget cuts
in living memory. In the past, he has called for gutting Social
Security, gutting Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the
Department of Education. He has proposed cuts to disability payments
for retired veterans. He wants to cut SNAP benefits, raise drug
prices--all in the name of an ultraright, extremist ideology that
prioritizes the needs for the wealthy few. They want to cut the
daylights out of everything else so they can give tax cuts to the very
wealthiest in our society, who are doing quite well.
When I asked him which parts of Project 2025 he disagreed with, he
was unable to give me a single answer.
I am also deeply worried that Mr. Vought will disobey the law when it
comes to following through on congressional spending. President Trump
has already begun issuing Executive orders that jeopardize billions
upon billions in bipartisan infrastructure projects across the country.
They say this is

[[Page S285]]

temporary, but we all know how Washington works--temporary trial
balloons turn into permanent anchors.
Congress has already approved these investments. President Biden has
signed them into law. These projects help red States and blue States
and support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger
communities.
If Donald Trump does, in fact, freeze these funds now so he can
resume them and take credit down the line, people's jobs and
livelihoods would be at risk. Mr. Vought, I fear, would only enable
this unlawful behavior. In fact, Vought is one of the leading
proponents of impoundment of funds, which should be frightening not
only to those who represent blue States but also those who represent
red States where so many of the investments are going.
Mr. Vought is testifying right now before the Senate Committee on the
Budget. It is important that we build a record about the deeply harmful
plans he has for the country. It is an opportunity for Americans to see
for themselves how truly radical President Trump's second term could
well be.

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. President, under President Trump, it will be a golden age for the
anti-choice--the extreme anti-choice--movement. The bill we are voting
on today, the Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill, is as pernicious
as they come. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and
outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on
something that is already illegal.
So much of the hard right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by
people who have little or no understanding of what women go through
when they are pregnant.
The situation targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking
moments a woman could ever encounter--the agonizing choice of having to
end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. It is
moments like this where we should support women and doctors most, not
use them as political football, as this bill does so heartlessly.
Remember when Republicans claimed they would leave the issue of
choice to the States? Remember that? That is out the window. This bill
is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened, extremist anti-choice
resurgence far, far further to the right than the American people are.
Here is a message to my Republican colleagues: Today would be a great
day for Senate Republicans to do something lowering the cost of
groceries instead of attacking women's reproductive care. It would be a
great day for Senate Republicans to do something to make prescription
drugs more affordable. It would be a great day for Republicans to help
do something to help Americans trying to buy a home.
Instead of lowering costs, Senate Republicans are putting their
energy into controlling women's healthcare. This is not what the
American people signed up for.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. President, finally, on AI, yesterday, a group of AI and tech
companies announced their pledge to invest as much as $500 billion to
ramp up our Nation's AI and data center infrastructure. Of course, if
AI becomes one of the central technologies of our lives, as is
expected, we must build the capacity to support that demand, no
question about it. But already President Trump is tying himself into
knots and talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he
goes on about how we need more power, we need more electricity to meet
the demands of AI, and then on the other hand, he spent his first day
in office proposing Executive orders that cut clean energy investments,
halting wind and solar and putting those jobs at risk.
These AI data centers will depend on more clean energy production and
transmission, and cutting clean energy will cut a good chunk of the new
energy that is about to come on board. So for President Trump to cut
clean energy investments is tantamount to cutting AI's potential. One
hand doesn't seem to know what the other hand is doing.
If President Trump wants to help AI's growth instead of hurt it, he
should revoke his promise to kill the clean energy jobs we are going to
need to support America's energy needs.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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 majority whip.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday, I had a chance to meet with
President Trump at the White House. I shared with him that his nominees
are receiving strong support here in the U.S. Senate, and I assured
President Trump that Republicans in the Senate are committed to working
around the clock to confirm his nominees.
To put this into perspective, yesterday, President Trump invited
several of us to travel with him later this week. He is going to be
going to North Carolina, as well as Los Angeles, to see the impact of
the disasters and the devastation in both places. Well, we thanked him
for the invitation and told him that we have pressing responsibilities
right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, because we are prepared to
work late into the night and long weekends if Democrats choose to
deliberately delay the votes on his Cabinet, as it appears they are
doing right now. So that is exactly what we are planning to do--
continue to work to get these individuals, who are strong and tough,
confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Last night, what we saw here in this body was Democrats decided to
stall the confirmation of John Ratcliffe. Mr. Ratcliffe is President
Trump's nominee to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The
nomination is supported completely--bipartisan. Actually, his specific
nomination was voted 14 in favor to only 3 against in the committee,
the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. Senate. But last night, here in
this body, Democrats chose last-minute obstruction. They are just going
to slow it down anyway, even though he has been supported out of the
Intelligence Committee, bipartisan, 14 to 3. What they are doing is
shameful. Our world is far too dangerous to delay confirming the head
of the CIA.
So I hope my Democrat colleagues don't have plans for the weekend
because I guarantee you the Senate is going to be here in Washington
voting to confirm President Trump's nominees. So get ready for some
long nights, long hours, day after day after day. We are going to be
here Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, if we have to. We are ready to
work around the clock, and we mean it.
That is what Americans voted for. According to a recent FOX poll, 78
percent of Americans say Democrats should work with President Trump.
The American people elected President Trump to change Washington, to
get the country back on track. They voted for common sense, and
President Trump is a commonsense President.
President Trump has proposed an agenda that is popular. It is
optimistic, and it is unifying. And he has chosen a strong team to work
with him.
President Trump has built, I would say, a Cabinet that is not
business as usual. His nominees are motivated. They are qualified, and
they are committed to Americans' safety and prosperity.
They are going to work aggressively--aggressively--to address the
challenges of high prices, of open borders, of crime, and of what we
have seen in the last administration, which was an America-last energy
policy. Oh, they are ready to go after the burdensome regulations that
face people all across the country.
You know, hours after President Trump was sworn in, Senators voted
unanimously to confirm Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State.
This week, we have more nominees to consider. And, as the Senate
exercises our constitutional duty, we should remember a few facts:
First, let's compare this to President Obama, who had seven Cabinet
nominees confirmed on his very first day in office.
Second, the current Democrat leader at that podium moved quickly to
confirm President Biden's nominees, and he said that swift confirmation
votes, he said, are ``traditional for a new President.''

[[Page S286]]

Third, Democrats are actually supporting many of President Trump's
nominees in the committees. That proves that--well, it proves what we
already know: that these nominees, in addition to being bold, have
bipartisan support.
All but two Democrats voted with every Republican to support Kristi
Noem after her hearings in the Homeland Security Committee. She has
been nominated by President Trump to be the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Her vote was 13 to 2.
Several Democrats also voted to support Scott Bessent, who is
President Trump's nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Let me remind my colleagues what Democrats have said about President
Trump's nominees.
Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin introduced Sean Duffy for his
hearing when he was nominated by the President to be the Secretary of
Transportation. What Senator Baldwin said was a glowing comment. She
said Sean Duffy ``is the right guy to help deliver for Wisconsin
families, businesses, and workers.''
Our colleague John Hickenlooper of Colorado introduced Chris Wright
at the hearing to be Secretary of Energy. Senator Hickenlooper said
this: Mr. Wright is ``a scientist who has invested his life around
energy.''
Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona said Lee Zeldin is ``a qualified
candidate to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.''
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico said Doug Burgum, current
Governor of North Dakota, is ``a talented nominee'' to lead the
Department of the Interior.
I think we should pay attention to those comments. Democrats know
that President Trump's nominees are ready to get on the job and are
qualified to do the work.
Yes, the Senate should give advice and consent. That is an obligation
we have. But disgruntled Democrats should not use the Senate's
constitutional power as an excuse to delay and deny.
Americans want results. That is what they voted for in November. They
did not vote for resistance. They want to get this country back on
track.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.

Nomination of Kashyap Patel

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I met with Kash Patel,
President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
We all know the FBI. It plays a critical role in keeping America safe
from terrorism, violent crime, and other threats. The person who is in
charge of our Nation's leading law enforcement organization, the FBI,
should be someone who is nonpartisan, solid, reliable, with a
demonstrated skill in law enforcement.
We were reminded of this on 9/11, that the FBI is the leading Agency
that we, in America, rely on to keep us safe. The 30,000 professionals
at the FBI have the skills and resources to do the job. They deserve a
leader who understands the gravity of their mission.
After meeting with Kash Patel, I have grave concerns about his
fitness for the role of FBI Director. Mr. Patel has neither the
experience, the temperament, nor the judgment to lead the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. He is a staunch political loyalist who has
repeatedly peddled false conspiracy theories and threatened to
retaliate against those who have slighted him personally and
politically.

Start with January 6. I was here in the Senate that day. I will
always be grateful to the U.S. Capitol Police and DC police officers
who defended everyone who works in this building from an angry mob that
was egged on by President Trump. You have seen the videos. You know
what I am talking about. But Kash Patel, the man who claims he should
lead the FBI, actually says the FBI ``was planning January 6 for a
year''--``planning January 6,'' the FBI.
And he posted on social media: ``Jan. 6 never an insurrection.'' Then
he said: ``Cowards in uniform'' exposed.
Let me say those words again: ``Cowards in uniform.'' That is what
Mr. Patel said. I asked him about that statement in my office
yesterday. He couldn't explain it. Who were these so-called cowards in
uniform when the mob stormed the Capitol Building on January 6? Who
were these people? Were they the Capitol Hill police and the DC police
Officers who literally risked their lives to protect us and the Vice
President?
In light of the deaths and serious injuries they faced, Mr. Patel
should not even suggest the possibility that these were cowardly acts.
These were acts of bravery and courage. Many of them risked their lives
for us, as they do every single day.
To the people who have gathered in the balcony here to observe the
Senate in session, to the thousands of visitors to this building, look
around you. Quietly standing guard are men and women in uniform,
Capitol Hill police, who are ready to step in and protect you if
necessary. On January 6, they did it at a great cost.
So what are Mr. Patel's plans for the FBI, who he said was actually
planning January 6? He said he wants to ``shut down the F.B.I. Hoover
Building on Day 1 and reopen it the next day as a museum of the `deep
state.' ''
And he said:

We're going to come after the people in the media. . . .
We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or
civilly. . . . we're putting you all on notice.

This is the man who wants to head up the FBI, and I am quoting
exactly what he said.
He has even published an enemies list of 60 people whom he calls
``government gangsters.'' It is in writing. The playbook is there. The
list of all 60 names is spelled out in detail.
Who is included on this list of people that would be his enemies, the
so-called government gangsters? Well, members of both political parties
that Mr. Patel has identified, including former Trump administration
officials, like Defense Secretary Esper.
And then there is Bob Mueller. Bob Mueller is an extraordinary man, a
patriot, a Republican, who has been called on repeatedly to serve this
country, and he has done so willingly.
He enlisted in the Marine Corps out of college. When one of his dear
friends was killed in Vietnam, he decided that he had to serve and had
to fight too. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a lieutenant and
received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.
Even after he was injured and received a Purple Heart, he returned to
battle. He is an extraordinary person.
I came to know him a few days after 9/11, when I reached out to see
if there was anything I could do to help the FBI and its new leader,
Mr. Mueller. We struck up a friendship and a relationship over the
years. I respected him so much.
What does Mr. Kash Patel think of Bob Mueller, this man who served
our country in so many different ways? He calls him an ``utter swamp
creature.''
And then there is Paul Ryan, former Congressman from the State of
Wisconsin, former Republican Speaker of the House. I count him as a
friend--not a close friend but a casual friend, someone I like. We
didn't have a lot in common when it came to politics, but I thought he
was a good public servant, and he served our country well.
What does Kash Patel, who wants to head up the FBI, say in his book,
in writing, about Paul Ryan? ``Total failure and a coward''--Paul Ryan,
``total failure and a coward.''
Then there is GEN Mark Milley, who is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. He served our country in so many different capacities. He led
our troops in battle and distinguished himself time and time again.
What does Kash Patel say of GEN Mark Milley, who served under President
Trump's leadership? He calls him the ``kraken of the swamp''--the
``kraken of the swamp.''
Does this sound like the resume of a person who should lead the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the world's preeminent criminal
investigation Agency?
And I asked him a practical question as well: There are 30,000 people
in law enforcement in the FBI. What do you think is the morale of that
group after President Trump's pardons the other night of the people who
were involved in the January 6 violence?
Well, Mr. Patel went on to tell me that he didn't, in any way,
approve of violence against law enforcement officers.
And I asked him: Will you say that publicly, that you don't think
they should have been pardoned if they were guilty of violence against
police officers?

[[Page S287]]

He said he would have to take it up the chain of command.

Presidential Pardons

Mr. President, let me say, for a moment, we should reflect on these
pardons and the people who received them. I want to make sure I put
these details in the Record, without any question of their veracity.
Some of the people convicted of violence, on January 6, here in the
U.S. Capitol Building, who received full, complete, and unconditional
pardons from President Trump, the day he was sworn in: David Dempsey,
convicted of repeatedly assaulting police officers with pepper spray, a
metal crutch, and wooden and metal poles. ``For over one hour,
defendant David Dempsey viciously assaulted and injured police
officers,'' Federal prosecutors charged.
Metropolitan Police Department Detective Nguyen testified that after
Dempsey pepper sprayed him, he was knocked down, and ``I thought
that's, you know, where I'm going to die. And in my head, you know, I
am thinking about my family at that point before anything else.''
Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He received a full,
complete, and unconditional pardon from President Trump Monday night.
Julian Khater pleaded guilty to pepper spraying Capitol Police
Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Later that night, Sicknick
collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. He died the following day.
According to the Washington, DC, medical examiner, Sicknick's death
was due to ``natural causes''--two strokes--but ``all that transpired
played a role in his condition.''
Sicknick's mother Gladys spoke at Khater's sentencing hearing:

Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty to a deranged autocratic
ideal, and hate killed my son. And I hope you are haunted by
your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is
not enough in my eyes.

He was sentenced to 6 years in prison and received a full, complete,
and unconditional pardon Monday night.
Christian Matthew Manley pleaded guilty to assaulting police with two
cans of bear spray and throwing empty canisters at officers. Manley
then threw a metal rod at officers. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan told
Manley, at his sentencing hearing, that ``there has to be an
understanding that participating, taking up arms against law
enforcement, taking up arms to basically try and overthrow the
government, is going to be met with severe punishment.''
Manley was sentenced to more than 4 years in prison. He received a
full, complete, and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump Monday
night.
Patrick Edward McCaughey III was convicted of using a police riot
shield to ``crush'' Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a
metal door frame, leaving Hodges trapped, bleeding, and crying for
help. ``If I was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I
knew it was very likely I wouldn't be able to maintain my
consciousness,'' Hodges testified. ``Your actions on January 6 were
some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day,''
Federal Judge Trevor McFadden told McCaughey before sentencing him to 7
years in prison.

Mr. McCaughey received a full, complete and unconditional pardon from
Donald Trump on Monday.
Ryan Nichols pleaded guilty to pepper spraying police officers and
urging rioters through bullhorn to storm the building. ``This is not a
peaceful protest,'' he yelled, according to prosecutors. ``If you have
a weapon, you need to get your weapon.'' Later that night, Nichols
recorded a video of himself calling for a second American Revolution
and stating: ``If you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan
Nichols stands for violence.''
Nichols was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison and received a
full, complete, and unconditional pardon from the President Monday
night.
Christopher Quaglin was convicted at trial of ``viciously assaulting
police officers for hours,'' according to Federal prosecutors. ``On at
least a dozen occasions, Quaglin stood face-to-face with officers as he
screamed at them, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted, and
slapped officers; pushed bike racks into officers; and even choked one
officer to the ground,'' prosecutors stated. Quaglin was sentenced to
more than 12 years in prison.
He received a full, unconditional, and complete pardon from Donald
Trump on Monday night.
Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to using a stun gun and ``plunging
it'' multiple times into Police Officer Michael Fanone's neck, in the
words of prosecutors, leading Fanone to scream out in pain. ``During
those moments, I remember thinking there was a very good chance that I
would be torn apart or be shot to death with my own weapon,'' Fanone
testified to Congress. Rodriguez was sentenced to more than 12 years in
prison.
Daniel Rodriguez was given a full, complete, and unconditional pardon
from Donald Trump.
Peter Schwartz was convicted of stealing pepper spray from police
officers, distributing the canisters to other rioters and
``indiscriminately'' spraying law enforcement, according to
prosecutors. Court documents from the Justice Department described him
as ``a welder by trade and a felon who has racked up numerous
convictions from drugs, weapons, and violence over the last three
decades.''
The day after the riot, he allegedly posted on Facebook: ``What
happened yesterday was the opening of a war.'' He was referring to
January 6. ``I was there and whether people would acknowledge it or not
we are now at war.'' Schwartz was sentenced to more than 14 years in
prison.
He received a full, unconditional and complete pardon by the
President on Monday night.
These are the instances that I wanted to highlight. For those who
suggest these are just casual tourists to the Capitol, they should read
the details of the attacks these individuals made on police officers
who stood to guard us, the Vice President, and any visitors to the
Capitol that day. They risked their lives for us and the pardons from
the White House are impossible to explain under those circumstances.
I raised those with Kash Patel. I said: You want to be the head of
the largest Federal law enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. What do you think those pardons are doing to the morale
of police officers across the country?
He said he did not condone violence against police officers.
I wanted to make sure I made that clear for the record. I said: Would
you say anything publicly about that? He said: I have to take it up the
chain of command before I would say anything public.
In 1976, Congress passed a law limiting the FBI Director to a single
term of 10 years, intended to insulate this position from political
influence. But President Trump repeatedly tried to bend the FBI
Director to his political agenda. He fired his first FBI Director, Jim
Comey. He forced out his second FBI Director, Chris Wray, when he
refused to do his bidding.
Now President Trump has nominated a proven loyalist in Kash Patel. In
a 2019 meeting, Patel reportedly told President Trump, in the Oval
Office, he wanted to expand his portfolio to ensure White House
personnel were ``completely loyal to the administration.''
Loyalty of police officers on a political basis is not the basis for
sound judgment when it comes to law enforcement. We find loyal police
officers in the countries with autocratic rulers throughout our
history. We don't want that in the United States.
Mr. Patel's political grievances make him a favorite of the MAGA
world. But they have not prepared him to work night and day to keep
America safe from violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and other
threats. Mr. Patel's endless list of political grievances, well-
documented threats of retribution are disqualifying; and they are
spelled out in graphic detail in his own book, which I have read.
The FBI is a critical Agency keeping America safe. Mr. Patel is not
the person for this life-and-death assignment.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Laken Riley Act

Mrs. BRITT. Mr. President, this week marks a new start for the U.S.
Congress. After a yearlong battle over the

[[Page S288]]

Laken Riley Act, this week, we decided to put the security of the
American people first and take the next step toward ending an era of
open border policies. We passed the bill.
It is impossible to overstate just how great an achievement it is
that we came together to send the Laken Riley Act to the President's
desk. For decades, it has been almost impossible for our government to
agree on solutions for the problems at our border and within our
country. The Laken Riley Act represents perhaps the most significant
immigration enforcement bill to reach the President's desk since 1996.
It is a significant first step to protect American families and to
honor Laken Riley's life and legacy. It ensures that no family will
have to endure the heartbreak that Laken's family has had to endure.
With our Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate,
Congress is back to working for the American people once again. The
American people made their voices heard on November 5, and they told
this city that they would no longer tolerate a government that ignored
our border crisis; that they would no longer put up with open borders,
unsafe streets, and soft-on-crime policies. Congress listened, and we
have delivered, but we are not finished yet.
Monday, Inauguration Day, marked the start of a new American golden
age. With President Trump back in office and with our majorities ready
to work with him, we are headed toward creating a safer, more secure,
incredible country. The Laken Riley Act is no doubt a step in that
direction.
Now is the time to turn the page from the last 4 years, to think
about what we can do together to turn the will of the American people
into action, to do the things a government is meant to do: provide
security for its people, ensure its streets are safe, and enforce the
rule of law.
It is also a time of remembrance. It is a time to think about the
light Laken Riley shone on all of those around her, the example she set
for how to live one's faith and make a positive impact in the world. I
am so proud that we came together in this body to honor her and the
profound impact she had on everyone who knew her.
To Allyson and John Phillips, Laken's mother and stepfather, thank
you for the courage you have shown in advocating for this bill and for
Laken's legacy. We are all eternally amazed by your grace and strength
in the face of tragedy. You, like Laken, are so incredibly inspiring,
and as you so humbly said about the passage of this bill, all the glory
to God.
I would again like to thank Representative Mike Collins, who has
spearheaded it to House passage not once but twice, and I look forward
to its third and final passage today in the House.
I would also like to thank Leader Thune, who, in his very first month
as leader, took a difficult issue and moved it gracefully through the
U.S. Senate.
And a big thank-you to the rest of my colleagues here in this body
and the ones in the House for coming together, for putting partisan
differences aside to find common ground to actually achieve a result,
and for showing the American people that they can trust their elected
Representatives to listen, to understand, and to do the right thing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Nomination of John Ratcliffe

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I want to address some concerns that my
Republican colleagues have raised about my decision to insist on a 1-
day debate on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of
the CIA. Plain and simple, I think we should take some time--1 day--to
consider one of the most important, sensitive national security posts
in this new administration. I do not think it makes sense to ram
through Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination with only 120 minutes of debate, as
was the suggestion last night.
Many people here have raised serious concerns about his
qualifications. For instance, during his short tenure as Director of
National Intelligence, Mr. Ratcliffe showed a very troubling propensity
to play politics with sensitive intelligence. Most notoriously, just 1
month before the 2020 election, on the day of the debate between Donald
Trump and Joe Biden, Mr. Ratcliffe chose to declassify a cherry-picked
CIA memo from 4 years earlier that outlined Russian claims that Hillary
Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia's hack of the DNC so
that Trump could use that in the debate. These were unverified Russian
intelligence claims. Mr. Ratcliffe's decision went against explicit
warnings by CIA personnel that its release would put in jeopardy CIA
sources, methods, and personnel, but he did it anyway on the day of the
debate, a month before the election, because its release would help
Donald Trump's reelection campaign.
Now, it is true that during this day of debate we are having before
we vote likely tomorrow, Senators may not be coming to the floor to
give lengthy speeches on Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination, but this debate
time--this day--gives all of my colleagues the time to carefully review
the record and consider whether Mr. Ratcliffe is qualified. Maybe
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have had the time to do a
full study, but the full Senate has not. So it is not too much to ask,
given the very real concerns about this nominee's politicization of
intelligence, for us to take a day--not a week, not 2 weeks; a day--for
Senators to take the time to consider the record.
But I want to make a broader point. I hear Republicans claiming that
my decision to ask for 1 day of debate on a controversial nominee to
lead the CIA somehow compromises our national security, so let me say
this: Spare me. Two days ago, President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500
rioters--including the most violent rioters--who stormed this building
4 years ago, brutally beat law enforcement over the head with poles,
tried to crush the heads of Capitol Police officers, and walked around
here with zip ties, looking to do God knows what to any Democratic
Congressmen or Senators they found. They assembled a gallows and a
noose outside the Capitol to chants of ``Hang Mike Pence.'' All of my
Republican colleagues were here when a Capitol Police officer burst
through that door to rush us to safety before the mob attacked us.
Republicans all of a sudden claim that law and order is a priority
and we have to rush through nominees, and yet they stand by a President
who just threw law and order out the window by pardoning not some of
the rioters but all of them.
Political violence in this country just became mainstream. It is now
a fact of life in America. If you commit an act of horrific violence in
the name of the President of the United States, that President will
make sure you get away with it. That is fundamentally un-American, and
it makes this country less safe.
Let me guarantee you, a 1-day delay, a 1-day debate on the
confirmation of the CIA Director does no damage to our Nation's
security compared to the decision to pardon every single January 6
rioter charged and convicted of crimes and let out of jail--some of the
most violent rioters. Just to hammer home the point, if you don't
believe me, let me explain to you who Donald Trump let out of jail
yesterday.
This is David Dempsey. He gave an interview in front of the gallows
that had been built and fitted with a noose. He said he was at the
Capitol that day, January 6, because Nancy Pelosi, James Comey, the
Obamas, and the Clintons ``need to hang.''
At the Capitol, he climbed to the front of the mob and immediately
began attacking law enforcement officers who were trying to protect us.
He used his hands, his feet, flag poles, crutches, broken pieces of
furniture, and anything else he could find as a weapon to attack police
officers.
At around 4 p.m. that day, Dempsey pepper-sprayed DC detective Phuson
Nguyen as another rioter yanked off the detective's gas mask. The spray
burned Detective Nguyen's lungs, throat, and eyes. It left him gasping
for breath, fearing that he might lose consciousness and be overwhelmed
by the mob.
Moments later, because Dempsey wasn't done, he hit Sergeant Jason
Mastony over the head with a metal crutch. He struck him with so much
force that it cracked the shield of his gas mask, causing Sergeant
Mastony to collapse as his ears started ringing.
Dempsey wasn't done, though. He was thorough. He was vicious. He kept

[[Page S289]]

going. He sprayed chemical agents at officers. He stomped on their
heads. He hit them repeatedly with metal and wooden poles.
Dempsey's violence reached such extremes that at one point, he
actually attacked another rioter who was trying to stop him.
He was sentenced by a jury of his peers to significant jail time for
his litany of brutal attacks, as anyone in this country would.
He walked out of jail last night, in the middle of his sentence
because Donald Trump pardoned him.
That is DJ Rodriguez. He didn't make any bones about what he was
coming to the Capitol to do.
The night before the insurrection, DJ Rodriguez posted on Telegram
``There will be blood. Welcome to the revolution.''
For weeks, he and members of his violent rightwing group had been
organizing and planning what they were going to do. He encouraged
members of the group to ``get a large knife,'' told them where they
could buy bear spray. He said he ``highly recommended'' to wear goggles
without breath holes and told them where they could get an axe handle.
He was preparing for war.
He began, you know, rather innocently, just spraying a fire
extinguisher at a line of officers. When that didn't work, he found a
long wooden pole to attack the officers.
He wasn't done. After 37 minutes of repeated, frantic attempts to
breach the Capitol, he finally got to the mouth of the tunnel in the
Lower West Terrace. He grabbed an officer--by the neck--and dragged him
into the mob. He takes a Taser and tases the officer in the head. The
officer screams in pain, recoils from the shock, and jerks back his
head.
Rodriguez isn't done because he wants this guy dead. He strikes him
again directly in the neck. The officer yells out. But it is over. The
officer collapses, unconscious. And another officer has to drag his
lifeless body away from the mob. The officer suffered a heart attack.
His law enforcement career is over.
Later that day, Rodriguez went to those gallows, took a picture, and
posted ``No Democrats unfortunately.''
After being convicted of beating a police officer by a jury of his
peers, DJ Rodriguez was pardoned by Donald Trump.
This is Thomas Webster. He traveled to DC ready for battle with a
bulletproof vest. He carried a large metal flag pole with him to the
riot at the Capitol. He led the charge against the police line. He
spent 8 minutes elbowing his way through the crowd so he could be at
the front of the mob. He used that pole to repeatedly attack police
officers. He slammed it so hard the metal pole broke in half. So then
he just charged directly at one officer, tackling him to the ground. He
grabbed the officer by the helmet, dragged him, and pinned him to the
ground. As Webster tried to rip off the officer's gas mask, the officer
began to struggle for breath because he was being chocked by the chin
strap. And as he gasped for air, Webster held him down on the ground,
and other rioters kicked him repeatedly.
After that, Webster was so fired up he posted a live video. He
pleaded ``Send more patriots. We need some help.''
He was convicted of all six counts in his indictment, including
assaulting a police officer, like anybody would be in this country if
they did what Thomas Webster did.
He walked out of jail in the middle of his sentence Monday night,
pardoned by Donald Trump.
So here is the message: If you beat up a police officer in this
country, you are going to jail for a long time, with one exception: You
don't go to jail if you beat the hell out of a police officer in the
service of Donald Trump. If you are engaged in violence to further
Donald Trump's political career, then you face no consequences.
What happened this week is that political violence got mainstreamed
in America. There are still a lot of radical dangerous people out there
in this world, and they now know that if they carry out violence in the
name of Donald Trump, if they beat up police officers, if they attack
Democratic officials and they are doing it to support Donald Trump,
they are likely immune.
That puts this Nation's security in jeopardy. That puts our lives in
jeopardy. And I am just going to say it: It puts Democrats' lives in
jeopardy in particular. Remember, DJ Rodriguez went to the gallows and
said ``No Democrats here unfortunately.''
Where is the broad righteous indignation from my Republican
colleagues about that? Yes, a few of my Republican colleagues have
criticized the pardons--I am thankful to them--but it is a minority. It
is a small handful. Most Senate Republicans are silent.
The wholesale endorsement of political violence is a grave national
security threat to this Nation. Having a 1-day debate on the nomination
of a CIA Director is not.
I yield the floor.
I 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.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, you might think that the person nominated
to lead our Nation's top health department, an Agency with a budget of
over $2 trillion and responsible for running everything from Medicare
to vaccine trials--you might think that that person would at least be
interested in, if not experienced in, curing diseases and promoting
public health; that they would be someone who follows science and works
to build the public's trust in it.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is none of those things.
For the first time ever, we might have a Health Secretary who has
actively fueled disease outbreaks. He has literally made a career out
of lying about the safety of basic vaccines. And it is not an
exaggeration to say lives will be lost if he is confirmed. He has cost
lives pretending to be a public health expert before, and he will do it
again at scale if he becomes the next Health Secretary.
This is not just some random dude with his buddies, kicking around
weird ideas just for the hell of it. He is a Kennedy, with an enormous
fortune, parachuting into countries to tell lies and stop people from
taking lifesaving vaccines.
In 2019, he flew to Samoa to discourage people from taking the
measles vaccine, deepening a hesitancy that was already building. And
it did work. Vaccination rates for eligible 1-year-olds--1-year-olds--
fell below 33 percent, and just 5 months later, Samoa found itself in
the middle of a measles outbreak. So 5,000 people got the measles; 83
people died--79 of them, kids. And 83 kids died because RFK, Jr.,
decided to leave the east coast of the continental United States and
fly clear across the Pacific to Samoa to tell people not to take the
measles vaccine.
This is the nominee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
In addition to spreading baseless lies about vaccines, he has also
regularly spouted all kinds of deranged ideas, including--this is a
direct quote--that COVID was ``targeted to attack Caucasians and Black
people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and
Chinese.'' He also claimed without any evidence that antidepressants
are to blame for mass shootings and that chemicals in our water are
turning our kids gay.
I don't know why this guy is going to get a single vote. This isn't
just somebody who has like a different view than me on mandatory COVID
vaccinations. There is a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree
about the conduct of the government--State, Federal, county--as it
relates to the COVID vaccine and the COVID response. In a global
pandemic, people--all of them, all of them in every State--everybody
was trying their best. And there are a lot of lessons to be learned,
including a kind of close call about whether mandatory vaccinations in
the context of COVID as it was on the down slope even worked. But we
are not talking about that; we are talking about measles, mumps,
rubella, polio.
His plans to remake the Department of Health and Human Services are
equally terrifying. He wants to revoke

[[Page S290]]

approvals for the polio and hep B vaccines for children and roll back
guidance on other vital vaccines. There is a reason that we haven't had
to think about these awful, painful diseases in a long, long time, and
it is because we vaccinated our way out of outbreaks.
He has also vowed to fire hundreds of Federal health researchers and
scientists and stop all research into infectious diseases and vaccine
development because ``[w]e're going to give infectious disease a break
for about eight years.''
``We're going to give infectious disease a break for about eight
years.''
This is as dangerous of a decision as the U.S. Senate could possibly
take. You would honestly not put him in charge of a local clinic, let
alone the country's entire health system.
Look, I get it. I come from Hawaii. A lot of my constituents hear his
critique of our food system and agree. Our food system is broken, and
people are getting sick because of it. We have subsidized the wrong
things for so long that you can find an unhealthy meal faster and
cheaper than a healthy one. Ultraprocessed foods are everywhere, and
healthy and hearty meals are harder to come by, and that has to change.
But we don't have to bring measles and mumps back in order to fix our
food system. We don't have to bring back the horrors of polio in the
name of cleansing our diet.
There are a lot of people in the Senate, including my dear friend
Senator Cory Booker, who work really hard to solve this problem with
the seriousness and the thoughtfulness that it deserves, to rein in
factory farms, to empower family farmers, to make healthy food more
readily available and affordable. We have to do all of that, but we
don't have to purchase with this idea that our food system is broken
the idea that the only way we can fix our food system is if we bring
polio back, if we bring measles back, if we bring mumps back, if we
bring rubella back.
The medical profession at its best is about helping people, and I
think about doctors like my dad, Dr. Irv Schatz, aboard a hospital
ship, the SS Hope, providing free medical care to people across Latin
America. So many like him put their lives and their careers on hold to
travel far and wide to care for the less fortunate--helping kids with
cleft palates, distributing mosquito nets, delivering babies, treating
and preventing diseases. It is hard and unglamorous and unselfish work.
It is God's work.
So it takes a special kind of person to do the exact opposite, to do
what this man did, which is fly around the planet to cause disease--to
fly around the planet to cause disease.
So, yes, this is a question of character and competence, but it is
also a question of life and death and who we want in charge making
decisions when lives are on the line. And it is our job here in the
Senate to make damn sure that we protect the public health.
I could not urge more strongly a ``no'' vote on this unqualified
nominee.
I yield the floor.
I 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.
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Pro-Life Movement

Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, the pro-life movement is about love,
compassion, dignity, and respect. Nebraska is a pro-life State, and
Nebraska has been a leader in the pro-life movement.
In 2010, Nebraska was the first State to pass a law with regard to
pain-capable fetuses and, effectively, made it so that you had a 20-
week prohibition on abortion protecting those babies after 20 weeks
because they can feel pain.
Last year, Nebraska, again, showed the Nation what we can do with the
pro-life movement. We were the first State to pass a pro-life ballot
initiative. And while doing that, we were able to prevent the pro-
abortion lobby from passing a really heinous pro-abortion ballot issue.
The pro-abortion forces ballot initiative would have essentially
enshrined in our Constitution not only the right to abortion but would
have allowed abortion up until, essentially, the moment of birth. It
was incredibly radical.
I am very proud of our State. The people of Nebraska took our current
law and kept that on the ballot and defeated the pro-abortion's very
radical ballot issue.
We have the opportunity here in the Senate to be able to continue to
uphold the dignity of unborn children. There are a couple of bills I
want to talk about. They both have the word ``abortion'' in them, but
they are really not about abortion. They are about that love and
compassion, that dignity and respect.
The first is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. In 2002, Congress
passed bipartisan legislation that said that children who survive an
abortion are to be treated as people under the law. Now, to me, that
seems a little crazy that we had to do that, but we actually passed
that. It seemed common sense that if you are born, you are a person and
protected under our laws here in the United States. Sadly, that is not
the case.
In that 2002 law, it didn't say that the child had to receive care.
So what we have seen in the abortion industry is that when there is a
botched abortion, that baby oftentimes will just be born alive but then
left to die of exposure. It is absolutely barbaric, absolutely heinous.
And that is what the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does.
It requires medical treatment to be given to those babies, so if a baby
girl is born in a botched abortion attempt, that baby girl gets the
medical attention it needs so that she can survive and grow up.
You may say this sounds ridiculous. Why wouldn't that happen? Well,
as I said, it does happen in the abortion industry.
Melissa Ohden's mother was pressured into trying to have an abortion
at a hospital in Sioux City, IA. Melissa was born alive. And thank
goodness there was a nurse there who then took her to the NICU so she
could get the medical attention so that she could survive and grow up
to be the woman she is today. Melissa was later adopted and has
contributed to our country.
That is part of what we in the pro-life movement need to do is make
sure we are defending the rights of these babies.
We have another opportunity as well. And, again, the name of the bill
has ``abortion'' in it, but it is not about abortion; it is about
protecting the dignity of unborn children. In this case, it is unborn
children who are killed in that abortion.
Just a few years ago, the remains of over 2,000 aborted babies were
discovered in a home in Indiana. Many Americans were shocked to find
out that children who are aborted are often just disposed of. Their
remains are treated like medical waste. That is just absolutely
fundamentally wrong. These babies deserve the dignity that every other
person has.
And so, in a few days, I am going to introduce the Dignity for
Aborted Children Act. What my bill will do is require the abortion
industry to treat with dignity and respect the remains of these aborted
children; that they will get the same dignity and respect as any human
being who dies.
Finally, I want to recognize that we have the March for Life coming
up on Friday. I want to say thank you to all of the marchers who are
going to be here to be able to demonstrate our movement's commitment to
love, compassion, dignity, and respect.
Your advocacy plays a critical role in making sure that we help save
the lives of all of these unborn babies.
When we talk about the most vulnerable, who could be more vulnerable
than a baby who hasn't been born yet, and we can't hear that little
girl's or little boy's voice yet? These marchers will be here to be
that voice for those little babies.
So thank you for the work you are doing to be able to continue to get
our message out about love and compassion, dignity and respect.
We need to remind all of our fellow citizens that these little babies
deserve the same protections that we all have as citizens of the United
States. It is about extending basic human rights to some of the most
vulnerable among us. I appreciate the work that all of these pro-life
advocates will be doing to be able to help carry our message out this
weekend.
Working together, we can defend life and empower women.

[[Page S291]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 52 years ago today, Roe v. Wade was
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 1 year before that, I
was a member of the Iowa Legislature, and that legislature attempted to
repeal Iowa's law of decades old. That vote in the house of
representatives was 44 to 44, so obviously that bill was not adopted,
and our ban on abortion continued for a year until Roe v. Wade. I was
one of those 44 who voted to retain the law that had been on the books
for a long period of time. Well, there has been a lot of history since
then. We are still fighting this issue.
This bill before the U.S. Senate now is a very important bill to
express what life in the womb is all about.
Dr. Willard Cates, the director of abortion surveillance at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981, referred to the
survival of a baby after an attempted abortion as the ``dreaded
complication.'' Now, I happen to call that ``dreaded complication'' a
miracle.
While it may be a troubling truth for some people to hear that, there
are babies who survive attempted abortions. In 2024, the American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology analyzed almost 14,000 late-term
abortions and found that over 11 percent resulted in live births.
However, because we lack reliable Federal and State abortion data, we
don't know the number of babies who survive an attempted abortion and
are born alive each year in the United States.
When an abortion results in the live birth of a child, that child
should be entitled to quality healthcare under the law. Tragically,
that isn't always the case.
During my time in Congress, I have heard a number of stories from
abortion survivors regarding their health struggles and the lack of
care they received following failed abortions.
Melissa Ohden, for example, was born alive in 1977 and was left to
die in a bucket of formaldehyde in a utility closet before being saved
by two nurses. She is an advocate for children who come into this world
the same way she did. Her message for moms considering abortion is
this:

There is hope for you and your child even after an
attempted abortion. You aren't alone.

While children born alive are already recognized as persons under the
law, there is not a Federal law on the books to penalize abortionists
who actively kill or passively deny care to babies who survive
abortions. These precious babies deserve justice. That is why I have
joined my colleagues in introducing the legislation that we have
entitled the ``Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.''
This legislation requires that any child born alive following an
attempted abortion receive the same level of care as any other newborn
who is born alive at the same stage of development. It doesn't and
should not matter if a child is born in a hospital, in a maternity
ward, or in an abortion clinic. In any case, this is a baby, and that
reality ought to convict each of us in our hearts and move us to
compassion and to action. Our bill would bring justice for babies who
survive abortions and are born into this world.
Under our current legal system, human lives viewed as unwanted are
treated as dispensable. No matter what each of us may think about
abortion, we must speak and vote with unity to protect children outside
of the womb.
In Congress, my colleagues and I have reached across the aisle to
protect children in many other contexts, and I ask my colleagues to do
the same here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, this is an incredibly special week
for pro-life Americans. We have welcomed back a life-affirming
administration with the second inauguration of President Donald Trump.
Both Chambers of Congress are united in our pursuit of commonsense
legislation to protect the most vulnerable Americans among us with a
vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
This Friday, we will join thousands of pro-life Americans who will
faithfully participate in the 52nd annual March for Life in our
Nation's Capital. The National March for Life always reminds us of why
we continue to fight for stronger protections for our unborn children
and for their mothers. Thankfully, the march also serves as a bright
reminder of the progress we have made as a movement.
Now, thanks to efforts led by my fellow Mississippians in the
Governor's Office, the Attorney General's Office, and in the State
legislature, we live in the Dobbs era. The entire process that brought
us to this historical overturning of Roe v. Wade almost 3 years ago
began with the introduction of a bill in the Mississippi State
Legislature called the Gestational Age Act. My dear friend
Representative Becky Currie is responsible for introducing this
legislation, which turned out to be a catalyst for such great change in
our Nation.
(The remarks of Mrs. HYDE-SMITH pertaining to the introduction of S.
Res. 30 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend and
colleague Senator Lankford from Oklahoma in organizing a colloquy here
recognizing the importance of protecting the lives of the unborn and to
bring us together today to make a statement about the importance of
standing up for the right to life.
I look forward to joining my constituents back in Texas on Saturday,
later this week, at the Texas Rally for Life, where I will be honored
to speak.
It is no mistake that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the
importance of the right to life. Life and liberty are among the
unalienable rights that have been guaranteed by our Constitution but,
more importantly, by our Creator.
Now, 3 years have passed since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v.
Wade, which was judge-made law, drawing an arbitrary line at when
abortions would be available or when they would not be available, and
excluding any kind of participation from the American people, across
this great land of ours of 330-plus million people, about what they
thought.
This decision returned the authority where it should have been in the
first place, until the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, back to the
States, because now the elected officials in the various States are
going to be accountable to their constituents at where that line is
drawn.
All the States and, thus, all the American people, through their
elected representatives and their State legislatures, have an
opportunity to weigh in. And I know that this can be a controversial
topic. It is fraught with emotion and strong feelings. But it is
important to point out that, notwithstanding where you think the line
ought to be drawn at when an abortion should be available in America,
it is the Democratic Party that is extreme and out of touch with the
American people on this issue.
Our Democratic colleagues have made clear that they support abortion
on demand--anytime, anywhere, anyplace--funded by the taxpayer, even,
up until the moment of birth and, in some instances, even after birth.
This week, we will vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors
Protection Act, which would guarantee certain basic medical care to
children who are born as a result of an unsuccessful abortion. In other
words, if they are born alive, are they left to die or are they given
the basic medical care that any infant would be given?
My Democratic colleagues are on record for saying they think medical
care is a basic human right. I heard the Senator from Vermont this
morning, in the Budget hearing, talking about a fundamental right to
healthcare. Well, now we are about to see whether they will vote to
deny basic medical care to infants who survive abortions. If there is a
basic right to healthcare in this country, will it be afforded to the
most vulnerable of our citizens--children born alive as a result of an
unsuccessful abortion--or not?
It has been said before by many great minds that civilizations should
be measured by the way we treat our most vulnerable members. It is hard
for me to imagine anyone more vulnerable than an infant who has been
born, who

[[Page S292]]

isn't wanted by his or her parents. To deny protection to these
helpless newborns amounts to infanticide, and it is a tragedy that this
is legal in our country.
If America is to be truly great, we should, without question, be
willing to, at least, provide basic medical care to these innocent
children.
I would hope our Democratic colleagues would examine their conscience
and realize that there are more important things than politics in this
world. In the end, we all have to live with our own consciences, and I
would hope they would join us in voting for this legislation to protect
the right to life for these, our most vulnerable citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, for the past 45 minutes or so, my
colleagues have come to this floor to be able to talk about a bill that
is coming soon that we will actually vote on at the bottom of this
hour. It is a bill we have talked about for several years. It has been
debated some. It is about what happens if a child survives a botched
abortion.
Now, I am going to talk about it a little bit. I have got some other
colleagues who are going to step in, in a moment. Then I am going to
talk a little bit more about this because this seems to be an
incredibly misunderstood issue.
It is interesting. We most often talk about a botched medical
procedure--that if there is a botched medical procedure, someone dies.
This is literally the opposite--that there was a botched medical
procedure, and someone lives. The whole debate is, that botched medical
procedure that was supposed to take the life of a child ends up
actually delivering that child, and now you have a living, breathing
child crying on the table, fully viable. The question is, What do we do
now?
Yesterday, my Democratic colleagues spent an hour on the floor saying
that child should die. I disagree.
In all of our conversations about abortion--and we have various
opinions in this room, and, quite frankly, across the country. We have
various opinions about when is a child a child. Some people believe a
child is a child when they have unique DNA that is different than the
mom, different than the dad. Conception has occurred; cell division has
happened. That is, quite frankly, how science defines life, as unique,
replicating cell division. Some people believe that is a child.
Some people say: Well, it is not a child until there is a heartbeat.
Some people would say: Well, it is not a child until there is
actually a developed nervous system.
Some people would say: It is not a child until the Roe standard, that
I hear very often--that it is a viable child that could survive outside
the womb, which is about 21 weeks of gestation.
And I have a lot of my colleagues who will say: Well, I want to go
back to the Roe standard.
But I have yet to have a colleague come to me and say: I am OK with
abortion after delivery.
That is what we are talking about in this.
Now, it is an incredibly small group that we are discussing here. But
if we are talking about a common-ground issue, why wouldn't this be a
common-ground issue?
Earlier this week, we found a common-ground issue on the issue that
is very contentious in this body about immigration. We have had a wide
variety of opinions about how we do enforcement for immigration, but we
found an area to say: If a person has crossed the border, committed
multiple crimes in the United States, they should be detained.
We found bipartisan agreement on that. We don't agree on everything,
but we, at least, agreed on that one.
You realize, that is the first bill like that that we have passed in
decades--that has actually passed. It is going to be signed by the
President. We are making law on that issue where we found simple common
ground on a small, niche issue related to immigration.
Well, this is a small, niche issue on a very contentious issue about
abortion--what do we do when a child is actually delivered, instead of
destroyed in the womb, that is a viable child?
Now, some of my Democratic colleagues have said this never happens.
Well, I would love to introduce you to a friend of mine named Melissa
Ohden. When Melissa Ohden's mom was 19 years old, she was compelled by
her family to have an abortion. She had an abortion--her mom did--and
delivered that child. The child was delivered, and then, literally, the
baby was set aside into the medical waste of that procedure at the
hospital.
The nurse then, a few minutes later, as she was cleaning up after the
procedure, noticed the medical waste was crying and was breathing. So
the nurse literally scooped up this child and took the child from that
room to the emergency room, where she survived.
Folks, early on, said she would be blind or she would have a major
heart condition; she would have everything else. I wish you could meet
Melissa. She is amazing. She is fully healthy.
In fact, it was years later that she learned her adopted mom had
adopted her because her birth mom literally didn't know she still
existed. Her birth mom was never told that, actually, that abortion
``didn't work.'' That child survived.
They have since reconnected, Melissa and her birth mom--her birth
mom, with deep regret, thinking about this beautiful child in front of
her, that that life was almost destroyed. In fact, it was planned to be
destroyed.
Listen, this is not just an academic issue. This is real. Again, it
is rare, but the question is: What do we do in those rare situations?
How do we track this? How do we engage on it?
I would ask any American: If there is a child lying on the table in
an operating room, crying, what do we do then? I don't know many
Americans who would say: Kill it.
But here is what happens. In a botched abortion in America right now,
when a child is actually delivered rather than destroyed in the womb,
when literally there was a medical mistake that didn't take the life of
the child but instead delivered that child into life--when that occurs,
the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the
child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American
law in every single State to take the life of a child. But if everybody
just steps back and watches the child die, that is OK.
My Democratic colleagues came to the floor yesterday and said: This
is already illegal. Why are we even discussing this? This is already
illegal. You can't have infanticide in America.
And I would say that is correct; it is already illegal to do
infanticide. But what is still allowed is a tiny, little loophole that
if an abortion was botched, everyone can just back away and watch the
child die; they do not have to give that child medical care.
That is quite a loophole, and it is painful for me to even have to
have this conversation in a nation like ours. Of all the things that we
could talk about right now, why do we even have to discuss what to do
with a child on a table in an operating room, crying? Why is this even
a conversation?
So we are bringing a bill to the floor today to be able to fix this.
This is a bill we talked about multiple times in this body, but it
should be the absolute, easiest common-ground piece to face. Which of
us, standing in that operating room, would look at a crying child and
would say: Ignore it. If we wouldn't say it there, we shouldn't say
that here.
So I will be back in a few moments, Mr. President. I have other
colleagues who want to be able to speak to this issue, but I have some
facts and myth that I want to do side by side with some of my
Democratic colleagues who came to be able to share their perspective on
this, and I want to be able to lay some things side by side to say what
this bill actually does, not what the myth is and what is actually
being told about it.
In the meantime, I would encourage Members of this body to be able to
look up my friend Melissa Ohden. Look her up online if you want to, see
her beautiful picture, and read her story for yourself, because she is
not the only one with that same story. She is just one of many that has
that story. Just not many are willing to be able to step out and speak
knowing that their life was intended to be taken, though today, they
are still smiling and talking about the value of every single life.

[[Page S293]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today should
be really straightforward. A child who survives a failed abortion
attempt should receive lifesaving medical care. We are talking about
not an abstraction; we are talking about a living, breathing person--a
little girl or a little boy--who comes into the world after a failed
abortion. And they shouldn't just be put to the side and allowed to
die. They deserve the care that they need to survive.
Imagine if it was a week later and they were going home from the
hospital and there was a car wreck. You would rush them to the
hospital. You would do everything to help that child survive.
Once that child is born, it should be straightforward: We should be
helping the child survive. And there is no difference in the value and
dignity of a child--of a person--as to whether or not they were
originally wanted or not. Once they are born, they have that natural
right, which we all have, that is discussed in our Declaration of
Independence: our right to life, to liberty.
I am a physician, and I was trained to take the best care of a
patient regardless of the circumstances that brought them before me.
And it may have been someone that society didn't particularly care for.
It didn't matter. That is my patient. I am going to do everything I
possibly can to help that patient survive and to thrive. That should be
the ethic, and we should enshrine it into law.
But, Mr. President, I am a little struck. My Democratic colleagues
offer a variety of excuses to justify opposing this bill. This is kind
of like an inconvenient truth. Botched abortions happen.
Now, my Democratic colleagues refuse to acknowledge that
infanticide--withholding care to a baby who is born alive--is horrific
and wrong, but we do know that failed abortions occur. The Senate HELP
Committee--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--heard powerful
testimony last year from Melissa Ohden. Melissa survived an abortion
and would have been left to die if not for a courageous NICU nurse--a
neonatal intensive care unit nurse. A life that could have been wasted
now is used to advocate for those who do not have a voice.
Innocent children should not have to hope that there is a NICU nurse
like Melissa's who will do everything possible to save their life.
Mr. President, this is a vote in support of basic human decency.
Every child deserves to have a chance to live. And I urge my
colleagues, if you believe in prayer, pray on that. If you don't
believe in prayer, look at the Declaration of Independence. We are
endowed with the natural right of life and of liberty. Reflect on that.
Support this bill.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I
speak, Senator Murray speak, and then the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Murray, a
great champion of women's health, for adding her eloquence and
expertise to the debate. When it comes to the issue of choice, women's
rights, women's health, there is no greater spokesperson than she. So I
thank her. We will hear from her shortly.
Now, today's vote on the Senate Republicans' so-called Born-Alive
bill makes one thing very clear: Under President Trump, it will be a
golden age but for the extreme anti-choice movement. The bill is the
very definition of pernicious. It attacks women's healthcare using
false narratives and outright fear-mongering, and it adds more legal
risks for doctors on something that is already illegal.
So much of the hard-right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by
people who have little to no understanding of what women go through
when they are pregnant. The scenario targeted by this bill is one of
the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter: the
agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare
complications arise in pregnancy. And at that moment of agony, this
bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical
professionals and the wishes of millions of families and allows the
ultraright ideology to dictate what they do.
Women should be supported and trusted when faced with serious
pregnancy complications. This is when male politicians should step up
and support women, not use them as political footballs, as this bill so
heartlessly does.
And, if anything, this bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an
emboldened extremist, anti-choice resurgence, further to the right than
the American people are, even than most Republicans are.
Remember when Republicans said this issue would be left to the
States. Both President Trump and our Republican colleagues said: Don't
worry; we are going to leave this to the States.
That is not what this bill does. It doesn't leave it to the States.
And I think that we are going to see this over and over again where
promises made during the campaign are just broken. This one: 2 days
after Donald Trump is inaugurated as President, it is no longer left to
the States. And any promise that people made that we are going to leave
things to the women and their doctors, that is out the window with this
bill. And again, we are going to see that repeated over and over
again--not left to the States, imposed by some politicians here in
Washington on women across America, and not respecting the rights of
women and their doctors and their families.
Here is my message to my Republican colleagues: Instead of attacking
reproductive care, today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to
do something to lower the cost of groceries or prescription drugs or
helping Americans buy a home. It would also be a great day for Senate
Republicans to trust women and leave their healthcare choices up to
them, but they are not doing that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, earlier this week, we lost a friend and a
champion for reproductive rights: Cecile Richards. She helped countless
women and changed the conversation around women's health and abortion.
And I know, if she were here, she would say: The fight continues.
And that is very clear given what Republicans are choosing to focus
on today. Of all the bills that we could be voting on--lowering
healthcare costs, expanding childcare, helping our families--it is an
absolute disgrace that Republicans are spending their very first week
in power attacking women, criminalizing doctors, and lying about
abortion.
I am not going to let anyone perpetuate disgusting lies about people
who have abortions and the providers who care for them. This is not how
abortion works. Republicans know it.
All babies are already protected under the law, regardless of the
circumstance of their birth. Doctors already have a legal obligation to
provide appropriate medical care, and we already know this sham bill
from Republicans is not going anywhere. We have been here before.
The last time we voted down this bill, I actually spoke about
something Republicans refuse to acknowledge in this debate: the
struggles--the struggles of a pregnant woman who has received tragic
news that her baby had a fatal medical condition and would not be able
to survive and who are able to make the choice that was right for their
family.
But now, here we are, already hearing stories of women who were
denied that choice now by extreme Republican abortion bans.
Can you imagine what it is like to go for months pregnant with a baby
that 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 to be that woman and fight back tears as
you try to decide whether to nod politely somehow or explain that,
actually, your world is falling apart--I can't imagine that, but it
happens--and all the while you know you have to go through this against
your will because some politician decided that they knew better than
you and your family and your doctor.

[[Page S294]]

Now, Republicans have a bill today to take that issue nationwide.
That is what we are voting on. That is their top priority now that
Trump is in office. Shame on them.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, in just a few moments, this body will
vote on a bill that actually doesn't limit abortion at all. It doesn't
slow down one abortion. It doesn't stop one woman from choosing to have
an abortion. It doesn't have a nationwide ban on abortion. In fact,
this is a bill about what happens after an abortion.
What is unique about this bill is it is asking a pretty simple
question that seems like it would be a common ground issue for us, if
there is, in this case, a medical mistake that didn't take a life, we
normally think about a medical mistake that takes a life. But in this
case, if there was a medical mistake that actually protected a life,
what happens?
This doesn't limit one single abortion in America, though many people
in this body know me well enough to know I would love to protect more
children in America. This bill just asks a simple question: If an
abortion is botched and the child is delivered instead of destroyed in
the womb and the child is alive and viable on the table, what happens
next?
Current medical practice is everyone in the room just backs away, and
you allow the child to die on the table. I don't think that is what
most Americans would want. I think most Americans would say: Hey, I
have got boundaries on the issue of abortion and definitely fully born
is a boundary.
Now, it has been interesting, I have listened to the debate yesterday
and today from my Democratic colleagues, many of them friends, we have
a real disagreement on this. This is not extreme--as I have heard it
described, an extreme, rightwing proposal about abortion.
I just don't think if I pulled 100 people off the street and said:
Hey, if a child is alive and screaming on the table after birth, what
do you think we should do? I bet 100 out of 100 of them would say we
should probably give them medical care. I just don't think that is
extreme or out of the main thought in America.
I think that is just who Americans are. We are compassionate people;
that when we see a baby and look in their face, we don't say ignore
them; we say let's provide some care.
I have heard some of my colleagues say that we should respect the
rights of women in this. By the way, I think one of those women should
be that little girl that is born who is lying on the table right there
crying. I think she should get some compassion and respect as well
because a decision is being made at this point about what to do. And it
is not a theory.
Several of my colleagues yesterday have used terms during this debate
like this is ``myth-based fearmongering.'' That was my favorite one.
``Republicans are talking about stories that do not happen'' was also
expressed by another one of my colleagues.
This one was just a little more blunt. One of my colleagues just came
to the floor and said: ``Republicans are lying.'' Well, here is what
really happened. Let me give you a status. This doesn't happen very
often at all. Thankfully, this is rare, but the CDC does some tracking,
and there are, quite frankly, only eight States in America that
actually keep track of this; that if there is a botched abortion, the
child is actually delivered fully alive. There are only eight States
that do it. Most States say don't. In fact, what is interesting is we
tried to be able to track which States actually keep track of this and
have some kind of instruction of what to do on healthcare on it. A few
States do; many States don't. In fact, some States, like Minnesota,
literally voted recently: We used to track reporting, but we don't even
want to know anymore if this occurs. Don't tell us if it occurs.
Of the few States, just 8, that actually track this, over a several-
year period, there were 277 cases like this where a child was actually
delivered and was alive after a botched abortion.
Now, again, that is not many, but we know from eight States in that
short time period, that that is occurring.
So, again, I go back to the basic question: What do we want to do
about that? Do we want to just ignore that or do we have a thought
about what should happen to that child?
Some of my colleagues have said this only occurs if there is a
pregnancy complication and the child was already going to die or there
was a fatal medical condition that was actually occurring. Well,
actually, that is not true in this bill. This bill is about a viable
child that was delivered late term that is now on the table alive.
I have also heard that this is going to have this massive overreach
for doctors; that they are going to be oppressed, and they are going to
be afraid to practice on this.
Actually, the bill is pretty clear on this. This still gives the
doctor the ability to use his or her professional judgment in the care
that would normally be provided to a child that is born. That is it.
The doctor may look at it and say: This child is not going to make
it. That is still a professional judgment that is there or they may
have a professional judgment that the child will make it. And as I have
mentioned on this floor before, there are adults walking around today
that survived an abortion, like Melissa Ohden and other folks that I
know personally.
So this is not something that just never occurs. So it doesn't limit
abortion. It doesn't restrict doctors. It actually does happen--
contrary to what some of my colleagues have said that this never
happens, it actually does happen on this.
I have had colleagues that have said: Infanticide is already illegal.
This is unnecessary so let's move on. This is unnecessary. Except we
have also established the issue that, yes, taking the life of that
child on the table, literally once that child is on the table crying,
they can't reach down and take the life of that child. That is Kermit
Gosnell, horrific stuff. But just allowing them to slowly die, that is
still protected. So that is not there.
One of my colleagues came to this floor and made this statement:

At the center of this debate is whether we believe in the
premise from the Declaration of Independence that all are
created equal, that freedom belongs to everyone, and that
women deserve to be treated as equal citizens.

I actually couldn't agree more with my colleague because that same
Declaration of Independence, right next to that statement about
everyone being created equal, also includes a simple little comment
that says:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And our question on this particular bill is, when that child is born
and she is crying on the table, does she have the opportunity for life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or not? That is all this bill
does. This bill should be a simple process to say this is not who we
are as Americans.
As Americans, we respect the opportunity for life for that child that
is fully delivered, and then we determine what we are going to do.
Just because a baby can't defend herself, doesn't mean she is
disposable. It means she is vulnerable, and that means we as a nation
should determine what we are going to do with the life of the most
vulnerable.
I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this. This should be a bipartisan
conversation where we speak from this body for those who cannot speak
for themselves.
I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 4, S. 6, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner
from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the
case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted
abortion.
John Thune, Steve Daines, John Kennedy, Jim Justice,
James E. Risch, Tim Sheehy, Mike Crapo, Deb Fischer,
Tommy Tuberville, Rick Scott of Florida, Pete Ricketts,
Katie Britt, Ted Budd, Roger F. Wicker, Mike Rounds,
Roger Marshall, Eric Schmitt.

[[Page S295]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 6, a bill to amend title 18, United States
Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise
the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an
abortion or attempted abortion, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--47

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Hagerty

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). On this vote, the yeas are 52, the
nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Nomination of Peter Hegseth

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Armed Services
Committee to discuss the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be our Nation's
Secretary of Defense.
Let me make two preliminary comments.
First, my philosophy about voting on nominees is to give deference to
the President who has been elected, who has a mandate that carries with
it a mandate to assemble a leadership team in executive positions, and
so I always begin, with any President, Democrat or Republican, with a
beginning standpoint that they should be able to assemble a team unless
there are significant challenges with a nominee.
Second, I do want to say that as part of the work I have done in
examining this nominee, I did review his military record, and I express
my respect for the military record. Pete Hegseth's service in the
military, in my review of those Pentagon records, suggested that he
served in a very honorable way, and I want to acknowledge that.
Yet I rise to oppose the nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose
it or at least take the time to really understand the gravity of the
behavioral challenges that have been demonstrated by Mr. Hegseth during
his career. I have multiple problems with this nominee for this
position, and this position, Secretary of Defense, is the position that
I view and many Virginians view as the most important Cabinet post. Let
me review the reasons for my opposition.
First, Mr. Hegseth's record is one of erratic, unprofessional, and
troubling behavior.
Mr. Hegseth was married twice before he was married to his current
wife, his third wife. In the first two marriages, there were
allegations in both of serious and multiple infidelities. I asked him
at the hearing, when he appeared before us, whether he took an oath of
fidelity to his spouses, and of course he did, in the same way that a
Secretary of Defense will take an oath to uphold the Constitution of
the United States, but the evidence that was before us, the public
record that was before us, is very, very troubling.
In Mr. Hegseth's first marriage, there were public reports that he
was unfaithful to his wife at least five different times with multiple
other people. He never rebutted that, and because he wouldn't meet with
members of the committee on the Democratic side, we didn't get a chance
to talk about that in a closed setting, which would have been most
important.
In his second marriage, he was married and, while married, fathered a
child by a woman who would become his third wife in August of 2017. So
he was still married to wife No. 2 and cheated on her with the woman
who would bear his child and become wife No. 3. But in a very shocking
way, to me, within 2 months after the birth of this child, he was at a
Republican political event at a hotel in Monterey, CA, and he cheated
on both his second wife and the mother of his newborn in an incident
that led to a sexual assault criminal investigation.
This behavior--look, people are people, and people make mistakes, but
a first marriage breaking up over serial infidelity and then a second
marriage also bedeviled by serial infidelity is something that has to
call up questions about an individual's judgment.
Mr. Hegseth has been the leader of two nonprofit organizations that
are veterans service organizations. In one of the organizations,
Concerned Veterans for America, during the time he was the CEO, an
employee of the organization wrote a scathing report about Mr.
Hegseth's creating a toxic work culture in this environment where
impairment by alcohol was not only exhibited by him but tolerated in
others and where there was a significant creation of a toxic work
environment for women employees.
The committee members have had access to a report that was not done
because he was nominated for Secretary of Defense; this was a report
that was done by employees and given to the leaders of this
organization at the time--now nearly 10 years ago--with about 35 names
of employees and individuals in the organization with knowledge of the
facts and recitation of event after event after event where people were
treated unfairly. Women were made to feel that they were second class
in the organization, and alcohol abuse was common at workplace events.
I referenced a sexual assault claim in Monterey, and I will call it
an undisclosed sexual assault claim because Mr. Hegseth never told the
Trump transition team about this event when he was being considered and
vetted to be Secretary of Defense.
Again, he is married to wife 2. He has now fathered a child by a
woman, being unfaithful in that wedding, and within 2 months after
fathering a child, he goes to an event in Monterey, CA, gets a woman at
the event into his hotel room, and has sex with her. She claims she was
drugged and raped and filed a criminal complaint about it with local
law enforcement within days after the event. He admits the event. He
says it was consensual--not a sexual assault, rape, but consensual--but
he acknowledges that it occurred.

What then happened is that the survivor went to local law enforcement
and filed a sexual assault claim. The claim was investigated over a
period of time. The prosecutor ultimately decided not to pursue
criminal charges against Mr. Hegseth, but there was a civil claim as
well that later led to a settlement with the victim, a payment of cash
to the victim, and the entrance into a nondisclosure agreement with the
victim.
None of this was disclosed to the Trump team as they were examining
Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. He didn't disclose the event.
He didn't disclose the criminal sexual assault claim. He didn't
disclose the fact of an investigation. He didn't disclose the civil
claim. He didn't disclose the settlement. He didn't disclose the cash
payment. He didn't disclose the nondisclosure agreement. He hid all of
it from the Trump transition team.
When I asked him why, he didn't really have an answer, and I told
him:

[[Page S296]]

I know the reason why. You were worried that if you told them about
this, they would not nominate you to be Secretary of Defense.
The relationship between a Secretary of Defense and a President is a
very important relationship that demands complete candor. There is
always some challenge. There is always something at the Pentagon that
might be going wrong. Mr. Hegseth demonstrated at a very critical
moment that he would not let the President-elect know about this fact
because he wanted to advance himself and he worried that if he was
candid, it would cause problems for him.
I don't want a Secretary of Defense who is unwilling to be candid
with the Commander in Chief, and he has already demonstrated grave
reason to doubt whether he will be candid by his refusing to disclose
the reality of this sexual assault allegation in Monterey.
An affidavit was filed yesterday by one Danielle Hegseth, the former
sister-in-law of the nominee, revealing publicly facts suggesting
spousal abuse in Mr. Hegseth's second marriage. I don't know Danielle
Hegseth. I haven't talked to her. I was not aware of that allegation.
But it didn't surprise anyone on the committee who had reviewed the
record. Why not? Because there are already facts in the record raising
this very question. In fact, I asked Mr. Hegseth about it at the Armed
Services Committee.
During his second divorce, his own mother wrote him a letter saying
essentially: You are a serial abuser of women, including your own two
wives, and you need to look in the mirror, get some help, and figure
this out. His mother even used the phrase ``neither X nor Y''--the
names of the first two wives--``deserved the treatment they have
received at your hand.''
All of the committee members had access to that before the hearing--
all of them. What an extraordinary letter--your mother writing you a
letter saying you are a serial abuser of women who needs to look in the
mirror and get help and saying that the two wives that you have abused
do not deserve the treatment they have received at your hand.
So the allegation from Danielle Hegseth yesterday in reporting her
observations of Mr. Hegseth's behavior and in particular the abuse of
her sister-in-law have to be given some credence by this committee, and
we have to avoid a rush that we may regret.
I found it very unusual that when I asked Mr. Hegseth at the hearing
if a sexual assault would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense,
he would not agree with me; if spousal abuse would be disqualifying to
be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me; if being impaired
by alcohol while on the job would be disqualifying to be Secretary of
Defense, he would not agree with me. These are not hard questions. They
are clearly disqualifying behaviors, and the fact that he would not
agree that they were disqualifying behaviors suggested to me, as I was
watching that testimony, that they evinced a little bit of a guilty
conscience. Why would I want to agree if I have concerns about my own
behavior?
What has been Mr. Hegseth's response to allegations of infidelity,
demonstrating poor judgment, the creation of a toxic work culture,
alcohol impairment while at work, this undisclosed sexual assault
claim, and the allegations of spousal abuse? What has his response
been? His response has been twofold: complete denial--complete denial--
with the exception of acknowledging that, yes, he did cheat on his wife
and the mother of a newborn child in Monterey, CA, in September 2017.
He has denied everything else even though the record is replete with
specific instances at specific times with specific individuals
attesting to these behaviors.
His other defense is to claim that all of this--all of it--is an
anonymous smear--an anonymous smear. Let me tell my colleagues: This is
anything but anonymous. When your own mother writes you a letter saying
you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, and they
don't deserve the treatment they have received at your hand, that is
not anonymous.
The report of the whistleblower at the Concerned Veterans for America
organization a decade ago is anything but anonymous. The report
listed--I counted them--incidents involving 36 named individuals who
had been either participating in, victimized by, witnessing, or aware
of the incidents described in the document.
This is not anonymous. Danielle Hegseth's public affidavit is not
anonymous.
The one thing that I will acknowledge that is in the anonymous space
is this: the number of individuals who have come forth and shared with
me and other members of the committee their own firsthand knowledge of
similar events but said you can't use my name because I am so afraid. I
am afraid of what Mr. Hegseth would do. I am afraid of what the
President might do.
I had someone say to me, when I said you needn't be afraid: That is
easy for you to say. That is easy for you to say. If the building, the
U.S. Capitol, where you work, could be attacked by people when it was
well fortified and secure, what chance would I have if someone didn't
like the fact that I publicly criticized this nominee?
So, yes, there are some who are speaking to us who are asking for
anonymity and that, if they have asked for it, they should be provided
it. But there are many who have spoken either directly via affidavit or
in records that are available to all committee members and all Senators
who are anything but anonymous.
I would urge my colleagues and not just the Armed Services Committee
members to go and read the documents that are available to you. Before
you cast your vote, set your feet in stone about a nominee, you should
see these documents.
I want to go back to one point that I made that I think is telling,
and that is Mr. Hegseth's refusal to disclose these facts to the Trump
transition team. It is one thing to not disclose them to the committee;
it is one thing to refuse to meet with the committee--I will get to
that in a second--but when the President-elect, who is going to be the
Commander in Chief, is vetting you for the most important Cabinet
position in the United States and you know you have been charged with a
sexual assault that led to a criminal investigation, a civil
settlement, a cash payment, and nondisclosure agreement, and you choose
not to reveal it to the President, in my view, that, in and of itself,
should be disqualifying. The level of disrespect that that shows for
the President-elect, in my view, should be disqualifying.
Let me conclude with a couple of other points. The main point is the
pattern of behavior, which should make anyone wary to vote for Mr.
Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. But there are a couple of other
points I want to mention.
Mr. Hegseth, I think, sort of, set a very unfortunate precedent. I
have been on the Armed Services Committee. I have sat side by side with
my colleague Senator King on that committee since we came to the Senate
in January of 2013. I have now participated in confirmation hearings
for about five Secretaries of Defense, both Democratic and Republican
nominees. Mr. Hegseth is the only one who refused to meet with
Democratic members of the committee, save for the chairman, Jack Reed.
He met with the Republican committee members. But all of us were trying
to set meetings with him, as has been our norm, so that we could talk
to him about these issues and ask him questions privately in our
office. Some of these matters are, frankly, probably better for private
discussion than public discussion. But he stiff-armed every one of us
except for Jack Reed.
In some ways, maybe it is not a surprise. This is an individual who
has written books and articles where he said Democrats are evil;
Democrats are the adversary. But if you are nominated to be Secretary
of Defense of the Pentagon, it is a nonpolitical military. It is a
civilian military that should not be politicized. And if you begin the
job by saying I needn't even sit down and pay the respective a meeting
with Democratic Senators, what about Democrats who serve in the
military or Independents or Libertarians, or people who don't share Mr.
Hegseth's party affiliation?
What does it say to the men and women who work for our military when
he wouldn't even pay the respect paid by every predecessor when they
would meet with Senators of both parties before the hearing?

[[Page S297]]

I was very disturbed the other day when we had a committee hearing to
forward Mr. Hegseth's nomination, and the Republican majority asked for
a waiver to forward it faster than rules allow. That waiver can be
granted if the committee votes to do so. One of my colleagues, Senator
Warner, said to the Republicans: Wait, you are asking us to waive
normal rules. We don't want to waive normal rules to speed this along.
He wouldn't even meet with us.
I thought that was a pretty compelling argument. I understand if Mr.
Hegseth has no respect for the Senators in this body who are Democrats,
that is one thing, but I would expect my Senate colleagues to have some
respect for us.
I have served with members of this committee on the Republican side.
Some have been there the entire 12 years I have been there. I didn't
think they would tolerate a nominee stiff-arming me.
If there was a Democratic nominee for Secretary of Defense who
refused to meet with Republican members of the committee, I would raise
heck about that publicly in the committee and threaten to block the
nominee until he met with the Republican members of the committee. I
know Senator King would do the same thing.
Democrats would do the same thing. We would not tolerate a nominee
stiff-arming one side of the dais and refusing to meet with us. We
wouldn't tolerate it.
I was shocked that my Republican colleagues, in a closed meeting 2
days ago, demonstrated that they are just fine with that.
This is my favorite committee in the Senate. We work very
cooperatively in a bipartisan way. And that my Republican colleagues
are perfectly fine with us being disrespected because we happen to be
Democrats, who our citizens elected us to serve in the U.S. Senate, is
very, very shocking to me.
One other point that I want to bring up. I have revealed much
material that is in the record and that other Senators can view for
themselves. But I have to say, in looking at the investigation record,
which was compiled largely by the FBI, it was very, very weak.
The FBI went out to do an investigation of Mr. Hegseth. The report
was made available to the chair and the ranking member, not to the
members of the committee. We haven't seen the report. But we have been
able to ask questions of the chair and ranking about it.
The allegations that I have walked through, which are largely public
record, the FBI didn't even interview the wives. Even after a mother's
letter had said that you are a serial abuser of women, including your
two wives, the FBI did not even go out and interview the wives.
Why not? I mean, was it an investigation or just like a box-checking
exercise?
A number of us, when we heard that, we sort of raised hell about it;
like, if you are going to do an investigation, talk to the people who
know the nominee the best, then the two wives are people you ought to
talk to.
We embarrassed the FBI. So after the fact, they went out and did a
very cursory discussion with one of the wives. Again, I have not seen
that material. I have not been allowed to see it. That should, itself,
shock my colleagues and the public. But I have confirmed, in speaking
about it with the ranking and chair, that the interview with the wife
was very cursory and covered one set of topics but left many of the
questions that I have raised here completely unanswered and
unaddressed.
A nominee to be Secretary of Defense is going to have enormous power
over the physical safety of Americans and over peace, war, and
diplomacy in the world. Aren't we, as Senators, exercising our advice
and consent role, entitled to a background investigation that is
meaningful, that is searching, and that is comprehensive? Are we
supposed to just be given some half work product and say: OK, that is
great. Let's just rush to confirm somebody?
We shouldn't be confirming a person on an insufficient background
check if they didn't have all of these acknowledged problems that are
part of the public record. But when they are part of the public record,
when the FBI finds out that, wow, you didn't tell the transition team
about the sexual assault claim, the investigation should be thorough,
not mediocre and cursory.
So I am going to conclude and just say this may not be the last time
I appear on the floor to speak on this nomination, but, for now, my
request of my colleagues is a simple one: Why rush? Why rush? Why would
we rush to put through a nomination for a position of this importance
that is frayed with so much baggage and so much evidence of glaring
character and judgment errors?
Do we want to have egg on our face? Do we want to rush and have this
blow up later? Do we want to rush and have other witnesses come out, as
Danielle Hegseth did yesterday? Is that what the Senate's advice and
consent process, mandated by the Constitution for a very important
reason, has come to--a cursory investigation that doesn't get to the
underlying facts, even when they are sitting right out there before us,
and we are going to rush to confirm someone? For what reason?
So, as I sit down, I will just conclude with that question: Why rush
this? Let's take the time. And when we cast a vote on confirmation,
cast it with the confidence that we have complete information about the
man who has been nominated to be our Secretary of Defense.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

TikTok

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about TikTok,
which I think all people here know that we have been having a lot of
attention about--a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, and a lot of
action by the Supreme Court. But now I think people are getting a
little clouded on the path forward.
I want to be clear that, last year, the U.S. Congress passed a law
requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok. The law requires that sale to shut
down all government back doors by the Chinese or attempts by them to
influence the algorithms that could affect U.S. citizens or the U.S.
military. It requires that sale to end the Chinese Government's
influence over TikTok's content recommendation algorithms. This law
also requires that data sharing with the Chinese Government must end.
I was glad to see that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law. Why?
Because we asked them whether Congress had the ability to act in this
national interest and to pass this law, and they upheld it.
Congress and the courts acted for a reason--to address real national
security threats to our country and to the American people.
When President Trump issued his 2020 Executive order, he recognized
that TikTok collected vast amounts of data on U.S. citizens.
A House resolution, H. Res. 1051, introduced by the leadership of the
House Select Committee on China and Congressman Gallagher and
Congressman Krishnamoorthi sets out the threat citing from the U.S.
Government agencies and from U.S. Government officials.
It points out that in 2020, the Department of Commerce found out that
China is building a massive database of American personal information
to understand who to target for espionage. And that is of particular
concern for us when it is about U.S. military personnel--where they
might be, what they might be doing.
It also found that ByteDance had very close ties to the Chinese
Government. And in December of 2022, the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, Chris Wray, stated that TikTok's data repository on
Americans was in the hands of the Chinese Government. Director Wray
testified that China could use TikTok for the influence and operations
to control software that could compromise Americans' personal devices.
The Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and the Director of the National
Security Agency testified that one-third of the adult population
receives their news from TikTok and one-sixth of American children use
it every day. He added that TikTok provides a national platform for
information operations and for surveillance.

[[Page S298]]

In further information, the Director of the CIA, William Burns,
indicated that ByteDance can use the private data of American TikTok
users to shape TikTok content to suit the interests of the Chinese
Government. Now, this was most important as it related to a 2023
Rutgers University report which found that TikTok amplifies and demotes
content based on the interests of the Chinese Government.
No surprise. If you could have influence, you demote or promote
whatever you want to promote.
The Rutgers report found--oh, surprisingly--that the issues of Hong
Kong and Tiananmen Square didn't quite have the same level of oomph on
TikTok as they did on Instagram, meaning that those posts about those
subjects were somehow not as voluminous. It found foreign policy issues
disfavored by China and Russia also had fewer hashtags on TikTok--
issues such as a pro-Ukraine stance or a pro-Israel stance. In fact, in
one instance, there were 8,000 times more Tiananmen Square hashtags on
Instagram than on TikTok.
So if this was all supposed to be about just generous posting by
individuals and posting content, why would one platform have, even with
the volume of the different platforms, 8,000 times more hashtags? Well,
I am sure the Chinese Government doesn't like to talk about Tiananmen
Square. I am pretty sure they don't like to talk about the Uighurs,
genocide, or other issues.
There were 750 times more pro-Ukraine hashtags on Instagram than on
TikTok.
The Deputy National Security Adviser also pointed out that ByteDance
has used TikTok to surveil U.S. journalists to identify and retaliate
against potential sources. Now, this is a concern to us in the United
States. We wouldn't let the Chinese Government own ABC or NBC. Why are
we allowing them to influence a source of information about news,
particularly when they are retaliating against journalists?
Studies from Cornell University and the University of Vermont found
that TikTok promotes a toxic diet culture among teens and young adults,
including pro-anorexia content. I can't think of anything more
disgusting: identifying teens--which you can see in the Rutgers report
that if the teen is identified as at all concerned about these issues,
the next thing they do is get a massive amount of data thrown onto them
about being pro-anorexia, which, again, is just promoting younger
people having less faith in themselves and their body image.
Both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate received classified briefings
on this national security threat and what we should do moving forward.
Prominent leaders on both sides of the aisle have called out this
threat, indicating we need to do something to move forward.
One colleague, Senator Cotton, of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
has been quite clear and said on the floor last week:

TikTok harvests a vast trove of user data, including name,
age, email, address, phone number, credit card number, facial
features, voiceprints, keystrokes, photos, videos, and
viewing habits. This data can make users susceptible to
manipulation and even blackmail, not only today, but also
years from now when users may have become influential persons
in the military, the intelligence community, business, media
and other walks of life.

I agree with Senator Cotton. This is an issue where this kind of
collection of information on U.S. citizens drives opportunities for
people to manipulate, particularly in the area of the military.
So Senators and Members of Congress want to work with President Trump
as he tries to end what is Chinese overinfluence on such an important
national security threat.
The good news is the technology is advancing and particularly
advancing very rapidly right now. We are starting to see technology
that I hope is finally giving us the ability to take some of this
control back with algorithms ourselves--as individuals, as U.S.
citizens. Maybe you have heard the buzz around agentic AI. Here is what
it means in plain language. We now will control the algorithms that
billionaires or foreign governments have been using to control us.
Agentic AI lets us turn the tables on them.
We will now use AI to take in massive amounts of information from the
internet, from all sources, and then apply filters that we want to see,
that we choose for ourselves, so that we only get the information we
want to see and not what somebody else wants to do with our
information.
So I hope the President, as he is considering these issues, will look
at this software solution. I don't know that a joint venture with the
Chinese is going to rectify this issue about the algorithms. They can't
continue to own and influence this process. But U.S. innovation and
U.S. ownership can drive us forward and can drive a better experience
for our young people.
Believe me, this is an issue about young people. Our youngest
citizens of America shouldn't be the source of information--targeted at
them--to undermine them, to basically create insecurities in them, and
to promote ideas that we do not believe in the United States.
So I hope that the President and I hope our colleagues here will
encourage us to resolve this issue. We have given every tool possible.
Now, it is time to get this into the hands of U.S. innovators and move
forward.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it didn't take long. Democrats have already
begun stalling President Trump's nominees, and it doesn't seem to
matter who it is. Right now, the Senator from Connecticut is holding up
a vote on John Ratcliffe, who was nominated for Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. The Intelligence Committee favorably reported Mr.
Ratcliffe's nomination on a bipartisan vote--14 to 3.
In a joint statement with Chairman Cotton, the Democrat vice chair of
the Intelligence Committee said this:

Our world is far too dangerous for any delay in having a
Senate-confirmed leader in charge of the CIA. We urge
expeditious consideration of this important nomination.

Now, that, again, is from the Democrat vice chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, urging ``expeditious consideration of this
important nomination.''
This is the Director of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency--a
key national security position. Mr. Ratcliffe is a qualified nominee.
He was Director of National Intelligence in the first Trump
administration--the quarterback for all 18 elements of the intelligence
community. In the House of Representatives, he served on the
Intelligence Committee, and he was chairman of the Cybersecurity
Subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee. He has been vetted by
the Intelligence Committee, and he will likely receive bipartisan
support on the floor, as he did in the committee.
The Senator from Connecticut wants to unnecessarily delay this vote.
He says Senators need time for a full, real debate. Well, where are
they? Why are we not debating? Nothing has been stopping any of our
Democrat colleagues from coming down to the floor to debate and make
any concerns that they have known to the Senate and to the American
people. At least one Senator has already taken advantage of that
opportunity.
The Senator from Connecticut also says that Senators need more time
to review the nominee's record. Well, Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination was
announced 2 months ago. Was that long enough? His hearing was a week
ago. There has been plenty of time to review his record. It is time to
vote. This is just an unnecessary delay that makes this country less
safe.
Democrats and Republicans agree that this is an important job. We
agree that Mr. Ratcliffe is qualified. But a handful of Democrats wants
to play politics with this nominee. I have to say I honestly don't know
what that accomplishes for them, but I do know this: It makes this
country less safe. It is time to vote.

[[Page S299]]

____________________