[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1450-S1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              North Korea

  Madam President, finally, on North Korea--and I appreciate the 
indulgence of my friend from Illinois. There are a lot of topics and a 
lot of things going on today.
  As the President continues negotiations in Hanoi with the North 
Koreans, I want to restate that his goal should be complete, 
verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of Korea. An agreement 
that includes significant U.S. sanctions relief in exchange for 
something short of that will be woefully insufficient. It will make 
North Korea stronger and the world more dangerous, not safer.
  To simply say to North Korea that we are going to let you continue to 
be nuclear in exchange for something else--a peace treaty or some 
words, a photo op--that is not protecting the security of the United 
States.
  I remind my colleagues, Congress passed sanctions against the North 
Korean regime for its appalling record on human rights. Congress would 
need to repeal that law for President Trump to give North Korea 
reliable sanctions relief.
  The North Koreans themselves should realize many of us in Congress 
will not, will not, will not--no matter what President Trump does, many 
of us in Congress will not remove this sanction relief until North 
Korea denuclearizes, verifiably and irreversibly.
  Make no mistake about it, no matter what President Trump does in 
Vietnam this week, this Chamber will have a significant role to play if 
President Trump decides to reduce sanctions as part of any deal with 
North Korea.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                                 S. 311

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last night, for the second time in a 
month, Democrats objected to a bill to ban infanticide.
  That statement to me is absolutely chilling, but for the second time 
in a month, Democrats objected to a bill that would do nothing more 
than state that a living, breathing baby born in an abortion clinic is 
entitled to the same protection and medical care as a living, breathing 
baby born in a hospital is entitled to.
  It is a pretty basic bill. It just says that living, breathing, born 
human beings are entitled to protection even if they are born in an 
abortion clinic, but apparently that is not something Democrats are 
prepared to say. This is where Democrats' support for abortions has led 
them--to being unable to condemn infanticide.
  Let's remember why we voted on this bill last night. We voted on this 
bill because the Democratic Governor of Virginia implicitly endorsed 
infanticide--because the Democratic Governor of Virginia got up and 
said that you could keep a living, breathing baby comfortable while you 
decided what to do with it.
  There is only one answer to what you do with a living, breathing 
baby, and that is to provide it with the care it needs. A baby born 
alive in an abortion clinic is no less valuable and deserving of 
protection than a baby born in a delivery room.
  It is horrifying that we are actually having a debate about this. 
Honestly, it is horrifying that the Democratic Party can't get up and 
say that infanticide is wrong. My Democratic colleagues like to talk 
about protecting the vulnerable, but how can they claim to care about 
helping those in need if they harden their hearts toward the most 
vulnerable among us? If they are willing to deny living, breathing 
babies basic medical care, do you really stand for the vulnerable if 
you can't stand up and say that infanticide is wrong?
  It is terrible enough that we have so far betrayed our founding 
principles as to deny the right to life of living, breathing unborn 
babies, but we are not even talking about abortion here. We are talking 
about withholding essential care from babies who are born alive. My 
Democratic colleagues can't even bring themselves to say this is wrong.
  I would say to my Democratic colleagues, do you really want to be the 
party of Governor Northam? Do you really want to be the party of 
infanticide?
  The American people don't agree with the Democratic Party on abortion 
and on infanticide. Most Americans believe that babies born alive after 
an abortion should be provided with medical care. Most Americans think 
there should be at least some limits on abortion. In fact, most 
countries in the world think there should be some limits on abortion. 
The United States is just one of a tiny handful of countries that allow 
elective abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among the others on that 
list are China and North Korea--not exactly the company we want to be 
keeping when it comes to protecting human rights.
  A recent poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose abortion 
after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Yet the Democratic Party is aggressively 
embracing an agenda of zero restrictions on abortion, ever, up to--and 
now, apparently, after--the moment of birth.
  I hope last night is not the last time we vote on the Born-Alive 
Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I hope my Democratic colleagues have 
a chance to recast their votes. I hope, next time, they will decide to 
vote against infanticide. I hope, next time, they can affirm what 
should be a basic, foundational principle, and that is that every baby, 
wherever he or she is born, deserves to be protected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened to the statements of my 
colleague from South Dakota. I would like to make a suggestion.
  Since the Republicans are in control of the U.S. Senate, since there 
is a Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would 
suggest to my colleague that perhaps we have a hearing on this bill he 
just described. You see, it came to the floor yesterday without any 
hearing. And the reason why we need a hearing is that many of us--many 
of us--voted for an infanticide law, which is currently on the books--a 
law that says that a child needs to be protected and that those who 
don't protect that child are subject to criminal penalties, as they 
should be.

  Now, if this is a different approach to it, doesn't it at least merit 
a hearing from the Republican majority before it comes to the floor for 
a vote? There are many questions I would like to ask of those who 
propose this. I want to understand why the law that has been on

[[Page S1451]]

the books now for 17 years, as I remember, is inadequate to the 
challenges it faces.
  I supported the infanticide law. I will continue to. If there are any 
changes that the Republicans want to make, is it too much to ask them 
to have a hearing in their own committee, which they chair, on this 
subject matter? I hope they will take it seriously enough to do it. 
Critics have said this has nothing to do with changing the law. It is 
just a ``gotcha'' vote on the floor--an amendment which may be used 
against candidates in future elections.
  When it comes to children, something as serious as life and death 
should be taken much more seriously by the Republican majority.