[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1173-S1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL INNOVATION LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2019--Motion to 
                                Proceed

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 357, 
S. 2657.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 357, S. 2657, a bill to 
     support innovation in advanced geothermal research and 
     development, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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. 357, S. 2657, an act to support 
     innovation in advanced geothermal research and development, 
     and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, Steve Daines, Bill 
           Cassidy, John Barrasso, Martha McSally, Deb Fischer, 
           Richard C. Shelby, John Hoeven, Thom Tillis, John 
           Thune, Pat Roberts, Richard Burr, Mike Rounds, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Roy Blunt, Mike Crapo.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3173

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in a message to Congress on July 4, 1861, 
Abraham Lincoln wrote that the leading object of government was to 
``elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial weights from all 
shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford 
all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.''
  It is no coincidence that he gave this message on the anniversary of 
our Nation's birth. Lincoln was echoing the profound legacy of our 
founding--a legacy that shaped our Nation and thereafter rippled across 
not only the Western Hemisphere but the entire world.
  When the Founders broke off from the yoke of British tyranny, they 
declared all men to be endowed with certain inalienable rights--rights 
that come not from the State, a church, any man or woman, or even from 
a government, but, rather, from God himself.
  The first of these inalienable rights was life. Never was any nation 
in the history of human beings born of a higher principle or a deeper 
connection to human happiness and flourishing. Here, the people would 
rule. Here, government would serve the people and not the other way 
around. Here, for the first time ever, each person, no matter his or 
her station in life, was endowed with these rights and entitled to 
their equal protection.
  Today, 159 years since Lincoln's message to Congress and 244 years 
since the Founders' message to the world, here we stand sworn, still, 
to fulfill their promise.
  As far as we have come during that time period, we still have so far 
to go. Today, our government--founded to protect Americans' rights to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--threatens unborn Americans 
on all three counts. The Supreme Court imposes and Congress subsidizes 
the most

[[Page S1174]]

radical abortion policy in the Western world.
  Since 1973, more than 60 million little lives, innocent lives, have 
been lost. The children lost to abortion cannot be seen, they cannot be 
heard, but the loss of every single one of them is felt. Mothers have 
been robbed of their children. There are gaping holes left throughout 
our Nation, in our families and in our communities--gaping holes that 
only those unique, unrepeatable souls could have and would have 
otherwise filled.
  For more than four decades, we have failed American women and their 
unborn children. Today, we have a chance to do better, to aspire for 
more, not to settle for mediocrity or tyranny but to celebrate and 
embrace life and liberty. We have a chance to stand up for the very 
weakest and most vulnerable among us, the ones still being knit 
together in their mothers' wombs, the ones we know respond to human 
touch by the age of 8 weeks, who feel pain by the age of 20 weeks, and 
who recognize the sound of their mother's voice before they are even 
born.
  Science and medicine are only confirming what we know deep down--that 
unborn human beings are, in fact, just like us. Every day, more 
scientific evidence confirms our moral intuition that a person is a 
person no matter how small that person happens to be.
  The so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that was 
before us earlier this week would have banned abortions for babies more 
than 20 weeks of age, upholding in law what science already confirms; 
that is, that these babies feel every bit of their life as it is being 
ended. This should not have been a controversial bill.
  Still less controversial should have been the Born-Alive Abortion 
Survivors Protection Act. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection 
Act takes no position on abortion, and it takes no position even on the 
rights of the unborn. It simply says that in this country, the United 
States of America, when a child is born, even if by accident, even in 
the most dangerous place in the world for an infant--that is, a Planned 
Parenthood clinic--he or she becomes a citizen of the United States 
under our Constitution, entitled to the full and equal protection of 
our laws. It says that when a child intended to be aborted is, in fact, 
instead born alive, he or she cannot simply be ``disposed of'' in the 
back room of a clinic or a hospital, as if it were nothing more than 
medical waste. This bill merely outlaws the murder of the innocent in 
the first moments of life; that is, the first moments of life outside 
the womb.
  It is a tragedy, a blight, and a poor commentary of frightening 
reflection not only upon this country but on this very legislative body 
that these measures failed this week. A minority of this body chose to 
reject both the scientific facts of human biology and the essential 
moral principle of human dignity.
  When someone talks about not accepting science, I hope they will 
remember what happened this week. I hope they will remember that 
against all medical and scientific evidence, to say nothing of what 
people know morally, intuitively, and within their own hearts, this 
body failed to protect the most vulnerable among us.
  Unfortunately, this is not the first time in our Nation's history 
that we have sometimes looked at the people according to a really evil 
logic of utility and power, and it is not the first time that we have 
tried to dehumanize human beings. It is not the first time we have 
tried to pick and choose who is wanted and who is valuable in society, 
penuriously doling out rights to exist and to be free on the basis of 
that arbitrary and unjustifiable determination.
  Nonetheless, thankfully, if there is one thing that we know about our 
country, it is that the American people have a way of bending the arc 
of history toward life or, as Winston Churchill is credited for saying, 
the American people will always do the right thing after they have 
exhausted every other alternative.
  We have a long, proud history as Americans of standing up for the 
weak, for the innocent, and especially for the vulnerable. We have made 
mistakes--grave, grave mistakes--but the right thing to do is always 
the right thing to do, and we come around in the end. It is one of the 
things that differentiates us from other societies. We aspire toward 
that which is good.
  Today there is reason to hope. Abortions in my home State of Utah 
have been steadily declining over the past four decades, with fewer 
than 3,000 happening in 2017. Six States are now down to just one 
abortion clinic: Kentucky, West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Mississippi, and Missouri. This past year, Alabama passed a law banning 
elective abortions in most circumstances, and just last month hundreds 
of thousands of Americans marched joyfully once again through 
Washington, as they have year after year after year, for those who 
cannot, for those who are rendered absent by this barbaric practice.
  The tide is turning, and today we have another chance to right these 
same wrongs. Through my bill, the Abortion Is Not Healthcare Act, we 
have the chance to stop the tax deductibility of abortions which are 
currently categorized as medical care by the IRS.
  The purpose of healthcare is to heal, is to cure. It is not to kill. 
Let us be serious. Whatever else abortion may be, of course, elective 
abortion is not healthcare. That is why physicians literally take an 
oath to do no harm.
  The government should not offer tax benefits for a procedure that 
kills hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year, nor should 
taxpayers have to subsidize it. This bill would end this preferential 
tax treatment and clarify that this gruesome practice is not 
healthcare.
  We also have the chance to permanently stop the use of our foreign 
aid money from funding or promoting abortions overseas. The Protecting 
Life in Foreign Assistance Act will save countless lives across the 
globe and affirms the truth that the lives of all unborn children, 
regardless of where they might happen to be from, have dignity and 
worth. Today we can stand to allow all human beings--no matter what 
their age, their appearance, or their abilities--a fair chance in the 
race of life.
  We have only to remain loyal to that bedrock principle that we claim 
to defend in the Declaration of Independence: the inalienable, 
fundamental right to life, the equal dignity, the immeasurable worth of 
all human life.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 3173 and the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration.
  I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the majority party's anti-women healthcare 
agenda has certainly been on display in the last few days here in the 
U.S. Senate: two votes on Tuesday, more votes and debate today. Every 
time it is the same basic proposition on offer: legislation that 
squeezes Republican politicians in between women and their doctors.
  I have said the old GOP slogan used to be ``a chicken in every pot.'' 
These days it is ``a Republican in every exam room.''
  Not only does this legislation discount the fact that reproductive 
healthcare, including abortion, is healthcare; it would make women's 
healthcare services more expensive. This would head this country back 
to the days when the healthcare system was just for the healthy and the 
wealthy.
  My view is decisions about the healthcare of women, especially 
reproductive healthcare--including abortion--are enormously personal. 
They ought to be decisions made between women and their physicians. 
Politicians ought to stay away. They ought to stay out of it all. That 
is what the Roe v. Wade case is all about, and it is the law of the 
land.
  So because I believe in keeping politicians out of the medical exam 
room, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address these 
important issues today. I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon for 
outlining his reasons for objecting to this

[[Page S1175]]

legislation. I feel the need to respond to a few things that he said 
because they call for an immediate response.
  First, he noted that there were two votes cast earlier this week that 
he described as part of an ongoing pattern, an ongoing campaign among 
Senate Republicans that, according to my colleague, are anti-woman. 
This is offensive on a variety levels--first when you consider that the 
abortion is no respecter of persons. It is not just male babies 
aborted; it is also female babies. There are parts of the world where 
abortion of female babies occurs in much higher numbers--in many cases 
because they are female babies.
  Abortion is itself--elective abortion is an act of violence against a 
human form, against a human life, albeit a life in utero.
  I remember a few months ago we were holding a hearing, of all things, 
addressing issues relating to wild horses and burros in the Western 
United States. Certain wild horse populations have grown out of 
control. They have devastated rangelands. They have depleted resources 
available to them, and many of them are starving, malnourished, and 
suffering.
  There have been programs that have sought not only to help them in 
one way or another but also to sterilize them. I never thought I would 
be part of a significant hearing addressing the nonsexy topic of equine 
contraception, but in this instance we had one. One of our witnesses, 
who was from an organization devoted to preventing cruelty to animals, 
explained that one of the most effective techniques of horse birth 
control involves the sterilization procedure. I asked why that was not 
the preferred method. She said because, in many instances, it can 
result in the loss of the unborn horse. I asked her why that mattered. 
She said: Well, because it is a life, notwithstanding the fact that it 
hasn't been born. It is cruel to the unborn baby horse. It is cruel to 
the foal. If it is cruel to the foal, why isn't it cruel to the baby, 
whether it is a male baby or a female baby? This is not anti-woman.
  There was also the suggestion that the campaign somehow involves a 
Republican in every exam room, and that, according to those who 
advocate pro-life positions, it would relegate healthcare to the 
healthy and wealthy. Well, this gets back to the very point I was 
making. An exam room--actual healthcare--involves protecting and 
preserving human life. Elective abortion, by contrast, has one object; 
that is, the termination of a human life--an unborn, in utero human 
life but a human life just the same.
  You can say whatever you want about it but to call it healthcare, to 
me, is counterintuitive--not just to me but to many, many Americans who 
find the practice abhorrent and are shocked by the thought that the 
U.S. Government would be subsidizing it, whether through its tax policy 
or through more direct forms or, as we see today, both.
  As to the suggestion that politicians ought to stay out of this 
issue, well, let me ask you this: What about the idea that politicians 
and, therefore, lawmakers ought to stay out of other issues involving 
violence to a human being? There was a day and age in this country 
where people would say that lawmakers ought to stay out of other issues 
involving violence, of domestic violence: That is a family matter, 
after all. Politicians ought to stay out. The law should have nothing 
to do with that. Well, it involves violence to another human being.
  To say simply that politicians and, therefore, lawmakers and, 
therefore, the law ought to stay out of a topic means to suggest that 
it is somehow beyond the reach of the law. If we have reached, if we 
ever do reach the point where we can't say no human being can kill 
another human being, we have really, really big problems.
  We are not talking here about an exam room. We are not talking about 
procedures designed to promote, to heal, and to prolong life. We are 
talking about a procedure to end life. This is, itself, not a bill that 
talks about the appropriateness or lack thereof of elective abortion. 
This simply says that, given how many Americans feel about this, as 
many of us in this very room feel about abortion, we shouldn't be 
subsidizing it, and we shouldn't be pretending it is something it is 
not.
  Finally, let me remind this body and anyone who may be watching from 
outside this body that, of the legislation we voted on this week, one 
of those pieces of legislation didn't even involve abortion at all. It 
didn't regulate any facet of abortion. It dealt only indirectly with 
the topic of abortion, but it had nothing to do with the performance or 
availability of an abortion itself.
  It simply said that, when a baby is born, following or in the middle 
of a failed attempt at an abortion, if that baby is born alive, 
notwithstanding the attempt by the abortionist to kill the baby, that 
baby shouldn't simply be neglected. In any other circumstance, a human 
being, particularly a vulnerable, brandnew newborn baby--an infant--to 
neglect the baby and allow that baby to die of exposure, to not 
administer lifesaving care or nutrition or sustenance to that baby, to 
neglect the baby and allow that baby to die of exposure would be a 
crime. In some circumstances, it may well be murder. In others, it 
would be a serious criminal form of deliberate child neglect.
  So, to suggest that a baby is somehow different as a result of a 
subjective intent of the abortionist to kill the baby and that we 
shouldn't make sure that baby is properly cared for following its birth 
is barbaric. Look, I get it. Not everybody shares my viewpoint with 
regard to when human life begins. I get it. Not everybody shares my 
view with regard to abortion policy. Now, I will defend to my dying day 
my views on these issues, and I will not shrink from them, but 
regardless of whether you agree with me on that, I seriously question 
how anyone would credibly maintain that a human being born alive 
following a failed abortion attempt shouldn't be given the same 
protection under the law as any other human being.
  In other words, the humanness of a baby shouldn't depend on that 
baby's ``wantedness.'' The fact that anyone wanted to kill that baby 
before the baby was born doesn't give anyone the right to kill the baby 
with impunity.
  That is what they voted down this week. Let's not pretend that this 
is about exam rooms. Let's not pretend that this is about actual 
healthcare. Let's not pretend that this is somehow an anti-woman 
strategy.
  By the way, many women I know--most, I would say--actually find quite 
offensive the suggestion that to be in favor of protecting babies is 
somehow anti-woman. This is offensive. It is sad to me, more than 
anything.
  This was a lost opportunity that we had this week to protect the 
dignity of human life, not just unborn human life but human beings who 
have been born.
  One day we will look back and see this week through sad eyes in much 
the same way we now look back on other episodes in American history 
where we have failed to accord the full dignity to a human life that 
each human life truly deserves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

                          ____________________