[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 206 (Tuesday, November 30, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8812-S8826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                   Honoring Deputy Frank Ramirez, Jr.

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my friend and 
colleague from Arkansas Senator Cotton, to honor Independence County 
Deputy Sheriff Frank Ramirez, Jr.
  Deputy Ramirez called Batesville, AR, home and was proud to help 
protect his community. Sadly, that service was required, and this 
requirement was making the ultimate sacrifice when he died in the line 
of duty on Thursday, November 18, in an early morning crash that 
occurred while he was responding to a call.
  He leaves behind a wife and two children, among many other loving 
family members, as well as his brothers and his sisters in law 
enforcement who admired him deeply and felt honored to serve alongside 
him.
  Frank Ramirez, Jr., graduated from Batesville High School and was 
formerly an officer with the Batesville Police Department before 
joining the

[[Page S8813]]

Independence County Sheriff's Department as a patrol deputy.
  He had a passion for serving and protecting, and he followed through 
on that desire by becoming a law enforcement officer, sworn to uphold 
the law and safeguard the vulnerable.
  Those who knew him, both in uniform and out, consistently described 
him as a good man. Even for someone so young, there is no better 
compliment to be paid than that. It is a testament to the way he lived 
his life--doing the right thing, meeting his obligations, and showing 
genuine care and compassion for others.
  Although his passing did not come at the hands of a suspect, it 
stings just the same. It should remind us of the harrowing, uncertain 
fate that awaits every man or woman who wears a badge.
  These citizen servants are not guaranteed comfort or safety or the 
opportunity to see the next day when they clock in, but they choose to 
shoulder the risk, put on their uniform, and step out the door, 
reporting for duty to protect and serve and do good in ways that are 
just as often unseen as seen.
  While danger comes in different forms throughout a shift or career, 
it nevertheless always lurks nearby. No assignment is ever completely 
without hazards or without jeopardy. Yet our police, sheriffs, and 
troopers do the job anyway because they have been called to and because 
they understand the need is great, even if the odds are long or the 
numbers are too few.
  That is what sets Deputy Ramirez and his colleagues apart. They run 
toward danger and uncertainty when the rest of us flee. We must always 
remember and honor these fallen heroes and pray the character they 
embody carries on to new generations.
  But today, we are here to reflect on the life and sacrifice of one, 
Deputy Frank Ramirez, Jr., a noble, brave, public servant, a devoted 
husband and father, a protector of this community, and as so many have 
already remembered, a good man.
  On behalf of all Arkansans, we are grateful for his dedication and 
his sacrifice. Our prayers are with his loved ones and the brothers and 
sisters in blue left to go on without him after his End of Watch.
  The thin blue line is without one more courageous officer today, but 
Deputy Ramirez's legacy will help instill even greater pride and 
passion among its ranks because of the life he lived and gave for the 
benefit of so many others.
  May he rest in peace, and may God comfort all who mourn him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I sadly join my colleague and friend 
Senator Boozman to honor the life and service of Frank Ramirez.
  Every time that a police officer kisses his or her family goodbye 
before their shift, every time they strap a side arm on or put on their 
badge, they know that it may be the last time they see their loved 
ones. These heroes accept that danger because the love of their 
families, neighborhoods, and communities is greater than any fear they 
may face on the job.
  Our men and women in blue don't just talk about doing good, they 
actually do it each and every day. Sadly, far too many of them have had 
to make the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their service.
  One such hero was Arkansas Sheriff's Deputy Frank Ramirez. A week 
before Thanksgiving, Deputy Ramirez was working after midnight when a 
call went out there was an accident. He answered the call and quickly 
drove toward the scene. But it was raining hard that evening. Roadways 
were slick. And as Deputy Ramirez rounded a left turn on Highway 14, he 
lost control of his car, ran into a culvert, and was sadly killed in 
the resulting crash.
  This heartbreaking tragedy has brought countless Arkansans to their 
knees in prayer. Deputy Ramirez was serving his community when he died. 
There are few causes more noble, and we recognize his supreme sacrifice 
and promise to remember him.
  Deputy Ramirez was a husband of 5 years and a father of two young 
children, a son and a daughter. He is also survived by both his parents 
and several loving brothers and sisters.
  My prayers, Senator Boozman's prayers, and the prayers of all 
Arkansans go out to his family. They, too, have paid an unbelievable 
price in the service of our State, our communities, and our safety.
  Deputy Ramirez was only 29 years old. He served in the Batesville 
Police Department and the Independence County Sheriff's Office. He was 
in law enforcement for nearly 2\1/2\ years. In that short time and at 
his young age, Deputy Ramirez sacrificed more for his communities than 
many police veterans who have been on the force for much longer. I join 
them in saluting his service and honoring his sacrifice.
  May God bless Frank Ramirez, may God bless his family, and may God 
bless all the brave men and women in law enforcement in Arkansas and 
around our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                Tribute to Lieutenant Colonel John Meyer

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madame President, LTC John Meyer joined my office as our 
defense fellow this past January. It is hard to overestimate in the 
months since just how much he has contributed.
  Time and again, John has drawn on his rich background and his 
experiences in the Middle East, the Pacific, and with some of the 
Army's most elite units to inform our work on defense and national 
security.
  More than that, he has consistently stepped up, even when he didn't 
have to, to help those in need--from veterans and servicemembers at 
home in Missouri to those affected by the bombing in Kabul over the 
summer.
  For all of these reasons and more, it has been a real privilege to 
have John as a part of our team this year. We are going to miss him 
when he goes all too soon here, but I am confident he will continue to 
serve our Nation with the utmost distinction wherever his career takes 
him.
  I want to take this opportunity, in light of all of that, to request 
floor privileges for John as a small gesture of my gratitude for his 
service to my office, to Missouri, and to our Nation.
  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. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               H.R. 4350

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, 60 years ago, President Dwight David 
Eisenhower warned Americans about the unwarranted influence of the 
military-industrial complex. He told us of the relentless defense 
interests that would use their lobbying muscle to keep money flowing 
into the coffers of the Pentagon. While our adversaries and competitors 
have changed in the past six decades, the military-industrial complex's 
revolving door is as well greased as Ike warned our country.
  Today, Congress is set to vote to increase the already-bloated 
defense budget in the same year that we ended our longest war--the 
latest proof that the military-industrial complex is alive and well and 
banking on a pay raise, all while Americans struggle to afford 
groceries and gasoline.
  Here is the simple truth about the defense budget we are debating 
this week: We plan to spend $768 billion to fuel the military-
industrial complex even in our moment of relative peace. Yet many in 
this Chamber are relentlessly attacking the Build Back Better act 
despite this spending bill being four times its size in new spending.
  What we are hearing in this Chamber this week are Cold War echoes--
words that sound like talk of the bomber and the missile gap with the 
former Soviet Union that drove an arms race that brought us to the 
brink of annihilation.
  Our top military general recently called China's most recent 
hypersonic test a ``Sputnik moment.'' That is our top military general. 
But how in the world can it be a ``Sputnik moment'' if we are set to 
spend more on defense than the next 11 countries combined, many of 
which are U.S. allies and partners? There is no technological or 
military gap that we need to close. We have the strongest military in 
the world.
  Our rivals, our adversaries are not 10 feet tall. We are the country 
that is 10

[[Page S8814]]

feet tall, and they are looking up at us militarily. We should just 
understand this, as people bad-mouth our military. It is not accurate. 
They are afraid of us. We are technologically superior to them, whoever 
they may be.
  But wait. As if we weren't spending enough, Congress has tossed in an 
additional $25 billion that was not even requested by the Pentagon in 
this year's budget. You heard that right--an additional $25 billion. 
How many kids could go to pre-K for that? How many seniors could get 
dental or vision coverage? How many public housing units could we build 
with that, with the money that has not even been requested by the 
Pentagon?
  We should not accept the logic that says we can afford to build a 
$100 billion intercontinental ballistic missile that will never be used 
but we cannot possibly afford paid family leave that Americans 
desperately need.
  Universal prekindergarten is too expensive, but padding the wallets 
of defense firm executives with taxpayer dollars is money well spent. 
That is insane. That is immoral.
  We should not have to fight tooth and nail to meet our commitment to 
replenish the Green Climate Fund to help save the planet while being 
told to accept the need for new weapons systems that could lead to 
global annihilation.
  It is time we stop thinking of national security solely in terms of 
our inventory of bombers and missiles and submarines. Trillions in 
defense spending did nothing to spare Americans from the greatest 
security threat in generations: COVID-19. We have to stop pretending 
that there are military solutions to the national security challenges 
that we face. The defense a family needs right now is protection from 
eviction, hunger, electricity shut off, and pollution.
  Being strong on defense means learning critical lessons from the two-
decade-long war in Afghanistan. Being strong on defense means that we 
do not shy away from telling the military-industrial complex and its 
army of lobbyists that we do not need to outspend our adversaries into 
oblivion.
  Nowhere has the gold-plated defense industry been harder at work than 
in gilding the whopping $1.5 trillion we are projected to spend through 
2046 on upgrading our nuclear weapons enterprise. Say that again--$1.5 
trillion on more nuclear weapons. There is one thing this country and 
this world does not need, and that is more nuclear weapons.
  We know that fear and distrust of an adversary's intentions empower 
voices in the defense bureaucracy to sell new capabilities that spur 
the other side to justify weapon systems of their own. But we must 
avoid a rerun of the Cold War, where worst-case military planning leads 
to thousands of missiles pointed at Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, 
once again casting a terrible shadow over humanity.
  That is why I introduced amendments to the NDAA that would trim $75 
billion off the nuclear weapons enterprise, commit to robust diplomacy 
with Russia and China, and prevent the President--any President, 
Democratic or Republican--from firing the first shot, the first nuclear 
weapon in a nuclear war. The United States should never be first to 
launch a nuclear weapon against another country--ever. That should just 
be our policy. We will not be the first to use nuclear weapons when we 
have not been attacked with nuclear weapons. That is immoral. That is 
wrong. It must be the policy of our country that we will not do that.

  If it is true what Ronald Reagan said--that a ``nuclear war cannot be 
won and must never be fought''--then surely we should agree to shelve 
Donald Trump's new sea-based warfighting nuclear weapons.
  We could play Russian roulette with our future or we can adopt a 
saner nuclear policy, one that says we do not need the rubble to bounce 
over and over and over again to deter our adversaries and reassure our 
allies; one, through the President's Nuclear Posture Review, that 
rejects the military-industrial complex efforts to make the world safe 
for nuclear weapons rather than from nuclear weapons.
  In 2020, the amount of money that one of the five biggest defense 
contractors received from the Pentagon--$75 billion--was nearly double 
the entire development and diplomacy accounts at the State Department 
and the U.S. Agency for Development.
  As President Biden noted in Glasgow at the international climate 
summit earlier this month, we have an obligation to help the developing 
world leapfrog the fossil fuel economy to reach a green economy. Lower 
and middle-income countries deserve to develop and seek a higher 
standard of living, but we know that they can't use the dirty fuels 
that powered our growth if we hope to keep global warming at 1.5 
degrees Celsius. My climate amendment will help those countries least 
to blame for the climate crisis to adapt to the impacts that they are 
already overwhelmingly and disproportionately experiencing.
  The first of its kind National Intelligence Estimate, released in 
October, warned us that the intensity of wildfires and the force of 
hurricane winds and unrelenting droughts are a mere preview of the 
extreme weather events to come. The Pentagon's own report warns us of 
the cascading security impacts if we fail to answer the national 
security challenge of our generation: Governments that are unable to 
meet the basic needs of their people risk collapse. Driven by the 
climate crisis, water, food, and resource scarcity will lead millions 
to flood across borders as stateless climate refugees. That will lead 
to destabilization of countries. That will lead to national security 
crises in country after country as a result of the climate crisis.
  We have to just deal with the reality that the CO2 is 
still red, white, and blue that is up there. We are the leader 
historically, and the rest of the world wants us to be the leader 
historically right now in dealing with that crisis.
  My climate amendment says that we can avoid that grim future. We can 
redirect a mere 1 percent from the Pentagon topline towards global 
climate accounts to fight the climate crisis. We can come to grips with 
the fact that the greatest adversary we face is not a foreign army, 
navy, or air force; it is the transnational threats of the climate 
crisis, of pandemics, and of nuclear weapons.
  We are not in a new Cold War. We are in a war for our common 
survival.
  Yesterday, in an act of political gamesmanship, Senate Republicans 
joined me to vote against moving forward with this abominable $768 
billion Defense bill. While I wish we could stop here and reassess the 
waste of three-quarters of a trillion dollars spent on defense, this 
was, sadly, just a Republican ploy to add even more pork onto this 
already fatty legislation.
  Now, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Sanders' and my 
amendment to return the defense budget to the level requested by the 
President--a level of spending which is greater than we spent during 
the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and at the height of the Cold War.
  Additionally, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment--co-
sponsored by Senators Warren, Padilla, Booker, Merkley, and Sanders--to 
make a 1-percent cut to the Defense authorization to increase our 
support for global climate accounts.
  If we do not adopt these changes, I cannot, in good conscience, 
support that budget. It is time we stop funding the military industrial 
complex, whose profit is based in conflict and annihilation. That is 
not an investment in our future; it is an invitation to destruction.
  The bottom line is we are either going to live together or we are 
going to die together; we are either going to know each other or we are 
going to exterminate each other.
  This is a period where we should be talking to our rivals. We should 
be negotiating with our rivals. We should be trying to reduce the 
nuclear arsenals. We should be trying to reduce the tension; reduce the 
paranoia; reduce the threat that, by accident, we can actually fight a 
nuclear war.
  That is what we should be debating here and not just putting all of 
the additional new weapons systems that have been on the blueprints of 
the defense industry for a generation into this budget. That takes us 
in the wrong direction, towards less safety, more risk.
  The correct vote here is to deal with the reality that we have too 
many nuclear weapons already and we haven't sufficiently dealt with the 
threat which the climate crisis is going to

[[Page S8815]]

pose as a national security risk to our country and the rest of the 
planet.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, our Nation exists today in a time of 
relative peace, with limited and manageable active hostilities 
threatening U.S. national security.
  On the horizon, the United States faces a militarily ambitious and 
formidable but not yet insurmountable opponent in China and in its 
quest for regional dominance in the Pacific.
  Yet in the face of this new age of great power competition, U.S. 
grand strategy continues to operate with outdated goals and across all 
regions of the globe, lacking prioritization and desperately needing 
scale.
  After the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the corresponding 
diplomatic, military, and humanitarian disaster, one would think the 
instinct would be to jettison decades of military-industrial 
groupthink.
  One would think the American people, and certainly our men and women 
in uniform, deserve a thorough, exhaustive review of what is working 
and the huge swaths of what is failing in our military and defense 
strategy, infrastructure, and planning.
  One would think that Congress would reclaim powers assigned to it by 
the Constitution to make serious reforms to protect the security and 
prosperity of the United States.
  One would think we would reform our procurement process and trim the 
bloated, perversely incentivized military-industrial complex.
  One would think we would prioritize resources toward the largest and 
most imminently looming threats to U.S. national security.
  One would think we would burden share with our allies where our 
security interests align.
  One would think we, here in the U.S. Senate, would take specific 
steps to make sure that failures like the withdrawal from Afghanistan 
don't happen again, whether in the Middle East or in any other emerging 
theater of conflict.
  Unfortunately, this year's National Defense Authorization Act fails 
to put the interests of U.S. citizens first. This is not the 
introspective or retrospective bill that the American people should be 
able to expect and largely continues the failed--the failed--policies 
of many decades past. The American people and the brave men and women 
of our military deserve better.
  We are, thank heavens, in a time of peace, with limited active 
hostilities. Despite that, we remain intimately entangled in the 
affairs of too many nations abroad. Our troops and equipment scatter 
every region of the globe. We spend billions of dollars supporting, 
supplying, and training allies who, in many cases, contribute little to 
their own self-defense, let alone ours.
  We face an ambitious opponent in China, as it seeks military 
dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. There is no question that while 
Xi Jinping remains in power, the PLA and the PRC will not shy away from 
bold moves and the quest for regional hegemony. But the U.S. strategy 
should not presume unrestrained, offensive intervention; rather, 
targeted and scaled deterrence should frame the mission set across all 
U.S. forces postured in the region. Further, the United States should 
accordingly rescale resources in the war zones of yesteryear to 
appropriately prioritize protecting the U.S. homeland and military 
personnel from tomorrow's threats.
  Congress is responsible for raising and supporting armies, of making 
war, and of ratifying treaties. This bill neglects those 
responsibilities.
  Regarding Afghanistan, the NDAA includes funding and new authorities 
for the nonexistent Afghan security forces, along with reimbursements 
to coalition partners for supporting U.S. operations and a sense of the 
Senate on future U.S. counterterrorism posture postwithdrawal, with 
little eye toward reforming or removing outdated and overbroad 
authorizations for the use of military force.
  Perpetuating funding and authority to support a nonexisting defense 
force is as much bad foreign policy as it is bad fiscal responsibility. 
We must do better. The American people expect and deserve for us to do 
better.
  Additionally, this NDAA fundamentally changes the purpose and the 
scope of the military draft. The new purpose is greatly expanded to 
``ensure a requisite number of personnel with the necessary 
capabilities to meet the diverse mobilization needs of the Department 
of Defense during a national emergency.''
  Instead of being a seldom-used tool only for the most extreme cases 
of compelling national defense, the draft could be morphed into 
compulsory national service in the face of any emergency.
  Even more troubling is the mandatory registration of women for the 
draft. Look, all are immensely grateful for the incredible contribution 
women make to our Armed Forces, but that participation should never be 
forced. This bill paves that dangerous road without due consideration 
given to its impact on young families and single parents.

  Further, the policy provides no guarantee that women would not be 
sent directly to the frontlines of combat, alongside and simultaneously 
with able-bodied men.
  While I am opposed to all of the NDAA's changes to the draft, at the 
very least, this body should consider a reasonable amendment, a few 
reasonable amendments on this front, including one of mine that would 
prohibit the disturbing scenario of mothers and fathers being 
conscripted simultaneously out of the same family, leaving their 
children stranded without either parent. It also provides a similar 
exemption for single parents.
  I hope this body will consider and pass this amendment in the near 
future. I also hope that the body will make that unnecessary by, first, 
passing an amendment striking that provision altogether. We don't need 
to be expanding the draft, and we shouldn't be making the draft 
applicable to women.
  This bill further reduces our military end strength by over 7,000 
servicemembers. Troublingly, the biggest cuts come from the Marine 
Corps and the Air Force. And in the face of an aggressive China, the 
Navy also faces reduction in Active Forces when it arguably should be 
the first contender for an increase in end strength, not a cut.
  As we pivot toward the Indo-Pacific, our naval and our air 
superiority are both vital. We need them. Our withdrawal from the 
Middle East should reduce the level of Active-Duty Army personnel 
deployed overseas, and yet the Army faced a less than 1-percent 
reduction in that specific category.
  This bill places us on a dangerous footing regarding future mutual 
defense commitments. This bill would provide a vague, near-
authorization for the use of military force to defend Taiwan against an 
invasion from China. The question of war deserves here, as always, its 
own debate by Congress, rather than a haphazard statement of policy 
that may be abused by the executive branch in order to bring us into a 
new conflict, into a new conflict without the people's duly elected 
representatives whose job it is to decide whether we go to war to make 
that decision under the light of day and with full debate that the 
American people can witness.
  Like NDAAs of old, this bill appropriates more funds to procurement 
than anywhere else, with no reforms to the bureaucratic barriers that 
make procurement so costly and so inefficient.
  Finally, this NDAA does not sufficiently bolster our defensive 
position in this hemisphere. The goals outlined by this bill are vague 
and equate to an abdication of Congress's responsibility to give the 
Defense Department instructions for a strategic approach to the Western 
Hemisphere.
  It provides blank check authority for the Department of Defense to 
support programs and activities for purposes including institution-
building to countercorruption and to serve humanitarian infrastructure 
needs. This attempt at nation-building is misguided, and it will not be 
helpful to us in our efforts to deter China.
  Thankfully, there are a few positives in this bill for U.S. national 
defense and for the security of the people of Utah.
  This bill continues to support the development of fifth-generation 
air power capabilities in the F-35 Program, continuing a critical 
investment in our air defense--something that is also becoming even 
more important.
  This bill also fully funds the modernization of our ground-based 
nuclear

[[Page S8816]]

deterrent, protecting the U.S. homeland for generations to come. This 
important work will largely be done by the people of Utah and our 
dedicated servicemembers at Hill Air Force Base.
  The House version of the NDAA also includes my Military Spouse 
Licensing Relief Act. It is important to note here that one in four 
military spouses currently face unemployment or are actively seeking 
work largely because of frequent moves due to their spouse's military 
orders, which keep them moving from place to place on a pretty routine 
basis. This provision in the House version of the bill would also allow 
spouses of our military servicemembers to work in their chosen 
profession, wherever military orders may take them in the United 
States, without having to navigate the complicated requirements of 
State occupational licensing.
  My State, the State of Utah, led the way with this commonsense type 
of reform that makes life and achieving prosperity easier for those 
families who serve our Nation. It should become law. We need it. Our 
military families need it. Our military and the American people 
generally would be much better off with it.
  We could have done more. This National Defense Authorization Act 
could be a pivot point where we reexamine our defensive stance in the 
world and reclaim our constitutional arrangement here at home.
  This NDAA could have been a turning point in which we in Congress 
reasserted our authority over war-making powers. My National Security 
Powers Act that I have introduced with Senator Murphy and Senator 
Sanders would clarify and update and modernize the War Powers 
Resolution.
  The bill would also restore congressional authority over arms 
exports. It would additionally require congressional approval of 
emergency declarations and prevent the President from misusing 
emergency powers.
  The National Security Powers Act would rein in Presidential abuses of 
the war power and make our Nation safer and more aligned with the 
Constitution. It is bipartisan. It is exactly the type of reform that 
belongs in the NDAA.
  We must also make reforms to our emergency war spending. Though 
President Biden thankfully didn't request, and Congress didn't provide, 
the OCO slush fund in this bill, there is much that needs to be done to 
restore Congress's power of the purse in the defense environment 
specifically.
  The Cost of War Project estimates that post-9/11 war spending totals 
$8 trillion from 2001 to 2022. Of the $8 trillion, OCO and interest on 
OCO funds accounts for $3.3 trillion. That is real money, and a lot of 
it.
  My Restraining Emergency War Spending Act would define emergency war 
funding and require the Department of Defense and Congress to limit 
spending set aside for emergencies to the purpose for which it was 
authorized.
  We also need to return accountability to our defense alliances by 
requiring wealthy and capable Nations to contribute their fair share of 
their defense. In the NATO alliance alone, only 11 of the 13 NATO 
member countries meet the 2 percent defense spending requirement.
  This means that 63 percent of the alliance shown here in red consists 
of countries that don't foot their share of the bill. They are not 
holding up their end of the agreement.
  So my Allied Burden Sharing Report Act would help us know just how 
much or just how little our allies are contributing. Now, this report 
used to be published annually. It should be still. This NDAA would have 
been an ideal venue in which to legislate the return of that report.
  We also must use these legislative opportunities to prepare the 
Department of Defense for future defense focused on the technology, the 
reforms, and the regions of the future.
  Our defensive position regarding China and in the Indo-Pacific should 
focus on deterrence. Spreading our forces and our expensive equipment 
to the ports and the shores of allies in the region is ineffective and 
could prove more of a vulnerability than an advantage against Chinese 
strike capabilities. A deterrent posture would combine defensive 
strategy and operations to fend off possible attacks from a position of 
strength and limit risk to U.S. personnel and assets.
  Further, we must prioritize recruitment and retention for the future 
fight. We need to provide a suitable and welcoming environment for 
those in uniform and for their families. We need to end the President's 
sweeping vaccine mandate and give our servicemembers the respect they 
deserve.
  After a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of our 
Nation's longest war, this NDAA could have been--should have been--an 
opportunity to debate, rethink, and reform our Nation's defenses.
  The National Defense Authorization Act--U.S. defense and security 
broadly--is one of the few items this body regularly considers that is 
explicitly, unambiguously within the enumerated powers of Congress. 
Consequently, it is something that deserves due consideration and 
significant debate on the floor in order for Members to be able to 
raise issues like those that I have described today.
  Yesterday, this body attempted to close debate on this bill without 
consideration of a single amendment--not a single one.
  While this bill does make key progress in limited areas, it does not 
get to the heart of many of our national defense problems. It does not 
restore Congress's role in our national defense. It does not provide a 
holistic strategy to defend the United States and the people of Utah--
or the people of any other State.
  This bill and the floor process yet remain missed opportunities, and 
I am going to continue to fight for both necessary policy reforms and 
for an open process generally on the floor. Anything less, particularly 
in this critical area, amounts to an abdication of the duties of this 
body to the detriment of the citizens we serve. We can and we must do 
better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                                Abortion

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., the Supreme 
Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on a case out of 
Mississippi commonly known now as the Dobbs case.
  That case is all about a Mississippi law, where Mississippi passed a 
law saying, at 15 weeks, a child in development in the womb can be 
protected after that time period.
  That strikes right at the heart of Roe v. Wade, where, in the 
arbitrary ruling from the Supreme Court in 1973, they made up a new 
rule saying when a child is viable--not something that is in law at any 
spot. It created that out of whole cloth.
  Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will reopen that conversation 
about viability. It is an important discussion for us to be able to 
have as a nation, and it is vital that we talk about it here as well. 
As it is being discussed across the street at the Supreme Court, there 
are issues that we should discuss as well.
  So, for the next few moments, there are multiple different Senators 
who are going to speak on this one issue: When is a child a child, and 
when should States have the rights to protect their own citizens' 
lives?
  The Supreme Court has made that murky and has the option tomorrow to 
be able to make that clear. This conversation, though, will circle 
around what should that legal standard be and how should we protect the 
lives of every citizen, no matter how small they are.
  There will be multiple Senators who will be speaking on this, the 
first of which will be Senator Steve Daines, who leads the Pro-Life 
Caucus in the U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise today ahead of one of the most 
important moments in our decades-long battle to protect life.
  When our Founding Fathers laid out the Declaration of Independence, 
they talked about life, they talked about liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. They called them certain unalienable rights endowed by our 
Creator. The reality is you can't have liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness without first having that unalienable right given by God, and 
that is the right to life.
  Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the 
Mississippi late-term abortion case Dobbs

[[Page S8817]]

v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
  This puts our Nation at the crossroads of history. Our Nation has a 
moment to finally modernize our laws. We have got the aptitude to catch 
up with the great advancements seen in science, in technology, and 
medicine that indisputably show the humanity of unborn children.
  We have the opportunity to end an extreme judicially imposed abortion 
regime that is aligned with nations such as China and North Korea. The 
United States is just one of seven nations that allows late-term 
abortions.
  We have the opportunity to write a new chapter of American history 
where the people's elected representatives get to decide abortion 
policy in this country.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has the chance to right a 
historic injustice and finally overturn Roe v. Wade. Our Court's nine 
Justices have the opportunity to reconsider a wrongly decided case.
  And, by the way, that wrongly decided case that became case law, it 
was nine men in black robes that really have overruled the will of the 
people. It wasn't a State legislature. It wasn't the U.S. House. It 
wasn't the U.S. Senate. It was nine men in black robes in 1973 that has 
since resulted in the death of over 62 million innocent babies--62 
million.
  They have the opportunity to reverse this horrific decision that 
imposed abortion on demand until the moment of birth across the United 
States. They have the opportunity to recognize that Roe was based on 
flawed and outdated science and that the right to abortion, which Roe 
invented, has no support in the text, the history, or the structure of 
the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore the Constitution and 
defend our most fundamental right, and that is a right to life.
  Now, let's go back to 1973, when Roe was decided. Many things were 
different than they are today. Why? Well, one reason is because science 
and technology--and certainly fashions--have advanced greatly.
  Our phones in the 1970s went from large brick-like devices with 
antennas--in fact, the first cell phone call was placed in 1973, the 
very year that Roe v. Wade was decided. They were called bricks. They 
were about 2\1/2\ pounds. Compare that to these thin, touchscreen 
smartphones that we fit in our pockets today that are less than 6 
ounces in weight.
  In the 1970s, computers were the size of an entire desk, and now we 
have laptops that can be as thin as literally a child's story that I 
read to my grandchildren over the Thanksgiving holidays.
  Now, when we drove in the seventies, compare that to what we drive 
today. I am thankful that has changed.
  And in the seventies, if you were a woman at the doctor getting an 
ultrasound at 15 weeks of pregnancy, you would have seen something like 
this. That is hard to recognize, but that was the technology that some 
ultrasounds had--the best--back in the seventies.
  But, today, an ultrasound of a baby at 15 weeks, when they are using 
the latest 4D technology, looks like this. You literally can see this 
little one here at 15 weeks sticking her tongue out--15 weeks.
  A baby this size is who Mississippi's historic, lifesaving law would 
protect from the brutal violence of a late-term abortion. That is a 15-
week baby. If you don't believe me, take out your smartphone, google 
``15-week baby,'' and click on--images.--
  Roe and Casey made it illegal for States like Mississippi to enforce 
laws that protect babies like this one on the grounds that this baby 
could not survive outside the womb. It was a point called viability.
  Roe and Casey's viability line is arbitrary. It is unscientific. It 
is morally repugnant because, in 1973, babies could survive outside of 
the womb at 28 weeks of pregnancy. Today, babies are surviving outside 
the womb as early as 21 weeks but not yet as early as 15 weeks.
  It is barbaric to deny lifesaving protections to a helpless, pre-born 
child like this one simply because she cannot survive outside the womb.
  The reality is, even a full-term, 40-week-old baby needs nurturing, 
care, and medical assistance to survive outside the womb. A full-term 
baby delivered at 40 or 41 weeks still requires the nurturing and the 
care of the parent to survive outside the womb. They have got to be 
fed. They have got to be kept warm. They have got to be taken care of. 
They can't do it on their own.
  Martin Luther King once said: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to 
justice everywhere.''
  This is also true in the case of the Supreme Court's prior unjust 
decisions on abortion. In fact, the logic of Roe and Casey's viability 
test undermines the moral coherence of civil rights protections for 
everyone who is unable to survive without assistance from others. That 
includes infants, young children, the elderly, and persons with 
disabilities.
  A pre-born child is not a ``potential life,'' as Roe so wrongly 
concluded. This precious child and all children inside the womb, at any 
stage of development, are whole. They are distinct. They are living 
human beings. They are fully human and fully living. They are 
beautifully living children made in the image of God, who should be 
protected by the law.
  Now, we have come a long way since 1973. Our laws must now do the 
same. As you just saw, at the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, it was 
very hard to clearly see a baby in the womb. But because of science and 
technology today, it is impossible to ignore the humanity of this 
growing baby.
  If I took this image and we had the American people say, ``What is 
that?'' they would say, ``That is a baby.''
  At 15 weeks, a baby has arms and legs, can hiccup, can yawn. The 
heart is fully developed. At 15 weeks, the heart has already beaten 15 
million times. That baby has distinct facial expressions. It can hear 
the voice of the mother and respond. It can taste, suck a thumb, and, 
as you can see in that other image I had, even stick out her tongue.

  I am a father of four and grandfather of two. We have another 
grandchild coming any day. Our daughter's due date is December 3. It is 
Friday. My wife and I, who have been married now 35 years, have our 
favorite way of tracking our grandbaby's growth. This didn't happen in 
1973, but today we have apps on our phones. I have been using an app 
called Sprout. There are several out there. I downloaded it. I can see 
how my little grandson is doing in each week of the pregnancy. It is 
remarkable--remarkable. We have been following this little baby now 
since week 8. We are at week 40 here this weekend. This cutting-edge 
technology is at the tip of our fingers--something we couldn't imagine 
50 years ago. We have that at the tip of our fingers. Our laws must 
catch up with the advancement of science and technology.
  It is very important that we are clear about what overturning Roe 
would mean for our country because there is a lot of misinformation out 
there. Let me state this as clearly as I can. Overturning Roe will 
not--let me say that again--will not ban abortion nationwide, as many 
on the left like to claim in an attempt to mislead Americans. That is 
absolutely false. It will not ban abortions nationwide. Instead, it 
returns the power to the States. It returns the power to Federal 
lawmakers, allowing them to protect the most vulnerable and act on 
behalf of the people they are elected to represent, because today under 
Roe, State lawmakers are robbed of their ability to represent the 
values of their constituents. Yet, because of Roe, the will of the 
people of Mississippi to protect life is obstructed.
  According to a recent Marist poll, 80 percent of Americans are 
opposed to abortions after the first 3 months--that is 12 weeks--of 
pregnancy. That is an overwhelming majority of the American people, but 
because of Roe, their voices are being silenced.
  It is time for the Supreme Court to allow the States and Federal 
lawmakers--those of us who are elected, who are held directly 
accountable by the people--to protect the most vulnerable among us. It 
is time that we, as the United States of America, a nation that is 
supposed to be a leader in the world on human rights, recognize that 
innocent babies in the womb deserve equal protection under our laws.
  I am sure many of my colleagues and most Americans would agree that 
nations like communist China and North

[[Page S8818]]

Korea egregiously violate human rights. Yet when it comes to abortion, 
sadly, America stands with them. There are just seven countries, and we 
are on that list. The United States is a global outlier on abortion. We 
are just one of seven nations that allow abortions on demand past the 
point where a baby feels pain, all the way up, in fact, until the 
moment of birth. Standing with North Korea and China on abortion is 
horrifying. It is a disgraceful place for the greatest country in the 
world to be. We must do better.
  I want to thank Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, her entire 
team, and the Mississippi Legislature for their unwavering support of 
life. We stand with you. Millions of Americans stand with you, young 
and old. They are praying for this momentous moment that will be 
occurring before our Court tomorrow.
  As we stand here today, we are mere hours away from a pivotal point 
in our Nation's history. I pray that we remember tomorrow as the 
turning point that closes a really dark chapter of our Nation's history 
and heralds the dawn of truly a new day in America for those who have 
no voice to finally have a voice; one that honors the human dignity, 
the God-given potential of all life; one that positions the United 
States as a leader in the world, that stands up and puts an end to the 
horrific violence of abortion, especially painful late-term abortions. 
I pray that we see the Supreme Court of the United States correct a 
historic injustice, that they would uphold Mississippi's 15-week 
abortion law and send Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history.
  For the pro-life movement, overturning Roe is not the end but just 
the beginning.
  As I stated earlier, this does not ban abortions nationwide. What it 
does is it will return the decisionmaking back to the States.
  No matter how the Court rules, we will continue to fight on the State 
and Federal level to pass laws to end the violence of abortion. We will 
not rest until the day that every life is protected under laws from 
conception until natural death.
  I want to thank my colleagues for being here today to talk about the 
importance of the Dobbs case. I want to thank my friend Senator 
Lankford for helping me with this fight for life. I am grateful to the 
two Senators from Mississippi, where this case originated, this law 
originated. I am grateful for Senator Wicker, who is here today, and I 
know he has some comments he wants to share as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I congratulate my friend from Montana for his passionate 
and analytical and, in my view, correct assessment of this issue.
  I rise this afternoon in support and encouragement of the public 
officials and the attorneys who will bring this case before the Supreme 
Court in argument tomorrow. I rise, as does my colleague from 
Mississippi, Senator Hyde-Smith, in appreciation for the State 
legislature, where she and I both served before coming to Congress, and 
in appreciation for the Governor and the legislature enacting the 
Gestational Age Act, which is the subject of this Dobbs case which will 
be argued tomorrow.
  This is a serious issue. It is an issue that will determine whether 
millions of American children have an opportunity to be born and to 
enjoy the good life in this, the greatest system of representative 
government that the world has ever seen. It is a serious issue.
  I am happy today. I am encouraged and hopeful today. One of the 
reasons that I am so encouraged is that the American people steadily 
over the decades have been moving in the direction of protecting life. 
This has not always been the case. As my friend from Montana so 
accurately pointed out, we just know so much more. Science knows so 
much more today in 2021 than science knew and Americans knew and the 
world knew back in 1973, so we see more and more people becoming pro-
life.
  Since 1995, the share of Americans who identified themselves as pro-
life has jumped to 47 percent from 33 percent. You say: Well, that is 
not that great. Of course, it leaves some folks undecided. But when you 
sort it out and become more specific, two out of three Americans 
support a ban on second trimester abortions. This is what the 
Mississippi law does. This is the law that will be allowed to stay in 
effect if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mississippi based on the 
argument tomorrow.
  Four out of five Americans oppose late-term abortions.
  My friend the distinguished Senator from Montana encouraged people 
within the sound of his voice to take their smartphones out and type in 
``15-week-old baby.'' I did that. I don't know if the rules quite 
permit that yet on the floor, but I dare say it is not the first time 
that has been done, so I did that. I clicked on ``15-week-old baby,'' 
and that very picture, along with other photographs, came up. As the 
gentleman says, it is every much, every bit a human baby--no question 
about it.
  I am encouraged that the American people are moving in the direction 
of life because they have seen these pictures, because they listen to 
the science, and we know more than we did in 1973. The Supreme Court 
knows more than it did in 1973.
  After 15 weeks, an unborn baby has more than 90 percent of its body 
parts that it will ever have. They have been formed, and almost every 
organ is functional at the 15-week period. That is a baby. That is a 
human, American baby. The child's heart is pumping 26 quarts of blood 
per day at 15 weeks and has already beaten approximately 15.8 million 
times by 15 weeks. That is a human. That is a baby. Babies at this 
stage respond to touch and taste, and a dominant hand begins to emerge. 
We know at that point--15 weeks--whether that baby is right-handed or 
left-handed. And, of course, we know that baby can feel pain. That baby 
deserves the constitutional rights that the gentleman from Montana 
mentioned of life and the pursuit of happiness as an American.
  I do want to congratulate our friends across the sea for actually 
being ahead of us on this. We like to think that sometimes we know best 
and we are ahead of the curve, but it happens that almost every 
European country has legislation in place, rules in place, that are 
very much like the Mississippi law that will be in question tomorrow in 
the hearing.
  Germany and Belgium have banned elective abortions after 14 weeks. 
Now, this law in Mississippi has set that at 15 weeks, but Germany and 
Belgium, 14 weeks. Denmark, Norway, France--a very ``live and let 
live'' country if ever I heard of it--draws the line at 12 weeks--12 
weeks. So when the Supreme Court hears this case tomorrow, they will 
have an opportunity to decide to place the United States of America in 
the broad mainstream of international thought on this.
  There are so many reasons why I am happy today and encouraged today 
that we have this opportunity to make a case based on the facts.
  I will say this: My heart and my thanks go out to the millions of 
Americans right this minute who are doing what some think is a quaint 
thing--performing an act that many people are skeptical about at this 
point. But I stand with those millions and millions of Americans who 
are right at this moment praying for the Supreme Court, praying for 
wisdom in these nine appointed and confirmed figures. They are praying 
for the right words to be said by the attorneys, and they are praying 
for the future of our great country.
  This is our opportunity, and we have every reason to believe that we 
are on the right side of history. I stand with the people who are 
bringing this case, and I stand with the people of Mississippi and the 
millions upon millions of Americans who are praying for the right 
decision.
  I yield to my good friend from across the river, the junior Senator 
from Louisiana. I know that my friend from Mississippi is also waiting 
to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we talk a lot in this Chamber, as well we 
should, about the least among us, about how we can protect and lift up 
the powers. And that is a good thing. I can't think of any person who 
has less power than a potential human life, than an unborn baby. Now, 
Roe v. Wade is, of course, about abortion. We know that. But it is also 
about something

[[Page S8819]]

else. Roe v. Wade is also about--it is about federalism.

  Roe v. Wade is also about the American people. Roe v. Wade is about 
whether a finite group of the managerial elite--and by the ``managerial 
elite'' I mean the entrenched politicians, the bureaucracy, the media, 
the academics, the corporate phonies, all of whom think they are 
smarter and more virtuous than the American people--should have the 
right to make moral decisions for the American people, instead of the 
American people making those decisions for themselves.
  That is really what Roe v. Wade is about.
  Now, I am pro-life and I am anti-Roe v. Wade. So I want to say up 
front: I do have an opinion.
  But even pro-choice legal scholars who believe in legalized abortion 
on demand understand, as does every fairminded person who knows a 
lawbook from a J. Crew catalog, that Roe v. Wade is one of the most 
arbitrary, it is one of the most ad hoc, and it is one of the most 
poorly reasoned decisions in the history of the United States.
  In Roe v. Wade, as you know, Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court 
held that a generalized right to privacy, not explicit in the 
Constitution, means that a woman has the virtually unfettered 
discretion to terminate a human life--some, to be fair, would say a 
potential human life--before viability.
  What is viability? As my colleagues talked about, that is a really, 
really good question.
  But I digress.
  Anyone who knows a lawbook from a J. Crew catalog also knows that 
there is absolutely no foundation--not in the text, not in the 
structure, not in the history, not in the tradition of the 
Constitution--for a constitutional right to abortion, and certainly not 
on the basis of some unmoored general right to privacy that is not 
enunciated in the Constitution.
  And don't even get me started on Roe v. Wade's trimester analysis and 
the ruling. Try to find ``trimester'' in the U.S. Constitution. You 
won't. You can't.
  The truth is--and people on both sides of this issue who are 
fairminded and reasonably objective--and by that, I mean can see the 
other point of view. The truth is that Roe v. Wade's constitutional 
right to an abortion is a 48-year-old, judge-invented rule that 
represents the U.S. Supreme Court winging it.
  Now, I know what we were told. We were told back in the 1970s: Look, 
we have got to have a national rule to settle this issue. Only 
Washington, DC, can settle this issue. We have to have a rational rule. 
We need some peace in the land. We need consensus.
  How is that working out for us?
  Roe v. Wade didn't settle anything.
  Now, in the Dobbs case, which the U.S. Supreme Court is about to 
hear, the U.S. Supreme Court has a really rare opportunity to say, as 
Justice Scalia wrote in one of his opinions, that value judgments made 
on behalf of people should be voted on by those people and not dictated 
from Washington, DC.
  In the Dobbs case, the United States Supreme Court has the rare 
opportunity to say what we all know, and that is that America is this 
big, wide-open, diverse, sometimes messy, sometimes dysfunctional, 
sometimes imperfect, but always trying-to-get-better group of good 
people. That is what America is.
  And we don't always agree--especially not on value judgments, 
especially not on the ultimate value judgment--like when it is 
appropriate to take a human life. That is why we get to vote. That is 
why we get to vote, and that is why we have elected representatives who 
oftentimes vote on our behalf--elected representatives who also can be 
unelected if we don't like how they vote.
  And, finally, in Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court has the rare 
opportunity to defederalize and deconstitutionalize abortion and return 
the issue to the States, where it was before Roe v. Wade.
  The U.S. Supreme Court, in Dobbs, does not have the opportunity--and 
this is important--to say ``no right to an abortion in America.'' Let 
me say that again because some of the proponents of Roe v. Wade, I 
think, have shaded the truth on this. At issue before the Supreme Court 
in Dobbs is not the right to have an abortion. It is the right--the 
issue before the Supreme Court in Dobbs is, What is the appropriate 
political form to make these value judgments? Is it the government or 
is it the people?
  And I hope that the U.S. Supreme Court takes advantage of this rare 
opportunity before it.
  I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today 
highlighting the momentous occasion for not only my home State of 
Mississippi but for our entire Nation. Senator Roger Wicker and I could 
not be prouder of our State.
  Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization, a challenge to a Mississippi law 
banning most abortions after 15 weeks. This law, the Gestational Age 
Act, was introduced by my friend, Mississippi State Representative 
Becky Currie, and was signed into law by Mississippi Governor Phil 
Bryant in 2018.
  This case presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Court 
to reconsider decades of misguided abortion law that began with Roe v. 
Wade and has continued under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
  There is no doubt that this case is the most significant pro-life 
legal opening in half a century and, certainly, in my lifetime. I am 
very proud that my State of Mississippi is in the center of this.
  In the 48 years since the decision in Roe v. Wade, 62 million unborn 
babies have lost their lives. This is a terrible moral stain on our 
Nation that we have a chance to reverse at long last.
  There are many reasons for the Supreme Court to reconsider its 
course. For one, medical technology has made significant advances--
especially with ultrasound technology--making clear what those of us in 
the pro-life movement already knew: that unborn children are human 
beings.
  Thanks in large part to the ultrasound technology, we now know that, 
by 15 weeks, an unborn baby has a fully developed heart with a strong 
heartbeat, responds to touch, and can make facial expressions, yawn, 
hiccup, and suck their thumbs.
  For another, the United States is a real outlier in the world when it 
comes to the abortion issue. We are one of only seven countries that 
allow abortions on demand up until the moment of birth, along with the 
likes of China and North Korea.
  The Supreme Court should uphold Mississippi's law, bringing our 
Nation closer to the international consensus on human rights for the 
unborn.
  As a legislator, I am confident in saying it is time for our laws to 
reflect what the rest of the world has already figured out: that life 
exists before birth and it needs to be protected. The only difference 
between a fetus and a first grader is 6 years.
  Since the Supreme Court announced it would take up the Dobbs case, I 
have been earnestly praying for this case. I pray for the Members of 
the Supreme Court to be open to the legal and moral arguments against 
Roe v. Wade. May God grant them the wisdom for the task and grace for 
the unborn.
  I have also been praying for my friend Mississippi Attorney General 
Lynn Fitch, our State's solicitor general, Scott Stuart, and the many 
others in the AG's office who have worked tirelessly to represent our 
State so well in this case.
  With the oral arguments scheduled for tomorrow morning, I pray that 
God would grant them all confidence and courage, as well as the right 
words to say in the Court.
  Most of all, I have been praying for all the unborn children whose 
right to life hangs in the balance of this case.
  Throughout this time, I have kept the words of I Samuel 1:27 close to 
my heart: ``For this child I have prayed, and the Lord hath given me my 
petition, which I asked of him.''
  So today, tonight, and tomorrow morning, I will be praying without 
ceasing. I hope each of you will join me in prayer for this historic 
court decision that started in Mississippi.
  May the Dobbs case restore the sanctity of life and reverse the moral 
stain of Roe v. Wade.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page S8820]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, for nearly 50 years, Roe v. Wade has been a 
disaster for our country and its citizens. Sixty million unborn lives 
have been lost to abortion, and our politics have been distorted by a 
ruling that deprives the American citizen--the voter--of the right to 
determine questions on which there is constitutional ambiguity.
  The Senate confirms individuals to the judicial branch to be judges. 
They are to judge, not to legislate. Listening to those whom we 
represent and proposing legislation on their behalf is our job here in 
the Capitol and the job of our representatives in State legislatures 
throughout all 50 States. The separation of these powers is crucial to 
how our democracy functions.
  Yet previous iterations of the Supreme Court have seen fit to usurp 
this legislative power, particularly as it relates to abortion.
  In doing so, a majority of these unelected judges and Justices have 
relied upon specious jurisprudence to eviscerate State laws that 
protect the unborn.
  You don't need to take the word of a conservative Republican from 
Kansas. Writing when she was a circuit court judge, the late Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg explained:

       Roe v. Wade . . . invited no dialogue with legislators. 
     Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the 
     legislators' court.

  One more liberal law professor acknowledged that ``Roe short-
circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method 
of deciding questions of competing values.''
  These assessments are exactly right. The fallout of Roe, and affirmed 
by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, is obvious. A vacancy to the 
Supreme Court has become a cage match--a fight here in the U.S. Senate. 
Someone as eminently qualified as Amy Coney Barrett should have been 
confirmed unanimously.
  Today, many of my Democratic colleagues support packing the Supreme 
Court with more Justices because they believe the Court will block 
their agenda, which is ironic because for nearly a half century, 
virtually every State ever to provide protection to unborn babies has 
been foiled by the judicial branch. Something terribly wrong has 
happened to our democracy when so much energy is focused on the Court.
  Again, quoting then-Justice Ginsburg on Roe's attempt to put the 
issue of abortion to bed, she said in 1985, the Court's ``heavy-handed 
judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have 
provoked, not resolved, conflict'' and in 1993 declared that the ruling 
``prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue.''
  Given these examples of our polluted discourse, no one can reasonably 
say that the politics of abortion have improved since then. In fact, it 
has only gotten much worse.
  What has improved, however, is our understanding of the science of 
embryology. Regrettably, it is not enough to say a unique human life 
begins at the moment of conception for it to receive protection. But we 
know when unborn babies feel pain; we know when they can survive 
outside the womb; and a remarkable 4D ultrasound reveals what we 
already knew: These unborn babies are fully human and deserve the right 
to life, and yet our legal regime denies them that right.
  Because of Roe, a child in America can be terminated for any reason--
any reason--up to the moment of its birth. That places the United 
States in the company of China and North Korea. Surely, a democracy 
founded on the belief that all people ``are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, 
and the pursuit of Happiness'' has a greater respect for human life 
than these brutal communist regimes.
  Tomorrow's Mississippi case will test that proposition. However, 
there is no doubt that the reversal of Roe will not end the practice of 
legal abortion. Several States have already enacted permissive abortion 
laws that would remain even on Roe's demise.
  The point here is that my effort and the effort of my colleagues and 
millions of other Americans to defend life will continue regardless of 
how the Supreme Court rules in the coming months, including in my State 
of Kansas. These efforts will depend on civil persuasion of our 
neighbors and responsive State and Federal legislators. We will need 
legislation that protects the unborn and assists new families in caring 
for their child.
  Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the most significant abortion 
case in the last 30 years. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization. This case provides the Court the opportunity to 
relinquish the legislative power it has assumed and return it to the 
people and their representatives. The Court will be better for it, and 
so will our politics. And most importantly of all, millions of future 
voices will get to have their say in the process too.
  I now yield the floor to my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, 
Senator Fischer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health 
Organization, the case that will come before our Nation's highest Court 
on December 1, is truly a historic case. It is about a law the State of 
Mississippi passed in 2018 to ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks 
of pregnancy.
  When I was a member of the State legislature in Nebraska in 2010, we 
passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Nebraska's bill 
banned most abortions after 20 weeks, the point when science at that 
time told us that unborn babies start to be able to feel pain. We were 
the first State in the country to pass a law of this kind, and in our 
Nebraska unicameral, we passed it with 44 ``yes'' votes and just 5 
``no'' votes.
  Nebraska has a unicameral--1 House, 49 Senators. We have pro-choice, 
pro-life, Republicans and Democrats that voted for this bill. We had 
pro-choice Republicans. We had a number of pro-life Democrats. In fact, 
we had a former Democratic National Committeeman vote for this bill. 
All we cared about was protecting the most vulnerable people in our 
society--unborn children.
  I was proud to support Nebraska's bill. I was proud that pro-life 
Democrats, pro-choice Republicans, put their differences aside to vote 
for it. And I am proud today to stand with Mississippi as their law 
comes before the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Back in July, I joined more than 200 of my colleagues in the Senate 
and the House of Representatives in filing an amicus brief supporting 
Mississippi's bill. In our brief, we argued that the precedence the 
Supreme Court set in Roe v. Wade and a later case, Planned Parenthood 
v. Casey, are outdated. When Roe was decided nearly 50 years ago, 
babies born before 28 weeks were not expected to survive. Today, the 
miracles of modern medicine have allowed babies born much earlier to 
not only survive but to go on to live full and happy lives.
  Just last year, a little boy was born right next door to Mississippi, 
in Alabama, at 21 weeks. He was 132 days premature, and he weighed just 
14.8 ounces. Fifty years ago, it would have been unthinkable--
unthinkable--for him to live beyond a few days. But this July, he 
celebrated his first birthday.
  Fifty years ago, ultrasounds and sonograms were not widely available. 
Today, they are an essential part of prenatal care. The pictures that 
these technologies enable families to see of their unborn children, 
even at the early stages of pregnancy, are often nearly identical to 
the newborns they will soon become. The advancements of the last 50 
years have left no doubt about the humanity of the unborn. And as 
science continues to progress over the next 50 years, new developments 
are going to keep allowing babies born earlier and earlier to survive 
and to thrive.
  The laws of just about every developed country have kept up with this 
rapid progress, but here in the United States our laws are stuck in the 
past. The United States is one of only four nations on Earth where 
certain States allow abortions up to the day of birth. That puts us in 
the uncomfortable company of China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Ninety 
percent of countries around the world limit abortion at 15 weeks, the 
same point as Mississippi's law, and some even earlier. In Europe 
alone, there are eight countries with laws that are stricter than 
Mississippi's. That includes Germany, where abortion is illegal in most 
cases just after 12 weeks. Women seeking

[[Page S8821]]

abortions before 12 weeks in Germany also have to go through a 3-day 
waiting period and a mandatory counseling session.
  Mississippi's law isn't that different from Germany's. In some ways, 
it is even more lenient, but it is still being challenged in our court 
system based on legal decisions from decades ago.
  Our laws are outdated, and America's unborn children are paying the 
price. Since 1973, more than 60 million abortions have taken the lives 
of more than 60 million American children, many of whom could have 
survived outside the womb.
  It is past time for the United States to move into the 21st century. 
The Supreme Court has a chance to help us do that by upholding 
Mississippi's law in the Dobbs case, and I hope they will.
  With that, I would yield to my colleague from Kansas, Senator 
Marshall, who is also a doctor, a gynecologist, and obstetrician.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking the Senator 
from Nebraska for helping to bring to light the significance of the 
Dobbs Supreme Court case.
  For some 30 years, I had the honor, the privilege of delivering a 
baby most every day of my life. Some 5,000 babies in residency and 
another 5,000 babies in private practice. Some days, I delivered none. 
Other days, it was one or two. There were days when I delivered 10, 11, 
12 babies a day.
  Some of those babies I could fit in the palm of my hand. Other 
babies--I delivered several babies over 15 pounds.
  It has now been almost 4 years since I delivered my last baby, but I 
am still often asked: Do I miss obstetrics; and let me tell you, boy, 
do I miss it.
  My favorite part of the whole process, as I recall, though, was after 
a hard, long labor, seeing that baby emerge from the mother, holding 
that baby in my hands and waiting for it to cry. Sometimes it was 
crying as it entered into this world, other times it took 5 seconds, 
sometimes 30 seconds, sometimes a minute or two would go by as we 
worked on the baby. But my favorite part of every pregnancy was taking 
that crying baby and handing it over to a new mom and dad. It was 
absolutely the most spiritual moment of my life--the closest I ever got 
to seeing what God was truly like, to see a newborn baby in the hands 
of its mom and dad, with this just total agape love--this unconditional 
love. It was just the honor of my life to experience that almost on a 
daily basis.
  But today I want to talk about my favorite OB visit which came at 15 
weeks, typically. At about 15 weeks after conception, moms would come 
in for maybe their third or fourth visit. My first question was always: 
Are you feeling the baby move? And the mom's eyes would light up. Maybe 
she had had a miscarriage before or maybe it was an infertile couple or 
maybe this was her third or fourth baby, but when I asked them: Are you 
feeling the baby move yet, her eyes would light up.
  And mom would lie down on the bed, and I would put my hands on her 
abdomen and feel the size of her uterus to assess how big the baby was. 
And so often as I put my hands on her skin, I could feel the baby 
pushing back or kicking back.
  And then we put the Doppler on the mom's abdomen and listened to the 
baby's heartbeat, and usually if there was a brother or sister in the 
room, that baby's big brother or big sister would squeal: Mommy, what 
is that noise? What is that noise? And almost every time, as I heard 
the sibling ask mom that question, you could hear the baby's heart rate 
increase with excitement. That baby inside the womb knew that was its 
brother or sister there that was talking, and it was excited to hear 
that voice. And the mom would respond: Darling, that is your little 
baby brother or sister. And as mom spoke, the baby's heart rate would 
slow back down to what it was before--that calming voice.
  So that brings me to the Dobbs case. The Mississippi Dobbs case 
protects life after that 15-week visit I just described.
  I recognize and believe that life begins at conception, but maybe not 
all of America agrees with me on that. But I do believe with all my 
heart that a huge part of America agrees, we should not allow abortions 
on babies that can feel pain or that can respond to their mom's voice 
or their sibling's voices. Right?
  Ask yourself that same question. An unborn baby that can feel pain, 
that knows its mom's voice, should that baby be deprived of life 
outside the womb?
  I struggle as I watch America be one of seven nations that allows 
abortions after 15 weeks. And I point out that all these other nations 
are agnostic or totalitarian nations for the most part. And I struggle 
as I recall the moms and dads who lost a baby at 15 weeks or at 18 
weeks or at 23 weeks. I recall their mourning. I recall their tears.
  I recall how, in our hospital, we might be struggling to preserve a 
pregnancy, to save a baby's life, to be resuscitating a baby while in a 
nearby town the abortion industry is claiming another life at this same 
gestational age.
  I struggle to think we live in a society that allows this barbaric 
treatment of the unborn. We hope and pray that this landmark Supreme 
Court case will result in a decision that reflects the values of most 
Americans and will protect life after 15 weeks.
  Unfortunately, because of a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court case, my home 
State of Kansas has become an abortion destination--an abortion 
destination. The Kansas Supreme Court has paved the way for unlimited 
abortions, abortions paid for with tax dollars. That is why, back home, 
I will be fighting for the Value Them Both Amendment that protects the 
values of both the mom and the baby.
  Look, America does not want an unlimited, unregulated abortion 
industry. This is not consistent with our values. I believe most 
Americans value them both. We value both the mom and the baby. I fought 
my whole life for moms and babies, and I am going to keep fighting for 
them both.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend and mentor from Texas, 
who has been leading the fight up here in DC for years. I look forward 
to his sharing with us what Texans are talking about on the 
significance of this Dobbs Supreme Court case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleagues 
for being willing to stand up and defend innocent human life.
  I remember, recently, watching a young woman walk across one of the 
downtown bridges in Austin, TX, carrying a sign that read: ``Abortion--
any time, any reason.''
  That is what she was advocating for. I was shocked when I saw it 
because I thought even the most ardent advocates of abortion would not 
take that position of denying the humanity of this unborn child, but, 
apparently, that is what it has become here--48 years after the Supreme 
Court first created a right to abortion out of whole cloth as a 
constitutional right.
  You look, in vain, in the Constitution of the United States, as well 
as in the amendments to the Constitution, for any reference at all to 
abortion. What you will find, if you read the Declaration of 
Independence, is a familiar statement to all of us. On July 4, 1776, 
the 13 States then that made up America wrote: ``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.''
  By the way, there is no asterisk--there is no footnote--that says, if 
you are an unborn human life, that you are denied this unalienable 
right to life.
  Such noteworthy figures as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was probably one 
of the most aggressive advocates for abortion rights on the U.S. 
Supreme Court, later in life decried the fact that, by the Supreme 
Court's holding a right to abortion as a constitutional right, it 
denied the very sort of give-and-take debate by which our differences 
are resolved in the States and at the national level.
  I would just like to point out some of the misinformation that you 
hear and read about Roe v. Wade.
  If Roe v. Wade is no longer the precedent by which abortion rights 
are decided, it will not mean that abortion will not be available in 
many, if not all, of the States. What it will mean is that it will be 
decided, under our Federal system, on a State-by-State basis,

[[Page S8822]]

according to the decisions made by elected State leadership, including 
the legislature.
  In 1973, Richard Nixon was inaugurated for the second time as 
President of the United States. Suffice it to say that a lot has 
happened since then--a lot. I think it is entirely appropriate that the 
U.S. Supreme Court revisits its precedents, including Roe v. Wade--
decided in 1973--and decide if that precedent has stood the test of 
time.
  By the way, in serving on the Judiciary Committee, we frequently have 
nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States come before the 
committee, and many of my pro-choice colleagues will say: Do you agree, 
Judge or Future Judge, that Roe v. Wade is the precedent of the U.S. 
Supreme Court?
  Of course, that is along with Casey and the other decisions that have 
been decided since then, but they act as if the U.S. Supreme Court 
cannot revisit bad decisions and correct those bad decisions.
  To act as though Supreme Court precedent is somehow sacrosanct would 
still leave us with the likes of Dred Scott, which treated African 
Americans as less than fully human. Obviously, we fought a Civil War, 
and 600,000 Americans died--that would be the equivalent of 3 million 
people today--in a bloody Civil War that tore our country apart.
  So being able to revisit those precedents, especially in light of the 
passage of time and over long experience, is entirely within the 
purview and entirely appropriate for the Supreme Court to do.
  Well, we have heard from my other colleagues that, since Roe was 
decided in 1973, more than 60 million abortions have been performed in 
the United States. As originally was decided, Justice Blackmun wrote an 
opinion and established an event he called viability. Basically, the 
argument by the proponents of Roe is that somehow, in this decision by 
Justice Blackmun's saying that abortion should be widely available pre-
viability, we should not be able to reconsider or take a look at that. 
The truth is, Justice Blackmun admitted this was an arbitrary standard.
  What does ``viability'' mean?
  We have heard that seven countries around the world have more 
permissive or equally permissive abortion laws as the United States. I, 
frankly, don't want to be in the same company as North Korea or the 
People's Republic of China, governed by the Communist Party. I would 
hope that America would aspire to something different and better and 
more humane, more in line with our fundamental statement about the 
unalienable right to life.
  But, as to the fact that America is only one of seven countries that 
allows elective abortions after 20 weeks, which, as I said, puts us in 
the same category as communist China and North Korea, you would think 
that would raise a huge red flag as to say something is terribly wrong 
here.
  How is it that we are in the same category as communist North Korea 
and as communist China when it comes to the value we place on unborn 
life?
  Well, unfortunately, we have seen the right to life become a partisan 
issue in the U.S. Congress when you take a look at the pro-life 
legislation which has been introduced over the last years.
  We saw last year, for example, our Democratic colleagues filibuster 
legislation to outlaw elective abortions after 20 weeks, which is when 
science tells us that an infant can feel pain. Then they blocked a bill 
requiring physicians to provide lifesaving care to infants who survive 
abortions. This is care that any other newborn baby would receive, and 
yet our colleagues--so concerned about the backlash among their pro-
abortion constituents--blocked it, denying a child born alive after a 
botched abortion the same sort of care that any other newborn would be 
entitled to. They blocked it.
  And the latest attack on an unborn baby's right to life is the 
Women's Health Protection Act. This bill would undermine State laws 
limiting abortion, even after viability, and undercut the Supreme 
Court's ruling that defines our current definition of ``viability.''
  What does ``viability'' mean?
  Even at 20 weeks, can an unborn child live without medical attention 
and support from their mother or medical personnel?
  Of course not.
  This was an arbitrary line drawn by the Supreme Court in 1973. As we 
have heard from many of my colleagues, medicine has, thankfully, 
advanced considerably since that time.
  Well, even though the U.S. Congress seems to be stuck when it comes 
to the issue of abortion and respecting the right to life of unborn 
babies, thankfully, the States have taken the issue up, which is why 
States, like Mississippi, have passed their own legislation to protect 
unborn babies.
  Pro-abortion advocates say, well, 15 weeks--which is what the 
Mississippi law says. They say that a right to abortion only for the 
first 15 weeks of a pregnancy violates constitutional rights. But it is 
interesting. It is no less arbitrary than this notion of viability, 
which suggests that a child can live--which they cannot--outside the 
mother's womb even if they are 20 weeks or 24 weeks of gestational age. 
Interestingly, in a number of States, like Massachusetts and Nevada, 
abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. California, Washington, 
Illinois are among States that explicitly restrict abortions after 
viability.
  The American people clearly stand behind the protection of unborn 
life. This summer, a poll found that 65 percent of Americans believe 
that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. That is the 
second 3-month period of a 9-month pregnancy.
  Opposition to third-trimester abortion is even stronger, as 80 
percent of Americans are opposed to a third-trimester abortion. Indeed, 
the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Nebraska law banning 
late-term abortion, which is essentially producing a delivery while the 
child is still alive, killing the fetus, and then completing that 
abortion. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ban on that 
third-trimester, late-term abortion--that brutal and barbaric practice 
that even the Supreme Court could not abide.
  Last June, a baby born at 21 weeks and 2 days, this last summer, 
celebrated his first birthday. That is what is at stake here when you 
are dealing with more than just one person--or you are dealing with 
more than just one person.
  The question is: How do you balance and deal with the rights not only 
of the woman seeking the abortion, but also of the unborn child?
  Right now, under its current jurisprudence, that unborn child is not 
even considered a human.
  America cannot be its best if we devalue the lives of the most 
vulnerable among us. I believe that babies with heartbeats, 
fingerprints, and taste buds deserve some protection under the law.
  I am proud of the efforts led by our colleague Senator Lankford and 
others to make sure that we actually have a discussion about this issue 
and don't just sweep it under the rug and we don't just let the pro-
abortion lobby mischaracterize what we are talking about, as if 
eliminating Roe would eliminate abortions in America. It would just 
allow the States to do it on a State-by-State basis.
  But, actually, Roe was made up right. It created a constitutional 
right that is not even stated in the Constitution itself, and it 
created an arbitrary time limit in which abortions could be performed 
or not as a matter of constitutional right.
  So I join the rest of the body and this country awaiting the Supreme 
Court's ruling. I believe that it is more than appropriate for the 
Supreme Court to revisit its precedence that essentially disparaged and 
denigrated the right to life of an unborn child.
  I would yield the floor to my friend from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. In December of 1952 and again in December of 1953, the 
Supreme Court was packed. There were lines out into the hallway, with 
people waiting to get in to hear oral arguments. In December, the Court 
would hear arguments on the legality of segregation brought by Thurgood 
Marshall, representing the Brown family in Topeka, KS.
  Just 56 years before Brown v. Board of Education, segregation was 
protected by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. They ruled that 
separate but equal facilities were constitutional, thus enshrining the 
national

[[Page S8823]]

disgrace of segregation into America--an absolutely terrible decision 
by the Supreme Court that haunted our Nation for decades. It took 56 
years before the Supreme Court corrected its wrong.
  Now that more than a century has passed since the Plessy v. Ferguson 
decision, the Nation still celebrates the Court that decided the Brown 
v. Board of Education case, as Justices righted a great wrong against 
millions of people. There was a simple lesson in that decision: When 
the Court made a mistake, it should fix its mistake.
  In a lesser known case that affects just about every American now, in 
2018, the Supreme Court overturned by a 5-to-4 decision 51 years of 
precedent on the collection of taxes for businesses called the physical 
presence rule. Many people now know it as the internet tax rule. It 
changed the way taxes were collected on the internet.
  When they made that decision in 2018, there was great confusion and 
consternation, statements that it would be impossible to implement it 
and it would bring certain destruction to internet commerce. In fact, 
in the dissent in that 5-to-4 decision, the minority in the Court 
stated this:

       E-commerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of 
     our national economy against the backdrop of these 
     established rules, including the physical-presence rule. Any 
     alteration of those rules with the potential to disrupt the 
     development of such a critical segment of [our] economy 
     should be undertaken only by Congress.

  The Court should not act on this important question of current 
economic policy solely to correct a mistake it made over 50 years ago. 
It was hand-wringing by the Court, the minority there, that they 
opposed correcting the obvious mistake of the Court from 51 years 
before because it could hurt the cyber economy. In other words, doing 
the right thing involved a risk.
  Well, yesterday was Cyber Monday. It was one of the largest single 
days of purchasing online in history. The Court did the right thing, 
and the economy kept going. There was a simple lesson in that decision: 
When the Court made a mistake, it should fix its mistake, even if it 
was 50 years later.
  Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral 
arguments in what could potentially be the most consequential case for 
human rights in 48 years.
  Tomorrow at 10 a.m., nine Justices will hear arguments and ask 
questions of the attorney general of the State of Mississippi and 
counsel representing an abortion clinic in Mississippi. Tomorrow 
morning, the Court will consider whether all previability prohibitions 
on elective abortions are constitutional.
  Tomorrow, this Court has the opportunity to uphold the self-evident 
truth to personhood, the facts of science and of our heart's 
declaration, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
Simply stated, the Court has an opportunity to correct its mistake from 
1973, 48 years ago.
  In 2018, the Mississippi Legislature enacted the Gestational Age Act, 
which limits abortion to 15 weeks of gestation except in a medical 
emergency and cases of severe fetal abnormality.
  Jackson Women's Health Organization, an abortion clinic in 
Mississippi, sued. Federal courts held that the law was in violation of 
the Court precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Now it is known as 
the Dobbs case. It stands before the Supreme Court at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
  This case presents an opportunity for the Court to reconsider Roe v. 
Wade and turn the role of legislating on the issue of life back to the 
States, where it was pre-Roe v. Wade.
  In Roe v. Wade, as this body knows extremely well, the Supreme Court 
decided the Constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion until 
the viability of a child, with very little understanding of the term 
``viability.'' Years later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court 
also said that the government couldn't place an undue burden on access 
to abortion, which has been used to block many laws that aim to protect 
women and children.
  Both decisions were completely arbitrary and not based in 
constitutional law. ``Viability,'' quite frankly, is impossible to 
define because children develop at different speeds. One child, Curtis 
Means, left the University of Alabama at Birmingham Regional Neonatal 
Intensive Care Unit after he was prematurely delivered at 21 weeks, 1 
day--the youngest child to be born ever. Another child, though, may not 
survive if they were even delivered at 32 weeks. Viability was 
completely invented by the Court in 1973 as a standard and is 
impossible to actually track.
  America has not forgotten about these children. We have not moved on, 
and we have not just accepted Roe v. Wade, because when we see a child, 
as this one is at 15 weeks, we actually see a baby, shockingly enough. 
Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court may have decided that a woman 
has a right to an abortion, but we never lost track of humanity. 
Abortion is not just a medical procedure; it is the taking of a human 
life.
  I talked this morning with an abortion survivor. And, yes, they do 
exist by the thousands. She is in her forties. She has children of her 
own now. She survived a botched abortion and was actually delivered 
alive during an abortion procedure. She was taken by a nurse to the 
NICU unit of that hospital, and she is still alive and thriving today. 
I sat there with that abortion survivor, thinking that abortion is not 
about random tissue; it is about a person--quite frankly, this morning, 
the person who was sitting right in front of me.
  Now, I understand full well I am a pastor who is now a Senator. I am 
fully aware that I have a Biblical worldview. My dedication to children 
is not just because I am a follower of Jesus and believe that every 
person is created in the image of God; I also firmly can look at the 
science. The science is clear to anyone who is willing to get past the 
talking points and actually look into the womb.
  At the moment of fertilization, a new and distinct human being comes 
into existence. It is not just a fertilized egg; it is a new human. 
This new cell, which is called a zygote, shows behavior that is unlike 
the behavior of any other cell around it that is in the woman's body. 
The DNA inside that cell is different than the DNA inside any other 
cell in the mom's body. That cell has everything that he or she needs 
to become a fully developed human being.
  Everyone listening to me right now--everyone--was once a single-cell 
zygote, completely dependent on your mom for nutrition. That is why we 
encourage moms to eat good foods, take prenatal vitamins, stop smoking, 
and all those things, because we want to protect the development of her 
child. Why? Because we all recognize that that is a child, and what a 
mom does now will affect the future for that child.
  As the baby grows in his or her mother's womb, it continues to 
develop. At 15 weeks, as this baby is--and that is what the Mississippi 
law is all about, is a baby who looks just like that. At 15 weeks, a 
baby has a heart, lungs, skin, eyes, a nervous system. By 15 weeks or a 
little over 3 months of pregnancy, this preborn baby is moving around 
in response to touch. All of her organs are formed, and she just needs 
more time for them to grow and develop. Her heart already has four 
chambers. It has already beaten millions of times and pumps more than 
six quarts of blood per day. She cannot breathe outside the womb, but 
she is breathing inside the womb. She has arms and legs. She has 10 
fingers and 10 toes and normally by this point already shows a 
preference for being right-handed or left-handed. She has eyes, lips, a 
nose, fingernails, eyebrows, even taste buds. She can feel pain.
  This decision has ethical, moral, and medical implications. Look in 
the mirror, anyone in this room. You have fingers and toes and lips and 
a nose and fingernails and eyebrows and taste buds. You can feel your 
heart beating. The only difference between you right now and this child 
is time. That is it.
  But for some, it is easy to just close their eyes and ignore the 
self-evident fact because it is easier to talk about Court precedent or 
choice, because if we look at each child and recognized this child for 
who she is, it is hard to process that in the last 48 years, 62 million 
children have died by abortion in America. And for some, they can't 
allow themselves to acknowledge what is self-evident because it would 
be too painful to think about 62 million children.
  Can I tell you, 62 million children is the combined population of 
Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota,

[[Page S8824]]

Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, West 
Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, 
Nevada, Iowa, Utah, Connecticut, Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, 
and Oklahoma--combined.
  A Court decision that led to the death of 62 million children is a 
Court precedent that needs to be discarded.
  Prior to 1973, each State had its own laws on abortion. That is what 
would happen again if the Court overturns Roe v. Wade. We will have a 
patchwork of laws on abortion, just like we do right now on homicide.
  In some States, like mine, if a pregnant mother and her child are 
killed, the perpetrator faces two charges of murder, one for the mom 
and one for the child. In other States, the perpetrator would only face 
one charge of murder because that State doesn't recognize that child's 
existence at all. I think that is absurd, but that is a law in one 
State, and it changes from State to State. People can speak to their 
own State legislators about changing that law in their State and about 
recognizing the value of every child, even a child in the womb, but 
until they do, that child is a nonentity in some States. That kind of 
difference in homicide laws is allowed by the Supreme Court already. 
This Court should give that same right to every State for every preborn 
child, not just for some.
  The law being debated in the Supreme Court tomorrow reflects the will 
of the people of Mississippi, just as many pro-life laws in Oklahoma 
and in our legislature have reflected the will of the people of 
Oklahoma.
  The arbitrary, outdated viability standard established by the Court 
makes it harder for States to protect women from physical risk that 
accompany late-term abortions. It makes it difficult to allow States to 
protect preborn babies in the second trimester, who can experience 
pain. The viability standard prevents States from banning dismemberment 
abortion. The viability standard deters States from protecting children 
diagnosed with Down syndrome, developmental disabilities, and children 
being aborted simply because they are male or female. It also prevents 
States from protecting the lives of their own citizens at any stage of 
development.
  I don't understand how infants have become a partisan issue. I really 
don't.

  There are some issues, as I talk to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, where I can see their perspective and their point of 
view. I may not agree, but I can understand their point of view.
  But on this issue I do not understand how some people see a baby 
sucking their thumb in the womb and they see them only as medical 
waste. I don't understand how some people can support an abortion in 
one moment, but when they talk to a woman who has had a miscarriage, 
they immediately respond with ``Oh, I am so sorry.'' If a miscarriage 
is the loss of a child, then what is an abortion?
  I don't understand how the same person who fights to protect the 
right to abort children also brings a gift to a baby shower and 
celebrates a mom and a baby. How can one child be worth celebrating and 
the other child be medical waste? I just don't understand that 
compartmentalization.
  Frankly, I don't understand how some people who are pro-abortion 
justify protecting Bald Eagle eggs in Federal law but have no problem 
supporting the taking of human life in the womb.
  Children are not medical waste. Children are beautiful, innocent, and 
valuable. Some people who are pro-abortion call pro-life people 
horrible names, and they say they are trying to limit a woman's choice 
and her freedom while they work to protect her right to have her own 
baby literally have its arms and legs torn off in the womb so the child 
would bleed to death in the womb and then each body part would be 
suctioned out separately.
  I don't consider that freedom. I consider that cruel and inhumane.
  They say it is a woman's choice. But when does the child get to 
choose? Some people in our Nation actually celebrate the death of 
children like it is some glorious empowerment of a woman that she is 
able to pick and choose which baby will live or die based on her 
decision. I don't think that is empowerment. I think that is barbaric.
  Mother Teresa stated: ``It is a poverty to decide that a child must 
die so that you may live as you wish.''
  Change begins tomorrow. Tomorrow the Court will have the opportunity 
to uphold our Constitution; eradicate the outdated, oppressive, and 
deadly precedent; and turn our discussion about life over to the 
legislators in each State. Now is the time for this Court to overturn 
Roe v. Wade.
  Our Nation prides itself on human rights and individual liberties, 
but we have this huge, glaring exception: We deny the obvious fact of a 
child until they are born. We ignore a child's existence until it is 
convenient.
  I really believe, in the decades ahead, our Nation will catch up and 
we will look back on these years with grief. We will be shocked that 
when we saw a pregnancy test that said ``positive,'' somehow we didn't 
figure out that meant positive for tissue; it meant positive for a 
baby.
  I look forward to the day when the United States will be a beacon of 
justice for every child and not just a few; when we will be a Nation 
that protects the weak, not just a Nation that stands up for the 
strong; when we will lead the world to protect the innocent and speak 
for those who cannot speak for themselves; when America is a beacon of 
hope for every child.
  Southern slave owners in 1830 denied humanity to their slaves. Men in 
1900 denied women a right to vote. The United States rounded up 
Japanese Americans in World War II and put them into camps.
  All three of those were considered legal and appropriate at the time. 
All three of those were fought tenaciously when they were changed, and 
all three of them are a national embarrassment now.
  There was a time when the Court ruled that separate but equal was 
justice. Then, six decades later, they reversed course, ending 
segregation. Justice requires, when the Court gets it wrong, that they 
correct their own mistake. This time there are millions of children 
counting on the Court getting it right.
  ``Blessed are those who have regard for the weak; the Lord delivers 
them in times of trouble''--Psalm 41, verse 1.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                          Durham Investigation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on November 3 of this year, Special 
Counsel Durham indicted Christopher Steele's primary subsource, Igor 
Danchenko. He indicted him on five counts of lying to the FBI. He lied 
about his contacts and the identity of his sources.
  One of the more serious lies was about Sergei Millian. The indictment 
shows that Danchenko alleged a phone call occurred between him and 
Millian about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. That call was part of the 
basis that the FBI used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
  Now, according to Durham, Steele's source lied about the call because 
that call never happened. This is yet another stunning, fatal defect 
against the Obama-Biden administration's fake predicate to investigate 
Trump--specifically, yet another illustration of Justice Department and 
FBI failure.
  Now, as a result of these failures, this country has been dragged 
through the mud for years. That statement is well understood at this 
point, but I have more to explain about it.
  The indictment also shows that one of Steele's sources was a 
``longtime participant in Democratic Party politics'' and that he 
``fabricated'' at least some of the information that he gave to 
Danchenko.
  This source, identified as Charles Dolan, ``actively campaigned and 
participated in calls and events as a volunteer on behalf of Hillary 
Clinton'' during the 2016 election.
  Another one of Danchenko's sources was also a Hillary Clinton 
supporter. Charles Dolan gifted to this particular Russian subsource an 
autobiography of Hillary Clinton signed with these words: ``To my good 
friend, a great Democrat.''
  Now--get this--while the Democrats were smearing Trump with false 
Russia allegations, they were the ones rubbing elbows with Russians and 
spreading false information in the media, and, of

[[Page S8825]]

course, the media, as we know, gladly ran with that information. For 
example, President Biden's current National Security Advisor, Jake 
Sullivan, promoted the false story about the Russian bank called Alfa 
Bank communicating with the Trump organization, when he worked for the 
Clinton campaign.
  Notably, during congressional testimony, several years ago, Sullivan 
said that he wasn't sure who Marc Elias represented when he presented 
Trump opposition research to the campaign. Now, for crying out loud, 
Elias was the Clinton campaign's general counsel.
  My oversight work dating back to December 2016 has focused on the 
Democratic Party's and Clinton campaign's links to the Steele dossier. 
Last Congress, Senator Johnson and I obtained many records relating to 
Crossfire Hurricane. We were able to get many of them declassified for 
the public.
  I point you to our April 15, 2020; December 3, 2020; and December 18, 
2020, press releases on this information. Some of the declassified 
records show that the FBI had reports in its hand that showed the 
Steele dossier was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation.
  One document indicates that the FBI received a U.S. intelligence 
report on January 12, 2017, warning of an inaccuracy in the dossier in 
relation to Michael Cohen. The report assessed that the material was 
``part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign 
relations.''
  That same day, the FISA warrant against Page was renewed for the 
first time by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This is when the 
Obama-Biden administration and the Justice Department were still in 
charge.
  A similar U.S. intelligence report arrived on February 27, 2017, 
undercutting a key allegation against then-President Trump. The report 
noted claims about Trump's travel to Moscow in 2013 ``were false, and 
they were the product of Russian intelligence services infiltrat[ing] a 
source into the network'' of sources that contributed to the dossier. 
Just over a month later, the FISA warrant against Page was then renewed 
for a second time.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the FBI also opened a 
counterintelligence case on Danchenko and failed to tell the FISA Court 
about it. If this fact pattern was a movie script, nobody would believe 
it.
  With Durham's recent indictments, we now have even more proof that 
the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had the wrong name. It should 
have been the Clinton-DNC-Russia collusion investigation.
  The media and many members of the Democratic Party ought to be 
ashamed of the falsehoods that they were spreading throughout these 
years. Our political discourse has been damaged for decades to come 
because of that scheme.
  Recently, the Washington Post had to correct over a dozen articles 
relating to its previous Russia reporting in light of the extensive 
errors made by that newspaper--years of errors, I might add. I think it 
is somewhat unprecedented, and I am sure the Washington Post hated to 
retract and correct the record.
  As Durham proceeds, I would say this: Don't take your eyes off of 
government misconduct. The Justice Department and the FBI hid critical 
information from the FISA Court that would have cut against their case. 
They failed to correct the record when they should have corrected the 
record. Simply put, the Justice Department and the FBI misrepresented 
information to the court. That conduct can't be allowed to pass.


                         Remembering Tom Riter

  Mr. President, on another matter, just a short point I want to make 
about a very important voice in agriculture journalism that has gone 
silent.
  Every Tuesday morning--probably for 52 weeks out of the year--I hold 
a conference call with agriculture reporters and farm broadcasters to 
discuss news and issues impacting the 2 percent of the Americans who 
feed and fuel the world. I am talking about our family farmers.
  For the past several decades, the first question each week came from 
a very familiar voice in the agriculture community: Tom Riter of WNAX 
out of Yankton, SD.
  Sadly, Tom passed away on November 21, just a few days before 
Thanksgiving.
  Tom rarely--and I mean very rarely--ever missed my weekly call. In 
fact, he always kicked off the discussion that was carried on by 
probably another dozen people--kicked off the discussion with a smart 
question about farm policy. Undoubtedly, his reports kept his listeners 
informed on issues that make a big difference to their lives, their 
farms, their ranches, and businesses in the American heartland.
  He happened to be a native of Rock Rapids, IA, not far from Yankton. 
He was a fellow University of Northern Iowa Panther. Tom joined WNAX in 
1999, so he was around that station for 22 years, I think it adds up 
to. Ever since, I have looked forward to our weekly discussions.
  I am grateful for Tom's dedication to his craft, specifically his 
work to expand the public's understanding and appreciation of the ag 
community's contribution to our society--most importantly, that 2 
percent of the people in this country who produce the food for the 
other 98 percent.
  My wife Barbara and I extend our sympathies to Tom's family and 
friends, the WNAX family, and his colleagues in the ag press community. 
We lost a very big voice for American agriculture. He will be greatly 
missed.
  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. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, our collective heart as a nation is 
breaking for your State. At Oxford High School today, reports suggest 
that a 15-year-old turned a semiautomatic weapon on his classmates. 
Three are dead. Eight are injured.
  Our hearts are breaking a little bit harder in Connecticut because we 
know the pain that ravages a community when a shooting happens at a 
school. Newtown, CT, will never be the same after what happened there 
now almost a decade ago.
  Reports are that at Oxford High School nearly 100 911 messages came 
into police during the time of the shooting. It gives you a vision into 
the terror that happens inside a school when a classmate opens fire. I 
think about this, first and foremost, as a parent of a seventh grader 
and a fourth grader who are part of a generation that accepts as part 
of their childhood the risk of not leaving school at the end of the day 
because of a violent attack. That is the reality of being a kid in 
school today. I am angry about it as an American, but I am angry about 
it as a parent, that my children have to go through active shooter 
drills because this has become a regular facet of being a child in 
America--exposure to gun violence.
  It sickens me to think that my fourth grader has to worry about this 
when he goes to school every day.
  I understand that my Republican colleagues have very strong views on 
issues related to abortion, but I listened to my Republican colleagues 
come down here one after another today and talk about the sanctity of 
life at the very moment that moms and dads in Michigan were being told 
that their kids weren't coming home because they were shot at school 
due to a country that has accepted gun violence due to Republicans' 
fealty to the gun lobby.
  Do not lecture us about the sanctity, the importance of life, when 
100 people every single day are losing their lives to guns, when kids 
go to school fearful that they won't return home because a classmate 
will turn a gun on them, when it is in our control whether this 
happens.
  You care about life? Then get these dangerous military-style weapons 
off the streets, out of our schools.
  You care about life? Make sure that criminals don't get guns by 
making sure that everybody goes through a background check in this 
country.
  This only happens in the United States of America. There is no other 
nation in the high-income world in which kids worry about being shot

[[Page S8826]]

when they go to school. It happens here in America because we choose to 
let it happen.
  We are not unlucky. This is purposeful. This is a choice made by the 
U.S. Senate to sit on our hands and do nothing while kids die.
  It doesn't even involve any political risk. The changes we are 
talking about in order to make our schools safe places, they are 
supported by the vast majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats. 
And yet the gun lobby and the gun industry is more important to half of 
the Members of the Senate than is the safety of our kids, and that is 
infuriating.
  Make no mistake about it, there is a silent message of endorsement 
sent to would-be killers, sent to individuals whose brains are 
spiraling out of control when the highest levels of the U.S. Government 
does nothing, shooting after shooting. Somewhere in these broken 
brains, they have convinced themselves that they can right perceived 
wrongs by firing a gun into a crowd. And when Congress--when the 
highest, most important, most powerful leaders in the land do nothing, 
shooting after shooting, you can understand why those broken brains 
imply that as endorsement. We have become part of the problem. Our 
silence has become complicity.
  And I am here to tell you that there is a very low likelihood that 
your child will die in a school shooting. It is still a very, very 
infrequent occurrence in this country, given the number of kids who 
walk into a school every day. But the very fact that every child fears 
for their life, the very fact that every parent thinks about this when 
they send their kid to school, that is both a moral and practical stain 
on this country because kids' brains can't learn when they fear for 
their lives. No parent should have to sit down and talk to their kid 
about why, even though you see this happen in Newtown and you see this 
happen in Parkland and you see this happen in Michigan and you see this 
happen in California, it won't happen to you, dear. Because when these 
kids see it on TV every single day, you can't blame them for coming to 
the conclusion that it may happen to them.
  I remember watching on TV once a young woman in the aftermath of a 
school shooting. There are so many of them now that I can't even 
remember which one this was. And she said to the TV reporter who was 
interviewing her: I just assumed that it would happen at my school 
eventually.
  What a sad state of affairs that this is what it has come to.
  I am beyond my tipping point, but I needed to come to the floor today 
because having sat in that chair listening to my colleagues tell me how 
much they care about human life--well, you have an opportunity to do 
something about it. You have an opportunity to save lives right now. 
Kids that are walking into schools tomorrow need you--need you--to step 
up and pass laws that are going to make sure that only responsible 
people own guns. And the guns that are used in these school shootings--
the semiautomatic rifles, the AR-15 variants--they stay in the hands of 
law enforcement.
  And even if you don't believe that those laws will have the practical 
consequence of stopping every school shooting, please acknowledge that 
there is a moral impact of the actions that we take. By signaling to 
everyone in this country--but in particular these individuals who are 
contemplating these evil actions--that we don't accept this level of 
carnage, there will be an impact. And I tell you that because I know 
history.
  There are two massive declines in the murder rate in this country in 
the last 100 years. It is not coincidental to the 10-year period after 
the two most significant antigun violence measures passed by Congress.
  The first big decline is in the late 1930s and 1940s, right after 
Congress passes its first bill regulating the possession of firearms in 
this country. The second big decline is in the 1990s and early 2000s 
right after Congress passes the universal background checks law and the 
ban on assault-style weapons.
  That is not coincidental. It is because those laws had a practical 
effect on crime but also a moral effect as well. The proof is right 
there in front of you of what can happen, of how many lives can be 
saved if we stand up and act.
  So, please, I beg my colleagues, if you are going to come down here 
and talk about the sanctity of life, explain to the American people why 
the gun lobby matters more than the safety of our children who are 
walking into school every day fearing for their life.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________