[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S267-S275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Nomination of John Ratcliffe
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, at some point, the Senate will vote on
the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. I am
here to outline for just a few moments why I oppose this nomination.
Let me begin by saying I often vote for nominees who have different
policy views than I do. However, my concerns with Mr. Ratcliffe are
much deeper than that.
In 2020, I opposed his confirmation to be Director of National
Intelligence because I believe his partisanship and willingness
essentially went to the proposition of doing what would please Donald
Trump. Unfortunately, his actions as head of National Intelligence only
confirmed my concerns. Today, I want to focus on John Ratcliffe's
commitment to the law and his truthfulness with Congress. I will give a
couple of examples to illustrate my concerns.
In 2019, the Congress passed a law requiring the Director of National
Intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible
for the brutal murder of Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident
Jamal Khashoggi. In 2020, after John Ratcliffe was nominated to be the
head of National Intelligence, I asked him at his confirmation hearing
whether he intended to follow that law. He responded that he needed to
take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be
released, and that is not the same as saying he would do as the law
required.
After Director Ratcliffe was confirmed as DNI, he decided that
nothing more could be declassified about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
The effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that Saudi Prince
Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation to capture or kill
Khashoggi. The public only has the facts today because after the 2020
election, then-head of National Intelligence Avril Haines abided by the
law and released the report.
But while John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence, the
Saudi leadership was protected from public accountability. While he was
Director of National Intelligence, Director Ratcliffe wrote to multiple
Members of Congress saying that he had completed his review of the
intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released.
Despite the fact that the Congress passed a law, Director Ratcliffe
insisted that there was only marginal public interest in
declassification. He said this in three letters to me, to Acting
Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner, and to the chair of the House
Intelligence Committee. To me, this raises questions about John
Ratcliffe's commitment to the law.
Basically, I have concerns about his truthfulness with the Congress.
As part of this nomination process, I submitted a written question
asking him why he didn't obey the law. He responded that a review had
been necessary to determine what could be declassified and I quote
here:
This review was not completed until after I left office.
Madam President, that statement by Mr. Ratcliffe just wasn't true.
Mr. Ratcliffe wrote three letters to the Congress saying that the
review had been completed. That fact was even included in the ODNI's
representations to a court in a FOIA case.
So here is why I am opposing the Ratcliffe nomination. If John
Ratcliffe is willing to make representations to the Congress that are
contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would
be for him to misrepresent classified matters behind a veil of secrecy.
There are other aspects of John Ratcliffe's record as DNI that are
troubling. He said during his confirmation hearing he would tell truth
to power. The record suggests otherwise. For example, at the end of
September 2020, he released intelligence about Hillary Clinton's 2016
campaign. That was even though the intelligence community didn't know
if it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or
exaggerated by Russian intelligence. Needless to say, this was a major
break from standard practice, and it is hard to escape the conclusion
that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given
the timing.
I asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he had ever taken any actions that were
actually in conflict with the positions of the President. His response
was simply to offer nothing.
Madam President, my concerns in 2020 that John Ratcliffe was too
partisan to be confirmed as the head of an intelligence Agency have
been validated by these specific examples I have cited today. As I
said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the U.S.
Congress and then misrepresenting basic facts about that decision.
So when the Senate does vote on the Ratcliffe nomination, I want the
record to show that I strongly oppose the nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Hamas
Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, on October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists
shocked the human conscience when they carried out an attack on Israel
[[Page S268]]
that killed innocent men, women, and children and took hundreds of
hostages, including Americans.
I still remember waking up that day to horrific reports coming out of
Israel--the heart-wrenching stories of people brutalized, of women
raped, the mass murder of more than 1,200 people, and the abduction of
so many men and women and babies and the elderly.
These hostages, they are more than just names; they are more than
just statistics. They are mothers. They are fathers. They are sons.
They are daughters. They are friends. They are community.
Since that horrific day more than a year ago, Hamas has kept them
captive, enduring inhumane conditions that no one--I repeat no one--
should be subjected to. And in doing so, Hamas has inflicted an
unimaginable amount of pain and suffering on the families of the
hostages as well; families who have been living a nightmare--a
nightmare. They don't know the fate of their loved ones, and they are
tormented by every video that Hamas releases.
For others, it meant the heartbreak of knowing their loved one was
murdered by Hamas, but their body has remained captive. Families have
been unable to properly bury and grieve their loved one.
In the days, weeks, and months since that terrible day, I met with
many of the hostage families repeatedly, both in Israel and the United
States. Their resilience and their strength--I don't know how they do
it. They wake up every day and they stand tall and they are resilient
and they are strong and they speak out in the face of such pain and
suffering. It is remarkable and unimaginable that they have to do this
all at the same time.
Each time I met with these families, I made it clear, I will continue
to do everything I can to make sure that they are reunited with their
loved ones.
That is why the agreement between Israel and Hamas--which has paused
the conflict and commits to bringing the remaining hostages home--is
welcome relief. The deal is also helping to save civilian lives in
Israel and Gaza by putting a stop to the fighting. It is ramping up the
delivery of much needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.
So let's be clear: This agreement was possible because of the
steadfast and unwavering support of the United States for Israel. And
it was brought about because of the advocacy of the hostage families,
together with bipartisan diplomatic leadership.
Now I am going to take a moment and speak directly to all of the
families who have been waiting for nearly 500 days--waiting for news,
waiting for a phone call, waiting for a moment that they could embrace
their loved ones once again.
Your pain, your perseverance, your strength in the face of heartbreak
and tragedy and your tireless effort pushing forward for a deal,
pushing forward for progress--you got us to this point. You did. You
have made the difference.
Though nothing can undo the devastation in the past 15 months, I can
only hope that this agreement can begin to provide some form of relief.
I know that we are all relieved to see three hostages finally freed
over the weekend and reunited with their families. Romi, Emily, and
Doron are finally home--finally home. The images of embraces with their
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers filled our hearts; it fuels our
resolve.
We know that our work is not yet over, so I want to be clear: The
United States will not rest until every single hostage is returned
home. Now more than ever, we must continue being vigilant to make sure
this agreement is fully carried out. The road ahead undoubtedly will be
difficult, but with our continued, unconditional support of Israel and
commitment to regional stability, this deal can bring some much needed
peace of mind to the people of Israel, to the hostages, to their
families, and to the region as a whole.
We pray for the families who are still waiting the returns of their
loved ones, and we hope to bring peace through strength.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Louisiana.
George Soros
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, President Biden--I wish him
well--gave his farewell address to America. He said a number of things,
but one in particular got my attention. He warned America about--his
words, not mine--``a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a
very few ultra-wealthy people.''
President Biden went on to say:
Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme
wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our
entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair
shot for everyone to get ahead.
I don't know who President Biden was talking about, but I know one
particular circumstance about which I am going to speak that fits his
warning. Again, I don't know if the circumstance I am about to describe
is what President Biden meant, but if the shoe fits, wear it,
Cinderella.
Let me cut to the chase. Mr. George Soros is an oligarch. He is one
of the wealthiest people in the world. He is a friend of President
Biden's--nothing wrong with that. In fact, President Biden just gave
him I think the highest civilian honor that a President can give to a
civilian--the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM radio in New Orleans. Let me say
that again. That may not mean much to you, Mr. President, but it means
a lot to my people in Louisiana. Mr. George Soros is buying WWL AM
radio in New Orleans.
WWL AM radio is practically an institution in my State. It has been
around since 1922--1922--over 100 years. It is a clear channel--what
the communications experts call a clear channel class A station. Its
transmitter output is about 50,000 watts. That is a lot, folks. That is
the maximum for commercial AM stations in the United States. It is the
lead station on the New Orleans Saints Radio network. It is an
important station, and Mr. George Soros is buying it.
What does that mean, and how did this happen? WWL is owned by a
national company called Audacy. Audacy has about 220 radio stations
nationwide, one of which, of course, is WWL--the second largest radio
network in America. It reaches I think 45 different markets throughout
our country, 165 million Americans. It is huge.
Audacy borrowed too much money. They took on too much debt. They took
on about $1.9 billion worth of debt, and they couldn't service that
debt with their revenues. So what did they do? They did what many other
corporations do when they can't service their debt: They went into what
is called chapter 11 bankruptcy--not chapter 7. Chapter 7 is when they
liquidate the company. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is when a company goes
into bankruptcy in front of a bankruptcy judge and says: Judge, we want
to get all of our creditors and debtors together and restructure our
cash flow and our debt so we can come out of this bankruptcy a
surviving entity.
They went into chapter 11 with a bankruptcy plan. Mr. George Soros
immediately pounced. Of that $1.9 billion in debt, he bought about $415
million of it; cash on the barrelhead; paid 50 cents on the dollar.
One of the tenets of the reorganization was that all the current
shareholders would be wiped out. The new creditors would assume equity
positions in the company. I know that sounds complicated, and it can
be, but really what it means is that the bondholders--one of which is
Mr. Soros after he bought it, bought the $450 million worth of debt--
became a shareholder, and Mr. Soros is now the largest single
shareholder in Audacy radio stations, including WWL AM in New Orleans,
an institution.
In America, you can't just go do this. Why is that? Because those
airwaves on which WWL and the other radio stations broadcast--they
don't belong to the radio stations. They belong to you and you and you
and you. These airwaves--the spectrum, if you will--are owned by the
American people.
Years ago, we created the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC.
We set it up to be in charge of the airwaves that belong to the
American people to make sure that those airwaves were being used
prudently by radio stations. For example, if a radio station is bought
by a bunch of foreign nationals or foreign entities, the FCC has to
approve it. For example, anytime a broadcast license, as is the case
with Audacy, is transferred, the FCC has to approve it. So Mr. Soros's
purchase of WWL Radio and the 219 other
[[Page S269]]
radio stations had to go before the FCC, and it did, and it went--the
approval for Mr. Soros went through the FCC like green grass through a
goose. It was a party-line vote. It was last September. All three
Democrats--there are five people on the FCC--all three Democrats said
let it go, and they short-circuited the normal process.
Now, I am not an FCC expert, and I am not a communications law
expert, but this has been widely reported, and I have read about it in
many reports. Normally, on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations
are being transferred--their licenses--using airwaves that belong to
the American people and there is a substantial percentage of foreign
owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. The FCC
would do a complete investigation. Not this time--no. This time was
special. What happened was what some members of the media have called
the Soros shortcut. They just got together and rammed it through. Did I
mention it was like green grass through a goose--3 to 2?
Now, the two Republicans on the Commission--they are screaming the
whole time: Whoa, Nellie! Whoa! Whoa! Why aren't we taking this
seriously? Why aren't we investigating this? Why aren't we doing our
due diligence?
They were outvoted 3 to 2.
You know, even in a democracy, when you have the votes--you can make
a porcupine like hot peppers if you have the votes. That doesn't make
it right.
A number of people petitioned the FCC and said: Please don't do this.
One of the groups that petitioned the FCC was a group called Media
Research Center. The FCC--three Democrats, two Republicans--dismissed
them. But this is what the Media Research Center said--their words, not
mine:
There is no question that George Soros and his affiliated
businesses are looking to control these radio stations to
advance their particular brand of activism.
The MRC urged the FCC not to create a ``special Soros shortcut'' that
would circumvent their rules and allow the deal to move forward. They
did it anyway.
Here is what Mr. Troy A. Miller, NRB president and CEO, said. He
said--his words, not mine:
The fact that the FCC is apparently willing to bypass the
usual protocols--
That means the normal procedures--
to get this transaction done just weeks before a presidential
election--
And right after the President of the United States gave Mr. Soros the
Presidential Medal of Freedom--
seriously undermines the Commission's credibility and raises
warranted questions of whether administrative processes are
being manipulated--
Manipulated--
to exert political [interference and] preference.
Here is what one of the Republican members of the FCC, in dissent,
said--Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is soon to be Chairman of the FCC
now that there is a new sheriff in town. Here is what Mr. Carr said:
The Commission's decision today [approving Mr. Soros's
plan] is unprecedented. Never before has the Commission voted
to approve the transfer of a broadcast license--let alone the
transfer of broadcast licenses for over 200 radio stations
across more than 40 markets--without following the
requirements and procedures codified in federal law.
Pass me the sick bucket. This isn't right, but they did it.
Now, this is America. You are entitled to believe what you want. If
it is legal, you are entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is
certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don't agree with him, but
he is certainly entitled to it in America. I am not much into this
cancel culture, and hopefully we have seen the end of it, but when you
are acquiring radio licenses which can influence public opinion and you
are doing it in part--not exclusively but in part--with foreign money,
well, that is why we have the FCC.
But I want to make this clear: I believe in free speech and free
expression. You are not free if you can't say what you think. You are
not free if you can't express yourself. Mr. Soros has that right. But
here is where he stands. I want my people in Louisiana to know who is
buying WWL Radio in New Orleans. Mr. Soros is a billionaire. God bless
him. He made his money himself. He has poured much of his wealth into
what, in my opinion, are radical causes.
He is now working with his son, who I understand is a very smart
young man. His name is Alex Soros. Mr. George Soros and Mr. Alex Soros
hold some--how should I put this?--nonmainstream American beliefs.
For example, Mr. George Soros has called the United States ``the main
obstacle to a stable and just world.'' Mr. Soros believes that our
country is ``the main obstacle to a stable and just world,'' not China,
not Iran, not North Korea--the United States of America.
Pass me the sick bucket.
Mr. Soros has also said that China has--his words, not mine--that
China has a ``better functioning government than the United States of
America.''
Mr. Soros does not believe that the United States should have secure
borders. He once called national borders an ``obstacle'' to his plan
for widespread immigrant resettlement.
Mr. Soros and his family, as you probably know, have spent millions
and millions of dollars to elect prosecutors throughout America who
believe that violent criminals are the real victims. These prosecutors
believe for the most part that if a cop has to shoot a criminal, it is
always the cop's fault, but if a criminal shoots a cop, it is always
the gun's fault. These prosecutors whom Mr. Soros has backed with
millions of dollars all believe that if you are concerned about crime,
you are automatically a racist.
Mr. Soros and his son Alex--Alex in particular--have called for
softer sentences on violent criminals. This is what he has said--his
words, not mine. Mr. Alex Soros said:
But if we are serious about ending mass incarceration, we
must also rethink our response to crimes that are more
serious, including violent ones. Even those who have been
victims of violence increasingly do not believe in long-term
prison sentences.
In short, Mr. Soros--both George and Alex believe that America would
be better off if we had open borders. They believe that America would
be better off, in my opinion--this is how I read their writings--if we
ended jails and if we ran our government like the Communist Party of
China. I don't agree with that, but Mr. Soros--both of them are
entitled to their opinion.
But my people in Louisiana are entitled to know whose opinion they
are hearing on the radio, and this has not been reported once in
Louisiana. Let me say it again.
Mr. George Soros, through an expedited procedure--I am trying to be
evenhanded here--who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from
President Biden and who is close to President Biden and all of my
Democratic colleagues, on a 3-to-2 vote at the FCC, has been able to
buy over 200 radio stations throughout America, including WWL Radio. I
want my people to know about it, and I want us to make sure that it was
done legally. I am not saying it wasn't done legally; I am saying that
it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha--it looks weird the way this was done.
It has the aroma of politics, and I hope the new FCC revisits this
issue.
These licenses and these airwaves do not belong to me or to the FCC
or to Audacy or to WWL; they belong to you and you and you--the
American people. We are supposed to make sure, through our FCC--that is
why God created the FCC--that these licenses are not just given to
anybody.
Chagos Islands
Mr. President, let me say one other thing quickly. I didn't mean to
go on this long. You have heard me talk about this before, and I am
going to talk about it again.
This is India. This is China. Right here are the Chagos Islands--
right now owned by the United Kingdom. America, the United States of
America, with your tax dollars, has a very important military base out
in the Chagos Islands, on an island called Diego Garcia.
Now, the United Nations, as I have said before, has said to Britain,
the UK, which acquired the Chagos Islands from France--the folks at the
United Nations, with their whey protein powder and man purses, say: Bad
United Kingdom. Bad United Kingdom. You are a bunch of colonialists.
Give it back. Give the Chagos Islands back--not ``give them back to the
people of the Chagos Islands''; give them back to this island down
here, Mauritius, over 1,000 miles away. Give it back to Mauritius. That
is who had it when France
[[Page S270]]
transferred--Mauritius was a province of France when France transferred
all of its ownership to Mauritius and to the Chagos Islands in the
early 1800s.
The new government in the United Kingdom said: Oh, we feel so guilty.
We are going to give it back. We are going to give it back--and our Air
Force base with it, which we use to rearm and restock our submarines in
Indochina--in the Indian Ocean to combat China.
This kind of stupid takes a plan, folks. This kind of stupid takes a
plan.
The United Kingdom said: OK. We feel guilty. We are going to give it
back. We are going to give it to Mauritius, and we are going to start
paying Mauritius 9 billion over 10 years. And you know who
went along with it? The prior administration.
Now, I have talked to President Trump about this, and I have talked
to Marco Rubio about this--our esteemed new Secretary of State--and I
am hoping they are going to do something about it.
The United Nations has no jurisdiction over the United Kingdom or us
in America, and this is our military base. And, already, if we give the
Chagos Islands to Mauritius, Mauritius says they will lease to us our
own base for about 9 billion pounds over 10 years. Already, China is
circling Mauritius. Already, China is trying to be Mauritius' best
friend.
And I don't have anything against the Government of Mauritius. They
are wonderful people. I understand they want the money. They want our
money. They want your money. They want us to pay them for our own
military base.
We need to stop this deal. President Trump and Secretary Rubio need
to pick up the phone and call Prime Minister Starmer in the United
Kingdom and say to the Prime Minister: Mr. Prime Minister, with all due
respect, stop dipping into your ketamine stash. Put down the bong. We
need this military base to combat China. Don't do it.
And if the President will do that and the Secretary of State will do
that, I believe Mr. Starmer, who tried to ram this through the week
before President Trump took office but was stopped--I believe that he
will give in.
I don't have anything against Mr. Starmer. I don't have anything
against the people of Mauritius Island. I am sure they are all
wonderful people.
But our struggle with China is serious. It is as serious as four
heart attacks and a stroke. And it is bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow
stupid for us, because of guilt over colonialism, to bow to the wishes
of the United Nations and give a military base that we built to
Mauritius, which eventually will end up in the hands of the Communist
Party of China. That is why I say that kind of stupid takes a plan.
Southern California Wildfires
Mr. President, on a final point, I want to just highlight this. The
people of Mexico have sent some of their firefighters to help us in
California, and I want to thank our friends in Mexico for doing that.
Other countries have sent their firefighters too. But because we are
proximate to Mexico, their fighters were able to get here earlier, and
I just want to thank the people of Mexico for their generosity.
My work here is done. I will show myself to the door.
And before I do that, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, families are looking to us to solve
problems. They are looking at us to lower prices. They are looking for
help getting food on the table or getting childcare or getting their
prescriptions filled. But what they are seeing instead, today, is
Republicans lying about women, lying about healthcare, and lying about
the tragic realities that families face when they learn that their baby
has a fatal diagnosis and cannot survive long after birth.
Of all the bills that we could be voting on right now, it is an
absolute disgrace that Republicans are spending their first weeks in
power attacking women, criminalizing doctors, and lying about abortion.
This bill would create a new government mandate that would override
the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a
fatal condition. And it would create new, medically unnecessary
barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have
their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive
healthcare.
Republicans' whole premise on this bill is a sham. Their whole bill
is a disgrace, and we are here on the floor today to call it out.
I am not going to let anyone perpetuate the so-called ``abortion
until birth'' myths and lies about people who have abortions and the
providers who care for them. That is not how abortion works, and
Republicans know it.
Killing a baby is already illegal in every single State. In fact, we
passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because
I was here. It passed unanimously. Doctors already have a legal
obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in
this country.
And let's be clear: We already know Republicans' sham bill is not
going to go anywhere, by the way. We have been here before. After all,
Republicans held a vote on this bill a few years ago, and not a single
Democrat who is still in the Senate today voted for it.
The last time we voted on this bill, I spoke about something
Republicans refused to acknowledge in this debate: the actual voices
and experiences of women who receive a heartbreaking diagnosis late in
pregnancy, what they actually go through, and how this bill would hurt
them and their families.
I spoke then about Judy. She is from Washington State. Her son's
organs did not develop properly. One lung was 20 percent formed, and
the other was missing entirely.
I spoke about Lindsay. Her daughter had an aggressive, inoperable
tumor growing into her brain, her heart, and her lungs.
I spoke about Darla. One of her twins had serious medical
complications. Not terminating that pregnancy would have put her other
twin's health at risk. How you ignore something like that I will never
understand. But instead Republicans are talking about things that
simply do not happen.
However, I have a different story to share today. You see, the last
time I shared those stories of women who were able to make the choice
that was right for their family, but the stories now are of women who
were denied that choice. And that is because Republicans have ripped
away abortion rights, and State abortion bans have forced some women
into the kind of nightmare Republicans are now seeking to take
nationwide.
In Florida, Deborah learned, at 23 weeks, her baby had no kidneys,
and it would not survive after birth. She felt an abortion was the
right step for her family. But Florida gave her no choice about what
happened next. They forced her to carry a doomed pregnancy for months.
Do you know what it is like to go for months, pregnant with a baby
you know will not survive, and getting questions and comments like: Oh,
is this your first child? Are you excited?
Do you know what it is like fighting back tears as you try to decide
whether to just nod politely or explain that, actually, your world is
falling apart and, all the while, knowing you have to go through all of
this against your will because some politician decided they knew
better?
Deborah avoided going out. She was afraid to go to the grocery store.
And she said:
I just went into a really dark place, you know, essentially
planning my son's birth and funeral at the same time.
That is what abortion bans do. That is what happens when we take
choice away from patients, when Republicans decide they know better.
And Deborah is far from the only woman to go through this. Infant
deaths from birth defects jumped in Florida following their abortion
ban.
Now, Republicans have a bill here to take that issue nationwide. That
is what we are voting on here tomorrow. That is their top priority, now
that Trump is in office. And not only are they trying to take that
abortion heartbreak nationwide, they are lying about what is at stake
here and lying
[[Page S271]]
about what women like Deborah are going through, what their own
policies will cause more women to go through.
Shame on them. This is infuriating.
Women like Deborah may not be billionaires, but they should still
have their voices heard. And as long as I am here, they will be.
So here is my message for Republicans: Families don't need less
choice about how to handle tragic medical news. What families actually
need is affordable groceries. What families actually need is childcare.
What they actually need is paid leave, quality healthcare, access to
programs like SNAP and Medicaid, which Republicans want to cut to the
bone.
Now, I can't predict what attack Republicans will launch on abortion
next, but I can promise we will be here to call them out, both for what
they are trying to do--lie about women and doctors--and for everything
they are failing to do--lowering costs and making life easier for folks
back home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I really want to thank my friend,
our great leader on women's issues and on choice issues, Senator
Murray, for leading this floor block. She has been indomitable on this
issue. I can't think of a person who has done more to protect the
rights of women than Patty Murray. So thank you for your great
leadership.
I want to thank all my other colleagues who will join me as well.
Look, it is Donald Trump's first week as President, and Republicans
are already escalating their war on women's reproductive freedoms. They
didn't wait long. And the Republicans' desire to impose politicians'
and their views on women's health and substitute their judgment for the
judgment of the woman, her family, and her doctor continues.
There are many different permutations and combinations of this, but
it is always: Take the women's rights away. Let some politician for
some ideological reason decide.
This week, Senate Republicans will advance their so-called Born-Alive
bill, a bill we have all seen before, which the Senate squarely
rejected in the past. The bill is deeply pernicious because it attacks
women's healthcare through false narratives and outright fearmongering.
It seeks to make something illegal that is already illegal.
In essence, the Republican bill would substitute the judgment of
qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of women and
their families with an ultraright ideology. It is the long hand of
injustice reaching down and hurting women from afar.
And so much of the legislation is passed, frankly, by men who have,
really, no understanding of what women go through when they are through
difficult situations like the one my colleague from Washington State
has outlined.
This would harm the ability of medical professionals to provide
healthcare based on evidence and on science. It would expose medical
professionals to the risk of punishment and prosecution if they don't
comply with the hard right.
So we are here because we need to expose this bill exactly for what
it is: myth-based fearmongering. It is an attack on reproductive care.
The anti-choice movement keeps trying to come up with these scenarios
to try and scare people, but they misstate the facts and misstate the
evidence.
This bill is clear. It is an attack on reproductive care. It is anti-
women, anti-family, anti-science.
I will tell my Republican colleagues this: Democrats will oppose any
attempt to erode access to high-quality and safe reproductive care.
Democrats will continue to fight for America's women, America's
doctors, and America's families who sometimes have to make
heartbreaking, difficult decisions when serious complications arise
during pregnancy.
That is what makes this bill so, so horrible. It basically takes a
woman who is in a very serious, difficult situation and tries to use
her as a political football. That is a bad, bad thing.
So we should resoundingly reject this deeply partisan bill when it
comes to the floor later this week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have
considered this measure on the floor nor the first time I have spoken
about it.
I want to thank Senator Murray for leading this conversation on a
very serious topic.
I want to thank Senator Schumer for joining in this conversation as
well. I couldn't agree with him more when he said: What we are trying
to do with this bill is to make illegal what is already illegal.
I am going to make an invitation to anyone following this debate who
wants to judge for themselves, to reach their own conclusion, as to
whether or not there are laws existent in America today which cover the
situation described in this bill.
I am going to give you the name of a physician in Philadelphia who is
serving a life sentence in prison for having violated the current law,
and I want you to look it up and read it yourself. Don't take my words
for it. His name is Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Write
that down if you want to follow this debate and want to draw your own
conclusions by doing some personal research. Look it up on the
internet: Kermit Gosnell. I will tell you his story in a moment, but it
proves the fact that we have existing laws that make this current bill
unnecessary.
Tomorrow marks the 52nd year since our Nation's highest Court issued
a rule recognizing a woman's constitutionally protected right to
choose. Roe v. Wade enshrined into law something that should have been
a given in America: In America, women have the right to make decisions
about their own bodies. And, as a result of Roe, America's women took a
giant leap forward in gender equity. The decision in Roe afforded women
the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family.
But after nearly 50 years of progress, in June 2022, the Supreme
Court overruled Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization,
dragging women's rights half a century backward. Following that
decision, we saw Republican-led States open the floodgates to abortion
restrictions--laws that, in some cases, have had deadly consequences
for women who could not access critical healthcare that they needed.
Instead of addressing the healthcare crisis that Dobbs has unleashed,
Republicans are now instead looking to make it even harder for women to
access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare.
Tomorrow, they will attempt to bring to the floor the so-called Born-
Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They want to bring it to a
vote--this bill that, as Senator Schumer said, is already covered in
law.
The bill, they say, creates new standards of care for physicians
providing reproductive healthcare that are not based in medicine, fact,
or science.
The goal of the bill that we will consider, introduced by the
Republicans, is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare
providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive and
compassionate healthcare. This bill offers a poorly drafted and
dangerous solution to a problem that simply does not exist.
The authors of this bill will tell you that this legislation simply
ensures that all children born alive as a result of a so-called
attempted abortion are provided the same medical care as any other
newborn of the same gestational age. They say that is all it does. But
we already have a law on the books that ensures that any child born in
America, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that birth, is
afforded equal protection under the law.
In 2002, the House and Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Do you know who signed that into
law? Then-President George W. Bush. Put simply, it is already illegal
to kill a child born alive in America. And in rare cases where a doctor
does harm a baby in violation of State and Federal laws, they are held
legally accountable.
The year was 2013. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was
convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for murdering babies
after botched abortions. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison
without possibility of parole under existing law, and he is currently
serving that sentence at
[[Page S272]]
Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.
Do you know what else the authors of this legislation didn't tell you
and won't tell you? Abortions late in pregnancy are incredibly rare.
And when they do occur, it is most often because of a heartbreaking,
late-breaking, fatal fetal diagnosis or because a woman's doctor has
told her that she may not survive the pregnancy or because a woman
lives in a State that prevented her from getting an abortion earlier.
No, Republicans would rather have you believe that vast numbers of
women are intentionally waiting until the final days of their pregnancy
to have abortions.
This is a cruel political contrivance. These are women who often
already have had their baby showers, picked out names, persevered
through morning sickness, back pain, swollen ankles, countless doctors'
appointments and tests. These are women who wanted their babies.
And what is the response from the actual doctors on this legislation?
Ask the professionals to respond to the Republican bill that is coming
to the floor, the so-called Born-Alive bill. The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists said this when the House passed the
bill last year:
The offensively named ``born-alive'' legislation is another
cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based
medical decision making between patients and their
physicians.
Laws that ban or criminalize evidence-based care and rely
on medically unsupported theories and misinformation are
dangerous to families and their clinicians. This bill
negatively affects all obstetric and gynecologic care.
What I just read to you is a quote from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given this reality, what would happen
if this bill were signed into law by the new President?
Take the case of Meredith Shiner, a constituent of mine in Illinois
who was thrilled to learn a few years ago that she and her husband were
going to have a little baby boy. However, at 22 weeks and 6 days,
Meredith woke up with a terrible abdominal pain, rushed to the hospital
thinking she had a bladder infection. She didn't realize the
seriousness of what was happening until the doctor told her she was in
labor. The prognosis was grim. Having the baby at 22 weeks and 6 days
meant although the baby would be born alive, the chances of survival
were almost nonexistent.
Knowing medical interventions would be futile, Meredith and her
husband made the difficult decision to take the minutes they had with
their son to hold him, to touch him, to look at him until he gently
passed away, as doctors provided palliative care.
This bill is written in such an overly broad way, vague way, that had
it been the law, those same doctors that provided compassionate care to
Meredith, her husband, and their son could be subject to 5 years in
prison.
In these heartbreaking situations, it is not the time for politicians
to dictate the course of medical treatment, as this bill would do.
Those wrenching decisions, those personal tragic moments, must be left
to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the
only compassionate outcome.
This week, we lost a lifelong advocate for women's rights, Cecile
Richards. She spent her life fighting to keep politics out of
healthcare and defending every woman's right to decide when and how to
start their family. We lost Cecile to glioblastoma--the same brain
cancer that took John McCain, Beau Biden, and Teddy Kennedy.
If Senate Republicans truly cared about saving lives, they would be
working with us to expand access to healthcare, increase funding for
medical research that results in new cures, and implement policies that
address our Nation's abysmal record of infant and maternal mortality.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator
Murray and Senator Schumer and Senator Durbin and my close colleague
from Minnesota Senator Klobuchar and others to stand up for women and
for doctors in my home State of Minnesota and around the country.
And I just want to appreciate Senator Durbin for raising Cecile
Richards, who was a dear friend of mine and someone who I worked with
closely when I worked at Planned Parenthood. And I was thinking about
something that Cecile often pointed to. She would quote the great
American poet, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and this poet would say: It is
not one damn thing after another. It is the same damn thing over and
over again.
And here we have that being shown on the Senate floor. Once again
Republicans are here introducing this bill--not to talk about what we
can do to lower prices for Americans, not to talk about how we can
lower the cost of housing, or how to help people's lives become more
affordable.
Instead, one of the very first bills that they are putting forward is
for a vote in service of a national abortion ban that, I can tell you,
the people in Minnesota do not want, the people in America have made it
abundantly clear that they do not want. And I guess the nicest thing
you could say about this is that it is out of touch with where
Americans are.
But let's talk about it a little bit more because I think it is
important that we fight some of the myths and the disinformation that
this legislation promotes.
What this bill would do, it would put Congress and politicians in the
middle of personal medical decisions that patients and doctors should
be able to make together without political interference. It would
override physicians' professional judgments about what is best for
their patients, and it would put physicians in the position of facing
criminal penalties if their judgment about what is best for their
patients goes against what is described in this bill.
So, colleagues, let's be clear. At the core of the debate here is
whether or not we trust women to make the very best decisions for
themselves and their families. And in difficult medical, challenging,
often tragic, medical situations, should women and their physicians be
making decisions about their lives and their health--often their very
lives--or is this about politics?
And I think Americans say this is not about politics. Politics should
stay out of it.
I know that everybody on this floor has talked to their own
constituents who have experienced what really happens for women who are
needing abortion care later in their pregnancy. These stories are
inevitably heartbreaking and tragic, and they each are individual and
unique. Every situation is different. But they always are about women
and families that are thrilled to be pregnant. In some cases, as my
colleagues have said, they have already picked out a name. They have
decorated the nursery. They have planned a baby shower. But it becomes
clear, as the pregnancy progresses, the devastating news that this
child is not going to survive. And in some cases, the mother's life is
also at risk; her health, her ability to have children in the future
are at risk.
And as I said, every situation is going to be unique because everyone
is going to have a different diagnosis, different personal histories,
different family circumstances, and that means everybody is going to
need to have their own individual care. But what every single one of
these women have in common is that each one of them deserves the
dignity and the autonomy and the freedom to be able to make those
decisions, make their own medical decisions, without a bunch of
politicians getting in the way.
But let's be really clear here. Women are not waking up in the last
weeks of their pregnancy just to change their mind about that
pregnancy. I mean, how disrespectful of women is that attitude? Because
these are terrible situations where something has gone catastrophically
wrong. They are not just changing their minds. They are doing
everything they can to take care of themselves and their families.
You know, I know that in this country, we don't tell oncologists how
to treat their patients. We don't tell emergency room doctors what they
need to do in any specific circumstances to save lives, and we
shouldn't be telling women's doctors how to take care of their
patients.
But, colleagues, that is what this bill does. It would give
politicians in this room a seat in the doctor's offices and in the ERs
with women all over this
[[Page S273]]
country. And that has an intimidating impact on providers who are
already desperately trying to keep their head down and do their jobs
while operating under the chaos that has erupted after the Supreme
Court overturned Roe.
So, colleagues, this should be about treating women with respect. We
should be all in agreement that decisions about women's healthcare
aren't different from decisions about men's healthcare or anyone's
healthcare. So why would we be treating women differently?
Colleagues, let's get out of the business of dictating medical care
for women. Let's trust women and their doctors.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues. I want
to thank Senator Murray for her leadership, but also Senator Smith, who
has long led on this issue and has stood up time and time again for
freedoms and reproductive freedom.
Yesterday, as she noted, we lost Cecile Richards, who was a true
force of nature who spent her career fighting for reproductive freedom.
We lost her just 2 days before what would be the 52nd anniversary of
Roe v. Wade.
But we all know that our country is now well into its third year
without the protections of Roe. In the years since the Supreme Court
overturned half a century of precedent and stripped away a woman's
right to make her own healthcare decisions--going against 70, 80
percent of Americans who believe that this decision should be made by a
woman, her family, her doctor, and not by politicians; who believe, as
my colleagues just noted, that politicians should not be in the waiting
room making the decisions for families--women are now at the mercy of a
patchwork of State laws that are creating chaos when it comes to
accessing reproductive care.
So the solution is not the bill before us this week. The solution is
not to take rare cases of the most tragic nature, as my colleagues have
described.
I am a former prosecutor. I know what murder is. Murder is murder,
including murder of a baby.
We are here talking about tragic cases where doctors have to make a
decision in the moment with the family about how they are going to
handle very, very tragic situations with a baby.
Today, nearly 20 States have enacted some form of abortion
restriction. The result, a third of women of reproductive age now live
under extreme, dangerous bans. And in States across the country, women
are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to travel hundreds
of miles for healthcare. So adding to that situation, this idea that we
are going to start intervening in these rare, tragic cases would be a
horrible result for so many women.
I am thinking about the pregnant teenager in Texas who died after
being denied care in three hospital visits. I am thinking about the
young woman from Florida who was forced to miscarry in a bathroom due
to her State's restrictions. By the time she finally got to a hospital,
she had lost almost half the blood in her body. And we will never
forget the heartbreaking story of the 10-year-old in Ohio who had to go
to Indiana in order to get a legal abortion after she was raped. People
said that story was a hoax. It wasn't a hoax; it was true.
Doctors are being threatened with prosecution for doing their jobs,
an issue that will only get worse if we pass the legislation that
Republicans have brought to the floor.
We already know that there have been repeated attempts to restrict
mifepristone. Just last week, a judge allowed Idaho, Kansas, and
Missouri to proceed with their lawsuit challenging FDA approval of the
drug, which is safely used in 90 countries.
This is our reality right now, but it doesn't have to be our future.
I call on our colleagues to join us in codifying Roe v. Wade into law.
And simply because someone may have different views--I know many people
in my own family who may be pro-life, but they don't believe that their
views for what they would do in their personal life would apply to
other people--and certainly not people--women--who at the very end of a
pregnancy, something they have been so looking forward to, having a
baby, have to have the Federal Government intervene and tell the doctor
that we can't do this or she can't do that.
This isn't about politics. This isn't about red States and blue
States. People across the country are on our side on this, and we ask
our colleagues to vote with us and reject this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues on
the floor today in opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor
Protection Act.
If you are wondering whether that title to a legislation makes sense,
the answer is, no, it does not. This legislation is simply a blatant
attempt to interfere with evidence-based patient care and medical
practices while enshrining lies about abortion care.
My Republican colleagues spent the last 4 years calling Democrats
alarmists. But here they are aggressively pursuing legislation that
would persecute providers for doing their jobs and making a tragic
situation for families even worse. Medical professionals are and have
always been required by law to provide infants high-quality care from
the moment they are born.
There is absolutely no evidence that this law is being broken. To
suggest otherwise is deeply offensive and dangerous. For any family--
all of us know families, if they are not our own--learning their child
will be stillborn or not survive beyond birth is a profound loss,
deeply grief-stricken.
This legislation would deepen that loss. It would remove any control
a woman may have over her pregnancy and force the family to endure
unnecessary and unethical medical overreach at the hands of
politicians--that is right, at the hands of politicians, not medical
personnel.
The bill would force physicians to provide invasive and hopeless
measures, which are both medically and ethically inappropriate in these
situations. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislative effort.
Let's listen to the doctors, the scientists, the professionals,
rather than trying to ``message bill'' an anti-scientific, anti-medical
science stand.
We have seen now how overturning Roe has emboldened Republicans
across the United States and in this very Chamber to make policy based
on their own personal beliefs instead of evidence-based practices. This
legislation is just another opportunity for Republicans to stand on
their soapbox and lie to the American people.
It also creates fear and apprehension on the part of people across
the country. These policies actively harm families. Pretending
otherwise is a slap in the face to those who voted for all of us and
you, in particular.
Let me close by invoking the spirit of Cecile Richards, after losing
her just yesterday. She was a giant. She modeled guts and grit and
public service, showing courage and fortitude beyond words as a
champion of women's reproductive freedom. I will always remember her
smile, her fierce determination, her endless energy. They will be with
me always, and they inspire me to say today to my Republican
colleagues: Please leave alone the women who deserve doctor's care and
that care alone, not our interference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my
strong opposition to Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill.
I want to commend Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done
so much good work on this. This is not the first time the Senate has
debated this bill on the Senate floor, and I doubt it will be the last.
Republicans claim this legislation will protect women and children.
The foundation of this Republican bill is that babies are forced to go
without basic medical care after they are born. This is a disgusting,
stomach-churning lie that is pedaled to fearmonger the American people.
No child born alive in the United States is denied the healthcare
they need to survive. It is already illegal to do so. In reality, what
this bill does is turn what is already an impossibly difficult
situation for countless expecting parents into a living hell.
[[Page S274]]
Imagine you and your spouse get the good news that you are expecting.
You are over the Moon until a few months later when you get the worst
news you could possibly imagine receiving during pregnancy. For reasons
out of your control, your baby has developed a terminal medical
condition and will not survive once they are born. On top of that, to
force the mother to continue carrying the baby to term would most
likely be deadly for her.
Many women and couples are all too familiar with the gut-wrenching
decisions that come next. What a statement about Republican priorities
that this is one of the first pieces of legislation brought to the
Senate floor just a few hours after Donald Trump was sworn into office.
Republicans talk a big game about being ``pro-life'' and being the
party of family values. Their actions show reality couldn't be any
further from the truth. For example, the Republicans recently blocked a
bipartisan expansion of the child tax credit that would have really
helped to lift kids out of poverty. Now they are gearing up to cut food
stamps so kids go hungry. They put Medicaid and health insurance for
millions of children on the chopping block.
If Republicans really care about helping women and children, they
would be using their new-found majority to vote on legislation that
cuts housing and childcare costs or grocery bills and keep moms safe.
Let me close this way, Mr. President, and colleagues. This deeply
flawed Republican Born-Alive bill is the real Republican agenda on full
display. While Republicans are full steam ahead with their crusade
against reproductive freedom, all my colleagues who are here today, led
by Senator Murray, are focused on fighting inflation, bringing down
costs, getting to work for working families. I am proud to be
associated with their efforts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today
because I strongly oppose this legislation. I oppose it because it
would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. And
I oppose it because it would pose unnecessary and harmful obstacles to
a woman's right--to all women's right to make our own decisions about
our own reproductive health.
This legislation has one purpose, and that is to make safe abortion
services even more inaccessible by intimidating doctors with the threat
of criminal liability. This is fearmongering at its finest.
And by choosing to focus on this bill during President Trump's first
week in office, some Republicans--and I say some because they don't all
support this bill--are choosing to politicize a family's problem
instead of focusing on making life easier, more affordable, and better
for all Americans, which President Trump promised when he was
campaigning when he said he wasn't interested in a Federal law that
would outlaw abortions.
Abortions performed later in pregnancy are rare, and they are done as
the result of fatal diagnoses for the fetus, the mother, or both. These
are tragic, heartbreaking situations that no one--I am going to repeat
that--that no one wants. And by inserting new uncertainty and risk of
criminal liability into the process, this legislation only further
increases the risk that a woman will not be able to get the medical
care that she needs.
This bill ignores these important realities in hopes of scoring
political points with anti-choice factions.
And the timing is done deliberately because many of those groups are
going to be here in Washington on Friday. So we should see this bill
for what it is. It is a political stunt.
Again and again, at every turn, some Republicans and the Trump
administration have pushed forward dangerous policies intended to
threaten access to abortion care. I think it is just shameful. They
should be ashamed of themselves. This bill is just another battle in a
long line of attacks on the ongoing war on women's health.
Now, more than ever, we need to stand up and defend women's
healthcare, make certain that abortions are safe and legal. And we know
that banning abortions doesn't actually stop them. You just make them
more dangerous for women. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation and its consideration on the Senate floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in opposing
this legislation that is the Republican Party's latest effort to take
away a woman's fundamental freedom to make her own healthcare decisions
and take away a family's fundamental right to navigate heartbreaking
and complex health decisions without government interference.
I come from the ``Live Free or Die'' State. Granite Staters and
Americans love freedom. Our country's promise is that freedom belongs
to everyone.
But today, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v.
Wade and the extreme actions by Republican legislatures in some States,
women in America are not free. In a sense, this legislation that we are
debating right now is disconnected from reality. This bill ignores a
pretty basic fact: Infanticide is illegal in every corner of this
country.
The claim that this legislation will save lives is disingenuous, and
the assumption underlying this bill that an expectant mother would seek
an abortion after months of pregnancy for anything but the most dire of
reasons shows a deliberate willingness to ignore the realities of
women's health.
So here are the facts. All that this legislation will do is make it
harder for doctors to perform lifesaving care for their patients. And
it will make it harder for families to make the best healthcare
decisions for themselves in moments of great heartbreak as they face
the final moments of a desired pregnancy or the final moments of a
terminally ill newborn's life.
It is also remarkable that this is among the first pieces of
legislation that the Republicans have brought to the floor since the
inauguration of the new President. This is, of course, legislation in
search of a problem. But it is not in search of a motive.
Some of my colleagues have decided that rather than address the most
pressing issues facing the American people, they will, instead, push
legislation to curtail the freedom of women--just the latest in their
long line of effort since Roe was overturned to take away more and more
freedom from half of the population.
I am willing and eager to work with my colleagues to tackle the
greatest challenges facing our country. That is what our constituents
expect and deserve of us and something that this bill so clearly fails
to do. This legislation will not bring down the price of groceries, nor
will it reduce rents or do anything to make it easier for families to
make ends meet. But it will make life harder for expectant mothers
facing a painful choice.
It won't make healthcare more affordable, though it provides that
doctors can be put in jail for providing care for their patients. It
won't keep our children safe from crime or fentanyl traffickers, though
it will make our daughters less free.
This legislation, in short, does nothing to address any of the great
challenges that America faces. It seeks only to deny and diminish the
freedom of our fellow Americans.
But this is what some of our colleagues have decided to focus on
during the first full day of the new administration. Across our
country, in red States and blue alike, in the distant corners of the
land of the free, there is no great clamor to further limit freedom;
there is no great clamor to have Members of Congress substitute their
judgment for that of a woman's, her doctor's, and her family's. But you
wouldn't know it if you follow the action of the Senate majority today.
We cannot lose sight of what this debate is ultimately about. At the
center of this debate is a very simple question: Do we believe in the
promise of our Declaration of Independence that we all are created
equal? Do we believe that freedom belongs to everyone? And do we
believe that women deserve to be free and equal citizens in the United
States of America?
This is America, the world's greatest democracy. Here, women should
not be second-class citizens. In this country, each of us is supposed
to have the freedom to chart our own future. We know
[[Page S275]]
well that that freedom includes the freedom to make personal, private
decisions that others may disagree with.
Our commitment to putting freedom first is part of what makes America
different. Indeed, that is what makes us exceptional. The American
people understand freedom's importance. Their leaders should remember
it too. The American people have not asked for the extreme agenda that
this legislation represents. They haven't asked the majority to further
restrict their freedom.
I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people, to put aside
this partisan agenda, and to get to work on tackling the challenges
that are facing our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this
deceptively named Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Tomorrow is the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision that
guaranteed fundamental rights to choose abortion before that right was
stripped away. Now reproductive freedom is under attack in multiple
States. Over a dozen States have passed abortion bans, and several
pregnant women in Georgia and Texas have died because they could not
access safe abortions. In some States, patients don't have access to
legal abortion care even after they have been raped. Multiple States
are currently suing to restrict access to even medication for abortion.
We don't yet know how the new administration is going to handle
Federal protections for pregnant women in medical emergencies. The new
administration, yesterday, took down a government website that offered
just information about reproductive care. This was one of the top
priorities yesterday of this administration on day one--taking down
that website.
Instead of working to resolve any of the serious, real challenges, my
colleagues are trying to force a vote on something that is completely
unnecessary. It is already illegal to kill a child who is born alive in
this country. I was a Member of the Senate when we passed, in 2002, the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to ensure that all infants have legal
protections.
The so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act, as my colleague from
New Hampshire just said, is legislation in search of a problem. It is
deliberately misleading and offensive to pregnant people and to their
healthcare providers.
It is incredibly heartbreaking--these scenarios--where a baby is born
with a fatal diagnosis, and the baby's parents must want to spend those
precious moments holding and saying goodbye to their child, but under
these extreme ideas, doctors would have to perform aggressive medical
care that would only prolong a family's suffering.
We need to honor that these are medical decisions left to the woman,
her physician, and to her family. We trust that doctors and nurses know
how to carry this out. We want to honor these--not politicians, not
lawyers--so I will be voting against this legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to do so.
We also need to make sure that here in the Senate, as my colleague
said, we are working to lower costs. We need to make sure that they
don't try to cut Medicare or food assistance or the neediest of issues
for young families who are being impacted. Healthcare in the United
States needs to be strengthened; drug costs need to be lowered; and we
need to help and protect working families.
I thank my colleagues for being here today.
I yield the floor.
____________________