Recognizing the cultural and historical significance of Mardi Gras and the celebration's origins in Mobile, Alabama.

Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Armed Services Committee to discuss the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be our Nation's Secretary of Defense.

Let me make two preliminary comments.

First, my philosophy about voting on nominees is to give deference to the President who has been elected, who has a mandate that carries with it a mandate to assemble a leadership team in executive positions, and so I always begin, with any President, Democrat or Republican, with a beginning standpoint that they should be able to assemble a team unless there are significant challenges with a nominee.

Second, I do want to say that as part of the work I have done in examining this nominee, I did review his military record, and I express my respect for the military record. Pete Hegseth's service in the military, in my review of those Pentagon records, suggested that he served in a very honorable way, and I want to acknowledge that.

Yet I rise to oppose the nomination and urge my colleagues to oppose it or at least take the time to really understand the gravity of the behavioral challenges that have been demonstrated by Mr. Hegseth during his career. I have multiple problems with this nominee for this position, and this position, Secretary of Defense, is the position that I view and many Virginians view as the most important Cabinet post. Let me review the reasons for my opposition.

First, Mr. Hegseth's record is one of erratic, unprofessional, and troubling behavior.

Mr. Hegseth was married twice before he was married to his current wife, his third wife. In the first two marriages, there were allegations in both of serious and multiple infidelities. I asked him at the hearing, when he appeared before us, whether he took an oath of fidelity to his spouses, and of course he did, in the same way that a Secretary of Defense will take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but the evidence that was before us, the public record that was before us, is very, very troubling.

In Mr. Hegseth's first marriage, there were public reports that he was unfaithful to his wife at least five different times with multiple other people. He never rebutted that, and because he wouldn't meet with members of the committee on the Democratic side, we didn't get a chance to talk about that in a closed setting, which would have been most important.

In his second marriage, he was married and, while married, fathered a child by a woman who would become his third wife in August of 2017. So he was still married to wife No. 2 and cheated on her with the woman who would bear his child and become wife No. 3. But in a very shocking way, to me, within 2 months after the birth of this child, he was at a Republican political event at a hotel in Monterey, CA, and he cheated on both his second wife and the mother of his newborn in an incident that led to a sexual assault criminal investigation.

This behavior--look, people are people, and people make mistakes, but a first marriage breaking up over serial infidelity and then a second marriage also bedeviled by serial infidelity is something that has to call up questions about an individual's judgment.

Mr. Hegseth has been the leader of two nonprofit organizations that are veterans service organizations. In one of the organizations, Concerned Veterans for America, during the time he was the CEO, an employee of the organization wrote a scathing report about Mr. Hegseth's creating a toxic work culture in this environment where impairment by alcohol was not only exhibited by him but tolerated in others and where there was a significant creation of a toxic work environment for women employees.

The committee members have had access to a report that was not done because he was nominated for Secretary of Defense; this was a report that was done by employees and given to the leaders of this organization at the time--now nearly 10 years ago--with about 35 names of employees and individuals in the organization with knowledge of the facts and recitation of event after event after event where people were treated unfairly. Women were made to feel that they were second class in the organization, and alcohol abuse was common at workplace events.

I referenced a sexual assault claim in Monterey, and I will call it an undisclosed sexual assault claim because Mr. Hegseth never told the Trump transition team about this event when he was being considered and vetted to be Secretary of Defense.

Again, he is married to wife 2. He has now fathered a child by a woman, being unfaithful in that wedding, and within 2 months after fathering a child, he goes to an event in Monterey, CA, gets a woman at the event into his hotel room, and has sex with her. She claims she was drugged and raped and filed a criminal complaint about it with local law enforcement within days after the event. He admits the event. He says it was consensual--not a sexual assault, rape, but consensual--but he acknowledges that it occurred.

What then happened is that the survivor went to local law enforcement and filed a sexual assault claim. The claim was investigated over a period of time. The prosecutor ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Hegseth, but there was a civil claim as well that later led to a settlement with the victim, a payment of cash to the victim, and the entrance into a nondisclosure agreement with the victim.

None of this was disclosed to the Trump team as they were examining Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. He didn't disclose the event. He didn't disclose the criminal sexual assault claim. He didn't disclose the fact of an investigation. He didn't disclose the civil claim. He didn't disclose the settlement. He didn't disclose the cash payment. He didn't disclose the nondisclosure agreement. He hid all of it from the Trump transition team.

When I asked him why, he didn't really have an answer, and I told him:

I know the reason why. You were worried that if you told them about this, they would not nominate you to be Secretary of Defense.

The relationship between a Secretary of Defense and a President is a very important relationship that demands complete candor. There is always some challenge. There is always something at the Pentagon that might be going wrong. Mr. Hegseth demonstrated at a very critical moment that he would not let the President-elect know about this fact because he wanted to advance himself and he worried that if he was candid, it would cause problems for him.

I don't want a Secretary of Defense who is unwilling to be candid with the Commander in Chief, and he has already demonstrated grave reason to doubt whether he will be candid by his refusing to disclose the reality of this sexual assault allegation in Monterey.

An affidavit was filed yesterday by one Danielle Hegseth, the former sister-in-law of the nominee, revealing publicly facts suggesting spousal abuse in Mr. Hegseth's second marriage. I don't know Danielle Hegseth. I haven't talked to her. I was not aware of that allegation. But it didn't surprise anyone on the committee who had reviewed the record. Why not? Because there are already facts in the record raising this very question. In fact, I asked Mr. Hegseth about it at the Armed Services Committee.

During his second divorce, his own mother wrote him a letter saying essentially: You are a serial abuser of women, including your own two wives, and you need to look in the mirror, get some help, and figure this out. His mother even used the phrase ``neither X nor Y''--the names of the first two wives--``deserved the treatment they have received at your hand.''

All of the committee members had access to that before the hearing-- all of them. What an extraordinary letter--your mother writing you a letter saying you are a serial abuser of women who needs to look in the mirror and get help and saying that the two wives that you have abused do not deserve the treatment they have received at your hand.

So the allegation from Danielle Hegseth yesterday in reporting her observations of Mr. Hegseth's behavior and in particular the abuse of her sister-in-law have to be given some credence by this committee, and we have to avoid a rush that we may regret.

I found it very unusual that when I asked Mr. Hegseth at the hearing if a sexual assault would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me; if spousal abuse would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me; if being impaired by alcohol while on the job would be disqualifying to be Secretary of Defense, he would not agree with me. These are not hard questions. They are clearly disqualifying behaviors, and the fact that he would not agree that they were disqualifying behaviors suggested to me, as I was watching that testimony, that they evinced a little bit of a guilty conscience. Why would I want to agree if I have concerns about my own behavior?

What has been Mr. Hegseth's response to allegations of infidelity, demonstrating poor judgment, the creation of a toxic work culture, alcohol impairment while at work, this undisclosed sexual assault claim, and the allegations of spousal abuse? What has his response been? His response has been twofold: complete denial--complete denial-- with the exception of acknowledging that, yes, he did cheat on his wife and the mother of a newborn child in Monterey, CA, in September 2017. He has denied everything else even though the record is replete with specific instances at specific times with specific individuals attesting to these behaviors.

His other defense is to claim that all of this--all of it--is an anonymous smear--an anonymous smear. Let me tell my colleagues: This is anything but anonymous. When your own mother writes you a letter saying you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, and they don't deserve the treatment they have received at your hand, that is not anonymous.

The report of the whistleblower at the Concerned Veterans for America organization a decade ago is anything but anonymous. The report listed--I counted them--incidents involving 36 named individuals who had been either participating in, victimized by, witnessing, or aware of the incidents described in the document.

This is not anonymous. Danielle Hegseth's public affidavit is not anonymous.

The one thing that I will acknowledge that is in the anonymous space is this: the number of individuals who have come forth and shared with me and other members of the committee their own firsthand knowledge of similar events but said you can't use my name because I am so afraid. I am afraid of what Mr. Hegseth would do. I am afraid of what the President might do.

I had someone say to me, when I said you needn't be afraid: That is easy for you to say. That is easy for you to say. If the building, the U.S. Capitol, where you work, could be attacked by people when it was well fortified and secure, what chance would I have if someone didn't like the fact that I publicly criticized this nominee?

So, yes, there are some who are speaking to us who are asking for anonymity and that, if they have asked for it, they should be provided it. But there are many who have spoken either directly via affidavit or in records that are available to all committee members and all Senators who are anything but anonymous.

I would urge my colleagues and not just the Armed Services Committee members to go and read the documents that are available to you. Before you cast your vote, set your feet in stone about a nominee, you should see these documents.

I want to go back to one point that I made that I think is telling, and that is Mr. Hegseth's refusal to disclose these facts to the Trump transition team. It is one thing to not disclose them to the committee; it is one thing to refuse to meet with the committee--I will get to that in a second--but when the President-elect, who is going to be the Commander in Chief, is vetting you for the most important Cabinet position in the United States and you know you have been charged with a sexual assault that led to a criminal investigation, a civil settlement, a cash payment, and nondisclosure agreement, and you choose not to reveal it to the President, in my view, that, in and of itself, should be disqualifying. The level of disrespect that that shows for the President-elect, in my view, should be disqualifying.

Let me conclude with a couple of other points. The main point is the pattern of behavior, which should make anyone wary to vote for Mr. Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. But there are a couple of other points I want to mention.

Mr. Hegseth, I think, sort of, set a very unfortunate precedent. I have been on the Armed Services Committee. I have sat side by side with my colleague Senator King on that committee since we came to the Senate in January of 2013. I have now participated in confirmation hearings for about five Secretaries of Defense, both Democratic and Republican nominees. Mr. Hegseth is the only one who refused to meet with Democratic members of the committee, save for the chairman, Jack Reed. He met with the Republican committee members. But all of us were trying to set meetings with him, as has been our norm, so that we could talk to him about these issues and ask him questions privately in our office. Some of these matters are, frankly, probably better for private discussion than public discussion. But he stiff-armed every one of us except for Jack Reed.

In some ways, maybe it is not a surprise. This is an individual who has written books and articles where he said Democrats are evil; Democrats are the adversary. But if you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense of the Pentagon, it is a nonpolitical military. It is a civilian military that should not be politicized. And if you begin the job by saying I needn't even sit down and pay the respective a meeting with Democratic Senators, what about Democrats who serve in the military or Independents or Libertarians, or people who don't share Mr. Hegseth's party affiliation?

What does it say to the men and women who work for our military when he wouldn't even pay the respect paid by every predecessor when they would meet with Senators of both parties before the hearing?

I was very disturbed the other day when we had a committee hearing to forward Mr. Hegseth's nomination, and the Republican majority asked for a waiver to forward it faster than rules allow. That waiver can be granted if the committee votes to do so. One of my colleagues, Senator Warner, said to the Republicans: Wait, you are asking us to waive normal rules. We don't want to waive normal rules to speed this along. He wouldn't even meet with us.

I thought that was a pretty compelling argument. I understand if Mr. Hegseth has no respect for the Senators in this body who are Democrats, that is one thing, but I would expect my Senate colleagues to have some respect for us.

I have served with members of this committee on the Republican side. Some have been there the entire 12 years I have been there. I didn't think they would tolerate a nominee stiff-arming me.

If there was a Democratic nominee for Secretary of Defense who refused to meet with Republican members of the committee, I would raise heck about that publicly in the committee and threaten to block the nominee until he met with the Republican members of the committee. I know Senator King would do the same thing.

Democrats would do the same thing. We would not tolerate a nominee stiff-arming one side of the dais and refusing to meet with us. We wouldn't tolerate it.

I was shocked that my Republican colleagues, in a closed meeting 2 days ago, demonstrated that they are just fine with that.

This is my favorite committee in the Senate. We work very cooperatively in a bipartisan way. And that my Republican colleagues are perfectly fine with us being disrespected because we happen to be Democrats, who our citizens elected us to serve in the U.S. Senate, is very, very shocking to me.

One other point that I want to bring up. I have revealed much material that is in the record and that other Senators can view for themselves. But I have to say, in looking at the investigation record, which was compiled largely by the FBI, it was very, very weak.

The FBI went out to do an investigation of Mr. Hegseth. The report was made available to the chair and the ranking member, not to the members of the committee. We haven't seen the report. But we have been able to ask questions of the chair and ranking about it.

The allegations that I have walked through, which are largely public record, the FBI didn't even interview the wives. Even after a mother's letter had said that you are a serial abuser of women, including your two wives, the FBI did not even go out and interview the wives.

Why not? I mean, was it an investigation or just like a box-checking exercise?

A number of us, when we heard that, we sort of raised hell about it; like, if you are going to do an investigation, talk to the people who know the nominee the best, then the two wives are people you ought to talk to.

We embarrassed the FBI. So after the fact, they went out and did a very cursory discussion with one of the wives. Again, I have not seen that material. I have not been allowed to see it. That should, itself, shock my colleagues and the public. But I have confirmed, in speaking about it with the ranking and chair, that the interview with the wife was very cursory and covered one set of topics but left many of the questions that I have raised here completely unanswered and unaddressed.

A nominee to be Secretary of Defense is going to have enormous power over the physical safety of Americans and over peace, war, and diplomacy in the world. Aren't we, as Senators, exercising our advice and consent role, entitled to a background investigation that is meaningful, that is searching, and that is comprehensive? Are we supposed to just be given some half work product and say: OK, that is great. Let's just rush to confirm somebody?

We shouldn't be confirming a person on an insufficient background check if they didn't have all of these acknowledged problems that are part of the public record. But when they are part of the public record, when the FBI finds out that, wow, you didn't tell the transition team about the sexual assault claim, the investigation should be thorough, not mediocre and cursory.

So I am going to conclude and just say this may not be the last time I appear on the floor to speak on this nomination, but, for now, my request of my colleagues is a simple one: Why rush? Why rush? Why would we rush to put through a nomination for a position of this importance that is frayed with so much baggage and so much evidence of glaring character and judgment errors?

Do we want to have egg on our face? Do we want to rush and have this blow up later? Do we want to rush and have other witnesses come out, as Danielle Hegseth did yesterday? Is that what the Senate's advice and consent process, mandated by the Constitution for a very important reason, has come to--a cursory investigation that doesn't get to the underlying facts, even when they are sitting right out there before us, and we are going to rush to confirm someone? For what reason?

So, as I sit down, I will just conclude with that question: Why rush this? Let's take the time. And when we cast a vote on confirmation, cast it with the confidence that we have complete information about the man who has been nominated to be our Secretary of Defense.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the past 45 minutes or so, my colleagues have come to this floor to be able to talk about a bill that is coming soon that we will actually vote on at the bottom of this hour. It is a bill we have talked about for several years. It has been debated some. It is about what happens if a child survives a botched abortion.

Now, I am going to talk about it a little bit. I have got some other colleagues who are going to step in, in a moment. Then I am going to talk a little bit more about this because this seems to be an incredibly misunderstood issue.

It is interesting. We most often talk about a botched medical procedure--that if there is a botched medical procedure, someone dies. This is literally the opposite--that there was a botched medical procedure, and someone lives. The whole debate is, that botched medical procedure that was supposed to take the life of a child ends up actually delivering that child, and now you have a living, breathing child crying on the table, fully viable. The question is, What do we do now?

Yesterday, my Democratic colleagues spent an hour on the floor saying that child should die. I disagree.

In all of our conversations about abortion--and we have various opinions in this room, and, quite frankly, across the country. We have various opinions about when is a child a child. Some people believe a child is a child when they have unique DNA that is different than the mom, different than the dad. Conception has occurred; cell division has happened. That is, quite frankly, how science defines life, as unique, replicating cell division. Some people believe that is a child.

Some people say: Well, it is not a child until there is a heartbeat.

Some people would say: Well, it is not a child until there is actually a developed nervous system.

Some people would say: It is not a child until the Roe standard, that I hear very often--that it is a viable child that could survive outside the womb, which is about 21 weeks of gestation.

And I have a lot of my colleagues who will say: Well, I want to go back to the Roe standard.

But I have yet to have a colleague come to me and say: I am OK with abortion after delivery.

That is what we are talking about in this.

Now, it is an incredibly small group that we are discussing here. But if we are talking about a common-ground issue, why wouldn't this be a common-ground issue?

Earlier this week, we found a common-ground issue on the issue that is very contentious in this body about immigration. We have had a wide variety of opinions about how we do enforcement for immigration, but we found an area to say: If a person has crossed the border, committed multiple crimes in the United States, they should be detained.

We found bipartisan agreement on that. We don't agree on everything, but we, at least, agreed on that one.

You realize, that is the first bill like that that we have passed in decades--that has actually passed. It is going to be signed by the President. We are making law on that issue where we found simple common ground on a small, niche issue related to immigration.

Well, this is a small, niche issue on a very contentious issue about abortion--what do we do when a child is actually delivered, instead of destroyed in the womb, that is a viable child?

Now, some of my Democratic colleagues have said this never happens. Well, I would love to introduce you to a friend of mine named Melissa Ohden. When Melissa Ohden's mom was 19 years old, she was compelled by her family to have an abortion. She had an abortion--her mom did--and delivered that child. The child was delivered, and then, literally, the baby was set aside into the medical waste of that procedure at the hospital.

The nurse then, a few minutes later, as she was cleaning up after the procedure, noticed the medical waste was crying and was breathing. So the nurse literally scooped up this child and took the child from that room to the emergency room, where she survived.

Folks, early on, said she would be blind or she would have a major heart condition; she would have everything else. I wish you could meet Melissa. She is amazing. She is fully healthy.

In fact, it was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn't know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that, actually, that abortion ``didn't work.'' That child survived.

They have since reconnected, Melissa and her birth mom--her birth mom, with deep regret, thinking about this beautiful child in front of her, that that life was almost destroyed. In fact, it was planned to be destroyed.

Listen, this is not just an academic issue. This is real. Again, it is rare, but the question is: What do we do in those rare situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?

I would ask any American: If there is a child lying on the table in an operating room, crying, what do we do then? I don't know many Americans who would say: Kill it.

But here is what happens. In a botched abortion in America right now, when a child is actually delivered rather than destroyed in the womb, when literally there was a medical mistake that didn't take the life of the child but instead delivered that child into life--when that occurs, the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single State to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die, that is OK.

My Democratic colleagues came to the floor yesterday and said: This is already illegal. Why are we even discussing this? This is already illegal. You can't have infanticide in America.

And I would say that is correct; it is already illegal to do infanticide. But what is still allowed is a tiny, little loophole that if an abortion was botched, everyone can just back away and watch the child die; they do not have to give that child medical care.

That is quite a loophole, and it is painful for me to even have to have this conversation in a nation like ours. Of all the things that we could talk about right now, why do we even have to discuss what to do with a child on a table in an operating room, crying? Why is this even a conversation?

So we are bringing a bill to the floor today to be able to fix this. This is a bill we talked about multiple times in this body, but it should be the absolute, easiest common-ground piece to face. Which of us, standing in that operating room, would look at a crying child and would say: Ignore it. If we wouldn't say it there, we shouldn't say that here.

So I will be back in a few moments, Mr. President. I have other colleagues who want to be able to speak to this issue, but I have some facts and myth that I want to do side by side with some of my Democratic colleagues who came to be able to share their perspective on this, and I want to be able to lay some things side by side to say what this bill actually does, not what the myth is and what is actually being told about it.

In the meantime, I would encourage Members of this body to be able to look up my friend Melissa Ohden. Look her up online if you want to, see her beautiful picture, and read her story for yourself, because she is not the only one with that same story. She is just one of many that has that story. Just not many are willing to be able to step out and speak knowing that their life was intended to be taken, though today, they are still smiling and talking about the value of every single life.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in just a few moments, this body will vote on a bill that actually doesn't limit abortion at all. It doesn't slow down one abortion. It doesn't stop one woman from choosing to have an abortion. It doesn't have a nationwide ban on abortion. In fact, this is a bill about what happens after an abortion.

What is unique about this bill is it is asking a pretty simple question that seems like it would be a common ground issue for us, if there is, in this case, a medical mistake that didn't take a life, we normally think about a medical mistake that takes a life. But in this case, if there was a medical mistake that actually protected a life, what happens?

This doesn't limit one single abortion in America, though many people in this body know me well enough to know I would love to protect more children in America. This bill just asks a simple question: If an abortion is botched and the child is delivered instead of destroyed in the womb and the child is alive and viable on the table, what happens next?

Current medical practice is everyone in the room just backs away, and you allow the child to die on the table. I don't think that is what most Americans would want. I think most Americans would say: Hey, I have got boundaries on the issue of abortion and definitely fully born is a boundary.

Now, it has been interesting, I have listened to the debate yesterday and today from my Democratic colleagues, many of them friends, we have a real disagreement on this. This is not extreme--as I have heard it described, an extreme, rightwing proposal about abortion.

I just don't think if I pulled 100 people off the street and said: Hey, if a child is alive and screaming on the table after birth, what do you think we should do? I bet 100 out of 100 of them would say we should probably give them medical care. I just don't think that is extreme or out of the main thought in America.

I think that is just who Americans are. We are compassionate people; that when we see a baby and look in their face, we don't say ignore them; we say let's provide some care.

I have heard some of my colleagues say that we should respect the rights of women in this. By the way, I think one of those women should be that little girl that is born who is lying on the table right there crying. I think she should get some compassion and respect as well because a decision is being made at this point about what to do. And it is not a theory.

Several of my colleagues yesterday have used terms during this debate like this is ``myth-based fearmongering.'' That was my favorite one. ``Republicans are talking about stories that do not happen'' was also expressed by another one of my colleagues.

This one was just a little more blunt. One of my colleagues just came to the floor and said: ``Republicans are lying.'' Well, here is what really happened. Let me give you a status. This doesn't happen very often at all. Thankfully, this is rare, but the CDC does some tracking, and there are, quite frankly, only eight States in America that actually keep track of this; that if there is a botched abortion, the child is actually delivered fully alive. There are only eight States that do it. Most States say don't. In fact, what is interesting is we tried to be able to track which States actually keep track of this and have some kind of instruction of what to do on healthcare on it. A few States do; many States don't. In fact, some States, like Minnesota, literally voted recently: We used to track reporting, but we don't even want to know anymore if this occurs. Don't tell us if it occurs.

Of the few States, just 8, that actually track this, over a several- year period, there were 277 cases like this where a child was actually delivered and was alive after a botched abortion.

Now, again, that is not many, but we know from eight States in that short time period, that that is occurring.

So, again, I go back to the basic question: What do we want to do about that? Do we want to just ignore that or do we have a thought about what should happen to that child?

Some of my colleagues have said this only occurs if there is a pregnancy complication and the child was already going to die or there was a fatal medical condition that was actually occurring. Well, actually, that is not true in this bill. This bill is about a viable child that was delivered late term that is now on the table alive.

I have also heard that this is going to have this massive overreach for doctors; that they are going to be oppressed, and they are going to be afraid to practice on this.

Actually, the bill is pretty clear on this. This still gives the doctor the ability to use his or her professional judgment in the care that would normally be provided to a child that is born. That is it.

The doctor may look at it and say: This child is not going to make it. That is still a professional judgment that is there or they may have a professional judgment that the child will make it. And as I have mentioned on this floor before, there are adults walking around today that survived an abortion, like Melissa Ohden and other folks that I know personally.

So this is not something that just never occurs. So it doesn't limit abortion. It doesn't restrict doctors. It actually does happen-- contrary to what some of my colleagues have said that this never happens, it actually does happen on this.

I have had colleagues that have said: Infanticide is already illegal. This is unnecessary so let's move on. This is unnecessary. Except we have also established the issue that, yes, taking the life of that child on the table, literally once that child is on the table crying, they can't reach down and take the life of that child. That is Kermit Gosnell, horrific stuff. But just allowing them to slowly die, that is still protected. So that is not there.

One of my colleagues came to this floor and made this statement:

At the center of this debate is whether we believe in the

premise from the Declaration of Independence that all are

created equal, that freedom belongs to everyone, and that

women deserve to be treated as equal citizens.

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

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And our question on this particular bill is, when that child is born and she is crying on the table, does she have the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or not? That is all this bill does. This bill should be a simple process to say this is not who we are as Americans.

As Americans, we respect the opportunity for life for that child that is fully delivered, and then we determine what we are going to do.

Just because a baby can't defend herself, doesn't mean she is disposable. It means she is vulnerable, and that means we as a nation should determine what we are going to do with the life of the most vulnerable.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this. This should be a bipartisan conversation where we speak from this body for those who cannot speak for themselves.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, yesterday, I met with Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

We all know the FBI. It plays a critical role in keeping America safe from terrorism, violent crime, and other threats. The person who is in charge of our Nation's leading law enforcement organization, the FBI, should be someone who is nonpartisan, solid, reliable, with a demonstrated skill in law enforcement.

We were reminded of this on 9/11, that the FBI is the leading Agency that we, in America, rely on to keep us safe. The 30,000 professionals at the FBI have the skills and resources to do the job. They deserve a leader who understands the gravity of their mission.

After meeting with Kash Patel, I have grave concerns about his fitness for the role of FBI Director. Mr. Patel has neither the experience, the temperament, nor the judgment to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is a staunch political loyalist who has repeatedly peddled false conspiracy theories and threatened to retaliate against those who have slighted him personally and politically.

Start with January 6. I was here in the Senate that day. I will always be grateful to the U.S. Capitol Police and DC police officers who defended everyone who works in this building from an angry mob that was egged on by President Trump. You have seen the videos. You know what I am talking about. But Kash Patel, the man who claims he should lead the FBI, actually says the FBI ``was planning January 6 for a year''--``planning January 6,'' the FBI.

And he posted on social media: ``Jan. 6 never an insurrection.'' Then he said: ``Cowards in uniform'' exposed.

Let me say those words again: ``Cowards in uniform.'' That is what Mr. Patel said. I asked him about that statement in my office yesterday. He couldn't explain it. Who were these so-called cowards in uniform when the mob stormed the Capitol Building on January 6? Who were these people? Were they the Capitol Hill police and the DC police Officers who literally risked their lives to protect us and the Vice President?

In light of the deaths and serious injuries they faced, Mr. Patel should not even suggest the possibility that these were cowardly acts. These were acts of bravery and courage. Many of them risked their lives for us, as they do every single day.

To the people who have gathered in the balcony here to observe the Senate in session, to the thousands of visitors to this building, look around you. Quietly standing guard are men and women in uniform, Capitol Hill police, who are ready to step in and protect you if necessary. On January 6, they did it at a great cost.

So what are Mr. Patel's plans for the FBI, who he said was actually planning January 6? He said he wants to ``shut down the F.B.I. Hoover Building on Day 1 and reopen it the next day as a museum of the `deep state.' ''

And he said:

We're going to come after the people in the media. . . .

We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or

civilly. . . . we're putting you all on notice.

This is the man who wants to head up the FBI, and I am quoting exactly what he said.

He has even published an enemies list of 60 people whom he calls ``government gangsters.'' It is in writing. The playbook is there. The list of all 60 names is spelled out in detail.

Who is included on this list of people that would be his enemies, the so-called government gangsters? Well, members of both political parties that Mr. Patel has identified, including former Trump administration officials, like Defense Secretary Esper.

And then there is Bob Mueller. Bob Mueller is an extraordinary man, a patriot, a Republican, who has been called on repeatedly to serve this country, and he has done so willingly.

He enlisted in the Marine Corps out of college. When one of his dear friends was killed in Vietnam, he decided that he had to serve and had to fight too. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a lieutenant and received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

Even after he was injured and received a Purple Heart, he returned to battle. He is an extraordinary person.

I came to know him a few days after 9/11, when I reached out to see if there was anything I could do to help the FBI and its new leader, Mr. Mueller. We struck up a friendship and a relationship over the years. I respected him so much.

What does Mr. Kash Patel think of Bob Mueller, this man who served our country in so many different ways? He calls him an ``utter swamp creature.''

And then there is Paul Ryan, former Congressman from the State of Wisconsin, former Republican Speaker of the House. I count him as a friend--not a close friend but a casual friend, someone I like. We didn't have a lot in common when it came to politics, but I thought he was a good public servant, and he served our country well.

What does Kash Patel, who wants to head up the FBI, say in his book, in writing, about Paul Ryan? ``Total failure and a coward''--Paul Ryan, ``total failure and a coward.''

Then there is GEN Mark Milley, who is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He served our country in so many different capacities. He led our troops in battle and distinguished himself time and time again. What does Kash Patel say of GEN Mark Milley, who served under President Trump's leadership? He calls him the ``kraken of the swamp''--the ``kraken of the swamp.''

Does this sound like the resume of a person who should lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the world's preeminent criminal investigation Agency?

And I asked him a practical question as well: There are 30,000 people in law enforcement in the FBI. What do you think is the morale of that group after President Trump's pardons the other night of the people who were involved in the January 6 violence?

Well, Mr. Patel went on to tell me that he didn't, in any way, approve of violence against law enforcement officers.

And I asked him: Will you say that publicly, that you don't think they should have been pardoned if they were guilty of violence against police officers?

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

Presidential Pardons

Mr. President, let me say, for a moment, we should reflect on these pardons and the people who received them. I want to make sure I put these details in the Record, without any question of their veracity.

Some of the people convicted of violence, on January 6, here in the U.S. Capitol Building, who received full, complete, and unconditional pardons from President Trump, the day he was sworn in: David Dempsey, convicted of repeatedly assaulting police officers with pepper spray, a metal crutch, and wooden and metal poles. ``For over one hour, defendant David Dempsey viciously assaulted and injured police officers,'' Federal prosecutors charged.

Metropolitan Police Department Detective Nguyen testified that after Dempsey pepper sprayed him, he was knocked down, and ``I thought that's, you know, where I'm going to die. And in my head, you know, I am thinking about my family at that point before anything else.''

Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from President Trump Monday night.

Julian Khater pleaded guilty to pepper spraying Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Later that night, Sicknick collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. He died the following day.

According to the Washington, DC, medical examiner, Sicknick's death was due to ``natural causes''--two strokes--but ``all that transpired played a role in his condition.''

Sicknick's mother Gladys spoke at Khater's sentencing hearing:

Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty to a deranged autocratic

ideal, and hate killed my son. And I hope you are haunted by

your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is

not enough in my eyes.

He was sentenced to 6 years in prison and received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon Monday night.

Christian Matthew Manley pleaded guilty to assaulting police with two cans of bear spray and throwing empty canisters at officers. Manley then threw a metal rod at officers. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan told Manley, at his sentencing hearing, that ``there has to be an understanding that participating, taking up arms against law enforcement, taking up arms to basically try and overthrow the government, is going to be met with severe punishment.''

Manley was sentenced to more than 4 years in prison. He received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump Monday night.

Patrick Edward McCaughey III was convicted of using a police riot shield to ``crush'' Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a metal door frame, leaving Hodges trapped, bleeding, and crying for help. ``If I was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I knew it was very likely I wouldn't be able to maintain my consciousness,'' Hodges testified. ``Your actions on January 6 were some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day,'' Federal Judge Trevor McFadden told McCaughey before sentencing him to 7 years in prison.

Mr. McCaughey received a full, complete and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump on Monday.

Ryan Nichols pleaded guilty to pepper spraying police officers and urging rioters through bullhorn to storm the building. ``This is not a peaceful protest,'' he yelled, according to prosecutors. ``If you have a weapon, you need to get your weapon.'' Later that night, Nichols recorded a video of himself calling for a second American Revolution and stating: ``If you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan Nichols stands for violence.''

Nichols was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison and received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from the President Monday night.

Christopher Quaglin was convicted at trial of ``viciously assaulting police officers for hours,'' according to Federal prosecutors. ``On at least a dozen occasions, Quaglin stood face-to-face with officers as he screamed at them, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted, and slapped officers; pushed bike racks into officers; and even choked one officer to the ground,'' prosecutors stated. Quaglin was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

He received a full, unconditional, and complete pardon from Donald Trump on Monday night.

Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to using a stun gun and ``plunging it'' multiple times into Police Officer Michael Fanone's neck, in the words of prosecutors, leading Fanone to scream out in pain. ``During those moments, I remember thinking there was a very good chance that I would be torn apart or be shot to death with my own weapon,'' Fanone testified to Congress. Rodriguez was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

Daniel Rodriguez was given a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump.

Peter Schwartz was convicted of stealing pepper spray from police officers, distributing the canisters to other rioters and ``indiscriminately'' spraying law enforcement, according to prosecutors. Court documents from the Justice Department described him as ``a welder by trade and a felon who has racked up numerous convictions from drugs, weapons, and violence over the last three decades.''

The day after the riot, he allegedly posted on Facebook: ``What happened yesterday was the opening of a war.'' He was referring to January 6. ``I was there and whether people would acknowledge it or not we are now at war.'' Schwartz was sentenced to more than 14 years in prison.

He received a full, unconditional and complete pardon by the President on Monday night.

These are the instances that I wanted to highlight. For those who suggest these are just casual tourists to the Capitol, they should read the details of the attacks these individuals made on police officers who stood to guard us, the Vice President, and any visitors to the Capitol that day. They risked their lives for us and the pardons from the White House are impossible to explain under those circumstances.

I raised those with Kash Patel. I said: You want to be the head of the largest Federal law enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What do you think those pardons are doing to the morale of police officers across the country?

He said he did not condone violence against police officers.

I wanted to make sure I made that clear for the record. I said: Would you say anything publicly about that? He said: I have to take it up the chain of command before I would say anything public.

In 1976, Congress passed a law limiting the FBI Director to a single term of 10 years, intended to insulate this position from political influence. But President Trump repeatedly tried to bend the FBI Director to his political agenda. He fired his first FBI Director, Jim Comey. He forced out his second FBI Director, Chris Wray, when he refused to do his bidding.

Now President Trump has nominated a proven loyalist in Kash Patel. In a 2019 meeting, Patel reportedly told President Trump, in the Oval Office, he wanted to expand his portfolio to ensure White House personnel were ``completely loyal to the administration.''

Loyalty of police officers on a political basis is not the basis for sound judgment when it comes to law enforcement. We find loyal police officers in the countries with autocratic rulers throughout our history. We don't want that in the United States.

Mr. Patel's political grievances make him a favorite of the MAGA world. But they have not prepared him to work night and day to keep America safe from violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and other threats. Mr. Patel's endless list of political grievances, well- documented threats of retribution are disqualifying; and they are spelled out in graphic detail in his own book, which I have read.

The FBI is a critical Agency keeping America safe. Mr. Patel is not the person for this life-and-death assignment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, well, Donald Trump made a lot of promises on what he would get done on day one. Well, today is day three of Donald Trump's Presidency. Nothing Donald Trump has done will help lower grocery prices. Nothing Donald Trump has done will lower prescription drug costs. Instead, President Trump's biggest accomplishment to date has been to issue unconditional pardons to 1,500 lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol.

Why on Earth is the President already spending so much time focused on the past, focused on his grievances, instead of focused on costs and jobs and improving healthcare for the American people? The American people have to wonder, how on Earth will pardoning January 6 rioters help me pay for food at the grocery store, help me get a lower cost for buying a home, or help me save more money for my retirement? How on Earth will Americans feel safer if the President rewards lawbreakers who assault police officers by setting these criminals free?

So much for focusing on lowering prices.

Pardoning lawless rioters is not what the American people signed up for when they voted for Donald Trump. They wanted the President to get to work quickly on issues that impact them--costs, safety, healthcare.

The first 3 days of Donald Trump's ``golden age'' has been golden for everyone but working Americans. It is a golden age for big corporations. It is a golden age for pharmaceutical companies. It is a golden age for polluters. It is a golden age for lawlessness. It is not--not--a golden age for hard-working Americans who want their costs reduced.

Cabinet Nominations

Mr. President, on nominations, yesterday, I met with President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of OMB, Russell Vought. I walked into my meeting with Mr. Vought, of course, skeptical. Then I walked out of the meeting even more deeply troubled. Of all the extremists President Trump could have picked for OMB, he picked the godfather of the ultraright.

Mr. Vought's goal is clear and simple: He wants to dismantle the social safety net and starve America with the most radical budget cuts in living memory. In the past, he has called for gutting Social Security, gutting Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the Department of Education. He has proposed cuts to disability payments for retired veterans. He wants to cut SNAP benefits, raise drug prices--all in the name of an ultraright, extremist ideology that prioritizes the needs for the wealthy few. They want to cut the daylights out of everything else so they can give tax cuts to the very wealthiest in our society, who are doing quite well.

When I asked him which parts of Project 2025 he disagreed with, he was unable to give me a single answer.

I am also deeply worried that Mr. Vought will disobey the law when it comes to following through on congressional spending. President Trump has already begun issuing Executive orders that jeopardize billions upon billions in bipartisan infrastructure projects across the country. They say this is

temporary, but we all know how Washington works--temporary trial balloons turn into permanent anchors.

Congress has already approved these investments. President Biden has signed them into law. These projects help red States and blue States and support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.

If Donald Trump does, in fact, freeze these funds now so he can resume them and take credit down the line, people's jobs and livelihoods would be at risk. Mr. Vought, I fear, would only enable this unlawful behavior. In fact, Vought is one of the leading proponents of impoundment of funds, which should be frightening not only to those who represent blue States but also those who represent red States where so many of the investments are going.

Mr. Vought is testifying right now before the Senate Committee on the Budget. It is important that we build a record about the deeply harmful plans he has for the country. It is an opportunity for Americans to see for themselves how truly radical President Trump's second term could well be.

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Mr. President, under President Trump, it will be a golden age for the anti-choice--the extreme anti-choice--movement. The bill we are voting on today, the Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill, is as pernicious as they come. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that is already illegal.

So much of the hard right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant.

The situation targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments a woman could ever encounter--the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. It is moments like this where we should support women and doctors most, not use them as political football, as this bill does so heartlessly.

Remember when Republicans claimed they would leave the issue of choice to the States? Remember that? That is out the window. This bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened, extremist anti-choice resurgence far, far further to the right than the American people are.

Here is a message to my Republican colleagues: Today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something lowering the cost of groceries instead of attacking women's reproductive care. It would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to make prescription drugs more affordable. It would be a great day for Republicans to help do something to help Americans trying to buy a home.

Instead of lowering costs, Senate Republicans are putting their energy into controlling women's healthcare. This is not what the American people signed up for.

Artificial Intelligence

Mr. President, finally, on AI, yesterday, a group of AI and tech companies announced their pledge to invest as much as $500 billion to ramp up our Nation's AI and data center infrastructure. Of course, if AI becomes one of the central technologies of our lives, as is expected, we must build the capacity to support that demand, no question about it. But already President Trump is tying himself into knots and talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he goes on about how we need more power, we need more electricity to meet the demands of AI, and then on the other hand, he spent his first day in office proposing Executive orders that cut clean energy investments, halting wind and solar and putting those jobs at risk.

These AI data centers will depend on more clean energy production and transmission, and cutting clean energy will cut a good chunk of the new energy that is about to come on board. So for President Trump to cut clean energy investments is tantamount to cutting AI's potential. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other hand is doing.

If President Trump wants to help AI's growth instead of hurt it, he should revoke his promise to kill the clean energy jobs we are going to need to support America's energy needs.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak, Senator Murray speak, and then the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Murray, a great champion of women's health, for adding her eloquence and expertise to the debate. When it comes to the issue of choice, women's rights, women's health, there is no greater spokesperson than she. So I thank her. We will hear from her shortly.

Now, today's vote on the Senate Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill makes one thing very clear: Under President Trump, it will be a golden age but for the extreme anti-choice movement. The bill is the very definition of pernicious. It attacks women's healthcare using false narratives and outright fear-mongering, and it adds more legal risks for doctors on something that is already illegal.

So much of the hard-right's anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little to no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant. The scenario targeted by this bill is one of the most heartbreaking moments that a woman could ever encounter: the agonizing choice of having to end care when serious and rare complications arise in pregnancy. And at that moment of agony, this bill cruelly substitutes the judgment of qualified medical professionals and the wishes of millions of families and allows the ultraright ideology to dictate what they do.

Women should be supported and trusted when faced with serious pregnancy complications. This is when male politicians should step up and support women, not use them as political footballs, as this bill so heartlessly does.

And, if anything, this bill is a metaphor for what is to come: an emboldened extremist, anti-choice resurgence, further to the right than the American people are, even than most Republicans are.

Remember when Republicans said this issue would be left to the States. Both President Trump and our Republican colleagues said: Don't worry; we are going to leave this to the States.

That is not what this bill does. It doesn't leave it to the States. And I think that we are going to see this over and over again where promises made during the campaign are just broken. This one: 2 days after Donald Trump is inaugurated as President, it is no longer left to the States. And any promise that people made that we are going to leave things to the women and their doctors, that is out the window with this bill. And again, we are going to see that repeated over and over again--not left to the States, imposed by some politicians here in Washington on women across America, and not respecting the rights of women and their doctors and their families.

Here is my message to my Republican colleagues: Instead of attacking reproductive care, today would be a great day for Senate Republicans to do something to lower the cost of groceries or prescription drugs or helping Americans buy a home. It would also be a great day for Senate Republicans to trust women and leave their healthcare choices up to them, but they are not doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to address some concerns that my Republican colleagues have raised about my decision to insist on a 1- day debate on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. Plain and simple, I think we should take some time--1 day--to consider one of the most important, sensitive national security posts in this new administration. I do not think it makes sense to ram through Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination with only 120 minutes of debate, as was the suggestion last night.

Many people here have raised serious concerns about his qualifications. For instance, during his short tenure as Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Ratcliffe showed a very troubling propensity to play politics with sensitive intelligence. Most notoriously, just 1 month before the 2020 election, on the day of the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Mr. Ratcliffe chose to declassify a cherry-picked CIA memo from 4 years earlier that outlined Russian claims that Hillary Clinton had approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia's hack of the DNC so that Trump could use that in the debate. These were unverified Russian intelligence claims. Mr. Ratcliffe's decision went against explicit warnings by CIA personnel that its release would put in jeopardy CIA sources, methods, and personnel, but he did it anyway on the day of the debate, a month before the election, because its release would help Donald Trump's reelection campaign.

Now, it is true that during this day of debate we are having before we vote likely tomorrow, Senators may not be coming to the floor to give lengthy speeches on Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination, but this debate time--this day--gives all of my colleagues the time to carefully review the record and consider whether Mr. Ratcliffe is qualified. Maybe members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have had the time to do a full study, but the full Senate has not. So it is not too much to ask, given the very real concerns about this nominee's politicization of intelligence, for us to take a day--not a week, not 2 weeks; a day--for Senators to take the time to consider the record.

But I want to make a broader point. I hear Republicans claiming that my decision to ask for 1 day of debate on a controversial nominee to lead the CIA somehow compromises our national security, so let me say this: Spare me. Two days ago, President Donald Trump pardoned 1,500 rioters--including the most violent rioters--who stormed this building 4 years ago, brutally beat law enforcement over the head with poles, tried to crush the heads of Capitol Police officers, and walked around here with zip ties, looking to do God knows what to any Democratic Congressmen or Senators they found. They assembled a gallows and a noose outside the Capitol to chants of ``Hang Mike Pence.'' All of my Republican colleagues were here when a Capitol Police officer burst through that door to rush us to safety before the mob attacked us.

Republicans all of a sudden claim that law and order is a priority and we have to rush through nominees, and yet they stand by a President who just threw law and order out the window by pardoning not some of the rioters but all of them.

Political violence in this country just became mainstream. It is now a fact of life in America. If you commit an act of horrific violence in the name of the President of the United States, that President will make sure you get away with it. That is fundamentally un-American, and it makes this country less safe.

Let me guarantee you, a 1-day delay, a 1-day debate on the confirmation of the CIA Director does no damage to our Nation's security compared to the decision to pardon every single January 6 rioter charged and convicted of crimes and let out of jail--some of the most violent rioters. Just to hammer home the point, if you don't believe me, let me explain to you who Donald Trump let out of jail yesterday.

This is David Dempsey. He gave an interview in front of the gallows that had been built and fitted with a noose. He said he was at the Capitol that day, January 6, because Nancy Pelosi, James Comey, the Obamas, and the Clintons ``need to hang.''

At the Capitol, he climbed to the front of the mob and immediately began attacking law enforcement officers who were trying to protect us. He used his hands, his feet, flag poles, crutches, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could find as a weapon to attack police officers.

At around 4 p.m. that day, Dempsey pepper-sprayed DC detective Phuson Nguyen as another rioter yanked off the detective's gas mask. The spray burned Detective Nguyen's lungs, throat, and eyes. It left him gasping for breath, fearing that he might lose consciousness and be overwhelmed by the mob.

Moments later, because Dempsey wasn't done, he hit Sergeant Jason Mastony over the head with a metal crutch. He struck him with so much force that it cracked the shield of his gas mask, causing Sergeant Mastony to collapse as his ears started ringing.

Dempsey wasn't done, though. He was thorough. He was vicious. He kept

going. He sprayed chemical agents at officers. He stomped on their heads. He hit them repeatedly with metal and wooden poles.

Dempsey's violence reached such extremes that at one point, he actually attacked another rioter who was trying to stop him.

He was sentenced by a jury of his peers to significant jail time for his litany of brutal attacks, as anyone in this country would.

He walked out of jail last night, in the middle of his sentence because Donald Trump pardoned him.

That is DJ Rodriguez. He didn't make any bones about what he was coming to the Capitol to do.

The night before the insurrection, DJ Rodriguez posted on Telegram ``There will be blood. Welcome to the revolution.''

For weeks, he and members of his violent rightwing group had been organizing and planning what they were going to do. He encouraged members of the group to ``get a large knife,'' told them where they could buy bear spray. He said he ``highly recommended'' to wear goggles without breath holes and told them where they could get an axe handle. He was preparing for war.

He began, you know, rather innocently, just spraying a fire extinguisher at a line of officers. When that didn't work, he found a long wooden pole to attack the officers.

He wasn't done. After 37 minutes of repeated, frantic attempts to breach the Capitol, he finally got to the mouth of the tunnel in the Lower West Terrace. He grabbed an officer--by the neck--and dragged him into the mob. He takes a Taser and tases the officer in the head. The officer screams in pain, recoils from the shock, and jerks back his head.

Rodriguez isn't done because he wants this guy dead. He strikes him again directly in the neck. The officer yells out. But it is over. The officer collapses, unconscious. And another officer has to drag his lifeless body away from the mob. The officer suffered a heart attack. His law enforcement career is over.

Later that day, Rodriguez went to those gallows, took a picture, and posted ``No Democrats unfortunately.''

After being convicted of beating a police officer by a jury of his peers, DJ Rodriguez was pardoned by Donald Trump.

This is Thomas Webster. He traveled to DC ready for battle with a bulletproof vest. He carried a large metal flag pole with him to the riot at the Capitol. He led the charge against the police line. He spent 8 minutes elbowing his way through the crowd so he could be at the front of the mob. He used that pole to repeatedly attack police officers. He slammed it so hard the metal pole broke in half. So then he just charged directly at one officer, tackling him to the ground. He grabbed the officer by the helmet, dragged him, and pinned him to the ground. As Webster tried to rip off the officer's gas mask, the officer began to struggle for breath because he was being chocked by the chin strap. And as he gasped for air, Webster held him down on the ground, and other rioters kicked him repeatedly.

After that, Webster was so fired up he posted a live video. He pleaded ``Send more patriots. We need some help.''

He was convicted of all six counts in his indictment, including assaulting a police officer, like anybody would be in this country if they did what Thomas Webster did.

He walked out of jail in the middle of his sentence Monday night, pardoned by Donald Trump.

So here is the message: If you beat up a police officer in this country, you are going to jail for a long time, with one exception: You don't go to jail if you beat the hell out of a police officer in the service of Donald Trump. If you are engaged in violence to further Donald Trump's political career, then you face no consequences.

What happened this week is that political violence got mainstreamed in America. There are still a lot of radical dangerous people out there in this world, and they now know that if they carry out violence in the name of Donald Trump, if they beat up police officers, if they attack Democratic officials and they are doing it to support Donald Trump, they are likely immune.

That puts this Nation's security in jeopardy. That puts our lives in jeopardy. And I am just going to say it: It puts Democrats' lives in jeopardy in particular. Remember, DJ Rodriguez went to the gallows and said ``No Democrats here unfortunately.''

Where is the broad righteous indignation from my Republican colleagues about that? Yes, a few of my Republican colleagues have criticized the pardons--I am thankful to them--but it is a minority. It is a small handful. Most Senate Republicans are silent.

The wholesale endorsement of political violence is a grave national security threat to this Nation. Having a 1-day debate on the nomination of a CIA Director is not.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.