A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

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, as the world knows by now, yesterday, President Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. I think he is only the second President who has been sworn in on two different occasions. He is both the 45th and the 47th President of the United States.

It was an honor to see him take the oath of office yesterday in the Capitol Rotunda. I only regret, because of the weather, that more people weren't able to see that in person. I was with a number of my Texas constituents this morning. They are not accustomed to the cold temperatures, but they were prepared to dress warmly and to deal with it. They all seemed to be in good spirits because of the outcome of the election, and they were happy to see the President sworn in, as was I.

I want to express my personal congratulations, along with that of millions of people across the country, to President Trump and our former colleague J.D. Vance.

I have told people, when J.D. Vance came to the Senate, I actually had met him before because when he went to Yale Law School, he actually was an intern on the Judiciary Committee that I serve on, and he worked in my office for a very brief period of time. I didn't know him then. As I told him, I knew him before he was famous, before he wrote ``Hillbilly Elegy'' and his career took off like a rocket ship. I am proud of what Vice President Vance has been able to accomplish.

If you think about it, here is a guy who at 40 years old is Vice President of the United States, and if you read or listen to ``Hillbilly Elegy''--about the circumstances under which J.D. Vance was raised--you can see that he has overcome a lot of obstacles in life. He served as a U.S. marine, and I know he was celebrating last night with the Ohio State championship win, being a graduate of that school. It was great to see him get sworn in yesterday as well. Again, only in America--only in America--can something like that happen.

Immigration

It is no secret either that in the last 4 years, the Biden administration's policies have been nothing but a disaster for the Nation, and no State has been more negatively affected than my State, the State of Texas. We have 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and the open border policies of the Biden administration have been an unmitigated disaster from a public health standpoint and a public safety standpoint. Many of our border communities have simply been overwhelmed and overrun just by the sheer volume of people coming from all around the world.

This is not the sort of immigration that you have seen in the past where poor people have come to the United States across the border to work and send money home. You literally have seen, with the Biden open border policies, people from all around the world show up and claim asylum or be paroled into the interior of the United States, which is like a blinking green light to anybody and everybody who wants to come to America, knowing they would be released under the Biden administration's policies.

We have seen millions. Nobody really knows for sure how many millions of people come and basically move into the United States outside of our legal immigration program, which I think is very important, but there are also the roughly 2 million, we think, ``got-aways''--people evading law enforcement--and you can only imagine what they are up to. We know that there was no reason to evade law enforcement under the Biden administration if you didn't have a criminal record or if you weren't up to no good, because you knew you would be released. So it only was logical--it only made sense--that these were people who were either carrying drugs or had criminal records or were otherwise engaged in antisocial activities. Like I said, we think maybe about 2 million of those people made their way into the interior of the United States.

One of the most important ways that President Trump began with his signature on these Executive orders, beginning yesterday, was to reverse the policies of the Biden administration and to get our country back on track in securing our southern border. This border crisis, as I indicated, is one that President Biden himself practically invited-- invited--during his first campaign when he encouraged migrants to ``immediately surge the border.'' I mean, this is crazy talk if you think about it, but that is what he said. Of course, this is perhaps the one campaign promise President Biden actually kept.

In the early months of 2021, President Biden appointed Vice President Harris--we all remember this--as his border czar. Well, he tasked her with the role of managing this growing surge of migrants. Even back then, in the early stages of what was to become a historic humanitarian disaster, some expressed concerns that Ms. Harris might not be up to the task, but when she was made aware of and made to answer for her lack of qualifications, she hadn't actually been to the border.

Specifically, as to the fact she hadn't been there, Kamala Harris made light of the question with a famous quip.

She said:

And I haven't been to Europe. . . . I don't understand the

point you're making.

Somebody pointed out that she hadn't been to the border. She said, ``I haven't been to Europe,'' and she didn't understand the point. Well, everybody else got it even if she didn't. She was singularly unqualified, and she bore this out, I think, by her service as the border czar. She was singularly unqualified to be the border czar, and it took another 3 months for her to accomplish her one and only visit to the Texas-Mexico border.

I can tell you that, as I said, Texas has a 1,200-mile common border, and the United States has a 2,000-mile common border, and not every piece of the border is the same. If you go to Arizona or California or New Mexico, many of those places are very different from the border with Texas and Mexico. But on this one visit to the border in Texas, Vice President Harris steered clear of ground zero of the surge of illegal immigration, which is the Rio Grande Valley. That was the epicenter of the border crisis, yet she was a no-show. Instead, she traveled to El Paso--which is another border town but very, very different--for a sanitized, made-for-TV visit.

To add insult to injury, the Vice President visited Texas multiple times last summer to fundraise and to campaign for President, but she didn't take the time to go to the border at all. But this should come as no surprise because she seemed completely disinterested in performing any function as the border czar. Under her negligent watch, the surge at the beginning of President Biden's Presidency only went from bad to worse.

The Biden-Harris administration presided over daily, weekly, and monthly records of illegal crossings across the border. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Agency responsible, has tracked more than 10 million encounters across the Nation under President Biden's leadership, including 8.7 million at the southern border. More than 400,000 unaccompanied children--to me, this is one of the scandals that really hasn't gotten adequate attention--400,000 unaccompanied children have been encountered at the border and placed with sponsors in the United States.

Now, the Biden administration resisted any sort of background checks on the sponsors. As a matter of fact, they placed these children with other illegal immigrants in the country and in homes where we didn't know whether there were either gang members or people with records as sex offenders, for example. And the sad truth is that these children, like the 10 million or so other migrants that came across the

border, ended up in the United States courtesy of the cartels, criminal organizations that get rich smuggling people into the United States. But they don't just smuggle people; they smuggle drugs and other contraband too.

But these children in particular, once they arrive in the United States, many of them are exploited, treated as indentured servants until they pay back the debt they owe their traffickers. And those are the lucky ones. Others are trafficked for sex, recruited into gangs, neglected. We don't know.

The Biden administration couldn't tell you whether these children were going to school or getting the healthcare they need or the like. As a matter of fact, they said: We have no responsibility. That is the responsibility of the State child welfare organizations.

We know they are overwhelmed, and here are 400,000 more children that are dumped into their hands. As a result of the shelter facilities becoming increasingly crowded, the Biden administration rushed the placement process of these children and now has completely lost track of at least 85,000 of those unaccompanied minors. That is according to a New York Times investigative story where they actually followed up calling the sponsors, only to get no answer. Knocking on the door, nobody would come to the door. So we don't know--they don't know--what happened to these children.

We also know the cartels are getting richer trafficking in drugs, as I mentioned, including fentanyl, a synthetic opioid which is very different from heroin and cocaine, which require a lengthy process of growing a plant and then processing the drug. Cartels are selling fentanyl, which uses chemical precursors that come from China that then go to Mexico and are mixed up and then pressed to look like a pharmaceutical drug. But they are counterfeit drugs, and they killed more than 70,000 people last year alone.

This drug that comes across the southern border with very little-- well, we just don't know how much of it actually makes its way across. We know how much is interdicted, but it could be just a fraction of the number that actually makes its way across the border. And here is the tragic statistic. This is the leading cause of death for young people between the age of 18 and 45 in America.

I have been to numerous high schools in Texas where grieving parents said: Well, our child ate dinner at the dinner table; then, the next morning, we went and found him or her dead in her room--having taken something they thought was a relatively innocuous drug, only to find out the hard way that it was laced with fentanyl, which took their life.

Well, our Border Patrol has simply been overwhelmed by the volume of people coming across the border because there is no such thing as deterrence. One of the things about law enforcement you learn is, by enforcing the law, you can discourage other people from violating the law. And by actually enforcing border security, you can deter people from coming in the first place.

But without deterrence, under the Biden administration, the Border Patrol has simply been overwhelmed. With historic numbers of people attempting to cross and successfully crossing, they have not gotten the support they need to handle the magnitude of challenges they face every day.

The men and women who serve in the Border Patrol are my heroes. They are loyal, patriotic Americans who put on the uniform and do what their government has asked them to do, until they are told that you have to tie one hand behind your back and you can't actually do your job because you just have to welcome people into the country, and you can't keep people out who are violating the law.

So I am going to extend my gratitude to the men and women who serve in the Border Patrol, as well as the National Border Patrol Council, which has been enormously helpful as a credible source of what actual conditions have been along the border so that the American people can know how bad it has gotten to be. The National Border Patrol Council has been our partner and friend and helped as Senator Cruz and I have welcomed many of our colleagues to the border so that they can see firsthand what we have learned as a result of our many times visiting there.

And I particularly want to express my gratitude to Jason Owens, who is the outgoing Border Patrol Chief. Even when the administration did not provide adequate support to handle this historic crisis, Jason had the backs of the men and women of the Border Patrol.

But the good news is that, under President Trump, all of our Border Patrol agents will start receiving the support that they need and that they deserve from the Federal Government.

President Trump used his first day in office to make a number of actions addressing this crisis. He declared that this historic, ongoing crisis is a national emergency, which it is. He designated the cartels that smuggle the people and the drugs into the country as foreign terrorist organizations. He directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to resume the migrant protection protocols, otherwise known as the ``Remain in Mexico'' program.

So people who want to come to the United States legally through the asylum system, they can't come to the interior of the United States and simply be released; they have to remain in Mexico and await the processing of their claim for asylum. This will, of course, deter economic migrants from making this dangerous journey by having them await their asylum hearings in Mexico.

At the same time, the President directed the Department of Homeland Security to stop catch-and-release. If you ask the Border Patrol: How do you explain all of this, this huge mass of humanity, this tsunami of people coming across the border, they say: There are no consequences for coming illegally under the Biden administration. And one of those incentives for people to continue to come is employing a catch-and- release policy because, without detention, you are never going to stop the flow. And this was a primary pull factor of migrants under the Biden administration.

President Trump also terminated the Biden administration's unlawful Cuban-Haitian-Nicaraguan-Venezuelan parole program. So ``parole'' is a word that people may be familiar with in a criminal context, where people can be paroled out of prison. This is a little different. In the immigration context, this means that individuals who meet certain select criteria can be released into the interior of the United States, but it is supposed to be done on a hardship, case-by-case basis.

The Biden administration completely transformed parole by doing it categorically. In other words, they said 30,000 migrants per month are allowed to be released in the United States if you come from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. That is 360,000 a year just released into the interior of the United States and not done on a case-by-case basis. It violated the law Congress put in place, but the Biden administration didn't really seem to care about what the law was; they were going to do what they wanted to do.

I am pleased that President Trump has directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to completely fulfill the requirements of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, a bill that the former Senator from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, and I worked to enact. Under that law, the Department of Homeland Security will protect Americans from dangerous criminal illegal immigrants by collecting DNA samples from migrants apprehended at the border. In many instances, it can just be a cheek swab, but that DNA allows you to positively identify people who may be criminal aliens.

President Trump's order that the Department of Homeland Security verify the relationships claimed by family units apprehended at the border will help put an end to the cartels' child trafficking that the Biden administration policies enabled. Because the cartels are smart and they knew what the policies were, if a family unit--that is, an adult and a child--came together, they were treated a little bit differently. But we found out the hard way that the cartels would simply hire out these children so that the adults could get into the country claiming to be a family unit. Again, more child trafficking-- child abuse, if you will. President Trump's order that the Department of Homeland Security verify

these relationships will help put an end to the cartels' child trafficking which the Biden administration enabled.

I am pleased that President Trump has also ended the use of the Customs and Border Protection One app. This was an app that you could download on your phone that allowed migrants to more quickly and efficiently cross the open border.

Under the Biden administration, you could simply make an appointment using this app on your phone, meaning the Federal Government would facilitate your entry into the United States on a quicker basis. It is really bizarre if you think about it. But it gave the cartels other ways to make money by selling appointments that they had made on the app. It was obviously hijacked by the cartels, who are not dumb--they are smart--and they are driven by a profit motive.

I am glad that President Trump made border security a day one priority of his administration. I look forward to continuing to work with him to help improve the safety for communities all across Texas and all across the Nation.

But I am also thrilled that President Trump has chosen a new U.S. Border Patrol Chief, a Texan, Mike Banks. People may have heard of Mike Banks before because he was Governor Abbott's border chief.

Mike brings incredible credentials to this job. While the Vice President made only one trip to the Texas-Mexico border during her entire tenure, Mike is a former Border Patrol agent. He has got vast experience at the border.

He understands firsthand the impact on our border communities and what our Border Patrol agents have been through. He spent two-thirds of his more than three decades of Federal law enforcement at the United States-Mexico border. As I indicated, Governor Abbott had selected him to serve as the Texas border czar, and Mike has also served in the U.S. Navy military police.

So I have had the privilege of getting to know Mike, and I know his qualifications, his experience and his competence and his firsthand experience dealing with the challenges at our border, and I have no doubt that he will make an outstanding 27th head of the U.S. Border Patrol.

I look forward to working with him and President Trump to secure our borders and to make our community safe again.

This is one of the main reasons that President Trump was elected, along with sky-high inflation, and the very dangerous world that seems to have grown up in the face of the weakness projected by the Biden administration around the world. But job No. 1 is to secure our borders and protect the American people. And I am proud of the fact that President Trump has, on day one, taken such important steps to begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 21) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 21.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act protects one of our most vulnerable populations; innocent children.

I am proud that at the beginning of the 119th Congress, we are taking this step toward protecting life and the fundamental rights of our most vulnerable American citizens.

We are all too familiar with the horrors of abortion and the unchecked power of the abortion industry. We know it is simply common sense to provide lifesaving care to those babies who survive an abortion.

In 2013, Jill Stanek testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary about the horrific realities of being a nurse and seeing children being aborted alive and left to die alone in a dirty utility closet.

I can hardly believe that those words are coming out of my mouth standing here on the floor of the House of Representatives, in this, the beacon of hope for people around the world.

She said: I was traumatized and changed forever by my experience of holding a little abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, a 21- or 22-week-old baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome. That is hard to believe.

One of my guests for the inauguration, one of my dear friends from Austin, Texas, a somewhat well-renowned musician and songwriter, brought his son who has Down syndrome and is such a blessing to this world.

That child, as well as this child that was left to die alone in a dirty utility closet, was and is a fellow human being, a fellow American whose right to life should have been protected by the law. Congress cannot stand by and allow this type of suffering. We have both a moral and a constitutional duty here.

This legislation is simple: The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires that infants born alive under an attempted abortion receive the same protection under the law and degree of care of any newborn, combined with, by the way, the penalties associated with those who would ignore their duty under the law.

Mr. Speaker, it is a commonsense measure. Unfortunately, as evidenced by comments from many of my Democrat colleagues, not everyone believes that a child born alive should be protected.

In 2019, then-Virginia Governor Northam stated: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,'' said the Democrat Governor of Virginia.

This blatant disregard for human life has no place in the medical profession in our country.

Last Congress, unfortunately, only one Democrat voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and another voted ``present.''

My Democrat colleagues send a clear message to the American people that these innocent lives are not worthy of protection and those who intentionally let infants die after birth should not be held accountable.

If a baby American, a fellow American, is lying on a table dying and we cannot, as Congress, as the leaders of this country and the leaders of the free world, cannot say that under the language of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, under the language of the Declaration of Independence that animates our Constitution, and under the privileges of immunities--the roots of which are found in English common law that create the bedrock of our entire justice system--then we need to make sure that that child is protected even and especially because of its defenseless nature.

Mr. Speaker, that is our duty. That is why I rise in support of this legislation. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would note another abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden, testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2015.

``You wouldn't know it by looking at me today, but in August of 1977, I survived a failed saline infusion abortion. . . . I know where children like me were left to die at St. Luke's hospital--a utility closet.''

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the lead author of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, our heart goes out to our colleagues who have suffered personal tragedies. Unfortunately, none of the things that were just ascribed to this bill are true. The bill does none of those things.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my friend and co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the powerful words of my friend from North Carolina, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues like to dismiss this as if it is not a real problem. Of course, those who have suffered through it, including the baby whom I described who was being held as it was dying for 45 minutes after such a grotesque procedure, beg to differ, as do the 143 babies whom the CDC, which is hardly a paragon of pro-life propaganda, writes that between 2003 and 2014 at least 143 babies died after being born alive.

This is hardly a fiction. This is hardly something that we should ignore.

Certainly, these are babies who are deserving of equal protection under the law. Our fellow Americans deserve protection.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here at the beginning, I would repeat the testimony of Jill Stanek. She testified before the House Judiciary Committee after seeing the horrific reality.

She was a nurse, and she saw a child being aborted who was alive and was left to die alone in a utility closet. She went over and held the little survivor for 45 minutes until the baby died. Again, the baby had been aborted because the baby had Down syndrome.

I want to remind Members that Virginia Governor Northam said: ``The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired.''

We are talking about a fellow living American baby. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about abortion. We are talking about a child.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of strong women on this side of the aisle who beg to differ, including the lead author of the legislation.

I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to focus on the main point, which is ``born alive.'' We are talking about, again, a fellow living human being, a fellow American who is alive.

My colleagues don't want to address that because they know the horrors of that will not be accepted by the American people. We are just simply saying

that when you have a living human being, it should be protected and be given the same equal protection as any other American.

The fact of the matter is this is real life that we are dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, 284 babies were reported to have been born alive between 1997 and 2024. Florida alone reported 14 babies born alive in 2023. This is a real issue.

We are just simply saying that these precious babies, fellow Americans, deserve protection because they are alive. Under the Hippocratic oath, doctors should care for these living, fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I was just handed by my pro-life, female legislative director information here about pregnancy centers.

Pregnancy resource centers nationwide serve millions of pregnant women and new mothers each year. These centers provide services and resources often at no charge and include ultrasounds, pregnancy testing, STD testing, diapers, clothing, and educational programs.

Private and public adoption agencies assisted approximately 115,000 adoptions in 2022. These are organizations and entities that want to protect life.

Again, I will note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not address and do not want to address the simple purpose of this bill: protecting a living American from being allowed to die without having medical treatment provided to that child.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about jail and we are going to talk about who might be pardoned, then I am proud that President Trump seems to be on the verge of pardoning a large number of American citizens who have been put in jail at the hands of a weaponized Department of Justice against American citizens simply carrying out their First Amendment rights to speak out in defense of life.

For example, Lauren Handy, 31 years old--by the way, an active, progressive activist for human rights--was put in jail for 57 months.

I am glad that it seems that President Trump is on the verge of pardoning Lauren Handy. Even though I disagree with her on a whole lot of issues, I was proud to sit with her and meet with her when she was being targeted for prosecution by the weaponized Department of Justice under Joe Biden to be put in jail because she is pro-life.

I think great things are going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I simply say I am proud to have my colleague here from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is coed the last time I checked.

The fact of the matter, as my friend from Maryland and the last speaker is

trying to allude to here, when we are talking about it is already against the law and it is murder on the books, here is the problem: Down here in the District of Columbia, we have the D.C. five, which were very clearly full-term abortions. We have the bodies of five babies discovered in Washington outside of a Washington clinic.

As subcommittee chairman, I sent a letter to Washington, D.C., authorities to preserve the records. Biden's Department of Justice refused to look into this information, but the D.C. five reveals the uncomfortable truth about abortion and a reality that we are all dealing with here.

Again, I go back to the point. Talking about murder, we are also talking about babies being allowed to die and babies being allowed to sit there and literally gasp out their last breath rather than have doctors resuscitate those infants.

That is the truth that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just simply do not want to recognize.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Gianna Jessen, another adult survivor of abortion, testified to the House Judiciary Committee in 2015, stating:

`` . . . I was delivered alive in an abortion clinic in Los Angeles on April the 6th, 1977. . . . Thankfully the abortionist was not at work yet. Had he been there, he would have ended my life with strangulation, suffocation, or leaving me there to die.''

I will have plenty to answer for when I meet my maker and talk to the good Lord, for my life as a flawed and sinful human being, but I will not have to answer for not standing up in every which way that I possibly can to stop those kinds of horrors and to stand up for a fellow living American, a fellow living human being allowed to die, for the political whims of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that, in the very text of the legislation, Congress finds: ``One, if an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws; two, any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.''

That is hardly anything to do with what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about. We just heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle describe very specifically, yes, what we are trying to say we shouldn't do, which is, after a procedure, an abortion or otherwise, if you have a living human being, that, yes, you should try to resuscitate and save that child.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I started this about an hour ago, and I was moved to talk, as I said, about a woman who testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

She described having been a nurse, having witnessed what occurred where, in her testimony, the child was born after the abortion procedure. The child survived for 45 minutes having been discarded into a utility closet. This nurse held this 22-week-old child, a child of God, who had been aborted because the child had Down syndrome.

This legislation is very simple. If a fellow American, a fellow human being, who is afforded equal protection under the law, is alive in a hospital, in a clinic, frankly anywhere, where a doctor is there and present and can perform lifesaving treatment, it is our position that that child is deserving of the same equal protection under the law, under the Constitution of the United States, as any other living American, any of us in the Chamber, any of the Americans watching this now.

This child should not be left to die, should not be left in a utility closet without getting the care that a doctor, who is present, having taken the Hippocratic Oath, and could administer that care to save that child--that is what this bill is about, nothing more.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this. It is why for the last hour they have literally refused to address those facts. They have literally refused to defend this grotesque procedure. In the greatest country in the history of mankind, we allow the most vulnerable of our citizens to be denied equal protection under the law and denied the care that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.