Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R. 23.

I send a cloture motion to the desk for the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Ratcliffe nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 34, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 23, 2025, to vote on a nomination, committee rules and procedures, and subcommittee organization and jurisdiction.

committee on energy and natural resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

committee on environment and public works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 23, 2025, at 9 a.m., to conduct a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday, January 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that the Senate resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 3, and that all time during recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will proceed to a vote on whether to move to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be given the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby would be given. That is it. A baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be given the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby would be given.

This shouldn't be a controversial bill. We should all be able to agree that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be protected. And yet I fully expect that, later today, my Democratic colleagues will vote no on this legislation.

They will vote against protection for a living, breathing newborn baby simply because that child has been born alive after an attempted abortion.

Now, why are they going to vote like that? After all, I think most Democrats would still claim to oppose infanticide, even if the moral line, at times, appears to be slipping. Yet Democrats are going to vote against legislation to provide appropriate medical care to living, breathing newborn children.

I am sure they will offer some vague justifications for their opposition, like keeping the decision between a woman and her doctor, even when the decision we are talking about is denying a child appropriate medical care.

But I think it is safe to say that what it all boils down to is this: Democrats will oppose legislation to provide appropriate medical care to newborn children who survive abortions because they are afraid.

They are afraid if they recognize the humanity of a living, breathing born baby in an abortion clinic, they might end up pointing to the humanity of the unborn baby in the abortion clinic. That is what this boils down to. Democrats are afraid that by recognizing the humanity of the newly born child, they will inadvertently point to the humanity of the unborn child.

I do understand where they are coming from. After all, once you recognize the humanity of the newly born baby, it gets a little harder to say that that child wasn't human just a few minutes ago simply because he or she wasn't yet born.

So because there is nothing more important to Democrats than abortion, they will vote against legislation to provide appropriate medical care to babies born alive in an abortion clinic, just in case such a law ends up jeopardizing their cherished ``right'' to an abortion.

I think this should make Democrats--frankly, it should make all of us--think.

When the supposed right to kill unborn babies starts motivating you to vote against protections for born babies, perhaps you should start questioning the whole abortion project, because if there is one thing the controversy over this bill demonstrates, it is this: Once you start denying the humanity of some groups of human beings, once you start saying some human beings' lives aren't worth as much as other human beings' lives, you jeopardize respect for all human lives.

And so we now find ourselves at a point where nearly 50 percent of the U.S. Senate is unable to clearly state the humanity and value of the born child, where nearly 50 percent of the U.S. Senate is going to vote against protection not just for unborn children but for born babies as well.

I have to say, this is a disturbing place that we have gotten to, and I hope--I sincerely hope--it will lead us to reflect on what a lack of respect for unborn children's lives has cost us.

Mr. President, we are better than this.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I pray for a day when we fully live up to that promise and when the right to life of every human being, born and unborn, is respected.

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, it didn't take long. Democrats have already begun stalling President Trump's nominees, and it doesn't seem to matter who it is. Right now, the Senator from Connecticut is holding up a vote on John Ratcliffe, who was nominated for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Intelligence Committee favorably reported Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination on a bipartisan vote--14 to 3.

In a joint statement with Chairman Cotton, the Democrat vice chair of the Intelligence Committee said this:

Our world is far too dangerous for any delay in having a

Senate-confirmed leader in charge of the CIA. We urge

expeditious consideration of this important nomination.

Now, that, again, is from the Democrat vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, urging ``expeditious consideration of this important nomination.''

This is the Director of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency--a key national security position. Mr. Ratcliffe is a qualified nominee. He was Director of National Intelligence in the first Trump administration--the quarterback for all 18 elements of the intelligence community. In the House of Representatives, he served on the Intelligence Committee, and he was chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee on the Homeland Security Committee. He has been vetted by the Intelligence Committee, and he will likely receive bipartisan support on the floor, as he did in the committee.

The Senator from Connecticut wants to unnecessarily delay this vote. He says Senators need time for a full, real debate. Well, where are they? Why are we not debating? Nothing has been stopping any of our Democrat colleagues from coming down to the floor to debate and make any concerns that they have known to the Senate and to the American people. At least one Senator has already taken advantage of that opportunity.

The Senator from Connecticut also says that Senators need more time to review the nominee's record. Well, Mr. Ratcliffe's nomination was announced 2 months ago. Was that long enough? His hearing was a week ago. There has been plenty of time to review his record. It is time to vote. This is just an unnecessary delay that makes this country less safe.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is an important job. We agree that Mr. Ratcliffe is qualified. But a handful of Democrats wants to play politics with this nominee. I have to say I honestly don't know what that accomplishes for them, but I do know this: It makes this country less safe. It is time to vote.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 5.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.