Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there are certain things we all agree on, I believe. No. 1, our border must be secure, and, No. 2, we should deport any dangerous individuals who are here illegally, period. But the Executive order signed by President Trump last night did not target criminals or even those who entered our country without authorization.

For example, the President suspended the task force on the reunification families created in the aftermath of his disastrous family separation policy of his first Presidency. Over 1,000 families remain separated today--in other words, children who don't know where their parents are. This task force was created to reunite them--simply that--and, now, it has been suspended. Stopping this task force does not make us a safer Nation and certainly doesn't help these children.

The President also suspended the Refugee Admissions Program, which provides a safe haven for those fleeing oppressive regimes around the world. They include Afghans, Afghan women, Uighurs, and Rohingya. Many refugee applicants wait decades to come to the United States lawfully, and every single one of them must undergo a rigorous vetting, more than any other group of immigrants coming into the United States. I have worked in and with these refugee camps. They literally stay in tents and temporary shelters for months and years, going through background checks before they are even considered eligible for coming to the United States. Yet the Trump administration has already canceled flights for over 1,600 Afghan refugees scheduled to come here.

Who are these people? Many of them are families of Active-Duty U.S. military personnel and those who are at risk because they fought on our side, defending our troops in the Afghan theater. Stopping these flights of friendly refugees coming to America, after having helped us and risked their lives to help us, doesn't make America safe. It sends a message, sadly, to allies supporting our troops around the world that we may not be there to support them when they need us.

The President also announced his plan to attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. I ask anyone who is interested in this issue to do something very basic: Read the first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It is in clear violation of our Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship. It does nothing to make our country safer--nothing.

We need to secure our border. That is why I worked for years to pass bipartisan legislation that fixes our broken immigration system.

Mr. President, before you came to the Senate, we considered comprehensive immigration reform on a bipartisan basis. I was part of an eight Senators task force--Democrats and Republicans, equal numbers. We wrote a bill, brought it to the floor, and got over 60 votes for the bill. Unfortunately, the House, under Republican control at the time, wouldn't take up the issue. We had an approach that still ought to be considered when it comes to changing our immigration system to make it safer for America.

But we also need to protect millions of noncitizens who Americans rely on each day. All across America this morning, many parents headed off to work and stopped to drop their kid off at daycare. They handed their child over to an undocumented person who works during the course of the day to keep your child safe and to make sure they are there at night when you return to pick them up.

The same thing is true about nursing homes and a lot of care facilities. Parents and grandparents are being carefully watched every minute of every day by undocumented people who are working there, whose wages aren't the greatest, but these people are willing to take on this job. For most people, it is a critically important job for their family. They want their mom to not only go to breakfast with a smile but to be escorted back to her room safely. They need undocumented people for that to happen. A high percentage of those who work in these facilities qualify as undocumented.

Immigrants have been a key part of America. I know that, and I say that as a son of an immigrant to this country. Our Nation has always needed immigrants. It still does. They put food on our tables, they care for our kids, and they help care for our parents and grandparents. What would we do without them? They don't deserve to live in fear every single day that they are going to be part of a mass deportation.

Any real solution to our immigration challenge must give them stability. Americans deserve a real fix to our broken immigration system that protects America, protects American workers, and treats immigrants fairly.

Mr. President, 13 years ago, in response to a bipartisan request from myself and the late Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA Program. DACA has protected from deportation over 800,000 young people, all of whom arrived in our country as children, some as young as a few months old.

These young kids are known as Dreamers. I know a little bit about that. I was the sponsor of the original DREAM Act, over 20 years ago. They grew up alongside our kids, with the same hopes and ambitions. They stood up in a classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flag, believing it was their flag too. Many have gone on to serve our Nation as servicemembers, doctors, and first responders. They believe in the American dream just as much as we do.

Without permanent legal protection, these young people have been forced to live in uncertainty. They have to renew their DACA status every 2 years, go through a background check, and pay a filing fee.

In December, President Trump committed to work with Congress on a plan to protect Dreamers. I am looking forward to that. I worked with the President in his first term, and I am ready to work with him again. Let's get this done as part of immigration reform.

But, last Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the DACA Program illegal again. The decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients, while the appeal is pending, but left other Dreamers in limbo. The time to act is now.

I urge the President to come to the table to negotiate a solution for Dreamers as part of immigration reform.

January 6 Pardons

Mr. President, on another matter, on January 6, 2021, I was seated in the chair right here on the floor of the Senate. A solemn constitutional proceeding was disrupted when a mob of thugs attacked and trashed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election.

I remember it well.

Vice President Pence was sitting in the chair that you are occupying now. The Secret Service came in and, literally, physically removed him, out that door of the Chamber.

They then announced to us to sit tight. This was going to be a safe room in the Capitol. There was a mob that was descending on the Capitol at the moment. We are going to keep everybody safe. They warned us that there were a lot of people coming into this Chamber to line the walls because they wanted to be kept safe from this mob that was coming into the Capitol.

Ten minutes later, a Capitol Hill policeman stood up and said: New plans. We are all leaving immediately. Get out of your chairs and go out that door. We will lead you to another safe room.

That was the circumstance of January 6, 2021. I remember it well. I saw the mob as we went outside. It was growing in size, thousands of people descending on the Capitol. That was the grim reality of that day.

At the end of the day, the mob confronted the Capitol Hill police and the DC police who were here, trying to keep this building and keep us safe as Members of Congress who were doing our constitutional duty.

The subsequent deaths of five of our law enforcement officers because of that mob and the injuries to approximately 140 others are a matter of fact, many of whom still pay a price day for what happened on January 6, 2021.

And now the attackers have been pardoned by President Trump, who literally sent them from a rally to come up here, and what happened happened.

Consider the following individuals who received their pardon yesterday from President Trump:

David Dempsey was one of them. He was convicted of assaulting police officers by using ``his hands, feet, flagpoles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on'' as weapons.

Shane Jenkins was another one, convicted of using two tomahawk axes to break into the Capitol and assaulting police officers by throwing a wooden desk drawer and flagpole at them.

Kyle Fitzsimons was convicted for five separate assaults against law enforcement, including one that caused career-ending and life-altering injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell.

And Kenneth Bonawitz, a member of the so-called Proud Boys, assaulted at least six officers, including placing one officer in a chokehold and lifting him up by the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely that the officer has been forced to retire.

All of these people were among the roughly 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists who President Trump pardoned last night.

What happened to claims by a party of being in favor of law and order?

Even President Trump's own Vice President said last week--the Senator from the State of Ohio:

If you committed violence on [January 6], obviously you

shouldn't be pardoned.

That didn't apply last night. All the people I just described were pardoned by President Trump for their actions in harming law enforcement in the Capitol on January 6.

Last week, I asked President Trump's Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi, about pardoning January 6 rioters who assaulted police officers. She said: ``I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer.''

Don't we all?

One of my Judiciary Committee Republican colleagues actually criticized me last week for even asking that question. Here is what he said:

I find it hard to believe that the President of the United

States . . . would look at facts that were used to convict

the violent people on January 6th and say it was just an

intemperate moment. . . . it's an absurd and unfair

hypothetical.

The action by President Trump is unfair, but, unfortunately, it is no longer hypothetical. These law enforcement officers risk their lives for us--literally, all of us, not just the elected officials but the thousands of visitors who come to this Capitol. They stand quietly by, watching to make sure that nothing goes wrong, but they are literally risking their lives for us every single day.

What was the message last night of pardoning the people who assaulted them on January 6, 2021?

Some people died as a result of that attack. Every American should be appalled.

I am very unhappy that these men and women who give us so much every single day are taken for granted so much that the President pardoned those who attacked them. That was wrong. We should stand by those who stand by us, and we should be willing to say to them: Thank you. Thank you for risking your lives for our visitors, for Members of Congress. And those who assaulted you were not just on a pleasant Capitol tour; they had a goal in mind. That goal, unfortunately, was at the expense of these men and women in uniform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is not the first time we have considered this measure on the floor nor the first time I have spoken about it.

I want to thank Senator Murray for leading this conversation on a very serious topic.

I want to thank Senator Schumer for joining in this conversation as well. I couldn't agree with him more when he said: What we are trying to do with this bill is to make illegal what is already illegal.

I am going to make an invitation to anyone following this debate who wants to judge for themselves, to reach their own conclusion, as to whether or not there are laws existent in America today which cover the situation described in this bill.

I am going to give you the name of a physician in Philadelphia who is serving a life sentence in prison for having violated the current law, and I want you to look it up and read it yourself. Don't take my words for it. His name is Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Write that down if you want to follow this debate and want to draw your own conclusions by doing some personal research. Look it up on the internet: Kermit Gosnell. I will tell you his story in a moment, but it proves the fact that we have existing laws that make this current bill unnecessary.

Tomorrow marks the 52nd year since our Nation's highest Court issued a rule recognizing a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. Roe v. Wade enshrined into law something that should have been a given in America: In America, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. And, as a result of Roe, America's women took a giant leap forward in gender equity. The decision in Roe afforded women the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family.

But after nearly 50 years of progress, in June 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, dragging women's rights half a century backward. Following that decision, we saw Republican-led States open the floodgates to abortion restrictions--laws that, in some cases, have had deadly consequences for women who could not access critical healthcare that they needed.

Instead of addressing the healthcare crisis that Dobbs has unleashed, Republicans are now instead looking to make it even harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare.

Tomorrow, they will attempt to bring to the floor the so-called Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They want to bring it to a vote--this bill that, as Senator Schumer said, is already covered in law.

The bill, they say, creates new standards of care for physicians providing reproductive healthcare that are not based in medicine, fact, or science.

The goal of the bill that we will consider, introduced by the Republicans, is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare. This bill offers a poorly drafted and dangerous solution to a problem that simply does not exist.

The authors of this bill will tell you that this legislation simply ensures that all children born alive as a result of a so-called attempted abortion are provided the same medical care as any other newborn of the same gestational age. They say that is all it does. But we already have a law on the books that ensures that any child born in America, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that birth, is afforded equal protection under the law.

In 2002, the House and Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Do you know who signed that into law? Then-President George W. Bush. Put simply, it is already illegal to kill a child born alive in America. And in rare cases where a doctor does harm a baby in violation of State and Federal laws, they are held legally accountable.

The year was 2013. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for murdering babies after botched abortions. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole under existing law, and he is currently serving that sentence at

Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon.

Do you know what else the authors of this legislation didn't tell you and won't tell you? Abortions late in pregnancy are incredibly rare. And when they do occur, it is most often because of a heartbreaking, late-breaking, fatal fetal diagnosis or because a woman's doctor has told her that she may not survive the pregnancy or because a woman lives in a State that prevented her from getting an abortion earlier. No, Republicans would rather have you believe that vast numbers of women are intentionally waiting until the final days of their pregnancy to have abortions.

This is a cruel political contrivance. These are women who often already have had their baby showers, picked out names, persevered through morning sickness, back pain, swollen ankles, countless doctors' appointments and tests. These are women who wanted their babies.

And what is the response from the actual doctors on this legislation? Ask the professionals to respond to the Republican bill that is coming to the floor, the so-called Born-Alive bill. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said this when the House passed the bill last year:

The offensively named ``born-alive'' legislation is another

cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based

medical decision making between patients and their

physicians.

Laws that ban or criminalize evidence-based care and rely

on medically unsupported theories and misinformation are

dangerous to families and their clinicians. This bill

negatively affects all obstetric and gynecologic care.

What I just read to you is a quote from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given this reality, what would happen if this bill were signed into law by the new President?

Take the case of Meredith Shiner, a constituent of mine in Illinois who was thrilled to learn a few years ago that she and her husband were going to have a little baby boy. However, at 22 weeks and 6 days, Meredith woke up with a terrible abdominal pain, rushed to the hospital thinking she had a bladder infection. She didn't realize the seriousness of what was happening until the doctor told her she was in labor. The prognosis was grim. Having the baby at 22 weeks and 6 days meant although the baby would be born alive, the chances of survival were almost nonexistent.

Knowing medical interventions would be futile, Meredith and her husband made the difficult decision to take the minutes they had with their son to hold him, to touch him, to look at him until he gently passed away, as doctors provided palliative care.

This bill is written in such an overly broad way, vague way, that had it been the law, those same doctors that provided compassionate care to Meredith, her husband, and their son could be subject to 5 years in prison.

In these heartbreaking situations, it is not the time for politicians to dictate the course of medical treatment, as this bill would do. Those wrenching decisions, those personal tragic moments, must be left to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the only compassionate outcome.

This week, we lost a lifelong advocate for women's rights, Cecile Richards. She spent her life fighting to keep politics out of healthcare and defending every woman's right to decide when and how to start their family. We lost Cecile to glioblastoma--the same brain cancer that took John McCain, Beau Biden, and Teddy Kennedy.

If Senate Republicans truly cared about saving lives, they would be working with us to expand access to healthcare, increase funding for medical research that results in new cures, and implement policies that address our Nation's abysmal record of infant and maternal mortality.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record a statement from President Joe Biden, issued this morning on the Equal Rights Amendment.

He said as follows:

I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than

50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be

discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation,

must affirm and protect women's full equality once and for

all.

On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became

the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

The American Bar Association has recognized that the Equal

Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be

formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I

agree with the ABA--

President Biden said--

and with leading constitutional scholars that the Equal

Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

It is long past time to recognize the will of the American

people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and

country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of

the States have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of

the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and

protections under the law regardless of their sex.

Mr. President, in response to this, I issue the following statement:

The Equal Rights Amendment is literally a century in the making, and over the years, generations of Americans have done their part to move it forward. They have marched on Washington, they have met with Congressmen and Senators, and as of 2020, they have crossed a crucial threshold--ratification of the ERA in 38 States. That is the exact number of States needed to certify it as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is past time to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex in our Constitution. The President's announcement sends an important, overdue message to women and girls that they are equal under the law.

Mr. President, I believe this is a moment of historic importance, and it is the culmination of a century of effort to bring equality into the American Constitution with the 28th Amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my request.

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

Mr. President, some people in the Chamber who served in the Senate may remember my predecessor Paul Simon of Illinois. Simon was ahead of his time on so many issues, including the importance of clean drinking water and sanitation for the poorest people in the world.

He wrote a book called ``Tapped Out.'' He autographed this copy and gave it to me in 1998, many years ago. It certainly was not a New York Times best seller, but Paul wrote about what he said was ``The Coming World Crisis in Water and What We Can Do About It.'' I read this book and reflected on it over the years.

Some 30 years have passed. How many times do people talk about clean drinking water and sanitation? It is so critical to public health and so critical to development. Sometimes, we are looking for a big solution, a complex solution, when a simple solution is the first thing that is needed. Paul Simon realized that and that focusing on providing clean drinking water to some of the poorest places in the world can be transformative.

He understood that to avoid conflict between nations, to keep girls in school and reduce infant mortality, to improve health and economic opportunity, you have to provide people with access to clean water. Data supports this. Each dollar spent on clean water and sanitation returns between $4 and $8 in economic health and other benefits, which is why I decided to do something about it as a Member of the U.S. Senate.

I knew his family, I knew Paul, and I knew the last thing in the world he ever wanted was someone to build a statue of his image for future generations. But he would have been happy with perhaps the bill that I introduced entitled the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, legislation that built on an earlier law to improve access to clean water and sanitation around the world. Former Representative Earl Blumenauer and former Senator Bob Corker, a Republican in Tennessee, were my partners on this bipartisan effort.

Ten years ago, the legislation passed the Senate unanimously-- something that is almost unimaginable today with the politics we live with--but that underscored the true urgency and importance of this issue. Not only was

this legislation the right thing to do, but it made access to clean water and sanitation for the world's poor a development priority for the United States.

As a result of the bills that I introduced with my colleagues and sustained bipartisan funding over the last 13 years, American leadership has provided first-time, sustainable access to clean water to more than 76 million people and access to sanitation to 58 million.

I can remember a visit I made years and years ago to Port-au-Prince in Haiti. It is one of the poorest places on Earth, and of course, it is in our hemisphere. A lady who is a medical doctor and administrator of a clinic wanted to show me something. They had been having trouble with waterborne illness, and a lot of people were sick. Some children were dying.

She said they then decided to build a cistern of pure water and to protect it and make sure the village could draw from that water when they needed it. She said it has changed everything. The kids aren't dying. People aren't sick. Things have improved dramatically. She walked out to show me a sewer lid and a pump on it. She said to me, We got this from the United States. It had something to do with a man named Paul Simon. I laughed almost out loud, thinking for goodness' sake. I said, How much did you have to invest in this?

She said $15,000. That is $15,000 that has saved lives and had made a difference, and it was in Paul's name, I was happy to report.

This is incredible work, and I want to salute my staffer Chris Homan, who has traveled around Africa and parts of Asia to see these investments. They do make a dramatic difference in the lifestyle of people, giving them dignity, giving them life, giving them a future.

Another such story is from a rural area of Ghana where these kinds of programs have already eliminated waterborne illnesses. We can see, when visited this project, that the investment--this small investment--by the United States made an affordable and sustainable infrastructure that families can use for sanitation options and safe drinking water. The two have to go hand in hand.

This investment made a project where a disabled woman lives a place where she can find dignity, as the name suggests, for she no longer has to crawl through snake-filled fields to use the river.

But this lifesaving work is far from done. As the climate crisis worsens and industrial needs increase, ensuring global access to clean water supplies is as important as ever.

The book might not have been a best seller, but the idea sure was. And I sure hope that we continue this modest investment in villages around the world that literally saves and transforms lives.

Around 2 billion people on this planet Earth still lack access to safe drinking water, so I hope this historically important, bipartisan investment will continue long into the future ahead of us. Lives depend on it.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, many Senators use this bully pulpit to wax poetic, but only on special occasions do I actually quote poetry.

Today, as I honor my former colleague, friend of several decades, and our Nation's 46th President, it feels appropriate to do so.

History says

Don't hope on this side of the grave

But then, once in a lifetime

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up

And hope and history rhyme.

I recited these words--some of President Biden's favorites, by Irish poet Seamus Heaney--on the evening of his inauguration as our Nation's Vice President in 2008. As I reflect on his time in our Nation's highest office, I think it is only right to use these words again.

Over the course of his long service to this country, President Joseph Biden has been the source of hope and an author of history. And just as Heaney observed, he became one of the rare leaders who have made hope and history rhyme. America is better for it.

Over the decades I have known President Joe Biden, he has proven to be one of the finest public servants America has seen.

Coming from humble beginnings, he worked hard and put himself in positions to give back to this Nation that has given so much to him. When it came to making decisions of consequences on issues that mattered most to the American people, Joe Biden put America first.

Through immense personal tragedy, through setbacks and obstacles, President Biden has taken the strength and wisdom he learned from his family, held steadfast on to his faith in America, and gave millions of people in this Nation reasons to hope.

His record as a Senator, while serving as Vice President under Barack Obama, and while sitting behind the Resolute Desk himself speaks for itself.

When future generations hear the name ``Joe Biden,'' they will think of the incredible growth, recovery, and progress America has made under his leadership. The COVID-19 pandemic changed life in America as we knew it. It claimed thousands of American lives per week and brought our economy to a virtual halt.

But thanks to Joe Biden, we recovered from the devastation of this pandemic. We passed the American Rescue Plan to support working families and

businesses and address the public health crisis. This law deployed vaccines to millions of Americans and normalcy returned. In 2020, the world economy was in shambles due to COVID-19. In April 2020, our economy lost nearly 21 million jobs in a single month, and our unemployment rate skyrocketed to 14.7 percent. But thanks to Biden's leadership, many workers were able to get back to work.

Since Joe Biden has taken office, our economy has added 16 million jobs. Twenty million new business applications have been filed, the most in any single Presidential term in history.

And under Joe Biden, unemployment was under 4 percent for the longest stretch in 50 years. Four years ago, ``Infrastructure Week'' was nothing more than a punch line and a broken promise, but thanks to Joe Biden, we passed a bipartisan infrastructure law that replaced our aging infrastructure and expanded access to clean drinking water and the high-speed internet.

Thanks to Joe Biden, we took historic action to address the climate crisis through the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant investment in clean energy, sustainability, and climate resilience in America's history. And we guaranteed American leadership in science and technology with the Chips and Science Act, a bipartisan bill bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to America and bolstering our competitiveness for generations.

Because of his leadership, we were able to enact the most significant gun safety legislation passed in nearly 30 years--the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Thanks to Joe Biden, over $180 billion--billion dollars--in student loan debt has been forgiven for more than 5 million Americans, giving them, finally, a chance at life. We lowered the cost of prescription drugs, made historic gains in expanding health insurance coverage, and continue to fight for the reproductive rights of all Americans.

History will also remember Joe Biden for the Violence Against Women Act. He wrote the bill. He championed it while in the Senate, bipartisan legislation aimed at making sure every woman can live free from fear, violence, and abuse.

And as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud to say that I worked with Joe Biden to confirm 235 judges to the Federal bench under his leadership, including the first African-American woman and former public defender as a member of the Supreme Court, and that is only here at home.

On the global stage, he restored faith in America as a world power, a global leader, and a responsive ally that would not tolerate the post- World War II global order to be undermined by autocrats like Putin. He defended Ukraine, boosted competition with China, and strengthened alliances in the South Pacific. He oversaw the expansion of NATO and its bolstering of defenses of its Baltic members. But, most importantly, thanks to Joe Biden, the Office of President once again stood for decency, civility, respect, and empathy. I sincerely hope our Nation does not lose sight of these values.

There is no doubt, when it comes to Heaney's words, President Biden's life has imitated art. Throughout his time in public service, President Biden inspired hope in so many millions of people, and in his commitment to ensuring that America lived up to her lofty ideals, he left a legacy that will shape history.

President Biden, it has been an honor to count myself as your colleague and your friend.

On behalf of a grateful nation and the world, I want to say to you-- and to Jill and all of your family who shared you with us for so long-- thanks for making hope and history rhyme.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I listened carefully to the presentation of the Senator from Arkansas and waited to hear five words. I waited patiently as he described these heinous crimes and the action of President Biden--waiting to hear five words. To my knowledge, unless I missed it, he went through his whole speech without mentioning those five words. They are critical to this whole issue.

I would like to clarify the record on Biden's recent clemency efforts. On December 23, President Biden announced he would commute the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals who were on Federal death row. These individuals will now have their sentences reclassified from execution--here are the five words--to life without possibility of parole--life without possibility of parole.

Now, I understand Senator Cotton is opposed to the President's commutations in at least two of these cases. I want to be clear. The crimes he described, the crimes these individuals all committed are egregious, and there must be accountability. The President's decision provides for accountability. With a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, this will ensure that these individuals will never again pose a threat to public safety, never again enjoy freedom in their entire human lives.

Now, my colleague from Arizona may disagree with the decision. That is his right. But I have long advocated for the abolition of the Federal death penalty. And I know he sees it differently.

I commend President Biden for his leadership. The death penalty is deeply, deeply flawed. History tells us a terrible tale of the victims of the death penalty in America. It has disproportionately been applied to people of color. That is a fact. That is why I serve as lead sponsor of the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act, bicameral legislation to prohibit the use of the death penalty at the Federal level.

I spoke out in July of 2020, when the Trump administration ended a 17-year hiatus on Federal executions. In total, Trump oversaw 13 executions in the last 6 months of his Presidency. I will continue to urge Congress to pass my legislation to end the Federal death penalty, following the lead of 23 States that have already done so, including my State of Illinois. This failed and unjust policy has no place in a civilized society.

If Senator Cotton is concerned about undermining the rule of law and robbing victims of justice, we should consider for just a moment President Trump's pardons--for example, President Trump's decision to grant clemency to all 10 healthcare executives and doctors convicted in one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in the history of our country. These decisions wiped away years of prison sentences because of the action taken by President Trump and restitution totaling hundreds of millions of dollars from some of the worst healthcare fraudsters in America's history. At least seven people pardoned by Trump have gone on to be charge with another crime, a new one.

President Trump also used his pardon power to provide relief for his political loyalists. Who am I referring to? His former campaign manager Paul Manafort, his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, his former adviser Steve Bannon, and at least seven Republican Congressmen who have been convicted of crimes.

Now President Trump has promised he will pardon the January 6 rioters on day one of his new administration. He calls them ``political prisoners.''

I would like to ask my colleague from Arkansas if he supports pardoning the following individuals:

David Dempsey, convicted of assaulting police officers by using ``his hands, feet, flag poles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on'' as a weapon.

How about Shane Jenkins--a Trump pardon--convicted of using two axes to break into the Capitol and assaulting police officers by throwing furniture and a flagpole at them.

Kyle Fitzsimons, convicted of five separate assaults against law enforcement, including one that caused career-ending, life-altering injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. A pardon? Is he ready for a pardon?

Kenneth Bonawitz--a member of the so-called Proud Boys--assaulted at least six officers, placing one officer in a choke hold, lifting him by the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely, it forced him into retirement.

I don't recall the Senator from Arkansas or any of his Republican colleagues introducing similar resolutions to criticize any of President Trump's pardons, and I haven't heard any Senate Republicans urging President-elect Trump not to pardon the January 6 rioters.

President Biden's commutations providing for life imprisonment without parole are far more defensible than President Trump's use of the pardon power during his first term or what he is planning for the first day of his second term.

For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President.

If the Senator from Arkansas wants to police the use of pardon power, I urge him to instead support my resolution urging President-elect Trump not to pardon crimes committed during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Even our former Senate colleague Vice President-elect Vance said this week:

If you committed violence on [January 6], obviously you

shouldn't be pardoned.

I hope the Senator from Arkansas agrees.

So I ask unanimous consent on my resolution. It is a resolution that contains the allegations which I made earlier.

Let me read the necessary script for the record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to legislation known as the Laken Riley Act.

The loss of a child is something no parent should have to endure. My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Laken Riley--by any measure, an outstanding young woman. We should do everything possible to make sure this type of tragedy never occurs again.

But I do have concerns about some of the language in this legislation.

Let me give you an example. This bill would mandate immigration detention for an undocumented immigrant if they are arrested for shoplifting--even if they are never charged or convicted for that offense.

Most people, having paid a little attention to law enforcement review, television, movies, know the process. You steal a candy bar, a hand on the shoulder, clerk says: Wait a minute. What are you doing here? Next thing you know a policeman is called in; he arrests you for shoplifting. They then take you in and charge you with that crime. You make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Ultimately, it is resolved by a trial of some nature. That is the ordinary process.

The question is whether someone should be deported the very first time that the hand reaches your shoulder with candy bar in hand but no charge of any crime. That is what this bill does. That is going a little bit too far as far as I am personally concerned.

This bill would mandate immigrant detention if they are arrested for shoplifting, not convicted, even if they are never charged or convicted.

Current law requires mandatory detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. This has been on the books for a long time. It is the right thing to do. I don't want dangerous people coming into this country, and I don't want anyone dangerous and undocumented to stay in this country, period.

Existing law gives ICE discretion to detain undocumented immigrants on a case-by-case basis. ICE assesses each case individually so the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety.

This bill, as currently written, would eliminate ICE's discretion to prioritize

detention and deportation of dangerous individuals. Instead, it requires--requires--ICE to treat a child arrested for shoplifting candy the same as an adult convicted of child abuse. Why?

In practice, this would overwhelm ICE detention facilities and make America less safe. Let me tell you some of the numbers of this what appears to be simple bill. ICE told my office that this legislation would require them to detain more than 65,000 immigrants, but Congress has only provided ICE with funding to detain 42,000, and the Agency is already holding nearly that many.

So if this legislation becomes law, ICE would be forced to release tens of thousands of other immigrants who were detained under ICE's current policies, which prioritize those who pose a threat to public safety.

This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to sue if the State disagrees with many unrelated decisions made by Federal immigration authorities.

It would require Federal courts to prioritize these cases to the greatest extent possible. This would rob Federal judges of the ability to control their courtrooms and grind their dockets to a halt.

These standing provisions would also undermine the supremacy of the Federal Government over immigration and border security, which is established by our Constitution.

They could also dramatically reduce legal immigration to our country. Because of the way it is drafted, the Department of State, under any administration, could be blocked from issuing any visas to nationals from a certain country, like India or China.

Perhaps some of my colleagues think they are pretty good policy goals, but they have nothing to do with the tragic murder of this young woman.

If we are going to consider this bill, we must have a chance to offer amendments to fix a few of these problems and assure the bill would accomplish its goal.

Nomination of Pamela Jo Bondi

Mr. President, this week the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Pam Bondi--President-elect Trump's choice for Attorney General. I appreciated meeting with Ms. Bondi last week to discuss issues of great importance to the American people. She is impressive. She is clearly a professional, a trusted attorney, and has an amazing background. I appreciated meeting with her.

The significance of the Attorney General cannot be overstated. The Department of Justice is responsible for safeguarding civil rights and liberties, promoting public safety, and ensuring economic opportunity and fairness. An independent Attorney General is essential. The Justice Department leader must be loyal to the Constitution above all else-- including the President.

But during his first term, then-President Trump used the Department of Justice as his personal attorneys. He tried to thwart the Mueller investigation, protect political allies, and even overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential election.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has pledged that during his second term he will weaponize the Justice Department to seek revenge on his political enemies. The President-elect has made it clear that he values one thing above all else in an Attorney General: loyalty. I have no reason to believe President-elect Trump has changed his litmus test for Attorney General or his views on how the Justice Department should operate.

In fact, I fear that he found someone who can pass his loyalty test. We will see at the hearing.

The obvious concern with Ms. Bondi is whether she will follow the bipartisan tradition of the post-Watergate era and oversee an independent Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law.

Ms. Bondi is one of four personal lawyers to President-elect Trump whom he has already selected for Department of Justice positions. She was a leader in an effort to overturn the 2020 election; she has echoed the President's calls for prosecuting his political opponents; and she has a troubling history of unflinching loyalty to the President-elect.

In addition, she has a record of hostility to fundamental civil rights, including reproductive rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ rights.

Every President has the right to nominate individuals to serve in key Cabinet positions. However, the Senate has the constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on these nominations. This week's hearing will provide an opportunity to learn more about her, her nomination, and her vision.

The American people deserve an Attorney General who will protect their fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution, the country, and the rule of law.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

I ask unanimous consent that we begin the rollcall vote immediately, the 3 o'clock rollcall.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, for many Presidents, their legacy is written and sealed by their actions in office--their post-Presidency activities nothing but fodder for the tabloids and a footnote in history books--but not for Jimmy Carter.

I remember the last days of the Carter Presidency. After 444 painful days of sustained and frustrating efforts to release American hostages being held in Tehran, we witnessed their welcome, but cynically timed, release on the last day of our Nation's peaceful transfer of power from President Carter to President Reagan.

President Carter's main goal had been to make sure that every hostage returned home alive. On that score, he succeeded.

Leaving office at 56 years of age and passing away at the end of last month at 100, President Jimmy Carter had the longest post-Presidency in our Nation's history, and he certainly made it count. The same faith, empathy, and desire to help others that motivated him to run for office compelled him to continue improving the world after he left office. Not content with a rocking-

chair retirement, President Carter devoted himself to human rights, conflict resolution, election monitoring, healthcare, affordable housing, and so much more.

He was a humble man in a world of politics where humility is often the first casualty. But there is no doubt that in corners of the globe near and far, Jimmy Carter left his mark. A public servant can ask for no greater legacy.

As our 39th President lies in state in the U.S. Capitol, just a few steps away from this Chamber, before he is laid to final rest, it is a time for paying respects and reflecting. President Carter's legacy tasks each one of us with looking inward and asking: How can I use my place in life to do more good for more people?

Today, I send my thoughts to all those who knew, loved, or were inspired by President Carter. Our Nation and world are better off because of his service. May he rest in peace.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Benjamin Jerome Cheeks to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Born in Albany, GA, Judge Cheeks earned his B.A. from the University of Miami in 2000 and his J.D. from the Washington College of Law at American University in 2003.

Judge Cheeks began his career in public service as an assistant district attorney in the New York County District Attorney's Office from 2003 to 2010. Cheeks then served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California between 2010 and 2013.

Prior to joining the bench, he worked as a criminal defense attorney at his own firm from 2013 to 2024. As a member of the Criminal Justice Act panel, Judge Cheeks was regularly assigned to represent indigent defendants, and those cases comprised 98 percent of his caseload.

Since July of 2024, Judge Cheeks has served as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Judge Cheeks enjoys the strong support of both of his home State Senators, and the American Bar Association unanimously rated him as ``qualified'' to serve on the district court.

Having served as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and Federal magistrate judge, Judge Cheeks is well prepared to serve as a district judge in the Southern District of California.

I am proud to support his nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.

Mr. THUNE: The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).