Floor Statements

I ask consent the mandatory quorum call be waived.

I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled rollcall vote begin immediately.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's rules of procedure be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I have two 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:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 66, which was submitted earlier today.

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 understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 10; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume Executive Calendar No. 18, Tulsi Gabbard; finally, that the Senate vote at 5:30 p.m. on the motion to invoke cloture on the Gabbard nomination.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 3, H.R. 23, be waived.

I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the scheduled vote.

Madam President, the so-called International Criminal Court is a major threat to America's sovereignty and our troops. That threat was clear from the court's founding in 2002, 23 years ago. It is why the United States never agreed to its jurisdiction. It is why in the same year Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act--also colloquially known as the Hague Invasion Act--a law which authorizes the President to use all means necessary to release our citizens detained by the court.

Twenty-three years is a long time, but we still have some Senators in the Chamber who voted for that bill, including none other than the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. Senator Wyden also voted for it. But even that hasn't stopped the Hague from targeting Americans. Under President Obama, the court threatened to investigate American soldiers in Afghanistan. It did so again in 2020 under President Trump. To this very day, the ICC has an open investigation into U.S. troops who risked their lives to fight against terrorism.

To be clear, the United States is not and will never be a member of the International Criminal Court. Yet this kangaroo court continues threatening to haul our citizens in front of foreign judges--judges who have no jurisdiction over Americans and who do not follow basic rules of due process provided for by our Constitution.

The State of Israel is another nonparty to the court and the Hague, where anti-Semitism is regrettably alive and well. Although Israel has never consented to the court's judgment, the ICC issued arrest warrants for the leader of Israel and its former Defense Minister last November.

By asserting jurisdiction over a nonmember, the ICC has grossly violated the Rome Statute, the treaty that created the court. The court also broke its own rules against prosecuting individuals under governments with functioning criminal justice systems, like Israel.

I also would note that the court has not issued arrest warrants for flagrant human right abusers like--I don't know--Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, or the genocidal President of China Xi Jinping. The court seems to prefer targeting democratically elected leaders instead of terrorists and despots.

It is no secret that the court's targeting of Israel is a trial run to go after Americans. If they succeed against Israel, America will be next. That is why Congress must guarantee that any acts of aggression by this court against our citizens and our friends will be met with a swift response.

Our Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act would sanction ICC officials involved in prosecuting any American, Israeli, or other allied citizen wrongfully targeted by the court. It would also revoke their visas.

This act is a targeted and justified response to the constant threats of this court against our troops and our allies. That is why more than half of Americans said they would support sanctioning this court. It is also why every House Republican and 45 House Democrats voted for the bill earlier this month.

Now, despite this broad bipartisan public support, some of my Democratic colleagues still have concerns, so let me put their minds at ease.

First, someone called the sanctions in this bill ``draconian.'' Far from draconian, these same property and visa restrictions were used by the Obama and Biden administration not once, not twice, but 49 times.

Others have said the bill could target our allies. The bill, however, clearly is directed at foreign persons, not foreign nations.

OK. But still others have said the ICC bill targets ``citizens of our allies.'' Yes, if you are involved in illegitimately targeting Americans, you could face sanctions.

This bill does not, once again, sanction foreign nations like the United Kingdom. But if British nationals at the court are targeting American citizens, you better believe they could face sanctions.

Still, others say it would undermine our alliances. Yet again, the bill only targets officials directly involved in action against the United States and our allies, not foreign nations. Furthermore, if past is prologue, all of our allies will stick with the United States.

When Congress passed the ``Hague Invasion Act'' in 2002 with Senator Schumer's vote, all of those nations entered agreements with us to continue their relationship with us, not with the court.

Still, others say that this would target foreign subsidiaries of American companies. I worked with Senator Shaheen in good faith, and I commend her for her work with me on that over the last few days. It seems to have become clear, though, that these American subsidiaries don't want a narrow carve-out. They want a massive carve-out that would, in fact, allow them to continue in the future, say, providing information about American troops' actions in Afghanistan, which we do not think they should have.

Again, every Republican in the House voted for this; 45 Democrats in the House voted for it; 2 Democratic Senators who were in the House last year voted for it.

Last April, I led several of my colleagues in a letter to the court's prosecutor Karim Khan. The letter warned him against issuing arrest warrants to target Israeli leaders. We said ``Target Israel, and we will target you.'' Despite this clear warning, he proceeded anyway, a gross insult to our friends in Israel and an even more dangerous threat in the future to American sovereignty.

He and his court should now face the consequences. I urge all of my colleagues to vote on this motion so we can continue debate on this critical legislation.

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

Mr. President, unfortunately, we were at the point of almost having a consent agreement to have a vote on the confirmation of John Ratcliffe to be CIA Director tomorrow--not today, not yesterday when it should have happened, but tomorrow--but the Senator from Connecticut has decided to object at the last minute.

I don't really understand the objection to Mr. Ratcliffe. He was confirmed by this Senate to be the Director of National Intelligence. He was fully vetted through the bipartisan process in the Senate Intelligence Committee. We voted him out yesterday on a 14-to-3 vote.

Senator Schumer stood here yesterday and talked about how we are going to cooperate on highly qualified, capable nominees with integrity, which John Ratcliffe is, but the only vote we got yesterday was Senator Rubio.

Now we are not going to have a vote today, and apparently we are not going to have a vote tomorrow, which means I hope nobody is making any plans for the weekend or the evenings because

we are going to get these nominees confirmed--starting with Mr. Ratcliffe and then moving on to Mr. Hegseth and moving on to Ms. Noem-- the easy way or the hard way.

We tried to cooperate with the Democrats. The cooperation has not been forthcoming, so I guess it is going to be the hard way starting on Thursday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, on January 22, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 1, John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on the nomination; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the nomination; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

It is fine if the Democrats have legitimate concerns with this nominee or any other nominee. We had legitimate concerns with President Biden's nominees. Come down to the floor. Get it off your chest.

You talk about a full and real debate for 2 days. I hate to disappoint the people watching here. You are probably seeing more debate than we will have on John Ratcliffe's nomination for the next 48 hours before we confirm him. That is what I predict.

We could have debated this anytime today. We debated it for 2 months in the Intelligence Committee. The Senator from Virginia, the vice chair of the committee, worked diligently and promptly with me--his team with my team--to process this nomination so it would be ready for confirmation yesterday. On a bipartisan basis, 14 to 3--not many other nominees are going to come out of committee with that kind of vote.

So I understand the Democrats are opposed to some of President Trump's nominees, and I understand they want to vote no, and I respect that. But should we be denying the country a Senate-confirmed CIA Director in such dangerous times for no good reason?

Again, maybe Senator Murphy has more to say. I invite him to come down to the floor and speak again if there is a lot more to say. I predict, though, that once again this will be the longest debate we have about John Ratcliffe's nomination over the next 2 days.

What this is really about is trying to drag out all of these nominations, to play procedural games, as we are about to with Pete Hegseth's nomination, to try to deny President Trump his Cabinet in a prompt and timely fashion, just like the Democrats did in 2017. Yep, it happened in 2021 as well because around here, the shoe gets on the other foot pretty quickly. But it didn't happen in 2009. It didn't happen in 2001 and before that. We should get back to that practice. We should especially get back to that practice when it is a highly accomplished, well-qualified nominee of integrity like John Ratcliffe is.

So I regret that now we are going to spin our wheels for 2 days, but, as I said, don't make plans for the weekend, and don't have any dinner dates scheduled starting on Thursday night because we are going to get these nominees done the easy, collegial way or apparently the hard way.

I yield the floor.

The vote was 14 to 3.

Reserving the right to object, which I most certainly do, TikTok isn't just another social media platform, TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app that addicts our kids, harvests their data, targets them with harmful and manipulative content, and spreads communist propaganda.

Congress recognized the unique dangers of TikTok when we voted on a massive bipartisan basis last April to give its Chinese communist- influenced parent company ByteDance 270 days to sell TikTok to an American buyer or to be shut down in America. That deadline is Sunday.

What is more, ByteDance and TikTok had plenty of additional warning for years about the possibility of such action, long before Congress set this firm Sunday deadline. The Trump administration, in 2020, attempted to shut down TikTok.

So there was no rush as the Senator from Massachusetts asserted. We didn't pull the rug out from under TikTok, and we didn't ban it. Instead, Congress simply demanded that the app could no longer be owned and controlled by our Nation's worst enemy, communist China.

In other words, TikTok's owners had plenty of time to find a buyer, and there were plenty of willing buyers as well. Instead, TikTok whined, lied, complained, sued, and lobbied. Oh, how they lobbied.

One notable lobbyist told me that he was offered $100,000 a month-- $100,000 a month--to represent TikTok, but he refused because TikTok is a sewer of vile anti-Semitism. Good for him.

Unfortunately, I can't say that for the army of lawyers and lobbyists who saddled up on behalf of communist China. They know who they are. They should be ashamed of themselves, and they should know that I, for one, won't forget it.

So let me be crystal clear. There will be no extensions, no concessions, and no compromises for TikTok. ByteDance and the Chinese communists had plenty of time to make a deal. In fact, the legislation allows the President to grant a 90-day extension to the Sunday deadline, though only if negotiations have substantially advanced, and the sale could likely close in 90 days.

Neither is true today so I expect President Biden will not grant the extension. And what President Biden cannot do under current law, this Congress--this Republican Congress--certainly won't do by changing the law, not over my objection, in any case.

And isn't it telling that ByteDance says communist China blocked the sale of TikTok for these last 9 months? What exactly does that tell us? Exactly what I said earlier: TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app. Consider one reason why the bill passed with such a huge bipartisan vote in April; namely, the backlash against TikTok for its deranged lobbying campaign against the bill.

As the bill was being considered by a House committee, TikTok sent push notifications to its users demanding that they call into Congress and express opposition to the bill. This wasn't a case of American citizens spontaneously rising up to exercise their First Amendment rights but rather a foreign power egging them on, meddling in our politics, influencing our legislative debates.

And what happened? Thousands of children--kids--called into congressional offices, some threatening to kill themselves or to assassinate Members of Congress. No foreign adversary should have that kind of power over our politics or our children.

Imagine how Chinese communists would use TikTok to influence our political debates during, say, a moment of heightened tensions over Taiwan. And let's examine a little more closely just what TikTok does to our country. Just last week, renowned social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote that ``TikTok is Harming Children on an Industrial Scale.''

China's version of TikTok promotes math, science, and learning, basically telling Chinese kids to do their homework and eat their vegetables and respect their elders--most especially Chairman Xi, the Chinese dictator. In America, by contrast, TikTok promotes violence, obscenity, eating disorders, drug use, and even suicide.

Internal company documents even revealed that content promoting pedophilia has long flowed right past TikTok's supposed moderators.

Without question, TikTok's lethal algorithm has cost the lives of many American kids. China also uses TikTok to amplify its propaganda and suppress information critical of the communist tyranny in Beijing. Compared to other platforms, TikTok suppresses content related to China's genocide against the Uighur people, Tibet, Taiwan, the South China Sea, Hong Kong, Tiananmen Square, and the origins of COVID, among other topics.

TikTok also meddles in the politics of other countries by amplifying divisive content in, for instance, Israel, India, and, of course, America. And don't forget that TikTok harvests a vast trove of user data, including name, age, email, address, phone number, credit card number, facial features, voiceprints, keystrokes, photos, videos, and viewing habits.

This data can make users susceptible to manipulation and even blackmail, not only today but also years from now when users may have become influential persons in the military, the intelligence community, business, media, and other walks of life.

We are sometimes assured that TikTok has taken security measures to prevent Chinese communists from accessing this data of American citizens, but according to whistleblower testimony and internal company materials, these protections are about as airtight as a screen door.

So the end is coming for Chinese communist-controlled TikTok. Perhaps the sale can be closed by Sunday, though I seriously doubt it. Even so, that sale would have to pass legal review and guarantee that China retains no residual influence at the company or through its algorithm, no residual influence whatsoever. But one way or the other, communist China will no longer exert this massive influence over our Nation and our kids.

I will now yield to Senator Ricketts.

I want to respond briefly to a few points from my friend from Massachusetts, and he is my friend. I want to make an underlying statement, first off, for the Record, because this is a notable day. Direct quotes from the Senator from Massachusetts: ``Listen to Donald Trump,'' and ``I agree with Donald Trump.'' Underline that in the Record. I am not sure you are going to see that again for the next 4 years.

But, more importantly, on this issue, the Senator is correct that TikTok is not alone in causing harm for American kids. I agree with him. Other apps can result in eating disorders or depression or mental illness.

I voted for his legislation in December. I had my own online safety legislation. The difference is that TikTok is influenced and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. And this bill did not just address TikTok; it addressed all foreign adversary-owned apps.

You raised the question of RedNote. Well, guess what. If TikTok users flood to RedNote, they are going to face the same challenge there because it is also controlled by the Communist Party.

Second, the Senator has made a lot about some affidavit by some intelligence community official in some case. I don't know what it is referring to. I do know this: I have been on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years. I chair it now. I have heard the testimony of senior leaders that TikTok poses a great threat to our national security and our people's well-being.

But I also know this: Third, you don't need intelligence. TikTok's own internal documents reveal the threat that it poses to Americans. The State attorneys general have brought lawsuits to defend their people. Those lawsuits have produced documents that showed, chapter and verse, exactly what TikTok has done to Americans.

And, finally, we keep hearing: It is only 270 days. It is only 270 days.

In 270 days, that is what TikTok will say again because it will not have been sold because Chinese communists won't allow it to be sold, because it is not just another app. It is not Instagram or Facebook or X or anything else. It is a Chinese communist spy app.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:50 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: Cornyn No. 14 and Coons No. 23.

Madam President, for almost 4 years now, Joe Biden has subjected our country to economic misery, uncontrolled crime, and international humiliation. And now, on the way out of his failed and scandal-plagued Presidency, he is showering gifts and favors to some of the most depraved human beings.

It started last month with Hunter Biden, pardoning his own son not just for the crimes he was convicted of and pleaded guilty to but for all crimes that he may have committed. Lord only knows what Joe Biden was trying to cover up.

The hits continued when he issued 1,500 blanket commutations for criminals whose records, by his own aide's admission, he did not review, whose victims he did not consider--an affront to the pardon process envisioned by our Founders, intended to correct specific and limited errors in the criminal justice system.

Among the beneficiaries of these commutations was a corrupt judge who sent hundreds of kids to jail for bribes. Yes, a judge took bribes to imprison children. The victims of the so-called ``kids for cash'' judge included a young man who later killed himself.

These 1,500 commutations also benefited hundreds of drug dealers, fraudsters, and thieves. Joe Biden and those who control him, though, didn't seem to care about the victims of these criminals. Instead, they just continued their uncaring, offensive giveaway to criminals.

It has continued. In just the last 2 weeks, we learned that the Biden administration released 11 Yemeni terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, including two suspected bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. We also learned that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two other architects of the 9/11 attacks will avoid the death penalty as a result of the Biden administration plea deal.

That plea bargain is an insult to the sacrifice of thousands of young Americans who left their homes, their families, and their professions after 9/11 and volunteered to go fight on behalf of our country. That is an absolute disgrace, and it alone would blacken the legacy of any Presidency.

There should be a Senate resolution condemning every single one of these commutations and the release of every single terrorist. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats would block every single resolution.

Case in point: Last month, I introduced a resolution condemning the Democrats' commutation of that ``kids for cash'' judge. Surely, we could agree on that. But, no, Senate Democrats, led by the Senator of Illinois, objected to even that limited bill.

Therefore, I have come to the floor today not to condemn all of these atrocious actions, though they all deserve condemnation. I am simply here to judge the depth of the Democratic fealty to a disgraced President halfway out the door.

I am asking the Senate to condemn just two of President Biden's latest and most inexcusable commutations of all--his commutations of death row inmates' death sentences. Just 2 days before Christmas--2 days before Christmas--when most kids had visions of sugarplum fairies dancing in their heads, the President announced that he was commuting the death sentence of 37 rapists, murderers, and sadists. With that action, he brought relief to 37 depraved monsters on death row and despair to the families of their victims during the holiday season.

It is difficult to express the cruelty of reminding these families of the worst days of their lives and robbing them of justice right before Christmas--a Christmas gift to 37 savage murderers and a reminder to those families that, not only will they never spend Christmas with their loved ones again, but they won't get justice for their loved ones.

The President showed disdain for the victims of these crimes and their families, presumably and cynically hoping that the Christmas holiday would suppress media attention and public backlash against his commutation. I don't think so.

Now, the President and his defenders would like the American people to think that President Biden made these commutations out of some principled objection to the death penalty. I could respect that. I know people who are opposed to the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime, in all cases, usually founded in a deep-seated religious conviction. I can respect that. I certainly disagree with it, but I understand it.

But that is not what Joe Biden did. That is a lie. He commuted the sentences of 37 death row inmates, and he left 3 killers on death row. Who are they? You may have heard of them. The Mother Emanuel Church shooter in Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter in Pittsburgh, and the Boston Marathon bomber. So, clearly, he believes in the death penalty for some criminals but not most.

He made a choice, a moral judgment, that the victims of 37 depraved murderers and their families didn't deserve justice. He also made a choice that not even he, doddering out of the White House, could defend the commutations of racist murderers and terrorists on political grounds or inflict that kind of grave political damage on his own party.

But he wasn't motivated by principle. He was motivated by politics and guided by leftwing ideologues. He handpicked 37 murderers to save from death row. Unlike the rest of his pardons and commutations, you can't hide behind the excuses of staff, incompetence, personal ignorance, or the affection of a father. He knew who he was pardoning, and he knew the evil crimes they committed.

I would like to discuss in a little more detail just two of the depraved savages that Joe Biden saved from death row. The first is Anthony Battle, who broke into his ex-wife's home and raped her, stabbed her to death with a butcher knife. She was heard screaming: ``Help me, help me, rape.'' She was a U.S. marine, and Anthony Battle raped and murdered her.

Yet that murder wasn't even the crime for which he was on Federal death row. He wasn't done. While he was in prison, he beat a 31-year- old correctional officer to death with a hammer, hitting him in the back of the head three times until he was soaked in the officer's blood.

The corrections officer hadn't even done anything to provoke or confront Battle. Battle beat him to death anyway. When he was given a chance to apologize for the killing, Battle said the officer ``died like a dog.''

This is why we have the death penalty for correctional officers; so inhumane monsters who are stuck in prison for life have some reason not to start open hunting season on correctional officers.

This is the man that Joe Biden decided deserved mercy 2 days before Christmas, a man who raped and murdered a U.S. marine and bludgeoned a police officer to death.

Joe Biden also saved the life of Marvin Gabrion, another rapist and serial killer. While facing trial for raping 19-year-old Rachel Timmerman--yes, that is right. He was on trial for raping a 19-year-old girl. Gabrion kidnapped her.

He bound her body with duct tape, he chained her to a concrete block, and he threw her into a lake while she was still breathing. Her last moments were filled with terror and agony.

In addition, he also killed her 11-month-old baby--11 months old. He allegedly confessed in prison that he ``killed the baby because there was nowhere else to put it.''

This is the man that Joe Biden also decided deserved clemency 2 days before Christmas.

It is an ancient truth that some crimes are so evil that the scales of justice can never balance so long as the perpetrator lives. Every day that men like Marvin Gabrion and Anthony Battle draw breath at the expense of American taxpayers is a day that justice is denied. There is no forgiveness in this world for what they did, and there is no redemption. The sooner they exit this world, the sooner they will face the full measure of justice next.

And that is just two. I could give you 35 more examples as well. That is all I am asking for today--unanimous consent for two resolutions. The first one condemns the commutation of Marvin Gabrion, a rapist and serial killer. The second condemns the commutation of Anthony Battle, who raped and murdered a U.S. marine and bludgeoned a correctional officer to death.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 24 and S. Res. 25; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which I certainly will, I want to briefly address what the Senator from Illinois said about my resolution condemning these two death sentence commutations.

I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Illinois is a longtime and principled opponent of the death penalty, based I believe in part on genuine and deep faith convictions. He has had that conviction for years. As I have said, I can respect that.

The Senator from Illinois presumably wants to see the commutation of the Mother Emanuel Church shooter, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter, and the Boston Marathon bomber. I strongly disagree. I can respect it. It is not what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden picked and chose which depraved murderers and rapists deserved to live and deserved to die, denying justice to the families of all those who were killed by anyone who wasn't totally politically toxic.

Second, the Senator from Illinois said that he did not hear five words in my remarks. He repeatedly said he didn't hear five words in my remarks. Those five words he didn't hear are ``life without the possibility of parole.'' That is true--he didn't hear those words in my remarks. That is not what these murderers were sentenced to. They were sentenced by a jury of their peers to the death penalty. And one of them that I offered the resolution on, Anthony Battle, murdered a correctional officer while he was in prison for life.

Giving these 37 depraved murderers life in prison without the possibility of parole doesn't solve the problem; it creates 37 new potential problems--open hunting season on correctional officers at every facility where they are incarcerated. Again, that is why we have the death penalty for the murder of a correctional officer--because otherwise there is nothing for these depraved men to lose.

Senator Durbin also mentioned a few of President Trump's pardons of Medicare fraudsters or political allies or others. I haven't reviewed every one of those cases. I am not prepared today to say whether I would support them or not. Some of them sound pretty bad. Here is what they aren't, though: heinous murderers who duct-taped a woman alive, tied her to a concrete block, and threw her in a river while the murderer was on trial for her rape and then killed her 11-month-old baby because he didn't have anything better to do with it.

He mentioned the January 6 defendants. President Trump said he is going to likely issue pardons in some of those cases. I think that is appropriate. Many of these men and women have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes like parading and picketing on public grounds without a permit, and they had the book thrown at them, including a 70- year-old great-grandma who was just walking around wearing a red MAGA hat. I expect, I hope, the President will review these cases on a case- by-case basis. I think all Presidents should do that. But whatever President Trump does with the January 6 defendants through commutations or pardons will pale in comparison to eliminating the judgment of these 37 depraved murderers' fellow citizens to impose the death penalty on them, will pale in comparison to depriving these families of some measure of justice 2 days before Christmas.

So I do object to this resolution, and I cannot believe that this Senate--our Democratic colleagues cannot bring themselves to condemn some of these pardons over the last 2 months of Hunter Biden or the ``kids for cash'' judge who sold kids into juvenile detention centers for bribes or, now, depraved murderers.

I object.

Mr. President, last week, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 convicted criminals, including drug dealers, fraudsters, and corrupt public officials. These are not sympathetic figures. These are individuals who stole from the poor and poisoned the sick. They tore families apart and menaced communities. They were sent to jail. They belong in jail.

With this action, Joe Biden didn't just reward 1,500 criminals; he robbed hundreds of thousands of victims of the closure and justice they deserve. The cruelty of these commutations is only matched by the shameless incompetence of the administration that issued them. This administration admitted--it admitted--that Joe Biden didn't individually review these cases or, for that matter, did anyone else individually review the cases. Yet he nullified the verdict of thousands of jurors and judges anyway. He also disrespected the countless man-hours that Federal law enforcement and prosecutors dedicated to solving these cases.

The whole purpose of the Presidential pardon power is to correct individual and limited failures of the criminal justice system. It is in the nature of the power in government itself. We are a legislature. We make generally applicable prospective laws for everyone. Can those laws, in certain cases, yield unjust outcomes? Yes, of course. That is the nature of the legislative power, and the reason an Executive has the pardon power, is to mitigate that injustice in specific, particular cases. It is not to make generally applicable pardons in a broad set of parameters, as White House officials have caused here--certainly not to blindly free hundreds of duly convicted criminals.

These blanket commutations demonstrate a gross contempt for our legal system and its traditions. To put President Biden's actions in context, he issued more commutations in a single day than Donald Trump, George Bush, and Bill Clinton issued in their entire Presidencies--combined.

Let's just talk about a few of the beneficiaries of Joe Biden's jailbreak: Jacqueline Mills stole $3 million that was intended for hungry Arkansas kids and low-income families.

Dr. Meera Sachdeva defrauded Medicare by diluting chemotherapy drugs and reusing old needles on cancer patients. At least one patient--at least one--contracted HIV as a result.

Fraudster Paul Burks ran a nearly $1 billion Ponzi scheme that robbed 900,000 investors of their money.

Drug dealer Wendy Hechtman and her husband manufactured and distributed superdeadly carfentanil, unleashing an epidemic of drug overdoses in Omaha.

Another drug dealer, Daniel Fillerup, killed a 31-year-old relapsing addict by selling her fentanyl, which is 50 times stronger than the heroin she thought she was buying.

Shaquan Hemingway trafficked heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and guns for the vicious Jalisco New Generation Cartel.

Joe Biden even commuted the sentence of a serial killer, Virginia Gray, who is known as the ``Black Widow'' for murdering two husbands and a boyfriend and collecting insurance money.

Perhaps the President would have reconsidered this decision if he knew anything about Ms. Gray, but he didn't because, yet again, he and White House officials did not review individual cases on the merits. They didn't pick up the case file. They didn't talk to victims or families.

Then there is the parade of corrupt public officials, the worst of whom is Michael Conahan, the so-called ``cash for kids'' judge who accepted kickbacks in exchange for his role in sending more than 2,300 children to private detention centers, including an 8-year-old. Again, a judge in Pennsylvania sentenced more than 2,300 children to private juvenile detention centers in return for cash kickbacks. One man he sent to jail later killed himself. He was just 23 years old. His mother said that she is shocked and hurt by Joe Biden's commutation. Yet again, the President did not review the case individually.

President Biden also commuted the sentence of an Ohio commissioner who took $450,000 in bribes. He even commuted the sentence of Rita Crundwell, a city comptroller from Illinois who embezzled $54 million. Crundwell was responsible for not only the biggest city embezzlement scandal in the history of Illinois, she was responsible for the biggest municipal embezzlement scandal in the history of America up to that time.

Now, I understand that we have disagreements about criminal justice, and the Democrats don't always share my view on these things, but for years, we have heard lectures about the rule of law and how Joe Biden and Democrats are the defenders of democracy. Yet Joe Biden is the one commuting the sentences of the very public officials who most threaten the public trust in our democracy.

The American people also know that Joe Biden issued these commutations for a simple reason: It helps cover up the corrupt pardon that he issued to his corrupt son to protect his family.

I think we should condemn all of these pardons and certainly condemn the President for not individually reviewing the merits of the cases. But again, I understand my Democratic colleagues don't agree with that, so I only offer a resolution to condemn one pardon--simply one--maybe the worst of them all, the commutation of Michael Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge who took cash kickbacks and bribes to sentence more than 2,300 kids to private detention centers--the judge who put American children in jail for money. Surely, the Senate can condemn this single act of corrupt clemency.

Therefore, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 935, which is at the desk; further, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that 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.

I heard a lot of very troubling cases from the Senator from Illinois. And it is true, I generally think Presidents have given out improvidential pardons over time, and I am not going to defend many of those cases of pardons. For instance, I am not going to defend Jimmy Carter pardoning draft dodgers indiscriminately, mostly rich and privileged kids who didn't do their duty, when poor kids from places like Yell County, AR, or south Little Rock were doing their duty in Vietnam like my father was.

But we are not here to talk about Vietnam draft dodgers or who President Trump pardoned or who he might pardon. There is a resolution pending on the floor that specifically condemns Michael Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge, who took cash kickbacks to sentence children to private juvenile detention centers.

Some words about this judge:

I do feel strongly that President Biden got it absolutely

wrong and created a lot of panic.

Some children took their lives because of this.

Frankly, I thought the sentence the judge got was too

light.

He deserved to be behind bars, not walking as a free man.

Strong words. Not my words. Those are the words of Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro who, again, called Joe Biden's clemency decision absolutely wrong.

The senior Senator from Minnesota joined Governor Shapiro and said that she, too, disagreed with the President's decision. She said that she ``did not like that one.''

Even the chairman of the West Virginia Democratic Party publicly condemned President Biden's commutations and specifically singled out the commutation of Judge Conahan, the ``cash for kids'' judge.

This resolution is not partisan. It is not sweeping. It is common sense. It is about a single egregious case that happened because of egregiously bad judgment.

The President and his aides set broad parameters. Apparently, those parameters kicked back 1,500 cases, and they didn't even have the time and the decency to say: Now, let's look at these cases and see if each one of these people deserves a pardon.

Maybe if one was an elderly, nonviolent offender who had redeemed himself, whose victims had forgiven him--I could understand clemency in that case, not the ``cash for kids'' judge.

It is only 1,500 cases. They have thousands of lawyers running around the Department of Justice. Could they not individually look at these cases? I guess not. It is just another example of how Democrats have spent 8 years of accusing Donald Trump of doing this, that, or the other dastardly thing when, in reality, they are doing much worse.

We heard the Senator from Illinois talking about a pardon for political loyalists. Who could be more of a political loyalist than a President's own son? And that is what Joe Biden did. His first big post-election pardon--pardon his son, not just for specific crimes to which he had pleaded guilty or for which he had been convicted, gun crimes and tax crimes, but for all crimes--all crimes--that he committed or may have committed for 11 years. That is almost twice the length of a similar pardon President Ford gave to President Nixon, which I think, although condemned at the time, most people would now view as an act of political courage.

I don't think anyone in retrospect is going to think that Joe Biden pardoning his son for every crime he might have committed against the

United States for 11 years is ever going to be seen as an act of political courage or if he does the same thing for his brother or any other members of his family before noon on January 20.

Starting next year, I really won't have time for crocodile tears about President Trump's pardon decisions if the Senate can't bring itself today to condemn one--just one--single egregious case of abuse of the pardon power: the ``cash for kids'' judge who sentenced 2,300 children to private detention centers in return for cash kickbacks.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object. I would first like to begin by joining my colleague from Texas in mourning the loss of the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans who died in the September 11 attack. We must never--and we will never--forget them.

I also want to extend my prayers to families who lost loved ones that day and who bear the weight of their loss in their hearts every single day.

However, I must object to this bill today because it hasn't yet received the careful consideration and deliberation that the subject warrants. First, contrary to some suggestions, the bill would enact more than mere technical corrections to earlier legislation. Rather, the bill's provisions would significantly change how a highly technical area of U.S. law is interpreted.

But the Judiciary Committee hasn't held a hearing or a vote on this bill, not the fault of the Senator from Texas to be sure, but a fact, nonetheless. I also question whether the Foreign Relations Committee should evaluate the bill as well, given its consequences for our foreign policy.

Second--and speaking of foreign policy--the bill could have far- reaching and consequential implications for our policy in the Middle East. Thanks to Israel's artful diplomacy and incredible military, Iran's so-called ``axis of resistance'' lies in rubble in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, with Iran itself, therefore, exposed on its flanks for the first time in a generation.

I would suggest at this highly promising, yet highly sensitive moment that all our efforts should be focused on uniting our friends and our allies in the region to put an end, once and for all, to the threat of a nuclear-armed, terrorist-sponsoring Iran.

Finally, this bill could have the unintended but unwelcome result of further delaying resolution and recovery for the 9/11 litigants' cases. The courts will likely need to reopen and relitigate past decisions based on the changed law, while a disproportionate amount of any future recovery could go primarily to insurance companies and lawyers instead of the families of the victims--if any recovery comes at all.

For these reasons, I must object today while suggesting that the new Congress revisit the matter with the hearings, regular order, and full consideration that the subject deserves.

I yield the floor.