Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240713

To focus on now of course is a trade deal with the uk and so i have joined a number of other senators and asking you can watch this online at cspan. Org. The senate gaveling in at 3 30 p. M. And they will take a procedural vote on a couple of abortion measures. Live coverage now of the u. S. Senate. 18. The presiding officer under the previous order, the time until 3 30 p. M. Will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. The senator from alaska. Ms. Murkowski madam president , just very briefly here this afternoon, we will have beginning at 3 30 p. M. A series of votes to include the nomination of Katherine Macgregor to be deputy secretary of the department of interior, and i would like to provide my support for this nomination. I want to thank my colleagues on the energy and Natural Resources committee for working with me to report and rereport ms. Macgregors nomination moved out on a bipartisan basis. I thank the majority leader for filing cloture on her nomination before the recess before she confirm her this week. Shes got a lot of work to do there at interior. She did very well at her confirmation hearing last year. She has significant experience having worked here on capitol hill for ten years as the assistant interior secretary for land and Minerals Management an departments deputy chief of staff and exercising the authority of the deputy secretary. Ms. Macgregors nomination has drawn the support from dozens of group including the alaska federation, the American Wind Energy association, congressional sportsmen foundation, the Theodore Roosevelt conservation partnership, the public lands council, and many others. I personally share those groups confidence that ms. Macgregor will do a good job as deputy secretary. I think shes well qualified. Shes got the right experience to succeed in this role. I think she will be a fine asset for secretary bernhardt and the rest of the secretary team and i ask that my colleagues support her full confirmation. With that, madam president , i yield the floor. Mr. Durbin madam president. The presiding officer the senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin madam president , later this afternoon we are going to have two votes on motions to proceed to go forward on two pieces of legislation relative to the issue of abortion. Those of us in public life know full well that this is a controversial issue. There are people who feel very strongly on one side and very strongly on the other. These votes this afternoon will not resolve that conflict. They dont try to. What the republican majority, under senator mcconnell, has decided to do is bring back two votes that we already voted on. We can predict within one or two votes what its going to be. At the end of the day the republicans will be able to turn to a special Interest Group and say, told you we would call this every year and we did it. We will have members vote their conscience on each side of the aisle, but the net result is that it wont change anything for the better for the United States when it comes to the issues that challenge us. I would like to come to the floor with a radical idea. Ive got an idea on how we can come together regardless of our position on this issue and do something constructive for this country. Ret ret let me tell you what i have in mind. The United States ranks 32 out of 35 when it comes to the survival of babies in the United States once born. A 2018 report published by Global Health characterized the United States of america, and i quote, the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into. What they found was that u. S. Babies, babies born in the United States are three times as likely to die of premature birth and more than twice as likely to die of sids than babies in other rich countries. Babies die largely due to factors such as low birth weight, Maternal Health complication, prematurity and babies of color are particularly at risk. Black infants are twice as likely to die in america as white infants. A des parity that is greater than it was in the year 1850 in this country. We are not only losing babies, we are losing mothers as well. The United States, listen to this statistic, the United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the rate of Maternal Mortality, mothers dying during the birth process, related to pregnancy or childbirth for a year postpartum is worse than it was 25 years ago. We havent moved forward. Weve moved backwards when it comes to mothers surviving childbirth. Nationwide more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy. More than 70,000 suffer nearfatal complications. More than 60 of these deaths are preventible. Sadly, much like with babies, the tragedy of Maternal Mortality is even more pronounced when you look at communities of color. In the United States of america, women of color are three to four times more likely than white women to die as a result of pregnancy. And if you think had it has something to do with poverty and wealth, thats what i thought, it theres no correlation. Only correlation is race. In my state of illinois, im sorry to report if youre an African American woman, you are six times more likely than a white woman to die in childbirth. Thats why congressional representative robin kelly and i, senator tammy duck are worth, my colleague in the senate, we joined in introducing the mama act in the United States senate. First and foremost, more than anything, this bill would expand the length of time that a new mother can keep her Medicaid Health coverage. Currently medicaid only has to cover women for two months after the child is born. Our bill would expand that to a full year. The Medicaid Program pays for 50 of all births nationwide, 44 in illinois. Its a big part of treatment of women who are giving birth to children. This program is vital for new moms and babies and it makes no sense that a new moms Health Coverage is terminated two months after shes given birth. Why dont we stick with her so she can live. Why dont we do something affirmative to say were committed to mothers and children on a bipartisan basis regardless of our position on any other issue. The mama act would also provide access to doulas as well as improve competency training among Health Care Providers. Too often black women are ignored or not taken seriously by Health Care Providers. Doulas can help provide education, advocacy and support for women whose voices today are being ignored. Our bill would establish obstetric protocols and ensure the best practice for Health Care Providers dealings with moms and babies. It would help maternallized infant Health Collection data reporting so we have a better idea of whats happening and why. Who supports this bill . The american medical association, families u. S. A. , march of dimes, american colleges of object ste tritions, the society for fraternal fetal medicine and the black mamas alliance. Our bill is supported by many provider organizations because it would actually save lives and improve the lives of moms and babies. We can debate the issue of abortion all day and we know how the votes will turn out and nothing will occur. Why dont we come together on something that is bipartisan, that says we are all dedicated to reducing the incident incidence of infant mortality. Isnt that one thing we can agree on. Thats my challenge to the senate chamber. Leader mcconnell made it clear he has no intention to allow the senate to debate and pass legislation that will help families in need. I hope hes wrong. Instead he wants us to vote only on controversial judicial nominees and antichoice legislation that has no chance of passing. If hes serious about wanting to save the lives of babies and their mothers, i hope he will make an exception for the mama act. I would like to make a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the finance commit be discharged from further consideration of s. 916, the mothers offspring mortality act, known as the mamas act, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be considered read and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. A senator thank you, madam president. Mr. Sasse reserving the right to object, i would like to address senator durbins comments and consent. I agree with two of his dwoals. On the subject of infant mortality, the senate is going to vote on one infant mortality bill in an hour. We said the senator from illinois said a moment ago, two antichoice pieces. For the reporters and the public paying attention, Lindsey Grahams bill is about abortion and i support his bill. I dont appreciate his characterization of it. The second piece of legislation were considering today is not in any way an abortion bill. The antichoice legislation rhetoric youre using doesnt have anything to do with the legislation were considering this afternoon. But i hope that you would consider on the born alive abortion survivors protection act, that it is addressing some cases of infant mortality that makes sure that babies that survive abortion get care. These are babies that are already born, and the senators speech about infant mortality suggests that were doing more cynical legislation or supporting this legislation. I hope that the senator would vote in accord with the positions he took earlier in his career and we would vote in favor of getting important stuff done on this legislation. But in addition to the comments he made on the subject of Maternal Mortality rates, i agree with him. Many of these tragedies are preventible and i believe, despite being the second or third or fourth most conservative member of the senate and believing in small government, i agree with him that we underfund a lot of these pieces of Public Health investment and i would like us to do more to address preventible maternal tragedies as well. And so, therefore, in a moment i will ask if the senior senator from illinois would agree to modify his unanimous consent request to include the grassley hoamed amendment, and i will use the appropriate language here at the end, but just for public understanding, this amendment, the grassley amendment, would give statessed dz 2point 2. 5 million to address these communities and 2 million to address infant mortality under the Child Services block grant program. What were talking about here is more funding fully offset for atrisk moms. To politics, no gimmicks, it is in line with what the senior senator from illinois was advancing, it is probaby, promom, and proscience and if the senator from illinois wants to spend another 2. 7 million to help moms, that would be great. If were just trying to change the subject from the born alive abortion survivor protections act, i think that would be disappointing. Therefore, i would like to ask the senator to modify his request to include the grassley amendment, 1240, that the finance committee be discharged from its consideration and the amendment be considered agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer is there objection . The senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin madam president , i do not question the sincerity of my colleague. I know you come to this issue with a sincere heart and i dont question that at all. You and i, we could spend the rest of this day and the next debating the issue of abortion and were not going to resolve it, not in this chamber and not in this country, i would ask you to look at the Current Issues coming to the floor and find common ground, republicans and democrats on the issue of infant mortality. You have to be shocked as i am about the babies and mothers who are dying, particularly babies and mothers of color. If we can do something as a nation to show we truly do care about this even though we have differences on the issue of abortion, wouldnt that be a breakthrough for the chamber. I think the people across the country would applaud us and say they finally did something. They finally came to an agreement. So what i proposed is i think the mama act, a good bill, and you proposed an alternative. Heres an idea. Listen to this radical idea. What if we bring the momma act to the floor and i agree we will debate any amendment they want to offer. You know what it would be . It would be like the United States senate. It would be the senate, you and me debating an issue that makes a difference in america, putting our best ideas for a vote on the senate floor. How about that for a notion . Were not going to get anywhere this afternoon. We know the outcome. We know the final vote. I would say your alternative proposal once offered by senator grassley on the floor when i tried this on the floor is just inadequate. The resources arent there to deal with the scope and gravity of the problem. So why dont we do this . Why dont we act like senators . Why dont we do something on a bipartisan basis to bring an issue to the floor that truly counts that people care about. It might make a headline. It might make a tweet somewhere. I suggest this is not the way to do it. Its your way or my way. Join me on the floor. Let senator mcconnell finally let the senate be the senate. We have people that come to the galleries and look down on the desks and say i think there used to be senators that sat at those desks that actually legislated, actually debated, actually had amendments. Last year we had 22 amendments before the senate under senator mcconnell. Why 22 . If you truly want to join me on an issue like this, lets do it. In the time being, i have to object to what you propose. But please, i didnt question your sincerity in bringing this issue. I hope you wont question mine in suggesting we ought to be the senate and debate this issue. The presiding officer objection is heard. Is there objection to the original request . The senator from nebraska. Mr. Sasse reserving the right to object. We have an objection to an objection to an objection. Let me agree with the last point of my colleague, if i may. I think it would be great if this chamber had 80 or 90 or 95 people in it. Today were at three which is a High Water Mark here. We have four. Were setting a record. I think a lot of us dont think the month we spent here last month during the impeachment was ideal, but one thing we talked to each other. Wishing we were debating, were aligned. I do want to say one more thing. You say you are not questioning my sanesayerity. I appreciate that. You asked that i would not be questioning your sincerity. I am not. But i am questioning your logic because you summarized it as if there were two issues at play. You said antiabortion legislation and Maternal Health. There are three issues at play on the floor today. One of them is Lindsey Grahams paincapable bill which is a prolife piece of legislation. One of them is senator durbins funding request about maternal delivery health. Those things are true, but there is a third thing which yet again you obscured by saying the debate here is funding Maternal Health or having antiabortion legislation. The piece of legislation were voting on today, the born alive abortion survivors protection act, is not about abortion. I am prolife. Im going to support Lindsey Grahams bill, but the bill were voting on doesnt change anyones access to abortion. It doesnt have anything to do with roe v. Wade. It is about babies that are already born. Cnn said this morning on tv they made up this insane phrase. They said a fetus that has been born. What the heck is that . Its another way of saying they dont want to debate the actual bill were having on the floor today. The debate were having, were going to vote once on Lindsey Grahams prolife legislation, i will support it, but we will also vote on a piece of legislation that is about the bornalive protect action Affordable Care act. These are babies born outside their mother. The senior senator from illinois is wanting to obscure the debate because he wants to use euphemisms about choice so you dont have to admit to the American Public that whats happening on the floor today is probably like last year 44 democrats are going to filibuster an antiinfanticide bill. Theres nothing in the bill thats about abortion, nothing. Its about infanticide. Thats the actual legislation. And you have got 44 people over there who want to hide from it and talk in euphemisms about abortion because they dont want to defend the indefensible. Because you cant defend the indefensible. Were talking about killing babies that are born. Thats the actual legislation were voting on today in the senate. Thats what the bornalive abortion survivors act act is. Is it okay in the eyes of the United States senate for us to say well, you cant actively kill the little baby. You cant take a pillow and put it over her face and smother her to death, but you can back away and kill her that way. Thats what ralph northam, the disgraced governor of virginia was talking about when he said well, once the baby is born if she survives an abortion, we wish that hadnt happened. We will figure out to keep her calm while the doctors debate what they want to do. What he means is kill the baby. Thats the legislation we are voting on today. There are three buckets. Lindsey grahams paincapable act. Thats a bill about abortion. There is another bill that is about babies that have already been born. News flash, cnn. If youre a baby and you have been born and you are outside your momma, nobody calls that a fetus. You just want to call it a fetus because you dont want to cover the actual story that is being voted on in the u. S. Senate today. Then there is a third piece of legislation which is senator durbins proposal today about maternal preventable deaths and investments in that category. I am interested in that category as well, but you dont actually want to talk about the legislation that is on the floor, you are changing the subject. Therefore, i object. The presiding officer objection is heard. Mr. Durbin madam president. The presiding officer the senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin infanticide should be a crime, and it is. That is what the senator from nebraska will not concede. He thinks he has come up with a novel idea. You shouldnt be able to kill a baby with impunity in america. It is not novel. It has been the federal law for over a decade. It is in state laws all across the United States. Any doubts about it, be prepared to write down a name. The name kermit goznell. 13 years ago, i believe it was, this physician was convicted of infanticide. He is now serving life without parole plus 30 years. To argue that you have some novel idea that infanticide should be a crime and we dont cover it now under the law is just not accurate, and its not factual, and thats why i think your bill is unnecessary. This bill is necessary. Mothers are dying, babies are dying, and we can do something about it, and it doesnt matter whether you go to a prolife or prochoice rally. We all agree that this is something we can do on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Sasse just for the record just so we all have it clear, the senator talked about infanticide, and he is right. Active infanticide is illegal under federal law. There are no crimes for it in half the states, but more fundamentally what the senate is considering today is passive infanticide. It turns out, every baby, whether she is born in a glistening nicu unit at a fancy hospital with a lot of rich cars in the parking lot or whether a baby is born in the unfortunate circumstances of an Abortion Clinic in a strip mall, every baby at onedayold, at five days old, turns out they die if you wander away from them and deny them care. If you dont give them warmth, if you dont give them food, they die. So passive killing, passive infanticide is not illegal under federal law. The senator said infanticide is illegal, and he is half right. Active infanticide is illegal under federal law. You cannot take a pillow and smother a newborn baby to death. But what you can do and what does happen in Abortion Clinics across america and why we held a Judiciary Committee hearing on this two weeks ago to hear from medical and Legal Community experts who know what the practice looks like, you can take that vulnerable, innocent, little, continue aye fetus and put her on a cart and you can walk her down the hall and put that cart in a closet and you can leave her to die by exposure. Thats what we should prevent and thats what this legislation is about. Thank you, madam president. Mr. Barrasso i come to the floor today to support two prolife bills being considered this week and to stand with my friend and colleague from nebraska in his efforts to promote the legislation that is before us. Both of these bills promote respect for innocent human life. Senator Lindsey Grahams paincapable unborn Child Protection act would ban nearly all abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy. Madam president , as a doctor, i know that it is medically proven that babies do feel pain at 20 weeks. Americans overwhelmingly oppose third trimester abortions, yet the United States remains only one of seven countries in the world to allow abortions after five months. This Group Includes china, includes north korea. We need to do much better. The graham bill puts us on a Higher Ground with the rest of the world. It says at five months, at 20 weeks, abortion on demand must stop, and it includes exceptions for rape, for incest, and for the life of the mother. I strongly support this effort by senator graham. I i applaud him for his tremendous work on this issue. But i also want to stand here on the floor today to tell you i strongly support what senator sasse has been saying about the bornalive abortion providers protection act. Senator sasse is another champion on life issues. The sasse bill affirms that infanticide is illegal. It upholds the rights of all u. S. Born babies to full medical care. Every baby born in this country deserves every chance to live. All doctors must do everything in their power to save babies that survive abortions. Both the graham and the sasse bills fully protect mothers from prosecution or from penalty. Both measures demonstrate character and they demonstrate courage. These are bills, madam president , that care for our children, and they do what is medically right. Thanks to all of those working to protect human innocent life, we are here on the floor debating, promoting, and asking for a vote to pass this legislation, and i urge all senators to support these lifeaffirming bills. Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor. I notice the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mrs. Kelly loeffler madam president . The presiding officer the senator from georgia. A senator i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Kelly loeffler at heart of this debate is life. When i are he flect on the importance of protecting innocent life, the story of Ellie Schneider comes to mind. She was a child born at just 21 weeks and six days in kansas city. Ellie is one of the youngest babies to survive in the United States a premature birth. She was born so early that most hospitals in missouri would not treat her except for the faithbased hospital st. Lukes. She weighed only slightly more than a can of soda and about as long as a piece of paper. She was just 14 ounces. At 21 weeks the odds were stacked against her but she was a fighter through the power of prayer and an incredible medical team, ellie is now a happy, healthy 2yearold girl. She brings endless joy to her family. Her inclusion in the president s state of the Union Address is a powerful testament to life. Ellie is an example that every child is a blessing worth worthy of protection and we have a moral obligation to defend the born and the unborn. In todays political climate, its easy to forget that there are both democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, and people from every religious affiliation who believe in protecting the human rights of the unborn. Im proud to be a cosponsor of s. 311, the bornalive abortion survivors protection act. It sends a clear message by establishing the real consequences for those who kill or abandon innocent children after they are outside the mothers womb. We should all be able to agree that once born, each baby deserves to proper access to medical care. I also proudly support s. 3275, the paincapable unborn protection act which places much needed restrictions on elective abortions, on children at 20 weeks post conception. Mrs. Loeffler its unconscionable that america is one of only seven countries that does not have a 20week abortion ban. These countries include china, north korea, and vietnam. While its dishartenning that this horrific practice needs congressional action, i am glad that there are commonsense pieces of legislation that can address the atrocities of lateterm abortion and severely punishes those in the business of taking the lives of our youngest human beings. I pray that the American People will recognize that lives hang in the balance, will stand with us to get our nation back on the right track, and will fight for the born and the unborn. Being a voice for the voiceless requires us to take important steps like passing the bornalive abortion survivors protection act and the paincapable unborn protection act. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call ms. Cortez masto madam president . The presiding officer the senator from from nevada. Ms. Cortez masto these bills that are being introduced with part of a wave of efforts to turn back the clock on Womens Health care. In my home state of nevada, with the only majority women legislature in the nation, removing were moving in the opposite direction. We have been fighting to protect a womans right to choose for decades. Im inspired by women like sue wagner, the first woman elected as nevadas lieutenant governor, whose grit and leadership sparked a movement in the 1990s to enshrine womens reproductive freedom in the states constitution. Just this year, with women at the helm of the nevada legislature, the trust Nevada Women Act was signed into law to remove undue burdens on reproductive rights. Nevada understands that reproductive rights are part and parcel, not just of Womens Health but the of their economic security. When women cant control whether and when they have children, they are more likely to struggle financially. 83 of nevadans are prochoice, and i stand with them. Im going to continue to fight for what the American People want comprehensive health care and reproductive justice. Bills to protect Womens Health are what we should be voting on, like the Bipartisan Legislation to cover preexisting conditions, to reduce Prescription Drug prices, to prevent violence against women, and many more that are languishing, unfortunately, under leader mcconnells desk. And that includes pushing for meaningful legislation to protect mothers and babies at a critical time in their lives, like the healthy mom act, to expand Health Care Coverage for pregnant and postpartum women. But leader mcconnell is more focused on passing an extreme political agenda than in he can prosecuting Womens Health in nevada and across this country. You know, we really have to stop the assault on womens right to choose an their Reproductive Health care. The rights of american women to make their own Health Decisions should not be up for debate. These are our fundamental rights. And they are worth fighting for and protecting. Madam president , i yield the floor. And i notice the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Sasse madam president . The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mr. Sasse thank you, madam president. Today we are are we in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are in a quorum call. Mr. Sasse i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sasse thank you. Madam president , this afternoon we are going to vote on the simplest bill in the history of the United States senate. Its the simplest bill weve ever considered here. It says that if a newborn baby survives an abortion, she deserves medical care. Thats the bill. Thats it. Sadly, a lot of senators are going to come to the floor and theyre going to read or theyre planning to read; i hope they reconsider theyre planning to read talking points that were written for them by planned parenthood, and theyre going to talk about a whole bunch of stuff is that doesnt have anything toed with the bill that we actually have before us. Senators are going to muddy the issue and, sadly, too many in the press are going to report with headlines like abortion reinstructions and with antiscience jargon like a fee us that was born. That was an actual portion of a headline this morning, a fetus that was born. Sadly, a lot of folks seem determined to look the or way. Looking the other way from the issue that were considering today in this body shouldnt be an option. So lets start with four straight, undeniable facts. Four simple facts. First, federal law does not criminalize the denial of care to newborn babies that survive abortions. Federal law doesnt criminalize the denial of care to babies that survive abortions. Second, we know that babies sometimes survive abortions and the data backs that up. If senators dont like this inconvenient fact, they can take it up with the c. D. C. And the states that have mandatory reporting about babies that survive abortions. Third, this bill, the bornalive abortion survivors protection act, simply says that if a baby survives an an bortion, she should get the same degree of medical can a any other that any other baby would get at that gestational stage. Very important. Its a short bill, and i know my completion are bus circumstance but my colleagues are busy, but all of them could read the bill. So instead of coming to the floor and reciting prepackaged talking points that planned parenthood wrote for you, take a few minutes and actually read the bill and youll find the talking points dont match up with the bill that youre called on to vote today. Those are the facts. And, finally, this is not about abortion. My colleague, the senior senator from south carolina, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a really important piece of legislation that hes going to speak on in a moment. And im going to support his legislation. It is a really important prolife piece of legislation. Im in favor of it. But my legislation, the bornalive abortion survivors protection act, is not actually about abortion. Its about babies that have already survived a botched abortion. My legislation is not about roe v. Wade. Its about what happens after a baby is already born when an abortion failed to accomplish the purpose it had the sad purpose, in my view. This is about the babies that have already been born. This is about whether that baby who has survived the abortion and is now laying on the abortion table, on the medical table, whether or not that cold, naked baby alone has a right to medical care. And we all know the apes. The answer is and we all know the answer. The answer is, of course she does. Every baby dies if you leave her to passively die of exposure. Whether she was born in a car with a lot of cars outside the nicu unit or whether she was born in a strip mall, every little baby thats already been born, theyll die if you deny care to them. So of course we shouldnt do that. Of course the United States senate should stand up and defend those babies. We all know that denying care to the most vulnerable among us is barbaric, and this body ought to be able to stand 1000 against that elbaradei i am. Irts inhumane, passive infanticide and the senate should today condemn and prohibit that practice. Is that practice what my colleagues want to defend . I cant believe they do. When you talk to them one to one, the 44 who filibustered this legislation a year ago this week, when you talk to them one to one, they get real uncomfortable and they try to change the subject to all sorts of other debates because they dont want to have a conversation about the actual legislation and the actual babies were considering today. Why . Because theyre scared to death of planned parenthoods army of lobbyists. Thats why. Not because any of them really want to defend the morally reprehensible, morally indefensible practice that is passive infanticide. Theyre just scared. Last year 44 senators filibustered this legislation. They said its okay to look the other way while newborns were discarded. They said that federal law should not ensure that these babies are treated with care. They seem to have a real hard time saying that human beings outside the womb have the same right to life as you and i ought to have and that we get care, they need care. They need care and they should get care. Put down your talking points. Please read the bill before you vote today. Read the expert testimony that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to hold in his Committee Room two weeks ago where we brought in both medical and legal experts to talk about what happens in these Abortion Clinics. And so for those in this body who are not on the Judiciary Committee or who didnt do the preparation for todays vote, i want to summarize the testimony of one of the people that came before our Judiciary Committee, jill stannic who works for the sawn b. Ni list was at the susan b. Anthony list. Of 16 babies aborted during the calendar year 2000, four were aborted alive. Thats 25 . Four out of 16 abortions at that hospital. Each of the two base lived somewhere between one and a half and three hours. One baby was 28 weeks gestation age, seven months old and weighed 2 pounds, 7 ounces. Numbers from the c. D. C. And states that report data on abortion, numbers from the c. D. C. And the states that report data on abortion survivors tell a story of babies who were breathing, whose hearts were beating, stretched their arms, wiggled their fingers and kicked their legs. This is actual data. Iewpt to talk about you want to talk about proscience. What happened to these babies. Medical practitioners talked about walking into rooms where living babies were alone on counter tops where they would be left to expire by themselves alone, cold, naked, denied care. Opponents of this bill dont want to deal with the facts. They prefer to stick to talking points and claim that this never happens. If they wont listen to the medical experts, perhaps theyll take the word of the governor of virginia, ralph northam. In january of last year he was explicit during a radio interview where he said a baby born alive during an abortion, quote, would be kept comfortable, then a discussion would ensue, close quote, about whether that baby should be left to die. Thats actually what Governor Northam was talking about on the radio in virginia. What he did is he made the terrible faux pas of saying in public that true stuff, that this procedure and this practice of walking away and backing away from these babies and letting them die, he decided to talk in public about the reality of what happens in some of these Abortion Clinics. Governor northam is not an outlier. Three weeks ago one of the it Democratic Candidates for president was asked on television about infanticide pointblank, would he be comfortable if a mother invoked infanticide to kill her now already born alive child. Mayor buttigiegs response, quote, i dont know what id tell them. Close quote. Really . Somebody asked you if you can kill a baby thats already been born and you say you dont know what to say . Every one of us, especially those of us running for the highest office in the land, should be able to say without any hesitation leaving babies to die is unacceptable. This aint hard stuff, people. There are actually some hard debates we have in this chamber. This isnt one of them. This is about babies that have been born alive, and whether or not you can decide to kill them. Theres really no debate to be had here, which is why so many people who are planning to speak on the other side decided not to speak this afternoon. Because you cant defend the morally reprehensible procedure that is backing away, that is passive infanticide. There are no exceptions, there are no special circumstances. We should protect every human being no matter how small they are, no matter how weak they are. And if the senate says that its okay to ignore bornalive babies, what were really saying is we are okay with the society where some people count more than other people. Wed be saying that we want a society where some people can be pushed aside if other people decide those folks are inconvenient. A society where we can dispose of you if you happen to come in the world a certain way. Its unbelievably telling that planned parenthood, naral, which is the extremist abortion lobby, and their armies of lawyers and slib Public Relations teams cannot draw this line. Its pretty amazing. This bill is not about abortion. Again i want to be clear, were voting on two things today. One of them is a piece of legislation about abortion. Its the paincapable bill. Lindsey graham is going to speak in favor of it in a minute and i support it and im going to wholeheartedly vote for it. But the other piece of legislation were going to vote on today isnt actually even about abortion. This should be a 1000 nobrainer. This bill is not about roe v. Wade. This bill will not change one word of abortion law in the United States. And my colleagues can vote up or down, but they cant pretend that they dont know the stakes of what were talking about. America is a country built on the beautiful principle of equality and the terms of the bornalive abortion survivors protection act are intended to reflect that. A child born alive during a botched abortion should be given the same level of care than any other baby born at that gestational stage. A bornalive baby is a human being with fundamental Human Dignity which is undeniable. She should receive care and affection due to every other human being and today we can protect those babies who come into the world under the worst of conditions. We can welcome them into a world with love and hope and help and care. My colleagues, please do not turn your backs on those babies. I yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from south carolina. Mr. Graham thank you. Before senator sasse leaves, i cant thank you enough for the passion and persuasion you bring to these issues. You speak from the heart. You speak from reason. You make a lot of sense, and over time youll prevail. Just stick with it. Your day will come. What hes saying is that if you try to boater aboater a child and if you try to abort a child and the child survives the abortion, shouldnt the doctor treat the child as if they came into the world any other way. The answer is yes. This is 2020. Who are we as americans . Its odd to me that we even need to have a discussion about this. Im just perplexed that this is even a problem. Abortion is legal in the United States. There are certain restrictions on it, but i just cant believe we cant rally around the idea that if a baby survives the procedure and is alive and beating and functioning that medical science doesnt kick in to save the baby. Its just i dont know. I dont know what happened. What happened to our country that were even talking about this . Its 2020, for gods sakes. Its not 1020. Anyway, hang in there, ben. Your day will come. My legislation, ive been doing this a few years now, were one of seven nations in the world that allows abortion on demand at 20 weeks. North korea, vietnam, china, singapore, the netherlands, and canada. So what would this legislation do . At 20 weeks, this is about the fifth month in the birthing process, its called the paincapable unborn Child Protection act. Why do we call it that . Medical science has determined that a child at 20 weeks is capable of feeling excruciating pain. If there is an operation to save a childs life or to repair a medical defect at 20 weeks, they provide anesthesia to the child because during the surgery the child feels pain. And you can see when a child is poked, they actually repel against the poking. The bottom line is i find it odd that medical science requires anesthesia to save the babys life. But during that same period you can dismember the child. Thats what were talking about here. What kind of nation are we . At the fifth month now this is 20 weeks into the birthing process were one of seven nations that allow abortion on demand. Theres exceptions for the life of the mother. That hard decision, if the mothers life is impacted by the child, then well leave that up to the family. The pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. But beyond that, we want to eliminate abortion on demand at the 20week period because i would argue that doesnt make us a better nation. It doesnt advance anybodys cause. The bottom line is we know based on medical science that this child has nerve endings intact. Medical encyclopedias encourage young parents to sing to their unborn child during this period of development because they can begin to associate your voice and recognize who you are. I find it odd that we would encourage young parents to sing to their unborn child at 20 weeks. We require anesthesia to save the childs life. Were also a country that allows the child to be dismembered. It makes no sense to me. Theyve got exceptions that make sense. Life of the mother, result of rape or incest where there was no choice at all. The bottom line is that these two pieces of legislation are going to continue to be advanced until they pass. It takes awhile for america to kind of get focused on what were saying here because abortion is an uncomfortable topic to talk about, particularly at the early stages of the pregnancy. But what senator sasse is saying in the case of the child surviving an abortion, theres really not much to talk about. We should, like, protect the life that is now in being, the baby survived. I dont know why the baby survived. I dont know how the baby survived. I just know that decent people would want to come to the childs aid once you do survive. And just imagine for an hour and a half what it must be like for the baby to have survived the abortion, to be left unattended for an hour and a half to three hours. That says a lot about us as a nation. I just think were better than that. Its kind of odd that we even have to have this debate, but apparently we do because this happens more than you would ever think, that babies actually survive abortion and the rules in this country are that you just let it die. Its no longer required to care. That to me is, as senator sasse said, barbaric. It doesnt make us a better people and it really doesnt affect the abortion debate because the baby survived. My legislation is about us as a nation too. How does abortion on demand in the fifth month advance the cause of america . I dont think it does. We have exceptions in those instances where its a tragic choice between the life of the mother and the unborn child, in cases of rape or incest which are tragic and criminal. But generally speaking, we would like to get ourselves out of a club of seven nations that allow abortion on demand at a time when the parents are encouraged to sing to the chimed and you have to provide are encouraged to sing to the child and you have to provide anesthesia to save the childs life because you would not want to operate on a baby in a fashion to hurt the child. I dare say if youre a doctor and try to save a babys life at 20 weeks through surgery and you dont provide anesthesia youre going to wind up getting yourself in trouble. I find it odd that the law would allow the dismemberment of the child even with anesthesia. But that is where we are, and to senator sasse, youre an articulate spokesman for your legislation. One day well prevail. It took 15 years to pass the lateterm abortion ban. Its going to take awhile, but our day will come. And at the end of the day, the sooner america can get this right, the better off well be. With that, i yield. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 420, s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18, United States code to protect paincapable unborn children and for other purposes. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the mope to proceed to s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18, United States code to protect paincapable unborn children and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote . On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 44, threefifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The senator from florida. Mr. Scott i ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be ten minutes in length. The presiding officer without objection. The clerk will report to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 17, s. 311, a bill to amend title 18, United States code to prohibit a Health Care Practitioner from failing to operate the proper degree of care to an abortion. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. Is it the sense of the senate that debate on the bill s. 311, a bill to amend the title 18, United States code prohibit a Health Care Practitioner from a tailing to operate the proper degree of care to an abortion. Yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . Seeing none, the yeas are 56, the nays are 41. The motion is not agreed to. Under the previous order, the senate shall resume executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk shall report. The clerk nomination, the judiciary, silvi carrenocoll of puerto rico to be United States district judge for the district of puerto rico. The presiding officer question is on the nomination. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk shall call the roll. Vote vote the presiding officer is there anyone in the chamber who wishes to vote or change their vote . Seeing none, the ayes are 96, the nays are zero. The nomination is confirmed. The question occurs on the mac gregor nomination. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . Seeing none shall the i didnt say are 58, the nays are 38. And the nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the motions is reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senates action. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Travis Greaves of the District Of Columbia to be a judge of the United States tax court, signed by 17 senators. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of Travis Greaves of the District Of Columbia to be a judge of the United States tax court shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk shall call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change your their vote . If not the yeas are 91, the nays are 5. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk United States tax court, Travis Greaves, of the District Of Columbia to be a judge of the United States tax court. Mr. Lankford madam president. The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Lankford i rise to just to be aiblg to have a die to be able to have a dialogue. Let me start it this way. My brother and i did not always agree on everything. I know that may be shocking that two brothers didnt get along on everything. In fact, growing up i distinctly remember the day that we reached epic levels and we absolutely got masking tape out in our room and put a line down the floor in our room that ran from one wall across the other wall. We had an oldschool stereo record player in our room. The line ran up the record player so that he had on one side the tuning knob and i had on the other side the volume knob and we had to reach a detente to listen to it. If he had a station i didnt like, i could turn the volume down. The line ran through his closet with his clothes and my clothes on it and we had a clear line of separation that you could not cross the line. The rules were very clear. And for whatever reason our mom put up with it for quite a while as we had the dont cross the line into my side kind of moment. Its interesting today in the senate was in some ways a line drawing moment, not draw a line, but to try to figure out where are our lines . Where are our boundaries on an issue that americans talk about all the time in many ways but always get nervous in that dialogue . And its the issue about when is a child a child . We have this weird dialogue as a nation because we have a great passion for children. We spend a tremendous amount of money personally as our families and in this our communities and nonprofits and federal taxpayer dollars to be able to walk alongside children to be able to do everything we can to be able to protect the lives of those children. We have some in this body that have proposed federal taxpayer dollars for children in their very first days of life to have child care thats available for them but literally three days before that, they also proposed federal tax dollars for abortion to be able to take that life. And it just begs the question, where is your line on life . What is that moment . Now, for me, i go with the science. Its conception. Thats a dividing cell that has d. N. A. That is different from the mom and different than the dad. That dividing cell is a uniquely different person. Every science textbook, every medical textbook that you look at would identify that d. N. A. Is different from any other d. N. A. In the world. That is a different person. As that cell grows and divides, and as that child grows and divides, whether they are 50 years old or days old still in the womb, the d. N. A. Is the same. All the Building Blocks are in that child from its earliest days. Others will look at it and ask the question, like the Supreme Court did in 1973 when they ruled on roe v. Wade, they ruled on the issue of viability. Thats when the Supreme Court said in 1973 that states can engage and try to make some laws dealing with abortion is based around this issue of viability. Viability in 1973 is very different than it is now. We have many children that are born at 21, 22, 23, 24 weeks gestation that are prematurely delivered, spend months in a nicu facility and thrive as adults. That viability question is different now than it was in 1973. We also know more about the science now than we knew at that time as well. We know that a child, some would say on the science side of it, as early as 12 weeks old of Development Still in the womb can feel and experience pain. Certainly by 20 weeks, 21, 22 weeks they have a developed brain, they have a developed nervous system. The system of experiencing pain is all in place. That child, if anything happens to that child, will experience the pain and the effects of that. The New York Times had a really interesting article in october of 2017 talking about a young man, charlie royier, that when he was 24 weeks development in the womb, the parents made a very difficult decision to have a surgery in utero. Spina bifida, the New York Times talks about how they did the intricate surgery that happened at texas Children Hospital in baylor college, basically delivering the child, doing surgery on that child, reinserting the uterus and the child back into the mom into the womb and then stayed all the way until full gestation and was delivered. Charlie is apparently doing very, very well. It was a remarkable surgery, but during that surgery, they made sure they helped that child and gave him additional medications to be able to protect him from pain because they were doing surgery on someone that felt the effects of the surgery at 24 weeks. Today we had a vote in the senate to be able to ask senators, if you dont agree with me on this that the line should be conception to consider that child a child at conception, would you consider that child a child at when they can experience pain . They have a beating heart, they have a functioning nervous system, they have ten fingers, ten toes. This is not a tissue were talking about. This is what a child looks like in the womb at 20 to 22 weeks. Thats a child. So the question is, is your line when that child has a beating heart, has a functioning nervous system, can experience pain, is that your line . We had that vote today, and unfortunately this senate body said no. The line is not at conception and the line is not even when they look like this and can experience pain. That bill was voted down. There are only four countries in the world that allow abortion on demand at any time. Four countries left in the world that still abort children that look like this that experience pain that are in late term. It is the United States, north korea, china, and vietnam. That is all that is left in the world that looks at this and says thats just tissue, thats not really a baby. This senate voted again today tomorrow affirm that same club that were in with china, north korea, and vietnam. Thats not a club i want our nation to be in. They are some of the worst human rights violators in the world and they dont recognize the value and the dignity of life. We do. Or at least i thought we did. But thats not where our line is apparently. So today we took another vote in the senate and it was a very clear line as well to say, okay, if your line is not at conception and if its not when the child can experience pain and its not a lateterm abortion when the child is actually viable, maybe your line is actually when they are delivered, when they are fully out of the womb. So we took a vote on a bill called the bornalive abortion survivors protection act. Its a very straightforward bill. Its not about abortion at all. It is about a child thats fully delivered because in medical practice there are times when theres a lateterm abortion that in the procedure itself to actually conduct the abortion instead of the child being aborted and killed in the womb, it is a spontaneous birth that actually occurs and the child is actually fully delivered. Now the intent was to destroy the child in the womb, but thats not what happened. What happened instead in a small percentage of abortions is that child is actually delivered. Now the question is, the childs no longer in the womb, the child is literally fully delivered and is crying on the table in front of you, what do you do . And so we asked the question of this body, where is your line . Is your line at delivery even if the attempt was originally abortion that didnt occur, is your line at delivery . Unfortunately this body voted no. We could not get 60 senators of 100 to say even if a child is fully delivered outside the womb, crying on the table, thats a child. That is a frightening statement about where we are in our culture. Now, i have had all kinds of folks say well, this is this is not about infanticide. Infanticide is already illegal. I was like yes, thats true. In 2002, there was unanimous support in this body in the senate to be able to pass a bill saying that if this child is delivered, that would be infanticide. The problem was it left no consequences at all and allows what still happens today. That is, a child thats fully delivered, there are no consequences for allowing them to die on the table. Kermit gosnell a couple of years ago was fully delivering children in his Abortion Clinic. He would fully deliver them, take scissors, turn the child over, and snip their spinal cord to kill them. He is in prison right now for carrying out that act because that was considered infanticide. But what is still legal is allowing the child to just lay there on the table until they slowly die. A nurse that has practiced for years in illinois gave testimony in a hearing not long ago and has testified multiple times about whats going on in some of these abortion facilities and what happens when a child is fully delivered and theyre still alive. In her experience, what she has watched before, she has noticed that children will live outside the womb these are viable children, laying on the table, or in her particular hospital, they literally took the child to a linen closet and closed the door and left them there. They would live somewhere between an hour, some children as long as eight hours, just waiting to die. Ladies and gentlemen, in ancient times, that was called exposure. When you would take a child and set them outside to die without medical care. Our vote today was if a child is fully delivered, should they get medical care or should we just allow medical facilities to just back off and allow them to slowly die . And today this senate could not get 60 votes to say we should at least give medical care to that child instead of allowing them to slowly die on the table on their own. A child literally crying, kicking their feet, but ignored. I would hope were better than that as a country. But apparently the line has still not been discovered for the value of a child. I am one that believes that a child has great value, a child has great worth, whether that child is a kindergartener or whether that child is in the womb. That child has value. And as a culture, we should stand for the value of every child. Im amazed, absolutely amazed when i think about 100 years ago, my wife, my mom, and my daughters could not vote. I i just cant even process that, that 100 years ago, my wife, my mom, my daughters were not allowed to vote in america. And i think what were we thinking as americans that we did that . Im amazed there was a time in america not that long ago that if you were japanese descent, they rounded you up and put you in camps and held you as an american citizen just because you were of japanese descent. I cant even process that we did that as americans. I cannot believe there was a time in america that we looked at African Americans and said thats threefifths of a man. I cannot even process that was in our law that we declared some human beings threefifths of a person. I am so grateful that we no longer round people up because theyre japanese descent, that we allow women to be able to vote, that we consider all people equal. I am so grateful that that time has passed, and i long for the day that i believe is coming that we as a nation will look back and say what were we thinking that we allowed children to live or die based on our convenience . And if a child was inconvenient, we just killed them or we set them on the table and allowed them to slowly die from exposure because they were inconvenient in the moment. There will be a day we will look back on this season in American History and we will say what were we thinking . That we considered some children more valuable than others, that we considered some lives worth living and some to just be thrown away. Whats your line . When is a life worth protecting . When is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness actually apply to you in america . I punish it was conception or at least when they can experience pain, or at least when they were fully born that this body has not yet found the moment that we can agree that life is valuable, and i long for the day when we do. With that, i yield the floor. Madam president , i would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Van hollen i rise today the presiding officer the senate is in a quorum call. Mr. Van hollen i ask that we unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Van hollen thank you, madam president. So i rise today to once again call upon the senate to take immediate and urgent action to prevent russia or any other foreign power from interfering in our 2020 elections, and since the last time i came to the senate floor to talk about this issue, it has become only more urgent. The clock is ticking, and each day that goes by without the United States Senate Taking action, this body becomes more complicit in the hijacking of our democracy by Vladimir Putin or other foreign powers that try to interfere in our elections. Just in the last week, we have seen significant new developments. We know that the Intelligence Community briefed the House Intelligence Committee about ongoing russian interference in our current elections. We also know that upon learning about that briefing, upon hearing that the Intelligence Community was doing its job in keeping congress informed about election interference, President Trump erupted upon hearing the news. He did not want the house of representatives to know what the russians were up to. We know that soon after that briefing, President Trump unceremoniously fired his acting director of national security, joseph mcgwire, who was a military veteran and a career Public Servant of great integrity. All that we know, and we know that President Trump replaced mr. Mcgwire with an acting director who has no Prior Experience in the Intelligence Community and whose only qualification appears to be to tell President Trump what President Trump wants to hear when it comes to intelligence information or other matters. Now, madam president , none of us, none of us should be surprised to learn that the russians are interfering again in our elections. They did it in 2016. That was the unanimous verdict of all our u. S. Intelligence agencies. In fact, that was the verdict by the head of agencies who had been appointed by President Trump. That was also the bipartisan finding of the senate Intelligence Committee. They found that there was some level of russian interference in the 2016 elections in every state in the country, all 50 states. It was also the welldocumented conclusion in the Mueller Report that brought a number of indictments against russian operatives of the g. R. U. And just last november, the leaders of the intelligence agencies again, leaders appointed by the current president all warned the congress and the American People that the russians and other foreign powers would seek to interfere in our elections in 2020. Though agencies included the heads of the n. I. A. , the f. B. I. , the d. N. I. , and others. All of them last november warning us about expected russian interference in our elections. So it really should be no surprise that we learned last week of a briefing in the house where the Intelligence Community said we told you so. We have determined the russians are interfering right now in the ongoing 2020 elections. So that shouldnt be surprising. What is surprising and what is shocking is that the United States congress has done virtually nothing to prevent it. Think about that. We have been warned in 2016, we have been warned repeatedly since then that the russians are going to interfere in our 2020 elections. We now have a briefing about ongoing interference, and still nothing. What does the president do in response to that information . He fires the head of the Intelligence Community. He fires them because he doesnt want them to Tell Congress what the russians are doing. Now, just last month, in february, the senate Intelligence Committee issued another report. It was another bipartisan report. What they did is they went back to look at what happened in the 2016 election, specifically in the leadup to the 2016 elections, and asked themselves the question why when we learned that there was some russian interference did we not notify and alert the country . And their findings were interesting. They found that there were various political reasons. People had concerns about making that information public. In fact, the republican leader, the majority leader here said no, we should not inform the American People about that interference. And they drew lessons from that, the senate Intelligence Committee did, saying, you know, we shouldnt be caught once again unprepared. Thats what they said in the report just last month, and now were sitting here today with the Intelligence Community telling us that the russians are interfering right now as we speak and doing nothing about it. So our democracy is under attack and were just pretending that things are going on as normal. You would think that we would all agree that when our democracy is under attack, we would unify and immediately take action, every action necessary to prevent that. So what could and should we do . Well, we should harden our election systems. We should make sure that voting systems around the country are harder to hack. We should make sure that Voter Registration information is harder to hack. And we have dedicated some Additional Resources to that. We vrchts done havent done enough but weve taken some small steps in that direction as we should. But this is a situation where the best defense is a good offense, and as long as Vladimir Putin and the russians dont pay any price at all for interfering in our elections, it should be no surprise that theyre going to keep on doing it. It has cost free to them. In fact, theyre gaining major benefits, and we see them around the country. They are succeeding in helping divide americans against one another. Theyre succeeding in undermining Public Confidence in the democratic system. That is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants to do here in the United States and among our allies in europe and elsewhere around the world. So what should we do about it . Well, after we learned of what happened in 2016, senator rubio and i introduced a bipartisan bill. Its called the deter act. In addition to senator rubio and myself, we have republican and democratic cosponsors. What does the bill do . Its pretty straightforward. It says to Vladimir Putin and other foreign powers, if we catch you interfering in a future election, you will pay a price, and that price will be immediate and it will be severe. So if youre thinking about what benefits you might gain from interfering in American Elections, you will know there will also be a big price to pay. So thats the legislation that senator rubio and i introduced back in 2017. It has not gotten a vote here in the United States senate. It didnt do it. Didnt have a vote last congress so we reintroduced it this congress. Last fall when we were taking up the National Defense authorization act, the ndaa, the senate agreed that part of our National Defense means defending our democracy and part of defending our democracy means defending the integrate of integrity of our elections. So we unanimously by a voice vote here in the senate said that the Defense Authorization bill should include a provision like the deter act. It should include a provision that says to the russians and other foreign powers, if we catch you interfering in an election, there will be a should veer price to pay. Be a severe price to pay. When i talk a severe price, i mean sanctions on their economy, sanctions on their major banks, sanctions on the energy sector, real economic pain. Not imposing sanctions on a few oligarchs but real pain. Thats what the senate said we should do as part of the ndaa, the National Defense authorization act but guess what happened . When the conferees, when the negotiators went behind closed doors, the white house essentially told the senate conferees, we dont want you adopting these important protections, protections to defend the integrity of our democracy. And so despite that Unanimous Senate vote, it just disappeared in the middle of the night from the negotiations over the Defense Authorization bill. So what did we do . Well, the clock it ticking and its time for the senate to do now what it said it wanted to do when we unanimously passed that motion to instruct the conferees to pass Something Like the deter act as part of the defense bill. And we are right now engaged in ongoing discussions with the chairman of the Senate Banking committee to try to finally get this bill, this bipartisan bill out of the United States senate. And i hope we make progress because what appears to be the situation is that the white house is essentially putting up a massive roadblock to progress on this matter. And so, madam president , its not our job in the United States senate to simply do the bidding of this president or any other president. Its the duty of this senate to protect our democracy against what we know is an ongoing attack on the integrity of our elections. And that is why im here on the floor right now because we just got the news last week that everything weve within warn weve been warned about with respect to the 20 interference in our elections is coming true. So we have an aim at the integrity of our elections, and the senate is doing nothing about it. It is unbelievable and grossly negligent to know in real time that our elections are being undermined and to take no action. And so i just want to say to my colleagues that if we dont move forward on the bipartisan deter act in the coming days and make progress in the coming days, i will be back here on the senate floor next week. And i will ask for unanimous consent to bring it up. And if senators want to come down here in the light of day and say no, no to Bipartisan Legislation protecting our democracy, they can do that. But were going to keep at this and every day that goes by, we learn more about whats happening now. So i close, madam president , with what i said before. We should not be surprised that Vladimir Putin is interfering in our elections. Did it in 2016 and weve been told ever since hes going to do it again. Whats surprising and shocking and grossly negligent is that this body has not taken action to date to protect our democratic process. Were going to keep fighting until we get that done. I yield the floor. Mr. Whitehouse will you accept a question . Mr. Van hollen yes, i would be delighted. Mr. Whitehouse the majority leader is about to come in for his closing script, and when he does, that will end whatever little colloquy we have here. And i will then do my time to wake up speech but in the time it takes the majority leader to get here, i am interested in hearing the senator from maryland say that the white house, our white house, the president of the United States is a massive roadblock to protecting the integrity of our upcoming election from foreign interference. How does that make why would it be an american president that doesnt want to defend the integrity of an American Election from foreign interference . Mr. Van hollen well, i thank the senator from rhode island for the question. And all i can say is weve seen the pattern from this president. We saw this president , President Trump in helsinki a few years ago standing next to Vladimir Putin and our president was the one who threw our intelligence communities under the bus. He said he trusted Vladimir Putin when putin told him dont worry. Dont worry, President Trump. We didnt interfere in your elections. And President Trump said, okay, im going i think president putin may be right, not our Intelligence Community. Mr. Whitehouse he did say it very strongly. Mr. Van hollen he did. And weve seen that pattern over and over again. And we just learned of this briefing that took place in the house of representatives this week. The response from President Trump was not oh, my goodness, lets pass this legislation. It was fire the guy who was in charge of the Intelligence Community. What do you think . It is a mystery to all of us as to why the president is taking this action other than the fact he did, of course, call on russia in the last election and welcomed their support. We all saw him on National Television doing that. Mr. Whitehouse in fact, even the Mueller Report showed that there was considerable russian activity and support in the election that made donald trump our president. They couldnt prove an ongoing conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Election interference effort, but they confirmed that there was a Russian Election interference effort, and if i recall correctly, confirmed that the Trump Campaign was witting of it, just not conspiring with it, just not directly engaged with it. So, i dont know. Perhaps its just hope that perhaps hell get elected again with foreign interference and he doesnt want to close off that option. But it is a little bit odd. This is a president of the United States not to take protecting the security of an American Election more seriously. Mr. Van hollen senator whitehouse, im glad you made that distinction with respect to the Mueller Report. Because it is true they did not find a criminal responsible criminal conspiracy meaning they didnt find some agreement between the Trump Campaign and the russians to interfere, but they found plenty of evidence of the Trump Campaign welcoming the intervention from the russians and of course we more recently have seen President Trump spreading the conspiracy theories that were launched by Vladimir Putin that it wasnt the russians who interfered in the 2016 elections. Oh, my god, it was the ukrainians who interfered in the 2016 elections. And theres this famous videotape now of Vladimir Putin saying thank god theyre not blaming the russians anymore. Theyre blaming the ukrainians. Translation, thank god our propaganda is working and even the president of the United States and some members of the house of representatives are parroting our conspiracy theory, the ones we have cooked up. And that is really alarming when the Foreign Government and someone like Vladimir Putin is so successful in spreading their misinformation within our system. Mr. Whitehouse i wish you success. Mr. Van hollen i thank you for your questions. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Whitehouse madam president , i come to again raise an alarm about the massive Carbon Pollution that we are dumping into our Natural World. And to tell the stories of two ocean creatures suffering from that pollution. Now, we may mock or ignore these creatures, these lesser creatu creatures so far down the food chain from us, but we are fools to ignore the message of what is happening to them. Matthew in 21 admonishes as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me. So we ought not mock and ignore these lesser species. Because they also have a lesson for us, a warning. If we keep up what we are doing to them it will soon enough be us that suffers. As pope francis warned, slap Mother Nature and she will slap you back. So lets start before we get to the two species with an overview. First, its not just these two species. The Science Writer Elizabeth Colbert has warned that we have entered a sixth great extincti extinction. The first and only great extinction in humans time on the planet. And that great extinction is driven by manmade pollution and climate. And climate change. Scientists from around the globe have just issued one of the most comprehensive reports ever on earths biodiversity and the head of that panel sir Robert Watson summarized its findings this way. I quote him here. The overwhelming evidence presents an ominous picture. The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health, and quality of life worldwide. End quote. The legendary David Attenborough warns that we face what he calls irreversible damage to the natural word and the collapse of our societies. He says, and im quoting him again here, it may sound frightening but the Scientific Evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the Natural World and the collapse of our societies. And in all of this we need to remember our oceans. Oceans are warming and acidifying and literally suffocating ocean species as oxygen dead zones expand. Earths oceans warm at the rate of multiple hiroshima explosions worth of heat per second per second. They acidify at the fastest rate in at least 50 million years. Theyre also fouled with our plastic garbage and polluted by runoff from farming appeared storm water. Our oceans warnings are loud and clear and measurable. They are chronicled by fishermen and sailors and measured with thermometers, tide gauges, and simple ph tests that measure acidification. And its this acidification that takes me to these two species. The oceans are absorbing around 30 of our excess Carbon Dioxide emissions, and they do that in a Chemical Interaction that takes up the co2 but acidifies the sea water. And dont pretend that theres any dispute about this. Acidification is a chemical phenomenon. You can demonstrate it in a middle School Science lab. You can demonstrate it with your breath, an aquarium bubbler, a glass of water, and a ph strip. In fact, i have done so right at this desk. Heres the first species, the tiny pteropod. It is about the size of a small pea. It is known as the sea butterfly because it has adopted two butterflylike wings that can protell it around in the ocean. Acidifying waters make it harder for pteropods and a lot of other shelled creatures to grow their shells and to develop from juveniles to adults. Researchers in the Pacific Northwest have reported what they called severe shell damage severe shell damage on more than half of the pteropods they collected from Central California to the canadian border. These images show the pteropods shell when the creatures underwater environment becomes more acidic. Not good for pteropods. Maintaining their shells against that acidity requires energy, energy that would otherwise go into growth or reproduction. So increasing ocean acidity makes it harder for species such as the pteropod and other shelled creatures at the base of the oceanic food chain to survive. Who cares . Who cares about the lowly, humble pteropod . Who cares about some stupid ocean snail in well, for one, salmon do. Half the diet of some salmon species in the pacific is pteropods. Salmon fisheries support coastal jobs and economies across our Pacific Northwest. Offshore fishing in the United States is a multibilliondollar industry, connected to hundreds of thousands of livelihoods. If you care about our fisheries industry, you should care about the humble pteropod. An entire food chain stands on its tiny back, and we are in that food chain. Move up the food chain a little, and you find another creature facing peril from acidification, the dungeon he is crab. Youve seen this includes station on ice in your local fish market. It is an important commercial catch along our west coast. In 2014, the last year the Pacific States Marine Fisheries commission did a comprehensive report, the dungeoness catch was worth more than 170 million. It is oregons most valuable fishery. And important also for Washington State and for california where annual landings run between 40 million and 95 million. Up north in 2017, alaskas commercial landings of dungeness crabs totaled more than 2. 1 million pounds. Last month, marine scientists reported that acidified oceans are dissolving the delicate shells of dungeness crab larvae. The acidic environment is not just damage the shells but also damaging the larvaes mecano receptors, used to hear and feel and make their way around the sea. The damage to the crabs is bad news, but worse is that were seeing it now. Scientists thought hardy dungeness crabs wouldnt be affected by acidification for decades. Richard feely, senior noaa scientist and coauthor of the Study Reports that, quote, these dissolution impacts to the crab larvae were not expected to occur until much later in this century. End quote. The sentinel implications for the entire ecosystem are grave. If the dungeness are feeling the effects of Ocean Acidification now, what other creatures are feeling those effects, too . Another lead author of this study said, and i quote, if the crabs are affected already, we really need to make sure we start to pay much more attention to various components of the food chain before it is too late, end quote. And these concerns about the dungeness crab and it happening too soon echo what scientists actually said of early findings about the pteropod. Oceanographer william peterson, who is the coauthor of an early study on the pteropod said, and i quote him from that earlier study, we did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in our Coastal Region for several decades. So we are way ahead of schedule in terms of what scientists have predicted for Ocean Acidification outcomes for these foundational creatures in our ocean ecosystem. Together the pteropod and the dungeness crab send a common message, one echoed by a rhode island fishing boat captain who told me, sheldon, things are getting weird out there, and theyre getting weird faster than expected. The rapid Ocean Acidification that we are measuring now and that we are causing now with further Carbon Pollution is nearly unprecedented in the geological record. Scientists look back to try to find historical analogues for whats happening. The closest historical analogue that scientists can find for what theyre seeing now in the oceans go back before humankind. There is no analogue in human time. You have to go back before humans existed, back into the prehistoric record, back to the prehistoric great extinctions. Back when marine species were wiped out and Ocean Ecosystems took millions of years to recover. That is the historical analogue that best matches our current direction. In his encyclical l. A. Dotoci, pope francis, who is a trained scientist himself, reflected on what he called the mysterious network of relations between things in life. In that mysterious network of relations between things, the pteropod and the crab larvae give their lives to transmit food energy from the microscopic plants they eat that would be of no use to us up to the fish that consume the pteropod and the larva, fish which we in turn consume, all in that great mysterious network of relations between things. Whats happening to these two species is more than just an event. Its a signal. Its a signal of a looming global ecological catastrophe. Lesser species, species that we may mock or ignore, can sometimes be sentinels for humans, like the legendary canaries taken down into coal mines. When the sentinels start to die, it is wise to pay attention. What happens when, in our arrogance and pride, we refuse to heed the warnings from creatures so humble as pteropods or crab larvae . Well, remember why jesus was so angry with the pharises. What was their crime . Their arrogance blinded them to the truth. The senate, this supposedly greatest deliberative body, that is blinded itself to the devastation fossil fuels are unleashing on our earths mysterious net network. We careen recklessly into the next great extinction. Pope francis say, and i quote him here, because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to god by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right, he says. Indeed, we have no such right. So i come here today to challenge us to see the damage we have done, the damage we are doing now today to this mysterious network of life, this mysterious godgiven network of life that supports us. I challenge us also to turn away from dark forces of corruption and greed; specifically, the fossil fuel Industry Forces that have deliberately, on purpose, crippled our ability in congress to stop their pollution. And i close by challenging us to heed the message of the humble creatures sharing this planet with us, the least of us who share gods creation. They suffer at our hands, and in their suffering, they send us a message, a warning that we would do well to hear. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Mcconnell madam president. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i have ailgt requests for committees to meet during todays session of the senate. They have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent to modify the order of january 31, to allow senators to have until thursday, february 27, 2020 to have printed statements and opinions in the congressional record if they choose explaining their votes and include those in the documentation of the impeachment proceedings. Finally i ask that the twopage rule be waived. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i understand theres a bill at the desk due for a first reading. The presiding officer the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. The clerk s. 3339, a bill to restore military priorities and for other purposes. Mr. Mcconnell i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provision of rule 14, i object to my own request. The presiding officer objection having been heard the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. Mr. Mcconnell madam president , i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its Business Today it adjourn until 9 30 a. M. Thursday, february 27. Further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. Finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the greaves nomination. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous adjourned under the previous the Senate Gambling out. Sundars but i do not move forward with two abortion measures today. And from two nominations for the u. S. District judge in puerto rico and deputy interior secretary. The democrats have scheduled a retreat tomorrow, so we dont expect any votes until thursday. A life Senate Coverage here in cspan two. During this election season, the candidates talking points are only done overtime since you cant be everywhere, there is cspan. Our campaign 2020 programming, different from all of the other legal coverage for one simple reason. We brought you your view of government every day since 1979. This year we are bringing you a view to see that coverage. In other words, your future. So this election season, unfiltered. See the biggest picture for yourself. And make up your own mind. With cspan campaign 2020, brought to Public Service by your provider. By your television provider. Cspan washington journal, live every day, policy issues that if the patio coming up wednesday morning, will discuss the u. S. And Global Response to the coronavirus outbreak with jennifer, John Hopkins Health security, and recent Intelligence Briefings on russian interference on the 2020 election. Of the center for european policy analysis. See spans washington journal, live at wednesday morning during the discussion. Senators have their weekly Party Meetings today, followed by leadership news conferences. We will show you those next starting with the republicans