tv Consumer Advocacy Experts Testify on Product Safety CSPAN November 30, 2021 4:01pm-5:44pm EST
expensive equipment to the ports and the shores of allies in the region is ineffective and could prove more of a vulnerability than an advantage against chinese strike capabilities. a deterrent posture would combine defensive strategy and operations to fend off possible attacks from a position of strength and limit risk to u.s. personnel and assets. further, we must prioritize recruitment and retention for the future fight. we need to provide a suitable and welcoming environment for those in uniform and for their families. we need to end the president's sweeping vaccine mandate and give our servicemembers the respect they deserve. after a disastrous withdrawal from afghanistan and the end of our nation's longest war, this
ndaa could have been, should have been an opportunity to debate, rethink, and reform our nation's defenses. the national defense authorization act, u.s. defense and security broadly, is one of the few items this body regularly considers that's explicitly, unambiguously within the enumerated powers of congress. consequently, something deserves due consideration and significant debate on the floor in order for members to be able to raise issues like those that i've described today. yesterday this body attempted to close debate on this bill without consideration of a single amendment. not a single one. while this bill does make key
progress in limited areas, it does not get to the heart of many of our national defense problems. it does not restore congress' role in our national defense. it does not provide a holistic strategy to defend the united states or the people of utah or the people of any other state. this bill and the floor process yet remain missed opportunities. and i'm going to continue to fight for both necessary policy reforms and for an open process generally on the floor. anything less, particularly in this critical area, amounts to an abdication of the duties of this body to the detriment of the citizens we serve. we can and we must do better. thank you.
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. the supreme court of the united states will hear oral arguments on a case out of mississippi commonly known now as the dobbs case. that case is all about a mississippi law where mississippi passed a law saying at 15 weeks a child in development in the womb can be protected after that time period. it strikes right at the heart of roe v. wade, where in the arbitrary ruling from the supreme court in 1973, they
made up a new rule saying when a child is viable. not something that's in law at any spot -- created that out of whole cloth. tomorrow morning the supreme court will reopen that conversation about viability. it's an important discussion for us to be able to have as a nation, and it's vital that we talk about it here as well. as it's being discussed across the street at the supreme court, there are things we should discuss here as well. so for the next few moments there are multiple different senators are going to speak on this one issue. when is a child a child and when should states have the rights to protect their own citizens' lives. the supreme court made that murky and has the option tomorrow to be able to make that clear. this conversation, though, will circle around what should that legal standard be and how should we protect the lives of every citizen no matter how
small there are. there will be multiple senators that will be speaking in this room, the first of which will be senator steve daines, who leads the pro-life caucus in the united states senate. deigns -- mr. daines: i rise today the head of the one of the most important battle to protect life. when our founding fathers laid out the declaration of independence, they talked about life, they talked about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they called them certain inalienable rights endowed by our creator. the reality is you can't have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without first having that unalienable right given by god, and that is the right to life. tomorrow the united states supreme court will hear oral
arguments on the mississippi late-term abortion case, dobbs vs. jackson women's health organization. this puts our nation at the crossroads of history. our nation has a moment to finally modernize our laws. we've got the opportunity to catch up with the great advances we've seen in science, in technology, and medicine that indisputably shows the humanity of unborn children. we have the opportunity to end an extreme judicially imposed abortion regime that's aligned with nations such as china and north korea. the united states is just one of seven nations that allows late-term abortions. we have the opportunity to write a new chapter of american
history or the people's elected representatives get to decide abortion policy in this country. the supreme court of the united states has the chance to right an historic injustice and finally overturn roe v. wade. our court's nine justices have the opportunity to reconsider a wrongly decided case. and, by the way, that wrongly decided case that became case law, it was nine men in black robes that really have overruled the will of the people. it wasn't a state legislature. it wasn't the u.s. house. it wasn't the u.s. senate. it was nine men in black robes in 1973 that has since resulted in the death of over 62 million innocent babies. 62 million. they have the opportunity to reverse this horrific decision
that imposed abortion on demand until the moment of birth across the united states. they have the opportunity to recognize that roe was based on flawed and outdated science, and if the right to abortion which roe invented has no support in the text, the history, or the structure of the constitution. the supreme court has an opportunity to restore the constitution and defend our most fundamental rights, and that is a right to life. now let's go back to 1973 when roe was decided. many things were different than they are today. why? well, one reason is because science and technology and certainly fashions have advanced greatly. our phones in the 1970's went from large, brick-like devices
with antennas. in fact, the first cell phone call was placed in 1973, the very year that roe v. wade was decided. they were called bricks. they were about two and a half pounds. compare that to these thin, touch-screen smartphones that we fit in our pocket today that are less than six ounces of weight. in the 1970's, computers were the size of an entire desk, and now we have latops that can be thin as literally a child story read to my grandchildren over the thanksgiving holidays. now when we drove in the 1970's, compare that to what we drive today. i'm thankful that's changed. and in the 1970's, if you were a woman at the doctor getting an
ultra sound at the 15 weeks into the pregnancy, you would have seen something like this. that's hard to recognize, but that was the technology that some ultrasounds had, the best back in the 1970's. but today an ultrasound of a baby at 15 weeks, when they're using the latest 4-d technology, looks like this. you literally can see this little one here at 15 weeks sticking her tongue out. 15 weeks. a baby this size is who mississippi's historic lifesaving law would protect from the brutal violence of a late-term abortion. that is a 15-week baby. and if you don't believe me,
take out the smartphone, google 15-week baby and click on images. roe and casey made it illegal for states like mississippi to enforce laws to protect babies like this one on the grounds that this baby cannot survive outside the womb. there was a point called viability. roe and casey's viability line is arbitrary, it's unscientific, it's morally repugnant, because in 1973 babies could survive outside the womb at 28 weeks of pregnancy. today babies are surviving outside the womb as early as 21 weeks, but not yet as early as 15 weeks. it is barbaric to deny lifesaving protections to a helpless preborn child like this one simply because she cannot survive outside the womb.
the reality is even a full-term 40-week-old baby needs nurturing, care, and medical assistance to survive outside the womb. a full-term baby about delivered at 40 or 41 weeks still requires the nurturing and the care of the parent to survive outside the womb. they've got to be fed, they've got to be kept warm, they've got to be taken care of. they can't do it on their own. martin luther king once said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. this is also true in the case of the supreme court's prior unjust decisions on abortion. in fact, the logic of roe and casey's viability test undermines the moral coherence of civil rights protections for everyone who is unable to survive without assistance from others. that includes infants, young children, the elderly, and
persons with disabilities. a preborn child is not a, quote, potential life, as roe so wrongly concluded. this precious child and all children inside the womb at any stage of development are whole, they're distinct, they're living human beings. they are fully human and fully living. they are beautifully living children made in the image of god who should be protected by the law. now we've come a long way since 1973. our laws must now do the same. as you just saw at the time that roe v. wade was decided, it was very hard to clearly see a baby in the womb. but because of science and technology today, it's impossible to ignore the humanity of this growing baby. if i took this image and we had the american people say what is that, they'd say that's a baby. at 15 weeks, a baby has arms and legs, can hiccup, can
yawn. the heart's fully developed. at 15 weeks, the heart has already beaten 15 million times. that baby has distinct facial expressions, it can hear the voice of the mother and respond. it can taste, suck her thumb, as you can see that other image had, can even stick out her tongue. i'm a father of four, grandfather of two. we have another grandchild coming and our daughter's due date is december 3, it's friday. and my wife and i, we've been married now 30 years, have a way of tracking our grandbaby's growth. it didn't happen in 1973. i have an app called sprout. i can see what my grandson is doing in each week of the pregnancy. it is remarkable.
remarkable. we've been following this baby since week eight and we're at week 40. this cutting-edge technology is at the tip of our fingers. something that we couldn't imagine 50 years ago are now at the tip of our fingers. our laws must keep up with the advancement of science and technology. we must be clear what overturning roe could mean for the country. there's a lot of misinformation out there. let me state this as clearly as i can. overturning roe will not -- let me say that again -- will not ban abortion nationwide as many on the left like to claim in an attempt to mislead americans. that's false. it will not ban abortions nationwide. instead it returns the power to the states. it returns the power to federal lawmakers, allowing them to protect the most vulnerable and act on behalf of the people that
are -- they are elected to represent. because today under roe state lawmakers are robbed of their ability to represent the values of their constituents. yet, because of roe, the will of the people of mississippi to protect life is obstructed. according to a recent poll 80% of americans are opposed to abortions after the first three months, that's 12 weeks, of pregnancy. that is an overwhelming majority of the american people. but because of roe, their voices are being silenced. it's time for the supreme court to allow the states and federal lawmakers, those of us who are elected who are held directly accountable by the people to protect the most vulnerable among us. it is time we, the united states of america, a nation that is supposed a leader on human rights, recognize that babies in
the womb deserve equal protection under our laws. i'm sure many of my colleagues and most americans would agree that nations like communist china and north korea agreedgesly violate -- egregiously violate human rights, yet when it comes to abortion, america stands with them, just seven countries, and we're on the list. the united states is a global outlier on abortion. we are just one of seven nations that allow abortions on demand past the point where a baby feels pain, all the way up, in fact, until birth. standing with north korea and china on abortion is horrifying, it is a disgraceful place for the greatest country in the world to be. we must do better. i want to thank mississippi attorney general lin fitch, her
team, and the legislature for their unwavering support for life. we stand with you. millions of americans stand with you, young and old, they are praying for this momentous moment that will occur before our courts tomorrow. as we stand here today we are hours away from a pivotal point in our nation's history. i pray that we'll remember tomorrow as the turning point that closes a really dark chapter of our nation's history and harolds the dawning of a true day in america where those who don't have a voice finally have a voice. one that -- one that positions the united states as a leader in the world, that stands up and puts an end to the horrific violence of abortion, especially painful late-term abortions. i pray that we see the supreme court of the united states correct an historic injustice, that they would uphold
mississippi's 15-week abortion law and send roe v. wade to the ash heap of history. for the pro-life movement, overturning roe is not the end but just the beginning. as i stated earlier, this does not ban abortions nationwide. what it does, it will return the decision-making back to the states. no matter how the court rules, we'll continue to fight at the state and federal level to pass laws to end the violence of abortion, and will not rest until the day that every life is protected under laws from conception until natural death. i want to thank my colleagues for being here today to talk about the importance of the dobbs case. i want to thank my friend senator lankford who is leading this fight for life and i'm grateful to the two senators from mississippi where this case originated, this law originated, grateful for senator wicker, who
is here today and i know he wants to share some comments as well. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i congratulate my friend from montana for his passionate, an alit cal and -- analytical assessment of this right to life. i rise for my support and encouragement of the public officials and the attorneys who will bring this case before the supreme court in argument tomorrow. i rise, as does my colleague from mississippi, senator hyde-smith in appreciation for the state legislature where she and i served before coming to congress, and in appreciation for the governor and the legislature enacting the gestational age act, which is the subject of this dobbs case,
which will be argued tomorrow. this is a serious issue. it is an issue that will determine whether millions of american children have an opportunity to be born and to enjoy the good life in this, the greatest system of representative government that the world has ever seen. so it's a serious issue, but, mr. president, i'm happy today. i'm encouraged and hopeful today and one of the reasons that i'm so encouraged is that the american people steadily, over the decades, have been moving in the direction of protecting life. this is not -- this has not always been the case, and as my friend from montana so accurately pointed out, we just
know so much more, science knows so much more today in 2021, than science knew and americans knew and the world knew back in 1973. and so we see more and more people becoming pro-life. since 1995, the share of americans who identify themselves as pro-life has jumped to 47% from 33%. well, you say, well, that's not that great. of course it leaves some folks undecided. but when you sort it out and -- and become more specific, two out of three americans support a ban on second-trimester abortions. this is what the mississippi law does. this is the law that will be allowed to stay in effect if the supreme court rules in favor of mississippi based on the argument tomorrow.
fow -- four out of five americans oppose late-term abortions. my friend, the distinguished senator from montana, encouraged people within the sound of his voice to take their smartphones out and type in 15-week-old baby, and i did that. i don't know if the rules quite permit that on the floor, mr. president, but i dare say that is not the first time that has been done and so i did, i clicked on 15-week-old baby, i clicked on that and the picture of a baby came up and as the gentleman said, it is every much, every bit as much a human baby, no question. so i'm encouraged the american people are moving in the direction of life because they've seen these pictures, because they listened to the science and we know more than we did in 1973.
the supreme court knows more than it did in 1973. after 15 weeks, an unborn baby has more than 90% of its body parts that it will ever have. they've been formed and almost every organ is functional at the 15-week period. that's a baby. that's a human american baby. the child's heart is pumping 26 quarts of blood per day at 15 weeks and has already beaten approximately 15.8 million times by 15 weeks. that's a human. that's a baby. babies at this stage respond to touch and taste and a dominant hand begins to emerge. we know at that point, 15 weeks, whether that baby is
right-handed or left-handed. and, of course, we know that that baby can feel pain. that baby deserves the constitutional rights that the gentleman from nontanna mentioned -- montana mentioned of life and the pursuit of happiness as an american. and i do want to congratulate our friends across the sea for actually being ahead of us on this. we like to think that we know best and we're ahead of the curve. but it happens that almost every european country has legislation in place, rules in place that are very much like the mississippi law that will be in question tomorrow in the hearing. germany and belgian have banned elective abortions after 14 weeks. now, this law in mississippi has set that at 15 weeks, but germany and belgian, 14 weeks.
denmark, norway, france, a very live and let live country, if ever i heard of it, draws the line at 12 weeks -- 12 weeks. so when the supreme court hears this case tomorrow, they will have an opportunity to decide to place the united states of america in the broad mainstream of international thought on this. there are -- there are so many -- so many reasons why i am happy today and encouraged today that we have this opportunity to make a case based on the facts. and, mr. president, i will -- i will say this. my heart and my thanks go out to the millions of americans right
this minute who are doing what some think is a quaint thing, performing an act that many people are skeptical about at this point. but i stand with those millions and millions of americans who are right at this moment praying for the supreme court, praying for wisdom in these nine pientd and confirmed fig -- nine appointed and confirmed figures, they are praying for the right words to be said by the attorneys and they are praying for the future of our great country. this is our opportunity and we have every reason to believe that we are on the right side of history and i stand with the people who are bringing this case, and i stand with the people of mississippi and the millions upon millions of americans who are praying for the right decision.
and i yield to my good friend from across the river, the junior senator from louisiana. and i know that my friend from mississippi is also waiting to speak. mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we talk a lot in this chamber, as well we should, about the least among us, about how we can protect and lift up the powerless and that's a good thing. i can't think of any person who -- who has less power than a
potential human life than an unborn baby. now, roe v. wade is, of course, about abortion, we know that. but it's also about something else. roe v. wade is also about -- it's about federalism. roe v. wade is also about the american people. roe v. wade is about whether a finite group of the managerial elite -- and by the managerial elite, i mean the entrenched politicians, the bureaucracy, the media, the academics, the corporate phonies, all of whom think they are smarter and more virtuous than the american people, should have the right to
make moral decisions for the american people instead of the american people making those decisions for themselves. that's really what roe v. wade is about. now, mr. president, i am -- i'm pro-life. and i am anti-roe v. wade. so i want to say up front i do have an opinion. but, mr. president, even -- even pro-choice legal scholars who believe in legalized abortion on demand understand, as does every fair-minded person who knows a law book from a j. crew catalog that roe v. wade is one of the most arbitrary, it's one of the
most ad hoc, it's one of the most poorly reasoned decisions in the history of the united states. in roe v. wade, as you know, mr. president, the united states supreme court held that a generalized right to privacy, not explicit in the constitution, means that a woman has the virtually unfettered discretion to terminate a human life, some, to be fair, would say a potential human life, before viability. what's viability? as my colleagues talked about, that's a really, really good question. but i digress. anyone, mr. president, who knows
a law book from a j. crew catalog also knows that there is absolutely no foundation, not in the text, not in the structure, not in in the history, not in the -- not in the history, not in the tradition of the constitution for a constitutional right to abortion, and certainly not on the basis of some unmoored general right to privacy that's not enunciateed in the constitution. and don't even get me started, mr. president, on the -- on roe v. wade's trimester analysis and the ruling. try to find trimester in the united states constitution. you won't. you can't. the truth is -- and people on
both sides of this issue who are fair-minded and reasonably objective, and by that i mean they can see the other point of view. the truth is that roe v. wade's constitutional right to an abortion is a 48-year-old judge-invented rule that represents the united states supreme court winging it. now, i know what we were told. we were told back in the 197 1990's, we've got to have a national rule to settle this issue. only washington, d.c., can settle this issue. we have to have a rational rule. we need some peace in the land. we need consensus. how's that working out for us, mr. president? roe v. wade didn't settle anything. now, in the dobbs case, which
the united states supreme court is about to hear, the united states supreme court has a really rare opportunity to say, as justice scalia wrote in one of his opinions, that value judgments made on behalf of people should be voted on by those people and not dictated from washington, d.c. in the dodd case, the united states supreme court, mr. president, has the rare opportunity to say what we all know, and that is that america is this big, wide, open, diverse, sometimes messy, sometimes dysfunctional, sometimes imperfect, but always trying to get better group of good people. that's what america is. and we don't always agree.
especially not on value judgments. especially not on the ultimate value judgment like when it is appropriate to take a human life that's why we get to vote. that's why we get to vote. and that's why we have elected representatives who oftentimes vote on our behalf, elected representatives who also can be unelected if we don't like how they vote. and finally, mr. president, in dodd, the united states supreme court has the rare opportunity to deferrallize and deconstitutionallize abortion and return -- defederallize and deconstitutionallize abortion and return the constitution to the states the way it was before roe v. wade. the united states supreme court in dodd does not have the
opportunity -- and it's important -- to say no right to an abortion in america. let me say that again because some of the proponents of roe v. wade i think have shaded the truth on this. at issue before the supreme court in dodd is not the right to have an abortion. it's the right -- the issue before the supreme court in dodd is what's the appropriate political forum to make these value judgments. is it the government or is it the people? and i hope, mr. president, that the united states supreme court takes advantage of this rare opportunity before it. mr. president, i yield to the senator from mississippi.
mrs. hyde-smith: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mrs. hyde-smith: i join my colleagues today highlighting the momentous occasion for not only my home state of mississippi but for our entire nation. senator roger wicker and i could not be prouder of our state. tomorrow, the united states supreme court will hear oral arguments in dodd versus jackson women's health organization, a challenge to a mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. this law, the gestational age act, was introduced by my friend, mississippi state representative becky curry, and was signed into law by mississippi governor phil bryant in 2018. this case presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the court to reconsider decades of misguided abortion law that began with roe v. wade and has continued under planned
parenthood versus casey. there is no doubt that this case is the most significant pro-life legal opening in half a century and certainly in my lifetime. i am very proud that my state of mississippi is in the center of this. in the 48 years since the decision in roe v. wade, 62 million unborn babies have lost their lives. this is a terrible moral stain on our nation that we have a chance to reverse at long last. there are many reasons for the supreme court to reconsider its course. for one, medical technology has made significant advances, especially with ultrasound technology, making clear what those of us in the pro-life movement already knew, that
unborn children are human beings. thanks in large part to the ultrasound technology, we now know that by 15 weeks, an unborn baby has a fully developed heart with a strong heartbeat, responds to touch, and can make facial expressions, yawn, hiccup, and suck their thumbs. for another, the united states is a real outlier in the world when it comes to the abortion issue. we are one of only seven countries that allow abortions on demand up until the moment of birth, along with the likes of china and north korea. the supreme court should uphold mississippi's law, bringing our nation closer to the international consensus on human rights for the unborn. as a legislator, i am confident in saying it is time for our laws to reflect what the rest of the world has already figured
out, that life exists before birth and it needs to be protected. the only difference in a fetus and a first grader is six years. since the supreme court announced it would take up the dobbs case, i have been earnestly praying for this case. i have prayed for the members of the supreme court to be open to the legal and moral argument against roe v. wade. may god grant them the wisdom for the task and the grace for the unborn. i have also been praying for my friend, attorney general lynn fitch, the solicitor general scott stewart and many others in the a.g.'s office who worked tirelessly to represent our state so well in this case. with the oral argument scheduled for tomorrow morning, i pray that god would grant them all confidence and courage, as well as the right words to say in the
court. most of all, i have been praying for all the unborn children whose right to life hangs in the balance of this case. throughout this time, i've kept the words of first samuel 1:27 close to my heart -- for this child, i have prayed and the lord has given me my petition which i ask of him. so today, tonight, and tomorrow morning, i will be praying without ceasing. i hope each of you would join me in prayer of this historic court decision that started in mississippi. may the dobbs case restore the sanctity of life and reverse the moral stain of roe v. wade. thank you, mr. president.
mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: for nearly 50 years, roe v. wade has been -- our politics have been distorted by a ruling that deprives the american citizen, the voter, of the right to determine questions of which there is constitutional ambiguity. the senate confirms individuals to the judiciary branch to be judges. they are to judge, not to legislate. listening to those whom we represent and proposing legislation on their behalf is our job here in the capitol and the job of our representatives in state legislatures throughout all 50 states. the separation of these powers is crucial to how our democracy functions. yet, previous iterations of the supreme court have seen fit to usurp this legislative power, particularly as it relates to
abortion. in doing so, a majority of these unelected judges and justices have relied upon specious jurisprudence to eviscerate state laws that protect the unborn. you don't need to take the word of a conservative republican from kansas. writing when she was a circuit court judge, the late ruth bader ginsburg explained, quote, roe v. wade invited no dialogue with legislators. instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators' court. one more liberal law professor acknowledged that, quote, roe short circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values. these assessments are exactly right. the fallout of roe as a -- as affirmed by planned parenthood versus casey in 1992 is obvious. a vacancy in the supreme court has become a cage match, a fight here in the united states senate. someone as imminently qualified
as amy coney barrett should have been confirmed unanimously. today many of my democratic colleagues support packing the supreme court with more justices because they believe the court will block their agenda. which is ironic because for nearly half of a century, virtually every state effort to provide protection to unborn babies has been foiled by the judicial branch. something terribly wrong has happened to our democracy when so much energy is focused on the court. again quoting then judge ginsburg on roe's attempt to put the issue of abortion to bed, she said in 1985, the court's quote, heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved conflict. and in 1993 declared that the ruling, quote, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue. given these examples of our polluted discourse, no one can reasonably say that the politics of abortion have improved since then and in fact it has only
gotten much worse. what has improved, however, is our understanding of the science of embryology, regrettably it is not enough to say a unique human life begins at the moment of conception for it to receive protection. but we know when unborn babies feel pain, we know when they can survive outside the womb, and a remarkable 4d ultrasound reveals what we already knew. these unborn babies are fully human and deserve the right to life. and yet our legal regime denies them that right. because of roe, a child in america can be terminated for any reason, any reason up to the moment of its birth. that places us in the united states in the company of china and north korea. surely a democracy founded on the belief that all people are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has a greater respect for human life than these brutal communist
regimes. tomorrow's mississippi case will test that proposition. however, there is no doubt that the reversal of roe will not end the practice of legal abortion. several states have already enacted permissive abortion laws that will remain even on roe's demise. the point here is that my effort and the effort of my colleagues and millions of other americans to defend life will continue regardless of how the supreme court rules in the coming months, including in my state of kansas. these efforts will depend on civil persuasion of our neighbors and responsive state and federal legislators. we'll need legislation that protects the unborn and assists new families in caring for their child. tomorrow the supreme court will hear the most significant abortion case in the last 30 years. dobbs v. jacksons women's health organization. this case provides the court the opportunity to relinquish the legislative power it has assumed and return it to the people and their representatives.
the court will be better for it and so will our politics. and for -- most importantly of all, millions of future voices will get to have their say in the process, too. i now yield the floor to my colleague, the senator from nebraska, senator fischer. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer. mr. president, dobbs v. jackson women's health organization, the case that will come before our nation's highest court on december 1 is truly a historic case. it's about a law the state of mississippi passed in 2018 to ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. when i was a member of the state legislature in nebraska in 2010, we passed the pain-capable unborn child protection act. nebraska's bill banned most abortions after 20 weeks, the
point when science at that time told us that unborn babies start to be able to feel pain. we were the first state in the country to pass a law of this kind. and in our nebraska unicameral, we passed it with 44 yes votes and just five no votes. nebraska has a unicameral, one house, 49 senators. we had pro-choice, pro-life republicans and democrats that voted for this bill. we had pro-choice republican, we had a number of pro-life democrats. in fact, we had a former democratic national committeeman vote for this bill. all we cared about was protecting the most vulnerable people in our society, unborn
children. i was proud to support nebraska's bill. i was proud that pro-life democrats, pro-choice republicans put their differences aside to vote for it. and i'm proud today to stand with mississippi as their law comes before the united states supreme court. back in july i joined more than 200 of my colleagues in the senate and the house of representatives in filing an amicus brief supporting mississippi's bill. in our brief we argued that the precedence the supreme court set in roe v. wade and a later case, planned parenthood v casey -- v. casey are outdated. when roe was decided nearly 50 years ago, babies born before 28 weeks, they were not expected to survive.
today the miracles of modern medicine have allowed babies born much earlier to not only survive but to go on to live full and happy lives. just last year a little boy was born right next door to mississippi in alabama at 21 weeks. he was 132 days premature and he weighed just 14.8 ounces. 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable for him to live beyond a few days. but this july he celebrated his first birthday. 50 years ago ultrasounds and sonograms were not widely available. today they are an essential part of prenatal care. the pictures that these
technologies enable families to see of their unborn children, even at the early stages of pregnancy, are often nearly identical to the newborns they will soon become. the advancements of the last 50 years have left no doubt about the humanity of the unborn. and as science continues to progress over the next 50 years, new developments are going to keep allowing babies born earlier and earlier to survive and to thrive. the laws of just about every developed country have kept up with this rapid progress, but here in the united states our laws are stuck in the past. the u.s. is one of only four nations on earth where certain states allow abortions up to the
day of birth. that puts us in the uncomfortable company of china, north korea, vietnam. 90% of countries around the world limit abortion at 15 weeks, the same point as mississippi's law. and some even earlier. in europe alone there are eight countries with laws that are stricter than mississippi's. that includes germany where abortion is illegal in most cases just after 12 weeks. women seeking abortions before 12 weeks in germany also have to go through a three-day waiting period and a mandatory counseling session. mississippi's law isn't that different from germany's. in some ways it's even more lenient, but it's still being
challenged in our supreme court system based on legal decisions from decades ago. our laws are outdated and america's unborn children are paying the price. since 1973, more than 60 million abortions have taken the lives of more than 60 million american children, many of whom could have survived outside the womb. it is past time for the united states to move into the 21st century. the supreme court has a chance to help us do that by upholding mississippi's law in the dobbs case, and i hope they will. with that i would yield to my colleague from kansas, senator marshall, who is also a doctor,
gynecologist and obstetrician. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. marshall: i want to start by thanking the senator from nebraska for helping bring light to the significance of the dobbs supreme court case. for some 30 years i had the honor, the privilege of delivering a baby most every day of my life. some 5,000 babies in residency, another 5,000 babies in private practice. some days i delivered none. other days it was one or two. there were days when i delivered ten, 11, 12 babies a day. some of those babies i could fit in the palm of my hand. other babies i delivered several babies over 15 pounds. it's now been almost four years since i delivered my last baby, but i'm still often asked do i miss obstetrics and let me tell you, boy, do i miss it. my favorite part of the whole
process as i recall, though, was after a hard, long labor, seeing that baby emerged from the mother, holding that baby in my hands and waiting for it to cry. sometimes it was crying as it entered into this world. other times it took five seconds, sometimes 30 seconds, sometimes a minute or two would go by as we worked on the baby. but my favorite part of every pregnancy was taking that crying baby and handing it over to a new mom and dad. it was absolutely the most spiritual moment of my life, the closest i ever got to see what god was like, to see a newborn baby in the hands of its mom and dad with this just total egopy love, this unconditional love. it was just the honor of any life to experience that almost on a daily basis. but today i want to talk about
any favorite o.b. visit which came at 15 weeks typically. about 15 weeks after conception moms would come in for maybe their third or fourth visit. my first question was always, are you feeling the baby move. the mom's eyes would light up. maybe she had had a miscarriage before. maybe she was an infertile couple or maybe this was their third or fourth baby but every time when i asked them are you feeling the baby move, their eyes would light up. the mom would lay on the bed and i would put my hands on the abdomen to feel the size of the uterus to assess how big the baby was. as i put my hands on the skin, i could feel the baby pushing back or kicking back. and then we'd put the doppler on the mom's abdomen and listen to the baby's heart beat. and usually if there was a brother or sister in the room, that baby -- that baby's big brother or big sister would
squeal, mommy, what's that noise? what's that noise? and almost every time as i heard the sibling ask mom that question, you could hear the baby's heart rate increase with excitement. that was -- that baby inside the womb knew that was its brother or sister there that was talking and was excited to hear that voice. and the mom would respond, darling, that's your little baby brother or sister. and as mom spoke, the baby's heart rate would slow back down to what it was before, that calming voice. so that brings me to the dobbs case. the mississippi dobbs case protects life after that 15-week visit i just described. i recognize and believe that life begins at conception, but maybe not all of america agrees with me on that. but i do believe with all my heart a huge part of america
agrees we should not allow abortion on some babies that can feel pain, where they can respond to their mom's voice or their sibling's voice, right? ask yourself that same question. an unborn baby that can feel pain, that knows its mom's voice, should that baby be deprived of life outside the womb? i struggle as i watch america being one of seven nations that allows abortions after 15 weeks. and i point out that all these other nations are agnostic or totalitarian nations for the most part. and i struggle as i recall the moms and dads who lost a baby at 15 weeks or at 18 weeks or at 23 weeks. i recall their mourning. i recall their tears. i recall that how in our hospital we might be struggling to preserve a pregnancy to save a baby's life, to be
resuscitating a baby while in a nearby town, the abortion industry is claiming another life at this same gestational age. i struggle to think we live in a society that allows this barbaric treatment of the unborn. we hope and pray that this landmark supreme court case will result in a decision that reflects the values of most americans and protect life after 15 weeks. unfortunately because of a 2019 kansas supreme court case, my home state of kansas has become an abortion destination. an abortion destination. the kansas supreme court has paved the way for unlimited abortions, abortions paid for with tax dollars. that's why back home i'll be fighting for the amendment which protects the values of both the mom and the baby. look, america does not want unlimited, unrecreated abortion industry. this is not consistent with our values. i believe most americans value
them both. we value both the mom and the baby. i fought my whole life for moms and babies, and i'm going to keep fighting for them both. mr. president, i'd like to yield the floor then to my friend and mentor from texas who's been leading the fight up here in being d. for years and look forward to him sharing what texans are dealing with, the significance of this dobbs supreme court case. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you. mr. president, i want to start by thanking my colleagues for being willing to stand up and defend innocent human life. i remember recently watching a young woman walk across one of
the downtown bridges in austin, texas, carrying a sign that said "abortion. anytime, any reason." that's what she was advocating for. i was shocked when i saw it because i thought even the most ardent advocates of abortion would not take that position, denying the humanity of this unborn child. but apparently that's what has become here 48 years after the supreme court first created a right to abortion out of whole cloth as a constitutional right. you look in vain in constitution of the united states as well as the amendments of the constitution for any reference at all to abortion. what you will find, if you read
the declaration of independence, is a familiar statement to all of us. july 4, 1776, 13 states then made up america, said we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. by the way, there's no asterisk, there's no footnote that said, if you are an unborn human life that you are denied this unalienable right to life.
such noteworthy figures as ruth bader ginsburg, who was probably one of the most advocate -- most aggressive advocates for abortion rights on the united states supreme court, later in life decried the fact that by the supreme court holding a right to abortion as a constitutional right denied the very sort of give and take and debate by which our differences are resolved in the states and at the national level. and i'd just like to point out some of the misinformation that you hear and read about roe v. wade. if roe v. wade is no longer the precedent by which abortion rights are decided, it will not mean that abortion will not be available in many, if not all, of the states. what it will mean is it will be
decided under our federal system on a state-by-state basis, according to the decisions made by elected state leadership, including the legislature. 1948 was when richard nixon was gnawing -- inaugurated forked second time as president of the united states. suffice is to say that a lot has happened since then, a lot. and i think it's entirely appropriate that the united states supreme court revisit its precedence, including roe v. wade decided in 1973, and decide if that precedent has stood the test of time. by the way, serving on the judiciary committee, we frequently have have nominees fe
supreme court of united states come before the committee and many of my pro-choice colleagues will say, do you agree, judge or future judge, that roe v. wade is the precedent of the united states supreme court? and, of course, that is, along with casey and the other decisions that have been decide ed since then. but they act as though the united states cannot revisit bad decisions and correct those bad decisions. to act as though supreme court precedent is somehow sacrosanct would still leave us with the likes of dred scott, which treated african americans as less than fully human. obviously, we fought a civil war. 600,000 americans died. that would be the equivalent of three million people today, in a
bloody civil war that tore our country apart. so being able to revisit those precedents, especially in light of the passage of the time and over long experience, is entirely within the purview and entirely appropriate for the supreme court to do. well, we've heard from my other colleagues that since roe was decided in 1973, more than 60 million abortions have been performed in the united states. as originally was decided, justice blackmun wrote an opinion and established an event he called viability. abortion was basically the
argument is the by the opponents -- or the proponents of roe that somehow this decision by justice blackmun saying that abortion should be widely available pre-viability, that we should not be able to reconsider or take a look at that. the truth is, judge blackmun admitted -- this was an arbitrary standard. what does viability mean? we've heard seven countries around the world have more permissive or equally permissive abortion laws as the united states. i frankly don't want to be in the same company as north korea or the people's republic of china, governed by the communist party. i would hope that america would aspire to something different and better and more humane, more in line with our fundamental
statement about the unalienable right to life. but the fact that one of america's -- that america is one of only seven countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks, which as i said puts us in the same category as coal mine unfortunate china and north korea, you would think that that would raise a huge red flag and say, something is terrible wrong here. how is it that we are in the same category as communist north korea, communist china when it comes to the value we place on unborn life? well, unfortunately, we've seen the right to life become a partisan issue in the united states congress. when you take a look at the pro-life legislation, which has been introduced over the last
years, we saw last year, for example, our democratic colleagues filibustered legislation to outlaw elective abortions after 20 weeks, which is when science tells us that an infant can feel pain. then they block add fill requiring physicians to provide lifesaving care to infant who survive abortion,s. this is care that any newborn baby would receive, and yet our colleagues, so concerned about the backlash among their pro-abortion constituents, blocked it, denying a child born alive after a botched abortion the same sort of care that any other newborn would be entitled to, and they blocked it. the latest attack on unborn babies' right to life is the women's protection act.
this would undercut the supreme court's ruling that defined our current definition of viability. what does viability mean? even at 20 weeks can an unborn child live without medical attention and support from their mother or medical personnel? of course not. this is an arbitrary line drawn by the supreme court in 1973. and as we've heard from so many of my colleagues, medicine has thankfully advanced considerably since that time. well, even though the united states congress seems to be stuck when it comes to the issue of abortion and respecting the right to life of unborn babies, thankfully the states have taken the issue up, which is why states like mississippi have passed their own legislation to
protect unborn babies. pro-abortion advocates say, well, 15 weeks, which is what the mississippi law says, that a right to abortion only for the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy, that that violates constitutional rights. but it's interesting ... it's no less arbitrary than this notion of viability would suggest that a child could live, which they cannot, outside the mother's womb even if they're 20 weeks or 24 weeks of gestational age. interestingly, a number of states, like massachusetts and nevada, abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. in california, washington, illinois, those are among states a that explicitly restrict abortions after viability.
the american people clearly stand behind the protection of unborn life. this summer a poll found that 65% of americans believe that abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. that's the second three-month period of a nine-month pregnancy. opposition to third-trimester abortion is even stronger. 80% of americans are opposed to a third-trimester abortion. and indeed the supreme court of the united states upheld a nebraska law banning late-term abortion, which is essentially producing a delivery while the child is still alive, killing the fetus and then completing that abortion. the supreme court of the united states upheld a ban on that third-trimester late-term
abortion, that brutal and barbaric practice that even the supreme court could not abide. last june a baby born at 21 weeks and two days -- this summer, that baby celebrated its first birthday. that's what's at stake here when you're dealing with more than just one person -- or you are dealing with more than just one person. the question is, how do you balance and deal with the rights not only of the woman seeking the abortion but also the unborn child? right now or, under its current -- right now, under its current jurisprudence, that child is not even considered a human. america cannot be its best if we devalue lives of the most vulnerable among us. i believe that babies with heartbeats, fingerprints, and taste buds deserve some protection under the law.
i'm proud of the efforts led by our colleague, senator lankford, and others to make sure that we actually have a discussion about this issue and don't just sweep it under the rug and we don't just let the pro-abortion lobby mischaracterize what we're talking about. as if eliminating roe would eliminate abortions in america. it would allow the states to do it on a state-by-state basis. but actually roe was a made-up right, created a constitutional right that's not even stated in the constitution itself, and it created an arbitrary time limit in which abortions could be performed or not as a matter of constitutional rights. so i join the rest of this body and this country awaiting the
supreme court's ruling. i believe that it's more than appropriate for the supreme court to revisit its precedence that essentially disparaged and denigrated the right to life of an unborn child. mr. president, i would yield the floor. my friend from oklahoma. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: in december of 1952, again in december of 1953, the supreme court was packed. fs there was lines out into the hallway with people waiting to get in to hear oral arguments. in december the court would hear arguments on the legality of segregation brought by thurgood marshall representing the brown family from topeka, kansas.
just 56 years before brown vs. board of education, segregation was protected by the supreme court in plessy vs. ferguson. they ruled that separate but equal facilities were constitutional, thus enshrining the national disgrace of segregation into america. an absolutely terrible decision by the supreme court that haunted our nation for decades. and it took 56 years before the supreme court corrected its wrong. now more than a century past the plessy v. ferguson decision, the nation still celebrates the court that decided the brown vs. board of education case as justices righted a great wrong against millions of people. there was a simple lesson in that decision. when the court made a mistake, it should fix its mistake. in a lesser known case that affects just about every american now, in 2018, the supreme court overturned by a 5-4 decision, 51 years of
precedent on the collection of taxes for businesses called the physical presence rule. many people now know it as the internet tax rule. it changed the way taxes were collected on the internet. when they made that decision is in the 2018, there was great confusion and consternation, statements that it would be impossible to implement and it would bring certain destruction to the internet commerce. in fact, in the dissent in that 5-4 decision, the minority in the court stated this -- e-commerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of our national committee against the back drop of established rules including the physical presence rules. any alteration have the potential to disrupt a critical segment of our economy and should be undertaken only by congress. the court should not act on this question of current economic policy solely to correct a mistake it made over 50 years ago. it was hand-wringing by the court, the minority there, that they opposed correcting the
obvious mistake of the court from 51 years before because it could hurt the cyber economy. in other words, doing the right thing involved a risk. well, yesterday was cyber monday. it was one of the largest single days of purchasing online in history. the court did the right thing and the economy kept going. it was a simple lesson in that decision. when the court made a mistake, it should fix its mistake even if it was 50 years later. tomorrow the supreme court of the united states will hear oral arguments in what could potentially be the most consequential case for human rights in 48 years. tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., nine justices will hear arguments and ask questions of the attorney general of the state of mississippi and counsel representing an abortion clinic in mississippi. tomorrow morning the court will consider whether all
pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional. tomorrow this court has the opportunity to uphold the self-evident truth to personhood. the facts of science and have our hearts declaration, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. simply stated, the court has an opportunity to correct its mistake from 1973, 48 years ago. in 2018, the mississippi legislature enacted the gestational age act which limits abortion to 15 weeks of gestation except in medical emergency. jackson women's health organization, an abortion clinic in mitts -- mississippi sued federal courts in planned parenthood vs. casey. now it is known as the dobbs case. it stands before the supreme court at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. this case presents an
opportunity for the court to reconsider roe v. wade and turn the role of legislating on the issue of life back to the states where it was pre-roe v. wade. roe v. wade, as this body knows extremely well, the supreme court decided the constitution guarantees the right to have an abortion until the viability of a child, with very little understanding of the term viability. years later in planned parenthood vs. casey the court also said that the government couldn't place an undue burden on access to abortion which has been used to block many laws that aim to protect women and children. both decisions were completely arbitrary and not based in constitutional law. viability, quite frankly, is impossible to define because children develop at different speeds. one child, like curtis means who just left the university of alabama regional neonatal regional intensive care unit
after being delivered at 21 weeks, one day, the youngest child fob p born ever. -- to be born ever. another child may not survive if they were delivered at 32 weeks. viability was completely invented by the court in 1973 as a standard and is impossible to actually track. america has not forgotten about these children. we've not moved on and we've not just accepted roe v. wade. because when we see a child as this one is at 15 weeks, we actually see a baby. shockingly enough. 48 years ago the supreme court may have decided that a woman has a right to an abortion, but we never lost track of humanity. abortion is not just a medical procedure. it's the taking of a human life. i talked this morning with an abortion survivor, and, yes, they do exist by the thousands. she's in her 40's.
she has children of her own now. she survived a botched abortion and was actually delivered alive during an abortion procedure. she was taken by a nurse to the nicu unit of that hospital and is alive and thriving today. i sat there with that abortion survivor thinking that abortion is not about random tissue. it's about a person. quite frankly, this morning the person who was sitting right in front of me. i understand full well i'm a pastor who is now a senator. i'm fully aware that i have a biblical world view and my dedication to children is not just because i'm a follower of jesus and believe that every person is created in the image of god. i also firmly can look at the science. the science is clear to anyone who is willing to get past the talking points and actually look into the womb. at the moment of fertilization a new and distinct human being comes into existence.
it's not just a fertilized egg. it's a new human. this new cell which is called a zygote shows behavior that is unlike the behavior of any other cell around it that's in the woman's body. the d.n.a. inside that cell is different than the d.n.a. inside any other cell in the mom's body. that cell has everything that he or she needs to become a fully developed human being. everyone listening to me right now, everyone was once a single cell zygote. completely dependent on your mom for nutrition. it's why we encourage moms to eat good foods, take prenatal vitamins, stop smoking and all those things, because we want to protect the development of her child. why? because we all recognize that that's a child, and what a mom does now will affect the future for that child. as the baby grows in his or her mother's womb, it continues to develop.
at 15 weeks, as this baby is, and that is what the mississippi law is all about is a baby that looks just like that -- at 15 weeks a baby has heart, lungs, skin, eyes, nervous system. by 15 weeks or a little over a three months of pregnancy, this pre-born baby is moving around and responds to touch. all of her organs are formed and she just needs more time for them to grow and develop. her heart already has four chambers. it's already beaten millions of times and pumps more than six quarts of blood per day. she cannot breathe outside the womb, but she is breathing inside the womb. she has arms and legs, ten fingers and ten toes. and normally by this point already shows a preference for being right-handed or left handed. she have has eyes, lips, nose, finger nails, eyebrows, even taste buds. and she can feel pain. this decision is both ethical,
moral, and medical implications. look in the mirror for anyone in this room. you've got fingers and toes and lips and a nose and finger nails and eyebrows and taste buds. you can feel your heart beating. the only difference between you right now and this child is time. that's it. but for some, it's easy to just close their eyes and ignore the self-evident fact, because it's easier to talk about court precedent or choice, because if we looked at each child and recognized this child for who she is, it's hard to process that in the last 48 years, 62 million children have died by abortion in america. and for some, they can't allow themselves to acknowledge what is self-evident because it would
too painful to think about 62 million children. can i tell you, 62 million children is the combined population of vermont, alaska, north dakota, south dakota, delaware, rhode island, maine, new hampshire, hawaii, west virginia, idaho, nebraska, new mexico, kansas, mississippi, arkansas, nevada, iowa, utah, connecticut, oregon, kentucky, louisiana, alabama, and oklahoma combined. the court decision that led to the death of 62 million children's is a court precedent that needs to be discarded. prior to 1973, each state had
its own laws on abortion. that's what would happen again if the court overturns roe v. wade. we'll have a patchwork of laws about abortion just like we do right now on homicide. in some states like mine, if a pregnant mother and her child are killed the perpetrator faces two charges of murder -- one for the mom, one for the child. in other states the perpetrator would only face one charge of murder because that state doesn't recognize that child's existence at all. i think that's absurd, but that's a law in one state, and it changes from state to state. people can speak to their own state legislators about changing that law in their state and about recognizing the value of every child, even the child in the womb. but until they do, that child is a nonentity in some states. that kind of difference in homicide laws is allowed by the supreme court already. this court should give that same right to every state for every pre-born child, not just for
some. the law being debated in the supreme court tomorrow reflects the will of the people of mississippi, just as many pro-life laws in oklahoma and in our legislature have reflected the will of the people of oklahoma. the arbitrary outdated viability standard established by the court makes it harder for states to protect women from physical risk that accompany late-term abortions. it makes it difficult to allow states to protect pre-born babies in the second trimester that can experience pain. the viability standard prevents states from banning dismemberment abortion. the viability standard deters states from protecting children diagnosed with down's syndrome, developmental disabilities and children being aborted simply because they're male or female. it also prevents states from protecting the lives of their own citizens at any stage of development. i don't understand how infants have become a partisan issue. i really don't.
there are some issues, as i talked to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, i can see their perspective and their point of view. i may not agree, but i can understand their point of view. but on this issue i do not understand how some people see a baby sucking their thumb in a womb and only see them as medical waste. i don't understand how some people can support an abortion in one moment but talk to a woman who had a miscarriage, they immediately respond with, i'm so sorry. if a miscarriage is a loss of a child, what is an abortion. i don't know how someone who supports the right to support abortion, brings a gift to a baby shower. how can one child be worth celebrating and the other be medical waste? i don't understand that
compartmentalization. i don't know who those who support abortion, support -- children are not medical waste. children are beautiful, innocent, invaluable. some people that are pro abortion call pro-life people horrible names and they say they are trying to limit a woman's choice and her freedom while they work to protect her right to have her own baby, literally have its arms and legs torn off in the womb so the child would bleed to death in the womb and then each body part would be suctioned out separately. i don't consider that freedom. i can that cruel and inhumane. they say it's a woman's choice,
but when does the child get to choose? some people in our nation actually celebrate the death of children like it's some glorious empowerment of a woman that she is able to pick and choose which baby will live or die based on her decision. i don't think that is empowerment, i think it is barbaric. mother teresa stated that it is impoverty that you can choose a child to die so you can choose to live as you wish. change begins tomorrow. tomorrow, the court will have the opportunity to uphold the constitution, eradicate this and turn our discussion of life to each legislature of the state, now is the time for this court to overturn roe v. wade. our nation prides itself on human rights, but we have this
huge glaring exception. we deny the obvious fact of a child until they are born. we ignore a child's existence until it's convenient. i really believe in the decades ahead. our nation will catch up and we'll look back on these years with grief. we'll be shocked that when we saw a pregnancy test that saw positive, somehow we didn't figure out it meant positive for tissue, it meant positive for a baby. i look forward to the day when the united states will be a beacon of justice for every child, not just a few. when we'll be a nation that protects the weak, not just a nation that stands up for the strong. when we'll lead the world to protect the innocent and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. when america is a beacon of hope for every child.
southern slave owners in 1830 denied humanity to their slaves. men in 1900 denied women a right to vote. the united states rounded up japanese americans in world war ii and put them into camps. all three of those were considered legal and appropriate at the time. all three of those were fought tenaciously when they were changed and all three of them are a national embarrassment now. there was a time when the court ruled separate but equal was justice. then six decades later they reversed course ending segregation. justice requires when the court gets it wrong, they correct their own mistake. this time there are millions of children counting on the court getting it right.
blessed are those who have regard for the weak. the lord delivers them in times of trouble. solemn 41, verse 1. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. on november 3, this year, special counsel durham indicted christopher steele's primary sub source igoar danchenko. he indicted him on five counts of lying to the f.b.i.
he lied about his contacts and the identity of his sources. one of the more serious lies was about -- one was there was a phone call about a trump-russia conspiracy. that was part of the basis that the f.b.i. used to get a fisa warrant on carter page. now, according to durham, steele's source lied about the call because that call never happened. this is yet another stunning fatal defect against the obama-biden administration's
fake predicate to investigate trump. specifically, he had another illustration of justice department and f.b.i.'s failure. now, as a result of these failures, this country has been dragged through the mud for years. that statement is well understood at this point, but i have more to explain about it. the indictment also shows that one of steele's sources was, quote, a long-time participant in democratic politics, end of quote. and that he, quote-unquote, fabricated at least some of the information that he gave to danchenko. this source, identified as charles dolan, quote, actively campaigned and participated in
calls and events as a volunteer on behalf of hillary clinton's, end of quote, during the 2016 election. another one of danchengo's sources was also a hillary clinton supporter. charles dolan, gifted to this particular russian subsource, an autobiography of hillary clinton with these words, to a good friend, a great democrat. now, get this. while the democrats were smearing trump with false russia allegations, they were the ones rubbing elbows with russians and spreading false information in the media and, of course, the
media, as we know, gladly ran with that information. for example, president biden's current national security advisor jake southland promoted the fake story about the alpha bank communicating with the trump organization when he worked for the clinton campaign. notably during congressional testimony several years ago, sullivan said he wasn't sure who mark elias represented when he presented trump opposition research to the trump campaign. elias was the clinton campaign's general counsel. my oversight work dating back to december 2016, has focused on
the democratic policies and the clinton campaign's link to the steele dossier. last congress senator johnson and i obtained many records relating to crossfire hurricane. we were able to get many of them declassified for the public. i point you to our april 15, 2020; december 3, 2020; and december 18, 2020 for press releases on this information. some of the declassified records show that the f.b.i. had reports in its hand that showed the steele dossier was most likely tainted with russian disinformation. one document indicates that the f.b.i. received a u.s.
intelligence report on january is 12, 2017, warning of inaccuracy of the dossier's relation to michael cohen. the report assessed that the material was, quote, part of a russian disinformation campaign to denigrate u.s. foreign relations. end of quote. that same day the fisa warrant against paige was renewed for the fist time by acting attorney general sally yates. this is when the obama-biden administration and the justice department were still in charge. a similar u.s. intelligence report arrived on february 27, 2017, undercutting a key
allegation against then-president trump. the report noted claims about trump's travels to moscow in 2013, quote, were false and they were the product of russian intelligence services infiltrating a source into the network, end of quote, of sources that contributed to the dossier. just over a month later the fisa warrant against paige was then renewed for a second time. i'd be remiss if i didn't mention that the f.b.i. also opened a counterintelligence case on danchenko and failed to tell the fisa court about it. if this fact pattern was a movie script, nobody would believe it.
with durham's recent indictments, we now have even more proof that the trump-russia collusion investigation had the wrong name. it should have been the clinton d.n.c. russian collusion investigation. those in the democratic party ought to be ashamed of the falsehoods that they were spreading throughout these years. our political discourse has been damaged for decades to come because of that scheme. recently "the washington post" had to correct over a dozen articles relating to this, its