[Pages S130-S136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                        LAKEN RILEY ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 5, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the 
     United States with theft, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Thune (for Ernst/Grassley) amendment No. 8, to include 
     crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the 
     list of offenses that, if committed by an inadmissible alien, 
     require mandatory detention.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                          cabinet nominations

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last week, I had a chance to lay out 
some of my top priorities for the new Congress as Republicans take the 
helm. Today, I want to elaborate on the first of those priorities, 
which is to confirm President Trump's Cabinet.
  Back in November, November 5--it seems like a long time ago, but it 
was just the other day--Americans went to the polls to elect new 
leaders, including a President of the United States. Voters made their 
voices heard as to which direction our country should go because they 
plainly believed that we were heading in the wrong direction.
  As a result of that vote, President Trump won the election 
decisively. From my perspective, that means he is entitled to his 
team--absent some extraordinary circumstances--because it is his team 
or Cabinet that will help him follow through on the promises he made on 
the campaign trail. Once confirmed, these men and women will then

[[Page S131]]

be accountable to him and the American people to accomplish the goals 
he has set out for them. That is the way the process is supposed to 
work.
  Madam President, if you remember, back in 2017, during President 
Trump's first term, this process was not what you might call smooth 
sailing. In fact, Senate Democrats did everything they could to delay 
and derail the President's Cabinet. They did so openly, without shame 
or any embarrassment.
  In fact, when the Senate minority leader at the time was asked in an 
interview back in 2017 if he would attempt to keep Justice Scalia's 
seat open rather than work with Republicans to confirm a Republican 
President's nominee, he said, ``Absolutely.'' Well, it is funny how 
history works and how things work out. But of course Democrats went on 
to criticize Republicans for doing exactly the same thing that Senator 
Schumer said he would do if the shoe were on the other foot. It was an 
embarrassing moment or should have been an embarrassing moment for the 
Democratic minority leader. He sent a clear message to all of us that 
he was willing to put partisanship ahead of the country and before the 
voices of the American people who voted for President Trump could be 
heard.
  If Democrats repeat the same play this year, they will only further 
embarrass themselves and the party and be a disservice to the American 
people who elected President Trump and JD Vance on November 5. So I 
would like to caution my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, not to 
play the same shenanigans again, but unfortunately it looks like they 
have come up with a new tactic.
  The delays we are already starting to see in the confirmation process 
are completely unacceptable. We know when President Trump will be sworn 
in--that is January 20--and we need to make sure that as many members 
of his Cabinet, particularly his national security Cabinet, are 
available to be confirmed when President Trump takes his hand off the 
Bible.
  Just 2 days ago, Axios news reported some interesting details, for 
example, surrounding the Democrats' handling of the nomination of Tulsi 
Gabbard, President Trump's choice to be Director of National 
Intelligence. According to this report, Democrats on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee are refusing to work as a team with Republicans 
to schedule her hearing, citing concerns that her background checks are 
not yet completed.
  This is unacceptable. According to Axios, Ms. Gabbard has submitted 
all of the paperwork required on her end as part of the background 
check process. And this is someone who serves currently as a lieutenant 
colonel in the National Guard, a former Member of Congress, somebody 
who has been thoroughly vetted for security purposes.
  It is up to the Biden administration, because they currently hold 
office--including all parts of the executive branch, including the 
Department of Justice and the FBI--it is up to them to make sure the 
paperwork is expedited so Ms. Gabbard can have her hearing and 
presumably, if confirmed, be available to serve on day one, after 
President Trump is sworn into office. So the FBI needs to work 24/7--
not ``We will get around to it when we can''--they need to work 24/7 to 
get these background checks done before the nomination hearings so the 
hearings can actually be set. We know that if there is the will to get 
it done, it can be done. And in my view, it must be done.
  If Democrats are so concerned that the Senate does not yet have her 
background check, then the President, President Biden, should address 
those concerns by making sure that his FBI and his Department of 
Justice get the background checks done, because they are still 
technically in charge until January 20. There is nothing the Trump 
administration, the incoming Trump administration, can do officially to 
make that happen; it is up to President Biden and his FBI and his 
Department of Justice.
  By slow-walking her background check and causing delays for such a 
critical appointment, the Biden administration is posing a threat--an 
unnecessary threat--to our national security. We all know we are living 
in a dangerous world, and now is not the time to have some prolonged 
and unnecessary vacancy for the Director of National Intelligence.
  I would hope our Democratic colleagues and the administration--the 
current administration--would abandon this futile and dangerous tactic.
  As other nominees are working to complete their requisite paperwork, 
I would urge the Biden administration to work with the incoming 
administration, not against the administration, to expedite this 
process. They talk about a peaceful transfer of power--well, that is 
what this includes. This is part of that peaceful transfer of power 
from one administration to the next.
  Democrats have a duty and a responsibility to set aside any partisan 
tactics and to give the President an opportunity to have his Cabinet 
confirmed.
  Just imagine how Democrats and even the mainstream media would 
respond if an outgoing Republican administration intentionally caused 
delays for crucial appointments after voters gave them a mandate. They 
would claim this is a threat to our Nation's security. Republicans 
would be accused of playing games and ``playing politics'' with 
critical government Agencies. And, of course--their favorite pet 
accusation--Democrats would undoubtedly call these tactics ``a threat 
to democracy.'' Well, with the shoe on the other foot, the situation is 
no different.
  Back in 2015, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, said:

       [W]hen a President wins an election, they have the right to 
     have their team.

  That is exactly how we should understand this process. President 
Trump was elected, and he has a right to his team.
  Again, this doesn't mean that the Senate will rubberstamp any 
nominee. That is what advice and consent is all about: the background 
checks; the hearings, like we see this morning with the Secretary of 
Defense nominee, Mr. Hegseth. This means committees must hold hearings 
and votes for each of the President's nominees. It is that simple.
  And, of course, Democrats have every opportunity during these 
hearings to ask any questions that they want and to vote however they 
want. We are not saying their rights should somehow be constricted. But 
to deny and delay the hearings outright is simply unconscionable and 
dangerous.
  Democrats are not entitled to sabotage this President by denying him 
his Cabinet. Any efforts to do so undermine the democratic process and 
that peaceful transfer of power that we hear so much about and which is 
so important.
  Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the outgoing Biden 
administration alike must act in the best interest of the country--not 
in their party's best interest, not in pursuit of some partisan agenda, 
but in the best interest of the country. And it is far from America's 
best interest to have President Trump sitting alone at the White 
House--maybe with the Vice President--and no Cabinet there to support 
him in his efforts.
  President Biden should remember that people around the country and 
around the world will be watching very closely his final days in 
office. Unfortunately, his administration has already been marked by a 
multitude of failed policies and scandals. President Biden would be 
wise to note that the handling of the transition at the end of his term 
can, if mishandled, further tarnish his administration's reputation. 
History will not be forgiving if his outgoing administration decides to 
threaten the safety and security of the American people by causing 
unnecessary delays for Cabinet appointments, particularly his national 
security Cabinet.
  The American people elected President Trump as the next leader of our 
country. Now, it is time for the Senate to do our job by making sure 
that the President has the team he needs to do that job, and I intend 
to do everything I can to see that his nominees are confirmed on a 
timely basis.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page S132]]

  



                                  S. 5

  Mrs. BRITT. Madam President, last week, the Senate took a big 
bipartisan step toward honoring the life and legacy of Laken Riley, 
answering her loved ones' call to action, and protecting American 
families.
  But that step, no matter how big, was just that, a first step, and 
there are many to follow if we want to follow through for the American 
people on the demands to secure our border and interior immigration 
enforcement, make it real, take it seriously. And to do that, we have 
to break the cycle that we have seen year over year.
  The House passed the Laken Riley Act not once but twice. Senator Budd 
took this very bill to the Senate floor last year, and, unfortunately, 
our Democratic colleagues blocked it. I personally took the bill to the 
floor a second time and called on my colleagues to pass it, but not 
only did they say no, they stood in the way and didn't even allow us to 
have a hearing in the entire 118th Congress.
  Democrats persisted in their obstruction in moving this bill forward. 
It isn't just the Laken Riley Act the Democrats are standing in the way 
of; it is the safety and security of our American citizens. It is 
progress on making sure that we begin to have a more secure border and 
that our streets and communities are safer.
  But today is a new day in the U.S. Senate, and people's tunes have 
changed. While I am hearing from many of my colleagues across the aisle 
that they want to vote yes on this bill, that illegal aliens who commit 
crimes should be sent back to their country not released onto American 
streets, I am optimistic, but I want to caution my colleagues: Don't 
revert back to your partisan tribe.
  We can't lose focus on what this bill is about and what it would do. 
It would protect American families and save innocent lives. The Laken 
Riley Act is bipartisan; it is straightforward; it is targeted; and it 
is common sense.
  It will ensure that illegal aliens who committed a theft-related 
crime after unlawfully crossing our border are off our streets before 
they can commit the most heinous crime imaginable. Laken Riley's killer 
was first arrested for coming into our country illegally. Then he was 
unlawfully paroled and released by the Biden administration. Then, in 
New York, he was ``charged with acting in a manner to injure a child 
less than 17.''
  Then, again, he was released without ICE issuing a detainer. Then, in 
Georgia, he was charged for shoplifting, and, again, he was released 
without ICE issuing a detainer.
  Jose Ibarra then went on to kill Laken Riley. The Laken Riley Act 
would have prevented him from running wild through our country's 
streets. And had it been law, it would have saved Laken Riley's life.
  And if we enact it into law in the coming days, it will no doubt save 
American lives, and it will save families from the heartbreak and 
tragedy that Laken Riley's family has had to endure.
  Now, I want to be clear, this bill does not attempt to fix every 
single thing in our immigration and border security system. We all know 
that there are plenty. And we have had several other border security 
and immigration enforcement bills in the works. I personally have the 
WALL Act and the Keep Our Community Safe Act. But you will notice I am 
not trying to tack those bills onto the Laken Riley Act as amendments 
because this is a targeted bill to protect American families from 
criminal illegal aliens; isn't that common sense?
  Look, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, I think this 
is clearly common ground that we should be able to rally around. I know 
that my Republican colleagues heard the American people's voices in 
November, and we are answering that call. The question remains, will 
enough Democrats join us to make it happen?
  Unfortunately, there are some working to create another push to block 
this vital legislation. So special interest groups are working around 
the clock right now to try to kill this bill.
  They are waging a campaign of misinformation and, in doing so, trying 
to create enough momentum so this bill doesn't become law. They have 
created every farfetched hypothetical that they can dream up but never 
discuss the real tragedies--like Laken Riley--and how they could have 
been stopped if we had only done our job.
  I have refuted their claims in conversations with my colleagues, and 
we will continue to do so. But what the American people should know is 
this: These are the same groups that have publicly fought to keep our 
borders wide open for years. They are the groups who thought that Joe 
Biden was too tough on the border and immigration, if that is even 
possible.
  We know how far out of touch that is. These are, of course, groups 
who don't want ICE detaining criminal illegal aliens. They are the very 
groups that actually wanted to abolish ICE.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will listen to the verdict the 
American people delivered on November 5, rather than the propaganda of 
these radical interest groups.
  The time to act is now. The American people have made their voices 
heard. They want action, and they want it without any delays. They want 
the Laken Riley Act. It is a strong bipartisan piece of legislation 
that has support from both sides of the aisle in both Chambers.
  Forty-eight House Democrats voted for it. It is cosponsored by 
Senators John Fetterman and Ruben Gallego of the Democratic Party. I am 
grateful for their cosponsorship and their courage to say now is the 
time for results.
  I have been encouraged by other Members of the Democratic Party who 
have said: This is a bill I would like to see cross the finish line.
  Last week, we had 84 Senators who voted to advance it. So each one of 
my colleagues is left with one simple question this week: What will you 
choose to protect--open borders or American families? To me, that is a 
pretty simple choice.
  It is time to fulfill the responsibility we have to the American 
people to protect the citizens of this country from criminals who would 
do them harm. It is time to make sure that what happened to Laken Riley 
and her family never happens again.
  It is time to pass the Laken Riley Act, and it is past time to choose 
American families.
  I look forward to this body having the courage to do that this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                            Child Tax Credit

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, we are here in the second week of the 
119th Congress with enormous work to do. We have a border to secure; we 
have streets to make safe; we have an economy to resurrect. We have, in 
short, a great nation to rebuild.
  And nothing could be more central to that rebuilding than the 
strengthening of the American family, and nothing could be more urgent 
for our future than the revival of the American working class. And 
those two things go precisely together.
  The truth is we have been living these last 40 years or so in the 
great American decline. Our economy has declined. We were once the 
manufacturing and trade capital of the world. Everybody wanted to trade 
with us. We were the envy of the world in every possible way 
economically. That is not true any longer. Now we are a debtor nation. 
Our standing in the world has declined. We were the leader of the free 
nations not so long ago. Now, the nations of the world rush to court 
China and regard the United States as yesterday's news.
  Our cities have declined. They are not safe. Our health has declined. 
Our hope for the future has eroded. And all the while, this town has 
plowed ahead with the failed policies of the last 40 years. This town 
has assured us that everything is fine. We only need to spend a little 
bit more, issue a little bit more debt, give our giant corporations a 
few more tax breaks, maybe get involved in another foreign war or two. 
This town has pursued the projects of the governing class and neglected 
the weightier matters, the well-being of our families and of our 
working people.
  And let's be honest. My party, the Republican party, has too often in 
these years been part of the problem. The Republican party has too 
often spoken up for corporate interest rather than for the interest of 
families. The Republican party has too often cooperated with a 
corporate agenda rather than an agenda to empower workers.

[[Page S133]]

  We need a change in this town. We need a change in this Congress. We 
need a change in this party, and that is the opportunity that we have 
in the moment before us, because I submit to you the fact is this: You 
can measure the strength of a nation in the strength of its families, 
and you can study the struggles of a nation in the struggles of its 
working people. And right now, our families and our working people in 
this country are struggling.
  There was a time not so long ago in this country when a man got a 
high school degree and then got a job and then worked at it decidedly 
and learned a skill and worked hard and saved where he would be able to 
provide for a family, start a family, get married, provide for kids, 
have a future, have something to look forward to. That is just not true 
anymore. Those days, in fact, are long since gone.
  During the last 40 years, real wages for working people have 
flatlined. And during the last 4 years, real wages for working people 
have declined. Here is just one measure of that. The Bureau of Economic 
Analysis reports that disposable income--that is income after taxes--
fell almost 10 percent--10 percent--during Joe Biden's Presidency. And 
that was, I might emphasize, for all earners. That drop was even 
higher, more steep and more devastating, for America's working people 
and for America's working families.
  The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a family wage any 
longer, not in this economy. Now parents have to work multiple jobs to 
support just one or two kids, if they can afford to have children at 
all. I mean, let's just think. In the 1960s, the average family had 
just shy of four children. Today, that number has fallen by more than 
half. And here is the really interesting thing: Families today tell 
researchers they would like to have more children. To be specific, more 
than half, approaching 60 percent of American families, tell 
researchers that they would like to have more kids, but they don't. Why 
not? Because they can't afford it. And that is all families. The 
numbers are higher, once again, for working-class families.
  Here is what I would say. There is something fundamentally wrong with 
an economy when the working people who power that economy cannot afford 
to have children that they want. There is something fundamentally wrong 
with an economy when the working people who are the strength and source 
of all of its might cannot provide for the children they have with the 
labor of their own hands. But that is our reality. That is where we are 
today. And it is time to do something about it.
  The test of this Congress will not be what we do for foreign nations. 
It will not be what we do for our largest corporations. It will not 
even be what we spend on defense or how we increase the Nation's GDP, 
though those are important priorities. The test of this Congress will 
be whether we strengthen America's families and whether we deliver for 
America's working people.
  Because in those families lies the hope of this Nation. And in those 
working people resides the wellspring of our great national strength.
  The well-being of our families and of our working people is not one 
priority among many, I submit to you. It is not one more interest to 
satisfy. It is a moral imperative. It is our overriding moral 
obligation, and it is, for this Congress, a moral test.
  And for every Republican who went out and campaigned on strengthening 
families, on delivering for working people, for every Republican who 
has hailed the new working-class coalition that President Trump has 
assembled, this is the time to deliver. This is the time to stand up 
and be counted. Rhetoric on the campaign trail is cheap. Delivering 
actual solutions, delivering actual results here in this body, that is 
the acid test, and that is where we are today.
  Now, it is time for this new majority, this Republican majority, to 
stand up and be counted. It is time to deliver on the agenda that we 
ran on. It is time to realize the promise that our voters have invested 
in us. It is time to realize the hope for the future that our voters 
are counting on us to deliver.
  And to meet that test, to meet this moral priority, we must reshape 
our Nation's tax policy and, indeed, rebuild our Nation's economy 
around our Nation's families. And the surest way to do that is to 
reform and expand the child tax credit.
  You know, the child tax credit was first proposed in its earliest 
form by President Ronald Reagan, who was looking for a way back in the 
1980s in circumstances not so dissimilar from ours, to deliver real, 
meaningful tax relief to working families with children. And then, in 
1994, the famous Contract with America promised what became today's 
modern child tax credit to deliver once again real tax relief for every 
working family in this country. And now it is time for us again to 
strengthen that pledge and that promise and to deliver new and powerful 
tax relief for every family that will help strengthen our working 
families, help put our workers on a firmer foundation, help get our 
economy working again for the people who make it work for the entire 
Nation.

  Now under current law, the child tax credit is available to eligible 
families with up to $2,000 in tax credit relief per child. Here is my 
suggestion. Here is my proposal: We should more than double that 
amount. We should dramatically increase it. We should make it $5,000 
per child. And more than that, we ought to allow families to apply this 
tax relief against payroll taxes.
  Currently, even families who are paying into the payroll tax system--
that is, families who have a job, workers who have a job, a mom and dad 
who are paying taxes--they can't begin to claim the child tax relief 
until they meet a certain threshold of income.
  My view is this: We ought to allow them to start applying this tax 
relief against every dollar that they pay into the payroll tax system. 
Most working-class families pay considerable sums in payroll taxes but 
relatively little in income taxes. And there is a lot of misinformation 
about this, a lot of misnomers out there, many of them, sadly, repeated 
by some who call themselves conservatives. You all heard that old saw 
that 47 percent of American taxpayers, American workers, don't actually 
pay into the tax system. That is just not true. Every worker who has a 
job is paying payroll taxes; that is over 15 percent. And many of them 
are paying full freight because they are self-employed or they are gig 
workers.
  My point is this: If you have got a job and are working, you are 
paying into America's tax system. You are paying payroll taxes. And for 
families, many working-class families, they are paying significant sums 
in payroll taxes. But because of the increased threshold for income 
taxes, they don't have a whole lot of income tax liability.
  So the challenge is: How do we deliver real and meaningful tax relief 
to these working-class families who are paying significant amounts of 
money in payroll taxes but yet don't qualify for those income tax 
deductions and benefits that higher earners get, like the home mortgage 
deduction, for instance. That only kicks in if you are at a certain 
level of income. For many working-class families, they don't qualify 
for those deductions. They don't qualify for those tax expenditures. 
But yet they are paying significant sums in payroll taxes every single 
year.
  This proposal delivers significant tax relief to them. It allows them 
to claim tax relief for every child who they are raising as they go out 
there and they work their jobs. And I would just say to you, this is 
how it was meant to be. The child tax credit as it was proposed in its 
current form by that Republican Congress in the 1990s, as it was 
proposed in the Contract with America back in 1994 was supposed to be 
credited against payroll taxes. That was the original proposal, and 
there is good reason for that. These families are contributing to our 
economic system, to Social Security and Medicare. They are paying 
taxes, along with everybody else, but right now they are not getting 
tax relief. The Contract with America was supposed to change that. It 
is time to deliver on that promise: Make the child tax credit available 
against the first dollar earned in payroll taxes.
  Here is another change. We ought to deliver the credit to families in 
regular installments throughout the year. The truth is many working 
families can't afford to wait until the end of the year to tally up and 
figure out how much tax credit they might get back, how much relief 
they might qualify for. They are paying their taxes in every

[[Page S134]]

single paycheck that they earn. It is coming out of their paycheck 
every couple of weeks or every month. We ought to be returning real tax 
relief to them in the same increments. So let's make it advanceable. 
Let's give it to families in installments that they can use across the 
year as they go out there and earn a living and pay their taxes.
  And we ought to make the credit available to expecting parents as 
well. We should say that parents who are expecting children, a child 
not yet born, ought to be able to claim that tax credit up to $5,000 
depending on the amount of payroll taxes that they pay, even if the 
baby has not yet arrived.
  Pregnancy is costly. Hospital bills are outrageous, and working 
families who are expecting children should be able to claim tax relief 
on the same basis as families with older kids.
  This plan would provide major generational tax relief for working 
families with children. And I emphasize ``working.'' What I propose is 
not social assistance. It is not social insurance even. It is a tax 
cut. You have to work a job and pay taxes in order to earn the credit.
  But under our current system, too many families do work. Under our 
current system, too many do pay considerable sums in taxes but do not 
qualify for tax relief in any meaningful way. It is time to change that 
and make this relief available for working families.

  And this proposal advances a second important principle as well. And 
that is the principle that everyone who pays taxes ought to get relief, 
and relief ought to be available on the basis of family.
  Conservatives have said for years that family is the cornerstone of 
society. We have said for years that it is the first and irreplaceable 
building block of our Nation.
  Well, our tax policy ought to reflect that. Our whole national policy 
ought to reflect that, and we shouldn't shy away from saying that we 
ought to deliver tax relief and tax cuts on the basis of family 
formation, on the basis of family size, and, yes, on the basis of 
family need.
  Madam President, this is only the beginning. There is much more to 
do. We have years of decline of the American family to reverse. We have 
years of neglect of the American worker to undo. The challenges are 
indeed formidable, but this is the moment for the revival that we seek. 
And so let us not delay. Let us begin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


         Unanimous Consent Requests--S. Res. 24 and S. Res. 25

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, for almost 4 years now, Joe Biden has 
subjected our country to economic misery, uncontrolled crime, and 
international humiliation. And now, on the way out of his failed and 
scandal-plagued Presidency, he is showering gifts and favors to some of 
the most depraved human beings.
  It started last month with Hunter Biden, pardoning his own son not 
just for the crimes he was convicted of and pleaded guilty to but for 
all crimes that he may have committed. Lord only knows what Joe Biden 
was trying to cover up.
  The hits continued when he issued 1,500 blanket commutations for 
criminals whose records, by his own aide's admission, he did not 
review, whose victims he did not consider--an affront to the pardon 
process envisioned by our Founders, intended to correct specific and 
limited errors in the criminal justice system.
  Among the beneficiaries of these commutations was a corrupt judge who 
sent hundreds of kids to jail for bribes. Yes, a judge took bribes to 
imprison children. The victims of the so-called ``kids for cash'' judge 
included a young man who later killed himself.
  These 1,500 commutations also benefited hundreds of drug dealers, 
fraudsters, and thieves. Joe Biden and those who control him, though, 
didn't seem to care about the victims of these criminals. Instead, they 
just continued their uncaring, offensive giveaway to criminals.
  It has continued. In just the last 2 weeks, we learned that the Biden 
administration released 11 Yemeni terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, 
including two suspected bodyguards of Osama bin Laden. We also learned 
that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two other architects of the 9/11 
attacks will avoid the death penalty as a result of the Biden 
administration plea deal.
  That plea bargain is an insult to the sacrifice of thousands of young 
Americans who left their homes, their families, and their professions 
after 9/11 and volunteered to go fight on behalf of our country. That 
is an absolute disgrace, and it alone would blacken the legacy of any 
Presidency.
  There should be a Senate resolution condemning every single one of 
these commutations and the release of every single terrorist. 
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats would block every single resolution.
  Case in point: Last month, I introduced a resolution condemning the 
Democrats' commutation of that ``kids for cash'' judge. Surely, we 
could agree on that. But, no, Senate Democrats, led by the Senator of 
Illinois, objected to even that limited bill.
  Therefore, I have come to the floor today not to condemn all of these 
atrocious actions, though they all deserve condemnation. I am simply 
here to judge the depth of the Democratic fealty to a disgraced 
President halfway out the door.
  I am asking the Senate to condemn just two of President Biden's 
latest and most inexcusable commutations of all--his commutations of 
death row inmates' death sentences. Just 2 days before Christmas--2 
days before Christmas--when most kids had visions of sugarplum fairies 
dancing in their heads, the President announced that he was commuting 
the death sentence of 37 rapists, murderers, and sadists. With that 
action, he brought relief to 37 depraved monsters on death row and 
despair to the families of their victims during the holiday season.
  It is difficult to express the cruelty of reminding these families of 
the worst days of their lives and robbing them of justice right before 
Christmas--a Christmas gift to 37 savage murderers and a reminder to 
those families that, not only will they never spend Christmas with 
their loved ones again, but they won't get justice for their loved 
ones.
  The President showed disdain for the victims of these crimes and 
their families, presumably and cynically hoping that the Christmas 
holiday would suppress media attention and public backlash against his 
commutation. I don't think so.
  Now, the President and his defenders would like the American people 
to think that President Biden made these commutations out of some 
principled objection to the death penalty. I could respect that. I know 
people who are opposed to the death penalty, no matter how heinous the 
crime, in all cases, usually founded in a deep-seated religious 
conviction. I can respect that. I certainly disagree with it, but I 
understand it.
  But that is not what Joe Biden did. That is a lie. He commuted the 
sentences of 37 death row inmates, and he left 3 killers on death row. 
Who are they? You may have heard of them. The Mother Emanuel Church 
shooter in Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter in 
Pittsburgh, and the Boston Marathon bomber. So, clearly, he believes in 
the death penalty for some criminals but not most.
  He made a choice, a moral judgment, that the victims of 37 depraved 
murderers and their families didn't deserve justice. He also made a 
choice that not even he, doddering out of the White House, could defend 
the commutations of racist murderers and terrorists on political 
grounds or inflict that kind of grave political damage on his own 
party.
  But he wasn't motivated by principle. He was motivated by politics 
and guided by leftwing ideologues. He handpicked 37 murderers to save 
from death row. Unlike the rest of his pardons and commutations, you 
can't hide behind the excuses of staff, incompetence, personal 
ignorance, or the affection of a father. He knew who he was pardoning, 
and he knew the evil crimes they committed.
  I would like to discuss in a little more detail just two of the 
depraved savages that Joe Biden saved from death row. The first is 
Anthony Battle, who broke into his ex-wife's home and raped her, 
stabbed her to death with a butcher knife. She was heard screaming: 
``Help me, help me, rape.'' She was a U.S. marine, and Anthony Battle 
raped and murdered her.

[[Page S135]]

  Yet that murder wasn't even the crime for which he was on Federal 
death row. He wasn't done. While he was in prison, he beat a 31-year-
old correctional officer to death with a hammer, hitting him in the 
back of the head three times until he was soaked in the officer's 
blood.
  The corrections officer hadn't even done anything to provoke or 
confront Battle. Battle beat him to death anyway. When he was given a 
chance to apologize for the killing, Battle said the officer ``died 
like a dog.''
  This is why we have the death penalty for correctional officers; so 
inhumane monsters who are stuck in prison for life have some reason not 
to start open hunting season on correctional officers.
  This is the man that Joe Biden decided deserved mercy 2 days before 
Christmas, a man who raped and murdered a U.S. marine and bludgeoned a 
police officer to death.
  Joe Biden also saved the life of Marvin Gabrion, another rapist and 
serial killer. While facing trial for raping 19-year-old Rachel 
Timmerman--yes, that is right. He was on trial for raping a 19-year-old 
girl. Gabrion kidnapped her.
  He bound her body with duct tape, he chained her to a concrete block, 
and he threw her into a lake while she was still breathing. Her last 
moments were filled with terror and agony.
  In addition, he also killed her 11-month-old baby--11 months old. He 
allegedly confessed in prison that he ``killed the baby because there 
was nowhere else to put it.''
  This is the man that Joe Biden also decided deserved clemency 2 days 
before Christmas.
  It is an ancient truth that some crimes are so evil that the scales 
of justice can never balance so long as the perpetrator lives. Every 
day that men like Marvin Gabrion and Anthony Battle draw breath at the 
expense of American taxpayers is a day that justice is denied. There is 
no forgiveness in this world for what they did, and there is no 
redemption. The sooner they exit this world, the sooner they will face 
the full measure of justice next.
  And that is just two. I could give you 35 more examples as well. That 
is all I am asking for today--unanimous consent for two resolutions. 
The first one condemns the commutation of Marvin Gabrion, a rapist and 
serial killer. The second condemns the commutation of Anthony Battle, 
who raped and murdered a U.S. marine and bludgeoned a correctional 
officer to death.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed 
to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which 
are at the desk: S. Res. 24 and S. Res. 25; further, I ask unanimous 
consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, 
and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the presentation 
of the Senator from Arkansas and waited to hear five words. I waited 
patiently as he described these heinous crimes and the action of 
President Biden--waiting to hear five words. To my knowledge, unless I 
missed it, he went through his whole speech without mentioning those 
five words. They are critical to this whole issue.
  I would like to clarify the record on Biden's recent clemency 
efforts. On December 23, President Biden announced he would commute the 
sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals who were on Federal death row. 
These individuals will now have their sentences reclassified from 
execution--here are the five words--to life without possibility of 
parole--life without possibility of parole.
  Now, I understand Senator Cotton is opposed to the President's 
commutations in at least two of these cases. I want to be clear. The 
crimes he described, the crimes these individuals all committed are 
egregious, and there must be accountability. The President's decision 
provides for accountability. With a term of life imprisonment without 
the possibility of parole, this will ensure that these individuals will 
never again pose a threat to public safety, never again enjoy freedom 
in their entire human lives.
  Now, my colleague from Arizona may disagree with the decision. That 
is his right. But I have long advocated for the abolition of the 
Federal death penalty. And I know he sees it differently.
  I commend President Biden for his leadership. The death penalty is 
deeply, deeply flawed. History tells us a terrible tale of the victims 
of the death penalty in America. It has disproportionately been applied 
to people of color. That is a fact. That is why I serve as lead sponsor 
of the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act, bicameral legislation to 
prohibit the use of the death penalty at the Federal level.
  I spoke out in July of 2020, when the Trump administration ended a 
17-year hiatus on Federal executions. In total, Trump oversaw 13 
executions in the last 6 months of his Presidency. I will continue to 
urge Congress to pass my legislation to end the Federal death penalty, 
following the lead of 23 States that have already done so, including my 
State of Illinois. This failed and unjust policy has no place in a 
civilized society.
  If Senator Cotton is concerned about undermining the rule of law and 
robbing victims of justice, we should consider for just a moment 
President Trump's pardons--for example, President Trump's decision to 
grant clemency to all 10 healthcare executives and doctors convicted in 
one of the largest Medicare fraud schemes in the history of our 
country. These decisions wiped away years of prison sentences because 
of the action taken by President Trump and restitution totaling 
hundreds of millions of dollars from some of the worst healthcare 
fraudsters in America's history. At least seven people pardoned by 
Trump have gone on to be charge with another crime, a new one.
  President Trump also used his pardon power to provide relief for his 
political loyalists. Who am I referring to? His former campaign manager 
Paul Manafort, his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, his former 
adviser Steve Bannon, and at least seven Republican Congressmen who 
have been convicted of crimes.
  Now President Trump has promised he will pardon the January 6 rioters 
on day one of his new administration. He calls them ``political 
prisoners.''
  I would like to ask my colleague from Arkansas if he supports 
pardoning the following individuals:
  David Dempsey, convicted of assaulting police officers by using ``his 
hands, feet, flag poles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of 
furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on'' as a weapon.
  How about Shane Jenkins--a Trump pardon--convicted of using two axes 
to break into the Capitol and assaulting police officers by throwing 
furniture and a flagpole at them.
  Kyle Fitzsimons, convicted of five separate assaults against law 
enforcement, including one that caused career-ending, life-altering 
injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. A pardon? Is 
he ready for a pardon?
  Kenneth Bonawitz--a member of the so-called Proud Boys--assaulted at 
least six officers, placing one officer in a choke hold, lifting him by 
the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely, it forced him into 
retirement.
  I don't recall the Senator from Arkansas or any of his Republican 
colleagues introducing similar resolutions to criticize any of 
President Trump's pardons, and I haven't heard any Senate Republicans 
urging President-elect Trump not to pardon the January 6 rioters.
  President Biden's commutations providing for life imprisonment 
without parole are far more defensible than President Trump's use of 
the pardon power during his first term or what he is planning for the 
first day of his second term.
  For these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hawley). The objection is heard.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

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

[[Page S136]]

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

       If you committed violence on [January 6], obviously you 
     shouldn't be pardoned.

  I hope the Senator from Arkansas agrees.
  So I ask unanimous consent on my resolution. It is a resolution that 
contains the allegations which I made earlier.
  Let me read the necessary script for the record.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of my resolution at the desk; further, that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which I 
certainly will, I want to briefly address what the Senator from 
Illinois said about my resolution condemning these two death sentence 
commutations.
  I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Illinois is a longtime 
and principled opponent of the death penalty, based I believe in part 
on genuine and deep faith convictions. He has had that conviction for 
years. As I have said, I can respect that.
  The Senator from Illinois presumably wants to see the commutation of 
the Mother Emanuel Church shooter, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter, 
and the Boston Marathon bomber. I strongly disagree. I can respect it. 
It is not what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden picked and chose which depraved 
murderers and rapists deserved to live and deserved to die, denying 
justice to the families of all those who were killed by anyone who 
wasn't totally politically toxic.
  Second, the Senator from Illinois said that he did not hear five 
words in my remarks. He repeatedly said he didn't hear five words in my 
remarks. Those five words he didn't hear are ``life without the 
possibility of parole.'' That is true--he didn't hear those words in my 
remarks. That is not what these murderers were sentenced to. They were 
sentenced by a jury of their peers to the death penalty. And one of 
them that I offered the resolution on, Anthony Battle, murdered a 
correctional officer while he was in prison for life.
  Giving these 37 depraved murderers life in prison without the 
possibility of parole doesn't solve the problem; it creates 37 new 
potential problems--open hunting season on correctional officers at 
every facility where they are incarcerated. Again, that is why we have 
the death penalty for the murder of a correctional officer--because 
otherwise there is nothing for these depraved men to lose.
  Senator Durbin also mentioned a few of President Trump's pardons of 
Medicare fraudsters or political allies or others. I haven't reviewed 
every one of those cases. I am not prepared today to say whether I 
would support them or not. Some of them sound pretty bad. Here is what 
they aren't, though: heinous murderers who duct-taped a woman alive, 
tied her to a concrete block, and threw her in a river while the 
murderer was on trial for her rape and then killed her 11-month-old 
baby because he didn't have anything better to do with it.
  He mentioned the January 6 defendants. President Trump said he is 
going to likely issue pardons in some of those cases. I think that is 
appropriate. Many of these men and women have been convicted of 
misdemeanor crimes like parading and picketing on public grounds 
without a permit, and they had the book thrown at them, including a 70-
year-old great-grandma who was just walking around wearing a red MAGA 
hat. I expect, I hope, the President will review these cases on a case-
by-case basis. I think all Presidents should do that. But whatever 
President Trump does with the January 6 defendants through commutations 
or pardons will pale in comparison to eliminating the judgment of these 
37 depraved murderers' fellow citizens to impose the death penalty on 
them, will pale in comparison to depriving these families of some 
measure of justice 2 days before Christmas.
  So I do object to this resolution, and I cannot believe that this 
Senate--our Democratic colleagues cannot bring themselves to condemn 
some of these pardons over the last 2 months of Hunter Biden or the 
``kids for cash'' judge who sold kids into juvenile detention centers 
for bribes or, now, depraved murderers.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  (Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). The majority leader.

                          ____________________