>> the hearing is adjourned. federal agencies often set up what are called guidance documents to verify issues that exist the regulations. today the senate subcommittee will about whether the education and the labor department to properly issued the guidance documents are informal rulemaking. c-span2 11 a.m. eastern. and in the evening donald trump will hold a meeting in columbia. >> senate democrats yesterday blocked a bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of

pregnancy. the measure failed to advance in the 52-42 vote falling short of the 60 votes needed. in the senate minority leader harry reid and senators durbin and chuck grassley spoke about the bill. we have another vote related on planned parenthood. we have to try to figure out a way from the government boast responsibility, the house controls the senate and it's not our response ability we will help in any way that we can. we want to move forward and to get the government funded. we are at a crossroads here. i'm not sure that we can make it with the times that because of all of these unnecessary votes by the republican leader in the last couple of weeks. i hope that we can make it and not have to have the government

shutdown again. we have seen that before. who has suffered, the american people. i would hope that they have a plan. we will do everything we can in the region can make sure that the american people are trained fairly in the upcoming bills. we have have to have that by october 31. mr. president -- >> under the previous order the leadership time is reserved under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to hr 36 which the court will court will report. speed motion to proceed in act two title 19 the united states code to protect the unborn children and for their purposes. >> under the previous order the

time until 11 a.m. will be equally divided between the leaders of the designees. >> mr. president. >> the democratic leader. >> mr. president, i would like to address the issue before the senate. it relates to the divisive and the controversial issue of abortion, and it comes at an unusual moment in the united states congress. this week for the first time the pope will be addressing the joint session of congress. it was 50 years ago when the pope first visit to the united states and the arrival of pope francis this week is a cause of great celebration. people from my state of illinois and across the nation have respect for his leadership of the catholic church. it caused a question of course the relationship between religion and the government.

we finished a book that told a story of the pilgrims coming to the united states. for the freedom of religious beliefs they were followed by the scorers. my mother was brought here to end her mother brought her sister and brother to the shores for a variety of reasons but there's one thing that sticks out. up in my office i had something that my grandmother carried across the ocean to the united states. it was a roman catholic prayer book. was contraband in 1911 because the russians were in control in

the orthodox religion and difficult. i never knew my grandmother that she was one brave lady to bring the kids across the ocean with her prayer book that meant so much to her which she could use without the government telling her she couldn't. we have tried to strike the right balance between democracy from the beginning and the founding fathers i believe got it right. they said three things in the constitution about religion. but they would have the freedom to worship as we choose or choose not to worship and second the government would choose the religion that we wouldn't have an official government religion and third, there would be no religious test for public office in america. i thought those were settled principles but this presidential campaign suggests otherwise.

we have the outrageous suggestion by the candidates this last weekend that should never serve as president of the united states. i would think a man of his background and learning should at least take the time to understand the constitution and expressed provision which says that he is wrong and there will never be a religious litmus test to serve the office in the united states and now this week on the floor of the united states senate we will have to vote on the issue of abortion. there was a time when this issue came. it is a divisive and controversial issue. but the republican senate leadership has about two of the presidential candidates and it is no coincidence that this issue comes before us in the same week the catholic church

will be addressing the joint session of congress. it's more than a coincidence. this particular bill leads to a woman to terminate her pregnancy. for 47 years if i'm not mistaken in the calculations likely wrong have had the supreme court guidance on when the government can play a role in the decision about the termination of a pregnancy. and now there's an effort to the floor of the united states senate to change the guidance from the roti wade decision. each time that we step into this question something which seems as clear and after that it's cannot be a legal termination of pregnancy find that you are walking into an area of uncertainty. i render meeting many years ago when we were debating this issue in the lead from the town of naperville and in 1996 she told

me a harrowing story of how the legislation was impacted. the child she was carrying couldn't survive outside of the womb. there were nine major anomalies including a fluid filled cranium with no brain tissue. sadly, she also had underlying medical conditions, personal conditions that complicated her pregnancy even more. doctors were concerned that she went through with the pregnancy at that point she would run the risk of never having another baby. she told me how she and her husband agonized over the news and eventually decided it was best for them and their other children to terminate a pregnancy. if this bill before us today the 20 week abortion ban had been the law of the land back then it would have jeopardized and endanger her health.

18 years later she came back to see me but she would do what was best for her family terminating the pregnancy of her doctor and her husband that but she was given a second chance. soon after she became pregnant again. this time, she was thankful and gave birth to a healthy baby boy. when she came to see me, he had a bright future ahead of him. if this bill had been the law of the land for others like her would have had the choice to terminate a pregnancy for her own health protections for the opportunity to have another baby. and it's a challenge that we face when we try to spell out in the law all of the medical possibilities limiting

opportunities to make decisions that need to be made by individuals of the most heartbreaking circumstances. this bill has other issues. the fact that the incest exceptions that have long believed and built in the law at this point would be changed dramatically by this law and raises questions as well. there is a requirement as i understand the victims of incest would have had to report to the law-enforcement agency the crime of incest before they would be able to terminate a pregnancy under these circumstances. that isn't even realistic. one that has been exploited by another member of the family would go to a law-enforcement agency had reported that a member of the family before they could qualify to terminate a pregnancy in the circumstance that shows you the extreme the bill goes to. i hope that we will defeat this measure and i hope that the

other republican presidential candidates will shut down the government over the funding of planned parenthood leader in the week. we need to move on to try to find issues, divisive issues that we can build the consensus to make this a stronger country. when you trust the issues of funding the government we need to accept the response abilities to move forward in a bipartisan fashion and this build is not do that. >> before we vote on whether to proceed, i want to respond to a couple of arguments made by the democratic senator yesterday. first the critics under quoted the american congress of the proposition that a fetus isn't a viable.

the american congress and obstetricians and gynecologists that they represent have long opposed this authorization according to the senator, the doctor said on may 132013 and i want to quote that senator in no way, shape or form does a 20 week fetus viable. there is no evidence anywhere of a 20 week fetus surviving even with intensive care. but as explained by the fact checker on may 26 this year, the statement is simply incorrect when applied to hr 36. the bill uses a method of calculating fetal age that is based on the day fertilization actually occurs.

the legislation would protect beginning after the fertilization which is the same 22 weeks of pregnancy in the gestational age. the gestational age is the same measure of calculating the unborn baby's age that relies on the date the mothers last normal menstrual. it is well-established that babies can survive at 22 weeks gestational age as noted in the "washington post" for example, quote, babies can survive at 22 weeks gestational age has been known for 15 years come "-end-double-quote. perhaps doctor lorenz was concerned to cope confused about what this would accomplish.

second the senator that i'm referring to said earlier that abortions past 22 weeks speedily are extraordinarily rare. the most waxed abortion policy don't even collect data on the stage of pregnancy when an abortion is performed. all other jurisdictional's may have reported requirements but not really enforcing those reporting requirements. because it it isn't widely available, it is hard to know what hard evidence exists to support the claim. we do know several hundred doctors and facilities across the united states offer abortions after 20 weeks of fetal age and i've asked for consent to put the record article in the record at the end

of my statement. >> without objection. >> i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> mr. president, i am opposed to late-term abortion and supports the legislation to ban them except in the unusual circumstances. a carefully drawn extension to apply to the rare cases should have been included in this bill. regrettably mr. president the bill before us provides no exception for when the physical health is at risk of serious harm for the most glaring

deficiencies in this legislation mr. president, let me give just three examples that could threaten the physical health of a pregnant woman and extremely serious condition triggered by pregnancy in some women is preeclampsia for the 20th week of pregnancy this condition can lead to various long-term consequences including liver and kidney problems, seizures and strokes. another example would be cancer requires chemotherapy and radiation but cannot be treated

such as it is yet another case of a grave illness that could cause harm to break redmond woman -- pregnant woman to the physical health. mr. president, they allow for exceptions for the physical health of the mother faced such as alabama, arkansas, indiana, louisiana, mississippi and others that dan late-term abortions provide an exception but don't help as well as the life of the warm-up. the bill before us does not. i've advocated they would provide an exception.

this would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy from the alternative with serious harm. under this bill mr. president, a doctor that performed such abortions after 20 weeks could prevent a grievance physical injury to the pregnant woman would be subject to criminal penalty. to try to prevent a woman with pre- claims the outcome this

damage to her kidney or liver. if a pregnant patient needs chemotherapy or radiation treatment if a woman has a terrible misfortune for the amniotic fluid addresses the physical health and ability to have children in the future, do we want her doctors to be unable to perform an abortion because he faces a prospect of years in prison if he terminate the pregnancy?

>> the way that the rape and incest exception to the bill is drafted is also problematic. i do not question the motives of the sponsors of this bill. my point however is that there are almost these language problems that could have been solved and then we might well be able to enact the law that would accomplish the goal. except in those unusual cases for the exception is warranted. therefore, mr. president, i shall cast my vote in opposition to this well-meaning bill.

thank you mr. president. >> mr. president, the senator from south carolina. >> thank you mr. president. >> i am a proud pro-life senator that stands today with the knowledge feeling in the past my stomach. it is a hearing that comes from the knowledge that over the last 40 years, more than 15 million americans have not have the chance to have their feet on the soil in our country. and that is why i am thankful for the opportunity that we have this week here in the united states senate and opportunity to celebrate life and protect life which is the amazing gift of all. i am proud to adjourn my colleague and the senior senator from my state, lindsey graham in introducing