optimism toro the country, to workers. he talked the other day about consumer confidence being up, manufacturing confidence being up, and he attributes a lot of that to just himself and his personality and what he brings to the presidency from his career many business. in business. >> host: not surprising, some of those comments coming from democrats on capitol hill. >> guest: no, the one line i hearkened back to was when sean spicer was still press secretary, and they got the jobs report. he said, youhe know, quoted the president of saying something to the effect, well, they may not have been real then, but they're certainly real now. [laughter] that's always funny when you deal with president and jobs number and who takes credit for this. of. >> host: let's hear from johnh n bethesda -- >> well, this segment and the rest of today's "washington journal" is available at c-span.org. we will leave this at this point as the senate's about to gavel in. lawmakers expected to work on a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks and making it a crime for

anyone to violate the ban. senators may also take up a judicial nomination. beginning wednesday, house and senate republicans will head to a resort in west virginia for a policy conference. no votes expected after tomorrow. live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the pree senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, we lift our hearts to you. you are the source of our strength and hope for tomorrow. today, show our lawmakers the path where they should walk, leading them to your desired

destination. inspire them to continuously put their hope in you. as they remember your unfailing love and compassion, remind them that nothing is impossible for those who believe. amen. we pray in your powerful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning businessclosed. the senate will proceed to s. 2311, which the clerk shall report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of s. 2311, a bill to amend title 18, united

states code to protect unborn children and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. if no one yields time, then time will be charged equally.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, the odds are quite good that when this republican-controlled congress closes up shop in december, time spent attacking the health care of women is going to be right up at the top of how this congress spent their day. they're back at it again, and this latest attack that will be -- that we will be discussing this week goes after women's essential health care decisions.

in my view, and i want to be very clear about this point, mr. president, this is another key part of the trump agenda of health care discrimination, and this time it's going after women , and this entire agenda is what the republicans are doing their best to blast through the congress into law. it's not just a one off either. so i'm going to spend a few minutes now to put this particular health proposal that discriminates against women in the appropriate kind of context, and to do that, i think it's important to describe what has happened on health care since day one of the trump administration.

the administration and republicans in the congress came right out of the gate with legislation that would have deprived hundreds of thousands of women of the right to see the doctor of their choosing. there was another attack on planned parenthood that completely ignored the fact that the congress already regulates what these trusted health care providers can and cannot spend public funds on. what planned parenthood does use public funding for are vital health care services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. let me just make sure people understand what i'm talking about. we're talking about cancer

screenings, prenatal care, preventative services, routine physicians and more. and, mr. president, i have town hall meetings in every county in our state. had more than 860 of them. the vast amount of terrain in oregon is rural and when i go to those small communities and the least populated of our state, that's what people tell me. they go to planned parenthood that's what people tell me they go to planned parenthood for -- from cancer screenings to routine physicals. that's what women would lose with this trump agenda of health care discrimination. next up, given the way the year and a little bit longer has evolved, was an ongoing attempt

by the trump administration to deny women guaranteed no-cost access to contraception. now, this is one of the most popular health care policies in recent memory. there's a lot of reasons why this is smart, not just because it is a matter of fairness for all women to have access to birth control. when women have access to contraception, it means healthier pregnancies and healthier newborns. it also reduces the risk of cancer among women. you can also look at it in terms of dollars and cents. when you take away no-cost contraception, you're essentially taxing women based on their gender. you're driving up the cost of their routine health care. it flies in the face of everything my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say about the problems of health care costs in america.

so those are strikes one and two -- denying women the right to see the doctor of their choosing and making it harder for them to access contraception. now the senate is debating whether to throw a matter of subtle law out the window with a hyper-partisan ban on abortion after 20 years ago. my view on abortion throughout my time in public service is it ought to be safe, it ought to be legal, and it ought to be rare. and i have supported a whole host of policies that bring both sides of the aisle together. the president of the senate, for example, is fairly new to the senate finance committee, and he's looking to be involved in a host of issues.

my guess is he'll be very interested in the adoption tax credit kind of concept, which i and others have championed for some time. that's something that brings both sides together. so my view is, abortion safe, legal, and rare. find ways to bring both sides together. and respect that the federal government ought to leave women alone on these most intimate decisions that involve women, their spouses, and their health care providers. the proposal the congress -- the senate is now debating is all about telling women what they can and cannot do. it criminalizes health care services that ought to stay between women and their doctors,

health care services that are often necessitated by potentially life-threatening complications. i just for the life of me don't see the wisdom of a lawmaker or a bureaucrat in washington, d.c., or a state capital telling a woman how severe the danger to her life has to become before she is legally allowed to make this variably gut-wrenching decision to choose an abortion. this issue has been settled law in america for 45 years. the debate should be over, but here it is again along with these other policies that i've just described are part of the trump administration's health care discrimination agenda, which is particularly punitive against women.

let me also, you know, recognize that the biggest victims under this discriminatory agenda are women who walk an economic tig tightrope every single day. if their local planned parenthood clinic is forced to close its doors, they may not have the ability to take time off work and travel long distances to see another provider for routine health care. they already balance every day the food against the rent, the rent against electricity, electricity against gas. take away these choices like no-cost contraception can make their struggle to get ahead that much harder, especially when the rate of unintended pregnancy is five times higher among women living in poverty. you've got folks who may not be able to afford a plane ticket or

even a bus ticket to somewhere where they can find the essential health care services they believe are necessary. there are serious, genuine health care challenges that face the country. millions of americans get clobbered every single time they walk up to a pharmacy window and get pounded by the cost of prescription drugs. that's the kind of bipartisan debate looking for solutions. another example -- the opioid epidemic raging from one end of the country to another. more than half a million lives lost in the last two decades, countless families and entire communities torn apart. the congress and the trump administration hasn't done nearly enough to fight the crisis and, frankly, not anywhere near close to what was promised in the fall of 2016.

instead of taking on these challenges, the trump administration and republicans in congress are just full steam ahead with this agenda of health care discrimination. this week an attack on women and their health care choices. passing this bill is going to make it harder for women to be in a position to make the health care choices they believe are important, may be essential for their lives, and i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. and with that, i yield the floor. mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: mr. president, i rise today to urge each of my colleagues to support the pain-capable unborn child

protection act. this critical legislation would prohibit a child from being aborted at five months of development. now, for those that we have watching today, i'd just like you to focus a little bit on these photos, focus on those photos and i'll return to them here in a moment. again, i'm urging my colleagues to support the pain-capable unborn child protection act. by any measure, at five months of development, an unborn child is a child. at five months, babies have grown nails on their fingers and on their toes, hair has just begun to grow on their heads,

and an ultrasound can tell an expectant mother and father whether their baby is a boy or a girl. these babies can detect light, hear sounds, they can swallow, and even experience taste as their tastebuds grow and develop. these unborn babies in all ways are babies. there is also significant scientific evidence that at five months of development these babies can feel pain. by five months, babies begin to respond to painful stimulus with distinctive pain response behaviors that are exhibited by older babies. they will construct their eyes,

they'll -- they'll scrunch their eyes, they'll pull back their limbs in response to pain, just like any other child experiencing pain. there is also a great deal of evidence that stress hormone levels rise substantially when babies at this age are exposed to pain. in 2015, a cambridge university press medical textbook acknowledged that, a, quote, fetus becomes capable of experiencing pain between 20 and 30 weeks of gestation, end quote. in fact, fetal surgeons routin routinely administer pain medications for babies after only four months of development.

doctors are giving babies pain medication after four months of development. as modern medicine has recognized, these babies are humans capable of experiencing pain. yet there is no federal law protecting these vulnerable humans from abortions. as a result, every year in our country, the lives of thousands of babies and, pai pain -- of bs end painfully through abortion. this is unacceptable. the majority of men and women across the nation agree with this premise. according to a recent maris poll, six out of ten americans surveyed support a law prohibiting abortion after five months of pregnancy. additionally, multiple states, including my home state of iowa,

have passed legislation that would prohibit abortions after five months of development. that is because these babies are babies. there is no way to deny the humanity of these children when you consider stories like that of micah i cannering. now, micah is from newton, iowa. he's a very young friend of mine. he's five years old. just a few weeks ago on the floor of the senate, i was able to share micah's story. as you may recall, micah was born at just 20 weeks post fertilization. the very point at which the pain-capable unborn child protection would begin to protect these young lives.

today micah is a very happy, very energetic little 5. and now i'd like -- little 5-year-old. and now i'd like to go back to these pictures. when i first met micah, he was about three years old, and he was out to visit my office -- he and his parents -- for the annual march for life. and i had this poster made of these pictures and they were in my office because i was going to speak on the senate floor in support of march for life. and micah, who is pictured here on the right side of the poster board -- micah, the happy little energetic boy. he saw this poster board in my office, and he ran up to it -- imagine this beautiful 3-year-old boy -- and he truth-in-this picture -- and he

ran up to this picture and he pointed not at the picture of himself as he was at three years old, but he pointed to this picture, and he said, "baby!" i said, yes, micah, that's a baby. this is micah when he was born. micah as three years old understood that this was a baby. he didn't understand that that was him when he was born, but he understood that that was a baby. and if you look at the picture, you will see micah is gasping -- is grasping his mama and dad did i's hands -- dandy's hands with -- and daddy's hands with five

perfectly formed fingers on each hand. while he did not know that was him, he knew that was a baby, at five months' gestation. so today general micas a happy, extraordinarily healthy young boy. i got to see him again this last year and again he was running around my office just full of energy and life. yes, micah, this is a baby. i agree. micah's story is not an isolated incident. extraordinary stories of babies that are surviving just after five months of development can be found all around the world. a little over a year ago, dakota harris was born in ohio at 19

weeks of development. even younger than micah. last may she left the hospital with her family as a healthy 7-pound baby. in 2016 baby erin was born at 20 weeks of development becoming the youngest premature baby to survive in israel. after five months of care at a hospital in televeve, he was able to go home again as a healthy baby. in 2010 frita who was born in germany at just under 20 weeks of development became europe's youngest premature baby to survive. after receiving intensive care, she, too, was able to go home with her family as a happy 7-pound baby. baby's have been on record

surviving birth after just five months of development for three decades now, three decades. what greater evidence do you need that at five months development, an unborn child in every way is a child. despite the clear evidence of the humanity of these children, the u.s. is one of only seven countries, one of only seven countries in the world to allow abortions after five months of development. that means that while an overwhelming majority of the world recognizes and protects the humanity of these vulnerable children, the united states keeps the company of countries like china and north korea.

they deny unborn children the most basic of protections. this, folks, is not who we are as a nation. it is time we listen to the scientific evidence, the men and women across america and a majority of the rest of the world. there should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting the life of an unborn child that can feel pain and as the inspiring stories of micah pickering and others show, they survive outside the womb. it's up to us to ensure that these children have the chance to grow up and lead the happy, healthy lives that god has granted them. as a mother and a grandmother, i am urging my colleagues to support the pain-capable unborn

child protection act which recognizes these unborn babies as the children they are and provides them the same protection from pain and suffering that all of our children deserve. and for my dear little friend micah, i'd say, yes, micah, this is a baby and we're glad to have you here. god bless him. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: i would ask we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: if no one yields time, the time shall be charged equally.

mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here today to talk about the vote we'll be taking up later this afternoon. it's the pain-capable unborn protection act. we'll be considering it later today. i want to thank senator graham and my fellow cosponsors on the bill. i think it's a very important bill and i think it's a balanced bill, a bill that has the support of the vast majority of the american citizens, and it would put us consistent with all but only seven other nations in terms of restricting an abortion to a limited number of exceptions after 20 weeks. those exceptions are the threat of the life to the mother, someone who may have been raped or someone who has been the victim of incest. this is a balanced bill. it's a bill that most of the world population agrees -- or it's a policy that most of the world population agrees should

be in place. and i think it's our job to make sure that with medical science today suggesting after 20 weeks that an unborn child can experience pain, that we should have this restriction put into place while still allowing the decision of the mother, the choice of the mother. we could discuss different opinions about that earlier, in the earlier terms, but certainly after 20 weeks. i think this is balanced policy and something i hope my colleagues will support and ultimately send to the president's desk. i worked on -- i was speaker of the house in north carolina for four years, and we worked on commonsense changes to protecting the lives of the unborn that also got the support of the majority of north carolinians. this is just another example where we at the federal law can enact a law that i think helps us demonstrate that the life of the unborn is a precious life, and we as members of the u.s.

senate and the u.s. congress are tasked with making sure we protect all lives in america. this is just a very important, precious, helpless part of the population that i for one thing this is a great step forward. and i encourage all of my members to support it. thank you, mr. president.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, last week marked the 45th anniversary of roe v. wade, but many of us were not celebrating. because last week gave us another opportunity to consider the real damage caused by the supreme court decision which even liberal scholars have now said is flawed. the type of damage it's done to the social fabric of our nation over the last four and a half decades. during that period of time, more than 50 million unborn children in america have been denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 50 million. in other parts of the world unborn children have been killed by the sheer fact they happen to be a girl instead of a boy, or

because they have disabilities like down's syndrome. for me, roe v. wade hits close to home because i come from a state where lead plaintiff was living at the time of that now famous lawsuit. her name was norma mccorby or jane roe in the case. she was from dallas, texas. what is unknown but interesting is that what is left out of the story when you hear about jane roe in roe v. wade. mrs. mccorby never went forward with the abortion and she later became an influential pro-life advocate. her story should give us cause for hope that change is possible, change of the human heart, change in the direction of the country when it comes to unborn children.

so should events like the march for life that happened earlier this month here in washington where more than 100,000 pro-life men and women, young and old, descended on our nation's capital. i want to applaud president trump for becoming the first sitting executive for dreation the march. hope advances by science has dissupposed -- dispelled some myths. it shows the humanity of a growing child and realize it has moral status. as one physician at northwestern university recounted recently, he said the more advance in my field of knee know nay tolty -- in neontology, it is so obvious

these were just developing human beings. testimony like that lends credence to a bill we're voting on today. it's called the pain capable unborn child protection act. and i don't doubt some of our colleagues would just prefer to remain silent and to hope this vote passes without many people paying much attention, but i hope that doesn't happen. it is an entirely appropriate occasion for us to talk about abortion and its role in our society and how it is increasingly out of step with modern science and people's recognition that these are, indeed, unborn human beings. this legislation protects unborn children at 20 weeks, or five months. who among us thinks that it's

appropriate to have an elective abortion after five months in the womb? that's what we're talking about. we're specifically talking about the child's ability to feel pain at this stage of development. it doesn't apply in the cases of a mother's life being at risk or in cases of insist. advances in modern medicine helps babies at 21 and 22 weeks survive. in other words, we're talking about unborn children that could survive outside the womb that are still subject to elective abortion in this country. so babies of roughly the same age are alive and need our protection before they are born as well and this bill will help provide that protection. incredibly, the united states is only one of seven countries that allows elective abortions past

20 weeks. it's not exactly a -- an honor to be in the same category as north korea, vietnam, china, when it comes to allowing elective abortions after five months. i'm glad that the pain capable bill has passed in 20 states, including my state of texas. the bill we are voting on today will save 12,000 to 18,000 babies annually, 12,000 to 18,000 lives saved if this bill passes, and that's hopeful news. polls show that many support a prohibition on abortion 20 weeks after pregnancy. this brings something that those who are pro-life and pro-choice, this brings them together, common ground, recognizing at some point you're talking about a human being capable of living outside the womb. as my colleague from oklahoma,

the junior senator told us on the floor recently, people across the country are waking up. they are beginning to say, wit a minute, that child has ten fingers and ten toes, unique d.n.a. different from his mom or dad and the child feels pain in the womb and has a beating heart. this sounds like a child. he's absolutely right. it sounds like a child because it is one. mr. president, i want to close by quoting winston churchill, who i realize is perhaps an unlikely figure to bring up at a time like this. that great leader once said that a nation that has forgotten its past has nor future. here in the united states we have forgotten our past when it comes to abortion. we have forgotten some of the

original advocates for abortion had ties to a movement that believed that you could eliminate people who had disabilities or that were frowned upon for one reason or another by virtue of their gender or other characteristics that they had no control over. they often had forced sterilization. one example is margaret sanger who is known to have spoken to the k.k.k. about her views. we have forgotten as well the advocates acting on behalf of racial minorities who once had a civil rights abortion connection, that representing the unborn was protecting the weak and disenfranchised. i would respectfully call on all of our colleagues to remember these connections and to see how

far we've come and not in a positive way. these colleagues of mine often describe themselves as pro-choice, but they are actually not unique in that regard. we all attach value to choices. as others have said before, we all know that choices have consequences and that some are better than others. each of us represents the sum of his or her choices too, and as a society, we should choose to offer pregnant mothers that are worried, financially insecure, or alone options other than abortion. we not only should do this, but we must. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the pain capable legislation we'll be voting on in just a couple of hours. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm prepared to deliver remarks, but i see that the majority leader is on the floor and i do not want to intrude on his desire to take the floor if he wishes. mr. mcconnell: i thank my good friend from rhode island. i will not occupy the senate floor for very long. the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the community of benton, kentucky, is continuing to pick up the pieces after last week's harrowing shooting. i want to once again thank our law enforcement an first

responders for their heroism. i'd also like to recognize marshall county judge kevin neil for his leadership when his community needed it the most. for most of us this tragedy is barely even conceivable, but to the parents of bailey hope and preston cope, it is now a painful reality. bailey holt was 15 years old and her mother said that she had a perfect sweet soul. she's been described as compassionate, confident, and comfortable being herself. when she wasn't busy cheering for the university of louisville cardinals, bailey was always ready with a kind word or a friendly gesture for those who needed it. on social media her family and friends are using the expression, be like bailey,

encouraging everyone who sees it to act with charity. preston cope, also 15, was known for being kind, soft spoken, and a quick learner. he loved reading about history and playing baseball for marshall county high school and the calvert city sluggers. preston's friends remember his ability to inspire them and to make them laugh. one of bailey and preston's classmates called them the nicest people i ever met. they never had anything negative to say. they always had a smile on their face. this weekend friends and family gathered at the high school gym by the hundreds to remember bailey and preston and to comfort one another. as the other injured students fight to recover and the entire marshall county community continues to grieve and heal,

they'll have bailey and preston's example to draw on and they'll have the prayer of their fellow kentuckians, of us here in the senate, and of the entire country. now, mr. president, on an entirely different matter. a great deal of work remains before the senate in the coming days. bipartisan discussions continue on a variety of important issues, including immigration, border security, disaster relief, health care, and funding for our armed forces. with our february 8 deadline fast approaching, it is vital that we continue these talks. last week we had the framework for immigration legislation. as i noted, it builds upon the four pillars of reform that the president consistently put forth and indicates what is necessary

for him to sign a bill into law. as discussions continue in the senate on the subject of immigration, members on both sides of the aisle should look to this framework as they work toward an agreement. the president's proposal has received praise as a serious effort to solve some of the problems with our broken immigration system, not surprisingly with a subject this complicated, it has also received criticism on both the right and the left. constructive critiques are one thing, but the type of irresponsible racial used yet then on this subject by the democratic leader of the house is decidely unhelpful. these comments are precisely the type of partisanship that condemn the prospect of a bipartisan compromise becoming law. the american people voted for us

to legislate, to establish the daca program and other important issues in immigration. i urge my democratic colleagues to put serious good-faith discussions ahead of cheap, partisan point scoring. now, on other matter, these negotiations aren't the only important business before us this week. we'll also consider another of president trump's well-qualified judicial nominees, david stras of minnesota to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the eighth circuit. judge stras currently serves as associate justice of the minnesota supreme court. three of his former colleagues on that court, now retired, praised him in an open letter last year for his sterling academic record, his considerable experience, and his ability to hear cases, quote, with objectivity and an open mind. their testimony only confirms

judge stras' well-known reputation for thoughtfulness, fairness, and intellectual excellence. i look forward to advance his nomination and send this capable jurist to the federal bench. but first the senate will vote to take up a measure to make sure that the most vulnerable in our society are granted the protection they deserve under law. the pain capable unborn child protection act reflects a growing mainstream consensus that unborn children should not be subjected to elective abortion after 20 weeks. there are only seven countries left in the world that permit this. that includes, unfortunately, the united states, along with china and north korea. it is long past time that we heed science and commonsense morality and remove ourselves from this very undistinguished list. some refer to this legislation

as mica's law after a little boy born premature at 22 weeks. today he is a healthy 5 # g-year-old boy. he shows what can happen when we give life a chance. this afternoon, every one of us will go on record on this issue. on the commonsense side of this issue are 63% of americans. according to a recent survey. and every other country in the world, save seven. there is no reason why this should be a partisan issue. i hope that our democratic colleagues will not obstruct the senate from taking up this bill. i urge every one of my colleagues to join me in voting to advance it this afternoon. now, on a final matter, the president delivers his first state of the union address tomorrow. i'm especially looking forward to his remarks on tax reform and the state of our economy. already hundreds of businesses have announced significant bonuses, pay increases, new jobs, and expanded benefits. just last week, we learned that

verse logistics, which is based in walton, kentucky, and employs nearly 1,600, has distributed bonuses to full-time employees. the company's c.e.o. told workers, quote, i want to be sure you and your families share in the benefits of your accomplishments, and, and the new tax reform legislation. when i hear my democratic colleague denigrate tax reform bonuses as, quote, crumbs, i think about workers like these. i think about the first worker who came to her boss with tears in her eyes when she received word of her bonus. it was christmas. she and her husband had recently had their fifth child. money was tight. mom and dad had enough saved up to buy gifts for the kids but were planning to skip presents for each other. but tax reform changed that. thanks to tax reform bonus that she earned, this employee and

her husband could go out to a nice dinner and buy each other christmas gifts after all. the c.e.o. says he has never been hugged so hard in his life. it's a shame that none of my democratic colleagues voted for tax reform, not a single one of them, and it is jarring to hear some of them now denigrate the pay increases and the benefits that only wealthy people could deem insignificant. maybe in san francisco or new york, an extra $500 or $1,000 is no big deal, but try telling that to families in north dakota and missouri and montana. try telling that to that mother of five. i suspect you would get an earful. tomorrow evening, when the president describes tax reform's impact for middle-class americans, every one of us should stand and applaud.

mr. whitehouse: i assume the leader yields. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, tomorrow the environment and public works committee will have an opportunity to question environmental protection agency administrator scott pruitt at an oversight hearing. oversight of the executive branch is one of the senate's great responsibilities. unfortunately, the republican leadership of this body has shown little interest in holding the trump administration accountable, despite the fact that this administration is more ethically challenged, more riven by conflicts of interest, more captured by special interests, more defined by cronyism than

any other. after a year of pruitt at the helm of e.p.a., a tenure that has been marked by mass staff departures, a slowdown in enforcement actions, questionable travel and other personal spending, rolling back critical clean air and clean water protections, a purge of scientists, an influx of industry insiders, a smorgasbord of meetings with industry bigwigs, many of whom coincidentally, i'm sure, also bankrolled his political career back in oklahoma. an obsession with secrecy and heaps and heaps and heaps of climate denial. pruitt will finally be appearing before our committee. i urge my republican colleagues on e.p.w. to bring some good questions to tomorrow's hearing. judging by pruitt's first year, he is running dangerously amok. he has turned e.p.a. into

perhaps the swampiest agency in a very swampy administration. pruitt's record at e.p.a. demands the sort of oversight that this body used to exercise. if you don't believe this about pruitt's record, just take a look at what some distinguished republicans have to say. william ruckelshaus, who under both presidents richard nixon and ronald reagan, ran the e.p.a. has criticized pruitt's penchant for secrecy in this "washington post" op-ed, contrasting it with his own more transparent management style. he said we released my full schedule and the publication of written communications on a daily basis. scott pruitt has taken the absolutely opposite approach. pruitt operates in secrecy. in an interview with huff post, former new jersey governor and

chairman of the 9/11 commission tom kean is also troubled with pruitt's obsession by secrecy. i think this "new york times" op-ed makes his opinion clear. he writes, to see his penchant for secrecy, pruitt is installing, at a cost of nearly $25,000 to taxpayers, a secure phone booth in his washington office to keep people, including staff members, in the dark. imagine that. while demanding massive cuts to e.p.a.'s budget, pruitt is spending thousands of dollars to build himself, like maxwell smart, a cone of silence. he doesn't run the c.i.a. he doesn't run the f.b.i. he doesn't even run the state department. what possible purpose could this very expensive, secure phone booth have at the environmental protection agency? governor kean believes that

pruitt is doing this to keep his own staff members in the dark, which begs the question what does pruitt have to hide from his own staff? it sounds like a question that my republican colleagues on e.p.w. should ask him tomorrow. pruitt's wasteful spending isn't just limited to his cone of silence. as governor kean points out, pruitt has used private jets costing taxpayers another $58,000. his princely habits have even prompted questions from senator grassley. so i ask my e.p.w. republican colleagues if senator grassley is troubled by pruitt's wasteful spending of taxpayers' money on personal luxuries, shouldn't you ask him about it at tomorrow's hearing? pruitt's penchant for secrecy goes well beyond the expensive cone of silence that was designed to keep his own staff in the dark. it also extends to his schedule

where he tries to keep the american people in the dark. unlike ruckelshaus and previous e.p.a. administrators, pruitt won't even disclose whom he is meeting or when he is traveling. as governor kean notes, our only idea of the folks he is meeting comes from the freedom of information act. once the e.p.a. finally releases the first few months of pruitt's calendars in response to a foia request, that's when we learned that he was meeting with scores of industry fat cats and almost no environmental groups. as for his travels, we only find out about them after the fact, which of course prevents the press from covering pruitt, saying when he jets off to morocco to lobby for american natural gas producers. one of my republican colleagues on e.p.w. might want to ask pruitt why he is jetting around the world, playing commerce secretary for the fossil fuel industry when he should be working here at home in america

to protect people's health and their environment. what does governor kean have to say about pruitt's industry ties? quote, he has elevated cronyism to new heights, end quote. governor kean's words, not mine. in an interview with huff post just this past friday, mr. ruckelshaus echoed this concern that pruitt cares more about his political ties than protecting the environment. he is just like trump, he said. he has an ideological approach to it, an approach that affects the large contributors in his party in oklahoma. here again, republican colleagues on e.p.w. might want to ask pruitt about his close ties with industry and whether he is working for the fossil fuel interests that donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his political activities back in oklahoma or working for the

american people. governor kean goes on to say that pruitt, quote, built his political career by attacking clean air and clean water rules, and that he is blocking scientific input, which brings us to science. science, of course, gives society its headlights to look ahead and see oncoming hazards. without science, if we ignore it or block it, as governor kean says pruitt is doing, the decisions we make are simply uninformed and irrational. and governor kean and i aren't the only ones who think this. yet another high-profile republican, former new jersey governor and george w. bush e.p.a. administrator christine todd whitman agrees. pruitt claims he will pursue called red team, blue team exercises instead of the long-established gold standard peer review process for rigorously evaluating science.

governor whitman sees right through that. decisions must be based on reliable science, she says. the red team begins with this politically preferred conclusion that climate change isn't a problem, and it will seek evidence to justify that position. that's the opposite of how science works, end quote. but pruitt doesn't want to follow the scientific method, at least not when it comes to climate science or any other science, for that matter, that his industry backers object to. he wants to fabricate a case for his industry backers' politically preferred hypothesis. this isn't science. this is a counterfeit of science. as governor whitman writes, true science follows the evidence. government bases policy on those results. this applies to liberals and

conservatives alike, end quote. or at least that's the way it used to be before scott pruitt turned the keys over to polluting industries. so e.p.w. republicans, there is another question for you to ask pruitt tomorrow. how does he justify throwing out the real scientists and the real science in order to arrive so predictably at the fossil fuel industry's preferred conclusions? governor whitman calls pruitt's climate denial scheming, quote, a waste of the government's time, energy, and resources, and a slap in the face to fiscal responsibility and responsibility governance. it is, in her words, shameful, unjustifiable, and a wild goose chase. it sounds like more great questions for e.p.w. republicans to ask pruitt tomorrow. how does he justify spending

taxpayers' money on his backers' climate denial schemes? this question is particularly relevant in light of pruitt's campaign to radically caught e.p.a.'s budget and staff. under his tenure, paper staff has been reduced to the lowest level in 30 years. the e.p.w. republicans take note because here is another question you could ask pruitt tomorrow. how can he justify spending taxpayer money on frivolities like his maxwell smart cone of silence or personal luxuries like exorbitant private jet travel or crazy climate denial schemes, all while demanding drastic cuts to the people who do the real work of protecting the public at his agency? in an interview, governor whitman said she, quote, would like to see e.p.a.'s budget have enough in it to ensure that we are enforcing the regulations we have in place. a fairly conservative notion. as she notes, e.p.a. enforcement

actions are slowing down, quote, in some cases instances very dramatically because they have cut the budget for the number of enforcement agents. you can't do cleanups or police polluters without money and people, both of which pruitt is looking to cut. simply put, pruitt's so-called back to basics campaign is a smokes screen to hide his attempts to gut the agency he is supposed to lead because it will make his industry backers happy. once again, i ask my e.p.a. republican colleagues, will you confront pruitt about his sham promises to get back to basics while he is really just cutting staff and resources and reducing enforcement? mr. president, governor kean speaks for many americans when he writes -- and i wrote governor kean here -- quote, for the sake of our children's health, it's time for spot

pruitt to go. when you're hearing that from the republican side, it's worth listening. pruitt's tenure at e.p.a. has been an unmitigateed disaster for public health, for the environment, and for the future of the planet we call home. its only value is if you have some peculiar connoisseur interest in government corruption to watch all the many ways in which industry can work its will within its supposed regulator. well, tomorrow those of us who sit on the environment and public works committee have that opportunity to put it to god use and prove how boldly pruitt is in the pockets of the polluters he is supposed to police. i sincerely my colleagues seize the opportunity. you can be sure that my

democratic colleagues and i will. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. today in communities across our country young people are asking whether they will be able to stay in the country they've ever called home. struggling patients and veterans are wondering whether their local community health center will be able to stay open and provide the care that they can't otherwise afford. workers and business owners are wondering again whether the government will even be open in a week or two. but, mr. president, instead of addressing the serious and pressing challenges that people are facing, republican leaders today are debating whether to trust women to make their own health care choices. that's right. while this country is waiting for us to come together and solve problems, republicans are

wasting precious time with a politically motivated partisan bill that is engineered to drive us apart and hurt women. i come here today to oppose in the strongest terms the extreme ideological abortion ban that republican leaders have brought to the floor today. it goes against the constitution, against medical experts, and against the rights of women across the country. however, i don't merely oppose this partisan bill, i oppose the very fact republicans are once again taking this bill, which they know is a nonstarter, here to the floor. i oppose the very idea that in this 21st century we're going to waste time on a question that has already been answered and shouldn't even be up for debate. i oppose the fact we're still voting on whether women and doctors are best equipped to make health care decisions. or politicians here in washington, d.c. we are still voting on whether

we should criminalize doctors for making sound medical decisions. we are still voting on whether we should turn back the clock and put women's lives at risk. roe v. wade was decided 45 years ago. we sel celebrated the anniversaf that historic decision last week. i'd like to think that after almost half a century we could move on from debating this settled issue. and yet here we are. in 2015 the republican leader stated quite flatly that a vote to defund planned parenthood would be an exercise in futility because there was no way it was going to pass. the same is true of this extreme, harmful legislation, and yet here we are bringing this bill to the floor is an exercise in futility and passing it would be an exercise in cruelty. just look at the story from a washington state mother judy mccastro. a few years ago she wrote an op-ed in "the new york times"

and she courageously shared a story that is every expecting woman's worst nightmare. she shared her experience learning that one of the twins she was carrying had a lung condition. one lung chamber had not formed at all. the other was only 20% complete. my world stopped, she wrote. i loved being pregnant with twins. the thought of losing one child was unbearable. but she went on to say, the m.r.i. at the seattle children's hospital confirmed our fears. the organs were pushed up into our boy's chest and not developing properly and we were in the 22nd week. i'm grateful her doctors were able to give her sound medical advice. i'll grateful she and her husband were able to make the decision that they felt best was -- felt was best for their own family. the story represents the incredibly painful story she and so many other women have faced. my colleagues might recognize

that story. i shared it before, just as republicans have introduced this deeply harmful legislation before. i hope this time that republicans listen. i hope they will stop trying to pretend they are in any way qualified to interfere with decisions that a woman has the constitutional right to make on her own p. i hope they will stop trying to criminalize a doctor's ability to provide sound medical advice and protect the lives of his patients. i hope they will stop wasting our time with bills that are so out of date, extremely out of touch, and obviously unconstitutional. but if republicans won't stop this exercise in futility and their tac on women's rights -- and their attacks on women's rights, they should know that i will not stop standing up and making clear exactly why they are wrong. i am going to keep fighting for judy and so many other women like her. i will keep working with them on

the serious challenges that face our nation, none of which have to do with trusting women or controlling their health care choices. i do want to thank the many democrats who will be joining me here on the floor to stand up for women and deliver the same message to our republican colleagues. and again, i hope they listen because democrats would like to get to work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the senior senator from washington for her leadership on this important issue and for gathering women to come to the floor today to talk about the republican bill that's been proposed and that we'll be voting on soon. you know, when i was a girl growing up in oklahoma, women got abortions. make no mistake, abortions were illegal back then, but women got them. desperate women turned to back-alley butchers or some even tried the procedure on their own, using coat hangers or drinking turpentine.

some were lucky but some weren weren't. so many women bled to death, some died of infection, some were poisoned, and they all went through hell. in 1973 the supreme court stepped up. 45 years after roe v. wade, abortions are safer than getting your tonsils out. a lot of women are had a live today -- a lot of women are alive today because of roe. nearly 70% of americans agree, roe v. wade is worth support something. and i wish i were here today to acknowledge the impact of roe. instead, i'm here to defend it from attack. last week president trump marked the anniversary of roe v. wade by calling for a ban on a rare category of abortions, ones that take place after 20 weeks of pregnancy. so today the senate is voting on a bill to do exactly that. now, let's be honest about why

this vote is happening now. today's vote is happening because politicians who have never been pregnant, who have never had an abortion, who have never had to make a wrenching decision after learning that the child they're carrying won't survive childbirth, those politicians want to score political points at the expense of women and their families. we are having this vote today because president trump asked for it. if it passes, this unconstitutional bill would put women's lives and women's health at risk. government officials who seek to insert themselves between women and their doctors ought to listen to the women whose lives are on the line and the doctors who care for them. if they were listening right now, we wouldn't be holding this vote. only one percent of abortions take place at 21 weeks or later

-- one percent. and the reasons are heartbreaking. i've heard from people across massachusetts who shared their devastating stories. the senate should hear these stories. one woman who wrote to me explained that she was ecstatic to have a second child but learned late in her pregnancy that her doctor's brain was severely malformed. being a grown woman with a husband and daughter, she said, i never imagined that i would need to get an abortion. but p when i learned that the baby i was carrying suffered from a set of severe brain malformations, i faced a binary choice h.r. her -- peace or life. i am deeply grateful that i was able to give her the gift of peace. she and her husband did it what they thought was best for their baby girl -- they got an abortion in the third trimester.

another couple close to get an abortion at 22 weeks, after learning that their son's heart would never fully develop. the husband wrote to me, quote, his pulmonary veins did not connect to his heart in the right place. he had a vintory could you already a septal defect, an atrial septic defect and the left side of his heart was smaller than the right. we hoped to be eligible for inutero cardiac heart surgery but the doctor told us our son's heart could not be fixed. our little biomarkers our miracle, wasn't going to make it. he described their choice as an act of mercy. my wife and i are both pro-life and we would never encourage an abortion, but there isn't a day that i regret what we did because we both believe our child is watching over us from a safer place.

there also isn't a day that i wonder who else can possibly understand what we went through. no law can save my child from his complex congenital heart disease or save my wife from her suffering. but the bill we're voting on today says that the government should have been part of that decision. no, not just part of that decision; it would have allowed the government to make that decision instead of leaving the choice to brokenhearted parents. the bill we are considering today would ban all abortions after 20 weeks with only a limited exceptions. it would force women to carry an unviable fetus to term. it would force women with severe health complications to stay pregnant until their lives were on the line. whatever you believe about abortion generally, this legislation is dangerous and

cruel. devastating fetal abnormities aren't the only reason women get abortions after 20 weeks. some women face so many delays when seek an abortion, delays like finding a provider, raising money for the procedure, and paying for travel costs. so many delays that a procedure they wanted earlier in pregnancy gets pushed later and later. these logistical hurdles fall hardest on young people, on women of color, and on low-income communities. and what's behind some of these delays? state-level abortion restrictions pushed through by republican legislatures that closed down clinics and make it harder for women to get access to the care they need. you heard that right. republican-sponsored abortion restrictions push women to have abortions later and later, and today republicans in the senate

push a bill to ban late abortions. it's all connected. this bill is only one part of a broad and sustained assault by republican politicians on women's right to make decisions about their own bodies. through repeated efforts to limit birth control access, to defund planned parenthood, and to restrict abortions, republicans are chipping away at women's health, women's safety, and women's economic independence. if mitch mcconnell or paul ryan or donald trump actually wanted to reduce abortions, they could embrace policies that would lessen the economic pressures of pregnancy and motherhood. they could act to help pregnant women and their babies access health care early and often. they could help young people avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. but instead they have spent the

last year doing exactly the opposite. they have held vote after vote to try to gut the affordable care act and medicaid when we should be expanding those programs. affordable health care reform accessible contraceptives, and other programs that support working women and families are all under attack. and today republican politicians want to distract from their hypocrisy with an unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban, one that will not pass, that ignores the actual experiences of women, and that would cause enormous harm if it were signed into law. today's vote, which we all know will fail, isn't about policy; it is about political theater. but women don't get abortions to prove a political point. reproductive rights are about health. they are about safet