0. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has every senator voted? any senator wish to change his or her vote? on this vote, the yeas are 51. the nays are 46. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of david ryan stras of minnesota to be united states circuit judge for the eighth circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of david ryan stras of minnesota to be united states circuit judge for the eighth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any nor who -- senator who wishes to vote or change his or her vote? seeing none, the final tall is 57-41. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, david ryan stras of minnesota to be united states circuit judge for the eighth circuit. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the united states is just one of

seven countries in the entire world that currently allows elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. and we're not in good company on that list. the other six countries that allow elective abortions at that very late stage of the child's development have -- half of those countries have authoritarian governments, communist governments with horrible records when it comes to human rights. yes, our abortion laws are as extreme and inhumane as the abortion laws in vietnam, china, and north korea. it pains me, and it should pain all americans, that the united states lags so very far behind the rest of the world in protecting the unborn, protecting human beings simply because they have yet to take their first breath. 20 weeks is the fifth month of

pregnancy. now, just think about what that means. at that stage, the unborn child is about ten inches long from head to toe. he or she is roughly the size of a banana. a baby at this age sleeps and wakes in the womb, she sucks her thumb, makes faces, and in some cases might even see light filtering in through the womb. and by 20 weeks, if not before, science suggests that the baby can also feel pain. each year in this country, more than 10,000 abortions occur after this point in the baby's development. today we have a chance to stop this grave injustice. moments from now -- moments ago, this body voted on the pain-capable child protection act, a bill that would prohibit abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. this is a commonsense

restriction, one that is supported by a majority of americans. more than six in ten americans supports a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, according to a maris poll conducted earlier this month. not only that, but a majority of democrats, 56%, in fact, said that they would support an abortion ban at 20 weeks. so yes, this bill does in fact have widespread support, and it would bring america back into the mainstream of nations. but more importantly, this bill is just, it's humane, it's the right thing to do, it's the natural outcome of any question that, as with a degree of moral probity, is this right. the reason we signed up for this job is to fight for what's right, and it is wrong.

it is self-evidently wrong that our country allows 5 month old unborn babies to be killed. we in this body have a moral duty to protect those vulnerable human beings, but i have no illusions that this will be easy. we have to overcome the information -- the misinformation that is out there within the abortion industry. this is a powerful special interest group that wants to keep abortion legal right up to the moment of birth. the abortion industry is attacking this bill by denying that there is any evidence that unborn babies can feel pain at 20 weeks. the linchpin of its argument is a 2005 study that claimed unborn babies could not feel pain until the 30th week of pregnancy. what the abortion industry never mentions, of course, is that this study was written by

individuals with significant and i would add undisclosed ties to the abortion industry itself. as reported by the "the" philadelphia inquirer ,"" the study's lead author who was not a doctor but a medical doctor, previously worked for and performed abortions as the medical director of an abortion clinic. how convenient that the abortion industry's denial of fetal pain rests on a study by its own employees. if i recall, the tobacco industry tried something similar when they denied that cigarettes cause cancer. as always, the antidote to misinformation is more information. and the antidote to bad science is good science. so i have right here three studies that address the topic of fetal pain specifically. they were all published after

the abortion industry's favorite study, the one that they prefer to acknowledge to the exclusion of all others, and unlike that study, the one that they like to prefer to the exclusion of all others, none of these studies can be said to have been compromised by a conflict of interest. now, this one is by the international association for the study of pain. it concludes, quote, the available scientific evidence makes it possible, even probable, that fetal pain perception occurs well before late gestation. the study pinpoints fetal pain to the second try messster of pregnancy, well before the third trimester. here is another study by the american association of pharmaceutical scientists. it concludes, quote, the basis for pain perception appears at about 20 to 22 weeks from conception. and then finally, here's a 2012 study published in the "journal of maternal fetal and neonatal

medicine." this paper states that there is evidence that unborn children can feel pain beginning at 20 weeks. the authors note that at this stage, unborn children have pain receptors in their skin, that they recoil in response to sharp objects like needles, and release stress hormones when they are harmed. they conclude, quote, we should suppose that the fetus can feel pain when the development of the fetus is equal to that of a premature baby, close quote. i could go on, but i think that's enough for now. the takeaway is this -- the science at a minimum suggests that unborn children can feel pain at around 20 weeks, can feel abortionists' instruments as they do their grisly work. these children feel,

mr. president, until they cannot. that possibility alone, the mere possibility should be chilling to us, and that possibility alone should have us rushing to ban abortion at 20 weeks. so i would implore my colleagues who didn't vote for this to reconsider, and the next time they have an opportunity to support it, to vote yes on the pain-capable unborn child protection act, a vote for this bill is a vote to protect some of the most vulnerable members of the human family. and yes, we are talking about members of the human family. the life form that we're talking about is not a puppy, is not some other form of animal. this is a human being that we're talking about. and this is something that instinctively calls out for us. we think about the needs of the

most vulnerable among us, and we should be eager to protect them. together, we can move our country's laws away from those of north korea and china and towards our most fundamental belief, that all human beings are created equal, and that they have an unalienable right to life. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that avir dalamid, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges through 2018. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i rise today to oppose dangerous legislation that would endanger the health of women by limiting their constitutional right to

access a safe and legal abortion. mr. president, we must recognize the capacity of every woman in our nation to make her own health care decisions and control her own destiny, and ensure that all women have the full independence to do so. unfortunately, throughout the last year, the trump administration and republicans in congress have repeatedly tried to roll back access to care and undermine the health of women. we had seen bill after bill targeting women's health care by restricting access to abortion, increasing the costs of maternity care, and allowing insurers to treat diving birth as a preexisting condition. the trump administration issued interim final rules, allowing employers to deny women access to the birth control coverage that they need. my colleagues on the other side

of the aisle have confirmed trump administration officials and judges to the bench who are vehemently opposed to a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions. and republicans have been relentless in their attempts to defund planned parenthood, which is an essential source of care for women in new hampshire and provides key services like birth control and cancer screenings. mr. president, here we are once again with republican leadership bringing a bill to the floor that attempts to marginalize women and take away their rights to make their own decisions. this bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks, an extremely rare procedure that is often the result of complex and difficult medical circumstances. the bill lacks adequate exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, and it gets in the way of a woman and the judgment of her doctor, threatening to

jail physicians for providing patients the care that they need. in fact, a group of medical and public health organizations has written to congress, saying, and this is a quote, this bill places health care providers in an untenable situation when they are facing a complex, urgent medical situation, they must think about an unjust law instead of about how to protect the health and safety of their patients. and, mr. president this bill is a direct challenge to the president -- to the press sent set in roe v. wade. mr. president, we are -- to the precedent set in roe v. wade. mr. president, we are at a moment in our country when women are speaking out and fighting for basic dignity and respect at home, in the workplace, and in their daily lives. they also deserve that respect with regard to the most deeply personal health decisions they can make. passing this legislation would

send a message to women across the country that politicians in washington do not believe that women have the capacity to make their own health care decisions, as if women don't understand or are unable to grapple with the physical, emotional, economic, and spiritual issues that are involved in deciding when or if to have a family or how to handle critical health challenges. mr. president, rather than marginalizing women, we should be doing everything we can to include them in the had bipartisan work we need to do on priorities to move our nation forward. divisive and partisan bills like this one undermine women and undermines our strength as a country. i was proud to join many of my colleagues in voting against this bill, and i am glad that it has failed in the senate today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. i want to take a moment this evening to congratulate one of the most effective advocates for american ago in our -- agriculture in our nation's capital. we are often helped by those who have lots of knowledge and in the coming days mary kay thatcher will be retiring from the american farm bureau where she's recognized as one of the most knowledgeable experts on farm policy. on conservation, on crop

insurance, ag data, and so many other issues this affect farmers and ranchers in rural america. mary kay represents the best of washington, d.c. she's smart, she's passionate, and she's authentic. again, we often need help from those who have expertise to help us make the right decisions, and she is absolutely one of those people. and a great thing about mary kay that every is she hasn't -- mary kay thatcher is she hasn't forgotten where she's come from. her rural roots. she has steadfast support for america's farmers and ranchers. too many people come to the beltway and forget why they're here. throughout her career she's never lost sight of what ought to be the mission of each of us -- to use our positions, our talents and our abilities to help others. for mary kay thatcher, her career has been all about helping america's farmers and

ranchers, for standing up for the food and fiber producers of our nation, and let me tell you, shoos he one of the best there is at it. not only is mary kay one of the most articulate ag lobbyists i know, she's one of the most articulate people i know. her ability to break down an issue and make it understand iblablefor everyone, including e who don't have an ag background, make her one of the most effective advocates for agriculture. there's forward and fewer people in the united states senate and in the congress who understand agriculture, who come from farming backgrounds, and that ability to connect with them is so important. i've always appreciates the advice and counsel that mary kay has provided me when working on the farm bill or other pieces of ag legislation. i've also always noticed and appreciated how much time she spends educating staff, including those in my office. and i believe that a big part of mary kay's legacy will be the generations of young people who

are better prepared to continue to fight for american agriculture because mary kay took the time and made the effort to mentor and to teach them. her passion for agriculture comes naturally. she grew up on an iowa farm and continues to own and manage that farm today. that helps guide her work here in the nation's capital. she worked at american farm bureau for over 30 years, but in ag circles it's not necessarily the number of years people talk about, but it's the number of farm bills. they refer to how many farm bills a person survived and at least by my account, mary kay has been part of writing at least seven farm bills in addition to many other key pieces of ag legislation. so i know i'm adding my voice to lots of others who will talk about how great of a person she is and what an advocate she is, but i do want to add my accolades because they're so well-deserved. mary kay thatcher, i thank you for all your work on behalf of american agriculture, including

kansas farm bureau and its members, but all of agriculture in our state. your efforts have benefited kansas and improved our country. you'll be missed at american farm bureau, but i know that you'll find other ways to advocate for agriculture, and i hope that for many years to come we remain friends working together on behalf of american farmers and ranchers. congratulations, best wishes, and thank you -- said with great respect and with gratitude. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: one of the important things the senate is taking up right now, obviously the issues of immigration, budget, disaster relief. a lot of pertinent issues that need to be resolved. one of those things that was in the middle of the conversation came up today. and it's part of a conversation that quite frankly doesn't come up often in this body, but this

seemed like a reasonable piece to be able to come up. it came up to the senate to open debate on it and failed to be able to get 60 votes to even support beginning to talk about what should be an easy conversation on a hard issue. this issue about children and life. in 1973 when roe v. wade passed, the supreme court at that time determined children that were viable -- and that's the definition they left out there -- children that were viable, there's a governmental interest in being able to engage with those children. viability in 1973 is very different than what it is now, decades later. 1973 viable was a much older child. now we know a lot more. a lot more children survive. children born at 22 weeks gestation have between a 50% to 60% chance of survival now. that was not so in 1973. the rest of the world has caught up to this technology, and their

government has acknowledged this issue of a child that has ten fingers and ten toes and a beating heart, they suck their thumb in the womb, they yawn, they stretch, they move, that is a child. now, i understand there's wide argument about a child at eight weeks that i believe is a child, but others look at it and say it doesn't look like a child yet. but a child at 20, 22, 24 weeks of gestation, that child even looks like a child when you look at that child on the ultrasound. it's hard to disagree, especially when children are born at that age prematurely and they survive. and many of us know kids that were born at 22 weeks. the bill that came up today on the senate floor that had bipartisan support and had a majority support but not 60 senators' support to be able to discuss this was a very simple straightforward bill. it asked this one question. will we as americans continue to

allow elective abortions when the child is viable? the supreme court said in 1973 the government has a right to be able to step in and protect a viable child. there's no question that they're at that age of viability. there's no question that at 20 weeks science shows us they experience pain in the womb and if surgery happens for a child in utero like that, that child is given an an these at the time -- anesthetic to calm that pain because they have a developing nervous system, a beating heart. buthere's no question i'm passionate about the issue of life and about children. and that we should as a culture protect children. but this one confuses me for this body more than any other issue. there are only seven nations in the world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks. there are only four nations in the world that allow elective

abortions after 24 weeks. we are in that elite club. we are in the elite club with three other nations that allow elective abortions that late. vietnam, north korea, and china. the worst human rights violators in the world. and there sits the united states in that very elite club. why are we there? because we can't even discuss the possibility that a child is a child and anyone who has ever seen an ultrasound at 24 weeks cannot deny that is a child and that if that child was delivered prematurely they would survive and grow and develop into a person. the only difference between that child at 20 weeks and an adult now is time. this issue will continue to come up and it should. because we as a culture should promote a culture of life and of

honoring people. people at their most vulnerable moment and there's not a more vulnerable moment than that for that child. we've got to get out of this club of elective abortions in a group that only allows it of north korea, china, and vietnam. when will we wake up to the facts the entire rest of the world sees, all of europe, all of africa. all of central america, all of south america, every one of those countries. when will we wake up to what the rest of the world sees plain? a child is a child. and we need to be able to guard those lives. so, mr. president, i am sad that today in a bipartisan vote with more than 50 votes to be able to get into it and pass it, we didn't have enough people who even wanted to discuss it to be able to get on the bill. we'll bring it up again.

for the sake of those children and their future. we'll bring it up again. and we'll keep bringing the facts to the argument, not the emotion, but the facts to the argument, and we'll win people over. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, executive calendar 497. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the

judiciary, gregory e. maggs of virginia to be a judge of the united states court of appeals for the armed forces lan i ask -- i ask consent the senate vote on the nomination, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. lankford: the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, no further motions be in order and any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none, the question is on the nomination. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is -- the nomination is confirmed. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. con. res. 101 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: h. con. res. 101 concurrent resolution providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the presiding officer of the senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the senate to join with like-minded committee on the part of the house of representatives to escort the president of the united states into the house chamber for the joins session to be held -- joint session to be held at 9:00 p.m. tuesday, january 30, 2018. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: notwithstanding the resolution of the senate of january 24, 1901, the reading of washington's farewell address take place on monday, february 26, following the prayer and pledge, further that senator peters be recognized to deliver the address. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the senate vote on confirmation of the stras nomination at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, january 30 and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, january 30. further that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the stras nomination. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. and that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business and leader remarks count as postcloture on the stras nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. lankford: if there's no further business for come before

the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator casey. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i'd ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: and i'd also consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about two matters tonight. the first is the issue of community health centers which, of course, is a major issue for states across the country. millions and millions of americans get their health care through community health centers. i'll mention it more than once, but 800,000 of them are in the state of pennsylvania. and as we come closer to working

out bipartisan agreements on a whole range of issues that are ahead of us literally in the next two to three weeks, i hope that there will be a strong consensus to provide a funding plan and funding certainty to community health centers across the country. these community health centers provide access to health care through education, rehabilitation, preventive services and direct care. these centers focus on meeting the very basic health care needs in a community. they provide critical services especially for people in both urban areas and rural areas where there are often limited options for primary care and prevention clinics. despite the critical importance of these health centers, congress failed to act to extend the majority of funding for

community health centers before it ran out on september 30 of last year, 2017. after funds expired, the health centers were facing a funding reduction of between 60% and 70% of their funding. last december congress passed a congressional, or i should say a continuing resolution that included $550 million in funding for community health centers. that's nowhere near what they need to get through even one year. while this funding patch will provide some short-term relief, the funds do not provide the long-term funding stability for health centers that they need and the patients who depend upon them should have a right to expect. it's time for congress to end the delays and get a long-term funding plan in place for these community health centers by the

next deadline for the continuing resolution for funding, which is of course february 8 being the next deadline. it does give us the chance, because there is a deadline, to work towards that to get funding in place by the 8th. across the united states, health centers serve more than 25 million patients per year. that's about one in 13 americans overall. just consider this, rural americans -- i live in a state where we have 67 counties but 48 of the 67 are so-called rural counties. that's the way they're categorized and there are a lot of health care needs in those rural communities and rural counties. health centers provide care to one in four rural americans. so if that ratio were applied to pennsylvania, we've got at least three million people that live in rural communities. so you can see the numbers, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of

pennsylvanians who depend upon health care in rural areas from these community health centers. just in terms of the centers themselves, in 2016 pennsylvania had 264, and that meant thousands of people working in those health centers, something close to 5,000, about 4,900 pennsylvanians work in these centers. these health centers provide quality care and vital services, as i said before, to a total of 800,000 pennsylvanians, rural, urban and otherwise. just give you a sense of some of the testimony i received from people in our state, one story came from emily at the family practice and counseling network, an institution, a location i just visited today in philadelphia. she wrote this letter to me a number of weeks ago. i won't read the whole excerpt

but she said in pertinent part about the people who are served by these community health centers, quote, they have lives filled with trauma and in turn suffer from social, physical, and behavioral issues that will go untreated if funding for community health centers goes away. our services are so needed. unquote. the words i want people to remember are lives filled with trauma. that's unfortunately a good description of the lives led by a lot of americans when health care, in this case a community health care center is not there for them or when health care itself is threatened. lives filled with trauma. and another person who works at the same place and who has really been the leader of this particular institution, the family practice and counseling network in philadelphia, the

executive director, donna torizi, i met her today actually, she sent me a letter prior to today about her concerns, she's concerned about the funding cliff resulting in a barrier to care for people who need mental health services, critically important. donna said in pertinent part, quote, the impact on our community will be devastating, our health care center provides behavioral health services that are already limited in philadelphia. without funding, we'll need to close the site and cut jobs, causing patients to go without the care they desperately need. so i would consider that for purposes of this debate expert testimony on community health centers because i know in donna's case, she has worked in this field i think something on the order of 25 years. so we appreciate her -- her

weighing in on this. so, mr. president, on this issue, i know that there is concern on both sides of the aisle. i hope that concern results in a bipartisan agreement to fund community health centers to at least, at least -- and i would like to do more, a lot more -- but at least give some funding certainty for the next year, meaning from now until the end of the fiscal year. i hope we could get an agreement that could get funding certainly for two years or more. that would be ideal. mr. president, i have other remarks that i would ask consent to have placed in a separate part of the record from the remarks i just gave. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to just spend a couple of moments tonight -- i know the hour is late -- for the senate and people working here, but i wanted to end the night tonight with a message about a law enforcement official in

pennsylvania whose funeral, memorial service i attended just on friday. this individual was a deputy marshall. his name is christopher david hill. he lost his life on january 18. he was living at the time in york, pennsylvania. he was killed in the line of duty in harrisburg, not far from new york, while attempting to apprehend a fugitive. i commend deputy marshall hill for his service to the commonwealth of pennsylvania and his service to our nation. he happened to be working in the federal district -- the middle district of pennsylvania, which meant he had responsibility for work through counties from the bottom of the state all the way up to northeastern pennsylvania, which is my -- my home area. and i wanted to, of course,

offer our deepest condolences to his family. law enforcement officers like christopher hill accept the special duty of protecting the rest of us and keeping our communities safe. i have to say that we often don't think about that in the context of federal marshals. federal employees who do critically important work every day of the week and are often in horrifically dangerous circumstances. in this case, deputy marshall hill was shot at -- the murderer was shooting from a higher position in a house. they didn't know this individual was in the house, was shooting down at him, and he had protective gear on. and i won't give a full description, i'm not qualified to do that, but the problem is the bullet came from a direction like this into his -- entered his body from above and killed him in that manner, even though he had protection on, even

though all the proper protocols were followed. so he was -- it was really in essence a one-man ambush that -- because they were trying to apprehend another individual on the floor below where the assailant was. but that's the kind of danger that federal marshals face every day of the week. sometimes we don't realize it. chris and his loving family made the ultimate sacrifice for the nation and for the people of pennsylvania and for their bravery and the contribution of his family in supporting him, we are eternally grateful for that commitment to law enforcement in the country. christopher david hill was born in sacramento, california, but he was raised in central pennsylvania. he graduated from warrior run high school. he served his country as a ranger in the u.s. army where he was assigned to the prestigious

third battalion. while in the army, chris earned many awards, including the army commendation medal. for the last 11 years, serving, as i said before, as deputy u.s. marshal, he was a member of the agency's special operations group, so-called s.a.g. at the memorial service, lots of references to that special operations group because members of that group were there to not only pay tribute to him but to speak about his life, to speak about his service, to speak about his character, his bravery, and in very moving testimonials. this group, special operations group, is a specially trained and highly disciplined tactical unit. in 2012, chris served on a -- on assignment in afghanistan for which he was recognized with a director's distinguished group award. in 2014, he was instrumental in

the capture of notorious cop killer eric frein. eric frein was the individual who killed a state police officer and also injured another state police officer. in this case, chris commanded u.s. marshals, f.b.i. agents, and state troopers in one of the largest rural manhunts in recent american history. chris was known as a dedicated and extremely capable law enforcement officer, and his numerous awards are proof of that. during his time with the marshall's service, he received the flatc director's leadership award, a special act award for a distinguished 300 shooter and a special act award for achieving 95% weapons proficiency. christopher was dedicated -- or i should say was described as

the person you wanted to go through the door with, someone on whom you could completely rely. he was also known for his sense of humor and his positive outlook on life. outside of work, he enjoyed hunting and golfing with his friends and family, but most of all, chris was known for his devotion to his family. chris is survived by his devoted wife sylvia, his loving son and daughter travis and ashlynn, his father john, his brother joey, his sister-in-law micailah and his sister melinda. he was preceded in death by his mother katherine. on january 18, as i mentioned before, he was shot and killed in the line of duty. the u.s. marshal service apprehends approximately 100,000 fugitives every year. 100,000 every year, including the worst of the worst, violent felons whose capture makes our communities safer.

also shot in this altercation was kyle pitts, a new york city police officer and a harrisburg police officer who took a bullet to his ballistic vest but was not injured. we are praying for kyle pitts' full recovery. last week, i joined law enforcement officers from around the country for the memorial service, as i mentioned. you could tell how chris was loved and respected by the testimony from those law enforcement officials. i have here -- you can't see it from a distance, but this is a program for the memorial service. it has a list of those who spoke. i won't read all of them. then it has chris' biography with a picture of him on the back. but i could go through every -- virtually every name here of the ones who spoke on -- in tribute to chris, friends of his that worked with him, and i am not

sure i have ever been to a more emotional, moving ceremony in my life where you had from the podium one after another of these dedicated law enforcement professionals who are as tough and as determined as any man could be, and to a denver, they were very, very emotional, other come with emotion in some cases. -- and to a person, they were very, very emotional, overcome with emotion in some cases. i'm not sure i will ever be at a ceremony that was as moving. so on a night like tonight when we have a lot of debates and a lot of arguments on a range of issues, these are times we can come together to express not only condolence, not only tribute and appreciation, but express i think what is the solidarity of our state and the nation in paying tribute to a

fallen law enforcement official. my colleague, senator toomey, and i were there together. there were people from across the state who were there. we had federal judges who served in that -- who serve in that district, federal employees who worked with him, who worked with christopher hill. and so for so many reasons, we want to pay tribute to him tonight and to express gratitude for his life of service and the commitment that he made to the country, that he made to the marshals service, and that he made to the commonwealth of pennsylvania, and of course we want to express both our condolences to his wife sylvia and his family, his children, because of the dedicated way that they supported him through all his years as a federal marshal and as a law enforcement

official. so, mr. president, with that, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning

>> later tonight legislators

and regulators and executives talk about the laws and policies governing the internet. to limit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is debated and the international monetary fund managing director puts up the global economic forecast.

>> welcome to las vegas this is "the communicators". we are on location for the next couple of weeks. we are at the consumer electronics show the largest tradeshow in north america. we will show you some of the interviews that we did and some of the latest technology. this is "the communicators" on c-span.