meant to demoonize women and their health care providers, people are going to continue calling out no es lies, calling out the attempts to turn back the clock and standing in solidarity with women across the country. president trump's harmful attacks on women's health care are hardly the only time he's ignored how his policies would hurt women and their families. he has also cruelly and unnecessarily separated hundreds of migrant parents and their children. like yolani. she is a mother who was detained in tacoma, washington, while her 6-year-old son was sent all the way across the country to new york. according to media reports, they were kept apart for almost two months before they were reunited, and their story is just one of so many pointless tragedies president trump's heartless family separation policy caused. moms deserve better, especially when there are so many other challenges they need us to lead

on. there is the maternal mortality crisis and the appalling fact that our country has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. we know this crisis is worse for women of color, scharn women in particular who face an even higher maternal health rate, death rate. and because of a new report from the centers of disease control and prevention, we also know three out of five pregnancy-related deaths in our country are preventable. we should be working together to take action to stop so many mothers from dying in childbirth and building on the $50 million maternal mortality initiative that i fought to enact in this year's funding bill to expand evidence-based programs to prevent maternal mortality and advanced maternal health equity. there is also the child care crisis and the reality that for far too many parents, quality, affordable child care is not

available. one mother in washington state told me how she struck out with more than ten child care centers before finally finding one that could care for her son, and when she did find it, it cost more than her mortgage. we should be working to make sure all parents can go to work knowing their children will be well cared for. and we should be fighting for paid family leave so people have the time they need to welcome new members to their family and start building those bonds that last a lifetime, and so no parent has to choose between their paycheck and caring for a sick child. at a time when there is so much we could be doing to make life better for mothers and fathers and families across the country, it is so disappointing that president trump has spent so much time looking for ways to make things worse. but while the trump administration may not be fighting for families, moms are. just last week, i attended a rally here in washington, d.c., and met a mom who came all the

way across the country from washington state to speak up for families like hers. i know what it's like to be in her shoes -- or tennis shoes, as i should say. and i know when people like her speak up and fight for change, they do make a difference, which is why i am so inspired by the moms whose stories i have shared today and the many others who shared their stories back with me in my home state of washington. i want to wish all the moms out there a happy mother's day. i know you are going to keep fighting for your family. i want you to know we will keep fighting for you. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: madam president, i would like to thank senator murray for organizing all of us to come to the floor in honor of mother's day. i want to take my time to talk about the ongoing attacks on women's health in this country.

i feel a sense of you urgency at the increasingly hostile, escalating, and unrelenting attacks on women's health by donald trump and republicans. from continuous efforts to defund planned parenthood to taking away title 10 funds to trying to repeal the affordable care act, all programs that support health care for millions of women in this country, and i have to ask why. what is the motivation for taking away health care services for millions of women in this country? it's not clear why they're doing this, but what is clear is that that -- is the harm they are causing to women. repealing the affordable care act would mean that insurance plans would no longer be required to cover maternity care and birth control. insurance companies would be able to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. astoundingly for women, this includes pregnancy. by proposing trillion-dollar cuts to medicaid, donald trump

and congressional republicans endanger tens of millions of women in this country who rely on medicaid for coverage during pregnancy and birth. do they even care that these cuts to medicaid are particularly cruel in the face of an infant and maternal mortality crisis in our country, particularly for black women? by establishing a gag rule, donald trump is forcing health care providers to choose between providing full and accurate information on all available health care options for women, including abortion, and hundreds of millions of dollars in federal title 10 funding. states like hawaii are refusing to succumb to this unjustified coercion by refusing title 10 funds and replacing them with hard-earned state funds so that providers in our state can give the necessary health care to women. and by trying to pass onerous

new abortion restrictions in states across the country, conservative forces are working hard to undermine a woman's constitutional right to abortion. one institution that can stand up to this assault on women's rights and women's health is our federal judiciary. last month, for example, a federal judge in washington state blocked the implementation of the trump administration's title 10 gag rule. and in march, a federal judge in kentucky prevented a new law restricting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy from going into effect. these two recent examples demonstrate the importance of our courts in upholding the constitution and the law and constraining radical right-wing assaults on women's health and rights. to counter what independent judges are doing, donald trump, leader mcconnell, and senate republicans are packing our

courts with ideologically driven conservative judges who will be on their ideological page. over the past two and a half years, they have confirmed to more than 100 new federal judges the overwhelming majority which were selected by two ultraconservative organizations, the federalist society and the heritage foundation. their efforts to pack the courts continue this week with an upcoming vote on a nominee for the second circuit in new york, michael park, who fought to restrict access to reproductive health care for women. in one recent example, mr. park defended kansas' attempt to defund planned parenthood by terminating its medicaid contracts. this would have ended the vital services planned parenthood provides to low-income patients such as for cancer screening and access to contraception. fortunately, the judges who heard that case rejected mr. park's arguments, but now

with his confirmation to the second circuit all but assured, mr. park is set to become the judge in these types of cases. it is no wonder that both of his home state senators oppose his nomination. not satisfied with packing our courts with judges who have ideological right-wing agendas, donald trump and republican leaders are resorting to incendiary, reprehensible, and false rhetoric to inflame their base. we have seen this most recently in the debate around the so-called born-alive abortion survivors protection act. with the vilification of women who seek abortions later in pregnancy. infanticide is already a crime, but you would never know it if you listened to republican politicians and their mouthpieces on fox news and the conservative media. my colleague from nebraska, for example, accused democrats in a

fox news.com op-ed of, quote, blurring the lines between abortion and outright infanticide, end quote. during the debate on the bill, ultraconservative fox news host laura ingraham compared planned parenthood, the nation's largest maternal health provider, who has saved countless thousands of lives, to adolf hitler, saying, quote, hitler, just like planned parenthood, practiced and defended mass exterminations, end quote. immediately after the senate defeated this unnecessary bill, donald trump tweeted, quote, senate democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. the democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies after birth. end quote. the president's incendiary and completely false rhetoric of this issue becomes a rallying cry at his bizarre political

rallies across the country. in green bay, wisconsin, last month, for example, he said, quote, the baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby, end quote. this kind of rhetoric is simply outrageous. it is not harmless electioneering. it's dangerous. it's incitement. it's provoking a dramatic uptick of threats to abortion providers and supporters of abortion rights across the country. this sustained right-wing attack is taking a heavy emotional toll on women who seek abortions later in pregnancy and the doctors who provide this essential care. kate carson, a woman who boston who sought an abortion after her daughter laura was diagnosed with catastrophic brain mall formations in 2012 wrote a powerful op-ed about her painful

decision. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that her op-ed be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: here is some of what kate wrote. quote, i help run a support group for families who have ended pregnancy after poor prenatal or maternal diagnosis. if you are wondering who are these women who get abortions in the third trimester, we are, i am, parents who love our babies with our entire hearts. desperate acts like an abortion in the 36th week of pregnancy are brought about only by the most desperate circumstances and are only available to those who can come up with a lot of money quickly. i know. i have been there. my daughter laura was diagnosed in may, 2012, with catastrophic brain malformations. they were overlooked until my 35th week of pregnancy. i did not know much about brain disorders at that point. i imagined developmental delay,

special education classes, financial pressure, an overhaul of expectations for laura's life and my motherhood. here were the doctors' real expectations for law a. a brief life of seizures, full-body muscle cramps, and aspirating her own bodily fluids. it is devastating to lose a child, but unlike most bereaved parents, women like me will live out the rest of our lives as scapegoats, fuel for an agenda that seeks to strip women and families of our reproductive freedoms. end quote. madam president, it is outrageous and offensive that donald trump and his allies in congress would seek to turn women like kate into scapegoats for their political agendas. madam president, i have been an advocate for abortion rights for decades, and i fear that one day soon, women in this country will

wake up and realize they no longer have control over their own bodies. what could be more intrusive than the government telling women what they can do with their own bodies? madam president, in the face of these ongoing attacks on women's health and women's rights, we will continue to raise our voices. we will continue to fight back. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i rise to speak about the pending nominations. i wanted to make some comments about two nominations, but i'd ask consent first that -- i will have two sets of remarks -- that each of them appear in separate parts of the record relative to that nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you very much. we know that this week the

senate is considering the nomination of michael park who has been nominated by the president to serve on the court of appeals for the second circuit. i've got a number of concerns with whether park's nomination and his record, but i want to highlight just one of those concerns today, but i think it is a major concern for many americans. in 2011, mr. park submitted an amicus brief to the united states supreme court arguing that the affordable care act medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. that's the argument that he made. he claimed that the medicaid expansion provision coerced states into accepting, quote, greatly enlarged medicaid -- accepting aid, i should say, one greatly enlarged medicaid program, unquote. greatly enlarged medicaid program. i will come back to that later

because those words are important. and the rationale for this was because -- at least he asserted -- that these states could not realistically opt out. obviously, i disagree with his argument. i disagree with his rationale, but i want to talk about the programs, bus more importantly, the meme -- the people, the people affected by his point of view on this, if he were to be successful in his arctics. but also if he were to be confirmed, i am concerned about his decisions related to medicaid and paid-related topics. i do want to talk about medicaid expansion, the importance of it and the people that it helps. everyone here knows what medicaid itself is. it's been a program that we've enjoyed the benefits of for more than 50 years.

right now, about 75 million people are covered by medicaid. approximately 17 million of those individuals are eligible because of medicaid expansion. so millions of people got health care because of the medicaid expansion part of the affordable care act. medicaid itself covers 38% of the 1.9 million people younger than age 65 that are battling an opioid addiction. so 38% of the 1.9 million people helped in the grip of that addiction that affects every state, every community and increasingly virtually every family -- or at least we all seem to know someone who's been adversely impacted by an opioid addiction or a substance use

disorder issue. so 38% is almost four in ten. so four in ten people who need that are benefiting from medicaid itself. because of medicaid expansion. a lot of politicians in washington tried to convince people both here and around the country that medicaid was about some other person over there, some person that you didn't know, some person that you may not have to be too concerned about -- or so the argument went; that medicaid was not about you or your family, it was about some other person. and the implicit message was, don't worry about them. they probably don't need it and you can vote for repeal and everything will be okay for the country. well, we now know better than ever,probably, since the ongoing debate since 2017 and the debate

that's been played out over many years, that medicaid is not a program for someone else. it is an us program. it is about us, about who we are as a country. it tells us a lot about our values, whom we value, for whom we will fight and for whom we stand up for. medicaid provides coverage for basically, if you wanted to simplify it, for three groups of americans -- seniors, kids, and people with disabilities. in my home state of pennsylvania, medicaid could be simplified this way. it is an oversimplifying, but it's a -- it's an oversimplifying, but it is a good way to trying it in numerical terms. it is a 40-50-60 program. 40% of all the births in pennsylvania, the national number is actually higher, and roughly 40% of all the kids in our state have medicaid. the 50 is -- you could look at

this through the lens of individuals with disabilities but certainly children with disabilities. it's actually 54% of children with disabilities in pennsylvania get medicaid. a big number. and those families don't want to hear talk of repeal or talk of eliminating medicaid expansion or talk of in any way undermining medicaid itself. how about 60? where does the 60 come in the 40-50-60 equation? the 60 is people in nursing homes. there are a lot of families out there who may not have realized that they are loved one, their familiar, dad, grandparent or relative, grandmother, grandfather, was getting into a nursing home and in many cases solely -- solely -- because of the medicaid program. couldn't get there any other way, couldn't afford it, unless

you can shell out tens and tens of thousands of dollars a year for long-term care. so for medicaid to affect that many people in pennsylvania -- literally millions in our state -- that's just one state. the numbers are very similar across the country. the exact number for medicaid expansion in pennsylvania exceed 700,000. so after the affordable care act was passed and then implemented, after 2010, over the course of several years, we gained coverage in pennsylvania of over 1.1 million people, a big number. unfortunately, because of the administration's sabotage over the last two years, that number has gone down. it is still above 1.1 million, but it is going down. the medicaid expansion part of that, of course, was over 700,000 people. now comes the administration's budget. this current budget proposal by the administration, which i

predict will be rejected by the congress -- but we have to make sure it gets rejected, because one of the proposals in that budget is to cut medicaid by $ $1.5 trillion over ten years. the other reality here is that the official republican position on the affordable care act and related issues is they want to -- republican members of congress want to eliminate medicaid expansion over time. not just to cut it, not to change it; to eliminate it. they want to eliminate medicaid expansion and, of course, based upon the $1.5 trillion proposed cut, along with other proposals one after another, they want to cut medicaid itself. so when mr. park uses words like his concern about medicaid expansion being greatly enlarged medicaid programs -- or program itself overall -- i worry what he might do as a judge, not just an medicaid expansion but what

he might do, decisions he might make based upon medicaid itself. so my original concern about his arguments about the affordable care act are now greatly significantly increased, those concerns are, because of what he has said about medicaid itself. indirectly saying that he's not sure whether medicaid itself would be worthy of the kind of support that it's going to require over time. so i have real concerns on medicaid. let me move to the second part of my remarks. i want to say a few words about the nomination of janet dhillon to be chair of the equal employment opportunity commission. i will vote against her nomination. i have voted against it in the past in committee. we need a little reminder of this once in a while. it is a bipartisan commission that for decades has worked to

protect american workers from discrimination in the workplace, all kinds of discrimination. and many lawyers know that if you bring an action in a state court or in a federal court, the first step is you've got a exhaust, go through all your administrative remedies. so if you bring a civil action based upon discrimination, the first thing you have to do is go to the eeoc. before you can get to a federal district court, you got to go through the eeoc. so it becomes the first court, in essence -- it is not technically a court, but it becomes the first place you go -- to have your discrimination in the workplace claim considered. during that time since the founding -- or the beginnings of the eeoc, people in both parties in the senate have worked together to move forward nominees from both parties, in tandem, so the commission could continue it's essential work.

today, this bipartisan process is being cast aside by the majority in the senate, because no democratic nominee is being considered, along with janet dillon who has been proposed by the administration. my colleagues in the majority have decided to abandon this bipartisan cooperation. we know that the eeoc plays a critical role in protecting workers from all forms -- all forms -- of workplace discrimination. and ensuring that all workers have an equal access to employment opportunities. another point that's important. the eeoc is currently in the middle of collecting data on pay gaps faced by women in the workplace and the eeoc's leadership is badly needed so that we can work to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, still a big problem, where we have a long way to go. so instead of working with democrats to make sure that all -- all -- eeoc positions are filled, so the commission can

undertake this work, the majority is instead working only to advance the republican nominees put forward by the white house. this is not how the senate should work. certainly it is not how the senate should work as it relates to the eeoc. and the only -- or the most significant losers here are american workers. they will pay the price because of the eeoc not having more nominations that are bipartisan. madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues in raising concerns about the unrelenting attacks that this administration has waged on the health of women in new hampshire and across the country. with mother's day just around

the corner, it's important to make clear that we cannot stand idly by while the administration undermines access to maternity care, to family planning, and to reproductive care for women. through misguided executive orders, regulations, and other actions, this administration is making it more difficult for women to access the care and services they need in communities across the country and abroad. now, new mothers deal with significant medical expenses. that's why we worked very hard when we were writing the affordable care act to require insurance coverage for maternity care, to help new mothers cover the cost of obstetric services and of hospital charges for childbirth and other expenses. the affordable care act and access to maternity care coverage it provides has made a real difference for so many

people in new hampshire and across the country. one of those women is samantha foxx from bowe, new hampshire. she is now a state legislator in new hampshire. but prior to the affordable care act, samantha was denied coverage for health care -- health insurance because of a reproductive system disorder, and the insurance that she was able to get didn't provide prenatal and maternity care coverage. well, thanks to the a.c.a., she was guaranteed coverage of these vital maternity care services that were so important when she gave birth to her son leo in 2017. we can't go back to those days before the affordable care act when only 12% of health plans on the individual market covered maternity care or when women could be charged higher premiums than men for the very same coverage. but that's exactly what the trump administration is trying

to do by expanding the availability of junk plans that are not required to cover maternity care, and that is what this administration is trying to do by urging the courts to strike down the affordable care act in its entirety. now, in addition, at a time when 43% of child births in this country are covered and paid for by the medicaid program, the trump administration continues to propose medicaid block grants and funding caps that would fail to adequately support states for the costs of coverage for pregnant women and new mothers. and senator casey was very eloquent in talking about what will happen if the effort to reduce medicaid is successful. sadly, the barriers to women's health care that this administration has created go beyond just insurance coverage. they're also losing significant -- they're also imposing

significant impediments to access to family planning services. the administration's title 10 gag rule would violate the provider-patient relationship by prohibiting providers who receive federal family planning grants from informing their patients about reproductive health options, including safe and legal abortions. in 2017, more than 16,000 granite staters obtained care from family planning providers that received support through federal title 10 family planning grants. now, this includes more than 1,200 cervical cancer screenings, nearly 1,500 breast exams that were provided by new hampshire's planned parenthood facilities that if this gag rule is allowed to stand would then be eliminated because women would have to get those

screenings somewhere else, and in many cases, the women would not be able to afford the cost of those screenings. the title 10 gag rule puts access to these and so many other vital services at risk. and the administration's barriers to family planning services extend around the world as a result of a similar global gag rule on international family planning grants. based on the unfortunate experience with the global gag rule, we already know that when you exclude entities like planned parenthood and other providers from family planning grants, you will impede access to care for vulnerable women in impoverished countries around the world, and we're beginning now to get the data from so many n.g.o.'s that provide those services. it's ironic because people in this administration, those who say they support the global gag rule, say they do it because

they're trying to reduce the number of abortions. and yet, what we know is that putting on this global gag rule increases the number of unwanted pregnancies, increases the number of unsafe abortions, increases the number of maternal deaths in childbirth. i don't understand why the data is not convincing to those people who share the view that we should try and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. but that's why each year i come together with senators collins and murkowski to lead a bipartisan charge to repeal the global gag rule and to bolster resources for international family planning. hopefully we will be able to pass that again this year. now in light of all these dangerous efforts to erode protections for women's health, we need to stand together here

in congress. we need to join forces with women across the country and around the world. we need to say enough is enough. women should be able to access health insurance for reproductive services, for family planning services, just as men can access health insurance for all the services they need. so thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, senator romney and i had the privilege over the easter recess to visit our troops and our diplomats in iraq. they are serving us well. they are putting their lives on the line, as we partner with

the iraqis to make sure that isis does not reconstitute itself in iraq or in syria. we have taken their territory away from them, but there are still over 20,000 or so isis fighters and loyalists in and around the region. and once again our trip proved to both of us that our soldiers, our diplomats are the best in the world. we're so lucky to have them be so willing to stand on guard for us all over the world, maybe the most important assignment today in iraq as we continue to battle the scattered remnants of isis. and, mr. president, i don't want a president who takes the unquestioning advice of his military leaders.

i want a president who's willing to push back. but nobody knows how to defeat isis better than the u.s. military. they effectively have done it twice. they beat al qaeda in iraq and then they came back again with many partners to take territory away from isis. and nobody takes more seriously the threat of isis's reemergence or the threat of an expansionist iran than the united states military. but i'm here today to talk about our president's refusal over and over again to listen to the advice that he is being given by his generals and by his advisors at the department of defense. instead he is listening to the iran hawks inside the white

house that think about this problem through the air conditioned safety of their west wing offices with little regard to how things actually work on the ground in the real world of the middle east. and so i want to talk about our two main objectives today in iraq and in iran, and i want to frame it in the context of today's disastrous news that the iranians are restarting elements of their nuclear weapons program. first let's talk about a bipartisan commitment that we share, and that is the commitment to stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. in and of itself it would be a world disaster. it would present an immediate existential threat to our partners in israel, and it would result in an arms race

throughout the region that would be exacerbated by the fact that the trump administration in the last two years has made the decision to engage in a new nuclear partnership with the saudis which put the saudis on a quicker path to obtain a nuclear weapon in the case an arms race set off. what the trump administration has done is to goad iran into restarting their nuclear weapons program. they announced last night that they are pulling out of their side of the iran nuclear agreement and they are going to start to once again take steps that could lead them to a quick breakout to a nuclear weapon. those that opposed the agreement that president obama signed did so in part because they said that it could allow iran to restart its nuclear weapons program in 10 to 13 years, and

10 to 13 years wasn't enough to security to sign on to that agreement. well, president trump has now managed to press the iranians into restarting their nuclear weapons program in four years. we didn't get 10 years, we didn't get 13 years. we got 4 years, and iran is back on a potential path to a nuclear weapon. the president will say that he is imposing crippling new sanctions on iran such that they will come back to the negotiating table, but let's be honest. there is not a plausible path for that to happen in the next year and a half of the president's term. it took president obama two terms to engage in multilateral sanctions to get the iranians to the negotiating table. there are no credible analysts of iranian behavior or of politics in the middle east that will tell you that the iranians are going to come back to the negotiating table in the next 12 months, in part because the balance of powers has totally

flipped. under the obama administration, it was the united states, europe, china, and russia on one side, and the iranians on the other side. president trump has managed to flip that alignment such that it is now the iranians, the europeans, the chinese, and the russians on one side and the united states isolated on the other. if you don't believe me, just take a look at the statements that many of those parties sent out in response to iran's decision last night. effectively aligning themselves with the iranians' decision to restart their nuclear program instead of aligning themselves as they had for years with the u.s. position of strict nonpro nonproliferation. this is a disaster for the united states that iran restarted its nuclear weapon program. it is a massive failure of president trump's strategy. but it is only one element of a

meandering iran strategy that is accruing to the national security detriment of the united states, because let's talk about our second primary objective in this region. i referenced it at the outset. it is to prevent the reemergence and reconstitution of isis inside iraq and syria. and we have bad news to report there as well. the trump administration took another step that had been counseled against by his generals, by his military leaders, and that is the designation of the irgc, c -- an element of the iranian military as a terrorist group. nobody can defend the actions of iran or the irgc. they absolutely support terrorism in the region. for years they supported shia militias inside iraq that were shooting at and killing american troops. and yet, notwithstanding that

activity, our military leaders and our diplomats inside iraq cautioned the administration against making this designation because weighing the costs of it against the benefits to our military leaders was a clear case. the costs are thus, by telling these militias inside iran that they have to make a choice today between the united states and this newly designated terrorist group, the iranian militias make the choice easily. they align themselves with iran, their neighbor, not the united states. the effect of our decision is to push more of these militia groups closer to the iranians. second, we no longer can talk diplomatically to the groups that have associations with the irgc and that's a lot of these militia groups meaning the united states effectively takes itself out of the game diplomatically. we no longer have the ability to engage in political reconciliation in the country

like we used to. and all of this presses the case of isis as they are able to make the case that baghdad is more and more leaning towards shia interests and iranian interests, the united states isn't there in order to press the reconciliation case, isis has an opportunity to reemerge. all of this also accrues to the benefit of those interested in iraq who want the united states military out. there was an effort just months ago to push a bill through parliament to expel the united states and our continued hard line on iran as much as it may make sense to the air conditioned offices of the white house, allow for those interests in iraq to potentially successfully litigate a case to push the u.s. military out of that country which would once again open the gates to isis.

the administration's policy, as far as i can tell, is to set in motion a series of escalatory actions with respect to iran that has no end game with no logical conclusion. there isn't a diplomatic process at the end of this rainbow. the president has a year and a half left in his term. there isn't enough time and there's not willingness in iran and no partners on our side, as i mentioned. so what's the other alternative? military action? an invasion of iran would be an unmitigated national security disaster. it would make the mistake of invading iraq with -- positively benign in retrospect. there is no appetite in america for such an endeavor and there is no way the votes exist in congress to authorize such an action. the risk of course is that we fall into war by accident or through a series of events that appear as an accident. and when you commit yourself to such an unplanned, unscripted

series of military and diplomatic escalations as the trump administration has, then you have no working channel and you have no working channel of communications to settle misunderstandings, then accidents can easily happen. shots can be fired, lives can be lost. and then our options suddenly narrow. that is the real risk of the path that we are on today. and what scares the heck out of me is that it's a path that is seemingly being made up day by day, and it's a path that is opposed by our military and laid out without any meaningful input from our diplomats that are on the ground in the region. that is a potential recipe for disaster, and it shouldn't matter whether you are a democrat or a republican, a liberal or a conservative, because messing around in the middle east in countries like iran and iraq with no strategy and no clear set of goals, it

should send chills down every senator's spine. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for six minutes on the dhillon nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor to oppose the nomination of janet dhillon to the equal employment opportunity commission. now i have a number of concerns about her record which i plan to lay out here today, but before i do, i want to talk about the process in which this nomination has come here to the senate floor. mr. president, it has long been common practice here in the senate to confirm nominees to independent agencies as pairs, one republican, one democrat. we do this so agencies like the eeoc are balanced and are able to fully function no matter which party is in the white house. and in the case of the eeoc, it

ensures workers are being protected from discrimination in the workplace. and yet at every opportunity republicans have broken norms and abandoned long-standing practices to jam through their nominees. first it was the national labor relations board when my colleagues across the aisle jammed through two republican nominees without any democrats and then refused to give a highly qualified nominee another term on the board. all because that highly qualified nominee was fighting on the side of workers, not corporations. and then one lone republican was allowed to object to the confirmation of a well-respected commissioner to another term on the eeoc even if that meant the eeo c would no -- eeoc would no longer have a quorum. i urged my colleagues to pass a slate of nominees to the eeoc, but republican leaders allowed

one republican member's opposition to a noncontroversial nominee to hold more weight than the entire senate minority. now, here we are today and republicans want to jam through another nominee without their democratic pair, and by doing this, my colleagues across the aisle have now aband -- abandoned long-standing norms and -- more of a say. is this unacceptable and it goes against the core of the e rch oc. it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of race, religion, sex or disability or lgbtq. it is the eeoc's responsibility to enforce those laws and give every person the opportunity to earn a living without fear of discrimination or harassment.

the eeoc protects lgbtq rights in the workplace and it addresses the gender pay gap. the eeoc is responsible for addressing harassment in the workplace, an issue our country has been grappling with but still has a long way to go. over the past two years, as so many brave women and men have spoken out and shared their stories, we've seen a shift in this country toward acknowledging, finally, the epidemic of harassment and assault in workplaces, and finally we're beginning to address it on a large scale, in hollywood, the media, and halls of congress. those who abuse their position of power to prey on the less powerful are finally being held accountable. but workers and industries outside the spotlight in hospitality or farm fields or hospitals across the country are waiting for the same kind of

reckoning many for many of these workers the eeoc is one of the few places they can turn. it is a resource for workers where they can file complaints, it holds businesses and employers account for discrimination and harassment. this issue should matter for everyone and this agency should be table to stay out of the political fray too. we have to ensure that the eeoc is balanced and remains committed to its core mission. unfortunately, janet dhillon's record shows that she doesn't stand up for workers. she has spent her career working on the side of corporations. she's fought against positions the eeoc has taken that helped ensure workers have the protections they need. and in her confirmation hearing she refused to commit to maintaining the eeoc's current and critical position that lgbtq workers are protected under this civil rights act, which is

something, by the way, that should not be up for debate. so, mr. president, what we are seeing today is another power grab by republican leaders, another republican step toward partisanship and away from balance. and if ms. dhillon is confirmed, another step backwards for republican plrp for american workers who simply want to be treated fairly on the job, especially those workers who historically have not had the rights or resources to come forward. so i urge the senate leadership postpone this vote, work with the white house, get our democratic nominee ready for confirmation, she's waiting, so that there's no other break in yet another senate tradition. it's bad for workers, it's bad for our country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the dhillon nomination. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: 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 michael h. park of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second 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 nikeal h. park of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 51, the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. michael h. park of new york to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. back in 1876, ann reeves jarvis was teaching her sunday school class about notable mothers in the bible. she ended that class with this prayer. quote, i hope and pray that someone sometime will found a memorial mother's day commemorating her for the matchless service she renders to humanity in every field of life. she is entitled to it. that was the prayer of ann reeves jarvis and her 12-year-old daughter anna, who was then a student in the class, took that prayer to heart and

went on to help establish mother's day in the united states in 1914. mr. president, as we approach mother's day this upcoming sunday, i'm gathered with many of my senate colleagues to urge our republican friends here in the senate to reject many of the policies coming down from the trump administration that put women's health and well-being at risk. americans need access to family planning services. an investment in family planning is money well spent because it helps moneys cope with reproductive health planning and can help prevent health crises. this is a win-win for those who receive these services and for all americans who in the long run must pay for health services that are the inevitable result of neglect and failure to provide resources for family

planning. and while this administration, the trump administration, would have you believe that their efforts are solely focused on eliminating access to abortion, the reality is the that -- is that their actions are harmful to a broad array of family planning services. for example, just in 2017, the administration tried to eliminate the teen pregnancy prevention program grants more than a year early, and i want to point out, mr. president, the city of baltimore had one of those grants, and that with the help of programming from the teen pregnancy prevention program, baltimore saw a 61% drop in teen pregnancy between the years 2000 and 2016. the good news is that the city of baltimore and other grantees prevailed in federal court so that that money was restored.

but we now see repeated steps by the trump administration, through its recent title 10 federal rule making, that represent another attempt to restrict access to quality, affordable reproductive health care. and prevent women from receiving the information they need to make informed decisions for themselves about their health care. and it would jeopardize the entire title 10 health network. specifically, mr. president, the rule would block the availability of federal funds to family planning providers, even if those family planning providers separately offer access to abortion services. in other words, despite the fact that federal law is already crystal clear about no public funds being used to pay for a0 bortion, the -- for abortion, the administration policy would ignore that reality. and under the status quo, title

10-funded clinics that provide abortion must keep those services financially separate infrastructure their -- from their title 10 activities. and so this rule would interfere with the ability of women throughout america to get that unbiased family planning service and counseling. the rule would specifically prohibit any referral for abortion services and end the long-standing guarantee that pregnant title 10 patients receive comprehensive, unbiased counseling. a primary goal of this regulation -- and there's been no secret about this -- is to prevent federal funds from going to comprehensive family planning providers like planned parenthood, with little or no regard for the impact that this has on women throughout the country and men and families. in fact, planned parenthood provides health services to four

in ten women in america. and for many women and men, planned parenthood is the only source of care in their community. mr. president, i want to recount a couple stories i've received from my maryland constituents. one is from caitlin. she lives in severna park. she shared with me the impact that planned parenthood had in her life. she says that growing up she did not have a basic education when it came to reproductive health services and options. she writes, i knew i wasn't getting the whole story, and i decided to do my own research. planned parenthood had the answers to my questions with no agenda; just facts. she went on to sater a different first spanned -- she went on to share a different firsthand experience she had has a patient. quote, i needed services that

were quick, affordable, and compassionate, and that's exactly what i received. when it came time to pay the bill, i was surprised to find that they just asked for a small donation. this donation for services is possible through title 10. because of title 10 patients of me and more than 30,000 other marylanders can access care, no matter what, regardless of our ability to pay. that was indicate lynn. i also -- that was caitlin. i also heard from tamara from takoma park, maryland. she moved back to maryland to care for her i am i am aning mor and accepted her dream job, directing a training education fund for health care workers. she hesitated to accept her dream job because the employer-provided insurance plan was grandfathered into pre-affordable care act regulations, meaning that her performed form of birth control

wasn't covered. her prescription would cost her $125 a month, something she could not afford. but through her local planned parenthood, she was able to get the prescription for $20 a month and wrote to me saying, quote, without my local title 10-funded community clinic, i, a graduate of wellesley college, a master's degree hold,an engaged community member, a daughter, a passionate person on a meaningful career path, would be unable to afford my prescription, leaving me in the uncomfortable and quite frankly unfair position of having to choose between my health or quality of life. mr. president, if you look at these stories, you'll find that the proposed regulations coming down from the trump administration prioritize ideology over patient health and safety and fiction over health care facts.

so that's something about title 10. i want to say a word, mr. president, about the affordable care act as well. and the important protections that it provides for people throughout our country. but i want to focus for a minute on the protections that it provides to women. it became the law of the land nine years ago. i don't think any of us expected that we'd be still fighting as hards a we are to try to protect those -- as hard as we are to try to protect those essential health care protections. and despite the failure in this body, in this senate, just last year tooverturn the affordable care act, we still see a -- to overturn the affordable care act, we still see a constant effort from the administration, both through nonstop, harmful regulatory efforts and a wholesale effort through the federal courts. and so i think it's important to remind all of us about what the consequences would be of stripping away all those

protections. and with respect to women's health care, it would do away with the provision that requires coverage of maternity care as an essential health benefit. it would reverse the provisions that ended gender discrimination, which previously allowed insurance companies to charge women higher premiums than men for their health care. it also would eliminate the requirement to provide coverage for preventive health services like mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, prenatal care and regular well-baby and child -- well-child visits and no cost-sharing. so it's important as we look at the ongoing efforts to sabotage the affordable care act in pieces or get rid of it wholesale that the consequences of getting rid of that for women's health would be devastating. i heard from a constituent at that time -- her name was pamela. she had aged off her parents'

insurance in college and became uninsured and, therefore, put off her medical care until she ended up in the emergency room, had to declare bankruptcy to get out from under her medical bills. and she wrote me during that debate over the affordable care act as follows. quote, today my asthma medicine is covered with a nominal co-pay. i can see my doctor before a case of bronchitis becomes something worse, and i do not need to go to the e.r. for treatment. now i have a 20-year-old in college, who has preexisting conditions. unlike me, she is still covered under our health insurance and her prescriptions are affordable. what happens to me, my daughter, and my husband who all have preexisting conditions if our insurance is allowed to go back to the old days of charging more for our coverage? what happens to my daughter if she can no longer be on our

policy? and, mr. president, like many of us, i have other stories i've received from marylanders who are either worried about losing their access to health care through title 10 or worried about losing coverage under the affordable care act. so i hope as we reflect on all the challenges we're facing as we honor mothers on mother's day, we don't support actions that would actually degrade their access to important quality health care. and i just close by urging my colleagues to reflect on the words of ann reeves jarvis, who i mentioned earlier, who was the one who had uttered that prayer that led to the establishment of mother's day and what she also said was, we need to honor the,

quote, matchless service that mothers and other women in this country, quote, render to humanity in every field of life, unquote. and i do, mr. president, believe it's our obligation to make sure that we provide access to quality health care and choices for all our -- all our constituents and for every american. but as we reflect on mother's day, be very aware of the impact our actions will have on women throughout the united states. and i'm -- and i thank the president, and i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the dhillon nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, this week is small business week. for over half a century now, the

country has officially recognized small business week, but in our country, small businesses have always accounted for and still account for most of the jobs created. certainly most of the new jobs created and in missouri, that's absolutely the case. we ought to be doing all we can to create that environment where people get that new job, often get their first job. i think we're doing that. there's nothing better for small business than a strong overall economy, and almost daily now we see some new number that sets a new record for the last 40 years or maybe the last 50 years, in case of the unemployment number. just this week we had for the 13th month in a row more jobs available than people looking for work. and that had never happened a single time, not one single time until 13 months ago.