[inaudible conversations] >> the complete guide to congress is now available. it has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. contact and bio information about every senator and representative. plus, information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. the 2019 congressional directory is a handy, spiral-bound guide. order your copy from the c-span on-line store for 18.95. >> the u.s. senate about to gavel in. this week, they've approved a number of judicial nominees.

no word yet if they'll take up a disaster relief package today before both chambers leave for the memorial day recess. now to the senate floor live coverage here on c-span2. . the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who rules the raging of the sea, we come to you with our imperfections, depending on your promise to keep us from stumbling or slipping. speak to us as we seek to be your instruments during these challenging times.

let your infinite wisdom provide for the deepest needs of our senators. give them strength from your celestial bounty to manage the minutes and hours of this day in a way that pleases you. lord, let the presence of your peace sustain them as they face the myriad of difficulties of the work you have called for them to do. call forth from them their best as they seek a closer walk with you. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, may 23, 2019. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable thom tillis, a senator from the state of north carolina, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: chuck grassley, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: monday of course is memorial day. americans will take time out of our ordinary routines and busy lives to remember the men and women who paid the ultimate price for the security of our nation and the liberty we cherish. we mourn every young american whose sacrifice has furthered the cause of our founding ideals and we acknowledge in a special way the gold star families they leave behind -- parents, spouses and children whose grief is only matched by the thanks of a grateful nation. as president reagan said one memorial day day across the river at arlington, today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that

no heroes will ever have to die for us again. and so while this day is a day for honoring and remembering in particular our fallen heroes, it's natural that our thoughts also turn to the brave men and women who are currently serving. i'm thinking of the service men and women who are defending our country overseas and especially those engaged in combat in sphas and syria -- in afghanistan and syria. all those stationed across the middle east threatened by iran and holding the line in asia against the threats of north korea. we're tremendously grateful for our military's continuous efforts these last 18 years to keep america safe from terrorism and their ongoing work to combat al qaeda, fight isis, and help stabilize afghanistan. of course i'm particularly mindful of the members of the kentucky national guard and the many soldiers of the kempt-based

active -- kentucky based active duty units. in light of recent intelligence we're keenly aware of the critical role our military is playing at this very moment to deter iranian aggression. the administration engaged members of congress earlier this week to brief us on the growing threat and detailed the steps the administration is taking to address it. i'm grateful our u.s. military has already taken prudent steps to improve the pros tour of our forces -- posture of our forces so they're ready to defend our service members, military vessels and diplomatic facilities and deter attacks by iran or its proxies all across the region. nobody wants a conflict with iran. we've heard l clearly from the president and his senior advisors that the administration's objective is to deter iran from engaging in threatening acts that increase the risk of such a conflict. we all know that particularly when dealing with hostile actors, peace is a function of

strength. so it is essential that even amidst other partisan political disagreements we remain one unified nation. america must give iran no reason, no reason to misjudge our resolve. whatever disputes my colleagues may have with the administration about other issues, i hope we can avoid politicizing any differences about this particular threat and work together to keep america safe. i also want to mention the american diplomats who are also hard at work overseas. we know that many of them too are stationed in harm's way as we remember from repeated iranian-backed attacks over many years on our embassy in baghdad or the murder of ambassador chris stevens in benghazi. we're grateful for the talent and the hard work they deploy often hand in hand with our military to advance american interests, preserve peace, prevent miscalculation, and

deter conflict. i know i speak for all of my colleagues, and i say i hope their efforts are heeded. mr. president, on a different matter, as i stated the senate will not adjourn this week until we have voted on legislation to deliver long overdue relief funding for communities that have been hit hard by natural disasters. none of my colleagues need to hear me recite yet again why action in this area is such an important priority. why it's so urgently needed. it's a shame this overdue subject has been allowed to languish for so long due to extraneous questions, frankly partisan small ball. wildfire victims in western states don't want to hear about house democrats' various disagreements with the white house on a variety of issues. they simply want the relief they need and have been waiting for. the same goes for the flooded midwest. the hurricane ravaged southeast, the kentuckians i myself represent, they don't want to hear about more

washington difficulties. they want an outcome. and of course everyone is well aware that we have an ongoing humanitarian crisis on our southern border and that our federal government needs more resources to deal with it. even "the new york times" editorial board wrote a few weeks ago that, quote, as resources are strained and the system buckles, the misery grows. something needs to be done soon. that's "the new york times." the editorial went on, the program that deals with unaccompanied minors is expected to run dry next month. democrats need to find a way to provide money for adequate shelter. that's "the new york times." and here was the title of the editorial, believe it or not -- "congress, give trump his border money." in "the new york times." so all these matters, mr. president, it's past time, way past time to bring these

negotiations to a close. i want to thank chairman shelby and all of our colleagues whose leadership has brought a bipartisan, bicameral solution this close to the finish line. this close. and i implore our counterparts in the house and this chamber to quickly resolve the last two issues and produce compromise legislation today. they need to do this today. because one way or another, the senate is not leaving without taking action. we're going to vote this week. and i sincerely hope we'll be voting on a bicameral, bipartisan negotiated solution that could become law for the american people. now, one final matter. earlier this week, senator kaine and i introduced new legislation to raise the national minimum age for purchasing tobacco products to 21. now, it has generated some attention that senators from kentucky and virginia, states with some connection to tobacco

farming and production, are sponsoring this legislation. but as i said monday, kentucky farmers don't want their children forming nicotine addictions in middle school or high school any more than anyone else. well, it turns out a lot of people across the country feel the same way we do. we have already seen more than a dozen experts, advocates, and public health groups come to rally around our legislation. as one such organization said, the proposal would, quote, support smoking prevention among a population that is particularly susceptible to addiction, whose brains are still developing, and among whom nicotine use can have a long-term developmental harm. when you consider the design of our approach, it's hardly surprising that leading voices in this area are lining up with enthusiasm. it's practical. it's within our reach, and it can become law.

our legislation simply works from the foundation of existing law. we take the existing mechanisms that are in federal statute today to enforce the 18-year minimum wage and replace 18 with 21. it's simple, it's straightforward, and it builds on what we know works. not only does this approach streamline implementation for addressing a widely acknowledged public health crisis, it also preserves the freedom of individual states to go even further in their efforts to protect vulnerable youth, yet it ensures states cannot enact anything less protective than the federal t-21 standard. as i said earlier in the week, all youth below the age of 21 deserve the same protections from the public health crisis of nicotine addiction. anyone who actually reads our bill will see that our intentions are clear and above reproach.

partisan griping will not save lives, nor will it prevent even more middle schoolers from yielding to potentially deadly addiction. as one advocate put it, every extra day it takes to put this important legislation into effect is an opportunity for thousands more kids to access the tobacco products that can damage their developing brains. now, now is the time for us to join together in a bipartisan manner and actually get a result that our nation's youth so obviously need. so in just three days since its introduction, i have been encouraged by the story that the tobacco-free youth act has received. i look forward to working with each of our colleagues to make it a reality and fight back against the scourge of addiction among america's young people.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent -- are we in a quorum? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, there is a lot of swabling that goes on around here.

we all know that. some is expected. after all we have real disagreements about policy and the direction in which we think the country should go but there are a few issues that are too important to get caught up in the typical partisan back and forth, a few fundamental responsibilities that we must fulfill as a governing body. and one of those where there is always been bipartisan agreement has been disaster relief. hurricanes, fires, floods, don't hit only republicans or only democrats. they hit americans of all stripes. we must come together to provide relief for everybody. after holding up disaster relief on behalf of the president who demanded we shortchange puerto rico, republicans finally came around a few weeks ago and agreed with disaster relief that would be provided to everyone. let me repeat now. we have an agreement right now on where and how to provide

relief for americans in the midwest, in the south, and the west and on the territories. chairman shelby, vice chairman leahy have worked in good faith with that compromise. the house will accept it. chairman lowe and ranking -- and the ranking member granger also have agreed to this disaster relief package. so there's a package of disaster relief that's ready to go. unfortunately, that agreement has become entangled with extraneous issues. however important these other issues may be, we have an obligation to get this disaster relief package over the finish line before the congressional memorial day work period. so ranking member leahy and i would like to make it -- sorry. ranking member leahy and i would like to make it clear to my friend, the republican leader, that senate democrats are ready to pass the bipartisan disaster

relief package that has already been agreed to and written. we should leave out extraneous issues -- there are many -- everyone wants to put their own thing in for another day. democrats are willing to work hard to expedite consideration of that agreement. we're ready to work with our republican colleagues to pass it as quickly as possible. now, i understand that there is some discussions going on in the house, but if we can't come to an agreement this morning on the other extraneous issues that the house is discussing, we should set those issues to the side. we should pass disaster agreement as is and return to those unrelated issues at a later date. the peoples of the midwest, of the south, of the west, and of the territories have waited long enough. they've waited long enough. there are millions of americans still recovering from having their homes destroyed, their crops devastated, their property burnt. they have waited for relief for

too long already. they're clamoring for it. they're saying to congress, put aside your differences and get something done. the plan i outlined will do just that, put aside the differences and get something done. whether it's the president or members of the house or senate, democrat or republican, who want to add extraneous issues, step aside, at least for this time. let's get it done. let's not delay any longer. now, on infrastructure. yesterday as everyone knows now, speaker pelosi and i met with the president and a group of other senators and congress members to discuss the prospects for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. we went to the meeting with high hopes. the president three weeks earlier had said he would be willing to do a $2 trillion infrastructure bill and tell us how he'd pay for it. unfortunately, it was a very short meeting. the president walked out after a few minutes with the paltry

excuse that he would not work to get things done for americans unless congress abdicated its constitutional duty to provide oversight of the executive branch. his motives were transparent. he knows darn well that these investigations should and will go forward. he had nothing to say on infrastructure. it was typical of the president. he makes a boast that he wants to do something and then has no follow through. this administration has become an erratic helter-skelter get nothing done administration. even on infrastructure where there's usually some bipartisan agreement, he couldn't even come to the table and talk. he had to throw a temper tantrum and walk out. presidents throughout our history have worked with the other party while being investigated.

they know, every president knows it's a fact that congress will do oversight. some of it won't be pleasant for any president. president obama didn't like oversight. president bush didn't like oversight. president clinton didn't like oversight. president h.w. bush didn't like oversight. president reagan didn't like oversight but none of them, democrat or republican, said i'm going to stop the government from functioning. i'm going to refuse to help hundreds of millions of americans who need help in one way or another because i don't like congress fulfilling its constitutional responsibility. the bottom line is simple. the president was merely looking for any excuse however transparent to wriggle out of working with democrats on a much needed infrastructure bill. but nothing about yesterday's meeting at the white house changes the fact that we have serious infrastructure demands in our country. nothing about yesterday's

meetings changes the fact that a substantial investment in infrastructure can boost our economy, put millions of americans to work, create green jobs and green energy sources, and meet the demands, the ever growing demands of the new 21st century. we came to the meeting with the president with serious intention to work with him on a large bipartisan bill. he had asked the night before in his letter for what are -- where do we want to put the money. i brought to him a 35-page proposal with ideas on how to craft one. it talked about things that we needed to do. repair and rebuild our old roads and bridges, our water and sew sewer, build a power grid so that we can bring clean energy from parts of the country blessed with wind and sun to other energy-needy parts. to deal with infrastructure in a

way that creates broadband for all the rural homes that don't have it and all the inner city homes that don't have it. to create green jobs, encourage electric vehicles, and other kinds of vehicles that reduce the output of carbon into the air. to create much more energy efficient homes and schools. many demands, a comprehensive proposal. the president might not agree with all of it but we were there prepared to roll up our sleeves, work, and come up with a plan. but unfortunately, the president had no plan. despite his promise that three weeks earlier he would have a plan, he had none. two nights before he said well, let's not discuss infrastructure until we discuss u.s. m.c.a.,

nafta. then that mother he didn't even take a seat. he stood up obviously agitated, said that the investigations were wrong, and stalked out. we left the meeting disappointed in both the president's decision and demeanor. but america can be assured democrats will continue to try and find ways to move the ball forward on this important issue of roads and bridges and broadband and power with or without the president. democrats believe in infrastructure, plain and simple. we believe infrastructure is an urgent priority of the country and this congress. we believe we need to rebuild existing infrastructure, the roads and bridges and ports and sewers, and build the infrastructure of tomorrow like wind and solar and new power grid and broadband to earl and

inner city -- to rural and inner city america. we believe our next investment in infrastructure must be substantial. we believe we can pay for it without asking the middle class to shoulder the burden. we believe a new 21st century infrastructure program is one of the best ways, one of the very best ways to create millions of long-term good-paying jobs to boost our economy and to help combat climate change. so i say to my colleagues here in the senate, my republican colleagues, despite the president's unwillingness to work on anything that benefits the american people, according to him, i say to my colleagues here in the senate, my republican colleagues, let's move forward on an infrastructure bill. let's put together a large, strong, well-funded and clean infrastructure bill. members of both sides should want the opportunity to work on something that will benefit

every constituency in every state in america. members should want to tell the american people that they're working to bring jobs to their states, broadband to rural and underserved urban communities, working together to improve the economy and the environment with a clean, green infrastructure bill. there's no reason, no reason why the senate should not pursue a bipartisan infrastructure bill. congress has taken the lead before. congress can take the lead again. no matter what the president does. just because president trump doesn't want to lead didn't mean that our work on infrastructure is over, not by a long shot. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. thune: i would ask the quorum call -- unanimous consent

the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, if you have a leak in your sink or a dripping pipe in the bathroom, you generally fix it yourself or call a plumber to fix the problem. you don't look at your otherwise functioning house and decide to raze to the ground because of the plumbing issue but that's basically what democrats want to do with our health care system. our health care system certainly isn't perfect but our system also has plenty of positive things going for it. high quality care, choice, access to innovative technology and treatments, and most americans are pretty satisfied with their health insurance. so a logical thing to do would be to fix the problems with our system and to preserve what's working. but that's not what democrats want to do. democrats want to destroy our current system and replace it with a single one-size-fits-all

government-run program known as medicare for all. and what will that mean for americans? paying more and waiting longer for worse care. medicare for all is estimated to cost $32 trillion or more over ten years. that's more money than the federal government has spent in the last eight years combined on everything. one medicare expert estimates that doubling, doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would not be enough to cover the cost of medicare for all. i don't know about the democrats, but i don't know too many families who can afford to have their tax bill doubled. but it's not just higher taxes, madam president. medicare for all would eliminate americans' health care choices. don't like the one-size-fits-all government health care plan, too bad, you won't have any

other option. private and employer-sponsored health care would be a thing of the past. your only choice will be the government's plan. your treatment choices would also be limited. if the government doesn't want to pay for a particular cancer treatment, for example, you'd be out of luck. there will be no switching insurers to a better carrier. and unless you have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around to cover that treatment option entirely out of pocket, you're going to go without. then of course there are the long wait times that are a hallmark of socialized medicine. patients in the united kingdom and canada, it can take up to a year to get a medical procedure in canada, one reason you hear so many stories about canadians coming to the united states for care. imagine having to wait a year for your child to get a needed surgery. that's the kind of thing that

parents can look forward to under medicare for all. madam president, as i said earlier, there are undoubtedly parts of our health care system that can be improved, and republicans are in fact currently working on legislation to increase access to affordable medication and to address the issue of surprise billing. but the solution is not to destroy our current system and force people to pay more for less choice and worse care. democrats' ideology has outrun their common sense, madam president. republicans are committed to improving the current health care system and preserving americans choices and i hope the democrats will abandon their plan for government-controlled health care and switch their focus to helping us. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. kaine: might i ask if we're in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kaine: may i ask that it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to speak about the recent uptick in state efforts to criminalize abortion. these proposals passed in eight states just this year and proposed in many others impose har much criminal penalties on -- harsh criminal penalties on women who have an abortion or on doctors who terminate pregnancy. the laws deny women the freedom to make their own health care choices and, therefore, clearly violate the constitutional protections established in roe v. wade and subsequent cases. in fact, many of the proponents of these laws openly advertise them as part of a strategy to get the u.s. supreme court to overturn roe v. wade and to return to the days when states used the criminal law to punish

women and doctors for contraception and abortion. abortion is a contentious issue. people feel so strongly about it. i understand that. i feel strongly about it too. and it can sometimes appear that there's little common ground between people who call themselves pro-choice and people who call themselves pro-life. but there is common ground among so many of us. for example, americans with many different views on abortion overwhelmingly believe that roe v. wade should remain the law of the land. more than 70% of americans support the decision and believe it shouldn't be overturned. people understand that whatever they think about abortion for themselves and their own families, they do not believe that the state should make the decision for every woman. women should be able to make their own decisions about pregnancy, contraception, and

abortion without state interference. an appropriate regulation of he abortion, just as other medical procedures, especially late in pregnancy when a fetus could survive independently is allowable as long as the life and health of the mother receive careful protection. in addition to support for roe v. wade, there's also a common ground based on data about strategies that work. and, madam president, i want to offer a common ground perspective on this issue. there's a way to dramatically reduce abortion in this country that both pro-life and pro-choice should embrace. it's a strategy of compassion. let me start with a noteworthy fact that's almost never mentioned. during the last 25 years, which is the time i have been in elected office, the abortion rate in this country has been cut in half. this is remarkable.

you never hear this discussed. by 2015, during the obama administration, the abortion rate in the united states was at its lowest level since roe v. wade became law. in fact, if you just measure it by the data, you could argue that the obama administration years were the most pro-life period since roe v. wade. why has this happened? while there are a number of reasons, the most important one is this, the rate of unplanned pregnancies is decreasing. teen pregnancies are decreasing. and if the number of unplanned pregnancies goes down, the abortion rate goes down. there is a direct connection between unplanned pregnancies and the abortion rate. so here's the strategy that should unite everyone. reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. could anyone be against that?

reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. and the good news is we know how to do it. when women have better access to affordable health care, including better access to contraception, and better access to comprehensive sex education, the number of unplanned pregnancies goes down and the number of abortions drop. we know that more women have access to health care and contraception today than in the past. the passage of the affordable care act in 36 states that have expanded medicaid have provided millions of women with health care, so many of whom didn't have it before, including preventive care and contraception access. comprehensive sex education for young people also equips them with information necessary to avoid unplanned pregnancies. some young people decide to

delay becoming sexually active, and that's great. some make better choices about contraception to avoid pregnancy, and that's helpful. and so education is a key factor as well. so if we, whatever we call ourselves, pro-choice, pro-life, or anything, want to keep reducing unplanned pregnancy and thereby reducing the abortion rate, guess what, we know how to do it. make sure kids get comprehensive sex education so they can make more responsible choices. keep working to expand health care, including abz -- access to contraception for women. this is the compassionate way to bring down the abortion rate. it supports women and succeeds in reducing unplanned pregnancies. but here's something that puzzles me. g.o.p. legislators all over this country have generally opposed quite bitterly those proven strategies, and so have many in

the pro-life community. the g.o.p. has fought the affordable care act at every step of the way and now stands squarely behind the effort to repeal the act entirely and strip health care away from millions of women. the g.o.p. fights against contraception access. many in the g.o.p. fight against comprehensive sex education, instead pushing abstinence only sex education that doesn't work. if the g.o.p. succeeds in reducing contraception access, the number of unplanned pregnancies will increase and the abortion rate will increase. how is that pro-life? the g.o.p. is now embracing a different strategy, make women and doctors criminals. this is the key unifying cruelty to these recent state laws.

g.o.p.-controlled states are racing to see who can have the cruelest criminal laws. a complete ban on abortion at eight weeks of pregnancy. no, how about a complete ban on abortion at six weeks of pregnancy. in alabama, a ban from the second pregnancy begins -- from the second there's a fetus in utero. no exceptions, no exceptions to someone who is the victim of rape or incest. so think about that. alabama forces a 13-year-old who was raped or the victim of incest to bear a criminal's child under pain of criminal prosecution and punishment for the doctor. imprisonment for the doctor. but wait, let's get tougher still. in georgia women who terminate pregnancies could receive life in prison under a bill recently

signed by the georgia governor. there's some confusion here. prosecutors are arguing about whether the technical language would subject a woman having an abortion to a first-degree firse murder charge. the sponsor of the bill now that it has been signed is backpedaling saying he only intended for women to be prosecuted under a second criminal abortion statute which carries a maximum sentence of ten years. he apparently believes that subjecting women to a ten-year prison sentence rather than a life sentence for murder is merciful and lenient. no woman exercising her constitutional right to make her own health care decisions should be threatened with a prison sentence for even one day. and the g.o.p. could go further. a texas bill filed last month would have allowed the death penalty. capital punishment for a woman

seeking an abortion. the bill failed. but the bill wasn't a surprise for a party whose president admitted during his campaign that a woman having an abortion must suffer a punishment. so the g.o.p. strategy is more criminal laws, more prosecutions and more sentences, put more women in prison. put more doctors in prison. madam president, we already have the highest incarceration rate in the world, five times higher than canada, 70% higher than russia. but guess what? so many of these g.o.p. proposals would push us even further, and the next big group going behind bars could be women and doctors. these criminal laws don't bring about a culture of life. these criminal laws don't bring about a culture of compassion. they succeed only in demonizing women, robbing their dignity

and intruding upon the most private aspects of their lives. and they demonize the doctors who care for these women. do americans want a society that labels women's health care choices as criminal? no. is there any proof, any proof that criminal penalties for abortion will reduce unplanned pregnancies? no. is there any proof that criminal penalties for abortion will reduce the number of abortions? no. and so that's what i mean about the choice we face as a society. we can pursue a path of compassion towards women secure in the knowledge that better health and contraception access and comprehensive sex education will reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions. or we can pursue the path of criminalizing women's decisions with no evidence that the

strategy will have the effect of reducing unplanned pregnancies and abortions. i focused most of my attention on the issue of unplanned pregnancies, so of course some planned pregnancies and abortion too. these pregnancies moafnt involve severe -- most often involve severe fetal issues that are emotional and tragic for all involved. certainly compassion for these families and not criminal prosecution is the right answer. so this question, do we use a compassionate strategy to reduce unplanned pregnancies or do we criminalize women's decisions, is the fundamental difference between the nation's two political parties on this very important issue right now. i am firmly in the camp of compassion. if we support women and trust women, we can keep making

significant progress toward a goal we should all share. fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, let me say how much i agree with the senator from virginia. i endorse completely what she said. i make one amendment. instead of just the compassionate approach versus the criminal approach, it's the commonsense approach versus the criminal approach as well. and i do believe that the point has been made and demonstrated by what you said here and what you said in previous meetings, that when we invest in family planning, in sex education, in good health care for women, we have fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions, period. and those policies that militate against that just increase the likelihood of abortion.

let me also add something that i think pro-life and pro-choice should agree to come to terms with in unity. how in the world can we live in a country, the united states of america, with all its wealth and all its expertise, and have in the last 25 years the worst incidents of maternal mortality in civilized countries around the world? more women are dying in the united states giving birth today than 25 years ago. so whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, wouldn't you agree this should be a high priority of our government, both parties, to reduce maternal mortality here in the united states. and i might add infant mortality is still unacceptable in the united states, unacceptable. couldn't we agree pro-life and pro-choice to come together behind those two?

i'm the cosponsor of a bill introduced by congresswoman robin kelly of illinois. she aptly entitled it the momma act, which will try to deal with maternal mortality issues, particularly as it relates to women of color. and the irony, the surprise is when you read the data. the incidents of maternal mortality among women of color does not track with poverty and education. it is a racial issue for reasons that are hard to explain, but she addresses it. i've joined her in that effort. the other point i'd like to make is this -- you have talked about efforts in state legislatures that have gone to extremes. what i call the alabama two-step is the second step in that process. we spend our time day after day, week after week putting men and women on the bench proposed by the trump administration, pushed through as quickly as possible by the republicans in the united states senate who frankly are waiting for the day when they will have the chance to endorse,

approve, these statutes which you have described which are extreme by any definition. that to me is problematic and troublesome for us as a nation that we are moving toward that possibility. i see the senator from south dakota is on the floor, and i believe he has a request to make. i'd like to ask unanimous consent after his request to be recognized again. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:45 p.m. today, the senate proceed to legislative session to consider calendar number 94, senate bill 151. i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as so amended be read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended, with no interintervening action or debate. finally, if passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: madam president, i see another colleague on the floor, so i will make my comments brief. madam president, we had a briefing this week in a room in the capitol where the public is not allowed to enter. it's called the scif. it is a briefing that is given to members of the senate of top-secret classified information. it related to the situation we now find ourselves in in relation to iran. it was troubling, troubling to hear the comments being made by the leaders of the trump administration, secretaries of defense and the secretary of state as well as military leaders and leaders in the intelligence community, because you see what we are engaging in in the united states is a confrontation with iran. we are moving toward that. it started with this president's insistence that the united states step away from a treaty entered into by the obama

administration to stop the development of nuclear weapons in iran. what president obama succeeded in doing over many years of diplomatic effort was to come to the table with iran, an enemy of the united states on many fronts, and to reach an agreement where there would be international inspectors with free access to iran to make certain they did not develop nuclear weapons. we believe, the world believed that iran with nuclear weapons would be a danger to the region, a danger to our ally israel, even a danger to the united states. and the coalition put together by president obama is nothing short of remarkable. we wouldn't be surprised to learn the coalition included the united kingdom, our traditional ally, but it also included germany and france and the european union, russia, and china. russia and china all came to the table and agreed on it.

did it work? international inspectors came and reported to members of congress over and over. there were no locked doors, no areas where access was denied, and that they could say with virtual certainty iran was living up to the terms of this agreement. so what did this president, president trump, decide to do? he canceled the united states' participation in the agreement. why? why would he believe that the development of nuclear weapons in iran is in the best interests of anyone? and yet he did. and he followed that with even more provocative efforts in relation to iran when it came to categorizing their revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization, a step that moved even closer to provocation and confrontation, an then, of course, we decided to send our own military closer in to iran

itself, carrier group was dispatched to that region. what is behind all this? why is it we are escalating this situation with iran? the president has been equivocal in trying to explain it, but his national security advisor john bolton has not. john bolton is a hawk. his position in his -- and his posture when it comes to military confrontation was so controversial that in a previous administration, he was denied the position of ambassador to the united nations because of statements he had made. and now he is the top national security advisor to the president of the united states. he has written articles pleading for confrontation with iran on a military basis. rumors fly out of the pentagon, this morning's "washington post," a suggestion that we are already sending 10,000 more military advisors into the region. a rumor two weeks ago that there

was a contingency plan for 120,000 american troops. i might add the secretary of defense in my office this morning denied both of these, but the fact is more and more information is tumbling out about a confrontation with iran. i will tell you that some of us, a handful of us in the united states senate were here on the senate floor when we debated and voted on a war in iraq. it was 18 years ago, and we were given information by the bush administration, particularly vice president cheney about the danger of iraq to the united states of america to a point where a vote came to the floor and the senate approved an invasion of iraq. i remember that night. i remember it well. 23 of us, one republican and 22 democrats, we joined together in voting no. it may have been the most important, maybe the best vote i believe i ever cast as a member of the united states senate. that was a foreign policy mistake to invade iraq.

it was a tragedy what followed. we have spent billions and billions of american taxpayers' dollars in that country. we have lost over 4,000 american lives in iraq. and over 30,000 or 40,000 came home with serious injuries, including my colleague in the united states senate, senator tammy duckworth. we have paid so dearly for that mistake. and the weapons of mass destruction we were sent in to destroy did not exist. what was told to the american people about the danger of iraq was false, false, and we are still there today 18 years later, as we are in afghanistan. the two longest wars in the history of the united states of america. is there anyone who believed when we voted on the senate floor that we were voting for the longest war in the history of the united states? and now this administration, the trump administration, is tempted again to draw us into another

war in the middle east. the question is whether members of the senate and the house of representatives will abide by their constitutional responsibility and demand that the american people, through our voices, have something to say about this decision. if the american people are ready for a war in iran, i would be shocked. as i travel around the state of illinois and other parts of this country, i find no sentiment for the united states to engage in another war at this moment in our history. i also find most people believing that the provocative and confrontational efforts of the trump administration are drawing us nearer to that day. so we leave now for a week. we'll be back, but what will happen? what will happen in the seven or eight days that we're gone? i worry about that based op the briefings we have been given and the appetite of john bolton and others in this administration to move us into war. madam president, we should not invade iran.

we should not engage in another invasion in the middle east. we should not subject america's men and women, young men and young women to the possibility of military service in another war that can go on indefinitely. there are better ways to deal with this. let us rely on diplomacy and direct negotiation. let us work with our allies to bring a peaceable result here and to stop activity which we know iran has engaged in, which is objectionable. it could be done short of invasion, short of military force, and short of war. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: heartfelt thanks to my colleague from illinois for bringing the experience of his service in the senate and thinks deliberate study of the challenges of international affairs to bear on the gravity of the current situation where a

policy has brought us to the brink of conflict, and we have no confidence that there is wise judgment being exercised at this moment to ensure that there is not a war. so thank you for sharing the journey that you have been part of and that this chamber has been part of and ringing the alarm bell that at this moment we have two key foreign policy advisors. our secretary of state, our national security advisor who prefer weapons over agreements, who have driven a strategy of maximum pressure designed to make life extraordinarily difficult in iran, to undo all the international work of the previous years to end the nuclear program in that country, and who are talking as if a conflict somewhere may, maybe an

iranian militia in iraq should be a trigger to a massive war, which is why we are so worried about leaving this chamber for even a day. so thank you for raising your voice and your experience to that. and, madam president, i come to the floor because i am losing a key member of my foreign policy team who has wrestled with the issues of the middle east, who has been engaged in the dialogue and conversation about a smart policy to end nuclear proliferation. i can tell you that it's always for any senator a moment that one has a conflicted heart when a man or a woman on their team who has contributed so much has

become part of the family, the senate family is ready to take on a new challenge away from these chambers. to develop their skills to take their experience to a new extended conversation. it is a bittersweet moment. we're proud of what our team members have contributed and proud of what they're going to contribute as they send off or go off to a new responsibility. and today that member of my team is louie ruckford. louie, who is seated behind me, first came to my office in the fall of 2013. as part of that semester's intern class. and it wasn't long before he stood out, distinguished himself, and thus when we were hiring for a deputy scheduler

the following march, louie's name was at the top of the list, and he became formally part of our team. so for more than five years now, he has contributeed. he has never stopped distinguishing himself, taking on one task and one position after another, and excelling at every one of them. in his two years as deputy scheduler, he fielded thousands of requests of meetings from constituents, nonprofits, local businesses and more making sure that every detail was right. his attention to detail and to turnaround time made a very positive impression with all who contacted our office. over the last three years he's been an invaluable member of my correspondence and foreign policy team.

first as legislative correspon correspondent and later as administrative aide. atop of sending out 181,000 pieces of constituent mail, mail from my office to my constituents, an average of 251 per day, on top of that he's used his considerable leadership skills and subject matter experience and strategic negotiating abilities to help pass a host of bills and resolutions in committee and here on the floor. and when our foreign policy top staffer was transitioning into a new role as legislative director, he stepped up to fill the gap, helping to manage a team with two foreign policy fellows at that time. i can spend quite a lot more time extolling his list of

accomplishments. his instrumental role in planning several international congressional delegations, his role in helping me carve out a new role on the foreign policy or the foreign relations committee, and of course that vital role of leading our office softball team. i'll just say that louie will be deeply missed by all of the members of team merkley. and we wish him well on his new adventure with foreign policy for america where he will continue to be an invaluable leader on the myriad number of pressing foreign policy issues confronting our nation today. louie reckford, we here in the senate wish you all the best in your next chapter of contributing to solving the complex international issues that face our nation. thank you, madam president.

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, my appropriations committee staff was working until midnight last night as they do so often on the disaster supplemental. now, we know that in january the house sent us a disaster supplemental appropriations bill to help communities across the nation. these communities are dealing with the deadly aftermath of hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanos. now, it's been my experience over the years that normally disaster bills sail through both chambers of congress. every member knows that one day it will be his state or her state that needs help recovering from a disaster. i well remember when we had a

terrible hurricane in vermont, created the most damage in generations in our state. and the day after the devastation as i went with our governor and the head of our national guard helicoptering around the state, going to tow towns, many towns the only way we could reach them was because we were in a helicopter. the bridges were like a child's toy, tied and gone. the roads totally disappeared. houses were upside down in the river, things like that. and it was heartbreaking. but as we were going there, i received e-mail after e-mail from my senate colleagues, many of them republicans who said vermont stood with us when we had -- and they named the

disaster. we'll stand with you. that is what we do. it doesn't make any difference whether you're a republican or a democrat, if there's a disaster, you stand together. what i couldn't understand in my 44 years here, we saw the time was different this time. when we brought up a disaster supplemental appropriations bill in january this year, the president of the united states came out swinging against it. why? because the bill contained assistance for puerto rico. puerto rico had been hit by two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. and apparently providing assistance to three million americans in need was a step too far for him. he did not want to provide aid

to these americans. not one more dime for puerto rico as reported was said, shocking words from somebody who holds the highest office in the land, especially after it had a nearly unprecedented back-to-back hurricanes. now, from the beginning i have said what my republican colleagues and democratic colleagues have always said, it's the role of the federal government to stand by all americans in times of need. it shouldn't matter whether you're a georgia peach farmer, a california small business owner, or a child living in san juan. if your community is devastated by a natural disaster, you're an american and the american community will stand with you. that's that's what i've always fought for. so here we are five months later. five months of negotiation, five

months of talks, and we finally reached a deal on a disaster aid bill that helps all, all americans. we don't pick and choose. it's a good deal. it addresses the needs from alabama to california and many states in between. but five months is too long to wait. it's far too long for the communities who are trying to rebuild their homes and their towns, and we have to act now. the president has asked to add $4.5 billion to the disaster supplemental bill to address the issues we face at our southern border. and i would agree with the president that some of this money is badly needed. we don't dispute that. but every one in this chamber, republicans and democrat, know that under this president anything to do with immigration is controversial. it's going to be hotly debated. we've been working night and day

to strike a compromise on the president's request. and we finished in the middle of last night. we're close but we're not there yet. so i hope in the next few hours we can resolve our remaining differences. but if we can't reach agreement, then at least pass the disaster bill without it today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, today. five months has been too long for america to have to wait. we have a deal on a disaster aid bill. it's a bipartisan deal. it's supported by republicans and democrats. it's ready to go. let's pass it today. let's show the american people we stand with them in times of crises just as members of this

body stood with my beloved state of vermont when we were hit. we didn't say we were republicans or democrats. we said we are americans. americans had been hurt. and americans stand together when americans are suffering. americans are suffering across this country from all the disasters. let us as the conscience of the nation, the united states senate, let us stand with them. let's give them the disaster aid they need. madam president, i do not see another senator seeking recognition so i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: -- madam president? i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess until noon today. the presiding officer: without objection.

the senate stands in recess until noon.

>> featured speaker include a

larger coming, patrick shanahan, stacy abrams, donald trump and supreme court associate justice sonia sotomayor. our coverage starts memorial day start on c-span. and listen on the free c-span radio apps. >> sunday night on q and a yale university historian joann freeman on her book field of blood, violence in congress and the road to civil war. >> scores of congressmen in a mass brawl. in and of itself is dramatic, guys throwing punches and platoons, a massive encounter but what was interesting to me, and a group of northerners and southerners, lots of the armed,

several of them said this doesn't look like a normal congressional fight. looks like north against site. that is really striking, it wasn't that long before the civil war. >> sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> senator james langford talking about the white house investigation. >> a quick update of what is happening and i say right now, pretty dramatic flooding, 15 tornadoes in the last 48 hours, most of them hit in open areas and did not hit structures. there have been some structures, the tornadoes and

highs -- hh