his own voters. the question of expanding, the choices you make on gun control. suburban voters in many both like to see expanded background checks so he will make a choice about expanding his coalition. does he put his political capital on gun control this fall? he has a limited time for the campaign season. in 2020. the new version of nafta closing speaker pelosi giving out a vote and will the president put his l litical weight into doing gun-control or not? >> what to his face voters want him to be talking about? you talked about how to expand and needing to do something with gun legislation and trade so has the president focused enough on those issues? >> we leave this washington journal coverage here with a quick reminder to watch all our coverage online at c-span .org.

the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. senators today will continue working on executive nominations including the u.s. investor nominee to the united arab emirates. now to live senate coverage here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will open the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. holy god, who loves all and forgets none, thank you for the guidance of your sacred word, a light for dark times.

we're grateful you provide wisdom for those who revere you. send help and strength to our lawmakers that they may strive to honor you in every endeavor. inspire them to mount up on wings like eagles, running without weariness and walking without fainting. give them the wisdom to have a conscience void of offense toward you and humanity. eternal god, hear our intercessions, answer them according to your will, and make us all channels of your mercy and love.

we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: permission to speak in morning business for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: this weekend, i attended what some call iowa's own super bowl. iowa versus iowa state football. i talked with iowans while tail gating and tailgating most of the time goes on before the game for me. we talked about issues such as ethanol, biodiesel, and trade. this year, the game in ames and iowa state hosted espn's football "college gameday," and this is the first time ever for

iowa to do that. it was an opportunity to show off iowa state's campus and celebrate the tradition of the annual cy hawk game. congratulations to the iowa hawkeyes for winning this year's matchup, but both teams put up a strong fight, as you can tell from the final score of iowa winning 18-17. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this weekend saw a brazen attack by iran on a critical oil facility in saudi arabia. this is not just an isolated drone strike with the prospect of regional escalation, but an attack with significant repercussions for the entire global energy market. we're fortunate that advances in u.s. oil and gas production made the u.s. more energy independent and added capacity to global markets but the impacts of this

attack could still be substantial. for this reason, i welcome the administration's preparations to potentially release oil from the strategic petroleum reserves if needed to stabilize global markets. i hope our international partners will join us in imposing consequences on iran for this reckless destabilizing attack. now on another matter, when the senate returned last week, we anticipated our top priority would be conducting the appropriations process and avoiding a lapse in government funding. we had a clear road map, a bipartisan, bicameral agreement negotiated by the president's team and the speaker of the house. it set top-line funding targets for both defense and nondefense and laid out ground rules to protect the process from partisan politics. so there's actually been reason for optimism. this week we hope to move to the house-passed bills for defense,

energy, and water, labor h., and state and foreign ops, our first proceeding step to get the process moving for all of our priorities on both sides. there's nothing controversial about this particular grouping of bills. in fact, it was speaker pelosi exo -- who combined this grouping of bills to move first over in the house. furthermore, mr. president, if any of the funding measures was going to be handled earnestly across party lines, surely it ought to be the bill funding the department of defense, our fundamental obligation is to provide for the defense of our country. all members feel our responsibility to keep the nation safe. and fortunately, the caps agreement specifically allows us to increase defense funding to meet the growing threats our nation faces. and yet -- and yet, mr. president, here's where we are. one week in, our democratic

colleagues tried to stonewall the defense funding bill in committee and are now indicating they may even filibuster a motion to begin considering the house-passed defense funding bill later this week. there's only one way to read this. some of our democratic colleagues have determined they would rather stage a political fight with president trump than secure the resources that our uniform commanders urgently need to do their jobs. so national security is taking a back seat to partisan politics. so let's be absolutely clear about the concerns and priorities that our democratic friends are deprioritizing. the defense spending measure

would bolster efforts to modernize our forces and build the u.s. military of the future. russia is actively modernizing its own forces, just as we've seen the putin regime step up attempts with stabilizing efforts beyond the borders. in china, military spending nearly doubled. double. our regional partners continue to feel the tightening grip of the chinese communist party on trade and strategic activity. throughout the indo-pacific region. while the technological ripples of chinese cyber meddling are felt right here at home. in the face of surging great power adversaries, simple upkeep is not enough to keep america and our allies safe from aggression. comprehensive funding for

research, development, and readiness programs is what's needed. in afghanistan, syria, somalia, yemen and beyond, we continue to face sustained threats from terrorist organizations. and in the middle east we've seen how iran's bid for regional hegemony and its developments developments -- investments in terror and cyber activities threaten the u.s., our allies and partners' key shipping lanes and global energy markets. so this bipartisan defense bill would help us adapt to meet these new threats while ensuring our commanders can prosecute existing operations without being consumed by the instability of short-term continuing resolutions. but our democratic colleagues would rather provoke a partisan feud with the president, would rather have a fight with the president than stick to the agreement that we all made.

at least that's where we are as of the moment. i remain hopeful that our friends on the democratic side will join us in honoring the terms of the agreement struck by the president and the speaker and help us reboot a bipartisan funding process. the readiness and modernization of america's military and the safety of the american people should not play second fiddle to our democratic colleagues' political strategy. now on a completely different matter, for anybody who has been reading the news the past few days, it's probably felt a little like groundhog day. because over the last couple of days leading democrats have tried to grab on to yet another poorly sourced, thinly reported, unsubstantiated allegation against justice brett kavanaugh. here they go again,

mr. president. there they go again. call it a one-year anniversary reenactment. senate democrats reopening the sad and embarrassing chapter they wrote last september. the latest allegation was blasted out by a major newspaper despite the apparent lack of any, any corroborating evidence whatsoever. the reporting was so thin, the story ran not in the news section, but on the opinion page. in fact, mr. president, they've already had to issue an enormous correction. the writers conveniently failed to note that the supposed victim himself declined to be interviewed, and several of her friends say she has no memory of any such thing happening. we all remember this pattern from last time around. shoot first, correct the facts later. and here's another familiar

pattern. just like last september, little things like facts and evidence didn't stop democrats from rushing to exploit this. even as the media was trying to backpedal, a number of the democratic presidential candidates were his sterically calling for justice kavanaugh to be impeached. on the basis of this flimsy, uncorroborated story, they're calling for justice kavanaugh to be impeached. that includes several of our own senate colleagues. and even after the massive correction -- correction -- no one in that group has backed off

of the ridiculous threat. this laughable suggestion is already earning scorn throughout the country across the political spectrum. a majority of senators and the american people rightly rejected the politics of unsubstantialed personal disruption just last year. it's just as transparent and self-serving today, one year later. it would be a mistake to dismiss this as a bad case of sour grapes. this is not just a left-wing obsession with one man. it's part of a deliberate effort to attack judicial independence. six of the democratic presidential candidates plus one who has now quit to run for the senate has publicly flirted with packing the supreme court. court packing. court packing. today's bold new democratic

idea, a failed power grab from back in the 1930's. just a few weeks ago some senate democrats nakedly threatened the supreme court justices in writing. our colleagues sent the court an outlandish brief gravely intoning that the supreme court is not well, they said. the supreme court is not well. here was the punch line, either issue rulings we like or we'll pack the court. issue rulings that we like or we'll pack the court. this is not normal political behavior. these are the actions of a political party whose agenda is so alien to the constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges. mr. president, this is what i would say. when the simple notion that judges should be faithful to the constitution looks like an

attack on your agenda, maybe it's your agenda that needs a makeover, not our independent judiciary. when you're this willing to launch unhinged personal attacks, you reveal a whole lot more about your own radicalism than about the men and women you target. this is my commitment, mr. president, and the commitment of all my republican colleagues. as long as we remain in the senate, we will fight to preserve our fair and independent judiciary. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 140, h.r. 2740. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 140, h.r.

2740, an act making appropriations for the departments of labor, health and human services, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. 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 motion to proceed to h.r. 2740, an act making appropriations for the departments of labor, health and human services, and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: before i begin, i want to comment on the republican leader's remarks. i listened to leader mcconnell's remarks about the appropriations process. he accused democrats of wanting to provoke a partisan fight with the president rather than the military. it was a bold accusation, considering it was the president and the republican majority on the appropriations committee that proposed taking funding from the military to spend on the president's wall. that is what democrats oppose. that's what leader mcconnell calls staging a political fight.

we see across the country communities, military bases, and people in the military saying taking away this money hurts us. all the democrats are asking for is to protect the troops from having their resources robbed for a border wall, resources that congress said should go to the military. and by the way, the president promised that mexico would pay for the wall. let's not forget that. now, 12 republicans voted with us in march to reject the president's proposal. that's a lot at a place where people fear the president and don't like to buck him. the real question -- will the rest join us now? that's the issue. now, on guns and the tragedies that have occurred in the last while, in the last six weeks. so it's been six weeks since president trump in the aftermath

of two tragic mass shootings signaled that he would be supportive of expanding background checks. it's been over 200 days, 201, i believe, since the house of representatives passed a bipartisan bill that would strengthen background checks in the most comprehensive way, and yet despite those two facts, we still have no idea what policy president trump might support. so yesterday, at the request of speaker pelosi and i, we held a phone call with the president to urge him to support the bipartisan house-passed universal background checks bill and to make that position public. we're certainly willing to discuss the finer points of legislation with our republican colleagues, but we made one thing clear to the president -- the effectiveness of gun safety measures will be severely compromised if we allow the loopholes in our background check system to remain intact. for example, it's been widely

reported that the president's considering legislation dealing with extreme risk protection orders, erpo's, as part of response to last month's shootings. i support erpo's and believe they can be a broader peace to gun violence. even if we pass a strong bill on erpo's, someone prohibited from possessing the gun under an extreme risk protection order could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun show loophole and the online loophole. so let's say a family member of john x. smith says he doesn't deserve to have a gun, they go through the proper procedure, and they say he can't have a gun or they take a gun he has away from him. he can in the next minute, john x. smith, that same john x. smith can go online and get a gun and there will be no check on him, so he'll get it, or he can go to a gun show and do

that. so without background checks, these other things become virtually -- well, become get-aroundable. a bad guy who shouldn't have a gun finds a way to get around them and take advantage of the loopholes that now exist in the law. so we have to do background checks. that's at the base of all of this. background checks that close all the loopholes, allowing law-abiding american to have guns. that's the second amendment. but saying that felons, those adjudicated mentally ill spousal abusers can't. everyone, 90% of america agrees with that. in the wake of the torrent of mass shootings, in the wake of alarming rates of gun violence on a daily basis, our goals should not be to pass something just to pass something. we have a responsibility bestowed upon us by the american

people to do something meaningful to address the epidemic of gun violence in our country, to save american lives. and to save as many lives as possible, the senate must consider the bipartisan universal background checks bill. now, this is a critical moment for president trump and for the nation. the president can provide the kind of leadership on this issue that his party has lacked for decades. he can break the vice grip the n.r.a. has held on congressional republicans by supporting a policy that well over 90% of all americans already support. such a commitment would undeniably be popular. it would be historic, and most important it would save countless lives. speaker pelosi and i told the president that if he endorsed this legislation and got leader mcconnell to act on it, we would be happy to join him in the rose garden for the signing ceremony. on the other hand, the president

could cave to the n.r.a. yet again this week and announce he is supporting only the kinds of policies that won't offend them, policies that won't make a real dent in the problem. the american people have waited long enough for congress to do something about the decades-long nightmare of gun violence that seems to get worse and worse. the president can choose this week to help break the deadlock, the courageous and correct move, or he can slink away and perpetuate the status quo. now, on another issue, china telecom. i have spent a lot of time on the senate floor talking about the chinese telecom giant huawei and the threat it poses to our national and economic security. this afternoon, i want to inform my colleagues about similar concerns i have about two other

major chinese companies -- china telecom and china unicom. alongside china mobile, these three companies are the big three of china's government-owned and government-controlled telecommunications network. earlier this year, the f.c.c. rejected an application by china mobile to operate in the united states on national security grounds. the commission issued a 200-page opinion outlining the various security risks of a state-owned chinese company operating on u.s. networks. so that made sense. but at the same time, it turns out, that both china telecom and china unicom, the other two major chinese telecom giants, were granted authorization to operate in the u.s. in the early 2000's. so today, senator cotton, a republican from arkansas, and me, a democrat from new york, are sending a letter to the

f.c.c. urging them to review and if warranted revoke those authorizations on national security grounds. if china mobile shouldn't operate here, it seems that neither should china telecom and china unicom. those approvals were issued well over 15 years ago before the department of homeland security even existed. at the same time, the national security environment has changed dramatically. the chinese government has conducted a vicious and predatory campaign of cyber hostilities all over the world, including intrusions and hacks of prominent american companies and american institutions. the fact that these two telecom companies are controlled by the chinese communist party and have access to our networks seems to be a very serious problem. at the very least, at the very least, the f.c.c. should open a

proceeding to review these companies, and if necessary, revoke their access. senator cotton and i, as you well know and everyone in this chamber knows, don't see eye to eye on many issues, but on this one, we are in complete agreement. we must be really careful about the national security risks posed by china's key tellly come companies and i think senator cotton would also agree with the larger point i have been making for months about u.s. access to china's markets. if china doesn't let american businesses compete fairly in its markets, why should we let chinese companies compete in ours? reciprocity is a real answer to the dilemma of china not being fair to us. they don't let our top-notch companies in or let them in under such restraint that many of them don't want to come in or can't operate effectively or have to surrender their family jewels, their intellectual property to chinese companies. if that's the case -- and it is

-- why do we just let any chinese company come in here, particularly when they might be a real national security risk? china's telecom companies have, quote, 10 points of presence in north american networks. you know how many american companies have the same in china? zero. so china telecom gets access to our networks but t-mobile or any other american telecompany. ms.-- telecom company can't operate in china. enough, enough, and we just sit there not do anything to protect our workers, our wealth, or the great kinds of ideas that americans come up with. -- in terms of intellectual property. mr. schumer: and this isn't just a question of fairness. it's a question of which nation will lead the world in these industries in the coming decades, creating jobs and wealth. i want america to lead.

our businesses need to be able to compete equally and fairly. i'm confident if there were a level playing field, america would prevail and we'd stay the leading economy in the world. but if we continue to let china take advantage of us while we sit there with our hands folded, woe is us -- and particularly our children and grandchildren. so i'd conclude by reminding the trump administration that in the ongoing trade negotiations with beijing, where the president has been tougher on china than either of the previous two administrations -- and that's a good thing -- but the topic of reciprocity and fair market access should be front and center, and we shouldn't give in until we are treated fairly. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. grassley: i'm sorry. i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last year we on

the judiciary committee conducted an incredibly thorough review of a nominee to the supreme court of the united states. we dug into justice kavanaugh's personal and professional life and discussed concerns openly in front of the public. allegations were raised against the justice but none could be corroborated or very identified -- or verified. i know because i had a team of dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation that we received. my team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written statements. now anyone can review the 414-page investigation summary report that i released last

november. we laid out the information we received, including some of the owugliest of claims. in the end there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. brett kavanaugh then was duly confirmed to the supreme court by this body as prescribed in the constitution. now, fast forward to this past weekend and the issues that i and a lot of other members of the senate are being asked about this very day. just if there's nothing else going on in this town but you dig up something that happened a year ago. "the new york times" published a book excerpt about justice kavanaugh's younger days that has fueled a very fresh rumor

from someone whose friends claim contacted senators on the committee. that person mr. styers didn't reach out or provide information to the committee majority. apparently he also didn't provide any information to these writers. it's only on the word of two anonymous sources that his name an accusation comes up in this story in "the new york times." and again my office never received anything from mr. styer or his unnamed friends, and we never received an allegation against kavanaugh like the one referenced in the report over this weekend. after interviewing eight people related to the ramirez

allegations, not once was mr. styer's name mentioned. had my staff received substantive allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him. but the alleged victim who also didn't speak to these writers apparently does not recall the incident. that's a point that the "new york times" failed to include in its official coverage. now, it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. i welcome scrutiny of my work. i frequently refer to reporters, journalists as the police of our

democratic system. but today i'm reminded of a very old adage, who will watch the watchman? this week's report includes some embarrassing, irresponsible missteps, mistakes that weren't serious self-reflection. a year ago after the interviews with dozens of people, "the new york times" couldn't even corroborate the allegations laid out by miss ramirez and declined to report on them with nothing but a year of time and another interview with ramirez herself, the paper thought those unverified claims were suddenly worth printing. no more corroboration, no more

verification, coming only days before the release of the author's book, i can't help but wonder if the timing had something to do with the decision to run the story. maybe sell more books. they also laid out what commentators are now calling new allegations. let me be clear. this is not an allegation. it's barely a third-hand rumor. these writers -- can you believe this? -- these writers didn't even speak to the man whom they claim originally recounted this rumor. what's left are only layers and layers of decades-old hearsay. no more corroboration, no more

verification, not even anything from the accuser himself. and nothing -- most importantly, nothing from the person who was allegedly involved. now, the most shameful piece of this episode is that it took more than a full day after publication for the editors to intervene and to provide critical context. an editor's note added to the story last night reads, quote, the book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incide incident. let me quote again. she does not recall the incident. that is the alleged victim.

that's the opposite of corroboration and verification. in the legal world this sort of thing is called excul ex-- excuy information. when it's not laid bare to provide greater context, it creates a serious credibility problem. in this case "the new york times" withheld crucial facts that undercuts its own reporti reporting. we now have an uncorroborated accusation rooted only in unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of the event and that the alleged victim doesn't even

remember. you know about "the new york times." they say -- their slogan is they only print what is fit to print. i just described this situation of uncorroboration rooted in unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of this event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember. i'll get back to the slogan of the newspaper. when did this stuff i described become something fit to print by the supposed american paper of record? the sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public, a greater divide in our own recourse -- discourse, and a

deeper lack of faith in our news media. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, john rakolta jr. of michigan to be ambassador of the united states of america to the united arab emirates. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. today i hope my colleagues will join me in standing in

solidarity with thousands of united auto worker workers in ohio and around the country, workers going without their paychecks today because they demand that general motors respect the work they do which has made this company so successful. all workers have the right to stand up for fair pay and benefits, for better working conditions, and a voice in their company, but let's be clear, auto workers are, shall we say, the engine behind g.m.'s success. g.m. wouldn't be making a dime of profit without the workers who actually make their cars and trucks. auto workers stood up and made sacrifices to help g.m. when times were tough. the presiding officer was a member of the house then, as i was a member of the senate, and saw what happened during the rescue of the auto industry and how much those workers gave up to save this industry. we remember the depths of the recession. we remember when president obama took office 800,000 people were

losing their jobs that first month, 700,000 the second month, until with the auto rescue senate democrats and house democrats with president obama turned this economy around, and we've seen literally economic growth each quarter over the last almost ten years. in large part because so many workers like u.a.w. members were willing to give up something at the bargaining table. some people said that -- in some cases, clearly some people in this town wanted to abandon that company. now that times are better, all workers are asking for is their fair share. so far, g.m. has not treated these workers as the critical partners they are in our auto industry. look at what g.m. has done in my state. look at what they did in lordstown, ohio. the company shut down its most productive plant in north america. by g.m.'s own measurements, the lordstown plant near youngstown,

ohio, where as recently as two and a half years ago back during the obama administration, two and a half years ago, 4,500 workers were working there, and even though president trump said don't sell your homes, these jobs are coming back, they have been laid off. hundreds of workers, 4,500 over the last couple of years. at the same time, g.m. announced they were going to build the chevy blazer in mexico. g.m. could retool that lordstown plant. they could build the blazer in ohio. they could put some of their electrical vehicles at the lordstown plant in ohio. we know they have plenty of money to work with. they earned higher than expected profits in the first quarter of this year, and president trump in his tax cuts for the rich gave huge amounts of tax breaks to general motors. much of that money went to general motors executives. all these workers are asking for is to share in those profits, to have a voice in their company. g.m. made the decision to close lordstown and other plants

around the country with no input from workers. the workers who earned those profits for that company. now workers are standing up and fighting for increased investments in their local communities. i spoke this week with gary jones, the international president of the united auto workers will lordstown, about bringing some of these jobs back. that's what they're trying to win at the bargaining table. we know that strikes are always the last resort for workers. my wife grew up in ashtabula, ohio. her dad carried a union card, utility workers of america. he did maintenance for that plant for more than 30 years. twice when she was growing up, they went out on strike. she knows, as workers know, they never get back what they lose in a strike, so when they strike, it's when their back is against the wall. the wife of one g.m. worker posted online this week i can only pray this strike is short. these workers want to do their jobs. they want to work. they don't want to be on the picket lines. they want to reach a solution that honors their work.

g.m. needs to agree to a contract that honors the dignity of work, that honors the dignity of work and recognizes auto workers, the communities, and the families who are affected by this, who all help drive the success of the auto industry in ohio and across the country. mr. president, i ask that the following remarks be inserted in a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. once again, once again, the trump administration is trying to take health care away from people. i will never forget i was sitting at this desk, at desk 88 on the senate floor the night when senator murkowski and collins and then senator mccain voted against repealing the affordable care act. i watched my colleagues, all of whom have good health insurance, all of us have good health insurance because of taxpayers, i watched my colleagues one after another after another vote to take health insurance away from millions of people. 900,000 people in my state alone have insurance now because of

the affordable care act. this time, this time the trump administration is going -- is trying to pull funding from health facilities that tell the truth to their patients, facilities like planned parenthood that nearly 100,000 ohioans rely on. 100,000 ohioans. they're blocking title 10 to any health organization that gives patients information and the full range of health care options. we know who makes these decisions. i hate to say it this way, but it's mostly white men in washington, and they have real serious consequences force ohio women. that month, two planned parenthood clinics in cincinnati announced they will have to close their doors. this will be devastating for so many southwest ohio women. it will mean they have fewer options for health care services they need, including -- including preventive care bic cancer screenings and s.t.i. testing and birth control. it will mean many women won't be

able to see the doctors whom they rely on and in whom they trust. a student? sin -- a students in cincinnati, caroline, spoke about what this means to her. she said, i have a very close relationship with my provider. there is a lot of trust there that's been built over many years. but now because of this president she's not going to be able to sea that doctor anymore. -- to see that doctor anymore. to what purpose other than playing politics? i got a letter from another woman in cincinnati who wrote, as someone who lost her grandmother to uterine cancer in marks i know how important it is for women to have access to the health care services that planned parenthood provides. women have the right to make informed choices about their own bodies and to have access to investigations that can help save their lives. that came from a woman in cincinnati. we know planned parenthood provides these exams and tests. these clinics are often the only places that many women and some men have to turn.

they either can't afford somewhere else or they live too far away from other health care providers to have any other real option. last year the west side clinic that's closing in cincinnati performed more than 6,900 s.t.i. tests. the springdale clinic that's closing performed who are than 6,300 tests. another woman wrote to say that her daughter has an advanced degree but her income is below poverty level and relies on planned parenthood to get her care. she can't afford anywhere else, so she'll just go without care. we know what happens then to someone. this mother of the 31-year-old daughter said now she'll be hard-pressed to find a doctor that will take her for checkups. this assault on women's health care isn't just coming from the trump administration. they're encouraging right-wing state legislatures all over the

country. over the past few years, we've seen state legislatures, notably including my state, unfortunately, in ohio making it harder and harder for clinics to operate and provide that's preventive services. they cut funding. they increase red tape and rail against bureaucracies but make it harder through more red tape. they come up up with rule after unnecessary rule to dissuade women from coming to these clinics. these rules aren't about patient health. they're about closing health clinics. who made these laws? it's always the same. men who don't l, men who don't understand how women's bodies bork, men who don't understand how preventive care like birth control works. it's time for men to stop trying to take away women's health care. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: 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 john rakolta jr. of michigan to be ambassador

extraordinary and plenipotentiary -- ambassador of the united states to the united arab emirates, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john rakolta jr. of michigan to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the united arab emirates. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has any senator not voted? does any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 27. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, the postcloture time on the rakolta nomination expire at noon on tuesday, september 17. further, that if cloture is invoked on the howery nomination, the postcloture time expire at 3:30 p.m. and if either of these nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. finally, that notwithstanding rule 22, following disposition of the howery nomination, the senate vote on the cloture motions for the destro,

mcintosh, and callanan nominations. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 25, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 25, recognizing september 11, 2019, as a national day of service and remembrance. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the motion? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, september 17. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for

the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the rakolta nomination under the previous order. finally, i ask that the senate recess following the cloture vote on the howery nomination until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am here today on the senate floor for time to wake up speech number 253. if you felt like the heat this

summer was particularly brutal, you were not imagining things. july was the hottest month ever recorded, according to noaa. the secretary-general of the world meteorological association noted july has rewritten climate history with dozens of new temperature records at the local, national, and global level. noaa says 2019 is on track to tie for the second hottest year on record. overall, the past five years are expected to take the title of the hottest five-year period in

recorded human history. this rapid heating of our earth is wreaking havoc on our environment and public health. here's a list from noaa that you can find on their website, selected significant climate anomalies and events, july, 2019. all around the globe. in one day, one day, the greenland ice sheet lost 12.5 billion tons of ice melted into the sea. throughout the world from france to india to the arctic circle, temperature records shattered. on july 4, the people of anchorage, alaska, experienced their first-ever 90-degree day. at one point in july, excessive

heat warnings asked nearly 170 million americans to avoid the outdoors and take shelter in air conditioning where available. according to deek arndt, head of climate monitoring for noaa, these record highs are, and i quote him here, almost entirely due to climate change, end quote. jack williams, a professor with the center for climatic research at the university of wisconsin, told nbc news -- and i quote him here -- heat waves of today are going to be the normal events of tomorrow. and where there's heat, there is apt to be fire. in the united states, wildfires rage on a remarkable scale. according to a new report by the major data analytics company corelogic, over 8.7 million acres burned in the

united states in 2018. that is about the land area of the 75 largest cities in the united states combined. this summer, the arctic experienced a record-setting wildfire season. places that have not traditionally burned in parts of northern canada, alaska, greenland, and siberia were engulfed in flames visible from space. in this map, the north pole is about here. so this looks down at alaska here and russia here, the siberian arctic. and as you can see, fires were everywhere. guierrmo raine of imperial college london told wire -- i quote him here -- arctic fires

are rare, but they are not unprecedented. what is unprecedented is the number of fires that are happening. never before have satellites around the planet seen this level of activity, end quote. as of august 28, fires cut across more than six million acres of siberian forest and 2.5 million acres of alaskan tundra and forested land. these forests aren't just scarring the arctic landscape. they are also releasing tons more of carbon dioxide, causing more climate change. researchers estimate that the arctic fires have released more than 180 million tons of co2. for comparison, my home state of rhode island was responsible for around 9.75 million tons of

carbon dioxide through our fossil fuel combustion in 2016. so roughly 20 times as much just from these fires. nasa scientists are also tracing soot from these fires. the soot absorbs sunlight and it warms the atmosphere and when the soot covers arctic ice, it speeds up the melting and the warming. once these forces are set in motion, the vicious cycle of warmer temperatures, wildfires, ice melt, and then ever-warmer temperatures is hard to break. far from the arctic, fires rage in another iconic ecosystem, the amazon. so far this year the amazon region has seen over 40,000

fires. up like the arctic, our changing climate is less to blame for the devastation than humans. again, natural forest fires in the amazon are rare, but warmer and drier conditions under climate change do make the fires larger and longer-lasting than in the past. but the true culprit in brazil is man-made deforestation, accelerating under the new brazilian president. enforcement against illegal logging and clearing has declined. if the first six months of this year, over 13,000 square miles of amazon forest were destroyed in brazil. sometimes at a rate of more than three football fields' worth of forests per minute. the journal "science advances"

warns that deforestation in the amazon is close to a threshold, beyond which the rainforest will undergo irreversible changes. without the healthy forests of the amazon be, the world will lose -- amazon, the world will lose one of its most important carbon sinks, areas that naturally absorb carbon are from our atmosphere. the rainforest captures nearly 5% of carbon dioxide emissions. a study published in "nature "i "shows that the amount of carbon thate ma does on absorbs has fallen since the 1990's by nearly a third. in brazil, the air has gotten so thick with smoke that in port auveillo, over 400 children landed in a local hospital with respiratory problems in the first three weeks of august.

public health officials and resources are overwhelmed. a pediatrician in the area said every year we have some fires and issues with smoke, but this was the worst year of them all, end quote. the tragedy in brazil is reminiscent of forests burning in southeast asia, to make way for palm oil planations. sue matter tra, bornio, and parts of malaysia saw over 70% of their peet forest lost to man-made destruction. i'm from the ocean state. wildfires of course don't burn in the ocean. but unprecedented heat waves are surging through our seas, laying

waste to coral reefs in much the way wildfires ravage forests. the harm to the amazon rainforests and to the arctic steppes from wildfire finds an you a adequatic echo -- an aquatic echo in the reefs all over the world from climate-driven, unprecedented ocean heat waves. and, mr. president, our willful blindness to these obvious calamities playing out on god's earth, which are largely due to maligned influence from the fossil fuel industry and its great armada of front groups that it uses to do its dirty business, needs to stop. the willful blindness has to come to an end p. from the equator to the arctic

an earth aflame will have life-or-death consequences consr generations to come. even our news media are turning their collective backs. in late august as these fires raged, media matters chronicled that not one -- not one -- of the five influential sunday news shows covered it. they're basically political gossip shows. indeed, media matters showed cable news devoted to wildfires in the amazon only 7% of the time they devoted to the notre dame cathedral fire. in other speeches i've pointed out how the royal baby has swamped climate coverage in our pathetic media. weather in i indonesia or

brazilian rainforests or arctic tundra -- the costs of the corporate greed and paid-for political ignorance that is stopping us from acting are on full display. our planet suffers as a consequence. we have covered our eyes in the pursuit of cheap fossil fuel, but nothing comes without a cost. and our debt is coming due. pope francis drove home in point in a recent sunday address saying, and i quote, we have caused a climate emergency that gravely threatens nature and life itself, including our own. end quote.

mr. president, our world is on fire. i'm sorry to quarrel with billy joel, but this time we did start the fire. and if that can't get the attention of my colleagues in congress, i do not know what can. we must wake up. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until

>> affordable healthcare is lacking. some people are not going as far as i would like as far as how they would like to handle that. i would like super legos. >> really like to have the candidates discuss how to re- normalize ourselves. what we used to call this free world. leader in democracy. also a cooperating force. >> i would like to know from each candidate their ideas on energy. and the technology in every state in the country. i would like to know if they believe that it is sustainable and reliable and worth the investment. i am really concerned about the

climate crisis. and about gun safety legislation and those are two essential things that have to be addressed by the election next year. i wish they would be addressed by congress before that but it doesn't appear that the senate will move on that. also we need to try to get back to enforcing the constitution. whoever becomes president, should obey the clause, should conduct business we put integrity. should not ridicule minorities or handicapped people or anyone else. we need to restore integrity. and restore a sense of service to all of the people. >> voices from the campaign trail. battleground states tour. >> joining us this morning is