court 9th circuit which covers the western united states and later this week a judicial nomination for the u.s. appeals court second circuit covering new york, connecticut and vermont and district court judges in eastern arkansas and middle pennsylvania. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you look down from heaven upon humanity's children, seeking for those to use for your glory.

may our lawmakers live with such faithfulness that they will be your redemptive instruments at a time when truth seems a rare commodity. may you find delight in those who by faith trust you to make the crooked places straight and the rough places smooth. lead our senators to a fresh dedication in their service you to and humanity. grant that justice will roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty

stream. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: amen. please join me in the please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of americ, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak in morning business for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. grassley: veterans, meaning our veterans of war, our veterans who are in uniform that have not been in war environment, veterans have a big impact on the american economy. there are 2.5 million veteran-owned businesses in the united states that account for more than $1.1 trillion in revenue. in iowa, there are 26,119 veteran-owned businesses that employ 51,801 people and bring in $10.9 million. iowa is working hard to attract veterans and help them start and expand their businesses. i honor these hardworking entrepreneurs who have served our country by joining my colleagues in recognizing this week the week of november 4 as

national veterans small business week. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: leadership time is reserved.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this week the senate will continue its work in the pennell business and confirm more of the president's outstanding nominees to the federal judiciary. since our democratic colleagues' shows defense funding and blocked legislation to fund our armed forces, we'll turn our focus to confirmations while we wait for progress on appropriations. leading off the week, the senate will have the opportunity to confirm another standout kentuckian to the federal bench, this time to the u.s. court of federal claims. judge david tapp has just about done it all. since he first became a state judge nearly 15 years he's heard cases on multiple levels of the

state's judiciary ruling on a wide range of issues, as a voluntary drug court judge, judge tapp has earned national praise for promoting long-term recovery in the courtroom. he's also developed a sterling reputation for fairness throughout kentucky and around the country. and now david will bring a lifetime of public service and achievement to the court of federal claims, where i'm confident he'll continue making us all proud. i look forward to voting to confirm him later today and hope our colleagues will join me. now, on another matter, last week the nation saw several pivotal moments that shed light on the current state of the democratic party. here in the senate, as i mentioned, democrats chose to filibuster funding for our national defense for the second time in two months. this funding was agreed to in the bipartisan, bicameral deal that speaker pelosi and the democratic leader signed onto just a few months ago.

but now they've walked away from the agreement they signed and filibustered funding for our military commanders. so, madam president, yesterday we saw the iranian regime celebrate -- celebrate -- the 40th anniversary of the taking of the american embassy and the beginning of the iranian hostage crisis. the familiar slogan "death to america" was on full display. it was sobering to watch this display and know that our own commanders do not have the certainty they need because democrats here in washington found this politically advantageous to block it. over in the house, speaker pelosi continues to stall the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. usmca would bring tons of billions of new commerce and create millions of new american jobs but house democrats would

rather pursue political theater, so american businesses and farmers are still waiting. at least they're not shy about what they do support. we've seen what democrats prioritize. we remember the green new deal, an effort to grab unprecedented control over american families' daily lives. designing, building, our furnishing a home or business, democrats want washington to dictate how you do that. commuting -- traveling for vacation, mowing our lawn. they'd like you to do that without gasoline or jet fuel rather than later. making a living, pruessing, refining, or energy. they'd like you to find another line of work, whether you like

it or not. that's the green new deal. there's also the matter of medicare for none. that's the scheme that would take the program that millions of american seniors rely on, throw away everything except the label, and paste that onto a one-size-fits-all washington-run insurance plan that would be mandatory for every american. medicare gone. private plans in the popular medicare advantage program gone. every health insurance plan that americans get on the job, which over 180 million people depend on, gone. this is literally what several of the leading democratic presidential contenders have endorsed. a new nationwide experiment in socialism. and every single american --

man, woman, and child -- would be the subjects of this experiment, whether that's what we want for our families or not. from this mandatory one-size-fits-all insurance plan to new price controls that would limit lifesaving cures, our democratic colleagues are rallying around policies that would leave american families paying more to wait longer for worse care. that's their prescription. pay more to wait longer for worse care. and then, if these plans weren't bad enough on the merits, theree is the small issue of the crushing new tax burden you'd have to pile onto the u.s. economy in order to make some effort to pay for all this. one leading democrat release add breathtaking proposal last week that illustrates the road they'd like to head down. this candidate's medicare for none plan on its own,

notwithstanding all the other socialist plans, just the health care plan would cost $52 trillion over the first ten years alone. that's the candidate's own estimate -- $52 trillion over ten years. even african balancizing everything -- even aftercanniballizing everything, the candidate's says there would still be a staggering amount of money left over to finance. other experts that i it would be more. for some perspective, madam president, it you add up every cent that is deposited in every commercial bank across the united states of america, that's about $13 trillion. so you could literally seize -- seize -- every dollar that americans have deposited in banks and you'd have nowhere near enough known pay for even the first decade of this crazy

experiment. democrats are confident they can produce this huge sum of money through historic tax increases on job creators and on the american people. an enormous, enormous new tax burden dumped on the u.s. economy that would kill jobs, depress worker wages, and make america less competitive, literally for generations to come. at the exact time when republican tax reform has made the united states more competitive and boosted prosperity here at home, democrats want to take us backwards and make our nation a less attractive place to create jobs. here's what layerly sum,a former -- here's what larry summers, a former treasury secretary under president clinton, wrote about this plan. it will discourage hiring particularly of low-skilled

workers, and there is the real risk of an economic contraction following a sharp market decline. that's layerly summers, the -- the larry summers, the clinton treasury secretary. particularly, it would discourage hiring particular i had of low-skilled workers and a sharp market decline. so, in order to take away employer-sponsored insurance from 180 million americans, democrats want to kill jobs and bring the economy to a screeching halt. look, i would implore my friends across the aisle to put aside this destructive socialism and join us in the current work that needs doing right now for the american people. we have a landmark trade agreement that needs passing. we have u.s. armed forces that need funding. we're just waiting on our

democratic colleagues to show up. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, david austin tapp of kentucky to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, let me ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, let me just begin by echoing what the leader said earlier about the importance of passing the defense appropriations bill. i just came from a meeting with -- with members of our defense department where we talked about how important it is that the appropriations process move forward, that the defense authorization bill, the broader bill that sets the priorities for military spending, that also is stalled out here. that's something that in 58 years, both sides have agreed to, how we're going to make sure that we take care of our men and women in uniform, that they have the equipment, the weaponry, the training that they need to do their jobs and to keep america safe. that's the authorization bill. that's stalled out right now.

that's the priorities bill. the appropriations bill is the part that funds all that. that, too, has been blocked. last week, most recently by the senate democrats, a filibuster, the defense appropriations bill. so both the authorization bill and the funding bill are both now stalled out here in the united states senate because of obstruction and delays by the senate democrats, and that's unfortunate for the men and women in uniform in this country, because in that defense appropriations bill is the largest pay increase in a decade for our men and women in uniform, not to mention all the important priorities that are funded when it comes to the weapons systems, the most sophisticated technology that's necessary, again, to keep americans safe, both here at home and around the world. i can't emphasize enough how important it is for our democratic colleagues to come to their senses and conclude that taking care of america's military is job number one.

if we don't get national security right, madam president, the rest is conversation. it really is. all these other things that we talk about are secondary and pale in comparison to making sure that we are taking the steps that are necessary to protect americans, as i said both here at home and around the world. the defense appropriation bill funds all those priorities, all those things that are important from pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform to, again, all the things that are necessary for them when it comes to training, equipment, and weaponry to do their jobs and to do them well and to continue to keep americans safe both here at home and around the world and to be able to project american power where necessary in a world that is increasingly dangerous. and so i would just urge that the democratic here in the senate to again allow this appropriations process to move forward. give us a vote. let's vote on it.

let's get the military funded, and as every day that goes by where it's not funded, it's lost time, it's resources that can't be put into those important priorities that are so essential to america's national security interests. and so we have got a filibuster being conducted by the senate democrats. it needs to be stopped. we need to move forward with the defense appropriations bill, and i hope that the senate democrats will come to the conclusion that that is the right thing to do, not only for the united states senate but more importantly for our country. madam president, the internet has brought americans a host of benefits. a wealth of information at our fingertips, unparalleled convenience, new opportunities for education and commerce, and innumerable new methods of communication. but i don't need to tell anyone that along with the countless benefits of the internet have come a number of concerns. one thing that's on the mind of many consumers is privacy. as the internet gradually

permeates every area of our lives, internet companies become the repository for an ever-increasing amount of our personal data, our personal information. from what we ate for dinner last night to the temperature we like to keep in our house. as chairman of the senate commerce committee subcommittee on communication, technology, innovation and the internet, i spend a lot of time focused on data privacy issues. this past june i convened a hearing entitled optimizing for engagement, understanding the use of persuasive technology on internet platforms. and at that hearing we heard from a variety of experts about the ways companies use consumers' personal data to determine what individuals see online. as i said at the time, one reason i decided to hold the hearing was to inform legislation i was developing that would require internet platforms to give consumers the option to engage without having

the experienced shaped by algorithms that are driven by their user's specific data. last thursday i introduced that legislation called the filter bubble transparency act here in the united states senate. and i'm proud to have a number of bipartisan cosponsors on this bill. senator blumenthal, senator moran, senator blackburn and senator warner have all cosponsored this legislation and i'm grateful for their support. the filter bubble transpirnsy act is designed to address one aspect of the privacy problem. the issues that arise from internet companies a use of consumers' personal information to shape what consumers see on their platforms. many people are unaware that much of the content that they see on the internet is determined by sophisticated algorithms and artificial intelligence that draw on data about each consumer's online activity. for example, a recent pew research study found that 53% of u.s. adults don't understand how

facebook news feed works. many of us know that netflix is curating information, recommendations specifically for us based on the movies and the shows that we watch. they use past behavior to project what future behavior is going to be so they take all that information and they aggregate it and use that to recommend certain things that we might want to see. a lot of us are aware that amazon is delivering product recommendations based on our purchase history. in other words, when you buy things online, you see the ads for the types of things you buy online. but the reality is internet companies have moved far beyond just recommending tv shows or just recommending things that you might want to purchase. increasingly, every aspect of our online experience is personalized based on the vast amount of information that companies collect about us, from our age, our occupation to how

many times we visit certain websites. the data used by these companies to make predictions about us comes from a wide range of sources, from smart devices like alex is a, -- alexa, google assistant, ring doorbells and nest devices to scan e-mails and documents, to data acquired by third parties like banks, health data services among many other sources. this data is used to make statistical predictions about how we're going to behave in the future. and this statistical prediction making is happening on a massive scale. for example, facebook has stated that the artificial intelligence that it uses for its news feed can make six million predictions per second. billions of people are being fed content on internet platforms that is basically selected for them by al -- algorithms providing to make predictions to

keep each user engaged on the platform. the powerful mechanisms behind these platforms meant to enhance engage mrnts also have the ability or at least the potential to influence the thoughts and the behaviors literally of billions of people. that's why there is widespread unease about the power of these platforms and why it is important for the public to better understand how these platforms use the information that they collect to make predictions about our behavior. as i've said, a significant cause for concern is that most people are not always aware that the information they see is being filtered. we're trapped in what one observer has termed the filter bubble. our own private world filtered search results and tailored content without even knowing that we're there. there are real concerns that the ever increasing use of filters to shape our internet experience contributes to political polarization, social isolation, and addiction as well as permitting companies to manipulate user behavior.

my bill, the filter bubble transparency act takes aim at these concerns by requiring major internet platforms to notify consumers that the information they're seeing has been selected for them using filters based on their personal data. it would also require these sites to give consumers the option of seeing unfiltered results. so twitter provides a good example of what the filter bubble transparency act would do. twitter gives consumers an option to view an unfiltered time line through the use of a prominently displayed icon that's easy to access throughout a user's time on that particular platform. consumers have the option of viewing the time line that twitter has curated for them which pushes the posts that twitter thinks they want to see to the top of their feed or viewing an unfiltered time line that features all posts in a chronological order. that's the kind of option that my bill would give to consumers

on other types of social media platforms. consumers would be able to choose whether to see an unfiltered social media feed or search results or whether to view the curated or personalized content that the site chooses for them. it would be an option and we believe it gives consumers more choice and more control. and they'd be able to easily switch back and forth between the two options whenever they wanted. after all, consumers may want to see the filter-driven content in some cases. i mean, i would certainly prefer to see next flex -- netflix recommendations tailored to my viewing history. if you have a thousand tweets to read, it can be useful to see the ones you're most likely to be interested in at the top of that feed. but, but, madam president, consumers should also have the option to escape from that filter bubble and to see information that has not been selected specifically for them.

madam president, i strongly support a light-touch approach to internet regulation that allows the free market to flourish. the internet would not have grown the way it has had it been weighted down with heavy-handed government regulations but in order for free markets to work effectively, consumers need as much information as possible including a better understanding of how internet platforms use artificial intelligence and complex filters to shape the information that those users see and receive. my bill would provide transparency and consumer control without jeopardizing the opportunity and the innovation that we've come to expect from the tech industry. madam president, as internet companies collect and make use of more and more of our personal information, it's important that consumers know how their data is being used. and an even more basic level, it's important for consumers to know that their data is being

used to curate the content that they see. that's exactly what the filter bubble transparency act would do, madam president. it would allow consumers online to be able to, one, to know that their information is being filtered and that they're seeing content that's being curated for them by that particular social media platform and, two, give them an option to see an unfiltered, uncurated content that would be just coming to them in a normal chronological order. madam president, i would forward to working with my colleagues to advance this legislation. i think it's an important first step in making sure that consumers know more about their information as it's being collected and how it's being used by internet companies. and i will continue to work as we try to deal with this broader debate on date to privacy, so important in the online world in which we live.

madam president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i'd ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i wanted to return to the floor again this week to discuss congress' progress on important legislation or rather the lack of it. since the obsession with impeaching the president began. when the house decided to proceed full steam ahead on impeachment, they promised it wouldn't interfere with our ability to get other important work done for our constituents. while it's been less than a week since the house formally authorized their impeachment inquiry, the crusade to impeach

the president and remove him started nearly three years ago. for example, on january 20 which was actually inauguration day, 2017, at 12:19 p.m., "the washington post" ran a story with the headline, quote, the campaign to impeach president trump has begun. close quote. that was on inauguration day in 2017. 19 minutes into his presidency, the writing wasn't only on the wall, it was on the front page of "the washington post." our democratic friends are on a kamikaze mission to get president trump out of office. less than a year before the next election and in the process, they are preventing congress from solving the big problems facing the american people. the latest casualty of this impeach at all cost strategy is a bill i introduced with my

democratic colleague from connecticut richard blumenthal called the affordable prescriptions for patients act. this legislation would lower the cost of americans' prescription medication and save more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer money. here in the senate, senator dur opinion from illinois as well as the assistant democratic leader senator murray from washington state as cosponsors. with that kind of lineup you would think this would be a no-brainer. but unfortunately drug pricing legislation isn't the only consensus effort that's gotten caught up in impeachment mania. for a quarter of a century, the violence against women act has provided resources to assist women who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. unsurprisingly, this program has consistently maintained broad bipartisan support. there's agreement that we must do more to provide services and

protection for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but it's safe to say there are disagreements on how best to accomplish that goal. those differences and opinion came to a head in february of this year. we were fresh off the heals of the longest government shutdown in history and working to fund the government through the remainder of the year. but our democratic colleagues threw a curveball when they insisted that we should not include a temporary extension of the violence against women act which had expired in september of 2018. even amid the political jockeying we've been seeing in this congress, this was a shocking omission. republicans were in favor of a short-term reauthorization of the violence against women act to provide time and space for bipartisan negotiations for a long-term reauthorization. but surprisingly, our democratic

colleagues in the house blocked this reauthorization of the violence against women act. so it expired. fortunately, though, our friends on the appropriations committee have continued to fully fund these programs, but the authorizing statute has expired because of this gamesmanship. and despite continued bipartisan negotiations led by the senator from iowa, senator ernst over the last eight months, we haven't been able to come up with a consensus agreement to they -- to reauthorize the program on a long-term basis. this has been an eighth-month negotiation. it isn't all that complicated. we should be able to do it in the space of an afternoon. but clearly there's no desire to get this resolved. reauthorizing the violence against women act is a top priority for members of both sides of the aisle, and i hope we'll work harder to make it happen rather than to use this

important law to play partisan political games. sadly, the violence against women act is not the only program to get caught up in the political crosshairs. the debbie smith act, another traditionally bipartisan bill here in the senate, expired at the end of september because of the refusal of the house to take up the senate-passed version and to send it to the president. the debbie smith act you'll recall provides funding to state and local crime labs to test d.n.a. evidence and reduce the rape kit backlog. the senate unanimously passed the bill in may to reauthorize this program but the house simply refused to act. at a round table i held in houston a few months ago, i heard from rape victims and their advocates about how troubling and, frankly, how insulting all of this was. well, after months the house has now finally relented and voted to reauthorize the debbie smith

act after the pressure on them became unbearable. i'm glad they changed their minds and i'm hopeful we can get this bill to the president's desk soon. although i would have welcomed less drama this time around, debbie smith reauthorization will hopefully be an example of what congress can accomplish if we put partisan political fights aside and work for our constituents. in other words, do the job we were elected to do, when our constituents sent us here. it is really disappoint that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather relitigate the 2016 election, again less than a year before the next election, rather than do the work of the american people. this obsession with impeachment mania has consumed our democratic colleagues and is preventing us from getting work done on a nonpartisan basis. that's what our constituents want us to do. texans are worried about high

prescription costs, worried about the state of our roads and bridges, and worried about our national security. in the case of the democrat leader, i'd be willing to wager that new yorkers are worried about many of these issues, too. so it's time to stop the partisan games. they don't result in pay raises for our troops, which have now been voted against -- two times -- by our democratic colleagues. they don't advance victims' rights and get justice to survivors, like the reauthorization of the debbie smith act and the violence against women act would do. they don't increase the public's trust in our institutions of government and ensure them that we really have their best interests at heart. and definitely these games don't help make americans' lives better. we've heard our democratic colleagues say ad nauseam that impeachment will not interfere

with their ability to legislate, that the evidence -- but the evidence suggests otherwise. what americans want is action. what americans want is for us to do our job. and we can give them what they want by allowing legislation we know has a chance of becoming law, like my drug pricing bill, like the debbie smith act, like the violence against women act come to the floor, get passed, and sent to the president. that would be doing our job, and i believe that is what our constituents want from each of us, not this singleminded obsession with impeachment that started the day the president was sworn into office here less than a year before the next election. madam president, i yield the floor and i -- well, i would yield the floor. ms. ernst: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from 00 with a.

ms. ernst: before i start talking about this topic today, i do want to thank the senior senator from texas for your remarks on the violence against women act and the debbie smith act. i think it is vitally important that we get both of those acts reauthorized this year, and of course the sooner the better, so our advocates can get their work done. so thank you very much for those remarks. madam president, last week we saw our democratic colleagues once again playing politics ahead of the defense of our great nation. they are putting their actions ahead of the support that we need to give to those that defend our nation. for the second time this year, as already stated today, senate democrats have blocked funding for our service members, and the kicker, folks, is that the vote

they blocked was one that would have simply allowed us to debate the issue. it sounds unbelievable even while saying it now, folks, but it's the sad reality of where we are today. what message does it send to our men and women in uniform when every single senator of the democratic party votes against providing the funding that our troops need for training, for new defense programs critical to our national defense strategy, for the largest military pay raise in ten years, which our troops have more than deserved after nearly two decades of fighting for their country? when i was deployed to kuwait

and iraq in the early days of the war on terror, the most important thing was not only to ensure my soldiers and i had the right training and equipment to carry out our missions, but knowing without a doubt that the american people and the policymakers in government who sent us to war stood behind us and supported us every step of the way. it was placing faith in our country leadership to make the sound decisions to effectively employ military force and to have the will, the resolve, and the tenacity to make tough decisions without regard to politics. the decision of the democrats last week to not even open debate on what our troops need to fight and win is so sorely

disappointing. what will it take in order to get our service members at home and abroad the resources they need? will we really deprive our troops of critical training opportunities to hone their readiness in the most dangerous strategic environment since the end of the cold war? will we actively aid our enemies by failing to fund those things which we have identified as critical to maintaining an edge against our adversaries? it is absolutely unacceptable that democrats would even entertain these possibilities. if you want to have a debate, then let's have a debate, but to say that you support the troops

and then obstruct the ability to discuss it in this chamber what our service members need, it just -- it doesn't even add up. that's why i'm here. i'm on the floor today to call upon all of my colleagues who sank the prospects of defense funding to come down and do the job that all of us swore to do when we took our oath of office. it's time to give our troops what they need to do their jobs, and it's time to stop running this government through wasteful continuing resolutions in an increasingly dangerous world. with that, madam president, i will yield the floor, and i will note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to michael thomas, a member of my staff, during today's session of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, we

need to pass the future act to help students, historically black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, and we need to do that now. so, mr. president, i'm here today to advocate on behalf of maryland's four hcbu's that face a funding cliff due to congressional inaction. without the immediate passage of the future act, bowie state university, coppin state university, morgan state university, and the university of maryland-eastern shore face a collective $4.2 million funding shortfall now that the act for mandatory funding for these institutions lapsed on october 1 of this year. this clean bipartisan and paid-for two-year reauthorization gives breathing room to continue to negotiate the full reauthorization of the higher education act without holding these historically underfunded institutions as hostage. our hcbu's and m.c.i.'s know that they can count on this mandatory funding each year to strengthen their course

offerings, in-demand stem programs, make infrastructure improvements and provide academic counseling and student support services to first-generation and historically underrepresented students. throwing these budgets of these institutions into chaos directly harms their ability to serve their students and communities. institutions would have to make decisions about potentially reducing levels of academic services, delaying needed infrastructure investments, and make long-lasting staffing decisions. these decisions are being made all across the country at schools in each of our states. collectively, the m.s.i.'s risk losing out on $255 million in mandatory funding. mr. president, this is an unnecessary obstacle that our hcbu's and m.c.i.'s do not need to face. we have a paid-for available for us today to address this issue. so, mr. president, we can get this done now. the house is prepared to accept this two-year extension. it gives us a chance to

negotiate the complete reauthorization of the higher education act, but does not hold these institutions hostage with the mandatory funding that is provided by law. so therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 212, h.r. 2486, that the murray amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i want to thank the distinguished senator from maryland for giving me this opportunity to present the right way to help historically black colleges and universities, and i intend to do that when he is through speaking about this. and explain what we can do together. unfortunately, the bill that he

proposes is a short cut the house took which has no way to pass the senate. it's based upon a budget gimmick. it uses a method of funding that many senators object to. it creates a new funding cliff within 23 months, and it's unnecessary because the secretary of education has written all of the heads of historically black colleges and universities to say that there are sufficient funds until next september so that there is no funding problem. so this gives me an opportunity, which i will do in just a moment, to suggest the right way to do it. the right way to do it is to do permanent funding of historical black colleges and universities. in the package of bills that i have introduced, it would -- that package includes other legislation which i will discuss when my time comes, which

include simplifying the faf is a, a bill -- the fafsa, a bill that senator jones and i have introduced which will help 20 million families, including almost every student at a historicically back -- historically black college or minority-serving institution. it also includes grants for prisoners and short-term pell grants, it certifies the grant letters. this includes short-term pell grants, as i mentioned. this package has been put together by a number of democratic and republican senators. it's ready to pass the senate. it's ready for the president to sign it. it permanently funds black colleges and universities instead of this short cut, so in a moment, i will talk more about that, but in the meantime, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i respect greatly

the chairman of the committee. i know his sincerity in dealing with higher education and education in our country, but the issue is pretty simple. without the continuation of mandatory funding as provided by current law, historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions cannot rely upon the funding source that the chairman's talking about. there are going to be tough decisions that are going to have to be made on infrastructure improvements, tough decisions on staffing, and there is no need for it because we all agree that the mandatory funding should continue. i'm all for permanent extension. what this u.c. will do is give us the two-year window to make sure we pass the higher education authorization re-funding. the issue that the chairman is going to talk about are all matters that are under discussion and debate that have to be worked out between the members of his committee, the floor, reconciliation between the house and the senate. in the meantime, historically black colleges and universities

and minority-serving institutions will suffer. so i -- i fully support what the chairman is trying to do in getting matters accomplished, but if i understand the unanimous consent that he will be asking for, it doesn't deal with all the issues that need to be dealt with. we have to fully address the challenges of students faced with college access, affordability, accountability, campus safety. the chairman's bill does not meet that test and limits what we could do in the future to meaningfully address the costs of attending and succeeding in colleges. it has the challenges of child care, housing, food, textbooks, transportation go unaddressed for our country. a growing diversity of students, including student veterans, students with disabilities, students of color, students from low-income families or the first in their families to attend college. so i agree with the chairman. let's bring the higher education bill registration act to the floor, let's debate it, but don't hold these institutions that have historically been discriminated against hostage to

a program that we all agree needs to be continued. mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, then why would we hold hostage bipartisan legislation that would simplify from 108 questions to 18 to 30 the fafsa, the federal aid that 20 million families fill out every year in this country unnecessarily? why are we holding that hostage? why are we holding hostage the legislation introduced by senator portman and senator kaine and cosponsored by cardin, gillibrand, hassan, klobuchar, stabenow, baldwin. these are all democrats, mr. president. brown. now here is a republican, capito, coons, ernst, jones, moran, shaheen, sinema, smith, wicker, brawnd. this is legislation that we all -- and braun. this is legislation that we all agree on, on short-term pell grants. then we have senators grassley,

smith, cassidy, ernst, hassan, jones, klobuchar, manchin and rubio would like to simplify the federal aid letter so you don't get a letter in the mail if you're living in maryland or tennessee and think you have got a grant that you don't have to pay back when in fact it's a loan that you do have to pay back. we also agree on increasing the maximum pell grant. and we also agree on how to pay for it. we also agree on permanent funding for the historically black colleges and institutions in a way that the budget committee can easily approve and that can pass the senate. so if we can agree on all that and it all helps students at historically black colleges and minority-serving institutions, then why don't we pass it. why don't we do that. why don't we come up with a short-term gimmick-supported house-passed bill that sets up a new cliff, why don't we take a

permanent funding with a budget committee-approved way of paying for it and do some other things that we have been working on for five years in a bipartisan way. this is not an alexander proposal. this is a package of proposals by 29 senators, 17 democrats and 12 republicans. it's ready to pass the senate. it's ready to be worked on with the house of representatives, and it's ready to be signed by the president of the united states. now, let me add to this. the secretary of occasion and people seem to overlook this has written all the presidents of the historically black colleges and said there is enough money in the bank to pay for all your funding until next september. so we have nearly a year to do this the right way instead of the wrong way. we're not on vacation. i know everybody is talking about impeachment, but we have lots of students around this country who would like to have a simpler way to go to college. we have lots of historically

black institutions and minority-serving institutions that would like to have a permanent method of funding. we have lots of employers and potential employees who want a short-term pell grant. the simplifying of the fafsa would actually add, according to the congressional budget office, 250,000 pell grants and it would increase the number of americans who are eligible for the maximum pell grant. all that is ready to go. all that's ready to go. so why don't we do that instead? so i thank the senator from maryland for giving me an opportunity and a reason to bring up my package of bills with permanent funding of the historically black colleges and universities, paid for not by a jik but by a budget committee-approved method that president trump and president obama both had in their budgets, and i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor and pensions be discharged from further

consideration of s. 2557 -- that's my bill -- and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill providing permanent funding for historically black colleges, universities, and other matters be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to consider, reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: reserving the right to object and for the reasons i've already stated. there will be ample time to bring up the permanent reauthorization of the funding for historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions. that's why this is a two-year -- the consent i asked for is for two years. my party doesn't control the activities on the floor of the senate. this bill, the reauthorization bill is going to take some time on the floor. we're going to have to deal with

amendments and reconcile the differences between the house and senate. there is no other category of expenditures that are mandatory of this nature to underserved and historically discriminated institutions that's being held hostage as we debate a broader bill. so i think this is truly a unique circumstance and they should not be held hostage. and for all those reasons that we need to have a way to debate the issues to make sure that the reauthorization which only occurs every so often, the higher education act, that we deal with the current gaps we have for diversity, for students with disabilities, students with color, students with low-income families and first in their families to attend college. i object to the request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: we've been working for five years, for example, in simplifying the federal aid form that students fill out to go to college. five years. we have bipartisan support for

it in the senate and in the house. we've got families who in my state who will be discouraged from going to college because of this complex form. why don't we pass it? why don't we pass it? it's important to fund historically black colleges. that's true. they have funding for another year. so why don't we add to that the simplifying of the fafsa form which i would imagine 95% of the students in historically black college have to fill out every year. and then in addition to that, they have this verification process that they go through in the semester where somebody catches them telling the i.r.s. one thing and the department of education another so they jerk their aid. they think that's important. i have a president of a community college in memphis tells me he loses 1,500 students a year because of the burdensome nature of the application. the former governor of tennessee, our state, has the

highest percentage of students who fill out the fafsa, the term aid form for grants and loans. he says the single biggest impediment toward free tuition for two years of college in our state is the complex fafsa. so i don't think it is unreasonable to say while we help students at historically black colleges, why don't we help those same students by simplifying their fafsa? why don't we give them the shrt-term pell grant that -- pell grant that senator portman and a dozen other senators, including the senator from maryland have introduced. why don't we increase the size of the pell grant in a way we agree in a bipartisan way. in other words, we don't have to discuss something until we find something we can't agree on. why don't we take the things we do agree on and which are considered in the package that the senator just objected to and pass them.

29 senators, more democrats than republicans, have formed these bills that we can add to that other pieces of legislation. let's do it. but let's take the permanent funding for historically black colleges, the simplification of the fafsa, the short-term pell grants, the pell grants for prisoner, let's pass that. as i said, we're not on vacation. we should be able to do this in the next few weeks, next few months. how long does it take us to pass something we already agree on. shouldn't take us very long. so i'm disappointed that the senator has objected and i hope to keep coming to the floor and asking for the senator -- the senate to approve it and more importantly, i hope to keep working with the distinguished senator from washington state and our health, education, labor committee. we've often been able to work these matters out, even when they're contentious and offered to the senate, a bipartisan package. i hope we can do that.

i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. a senator: i wish to congratulate major general jeff burton, a man of remarkable achievement and character and a career educated to public service. after seven years serving as general of the utah national guard, major general burton is passing the torch of leadership. he leaves behind a distinguished legacy. mr. president, the utah national guard provides military forces ready to assist both state and federal authorities in times of emergency and in times of war. mr. romney: he's comprised of 7,300 soldiers and airmen for the utah army national guard and the utah air national guard. major general burton oversaw the training and military preparation of soldiers and airmen throughout the state. he's a principled and dedicated leader who has set a high standard of conduct for the men and women under his command.

major general burton and his wife sharn have always cared for and supported guard members and their families, particularly in the tragic times of loss. their devotion to the service men and service women of utah cannot be overstated. major general burton's life of service extends beyond his time asage tant general. he was a professor at brigham university and utah valley university where he has taught military science. he was awarded the bronze star for his exceptionally meritorious service as the commander of the 1457th engineer combat battalion during operation iraqi freedom where his unit played a significant role in the initial ground war. under his leadership his unit also helped to rebuild the country devastated by conflict. our great state of utah owes major general burton a debt of gratitude for his decades of service. we wish the honorable general

all the best in his next chapter. thank you, major general burton, for your service to our state and to our nation. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, last week the house of representatives voted in favor of a set of procedures to govern its impeachment inquiry, laying out a formal process to examine

the facts in the deliberate and fair-minded process. but our republican colleagues keep changing their argument as to why they are opposed to what the house is doing. first, this needed to be -- there needed to be a vote. there was a vote. second, make it public. now it's public. third, there's no quid pro quo. now there's quid pro quo, they even admit. and so now they are just saying it's not impeachable. the shifting sands of the republicans' argument in the house and senate, which seems to shift all the time, indicates that they don't seem to have a real interest in following the facts to where they lead but rather just defending trump regardless of the facts. that's a huge mistake for the republic and for this senate and how we should conduct ourselves. so let me elaborate.

for weeks congressional republicans criticized house democrats for not scheduling a vote. as soon as the vote was taken, the same republicans criticized the process once again. republicans criticized house democrats for conducting classified hearings even though the material discussed concerned our national security and republicans readily participated in those hearings. then the house voted on the plan for open hearings and predictably the same republicans kept criticizing the process coming up with even another new argument. the president's allies in congress then went on to the idea that there was no quid pro quo, which the president himself stated, although he was contradicted by mr. mulvaney, and that seemed to be the linchpin of their defense of the president in the last few days and weeks. but now all of a sudden, knowing maybe what's coming out, all of a sudden our republican colleagues are

saying, yeah, there was a quid pro quo, but it doesn't matter, it's not impeachable. some of them even think it's not even wrong, which is absolutely absurd. so instead of the shifting sands of defenses of the president on a near daily basis, my republican friends should let all the facts come out and make that you make -- their judgments based on the facts. instead of changing their argument every third day when faced with new facts, they should remain dispassionate and say we're going to look at the facts instead of jumping to find a new defense of the president no matter what the facts. if you're defending the president because there's no quid pro quo and then there is quid pro quo, you should be saying maybe something's going on here. but, no, a new argument pops up. the investigation is not yet complete.

jumping to conclusions before all the facts come out is misguided, it's unbefitting of a senator's role as judge and juror of a potential impeachment case. now last night the president held a political rally in kentucky with several republican elected officials, including the junior senator from kentucky, who publicly and explicitly urged the media to disclose the identity of the federal whistle-blower. the president of course quickly praised the senator's idea. i cannot stress just how wrong this is. we have federal whistle-blower laws designed to protect the identity and safety of patriotic americans who come forward to stand up for the constitution. there are members on the other side of the aisle, including senior members and chairs of committees, who spent their entire careers defending whistle-blowers and the laws that protect them and their families. well, where are they now? i was pleased to hear that my

colleague, senator thune, spoke out and said whistle-blowers must be protected. i believe senator grassley said the same. they're both right, but there should be bipartisan outrage at the public attempts by the president and a member of this body to expose the identity of a federal whistle-blower. you don't get to determine when our whistle-blower laws apply or they don't, whether you like what the whistle-blower said or you don't. they are laws. this whistle-blower whose complaint was deemed credible in an urgent matter by a trump appointee is protected by these statutes. every single member of this body should stand up and say it is wrong to disclose his or her identity. our rhetoric can sometimes be overheated, but i'm appalled by these developments. there's no other word for it. we're in a moment of history when republicans over only a few

weeks have shifted from saying that no laws were broken to saying that laws were broken, but it's not impeachable, to outright advocating that laws be broken. where is the internal gyroscope, the clock of decency and honor on the other side? they're twisting themselves in contradictory pretzels to defend this president has gone to bounds that we have rarely seen in this body with any party, with any president. i don't understand what sort of effect president trump has on them. people of integrity and some degree of strength just fold whenever he says something, twists their arguments, change their arguments, do 180-degree hairpins about their arguments all because they're afraid of

telling truth to power, the truth to this president who never likes to hear it. on guns, on august 5, days after mass shootings in el paso and dayton, president trump declared that we cannot let those killed in el paso, texas, and dayton, ohio, die in vain. he said republicans and democrats must come together and get strong background checks. those were the words of president trump. a few weeks later leader mcconnell promised that a debate on background checks would be, quote, front and center in the senate after the summer work period. these are leader mcconnell's words, quote, what we can't do is fail to pass something, he said. well, it's been three months since those statements. leader mcconnell's senate has not only failed to pass something, it's not even debated something. and then on friday "the washington post" released a story that all but confirmed the worst fears of families torn

apart by gun violence. the headline of "the washington post," trump abandons proposing ideas to curb gun violence after saying he would following mass shootings. according to "the washington post," the president has abandoned his brief flirtation with supporting expanding background checks because his advisors believe it will hurt his chances of reelection. quote, a reversal from the summer when the president insisted he would offer policies to curb firearm deaths. maybe it's not surprising. with this president, it isn't unfortunately. he goes back on his word day after day. but it's profoundly disappointing. democrats, despite our skepticism, tried to work in good faith with our republican colleagues to respond to the tragedies in el paso and in dayton. many of my colleagues --

senator murphy, senator manchin, as well as others -- worked with republican senators and ferried back and forth to the white house to find a proposal that could become law and save american lives. we gave the white house every chance to get to yes, but despite those efforts leader mcconnell has not moved even one gun safety bill to the floor, and president trump has reportedly closing the book on any, any potential compromise. just like on infrastructure, just like on immigration reform, just like on a myriad of other issues, president trump would rather do nothing to help the american people because it would upset political allies like the n.r.a. he'll make bold and sometimes surprising promises in the heat of the moment, when there was huge pressure to do something about background checks because of the shootings across the country, he said he would. but then this man who tries to

portray himself as a tough guy backs off when lobbyists say you can't do it. that doesn't show strength. it shows weakness, it shows a lack of candor and honesty with the american people. it shows he's using the american people for his own political purposes which he does over and over again. only time will tell how many lives it will take before president trump and congressional republicans come to their senses and work with us to finally do something about the epidemic of gun violence in america. now, climate. yesterday the trump administration sent, formally sent a notice to the u.n. that the united states will withdraw from the paris agreement in 2020. in the long list of dangerous policy decisions that president trump has advanced over the last three years, this ranks as one of the very, very worst. future generations will look

back on this decision as a dramatic step backward in the fight to address climate change. future generations will note this date and how it hurt our planet, our economy, and our national security in the decades that followed. president trump has been an enemy of climate science in ways no other president has been. before becoming president, he called climate change a hoax, and unfortunately his presidency has treated it like one. he has stuffed his administration to the brim with lobbyists for big oil and big coal. he's crippled the federal government's ability to research climate change. he's rolled back emissions standards, and he's used fake science to underreport the effects of climate change. instead of protecting the interests of the people, president trump has catered shamelessly to the interests of oil companies and corporate polluters. history will look harshly on president trump's failure, on

president trump's failure to lead the united states through our planet's climate crisis, and they will equally look unkindly on republican senators who have just stood mute as he has done this. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come do the floor today to talk about the united states

relationship with turkey and certain actions that the united states must consider in order to protect our national security interests and those of our true allies in the region. today more than ever we need strong allies and partners in europe. as the trump administration does nearly everything in its power to erode our alliances and denigrate our closest friends, we find increasingly emboldened regimes in russia and china. the u.s. cannot stand up to them alone. throughout the cold war, our diplomats worked assiduously to build strong bonds with allies knowing that having close partners was better than having enemies on the world stage. our strongest allies should be those in nato, those who have made a treaty commitment to mutual defense, those who share our values, those who cork in concert with us to face the

threat from countries like russias and iran with common cause. unfortunately, turkey under erdogan embodies none of those things. today i'd like to lay out a fact pattern that so many of my colleagues have come to see in recent weeks that turkey under erdogan should not, turkey under erdogan cannot be seen as an ally. how many more times do we need to see turkey betray the values upon which nato was established? how many times do we need to see president erdogan visit moscow, sochi or any other city to kiss putin's ring? how many more journalists need to be locked up by erdogan before we stop calling turkey a democracy? mr. president, enough is enough. over my 27 years in the house and senate, i have followed developments in the eastern mediterranean quite closely. turkey's invasion of cypress in

?ient 74 was -- in 1974 was a shocking attempt to redraw borders in europe in the wake of world war ii, and to this day turkey's invasion of the north of cypress must be seen for what it is, an illegal occupation that must end. turkey's actions over those days in 1974 were not the actions of a democratic country. they were not the actions of a reliable ally. they were not the actions of a responsible actor on the world stage. but the events of 1974 would only presage turkey's aggressive posture in the eastern mediterranean in the years to come. to this day, turkey under erdogan continues to aggressively bully international energy companies, including u.s. companies and the republic of cypress. their sin? conducting completely legitimate explore racial in the cypriot -- explore --

exploration in the cypriot zone. turkey's hostilities is the kind of diplomacy that belongs to eras past and has no place in today's world. examples abound where turkey continues to operate in bad faith. it could abide by u.n. security council resolutions to transfer defensed area to the administration of the united nations. these calls to return this area to its original inhabitants which turkey rejected during the 1974 invasion, have gone unheeded. several turkish ministers have recently visited and threatened to move forward with commercial development, a true affront to those forced from their land more than 40 years ago as well as to the u.n. security council resolution. in the eastern mediterranean, for years, turkey has always aggressive violated the airspace of neighboring greece, also a

nato ally. these dangerous maneuvers have threatened the lives and the safety of greek pilots as well as civilians living on the islands below. greece wants a good neighbor in turkey and has sought to find common ground upon a constructive relationship, but with these airspace violations, turkey has shown its true colors and the international community must come to terms with this. we have seen turkish drink reins abroad -- belligerence abroad manifest itself even here in the united states. who can forget when president erdogan's body guards attacked u.s. citizens in a washington park peacefully demonstrating, as is their constitutional right? and after the armenian resolution's passage in the house, turkey is working overtime block it in the senate because they know if this resolution, which both i, senator cruz, and bipartisan members both sits have sponsored

-- sides have sponsored, were to come to the floor for a vote, it would pass resoundingly and send a clarion message that recognizes the truth: the armenian genocide happened. it was a monstrous act and those who deny it are complicit in a terrible lie. genocide is genocide. the senate should not bow to this pressure. it cannot bow to this pressure. let's pass this resolution today. erdogan's behavior abroad has roots inside of turkey with where the democratic process has significantly eroded and religious freedom is under pressure. the ecould you men cal faces dire consequences as the spiritual head of the world's second largest christian church. his church properties have been confiscated and president erdogan restricts his religious freedom.

this is wrong and his all holiness deserves our attention. for those who speak about religious freedom in our chamber -- and i admire many who have, as well as as on the senate foreign relations committee -- this is also an issue of religious freedom. of course erdogan's oppression of his own citizens does not stop with restricting religious freedom. follows its emergency decree after a failed coup attempt, turkish authorities engaged in a draconian crackdown and roundup of citizens across the country. the u.n. reports that close to 160,000 people were arrested in an 18-month period, including over 100 women who were pregnant or had just given birth, often on grounds of nothing more than they were associated with their husbands, many of whom were suspects on trumped up charges. as we examine turkey's

increasingly destructive role in the world, we must never turn a blind on on those turkish families who want a more democratic society. my eastern mediterranean security and energy partnership act was passed with a strong bipartisan vote. we're working for full passage here in the senate and i understand that the house foreign affairs committee will mark up the legislation soon. i traveled to greece and cypress in the spring and told leaders in both places that this was not -- not -- an anti-turkey bill and that we all wanted turkey to be a constructive and democratic partner in the region. at the time, this vision seemed a long ways off. but now given erdogan's recent choice it has become virtually impossible. let's review events since my visit in the spring of this year. first, erdogan took delivery of the s-400 system -- air defense system from russia. let me repeat. turkey, a supposed nato ally,

purchased an air defense system from nato's main adversary. the reason that nato largely came to be. this choice endangered the security of the united states and other nato partners. the u.s. made a good offer of the patriot missile system, an offer that would have maintained the security equilibrium in the region and enabled turkey to remain a nato member in good standing. that offer was rejected. the trump administration did the right thing in removing turkey from the f-35 program. it was clear to all involved that the s-400 could not be parked next to an f-35. after all, it's meant and it's intended to be able to shoot down an f-35. this from a nato ally. but the administration has fallen well short of its obligations under the law.

under the caatsa law the administration is required to sanction any entity that conducts a significant transaction with the russian military or intelligence sectors. the provision of the law is not permissive. it is not optional. under no credible definition would the purchase of the s-400 russian system not be considered significant. the administration is breaking the law by ignoring this provision and kowtowing to ankara. according to u.s. law, turkey must be sanctioned for the s-400 system, and it should happen today. otherwise it will send a global message that we are not serious about sanctioning significant transactions with the russian military. now, some have said that such an approach is unwarranted and unwise lest we push erdogan into putin's arms. but, mr. president, he's already

there. he clearly is already there. in a senate foreign relations committee hearing in syria, i held up this poster, and i asked the secretary of state, what's wrong with this picture? i argued -- this is a picture of president erdogan, president putin, and and president rohanif iran. it says everything, says everything. two of our biggest foreign policy challenges, and who's there with them? erdogan. i argued that we were ceding american leadership in syria and the region to leaders and countries whose policies were intrinsically at odds with our own. unfortunately today we are seeing the terrible consequences of this abdication of leadership. erdogan's warm relationship with putin should ring alarm bells

across the nato alliance, raising concerns about nato's ex-piece our at incirlik. it raises concerns about how erdogan and putin may be working together to counter u.s. interests across the middle east in the balkans and around the world. nato is an alliance of shared values. none of those values are respected, none of them, by the current occupant of the kremlin or in ankara. second, provided with a green light from the trump administration, president erdogan's invasion of syria to attack our kurdish partners is an unconscionable act of brutality that has caused death and untold suffering among our kurdish friends and partners. tens of thousands have fled the area, creating an even problem of refugees in that war-torn region. the consequences of these actions by turkey and its

proxies will persist for years to come. turkey's incursion poses a direct threat to u.s. national security interests in the region, not the least of which is by facilitating russian foreign policy ambitions in the region and opening the door for isis to reconstitute. at its inception, turkey did not take the threat of isis seriously enough. and in the early days, isis' ability to cross the border bolstered its numbers. turkey did nothing, nothing, to stop them -- did nothing to stop foreign fighters going into syria. and while turkey has legitimate security concerns from the p.k.k., it's singular focus on extending its feet to the whole kurdish population risks its ability to confront other terrorist organizations, including isis and al qaeda.

there must be a full accounting by turkey of these atrocities. that is why i am today introducing an expedited resolution of request for the secretary of state to inform the senate in 30 days of the extent of turkey's human rights abuses in syria. this resolution invokes statutory authority under the foreign assistance act to require the secretary of state to assess and report to congress on turkey's human rights abuses in syria. the resolution calls for the administration to provide all available information concerning alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights by turkey, it's armed forces and associated groups in syria. it calls for a description of the steps the u.s. has taken to promote turkey's respect of human rights in its syria operations. the resolution also calls for a determination of whether turkey's actions have resulted in the release of isis or other extremists inside of syria. i'm also working closely with

the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator; on the promoting american national security and preventing the resurgence of isis act of 2019, which would impose targeted sanctions on turkey for its actions in syria. a similar bipartisan measure passed the house last week, and i urge the senate to deliberate on the measure. based on changing circumstances on the ground, we are updating the language to condition sanctions based on turkey's actions, and i hope that it'll be marked up in the coming days. mr. president, for years the world held out hope that turkey would be the bridge between east and west, a democratic, secular country that could be a democracy in europe and a responsible actor on the world stage. i for one was always skeptical but certainly supported the sentiment. today we are the furthest from that dream that we've ever been. the most imprisoned journalists

in the world, in the world, are not in north korea, they are not in russia, they are not in iran. they languish in turkish prisons. this doesn't happen in a democracy. as international pressure mounted following turkey's invasion of northern syria, erdogan threatened to unleash thousands of refugees onto the european union's shores, a wave like we saw in 2015. these aren't the statements of a rational, responsible actor. yet where is u.s. policy? the trump administration was its normal erratic self as it flailed from sanctions on turkey to claiming victory. and the kurds are the ones who emerged as the clear loser. erdogan was eager to sign onto the pence-pompeo plan because it gave him all that he wanted -- full control of the kurdish

areas of syria and carte blanche to wipe out swaths of the community. in addition to claiming victory, president trump now wants to invite erdogan to washington with open arms. stunning, stunning. the photo of trump and erdogan in the oval office will not only be the nail in the coffin for any kurdish aspirations to live in peace and security, it will also be the death necessarily for any -- deathnell for any embattle in the future. i urge you to cancel this invitation and side with the bipartisan consensus in the senate and the house that turkey, under erdogan, is no friend to the united states. do not ruin our reputation further by fawning over yet another authoritarian leader. you want to repair the damage that's been done? show our commitment to our

allies by inviting the syrian kurdish leadership to the oval office for a meeting on how we prevent a resurgence of isis. that's how you protect our interests. that's how you protect our national security. it's time to challenge erdogan to live up to nato's values and to respect the international order. it's time to stop enabling turkey to be a bad actor. it's time for the senate to act. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

>> jamie raskin and then both a house judiciary and oversight committees told reporters that need of today's two two deposin witnesses national security council energy advisor, and widest budget office as a director have shown up and appear unlikely to do so. more depositions are expected to be released today and you will find them after they released on our website c-span.org. >> fbi director director chrisy heads to capitol hill to talk to

congress about domestic threats. he will be answering questions from the senate homeland security committee. you can see that life today at 2:30 p.m. eastern c-span. at the same time on c-span3 an executive from microsoft will testify on data breaches and cybersecurity. you can watch the senate judiciary committee hearing live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3, also both hearings will be live online at c-span.org or listen life with the free c-span radio app. our c-span campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country visiting key battleground states in the 2020 presidential race asking voters what issues they want presidential candidates to address during the campaign. >> something i want the 2020 presidential candidates to address his gun violence. there's not one clear-cut answer. answer. we need to initiate that discussion, what options are available to prevent these disasters from happening. >> my question that i have for the candidate is how are you

going to combat the rising prices of drugs and also in healthcare? >> an issue that's really important to me is focusing on fixing our criminal justice system, how can we rehabilitate our offenders, , how can we support a positive relationship between the community and law enforcement, how could fix our mass incarceration rate, how can we help those who are impacted by the heroin epidemic? how can we focus on helping those in poverty, the school to prison pipeline. it's important to focus on how can we help our juveniles who are involved with in delinquenc delinquency. >> an issue important it is a woman's right to autonomy. i feel like this right is not currently being protected by the u.s. government, then what should be. >> voices from the campaign