funny thing, we mentioned democrats but when i talked to republicans they think a lot of them think that's the very best chance is bernie sanders. you saw that mark was on fox news sunday making that exact comment that it is something the white house and the trump team would welcome. on the other side of things, there are some of publicans who also say that we better be careful what we wish for in a way because bernie sanders and the effect he could have in these blue-collar states if the president did win in 2016 and the general -- he could turn off suburban folks but if you look at these other areas some of them worry about that. >> guest: if there is anything we learn collectively as a country or media and as political watchers in 2016 is that you just can't --

>> we break away from this portion of washington journal to fill our long-time commitment to bring you live senate coverage. follow this at c-span .org, senate gasoline and next coming up shortly. senator tammy baldwin will deliver the annual reading of washington's farewell address. after that the senate will debate the nomination of robert malloy to be a district judge for the virgin islands with the vote to limit debate on the nomination is scheduled for later this afternoon. live senate coverage is here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the center of our joy, make us your captives so that we may live liberated lives.

provide our senators with the spiritual, mental, social and physical revitalization they need just for today. may they place their trust in you and experience your profound peace. grant that they will relinquish their worries to you, as they permit your perfect love to cast out every fear. lord, show them your redemptive purposes in every problem they must solve. we pray in your merciful 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. the presiding officer: under pursuant to the order of the senate of january 24, 1901, as amended by the order of february 4, 2020, the senator from wisconsin, ms. baldwin, will now read washington's farewell address.

ms. baldwin: friends and fellow citizens: the period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the united states being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that i should now apprise you of the resolution i have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. i beg you, at the same time, to

do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, i am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. the acceptance of and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of

duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. i constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which i was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which i the strength of my inclination to do this previous to the last election had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then-perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. i rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the

pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. the impressions with which i first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. in the discharge of this trust, i will only say that i have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has

strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, i have the consolation to believe that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. in looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which i owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the

steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities i have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. if benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead -- amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which, not infrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism -- the constancy of

your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guaranty of the plans by which they were effected. profoundly penetrated with this idea, i shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be

made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. here, perhaps, i ought to stop. but a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. these will be offered to you

with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. nor can i forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. the unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. it is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of

your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. but as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth -- as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed -- it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual

happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. for this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. citizens -- by birth or choice -- of a common country, that

country has a right to concentrate your affections. the name of american, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. you have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together. the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes. but these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those

which apply more immediately to your interest. here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. the north, in an unrestrained intercourse with the south, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. the south, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the north, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the north, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in

different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. the east, in a like intercourse with the west, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. the west derives from the east supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the atlantic side of the union,

directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. any other tenure by which the west can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. while, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and,

what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. in this sense, it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty and that the love of the one ought

to endear to you the preservation of the other. these considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? let experience solve it. to listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. we are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. it is well worth a fair and full experiment. with such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all

parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bands. in contemplating the causes which may disturb our union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations -- northern and southern, atlantic and western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. one of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.

you cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. the inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. they have seen in the negotiation by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the senate of the treaty with spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the united states, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the mississippi. they have been witnesses to the

formation of two treaties -- that with great britain and that with spain -- which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations towards confirming their prosperity. will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisors, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? to the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable. no alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions

which all alliances in all times have experienced. sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. this government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. respect for its authority,

compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. but the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. the very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. all obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular

deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. they serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. however combinations or

associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.

one method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and, thus, to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. in all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially, that for

the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. it is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. i have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. let me now take a more

comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. this spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. it exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is

itself a frightful despotism. but this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. the disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. liberty itself will find in such without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be

entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. it serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. it agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. thus, the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. there is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. this, within certain limits, is probably true; and in

governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. from their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. a fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. it is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a

free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. the spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and, thus, to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. a just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. the necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and

constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. to preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. if, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. the precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or

transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. the mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. a volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths

which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. it is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. the rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. in proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. as a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. one method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding, likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to

discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. the execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. to facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the

conduct of the government in making it and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. observe good faith and justice towards all nations. cultivate peace and harmony with all. religion and morality enjoin this conduct. and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? it will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. who can doubt that in the course of time and things the

fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? can it be that providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? the experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? in the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. the nation which indulges

towards another a habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is, in some degree, a slave. it is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. the nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. the government sometimes

participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject. at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. the peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. so, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate

inducement or justification. it leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good

the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. as avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. how many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (i conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history

and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided instead of a defense against it. excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. so far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. here let us stop. europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of

her friendships or enmities. our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. if we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?

why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of european ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, i mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. i hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. i repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. but, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of

intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. it is an illusion which experience must cure, which a

just pride ought to discard. in offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, i dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression i could wish -- that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. but if i may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good -- that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism -- this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been

dictated. how far in the discharge of my official duties i have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. to myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that i have at least believed myself to be guided by them. in relation to the still-subsisting war in europe, my proclamation of the 22nd of april, 1793, is the index to my plan. sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. after deliberate examination,

with the aid of the best lights i could obtain, i was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. having taken it, i determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness. the considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. i will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. the duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and

humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. the inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. with me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. though in reviewing the incidents of my administration i am unconscious of intentional error, i am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that i may

have committed many errors. whatever they may be, i fervently beseech the almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. i shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after 45 years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. relying on its kindness in this, as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several

generations, i anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which i promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government -- the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as i trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers. george washington, united states, 19th september, 1796.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: first this afternoon i'd like to recognize the career and public service of retired visited miller joseph maguire, whose tenure as acting director of national intelligence and director of national counterterrorism center concluded last we want joe maguire spent 36 years serving in the navy. his leadership record including seal team 2 and the u.s. special navy warfare command where he guided some of our nation's most sensitive military operations.

admiral mcguire retired from the navy in 2010, but it was not long before public service came calling again. in 2018, the president asked him to direct the nctc, the senate confirmed him on a voice vote, and he took on an even more challenging assignment last summer when he agreed to follow our former colleague, senator dan coats, and act in the role of the d.n.i. our nation asks our intelligence community to fulfill an enormous array of sensitive mission. these men and women work day and night to protect the homeland from terrorists. they fight nuclear proliferation, they keep watch on dangerous adversaries like russia and china p. they guard against what hostile intelligence services are doing in our nation, and they work to protect american elections from foreign interference that seeks to sow division and chaos and reduce public confidence in our democracy. recent reports suggest that

adversaries including russia are likely continuing efforts aimed at dividing americans, sowing kay as in our politics and undermining confidence in our elections. fortunately, in stark contrast to the failures of the obama administration in 2016, the trump administration once again appears to be doing the right thing. in this case, by promptly providing a specific counterintelligence briefing to a democratic presidential candidate in question. this is just the latest example of the vigilance and the action we've seen from this administration on this crucial issue. in parallel with hundreds of millions that congress has appropriated in new election security assistance for state and local authorities, the administration has taken major proactive steps. the treasury department has sanctioned numerous russian entities involved in the 2016 interference. the department of homeland security has worked closely with

states, local jurisdictions and the private sector to bolster our cybersecurity defenses. the obama administration's naive and belated efforts failed to deter or to defend against russian interference in 2016. and failed to provide substantive counter l intelligence briefings to the trump and clinton campaigns. by contrast, the trump administration has been vigilant and appears to be providing timely warnings to candidates affected by foreign intelligence activities. this is critical. this is a critically important work, mr. president, and it wouldn't be possible without the hard work of our intelligence community to identify the hostile activities. this is just one of many critical tasks the intelligence community performs for our country. our country is safer and stronger when they have the tools and the resources they need and leadership that

understands that political bias must have no order in intelligence work and that all americans' rights need protecting. now on another matter, this week the senate will continue to fulfill both our constitutional charges. we'll vote on important legislation and we will provide advice and consent on a number of presidential nominations. we'll begin with two nominations to the federal bench and u.s. territories. judge robert molloy who sits on the u.s. virgin islandssuperior court nominated to serve on the u.s. district court of the virgin islands for a term of ten years. judge silvia carreno-coll serves as u.s. magistrate judge for the district of puerto rico and has been nominated to be a u.s. district judge. both nominations were reported out of committee on a voice vote. this week we'll also consider katherine macgregor, the president's nominee to be deputy secretary of the interior.

and travis greaves, a nominee to serve as judge on the united states tax court for a term of 15 years. but first, following the first two nominations, the senate will turn to important legislation put forward by senators graham and sasse to expand protections for innocent lives. senator graham's pain capable unborn child act would finally remove the u.s. from a list of only seven nations, including china and north korea, that permit elective abortion after 20 weeks. it would bring our nation's regard for unborn off this sad and radical fringe and bring us more in line with the global mainstream. i do not believe this legislation should be controversial, but even less controversial should be senator sasse born alive abortion survivors protection act. it would simply ensure that infancy survive abortion attempts receive the same level of professional care as any

other children. my colleagues and i will have more to say on this subject in the days ahead, but i'll urge all senators to join me in supporting these nominees and these pieces of legislation when we vote on them this week. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today

to --. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. 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, the judiciary. robert anthony molloy of the virgin islands to be judge for the district court of the virgin islands. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to celebrate black history month and to pay tribute to pennsylvanians whose work has made a real difference in our commonwealth. this year we will honor three individuals who have dedicated themselves to uplifting the lives of others. we know that dr. martin luther king jr. once said that, quote, life's most persistent and urgent question is what are you doing for others. for purposes of today's remarks, i'll substitute one word. i'll substitute the word

children for the word others and ask what are you doing for our children? it is an important question not only for those of us who gather for black history month today and to celebrate this month, it's also an important question for every member of congress to ask themselves that question. but this year we're going to honor these three pennsylvaniany elliott. rosemary brown, and ellen jo waller. all three have dedicated their lives to answering this urgent question, to building pathways toward hope for children in their communities. i can think of no calling more important and no mission more essential than this one, to help our children. it's an honor for me to have the privilege to recognize these remarkable pennsylvanians. they are beacons in their

communities and they are each in their own way an inspiration to me and to my work in the senate and i know to the work of our staff as well. american children face a crisis created by policy choices made by adults over now several decades. despite low unemployment and overall economic growth, children are being left out and left behind. almost half of young children in the united states of america live in poverty or near poverty with infants and toddlers at greatest risk. nearly half of children living in those circumstances. according to the census bureau's supplemental poverty measure which takes into account many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals, childhood poverty worsened, worsened in

2017 for the first time since the great recession. poverty harms children both immediately and for a lifetime. the national academies of science, engineering, and medicine concluded in their 2019 seminal report, quote, road map to reducing child poverty, unquote, they found that poverty itself, especially when it occurs in early childhood, or is persistent over time is damaging to children in ways that last a lifetime, specifically the report finds the following, and i'm quoting the national academies of science, engineering, and medicine. quote, we find overwhelming evidence that a child growing up in a family whose income is below the poverty line experiences worse outcomes than a child from a wealthier family

in virtually every dimension, from physical and mental health to educational attainment, labor market success, to risky behaviors and delinquency, unquote. this is a crisis of potential untapped opportunities. it's a crisis as well of contributions not made. when a child faces needless obstacles to becoming the person he or she might become, it's a profound tragedy that affects all of us because we are denying not just that child, but also that family, the child's family, their community, and our country of the contributions that that child could make if we were investing in that child. over time corrupt forces have perverted the basic notions of freedom while creating a society

that works for corporate interests rather than our children's best interests. freedom as we know is not simply the right to be left alone. real freedom must include the opportunity, the affirmative ability to achieve one's dreams. in a country that claims to support the freedom of its people, must provide opportunities to its citizens. for example, in his second inaugural address, president obama said the following, quote, we do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few. we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss or a sudden illness or a home swept away in a terrible storm. the commitments we make to each

other, these things don't sap our initiative. they strengthen us. they don't make us a nation of takers. they free us to take the risks that make this country great, unquote. president obama was right, and he knew then that there were and are today extraordinary people across the country who are working to give our children the opportunity to achieve and grow and contribute so much to our nation. today i'll speak about three women who are doing this work in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. first, rosemary brown of harrisburg, pennsylvania. for over 35 years, rosemary brown has been a leader in south central pennsylvania. during that time she's held a number of critical roles in both the government sector and the

nonprofit sector. she is currently the president and c.e.o. of alder health services, the mission of which is to improve the health and well-being of persons living with hiv-aids and members of the lgbtq community in a culturally competent, affirming and empowering environment. the agency provides behavioral health, primary care, case management, wellness services, h.i.v.-s.t.d. testing and treatment, family planning, and a host of other programs. critically, alder health provides a safe haven for lgbtq youth, and we know that significant progress has been made in advancing the rights of lgbtq individuals. however, the progress has been uneven and we are still falling far short. for example, in serving transgender young people, especially transgender young

people of color who face disproportionally high rates of suicide and violence. alder health under rosemary brown's leadership, has played an indispensable role in helping us better understand the challenges of lgbtq adolescence and to provide them with the services that they need. in 2018, rosemary was appointed to governor tom wolfe's pennsylvania commission on lgbtq affairs, the first of its kind, statewide commission in the nation. rosemary's work at alder builds on her prior work at the high mark foundation where she led efforts to address emerging community health challenges and to make sure that uninsured and underserved populations in south central pennsylvania have the attention and the services that they needed.

in this capacity she spearheaded efforts to address bullying in our schools, in our communities as a public health problem, and also provided leadership on a strategy to reduce childhood obesity through community-based -- i'm sorry. through school and community-based partnerships. prior to her work at high mark foundation, rosemary spent a decade at the caring -- at the foundation for enhancing communities as a program officer and then director of programs and community investment where she oversaw tens of millions of investment in community services and tuition p assistance, giving hundreds of area college-bound students the opportunity to pursue higher education. over her career, rosemary browne has heeded the call of service and lent her considerable passion and

expertise in many different capacities. but whatever the role, the work has been the same, putting the spotlight on the needs of the p underserved populations, lgbtq youth, girls of color, and other underserved populations which lack access to health care, higher education and always, always helping them to obtain the services they need and to remove the obstacles that stand between them and their full potential. service has always been a part of rosemary's work, believing, as she does, that we are given resources and influence, not for ourselves but for others. also, like rosemary browne, dr. kathy elliott's career has been defined by her service to others it on the children and young people of pennsylvania. in this case in southeastern

pennsylvania. kathy came to this work naturally having had those values instilled in her -- instilled in her by her late mother, the former police commander of pittsburgh, gwynn elliott. i made reference earlier to southeastern, i meant southwestern pennsylvania. we've had south central pennsylvania with rosemary browne and now southwestern pennsylvania. dr. kathy elliott was a trailblazer. we don't have time for two stories in one family today, but i will tell part of gwynn's story as well. gwynn was one of the first african american women officers in the pith -- pittsburgh police

department, eventually rising to commander. gwynn found an organization dedicated to empowering girls and young women through holistic gender-specific programs, education through afterschool throughout the communities in southwestern pennsylvania. gwynn's girls have grown to provide service throughout the region with sites in pittsburgh, wilkensburgh. dr. kathy elliott has demonstrated the same commitment to and passion for leadership development and empowerment of girls many prior to accepting the position as c.e.o. of gwynn's girls in 2015, kathy spent years providing leadership in social service, community and individual mental health treatment.

she began her career as a victim advocate at the center for victims working mostly in the juvenile justice space is she also remains a practicing psychiatric nurse practitioner and in that capacity provides psychiatric evaluations, medication management and clinical counsellation services and treatment at the v.a. of pittsburgh through the outpatient clinic. dr. elliott completed dual master degrees from the university of pittsburgh and earned a doctor of practice degree from chatham university in 2014. through her leadership, gwynn's girls has become recognized as a frontrunner in the integration of evidence-based clinical prevention and intervention policies and practices that enhance the child and social welfare system. gwynn's girls convenience an annual equity summit for black

girls to address the rassal and gender bias in the child welfare and education systems. dr. elliott has also remained a constant leading force and convener of the black girls equity alliance, a collaboration of over 75 stakeholders committed to addressing systematic inequities in the juvenile justice, child welfare, education and health care systems. dr. elliott currently serves on the board of trustees at chatham university and in dees 2017, she was appointed by the governor to serve as a commissioner on the newly formed gender equity commission for the city of pittsburgh. our third honoree today, dr. ellen jo wall walter was bon

queens new york, we are proud to call her a leader in pennsylvania. she is a partner in both life and ministry of dr. allen waller. ellen jo earned a bachelor of special education from ohio university, a master of education in curriculum instruction in technology in education, and a doctor of education and curriculum instruction and technology in education with an emphasis on literary education from temple university. dr. waller has devoted her passion and her time to promoting women's education and empowerment. and she has especially -- she has especially devoted much of her time to combating human

trafficking, both here in the united states and internationally. she's an active member of the philadelphia antihuman trafficking coalition and serves as cochair of the religion subcommittee. in 2011, dr. waller founded, she's my sister, an antihuman trafficking ministry. she's my sister works to ensure that the faith community is aware of the issue of human trafficking and also partners with the greater philadelphia salvation army on the issue of participating in street outreach, supporting and strengthening the drop-in centers and advocating on behalf of victims of human trafficking and sexual exploaation. in october of 2015, they had their antihuman trafficking

awareness 5k to raise funds for a transitional residential program for young women exiting the life and aging out of the welfare children's system. she participates in restoration efforts in italy and south africa. dr. waller serves on a number of boards and provides community leadership in other ways. she's a member of the board of the city school in philadelphia, on the advisory committee of the united negro college fund and president of the carrie toss foundation, which is the waller family foundation established to positively impact the lives of individuals by sowing financial seeds into organizations that change lives through their missions. dr. waller served on the

foundation board of the community college of philadelphia since 2015 and serves as president of the foundation board. each of our honorees, these three remarkable women have worked tirelessly to ensure that our children can flourish and can fulfill their potential. when others may look the other way or even wash their hands of the solemn duty to help our children, our honorees have instead volunteered for service over and over again. to refer back to that first question i started with, what are you doing for our children? each of us has an obligation to answer that question. each of our three nominees -- three honorees today have answered that question by devoting their lives to the urgent work of helping our children. these three remarkable women,

all pennsylvanians, have provided pathways to hope, and for that, we owe them our deepest gratitude. thank you, madam president. i would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, this week the senate will vote on two bills that will protect our most vulnerable citizens, literally our babies. the first bill we'll vote on is the born-alive abortion survivor's protection act which was introduced by our colleague from nebraska, senator sasse. this legislation is simple and

straightforward. it requires physicians and health care providers to treat babies who survive an abortion with the same lifesaving care that other infants born at the same stage receive. while you might be forgiven for wondering, why would we need such a bill? surely that standard must already exist in our law. unfortunately, no. there are no federal laws requiring health care providers to care for abortion survivors just as they would for any other infant in their care. and one of the most notorious reasons why we need this law sits in the governor's mansion in virginia. about this time last year our country was shocked and outraged by comments made by governor ralph northam, who is a

pediatrician, believe it or not, about what should happen to baby who survives an abortion. the infant would be delivered, held comfortable and would be recess taitd if -- resus taitd if that is what the family desires and a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. rather than immediately doing everything possible to save the baby to provide the same sort of care you would to any infant, he wants to sit around and decide whether the baby will live or die. that is not health care, that is infanticide. and voting for the born alive protection act is how each member in this chamber could go on record to say they are against killing innocent babies. while some are desperately

trying to paint this as an anti-abortion bill which would infringe on women's reproductive rights that could not be further from the truth. there is no mention of first, second or third-tri midwester abortions, nothing about overturning roe v. wade. there's one goal with this legislation and one goal only, to give every baby a fighting chance. now, in a rational world, we wouldn't be having this discussion but would rather unanimously be condemning this practice for the evil that it is. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill and once again to vote to stop the practice of infanticide and protect babies who survive abortions alive. madam president, we'll be voting on a second bill which will provide protections for unborn children that are practiced in almost all of the civilized

world. this is the pain-capable unborn child protection act that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions on unborn babies at or beyond 20 weeks. there's significant medical research that shows that unborn children at this stage experience pain. at five months into a pregnancy these babies are beyond half way to delivery. one of president trump's guests at the state of the union a few weeks ago was 2-year-old el le snyder, one of the youngest babies to survive in the united states. she was born at 21 weeks and six days just 13 days beyond the point and time we are discussing. she weighed less than a pound at birth and is living proof of the medical achievements and advancements that have improved the chance for survival for extremely premature babies.

elle and her mother are an example of the impact this legislation would have on the lives of many american families. unfortunately, just as our democratic colleagues have tried to deceive the american people about the purpose of the born-alive abortion survivors protection act, they are trying to mislead everyone about what this bill would do as well. first this bill would apply only to elective abortions, not those involving rape or insist or where the life of the mother could be in danger and it i in no way places the life of the mother in jeopardy for seeking an abortion. it places responsibility on health care providers. passing this legislation wouldn't make the united states an extreme outlier when it comes to abortion practices. in fact, it would put us in line with international norms. currently, only seven countries in the world allow elective

abortions after 20 weeks. one of them, of course, is the united states, and the other countries on the list should make all of us second-guess allowing abortions beyond 20 weeks. china, vietnam, north korea, countries with a history of human rights violations are hardly the model that we should aspire to. it's time to give every baby a chance to live and stop doctors from performing abortions on infants that feel pain. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of both of these bills and stand with my colleagues in the fight for human life. our friend from montana, senator daines, established the first-ever senate pro-life caucus to fight for the rights of our most vulnerable citizens. a couple of weeks ago, he said these back-to-back votes will present an opportunity for senate democrats and all of us to show the american people whether there are any limits at

all to radical abortion extremism. we'll soon learn the answer. i appreciate our colleague, senator sasse, senator graham, nor daines for their leadership on this legislation and for consistently fighting for the most vulnerable among us. i will be a proud vote yes on both of these bills, yes to protecting newborn babies, yes to equal medical care for all infants, and yes to a fighting chance for all babies. madam president, on another matter, we are returning to washington, d.c. from time spent in our states, and i was happy, for one, to get time to spend in texas with constituents, and i traveled the state, as i'm sure many of us did, traveling their states of midland to fort worth

to corpus christi and a number of spots in between. texas is a pretty big place, so it takes a little time to move around, but it is really a great thing to be able to hear from the folks i represent, the folks we all represent about what they care about the most, and one of the most interesting things to me is how little they talk about what's talked about inside the bubble here known as washington, d.c. in san antonio, for example, i met with state and local officials to discuss their growing concerns over coronavirus. lackland air force base is one of the designated locations where americans evacuated from overseas with suspected exposure to coronavirus are being held under the first federal quarantine in more than 50 years. folks naturally were concerned about the fact that these evacuees were being transported to -- were scheduled to be transported to local civilian

hospitals for testing rather than remaining on the base where they were quarantined. in our meeting, we were able, not only the mayor and two counsel persons, but we were able to speak with officials from the department of health and human services and the defense department about these concerns, and i'm glad we were able to come up with a better solution. the department of health and human services is now -- has now updated their protocol to ensure testing for coronavirus will be conducted at joint base lackland's quarantine housing, so evacuees will not be sent to hospitals in the area for their tests. i appreciate my colleagues at the city who have been working overtime to keep their residents there safe. i'm grateful to the administration for addressing our concerns and being responsive to those questions. on the very day we met, 90 evacuation were released from

quarantine, and i'm happy they are finally headed home. i'm sure i'm not as happy as they are after being quarantined. we owe a huge thank you to the medical professionals who have and will continue to be -- to care for those in quarantine and to the bexar county and san antonio officials who are working to ensure public health. on a different topic, up i-35, i was in fort worth, the northside community health center to hear about an entirely different health care challenge. that's high prescription drug costs. i met with local health care professionals, advocates, and patients to hear about their experiences with these rising costs, and i have introduced legislation to address them. for example, we heard from randall barker and his daughter emma who both have diabetes, so they need insulin. one bottle of insulin, they told

me, costs upwards of $281. so randall continues to make sacrifices to continue to afford the lifesaving drugs he and emma need to lead healthy lives. as i mentioned, to address the high costs of prescription drugs, i have introduced a bipartisan bill with our colleague, senator blumenthal from connecticut, called the affordable prescriptions for patients act. the purpose of the bill is straightforward -- to stop drug companies from gaming the patent system to keep their profits high. patents, of course, are something that are granted to innovations, to scientific innovations in order to encourage more of them, and what happens under a period of a patent is whatever the -- whatever the item is -- in this case, a drug -- that company reserves the right to sell it exclusively without any competition in order to recoop

their costs and incentivize the innovation when it comes to these drugs. but when companies game the system by establishing patent thickets, multiple patents used to unfairly block competition, this prevents these new, new drugs as well as competing drugs at a lower price from entering the market. for example, the most widely prescribed drug in america is called humira, and it has more than 120 different patents, for no real purpose other than extending that period of exclusivity as long as possible to continue to make money. in europe, there are five competing products, but in america, only humira. that's a patent thicket. that's gaming the system, and it's hurting american consumers.

so i appreciate the support from health care providers and advocates and patients i heard from in fort worth, and they encouraged us to get our work done sooner rather than later. by the way, i have come to the floor twice and asked unanimous consent to pass the bill that was voted unanimously out of the judiciary committee, and the democratic leader has blocked it both times. i hope he will reconsider his position. i'm sure his constituents in new york would like a little bit of a break when it comes to prescription drug costs, but i have to think more has to do with the upcoming election than it does the merits of the legislation. i have traveled to a couple of other texas cities where i was able to talk to people b-2 rise in e-cigarette use o'particularly among teens. in corpus christi, along the gulf coast and in odessa in deep west texas, i met with a range

of local officials, health professionals, and community advocates about the impact of teen vaping. one study found from the permian basin found that about half of high school seniors had used e-cigarettes and 25% of them had vaped in the past month. this study found that in schools, the average age of first-time e-cigarette users is just 13 years old. now, e-cigarettes, even the closed systems where you can't add other ingredients like the psycho active ingredient in marijuana, t.h.c., even in the closed systems that are designed only to deliver nicotine, nicotine is an addictive drug, and when children get access to these addictive drugs, it may well end up being a gateway to other use, whether it's tobacco or other drug use later in life, but certainly it keeps them and encourages them to remain a user

of this nicotine delivery device. so i've introduced legislation called the preventing online sales of e-cigarettes to children act which would make it difficult for children to get their hands on these devices, particularly when they buy them over the internet. all it does is apply the same safeguards already in place for online purchases of tobacco. it applies that to e-cigarettes. customers have to verify their age at the time of delivery, a practice which shockingly does not currently exist. a recent survey published in the american journal of health promotion found that 32% of underaged e-cigarette users reported purchasing products online, making online sales the single largest source of purchases for underaged users. we just recently raised the age from 18 to 21 to get access to these e-cigarettes, but still as

these studies indicate, use of e-cigarettes and vaping devices is epidemic in our middle schools and our high schools, and it's dangerous to the physical and mental health of our children, something you would think that we would be able to address. if we're going to turn the tide on e-cigarettes and prevent more young people from facing their deadly health consequences, this legislation is a necessary first step. and finally, madam president, i was -- when i was home in san antonio, i was able to help celebrate the investiture of one of our newest federal judges, jason pulliam, who filled the final remaining vacancy in the western district of texas. then i got to spend a little time in midland with folks and talked about the importance of our oil and gas industry and why innovation in that space and concern about conservation and the environment were not mutually exclusive. at each step along the way, i

was able to hear from countless other texans about changes they would like to see coming out of washington, and they encouraged us to try to work together and avoid some of the partisan gridlock that we have seen that characterized so much of the recent impeachment proceedings. so it was a great week recharging at home. i came back ready to get back to work. madam president, i yield the floor, and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: woke. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. veterans is celebrating 100 years of helping military veterans. i rise today to recognize this remarkable occasion. throughout its history, it has been influential in identifying ways to best support our veterans. from pushing for consolidation of veterans programs in its early years to direct outreach to veterans in communities with the launch of the field service unit program to pressing for more funding for v.a. health care and benefits.

there's been so much progress to advance veterans services thanks to the d.a.v.'s efforts. the organizations members and partners have a lot to be proud of. members have been leading advocates for injured and ilveterans and their families making a difference for countless wounded warriors. their advocacy helps and continues to build a better life for disabled veterans. we're thankful for the more than one million d.a.v. members and auxiliary members doing great work to make sure our country keeps the promise we made to our men and women who serve in uniform. members of the didn't a.v. department of arkansas are visiting the nation's capital to shairp the organization's legislative priorities for 2020. they are part of an extensive network that is being influential in identifying how the department of veterans affairs can strengthen its

services. they are among didn't a.v. members from across the country that are in washington, d.c. to advocate on behalf of veterans. there is simply no substitute for coming to our nation's capital and visiting with members of congress to let them know d.a.v.'s priorities. these include strengthen veterans' mental health care, improving benefits and services for women veterans, and ensuring veterans who were exposed to toxic substances receive full and timely benefits. the good news we are working on these priorities because we all agree that our veterans deserve nothing less than quality care and the benefits that they've earned. last month the senate v.a. committee advanced commander john scott hannon veterans health improvement act. this comprehensive legislation will strengthen our ability to provide veterans with the mental health care they need and

includes language senator warner and i authored to leverage the services of veterans serving nonprofits and other community networks and our overall strategy to reduce veteran suicides. ranking member tester and i are also working to improve services to our women veterans, debra samson act legislation would eliminate barriers to care and services that many women veterans face and would help ensure that the v.a. can address the needs for women which is so critical because they are more likely to face homelessness, unemployment, and go without needed health care. we are pleased to have the support of d.a.v. for this important legislation. i'm proud to cosponsor the veterans burn pits, exposure recognition act that would allow veterans suffering from the effects of burn pits to get the benefits and services they've earned. i encourage my colleagues to

support these bills so we can provide the resources promised to our veterans. for years d.a.v. members supported passage of the blue water navy bill thanks in part to their advocacy last year, congress approved this critical legislation that extends benefits to more veterans exposed to toxic chemicals during the vietnam war. the d.a.v.'s attention extends beyond the halls of congress. its national service program helps direct services to veterans across the country. i applaud the efforts of the more than 11,000 d.a.v. members in arkansas whose outreach is helping veterans understand and access their benefits. they have spent countless hours advising fellow veterans about the assistance they qualify for and helping fill out the paperwork to secure those benefits through the v.a. one of the well known services provided by d.a.v. is the transportation of veterans to

v.a. medical centers and hospitals. in rural states like eark, the -- like arkansas, the services these volunteers offer is critical to meeting the health care needs of veterans. the arkansas fleet is made up of 16 vanns. last -- vans. last year more than 6600 veterans were driven to medical appointments with the help of volunteers who logged more than 18,000 hours behind the wheel. i look forward to continuing to work with d.a.v. members as congress crafts and reforms policies to improve services for veterans and their families. this country made a promise to our veterans that we must live up to and i'm proud to join with d.a.v. to ensure we follow through on that commitment. working together we can find solutions and take action to deliver the results veterans earned and expect. we will continue looking to d.a.v. to understand how we can improve the lives of men and women who served in uniform. as a member of the senate

veterans affairs committee and chairman of the senate appropriations subcommittee tha oversees v.a. funding, i've seen the dedication of d.a.v. to support disabled veterans in arkansas and across the country. i'm proud to recognize d.a.v. on its 100 years of engaging veterans and advocating to advance benefits, services, and care and make a positive difference in the lives of veterans and their families. madam president, on a separate subject, i also want to pay tribute to an arkansas veteran who is one of the most -- one of the state's most famous sons, icon charles portis. mr. portis, the author best known for his 1968 western novel "true grit" passed away on february 2020. born in december 1933 in arkansas, portis spent his childhood in southern arkansas. he enlisted in the marine corps,

served as an infantryman and reached the rank of sergeant during the korean war before his discharge in 1955. following his military service, he teantsdzed the -- attended the university of arkansas and wrote for the student newspaper the arkansas traveler. he graduated from the university in 1958 with a degree in journalism. after graduating, portis began his career as a reporter first working at the arkansas gazette and then at the new york herald tribune. though he voluntarily ended his jumpism career in 1964, he used the skills and tools he acquired as a reporter when he returned home to arkansas and began writing fiction. his most celebrated work is the western classic "true grit." this book chronicles the efforts of a yale county teenager matty ross along with a u.s. marshal to avenge the death of mattie's

farmer at the hands of a drifter. the novel incorporates distinct references familiar to many arkansans and depicts life on the frontier and what was then the wild, wild west. it was later adapted into films in 1969 and 2010. while his most well known work, mr. portis also wrote four other novels and several shorter works of fiction and nonfiction. during his career portis was honored with the oxford america's -- americans first lifetime achievement in southern literature award and was presented with the porter prize, 30th anniversary lifetime achievement award. he has been praised as one of the great -- it has been praised as one of the great american novels. i want to say how proud we are of charles portis and his legacy as an acclaimed writer and story teller. my thoughts and prayers are with his friends and family as they remember and reflect on his

life. i hope they find comfort in the fact that mr. portis has left a profound lasting mark on arkansas as well as within our nation's culture and literary traditions. charles portis had a remarkable career that will be remembered for a long time to come. today i wish to honor him and his loved ones and help celebrate his life. on behalf of all arkansans, we celebrate charles portis and his notable contributions to our state. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: madam president, thank you. i'm pleased -- i arrived on the senate floor just a bit early and been able to hear the senator from arkansas, senator boozman, pay tribute to the d.a.v., disabled american veterans.

mr. moran: i very much want to join in his comments. i also want to take a moment to thank him for his continual service for veterans not only of arkansas but for our nation and recognize that he and i have worked together since our days in the house of representatives on veterans issues and we both find ourselves in positions in hopes that we can do even more. so to senator boozman i say thank you for your continued efforts to make sure all who serve our nation have a better future and that the department of veterans affairs as well as the american people do everything we can to make sure that what they are entitled to they will receive. so i thank the senator from arkansas. i want to come to the floor to congratulate and pay tribute to a kansas. he is retiring as the -- from the kansas association of broadcasters. he spent the last four years -- 40 years and past 12 advocating on behalf of broadcasters across our state. his dedication to making certain

that rural communities in kansas have access to quality broadcasting program is a testament to his commitment to rural america at large. i in particular find that very pleasing as we know how important broadcasting, local broadcasting in particular is to the future and well-being of the citizens of kansas and particularly those who live in our smallest communities. it is recognized as one of the most notable and effective advocates for broadcasting in our state and around the country. he's been a leading voice in topeka and washington, d.c. and someone i hold in high regard. he's a nature of he topeka, dedicated his life to broadcasting at an early age with dreams of becoming a sportscaster, kent attended the university of kansas where he earned a degree in journal of proceedingsism and attended washburn university school of law. after joining his hometown station wibw as an intern, kent worked his way up through the ranks to become a news reporter, anchor and eventually assistant news director. he also spent time at wdaf in

kansas city and later returned to wibw. he left the station in 1980 turning his attention to sales and serving as executive director of the kansas manufacturing housing institute but he could not keep his passions in the background. he left that job to return to broadcasting. four years after leaving wibw, he rejoined the station where he would ultimately be named program director and operations manager. he later took over as general manager of ktka in to topeka and moved to wichita to manage two television stations. after spending decades running broadcast stations that kansans all over our state rely on for local and national news, he became executive director of the kansas association of broadcasters in 2008. kent has had a long and successful career earning esteemed awards including the

grover cobb award from the university of kansas. es he also served in numerous leadership capacities including former president of the national alliance state broadcast associations, the former chairman of the greater topeka chamber of commerce. he has been a powerful voice in the nation's capital for critical federal policy all framed in the larger lens of improving communities' access, people's access to quality broadcasting. like the rest of us from rural states like kansas, kent knows how quickly these communities can be forgetten and always has been determined to ensure access to local information, news and weather. i'm proud to call kent a friend and i'm looking forward to seeing where his life now takes him. he -- we meet many people in the business that we're in here in the united states senate. in politics in general. and kent is one of those that you appreciate from the first day that you become acquainted with him. straightforward and honest, tells it like it is, there to be

supportive but there to provide the necessary information for me and others to make the best decisions not just on behalf of broadcasters but upon those they serve in their communities. i had my -- add my voice to the well deserved praise that he has and will continue to receive. congratulations and thank you to kent for all his work and on behalf of kansas broadcasters, you are highly regarded by them and their listeners. your efforts have benefited kansans and have improved our nation. you will be missed at the kansas association of broadcasters, but i have no doubt you will continue to make your community a better place. i look forward to many more years to working together on behalf of kansans. i thank you for your friendship and for all you've done to make our state a better place. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas, senator cotton. mr. cotton: this week the senate has another chance to vote on basic pro-life protections for babies, both born and unborn. this week we have another choice to live up to our nation's highest principle -- that every person has the right to life or to stoop down to a narrow vision of humanity, pedaled by the abortion industry. the first bill we're considering would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy when there is clear, scientific evidence that these young babies can feel pain in their mother's womb. now, the abortion lobby and all of its defenders will dispute this science, claiming that babies or fetuses, which is the

euphemism they like -- euphemism they like to use, can't feel pain at all, at least until the very latest stages of pregnancy. now, anyone peddling that myth must have never visited a neonatal intensive care unit. ask any one of these nicu nurses who cares for little preemies, even micropreemies and they'll tell you how you can hold that simultaneously infant, sometimes even in the palm of their hands. and they can see it grim as at a poke or a prod, maybe even slap away a tube or a needle as they approach, just like older kids do, just likes some grown-ups do. the undeniable fact of fetal pain in these young babies influences every aspect of how we care for the young in our hospitals. we swaddle them with only the softest fabrics because their

little bodies are so easily stipulate. we give them pain medication when they're in surgery. but we offer no such comfort during abortions, even in the latest stages of pregnancy when abortionists scrub a baby's -- crush a skull and dismember it. a scientific paper published earlier this year neat noted a curious fact. abortion is the only -- the only -- invasive procedure performed on unborn infants without pain medication. then again abortion is unusual in so many ways, as so few hospital procedures are designed to end a life, not to save a life. are we comfortable with this state of affairs? are we comfortable with the fact that more than 11,000 abortions were performed after 21 weeks? when again we have clear scientific evidence that these

babies feel pain and that many of them could survive outside their mother's womb. i would suggest the american people are not comfortable with this situation, and we can do something about it in the united states senate this week. the second bill we're voting on called the born alive abortion survivors protection act is even more modest but perhaps even more urgent. this bill would simply protect babies when they're born alive during an abortion. i know it's amazing to even hear this, but there are rare and horrible cases in which babies are intended to be aborted, yet they are born alive, and the doctors are under noologies to provide medical care to that young baby watt spark of god living in its soul. so this bill would simply obligate abortionists to render lifesaving medical care to a baby struggling for life on the

orbiting table. it would require abortionists to act as those babies' friends and their doctors, consistent with their oath, not act like the babies' mortal enemy. of course the abortion lobbyists will say this never occurs. but if you're being honest, the facts are they do occur. the implication here is clear. they simply want us to look away from this horror. this doesn't mean we should, though, because in fact we do know -- we do know that babies can survive abortions. we have the numbers to prove it from a handful of states that require abortionists to confess when they fail to kill a baby in the mother's womb and i stead murder it on the operating table. in florida, 11 babies were born alive during abortion,s in 2017.

another six in 2018 and another two last year. that's 19 precious little babies born alive during abortions. in just one state in just three years. other states have reported dozens more cases. still, the abortion industry will dismiss these lives. let's not even focus on it. it's not a serious matter. but forgive us if most americans see the matter differently. these are precious little children made in the image of god and endowed by him with the same worth and dignity as you and me and all of us. we have a duty to these little children. we have a duty not to look away from them. these pro-life bills are modest and humane. they have the strong support of the american people. clear majorities. but the real reasons we must protect these babies is not because it's popular but because it is right.

every human being is created equal and deserves recognition and protection under our laws. it says so right in the preamble of the declaration of independence. our country doesn't always live up to that noble principle, but right now we have an opportunity to live up to this t. just a little bit more and only just a few more cases. those cases in which life is most vulnerable and most innocent. so i urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity and protect life by acknowledging the humanity of these precious little children. we must not look away any longer. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader, senator schumer.

mr. schumer: the world health organization has now reported that there are 79,000 cases of coronavirus across at least three countries. 53 cases who new england the united states as the virus continues to spread, the global economy is already beginning to suffer. all of the warn lights are flashing bright red. we are staring down a potential pandemic and the administration has no plan. we have a crisis of correspondent row no virus and president trump has no plan n urgency, no understanding of the facts or how to coordinate a response. we must get a handle on the crohn in a virus and make sure is the united states is fully prepared to deal with its potentially far-reaching consequences. but the trump administration has been asleep at the wheel. president trump, goods morning.

there is a pandemic of coronavirus. where are you? where is your plan? it's just amazing, as the crisis grows and grows, we hear nothing. coronavirus testing kits have not been widely distributed to our hospitals and public health labs. president trump's state department overruled the recommendations of the scientists in the c.d.c. and allowed infected passengers from a cruise ship to be flown back into the united states. and, amazingly, at a time when we know that these pandemics can spread, this administration cut the c.d.c., the agency in charge of fighting these global viruses, with a 16% senseless cut to its bucket. and my fellow americans, that's what they do on all of these things. they just cut and then the president tries to claim credit after we restore the money.

he did it in his state of the union. he was claiming because of his great work with n.i.h., we're curing cancer. he's cut the n.i.h., every budget including this one. he's a disgrace how this man can say one thing and do another and confounding that it doesn't catch up with him with too many americans and none of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. and it's probably right now most dangerous and most egregious when it comes to coronavirus t wasn't just that the president caught c.d.c. last year, it follows years of drastic cuts to the global health division at c.d.c. by the trump administration. in 2018, c.d.c. was forced to reduce the numbers of countries it operated in from 49 to 10. that's how bad it is. we have crises. we've a world that's different, and this administration, instead of stepping up to the plate,

runs away, listening to the clarion call of the far right, just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, no matter how it affects people. in 23018, even worse -- in 2018, even worse. president trump ordered the national security council to consult its entire global health security unit and asked the department of homeland security to do the same. we don't have epidemic teams in the national security council or d.h.s. i hope -- pray to god corona doesn't spread here. if it does, we've been inadequately prepared because of president trump's lack of leadership, lack of understanding science, lack of ability to listen to experts and do something about them instead of being concerned -- it seems all the time -- with his even ego. the president has not even taken the simple, sensible step of designating a single official to lead response efforts. in 2014, president obama made

the smart decision to appoint ron klain tootled an interagency subpoenas to the outbreak. president trump, in contrast, has hallowed out so many agencies that one of the key figures responding to coronavirus is ken kook necessarilyly, an immigrant hard liberian with no experience in public health. unbelievable. totally unprepared for coronavirus, an i had log, a right-wing nasty i had log who's spent his career kicking around immigrants is now in charge of our fight with coronavirus. this is after the president cut c.d.c., eliminated the global held security units and homeland security and at the n.s.c., and we are in trouble. president trump has not only failed to marshal a capable domestic response to the

coronavirus, he's been slow to take action to confront the virus abroad. we all know that the best thing to do is to stop it from spreading abroad before it spreads to these united states. and, of course, the president, ego above anything else, has been afraid to criticize president xi or the communist party of china for silencing dissent and obscuring the truth about the coronavirus, where it originated. when china obscures the truth, it puts americans in danger. where is president trump's voice? the videos emerging from behind the china party's internet wall show chinese people pleading with the international community to expose the scope and scale of this epidemic. the response so far by the trump administration is exactly what happens when science skeptics with alter national facts try to

run emergency response that requires expertise, planning, knowledge, money, cooperation, and science-based actions. but being antiscience is not just rhetoric. it hurts us. it hurts every american in many ways. and that's what president trump and his administration do and our republican colleagues just blithely go along. after months of tip-toeing aroundless chinese communist party, after three years of cutting funding for our epidemic response programs, president trump simply has left the united states unprepared to confront a possible epidemic like corona. i'll have more to say this week about what the administration must do to right the ship. and on another front, again the frustration of how to administration has conducted itself -- unprecedented. i know some of my colleagues like too say, it's just like obama. it isn't even close.

and here are some more examples, unfortunately. on the trampling of the rule of law in this country. emboldened by the refusal of senate republicans to hold him accountable in his impeachment trial, president trump has been interfering with the justice department and retaliating against officials in his administration who dared testify truthfully before congress. in the short week that we have spent in recess the president has managed to plunge our country even deeper into chaos, and certainly, certainly has shown the need for having a trial and with witnesses and documents and getting the truth and not rubber-stamping president trump's behavior. the president continued to purge his administration, firing officials who refused to pledge allegiance to the president over their allegiance to the

constitution. the president classified bolton's book in another blatant attempt to cover up the facts. this is what dick taterships -- this is what dictatorships do. they say something is classified. they hide the truth. it's a disgrace. the president continued to abuse the pardon power, in one instance commuting the sentence of a notoriously corrupt former official without rhyme or reason. and maybe most egregious of all, the president, angered that the director of national intelligence had the gall, the gall to conduct a bipartisan briefing for the house intelligence committee on foreign interference in our elections, and he replaced him with a political lackey, a yes man, as the head of d.n.i., where truth is needed to be spoken probably more than in any other place in the government. and he has no experience in the intelligence community and is

simply known as an acolyte to president trump. with each of these actions, i hate to say it but it is true, any objective person will know president trump brings our nation closer and closer and closer to a banana republic, a government not of laws but of one man. a government where officials are asked to swear loyalty not to our country or the constitution, but to the president himself. a country where truth is obscured or covered up or deemed fake simply because it's not flattering to the president, it's not what he wants to hear. president trump's decision to dismiss the d.n.i. director, director of national intelligence, is particularly pernicious. our intelligence community is an institution that's supposed to report on threats to our country with accuracy, without regard to politics, to speak truth to power, to protect us.

for the president to install a yes man at the top of the intelligence community, to politicize a part of our government designed to be a political, to so debase the morale of the men and women in the c.i.a. and n.s.a., many of whom risk their lives for our safety, it's a disgrace. the reports that our intelligence community found putin continues to engage in activities to influence the outcome of our election. that is what mg wire's team -- mg wire's team was informing our president about. i am sending a letter to secretary pompeo, secretary mnuchin urging them to impose new sanctions on putin and his cronies using existing sanctions authority. they have it. they can do it. let me repeat that.

the trump administration has broad authority to impose sanctions for meddling in our elections. it does not need new legislative tools or approval. our message is clear. secretary mnuchin, impose sanctions now. no one on the intelligence committee, democrat or republican, has disputed that russia is intending to interfere in our elections. most say that russia has already started to do so. so this should be an easy bipartisan effort. we're being attacked today in real time by a foreign adversaries, and this is not about party politics. it's not about what trump doesn't want to hear, that the russians wanted him to win in 2016, and in all likelihood want him to in 2020. it's about the oath to defend our republic because americans, if they start believing our elections are not on the level, this democracy is in big trouble. i hope my republican colleagues

will join us. the administration could impose sanctions tomorrow, and it should. a repeat performance of 2016, another campaign of foreign influence in our elections is perhaps the greatest threat to our democracy. the founding fathers thought so. james madison, you read what he said. we demand that the secretary of state pompeo and the treasury secretary mnuchin identify and target for sanctions all those determined to be responsible for ongoing election interference. anything less would be an abdication of their responsibility, their sacred, their solemn responsibility to protect and defend the united states from this serious threat to our national security and the integrity of our electoral process. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to

urge passage of bipartisan compassionate legislation that i introduced on april 2 of last year with my colleague from wisconsin, senator baldwin, to reauthorize the life span respite care program. mr. president, this program provides respite services to family members who are caring for loved ones with special needs. oftentimes they are taking care of a spouse with alzheimer's disease or a child with several disabilities, and it is a 24/7 job. they need a break. they need help. and that's what respite service is all about. mr. president, this is not a new program.

it has long been a bipartisan priority, and our bill is widely supported by a total of 100 leading caregiver and respite organizations across the country. the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee-reported our bill unanimously on october 31 of last year, and we have been working since then to secure its passage by the full senate. it cleared the republican side of the aisle on december 17, but the bill has been stalled on the other side of the aisle due to an unknown objection by an anonymous senator, making it very difficult to resolve. if you don't know who has lodged the objection and you don't know what the concern is, it becomes

impossible to resolve it. thankfully i'm pleased to report that the objection has now been lifted, and we are poised to pass this bill that will help our seniors caring for a spouse with alzheimer's or another disease as well as parents caring for children with disabilities. mr. president, our bill would authorize $10 million annually for the life span respite care program over the next five years to assist states in establishing or enhancing statewide life span respite programs. since the program's enactment 15 years ago, 37 states plus the district of columbia have received grants to increase the availability and quality of

respite services. failing to reauthorize this program would put this funding in jeopardy. while respite care is the number-one service that caregivers say they need, 85% of our nation's caregivers have not received any respite services at all. respite care has been shown to help sustained family caregiver health and well-being and avoid and delay out-of-home placement for those for whom they are caring. from families caring with children with disabilities to those caring for older adults, the need for respite care today continues to grow. our bipartisan legislation would help the 45 million caregivers in our country who provide an estimated $470 billion in

uncompensated care each year. as the senator representing the state with the oldest median age in our nation, and as chairman of the senate aging committee, the well-being of our seniors and their caregivers is among my top priorities. the need for respite care continues to outpace available resources. this program is an attempt to provide a modest amount of federal grant money toward this goal. along with senator baldwin, this bipartisan bill is cosponsored by senators murray, reed and sinema. more than 50 national stakeholders have signed a letter urging immediate passage of the bill, including the national respite network and resource center, aarp, easter seals, the ark and the

elizabeth dole foundation. in addition, state-based organizations have also signed this letter representing constituents across the country. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to include this letter in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i have shared how important it is that we pass this legislation, the life span respite reauthorization act of 2019, without further delay, and i urge my colleagues to support the bill. mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 283, senate bill 995. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 283, s. 995, a bill to amend title 29 of the public health service act to reauthorize the program under such title relating to life span respite care. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed.

ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i'm going to propound two unanimous consent requests. the first is i ask unanimous consent that henning, nancy, luis rivera and nicholas be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. we're running a little bit behind, mr. president, so i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes, that reflects the amount of time we're running behind. i ask unanimous consent to speak up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this week the senate is having yet another debate on legislation to restrict health care for women. and i'm going to take just a few

minutes to talk about what this debate is really all about. the old republican slogan was a chicken in every pot. the new republican slogan is, it's a republican in every exam room. the senate has done remarkably little ledges -- legislating under the recent control of the other party, but somehow, some way there always seems to be time to have an attack on women's health care. it's come up again and again, and it's always the same basic proposition on offer. republican politicians trying to somehow squeeze themselves in between women and their physicians. my view is that the government ought to make sure that women can get health care from the doctors they trust and that

politicians ought to stay out of things. roe v. wade says that's supposed to be the law of the land when it comes to access to abortion. more than four decades of settled law says that these are choices to be made by women and their doctors and the ideological agendas of politicians ought to have nothing to do with it. the legislation up for debate this week, based on yet another far-right cause, says the opposite. among other problems, one of the proposals on offer this week would actually criminalize the practice of intensely personal health care. it would essentially say to doctors, just throw out your training. throw it away. discard your medical judgment. forget what's in the patient's best interest.

right-wing politicians are going to call the shots in the exam room. doctors who provide necessary medical treatment, care that can be lifesaving, could be thrown in jail if they run afoul of these new ideological government standards. now this isn't a debate just here in the senate. there have been hundreds of bills brought forward in states across the country restricting women's health care, including safe and legal abortion. among the people hit hardest by these proposals are the millions of women in this country who are every single day walking an economic tightrope. if they can't see the doctor they trust, if their local planned parenthood clinic is forced to shutter its doors because of these harsh new rules, they may not have anywhere else to turn to for

vital health care. it's another way in which the far right and the republican agenda supporting it goes back to the days when health care was really just for the healthy and the wealthy. bottom line, this debate is fundamentally about whether the government gets to control women's bodies. it's a dangerous, in my view, unconstitutional proposition, that just throws in the garbage can decades of settled law. but this republican majority has proved that we can always find time here in the senate to go after women's health care with ideological bills regardless of what other health care challenges americans are facing at home. i guarantee that across this country right now there are persons lined up at pharmacy counters with every last penny they've got that know that they

are about to get mugged when it comes to paying for the cost of prescription medicine. millions of americans struggle to pay for their medications, but the majority leader of this body has blocked our best efforts to give them a hand. instead the senate is debating yet another ideological attack on women's health care that really has no chance of becoming law. the likelihood is these attacks, in my view, based on what we know, are going to keep coming. it will only get more serious in the months ahead. four more years of donald trump would mean the end of roe v. wade. it would guarantee more health care discrimination against women, and it would mean a whole lot more government control over women's bodies, and again and again we could see -- we would

see the government in the exam room. i urge my colleagues to reject these proposals when they come up and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of robert anthony molloy of the virgin islands to be judge for the district court of the vinl. the presiding officer: by mandatory consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of robert anthony molloy, of the virgin islands, to be judge for the district

court of the virgin islands, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to change their vote?

any senator not voted? on this vote the yeas are 88. the nays are 1. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. the senate will be in order. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today for every child who has been denied the chance to live. for the little boys and for the little girls who never got the chance to breathe a breath of air, to live life, never got the chance to grow up to be athletes, doctors, or poets or

inventors, never got the chance to live their own unique lives. this year marks the 47th tragic anniversary of roe v. wade. the supreme court decision that forced on all 50 states abortion on demand and has tragically led to the loss of life of over 60 million unborn children. since that decision so much life has been lost. so many unborn and even newborn babies have suffered. and in recent years, we've seen the democratic party not listening to the concerns of a great many people of goodwill on both sides of the party but rather radicalizing. we've seen leading contenders for the presidential nomination and the -- in the democratic

field declare that pro-life democrats are no longer welcome in the party. and we've seen far too many democrats embrace extreme positions on abortion, abortion up until the moment of birth and even horrifically after that. i think the radicalization of today's democratic party was made crystal clear for a great many americans with the radio interview that virginia governor ralph northam did on january 30 of last year. in that interview governor northam was speaking in favor of a bill that would allow abortion when a mother was already in labor. mr. president, stop and think about this for a moment. there have been debates about abortion for a long, long time.

this bill was allowing a mother in labor, in the process of delivering a child, this bill would allow a doctor to kill that child instead of delivering the child in the midst of labor. for a great many people, even americans who identify as pro-choice, the idea of killing a child while the mother is in labor delivering the infant is horrifying beyond words. but, mr. president, governor northam didn't end there. he wasn't content simply with saying that abortion should be allowed even in the midst of birth. he went further. he said on that radio interview, and i quote, the infant would be delivered. the infant would be kept

comfortable. the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and father desired. and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. now, mr. president, so nobody is lost on what governor northam was saying, he was describing something that has euphemistically been called post-birth abortion. he was describing his view of the right way to approach delivering a child which is a child that is delivered, that is outside the womb, that is breathing and crying and living, that is an infant. and governor northam calmly, with virtually no emotion whatsoever described comforting that infant and then having a conversation about whether to deny that child the necessary care to live.

or simply to callously let a newborn infant die. for virtually every american that is a concept that is so extreme, that is so radical, that other than elected democrats who have decided to embrace a radical view of abortion in all circumstances, almost every other american would be rightly horrified by the notion of a doctor allowing a newborn infant outside the womb to die. that was governor northam's position. well, tomorrow the senate has an opportunity to speak out against those extreme radical positions, to say this isn't okay, to draw

a line, to find what should be some degree of common ground. we're going to be voting on two bills in the senate tomorrow. the borderline abortion survivors protection act and the pain capable unborn protection act. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of both pieces of legislation. these are both commonsense pieces of legislation that would work to restore fundamental rights for the unborn and for newborn babies. they're simple pieces of legislation. the survivors protection act requires doctors to provide medical care to infants who survive attempted abortion procedures. it would help make sure that when an infant has already been born, when the infant is alive, is breathing, is crying, is outside the womb, that that child receives the medical

attention he or she needs. the second bill is the pain capable unborn child protection act that would ban late-term abortions that result in pain and suffering and agony for an unborn child. what you won't hear from congressional democrats is that after five months, an unborn child's toes and eyelids and fingers and eyelashes have already formed. he or she has a heart beat and can feel pain. and science confirms this. we know that these late-term abortions embraced by more and more radical partisans produce pain and suffering and agony, and we should not be a part of allowing the deliberate infliction of pain on a little girl or a little boy.

these two proposals in any sane and rational world would be agreed to unanimously. if you look at the last three years, we've seen enormous victories when it's come to defending life, when it's come to confirming 192 new federal judges committed to following the law and the constitution, when it's come to restricting taxpayer funding of planned parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in this country, when it's come to defending the religious liberties of americans all across this country, including the little sisters of the poor. we're making major steps in the right direction, but we can go further. we can agree on these commonsense provisions, and we can also test whether senate democrats agree with their colleagues running for president, whether senate democrats agree with the chairman of the democratic national committee who have

said, if you're a pro-life democrat, get out of the party; you are not welcome. well, i can tell you, in texas i certainly welcome pro-life democrats to speak up for their values and defend their values, and we should come together behind commonsense propositions that say that we should not be committing procedures that result in pain and agony and suffering that science demonstrates causes that suffering, and we should not be allowing newborn infants to die because medical care is denied to those children. this should bring us together, and i urge our colleagues on both sizes of the aisle to -- sides of the aisle to stand together for life. every life is a precious, unique gift from god.

whether the child has a disability, whether the child is valued or not, that child should be valued, should be protected because that child is precious. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. must be a day in ends in why because once again republican senators are pushing for backwards, ideological bills to restrict women's constitutional right to abortion. once again republicans are peddling a ban that is blatantly unconstitutional. once again they are pretending we don't already have laws on

the book that protect infants, and using that as a pretense to drum up fear and misunderstanding about one of the most heartbreaking situations a family can face and push for anti-doctor, anti-women, antifamily legislation. so once again i am here on behalf of women and men across the country to deliver the same message we have already made clear countless times -- not on our watch. majority leader mitch mcconnell has indicated he wants to pivot to legislating, which makes these two atrocious bills an interesting choice, because all 100 senators know they are going absolutely nowhere. the truth is, republicans' charade today is not actually about passing laws anymore than it is about people's health or medical science or what is best for patients. it's really about republicans'

crass political calculation that they can fire up their far-right base with an all-out war against the constitutionally protected right to safe, legal abortion. the two bills differ in some significant ways, but they have the same consequences -- they would criminalize -- criminalize -- abortion, take deeply personal, often painful decisions out of the hands of parents, and use scare tactics and misinformation to try to weaken strong public support for roe. another thing they have in common, they have already been panned by leading medical groups. the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists has called one of these bills, quote, an unconstitutional attempt to intimidate health care providers and prevent them from providing the safe care their patients want and need. and they said the other is a,

quote, a gross legislative interference into the practice of medicine. and it's not just medical experts. families across the country have actually faced these decisions, have spoken out to make clear politicians should have no part in them. pressing for these awful bills year after year may be nothing more than a cynical political tactic for republicans but passing these would be an unconscionable exercise in cruelty to the people who would actually be affected, people like judy, who's from my home state of washington. judy learned over 20 weeks into her pregnancy that her son's organs were not developing properly. one lung was just 20% formed. the other was missing entirely. people like kate, whose doctor informed her that if her daughter survived birth, she would not be able to walk, talk, or swallow and likely would not

even be comfortable enough to sleep. people like lindsey, who learned her daughter had a fast-growing, inoperable tumor growing into her brain and heart and lungs, wrapping around her neck and eyes and chest and making her odds of survival incredibly slim. people like darla, who was pregnant when twins when she got the unthinkable news -- one of her twins had serious medical complications, not terminating that pregnancy could put her other twin's health care at risk. and those are just a few of many stories. there are many families across the country who have struggled with the painful reality that the child they had hoped for cannot survive. each of them has spoken out to underscore that those in wrenching moments wanted to make the decision that was best for their child and their family with their health care provider. but each of these bills,

mr. president, would take the ability to make the decision best for that child and family away from women like judy and kate and lindsey and darla. those bills would prevent doctors from offering the best medical advice, all because extreme politicians are more concerned with spreading misinformation and firing up their base than they are with actual women's lives. in other words, in the most private moments of personal tragedy, these bills would take precedence over a family's wishes as they grieve. to the politicians supporting these bills, i have to ask, how dare you think your opinion is more important here than the knowledge of medical experts and the wishes of the family that is affected. i don't understand how anyone can think instead of letting patients make their own, very personal decisions that they should have that decision made

for them by president trump and vice president pence, and that's exactly what we're talking about today. why? because even though roe v. wade has been the law of the land for almost a half a century, even though a large majority of people do not want to see that landmark decision overturned, republicans think somehow that they can benefit politically and fire up the most ideological elements of their base by using every tool imaginable to chip away at the right to safe -- safe -- legal abortion. well, i'm here to say, they can try. but women, medical experts, and those of us elected officials who trust them are not going to stop calling these bills what they are -- anti-women, anti-doctor, and antifamily. we are going to make clear we oppose every single one of their efforts to further chip away at access to safe, legal abortion under roe. every extreme cruel abortion

ban, every fear-mongering effort to gin up controversy and pretend we don't already protect infants, every far-right judge they try to pack onto the courts to chip away at roe v. wade, every barrier to information like president trump's title 10 gag rule, and every new shameful game they are concoct on their all-out war on access to reproductive health care -- whatever republicans try next, democrats are going to continue fighting alongside women and men across the country to protect their ability to make their own decisions about their own families. standing up for doctors' ability to practice medicine without politicians getting in the way and lifting up the stories of real people like judy and kate and lindsey and darla and many others, so republicans can't ignore them. thank you, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm really disappointed to feel like i need to come to the floor today to respond to these anti-women, antifamily bills that have been introduced, because not only would these bills interfere with a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices, they would threaten doctors with prison time if they perform abortion services that women have a constitutional right to receive. these bills are dangerous, they're extreme, and they are part of an ongoing effort by this administration to overturn roe v. wade. we don't need this legislation to prevent the killing of infants. let's be very clear. infanticide is already illegal under federal law, and in fact

prosecutions have occurred under the current law that prevents infanticide. this legislation would do nothing but set up ambiguous standards for cases that are often medical emergencies and add uncertainty to laws that are already on the books to prohibit infanticide. this uncertainty will have a chilling effect on the ability of women to access the services they need in the united states. the legislation we are voting on would also imprison doctors for up to five years for performing abortions, after a woman is 20 weeks pregnant, even though -- even though federal courts have ruled that this 20-week abortion ban, as are proposed under one of our bills, would violate the constitution. 209-week abortion ban bill would only allow for exceptions for minors who are victims of rape

or incest if they report the rape or incest to the place. now, for adult women, the rape exception would only apply if she waits 48 hours and gets counseling from a health care provider that her government -- not that she or her family, but the government determines is acceptable. these exceptions are just shameful because my colleagues know, as i do, that almost three-quarters of rape and sexual assaults are never reported, often because women have legitimate fears of being victimized again. they fear the rapist or the person who has assaulted them. but, more broadly, it's really this simple -- we should not be putting doctors in prison for providing a woman with the reproductive care that she chooses. and we must always remember that abortions that are performed later in pregnancy are almost

always done as a result of severe fetal diagnoses and the serious risks that the pregnancy poses to the life of the woman. this isn't a decision that any woman or family wants to be in a position to make. it's tragic, and it's heartbreaking. and the fact that these bills would demean the women who have to make these decisions by suggesting that this is something that government should decide for them instead of the woman with her family and with her doctor, it's -- it's, again, nothing but tragic. i don't understand how people can think the government is better positioned to make these personal decisions than women and their families and their doctors. protecting pregnant women, new mothers and children is about more than scoring political points with antichoice legislation.

it's about ensuring that women have access to maternity care. that means prenatal care, that means having access to affordable health insurance coverage, and that's why this legislation rings so hollow. people who are speaking on the floor who are supporting these bills, they're not talking about improving the lives of women and children. right now this administration is in court backing a lawsuit that would tear down the affordable care act despite the fact that there is no alternative if the a.c.a. is struck down. and if the administration and states succeed in striking down the affordable care act, we're going to go back to the days when insurance companies can exclude maternity care from coverage and when women can be charged higher premiums than men. and if they succeed, the medicaid expansion would be gone and states would have fewer dollars to cover more people at a time when 43% of childbirths

in this country are covered and paid for by medicaid. these are the fundamental issues that are at stake for women and families across this country. and given these stakes, i'm disappointed that here we are again debating two anti-choice bills that the senate already rejected in 2018 and 2019. nothing's changed since then. this is time that is being used, as my colleague from washington said, just to try and stir up the base of some of the senators who are in this chamber. if my colleagues were serious about protecting mothers and children, they would join in supporting efforts to ensure that the health care coverage that families rely on isn't ripped away in court. i urge my colleagues to oppose these bills and to vote no when

they are considered on the floor. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor today with a sense of urgency. our next national election is a little more than eight months away. we know from public reporting that russia is back to its 2016 playbook and working to interfere again. what some called a political pearl harbor in 2016 is in the process of happening again. it's happening to us again. now i notice every member of the senate has washington's farewell

address, an annual ritual where that address is read by members. it's interesting, in the introduction one of the things that washington warned about is interference by foreign powers in the nation's domestic affairs george washington, president and one of us founders of our country, then interference foreign powers, interference in our domestic affairs. now this isn't about the kremlin helping donald trump, although we know that was their preference the last time. but it has become increasingly clear that at least at this point chaos is the true goal. we haven't seen anything that may have changed what their preference was four years ago,

nothing that the president has done should be a reason for them not to want to see him be reelected again. but regardless of whether that is or is not the case, chaos is part of their goal. rendering our democracy in capable of standing up to bullies abroad is their goal. and what is this administration's response? is it paralysis? no, mr. president. it's anything about. this administration appears now to be engaged in a proactive strategy to deny this body access to information on this interference. with the appointment of rick grenell to serve as acting director of national intelligence, the administration is sending a clear message to the american people, to the congress, and to governments around the world that our intelligence services are now political commodities to be manipulated and used to gain

electoral advantage. amid all of the oversight challenges that we face with this administration, we will likely look back on this decision as perhaps one of the most consequential and most damaging to our democratic institutions. and that is saying a lot about this white house. these reports of russian interference do not come as a surprise. they should not find us flatfooted. several of us have introduced sanctions, legislation which would deter such russian behavior from happening. the daska bill that i introduced with senator graham and that had broad bipartisan support and passed out of the senate foreign relations committee with a strong bipartisan vote is waiting on the senate floor for action. what are we waiting for?

the election is eight months away. what are we waiting for? waiting for responsible senators to p defend our democracy, waiting for a vote. yet it sits here, and it's an outrage. inaction at this very precarious stage in our democracy story violates the very oath that members swore to uphold upon their election. inaction by this body at this time is truly unimaginable. unimaginable. yet, here we are. this lack of will to stand up for our national security, this lack of will to defend our democratic institutions, this lack of will to fulfill the oath to our country, history will not judge well the united states senate in this hour. only americans should decide american elections.

no one else. no foreign power, no foreign player, no foreign individual. only americans should decide american elections. i think that's a pretty simple proposition, but it is a powerful one. our legislation and others are not the only tools available to the president if he decided to stand up for our democratic institutions. existing catsa legislation includes several sanction mandates already on the books that could be used. obama and trump-era executive orders are sitting on the shelf gathering dust. both could be employed right this minute to impose crippling sanctions on russia to send a clear message. do not mess with our elections, or there are serious consequences. but what is the message from this white house in response to public reporting that russia is

again interfering? following the laws that congress has passed? full implementation of caatsa? crippling sanctions on the kremlin? full activation of all the powers involved in executive orders? no. no, mr. president. instead the president decided to fire the guy who delivered the news to congress and replaced him with. this would be like f.d.r. dismissing the congressional declaration of war after pearl harbor and firing members of his staff who reported on the japanese attack. it's pretty outstanding. pretty outstanding. never before have we had a president so transparently willing to bow down to a foreign authority, unwilling to challenge in the collective national interest and the security of the united states, in the collective democracy of our country, the core of our

democracy is citizen participations in casting a vote to decide who governs them, from the president to the congress to local states and mayors. when that is eroded by the engagement of a foreign government, a foreign government that is nefarious in its activities and consequential in its actions, it undermines the very essence of that democracy. and i don't care who they're helping. they're supposedly helping, according to the press reports, senator sanders as well. that's wrong xghts i don't -- ts wrong. i don't want them helping anybody in our country. i don't want them engaged on behalf of anyone in our country. but never before have i seen a president unwilling to challenge putin and russia. never before have i seen a president so willing to sacrifice national security for his own political gain.

and every single member in this body who does not stand up and hold him to account and try to make sure that we pass legislation and challenge the president to ultimately sign it and enact it and to pursue the law as it is already on the books in terms of caatsa, to pursue the executive order powers that exist today, that exist today, that would send an incredibly powerful message if, if invoked, is complicit. and we'll have to bear the judgment of history. i expect that judgment will be rather harsh. for myself, i'm going to do everything possible to ensure that our elections are sack -- sack -- sacrosanct and do not

have the influence of a foreign power. i do not want to be those for whom history is silent in the face of invasion of information and efforts to undermine our elections. in any other context, we would consider it a war. i consider it no less. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my senate colleagues. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my senate colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, we're here today to discuss two pieces of legislation that will be voted on tomorrow in the united states senate. these two important bills address the issue of life in the most basic human right. the pain capable unborn child protection act and the born alive abortion survivors protection act. this first bill, the pain capable unborn child protection act would end the barbaric

practice of late-term abortions after five months. it's a time in fact the science tells us that babies feel pain. the second bill, the born alive abortion survivors protection act will protect babies who are born alive after surviving botched abortions. these back-to-back votes will present an opportunity for every senator and more specifically for nearly every one of the senate democrats to show the american people whether they believe there are any, any limits to radical abortion practices. i'm joined this evening by several of my esteemed senate colleagues and good friends, senator ernst of iowa, senator sasse of nebraska,

ernst of iowa into the cool lunch

lost to late-term abortions. at 20 weeks science tells us these babies can suck their thumbs. they can feel pain. they can yawn. they can stretch. they can make faces. in fact, if you have a smartphone, if you're watching tonight, just google 20-week baby. 2-0-w-e-e-k, b-a-b-y. here is one of the images that will show up on your smartphone. that is what a 20-week baby

looks like. it's unconscionable that preborn babies after five months of pregnancy can be killed, even though they're capable of feeling pain. in fact, during this age preborn babies are oftentimes given anesthesia if there's fetal surgery involved. here's one of the shocking statistics. the united states is only one of seven, seven countries in the world which include north korea and china that allow these barbaric late-term abortions after 20 weeks. that's a list we don't want to be on but we are. as americans, we must strive for better. this isn't political. this is about working to ensure that every single child has a

chance at life. the pain capable unborn child protection act -- this is a commonsense bill and has overwhelming public support. do you realize public attitude and opinion on abortion and late-term abortion keeps swinging in the pro-life direction. why is that? well, perhaps one reason is because technology has gotten so much better. 3-d ultrasounds give us such a clear picture of what's happening there in the womb. look at this picture right here. the images are very clear. i believe on a principle that people believe what they discover for themselves. technology is helping young people see. what we're talking about here is a baby. it's life. 62% of voters oppose late-term abortion. this bill is something that i firmly believe every republican and every democrat can get behind. why can't we at least come together on late-term abortion

and banning it? passing this bill would be a major step forward for the pro-life cause. the next bill we're voting on tomorrow is the born alive abortion survivors protection act. back home in montana, this piece of legislation moved through our state legislature up to our governor's desk. it was called the baby born alive bill. it's the same thing. it mandates that if a baby is born alive following a botched abortion, the doctor must protect that baby and give the same medical care that any other baby would receive. is that really too much to ask for? honestly, the fact we're having this debate on the floor of the u.s. senate is astonishing. and the american people agree. in fact, 77% of pro-abortion advocates believe that babies born alive should be medically protected. sadly today there are states that do not offer protection for babies born alive. in fact, just earlier this month

in colorado, state legislators killed a bill that would grant legal protections for babies born alive after abortions. i'd like to turn over to my colleague from iowa senator joni ernst. she's been an unwavering, relentness champion for life. and she's been a bear friend. she's a great colleague, a great leader on this issue of protecting the most vulnerable, these little babies. senator ernst, would you agree with me that senate democrats should join us in voting for these commonsense bills that protect innocent human life? ms. ernst: absolutely, senator daines. i'm proud to join you on the floor for this colloquy this evening. i will take your place and i have just a few words that i would love to share on these bills as well in protecting our unborn.

again, mr. president, i'd like to thank the senator from montana for arranging this colloquy and -- let's make sure that this is turned on. can you hear? good. thank you. mr. president, we want to get into some of these commonsense measures that we're speaking about this evening. i appreciate the senator from montana's words. and it is astounding that we're even having this debate on the floor of the senate. very, very commonsense life-saving measurin measure --s that are coming before us this week. first, i'd like to step back a

little bit and take a moment to answer the one key big-picture question at the center of this debate. and the debate that we have over life. the basic question there is life valuable? and my answer to that question is that absolutely. i see value in every single life and we all have different ideas on how we measure the value of life, but i can boil it down a little bit. some folks would say it's -- it's what a human being will bring to this world. now, what that is can be determined by different measures, but what impact does a person have? now, some, of course, will see celebrities, they'll see athlete, they'll see

trailblazers and scientists and say, wow, they've made their mark on the world and they contribute so much. there is so much impact there. but then i see it in everyday common people, at home in iowa as well. and i even reflect upon folks like my friend of my daughter's who grew up in our small community of stanton. and he has down syndrome. and yet he contributed so much and still does to this day in our home community. he's our hometown spirit coordinator at every football game and he's leading everyone in their cheerers and supporting our hometown teams. and this young man brings so much joy to everyone. i'd say that his life has made a huge impact on all that know h

him. and now we can think of the smallest among us as well, that baby in the womb and how does that baby make an impact. and as a mother, you know, i know that other fellow mothers, they can relate to this as well. but that baby makes an impact even in the womb. the experience of pregnancy can change a woman forever, not just physically but mentally and emotionally. women that i talk to, they'll often comment on the amazing feeling and bond that they will have with that child that is growing in their womb. they experience that heartbeat in the womb. and even to the effects that maybe we don't like to reflect on -- i remember the swollen angles that i had in their -- ankles that i had in that last month of pregnancy. i had fred flintstone feet. even things like that we can

reflect on, but the impact of having that child carried with me, it changed me forever. i know that other mothers know that. so whether it's from the beginning of a pregnancy of a healthy, healthy full-term child or whether it is a scary premature birth or, for some, the difficult and life-ending decision to abort, the fact remains that that tiny human being carried within us has forever left a mark on their mother. and this truth spurs me on to fight even harder to protect the undeniable value that every human life has, every human life has value. so today i stand with my pro-life colleagues in asking our pro-choice friends, many of

whom are mothers and farmers themselves, to -- mothers and fathers themselves, to meet us in the middle. we may not be able to get on the same page when it comes to recognizing the inherent value that each of these lives holds, but surely we can agree that protecting our most vulnerable from painful death is a unifying and a humanitarian cause. so what i'd like to do is just tell you the story of my fellow iowan micah pickering. now, micah is joining us on the this week, and i encourage all of my colleagues to take some time to meet this incredible boy. he will be on the hill tomorrow. now, when i first met mica had he was just a couple years old and his family brought him into my office.

and i had this picture -- i had just this picture in my office. and micah, then two years old, he ran over to this picture, not knowing that was him, and he pointed at it and he said, a baby! and i started to cry, and i said, yes, micah, that is a baby. today micah is happy and he's healthy, and he is seven years old. now, he was born at 20, 21 -- excuse me, 22 weeks. 22 weeks. that's some of the babies that we're talking about today. they're born at 22 weeks. now, when micah was born, he was

literally the size of a bag of m&m's, a tiny baby. now, folks, can't we all agree that this is a baby and that babies like micah who survived a premature birth, again, at 22 weeks -- and we're talking about those that survive, those that are 20 weeks, which is more than halfway through a pregnancy, are deserving of protection? i agree to that. the only dividing factor between beautiful micah and the more than 10,000 children that are aborted after 22 weeks gestation, which is what micah was, the difference -- the dividing factor is that micah was wanted by his parents. his parents, danielle and

clayton, saw his inherent value. the pain-capable unborn child protection act is a measure that should meet the approval standard of my pro-choice friends because supporting this bill means giving all of the micah pickerings of the world an equal fighting chance. the degree to which a child of any age is wanted does not diminish their value, and we have an obligation as lawmakers to protect their right to life. but if we cannot come together in support of a bill to protect viable babies from abortion at the point when they feel pain, then surely -- surely a baby who survives an abortion attempt deserves the same degree of care as any other newborn.

folks, just think about it. these babies, their lives, they've already survived a horrific abortion attempt and been given a second chance. -- a second chance at life. but without us putting the necessary protections in place, these precious babies can literally be left to die. and for those in the medical field who fail to care for these precious newborns, they knead to be held accountable. -- they need to be held accountable. senator sasse has helped lead the way with his born alive abortion survivors protection act, a commonsense bill i proudly support. given that we have an estimated 143 babies who died between 2003

and 2014, after surviving abortion, it's clear that we need to strengthen the current law. these babies deserve the basic medical standard of care, regardless of how wanted they may have been. but i implore you to think about the issue of life in a new way, one that's very simple. when you think about everyone you come into contact with, whether it's your family, your friends, your coworkers, your children, your spouse, even yourself, every single person was at one time a defenseless child in their mother's womb. every life from the baby who has just been conceived to each and every one of you in this room

tonight has value, whether you're that star athlete, whether you are that scientist making new discoveries, whether you're that hometown cheerleader, every life has value. and to my senate colleagues, we've had this debate before, but i ask that you consider these bills with new eyes focused on the inherent value of life. you have the opportunity to save lives, and i hope that you will join me in doing so. and, again, i thank the senator from montana for raising this issue this evening, and i'm proud to be a yes vote on both of these tremendous bills, and i hope that we can get others to join us in that effort. thank you, senator. i yield the floor. *8. mr. daines: senator, thank you. and thanks for your very moving

story about micah pickering. it helps oftentimes to take that's ideas and translate them directly into these children today that you see. and when he said, there's a little baby. and there's some critics of the born-alive bill that would say that this horrible act that we describe here tonight, it simply doesn't happen. to those who say that, they should talk to somebody named melissa oden. in fact, just last year when we had the born-alive bill on the floor of the u.s. senate, i was coming down to speak on behalf of the bill. i was just about maybe 50 feet from where i'm standing right now, just outside the doors of the u.s. senate, as i was making my way to speak, and guess who was standing outside the doors of the u.s. senate? it was melissa oden. she's a beautiful mother today. she survived a saline infusion

abortion as a little baby at about five months. she was left for dead, and she was discarded. this was in kansas city, missouri, until a hospital nurse heard her little crisis and this nurse saved melissa's life, for which we're very thankful. and it was quite the experience to meet her just outside these chamber doors. and now melissa is a mom herself. because i believe we have a duty -- an obligation to protect life. and particularly the most innocent life, the most vulnerable life, like the little baby that could be born alive as a result of a botched abortion attempt. it's my hope that the members of

this body -- republicans and democrats -- would vote to support and defend this most basic human right and recognize that late-term abortions -- i recognize this is a very divisive issue. of course it is in this country. but i would think on the issue of late-term abortions, on the issue of babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion, that we could he least come together and say, let's stop these barbaric practices. these are extreme positions. they should be outlawed in this country. we can no longer simply stand by as our children -- we talk about children being the future of this country -- losing their lives to abortion and infanticide. as americans, we have an obligation to honor our nation's founding promise.

in fact, enshrined in our declaration of independence, that all men, all women, all human life is created equal and endowed by our creator with these certain inalienable rights -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. think about it this way --. they have these important rights. you can't have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without first having the right to life. this right to life is the first and most important of these inalienable rights. so i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting these commonsense bills to stop this brutal violence of late-term abortions and pain-capable babies. that's why it's called the pain-capable act. babies are capable of feeling pain at about 20 weeks.

that is why when there's in utero surgery performed, they administer anecessary these years, because the baby is feeling pain. that's where we're drawing the line with these bills. it's stopping late-term abortion and also babies born alive, which isn't about abortion. this is about infanticide. we must protect these innocent babies, standing for life, as amended,ing for those who are -- standing for those who are most vulnerable. i seethe my colleague from nebraska, senator -- i see that my colleague from nebraska, senator sasse, has come to the floor. senator sasse authored the baby born alive bill. and i'm grateful to senator sasse joining us here tonight in this colloquy. senator sasse, could you explain the importance of passing the bill that you have authored. mr. sasse: well, thank you, senator daines, and senator joni

ernst. it is good to see you. i know that senator braun is going to be here shortly. i want to speak about both of these pieces of legislation that we're going to be considering tomorrow because both are really important. so to distinguish, as i know has been done a few times tonight, buff to be sure we're all on the same page, the pain-capable unborn child protection act is a really important piece of legislation and i think my born alive abortion survivors protection act that i know both of my colleagues here who've just spoken are original cosponsors of as well, really important piece of legislation. i think it is important that we clarify for the american people and for them -- or via the press for them how they differ. so these two bills are different, but they're connected by this simple question, which is, will the senate vote tomorrow to protect babies? this is about as straightforward a question as you could possibly have. will the u.s. senate vote tomorrow to protect babies?

let's talk first about senator graham's legislation. every mom and dad knows what it's like to see your child hurt, to see somebody fall down, maybe with something as minor as a scraped knee or a burned hand on the stove sore a finger slammed in a car door or a bedloom door. and you know that experience of a big deep breath that's going to be followed by the piercing cry. something drops in the pit of your stomach. every parent knows this feeling. you want to scoop them up, grab them, hold them, take away the pain. you'd take ten x the pain if you could to protect your baby from the pain. you want it to stop and you want them to know they're going to be okay. when your child hurts, you hurt. and it's far worse to watch your child hurting than to feel the pain yourself. we have this gut feeling when it comes to pain. whep we see someone hurting we

know this is not the way the world is supposed to be. pain is not natural. this is not the order of things as it was meant to be. and so our heart leaps at the sight of someone in pain. not just a child, but especially when it's a child. a family member, a friend, or even a complete stranger, when you see somebody in pain, we want to make it stop. human beings are compassionate. that is we feel along with others. when they suffer, we suffer. and so we reach out to protect. we want to give comfort. tomorrow we have the opportunity to extend that reach of care and comfort and protection. the pain capable unborn child protection act would protect babies as early as 20 weeks into pregnancy. that's halfway through. by inscribing in law our responsibility to protect innocent babies in the womb from the pain that is inflicted by abortion. the responsibility that we have when a two-year-old skins her

knee is also a responsibility that we have when a 20-year-old baby in the womb is threatened. the science is clear, modern medicine is allowing surgeons to perform operations on in utero babies, and these intricate, amazing, amazing little operations available nowadays are saving the lives of thousands of babies with what would have once ben fatal conditions. these surgeons frequently administer drugs to the baby, just like they do to the mother. these doctors are treating two patients, not just one, and they do everything in their power not just to advance the health of both of the patients, but to protect both of the patients from pain. they want to be sure that both patients are safe and comfortable. science has shown us these babies feel pain and the pain capable unborn child protection

act is a simple recognition that although the baby in the womb might be mostly invisible to us we are not blind to their needs. we have a responsibility to spread that umbrella of law over every vulnerable person no matter how small. size doesn't determine dignity or worth. so the question before us tomorrow is, will the u.s. senate vote to protect these babies? it's pretty simple. you're going to hear lots of crazy commentary talking about other stuff than what we're actually voting on tomorrow, but what we're voting on is should the u.s. senate vote to protect these babies? i plan to vote in favor of compassion because i believe that being pro-mom and pro-baby and being pro-science are all bundled up together and so tomorrow we're going to consider compassionate pro-science, pro-baby legislation, and i postcloture my colleagues, all 100 of us, ought to be doing the same. but i also know that although i

am unapologetically pro-life, many of my colleagues in this body are not. and so tonight i also want us to talk about a different piece of legislation that's motivated by that same care, that same concern, with having the u.s. senate vote to protect babies, but it's actually a different piece of legislation than senator graham's important pro-life anti-abortion piece of legislation. and so i want to talk about this second piece of legislation. even if you are unwilling to vote to defend unborn babies, i hope that my colleagues would at least consider joining with us in voting to protect babies that have already been born. so senator graham's legislation is about protecting babies in utero. we've got a second piece of legislation before us tomorrow that's about protecting babies after they've already been born. will we acknowledge that a baby outside the womb should not be left to die? that's what the born alive

abortion survivors protect act is about. one year ago tomorrow the united states senate sadly, shamefully, shrugged its shoulders at babies who had already been born after botched abortions. a bipartisan majority in this body -- let's be clear, a bipartisan majority voted in favor of protecting these babies but we didn't have enough votes, we didn't have enough folks voting with us in this chamber to break the filibuster in favor of infanticide. that's what happened a year ago tomorrow in this chamber. today there's nothing in our federal law that criminalizes the denial of care to a baby that survived an abortion. when a baby lives through an abortion procedure and ends up born and is outside mom, there's nothing in federal law that criminalizes denying care to those babies and allowing her to die, allowing her or him to die. and we have to change that. so this second bill tomorrow is not actually about abortion. it's not about roe v. wade.

it's about something different. it's about what happens after an abortion that didn't succeed in terminating the baby's life. and so when a baby survives and is lying on that table cold and naked and alone, what does our society do? are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born and outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion? are we a country that says it's okay to just sit back and allow that baby to die? that baby that's fighting for life, is it okay for us to just let that baby die? it's a plain and simple question, and we all know what the right answer is. there are hard calls that we consider in this body sometimes. there are a lot of gray issues. this isn't one of them. this isn't a hard call. since last year's vote, we have brought before this body testimony from medical experts who have been involved in abortion procedures, who have had in their hands one-pound

little babies that have survived abortions. that was the purpose of the senate judiciary committee's hearing on this bill two weeks ago. in that, we heard testimony that made clear why this bill is necessary and it made clear that the other side actually can't confront the arguments head on. that's what happened two weeks ago in the senate judiciary committee. we were looking at the text of this bill. we had in front of us medical experts who had the experience with people who had, with babies who had survived abortions, and they talked about what happened in their clinics, and everybody who spoke against the abortion survivors protection act didn't talk about the bill at all. they talked about all these other things. some of them are actually hard debates, but none of them had anything to do with the legislation that we were actually considering. that's because they couldn't actually defend opposing a bill that's purpose is simply to prohibit infanticide. that's why planned parent, naral and the big abortion

doctors lobby resorted to simple misinformation. that's all the hearing was by those poapsed to the legislatioe legislation. they say what we're trying to do is prevent something that doesn't happen. that's not true. that's a myth. there are eight states where we have some reporting information. we should have reporting information from all 50 states. but in the 8 states that we have, we have information about the babies that survive abortions and what happens to them. they wouldn't confront those facts, so they just made these blanket statements that these legislation deals with something that doesn't happen. but it does, which is why we had a hearing, why we brought in experts, and then they talked about, the opponents of the legislation talked about completely unrelated things. they said there are no such things as abortion survivors. we would like to introduce you to some of them. perhaps they should consult the c.d.c. records. of the several states, there were eight, that report data on survivors.

or they should talk to the abortion survivors network. they should look into the eyes of spouses and friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents who are abortion survivors, and they should try to tell them that what we're doing is pointless or a waste. they can't do that because their position is morally indefensible who are the spouses and friends and neighbors who are not here today because they did not receive lifesaving medical care in their first moments of life? the terms of the born alive abortion survivors protection act are simple. a child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that is provided to any other baby born at that same gestational stage. that's it. that's all the second piece of legislation we're going to deal with tomorrow does. it says when a baby survives abortion that baby should get the same level of medical care provided to any other baby at the same stage of gestational development. that's all it does.

it doesn't create, as opponents are charge, some mandate to prolong the suffering of a dying child. it doesn't do anything like that. it simply says if a baby survives an abortion it has to get the same level of medical care that would be provided to any other baby at the same stage of gestational care that had a parent present that wanted that baby. it doesn't force a doctor to do anything that violates medical best practice. it simply says that a baby who survives an abortion is a baby and should be treated as such. as a baby with care and compassion. do senators in this chamber believe their own campaign slogans? our colleague from vermont who is on the verge of becoming the standard-bearer for the democratic party in our country has declared that, quote, the mark of a great nation is how it treats its most vulnerable people. senator sanders is right. america is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women, all boys and girls are

created equal, even the littlest ones, even if they happen to come into the the world in the most horrific of circumstances, even if they're crippled, or inconvenient, or unwanted. america recognizes the immeasureability, the immeasurable dignity of every human being regardless of race or sex or creator or ability. if we're hemming or hawing about whether it's okay to let children die of neglect we know we've lost part of our soul. tomorrow we have a chance to recognize and secure the dignity of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. we have a chance to protect those babies who come into the world under the worst of conditions, and we have the chance to extend to them the possibility of life and of love. tomorrow we can speak up for the voiceless. we can defend the defenseless. we can come to the aid of the innocent. this is not about roe. this is not about politics. it's about a simple question. will the united states senate

tomorrow stand for the proposition that babies are babies and they deserve care. will the senate vote tomorrow to protect babies? and i would like to defer to my colleague from the state to the east, iowa. ms. ernst: thank you, senator sasse, great senator from nebraska. i want to thank you for joining in the colloquy and for authoring the bill that would save these babies that, as you described, are born in horrific circumstances. but a baby is a baby, and it's undeniable. so i do hope that we have a number of our friends and colleagues from across the aisle join us tomorrow in that vote and say that, yes, this is a life that deserves dignity and a chance, an opportunity. that's what we're asking for. so thank you very much for your great work there. we will continue our colloquy. we have another speaker that is joining us from the great state of indiana.

i will yield to the junior senator. a senator: a little over a month ago, or a year ago, i was here when senator sasse brought for unanimous consent vote, i was here mostly curious to see who might object to a bill that wants to born alive, where you do everything you can to keep that child alive. mr. braun: i was appalled then and here again we're talking about the same thing. but i think we've got room for optimism. we've got two bills that have gotten, i think, more support at this stage of the game than in a long time. first on the pain-capable bill, last month two researchers with broadly different views on

abortion published research in the journal of medical ethics stating conclusively that the neuroscience cannot definitely rule out fetal pain before 24 weeks. as we continue to learn more about the science of when unborn children can feel pain in the womb, the moral imperative to provide a cutoff point for abortions grows stronger and stronger. i hope that my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle, will not deny science by allowing abortions to be performed on unborn children capable of feeling pain. the born alive bill, again, we are closer than ever on a procedural vote we had 53 votes bipartisan, almost there with 3 republicans not able to vote.

so theoretically 56 votes possibly. i stepped up here a year ago, and i'd do it again, because i also sense across the country things are starting to change. millennials are now leaning towards what the sell lemmty and sanctity of life is about. and i think if we just take guidance from that younger generation, it ought to be able to move four senators to get in line and do what seems to be so clear from a moral point of view. some will say that a bill didn't ensure babies born after failed abortions is unnecessary because it doesn't happen that often. that's not a good reason. it doesn't matter how common it is. it matters if it's right or wrong. even if my colleagues do not agree with me that every baby

conceived has the right to be born, we should at least agree that every baby that's born has a right to live. so we're at a pivotal point. and you go back a few years, 2015. there were 36 votes -- 38 in 2015 for this same bill. 2017, 36. a little over a year ago, 53 or 56, however you want to look at it. i plead to citizens across thi thiscountry just like i did -- this country just like i did a little over a year ago, get a hold of your senators in states where the sanctity of life, the som -- solemnity of life is important, tell them we need their votes. i yield the floor.

ms. ernst: thank you very much to the junior senator from indiana. we really appreciate your efforts on these bills as well. and again i think all of us would agree that these are very commonsense pieces of legislation and we would love to see some movement coming if our friends on the left. so this evening we have had a wonderful colloquy. of course, again thanks to the senator from montana, senator daines for leading this colloquy and for sharing your time with us this evening as we talk about some of these measures. to the junior senator from the great state of nebraska as well, senator sasse. thank you so much for authoring the born alive abortion survivors act. and thank you to lindsey graham offering his pain capable bill. so again we've talked this evening about a number of those -- those two bills that really hit close to home. and i did happen to sit through

the judiciary committee hearing that was led by senator sasse a couple of weeks ago where we did talk about the born alive abortion survivors act. and it was true that so many of our friends across the aisle were deflecting on the legislation. they were talking about a woman's right to choose. they were talking about being pro-choice and supporting abortion and bottom line, this is not a bill that has anything to do with those topics. this is about saving babies that are born alive after a botched abortion attempt. so i think we have to make that very clear as we move through tomorrow's proceedings. but again, thank you for the colloquy this evening. it's been very helpfu helpful in expressing our views and the right for these babies to live and to make a difference in our world. so with that, we will close out the colloquy. again thanking those that are supporting the billings as well

as those that joined us here on the floor this evening. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, at 11:30 a.m. on tuesday, february 25, the senate vote on the following, one, confirmation of executive calendar 384, two, cloture on executive calendar 491, three, cloture on executive calendar 569. further, that if cloture is invoked on the nominations and following the third vote in the series, the senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. to accommodate the weekly party luncheons that follow the lunch recess -- then following the lunch recess, the senate resume legislative session in consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 3275 and the time from 2:15 until 3:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. i further ask consent that at 3:30 p.m., cloture on the

motions to proceed to s. 3275 and s. 311 ripen and that following the votes on those motions to invoke cloture, the senate vote on the following. one, confirmation of executive calendar 491. to, confirmation of executive calendar 569. three, cloture on executive calendar 416. i further ask consent that if cloture is invoked on the greaves nomination, the vote on confirmation occur at 1:45 p.m. on thursday, february 27. further, that if any nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid pong the table -- upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. earn i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from

further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. resolution 481. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 481 commemorating the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the awsh -- auschwitz extermination camp in okay piped poland. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. ms. ernst: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, february 25. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and

morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the molloy nomination under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

tonight on the communicators, from the state of the net conference, justice department associate attorney general and former fbi general counsel james baker on encryption technology and privacy. cmac if facebook the company itself will lose disability into a tapping on the platforms. the estimation is about 70 to 75% of the tips will go dark. we'll never learn about them. think about all of the children who are being abused as we speak who we will not be able to crack down on. >> my view is that law enforcement caesar rethink its encryption and fact that congress will not act, and lighted affect their fact their significant cyber threats and embracing encryption and instead of trying to find ways to so called break it. that's not really what they're trying to do, in other words they need to embrace encryption as a way to enhance

the cyber security, and therefore the security of all americans. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2. >> a couple of hearings on capitol hill this week, on wednesday defense secretary mark asper and joint csfs staff chair will take questions about president trump's 2021 budget request. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. on thursday, the head of the cdc robert redfield, along with other federal officials will testify about the federal response to the coronavirus. watch live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span three. online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. senate minority leader, chuck schumer came to the senate floor to