great conversation. >> thank u. [applause] >> this morning, former deputy seetary of homeland security, elaine du, and other officials, will testify in the potential risks of replacing nonpartisan civil servantsith political appointees. watch the senate homeland security and governmenl affairs committee hearing li. at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. ♪♪ >> since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat to how issues are debated and decided with no commentary, no interruption and completely unfiltered.

c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> tuesday morning, september 17th, and the u.s. senate is coming in to continue work on president biden's nominations. a vote is scheduled at 11:30 eastern this morning on a district court judge for eastern pennsylvania. and then later this afternoon at 3:30 eastern, majority leader chuck schumer is putting the in vitro fertilization access bill on the floor for another votes whether to advance the bill, it would expand protections on ivf nationwide. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. ... the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. our chaplain, the reverend dr. barry black, will open the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the center of our hope, you have given us this day for our use. from the rising of the sun until the setting of the same, your name deserves our praise. today, bless our lawmakers with your guidance and peace. give them hope and purpose as they work on capitol hill, reminding them that their steps are ordered by you and that you will supply their needs. show them that right defeated is better than triumphant evil. lord, encourage them to wisely

use their time to contribute to peace and harmony in our nation and world. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., september 17, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael g. warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: 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, mary kathleen costello of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania.

president gerald ford was the target of two assassination attempts joining us to discuss the history here is richard norton smith, presidential historian, author of ordinary and historic presidency of gerald ford. good morning to you. take us back to september 1975. what happened that month in san francisco and sacramento? >> well, the president was in sacramento. he was there to speak to the state legislature and also,

people forget, ronald reagan, very popular former governor of california, was about to announce his challenge. the president was in california twice in september for political reasons. he ner thought he could take california away from reaga but they wanted him to haveo work on his home turf turkeys in sacrament appear he walks out of the hotel the street from the state capital. says a typical day, i think i'll walk. it's only a short distance, several hundred people who were assembled on the grounds hoping to the glimpse of him in the limousine. you can imagine how delighted they were to meet him in person. so anyway, it's interesting. having a coalition with the present he said remember i was on the one commission. he'd been one of those seven

commissioners who were charged with investigating the murder of president kennedy. he said i aware. i will keep an eye out on the crowd. he saw out of the corner of his eye this woman, he said he remembered she had a weathered face and a kind of reddish orange dress on. and he thought she wanted to talk to him, and they met under the magnolia tree just outside the capital. the next thing he knew she had reached down, pulled up a 45 colt semiautomatic pistol out of an ankle holster, and she sd the country is in a mess. is man is not true president. at that moment, had secret service agent, there were about a dozen agentsrotecting the president, he said the one word that all agency dread to hear but are trained to rpond to,

gun. he put himself in front of the president and then managed to reach for the gun. before she could fall back on the slide that would have took the first several bullets in the gun chamber. he managed -- it's the thin membrane of skin between the thumb and forefinger. he got that down between the hammer and the firing pin and so the only bloodshed that day was his when the hammer actually penetrated his hand. in any event, she said the gun didn't go off, can you believe it didn't go off? and she was handcuffed. the president surrounded by agents who sort of set up this

wedge, and classic four, he did want to over dramatize the situation. he told them to slow down. he stood up. he adjusted his dive. after all his going in to see goveor brownback you wanted to look his best. when he was at the capital never mentioned what happened. at effect it minutes into the conversation before they came up and told governor brownback what it happen. he said are you okay mr. president? he said i'm fine. it just wasn't something he's going to waste his time he said, waste the governors time talking about something that it happened. two weeks later, you can imagine, it was a big argument in the white house between the 60 people and the political people about whether he should go back to california. he said are not going to be held captive and he thought it was- he went back, this time to san francisco, spoke to the afl-cio. you can back to the same francis

hotel. now, union square was a park right in front of the hotel. there were several thousand protesters, and the secret service said this is not a friendly crowd, don't come out the front entrance pics of you without a side entrance on post street, and there was a small crowd there, and in it was this 50-ish housewife named sarah jane walker, who had become involved in kind of radical politics in the bay area of the '70s, had an obsession with patty hearst. in any event, the amazing thing is that over the weekend she had been visited by the severn cisco police who, they knew all about her. they confiscate again and one of 13 rounds of ammo. the day before the secret

service interviewed her and did not detainer. the reason being conscious also a government informant. this is, you know, a story within a story within a story. any event, she had been forced to buy a new gun, 38 smith & wesson, and she didn't realize the site was -- [inaudible] that's why when the president came out of hotel she was only 40 feet away, almost point-blak l a decision one can make than the decision of whether or not to start a family. for many people, starting a family is the greatest joy there is. it makes everything else secondary. yet for millions and millions of people, infertility can be a nightmare and a source of pain. thankfully, we live in a time when thanks to treatments like ivf, infertility is not the end

of the story. sadly, access to ivf can no longer be taken for granted. from the moment the maga supreme court eliminated roe, the hard right made clear that they would keep going. as we saw earlier this year in alabama, ivf has become the next target of ultraconservatives and access to this incredible treatment is more vulnerable than ever. today the senate will hold a simple and pivotal vote on whether or not to take up once again the right to ivf act. i thank senator duckworth as well as senators murray and booker and all the others who have championed this bill for months. they are great leaders on this issue. if the senate votes no today and strikes ivf protections down yet again, it will be further proof that project 2025 is alive and well.

remember, donald trump's project 2025 is tied to the heritage foundation, one of the most important and extreme conservative think tanks in the country. and earlier this year, they came out fiercely against today's bill protecting ivf. they were even against the fig leaf fake ivf bill pushed by senators cruz and britt. that's how extreme they are. if people want to see how strong project 2025's grip is on the gop, the outcome of today's ivf vote will be very, very revealing. and yet by all accounts, there is every reason in the world for senators to vote yes today. today's vote is simply a motion to reconsider. we're merely asking whether or not this bill is worth debating. democrats certainly think it is. we certainly think that if any issue is worth discussing in this chamber, it's protecting america's reproductive freedoms. and we democrats extend an open invitation to our republican

colleagues to join us. republicans regularly claim that they are the party that stands up for families. well, today's bill is about as pro-family as it gets. it helps create families. ivf does. it says that access to ivf should be a basic right for all and will make sure insurance companies cover ivf treatments in their plans. the last point is key. expanding insurance coverage for ivf is something the vast majority ever americans support -- of americans support 6789 a survey from pew research from last month show that even a majority of republicans surveyed support it. even a majority of republicans. nevertheless, three months ago nearly every senate republican voted against protecting ivf in this chamber. it was astounding to watch them with a straight face our republican colleagues claimed that of course they cared about supporting families. of course they supported ivf. just not enough to actually vote

to protect it. that makes no sense. no sense. republicans can't just talk their way past an issue as personal as ivf. what ultimately matters is how they vote on the issue. so to my republican colleagues, today you get a second chance. either stand with families struggling with infertility or stand with project 2025 which aims to make reproductive freedoms extinct. if republicans truly care about helping families, they should vote yes to protect ivf. if the republicans truly reject the insanity and cruelty, cruelty of project 2025 and its extreme conservative agenda, they should vote yes to protect ivf. on the other hand, if senate republicans vote no today and strike ivf protections down again, it's further proof that project 2025 is alive and well. so, again, we hope republicans join us to do the right thing.

we ask republicans to join us, because women's reproductive freedoms are in a time of crisis, and we need to push back. it's been over two years since the maga supreme court overturned roe v. wade. to date, 22 states have passed abortion restrictions, 14 of them essentially full bans. over one in three american women have lost access to reproductive care. many of them have to drive hundreds of miles out of state to get the care they need, and that is still often -- that still often comes with long wait times. drms fear -- doctors fear they'll be jailed if they offer treatments. women are at risk of being turned down at hospitals. and it can become a matter of life and death. this year, america tragically learned of the first confirmed case of a woman dying because abortion bans prevented her from getting the care she needed. she was a young woman from

georgia, mr. president, a 28-year-old, and a mother of a 6-year-old. she had to travel out of state to get reproductive care. when she needed emergency surgery after a rare complication, doctors in georgia delayed giving her the care she needed because of the new restrictions georgia had placed -- because of new restrictions on the books. by the time she went into surgery, unfortunately it was too late. she tragically passed away. the state declared her death was preventable and had she only gotten care sooner, had she only gotten care sooner. worst of all, there are undoubtedly more cases like hers. these are terrible and deadly consequences of restricting reproductive freedom. the tragedy that happened in georgia, of a preventable death because of abortion badges, is why project 2025 is so dangerous. deadly restrictions to reproductive care, monitoring women's pregnancies, banning

mifepristone, laying the groundwork for a national abortion ban, putting ivf at risk. to my republican colleagues, the choice is yours. americans are watching families -- americans are watching, families back home are watching, and couples who want to become parents are watching too. republicans cannot say they're pro-family but against protecting -- but vote against protecting ivf. they cannot say they reject project 2025 but vote against protecting ivf. that's what is at stake today. i urge everyone to vote yes. now, on the c.r. the clock is ticking for congress to reach an agreement to keep the government open beyond the september 30 deadline. that's 13 days away. at this point in the process, the only way we can prevent a harmful government shutdown is both sides working together to reach a bipartisan agreement. that's the only way.

speaker johnson is reportedly going to hold a vote on his six-month c.r. tomorrow, but the only thing that will accomplish is make clear he's running into a dead end. we must have a bipartisan -- a bipartisan plan instead. now, i'll say this -- for all its faults, i'm heartened about one thing speaker johnson is doing. speaker johnson's plan preserves the essence of the schumer-johnson agreement that set top-line funding levels for 2024. fiscal year 2024. it's encouraging to see that speaker johnson, at least for now, is resisting the hard-right choices in his party and not pushing across-the-board cuts that would be so harmful to the american people. it's a -- i hope it's a sign the speaker realizes that these bipartisan funding levels must be part of any solution moving forward. but beyond that, the speaker's c.r. is too unworkable.

i urge him to drop his plan, to work together to reach a bipartisan agreement with the other leaders, leader mcconnell, leader jeffries, and myself, as well as the white house. we do not have time to spare. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> a conversation out on the war in gaza. our guess is annelle sheline currently fellow at the institute previously foreign affairs officer at the state department bureau, democracy human rights. now why did you see the state department job? >> guest: first of all thank you for having me. it's an honor to be here and thanks for drawing attention to this. i left at the end of march. i been at the state department only a year, and as you mentioned was working on human rights, promotion and middle east. and at the time because i been at the state of our but such a short time i wasn't initially planning to go public. a really about my resignation. i told superiors inside state ii was going to be resigning over

gaza but i was just going to leave at that, leave it internal but it was because colleagues asked if i would consider going public with the resignation because at that point it did seem that public pressure was the only thing that seemed be having any effect. i must say my own resignation and those that came after mine unfortunately didn't seem to have that much effect on policy but you you know i just fels important to try to speak up. >> host: you were resigning over gaza for folks of a major statement on why you left. why what we are concerns? >> guest: yeah. in general, as someone who i study in the middle is, i'm a phd in political science. i and others who know the middle east well were extremely concerned that only about a

human trait affect obviously the human toll this is having on civilians in gaza but also this was just not a wise policy either for american security also for israeli security, that this level of violence is extremely destabilizing and is likely to only lead to more violence. a bit more specifically had become impossible to do my job inside the state department to try to advocate for human rights, which is something that people may do sort of a rueful smile, the american credibility on human rights in the middle east already was hardly pristine before october 7 but there was still very, there was important work the assistant advocating for political prisoners. unfortunately authority across the reason has grown more oppressive in sort of the intervening years since the arab spring. so the u.s. would play an extremely important role on trying to advocate for human rights and in the aftermath of october 7 it really became sort

of a laughing matter for the thought the years thee advocating on behalf of of other human rights activist in the region but was doing nothing to support civilians in gaza or in the west bank and actively harming them. >> host: why did you go to the state department into first place and what exactly does the bureau of democracy, human rights, and labor do? >> guest: so i have added a fellowship, language fellowships which then allowed me to be hired. i also owed the government a year and i contributed to my decision to stay for the entire year. i didn't want to fulfill my service obligation. and as i i mentioned i let my superiors know that after those 365 days were over i was going to be resigning. so drl, people may be aware of the human rights reports which are congressionally mandated report that the state department produces every year and has done so since the mid-1970s.

objection. mr. mcconnell: unfortunately, i need to begin this morning with some tragic news from kentucky. late last night, sheriff's deputy josh phipps of russell county was killed in the line of duty. his sacrifice is a sober reminder of the debt we owe our courageous law enforcement offi officials. they are the first to run towards fire and the first to put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe. today, i know the entire commonwealth is holding she sheriff's deputy phipps in our thoughts and our prayers. so i'd ask my colleagues to join me in sending our deepest sympathy to russell county and

the phipps family as they mourn this loss. on another matter, free speech has been an animating principle for my entire career here in the senate. i'm second no no one in my defense -- i'm second to no one in my defense of the first amendment. so i found the recent habit of the federal judiciary's bureaucracy to try and abridge its protections alarming, to say the least. the courts are where citizens go to have their free speech rights vindicated against censurist government officials. i know this from experience. i sued the -- to stop the anti-speech campaign finance rules signed into law by president bush, and i took it

all the way to the supreme court. but where do people go when the courts decide to behave like any other branch of government, when they put other interests over the first amendment, even having to ask the question is troubling. two of my colleagues and i recently wrote to the ahead of the senate committee on federal rules to express our opposition to the proposed amendment to the rules governing appellate courts. the amendment is the result of persistent bullying of senate democrats, and it would force parties seeking to be heard as friends of the court to disclose their donors in certain instances. the forced disclosure of donors is a long-standing offense

against the first amendment. this has been abundantly clear since senator -- since justice harlan eloquently explained it in naacp v. alabama. the courts only tolerate forced disclosures in cases of actual candidate electioneering to ensure election integrity. but court cases aren't laefshgss, and -- aren't elections, and friends of the court are not candidates, and the fact that the appellate rules committee doesn't understand this and wants to chill free speech by mandating donor disclosure is a shocking reversal of naacp v. alabama. that's why my colleagues and i encourage the standing com committee, the judiciary conference, and the supreme court to scrap, scrap this

unconstitutional amendment. unfortunately, there's even more. another committee in the judiciary bureaucracy, the codes of conduct committee, recently amended one of its advisory opinions to prohibit law clerks from seeking political employment. this is the same committee that tried to ban federal judges from joining the nonpartisan federalist society while allowing them to join the highly partisan and left wing american bar association. now, the committee reversed itself on that bone helpeded decision, after -- boneheaded decision after an uproar, uproar from the judges of all political sometimes. -- political stripes. the committee concluded that clerks could seek concerns from law firms, impact litigators, elected officials, and the

government, but they commerce committee even talk to -- but they they can even talk to political operatives about a job. doing so, they conclude, quote, risks linking the judge's chambers to political activity, which could compromise the independence of the judiciary. mr. president, consider just how absurd this is. first, political activity is at the core of freedom of speech. to single it out for a special disability among clerks seeking employment turns the first amendment on its head. prohibiting a clerk from discussing employment options with the harris campaign because it might make the judiciary look bad curbs the clerk's constitutional rights in order to preserve some theoretical attenuated interest.

second, it is indeed a special disability. and one that has no correspondence to the real world. why is this, quote, link, end quote, problematic when a clerk wants to talk to a republican campaign, which is prohibited, but not when she wants to talk to an elected republican, which is allowed? what about seeking employment as a political appointee in a highly partisan garland justice department? do law firms to which the democratic party outsources its campaign litigation not provide a link to the judiciary? indeed, one prominent law firm -- the allyias law group, explicitly claims that its goal is to elect democrats. and yet a clerk can presumably seek employment there but not

over at the democrat national committee? these are distinctions without differences. well, wait... there's more. last week the judicial conference in its zeal to take a hard line against misconduct in the workplace referred a disgraced former judge to the house for impeachment. yes, that's right. they referred a private citizen for impeachment. without getting into the merits of the allegations against the former judge, rather than to note that they caused him to resign in disgrace, this is a remarkable action by the federal bureaucracy. they're surely aware that whether or not you can impeach a federal official is hotly disputed, but they referred it anyway. in other words, while trying to make a point about one political

issue -- workplace misconduct in the judiciary -- they ended up making a point about another one -- the impeachment of former officials. and for what? 40 sitting senators have already said that you can't do this as a matter of constitutional law, thereby making a conviction all but impossible. the judiciary itself is under increasing attack from democrats who want to destroy it as an independent branch of government, and the judicial bureaucracy seems desperate to appear s. political -- apolitical. it's been taking affirmative steps to virtue snailing to -- signal on matters that matter to democrats. it would be one thing if this were empty virtue i havingal

inning -- signaling. but we're talking about behavior increasingly intentioned with constitutional provisions, including first amendment rights. so my advice to the judicial conference is this -- the way to avoid getting involved in politics is to avoid getting involved in politics. on another matter, i'd like to end on something the walls of this chamber don't hear enough of -- some good news. dorgan annual survey -- according to an annual survey, the number of young citizens smoking e-cigarettes dropped to the lowest level in decades. e-cigarette use is now roughly one-third of the all-time high hit just five years ago.

a lot of factors are at play in this downward trend, bus one powerful tailwind originated right here in the senate. in 2019, youth e-cigarette use was at its peak. that's the year i wrote and introduced the tobacco-free act with senator kaine of virginia. the bill raised the minimum age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21. we didn't try to reinvent the wheel. we knew that nearly all smokers, roughly 95% of them, started by the age of 21. but raise the age amendment, less tobacco winds up in high schools which means less

children able to get their hands on teachability kentucky has the highest cancer rate in the country. in years past we've even topped the list for higher proportion of cigarette-related cancer deaths. now, as the senior senator from kentucky, my decision to spearhead this legislation surprised some people. my home state has a close connection to tobacco. but as i pointed out, in the past, kentucky farmers don't want their children to continue addictions knit more than any other parent. if we've learn anything, it's that families are right to be worried. at this critical stage of development, nicotine products can be the first step in a life maligned by serious health problems. so while more work remains, i'm proud that the senate stepped up to address this public health crisis and i'm grateful to see that this legislation is actually making a difference.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> gross number, total number of number killed in gaza is i think one should also be aware of the number of hamas fighters that are composed in that total number of 40,000. >> host: what you want to respond to? >> guest: appreciate the caller for his time and his questions. i mean i which is direct him to the many trains operating on the ground in gaza who say there's not enough getting in. we have the united states stated

from also make this assessment. this was part of why if people were following when my state department colleague stacey gilbert resigned over what was released, a report, and she said publicly at the time the determination had been made that israel was blocking the american aid into gaza which admit that israel was no longer eligible to receive u.s. security assistance under section 629 of the foreign assistance act. and yet she and our colleagues had made that determination, and yet when the report was all to me released that had been change and this is why she resigned. because the work of herself and our colleagues had been completely disregarded and altered. in terms of the numbers of fighters killed unfortunately israel commits the same, the same error or intentional mis- categorization that the united states was engaged in and

continue to engage in where an e-mail individual killed is considered a fighter. i think between the ages of something like 14-60. so i think what those numbers that we are seeing of a legend hamas fighters killed, that's,, that's seven reflects men that were killed. and and i think in general its unfortunate the extent to which women and children are often regarded as victims in this and other complex but also the acknowledgment that men are victims, that so many of these are civilian men had nothing to do with hamas. and when they are killed, israel and the united states designates them as hamas fighters when in many cases they had no involvement with hamas. >> host: how do you figure out what's reliable information to draw upon, whether it's these numbers we're talking about on casualties or anything else that's going on in an active war zone of there?

>> guest: its extreme a difficult. however, it would be easier if israel actually allowed foreign journalists to get into gaza. it is clear they are trying to hide what they're doing. when you do see when the u.n. gets in and you see you in trucks driving around it is complete devastation inside gaza. gaza. it has been reduced to rubble. and yet there are still 2 million people trying to survive there, you know, with, it's a desert. there is no water. there are skin diseases rampant. it is absolutely shocking that all of us have access to sufficient information especially from people inside gaza themselves who are posting on social media. and you can see their geo-tag location. they are in gaza and they're showing what's around them. no one can pretend they were not aware of what was happening. >> host: nina in maryland, independent. good morning. nina, are you with us? , yes, i apec are you able to

hear me? >> host: yes, , man. what is your question or comment? >> caller: thanks to guess for pointing at these various obvious facts we could all see about what is really going on in gaza and the misinformation that israel is putting out about death of hamas fighters, civilian deaths. they applied in the past about americans killed there. and so on. but but i won't, i won't belar that. do you have any thoughts about a change coming with regard to all of the presidential candidates that are available, you know, to be voted in this time? i know jill stein is the only antiwar candidate though i don't agree with all of her positions. i don't know, do you have any thoughts about that question i don't know if withholding our votes from candidates that are willing to keep the were going

could help us or not and send the message but i would love it if you could reflect on that. thank you. >> host: annelle sheline. >> guest: thanks much. i appreciate what jill stein has said and her willingness to take more than antiwar stance. i think that voting for jill stein could potentially bring donald trump back into the white house. that's something you support, then more power to you. personally, i will be voting for, paris and trying to work with those working to push her -- kamala harris. we are seeing a generational change coming. i know longer think that will continue to see the eye condition sport for israel having the level of support that it currently has in congress, for example. we saw efforts by aipac to eliminate members of congress who were going into their primaries and successful, spending millions of dollars to make sure people like cori bush,

jamal bohlman were not able to keep their seats in congress directly because of the ways in which they were criticizing what is your was doing to people inside of gaza. i think the naked expression of the power of the israel lobby is something that is turned off a lot of americans and raise questions about to what extent is this actually use interest when the united states is operating so politely on behalf of of this other government and how is it actually helping americans? or for that matter if you're concerned about israeli civilians, which i certainly am, how is this making them any more secure? we know that israel has made extremely provocatively in terms of killing, for example, the hamas leader who was in tehran and the fact that iran and hezbollah thus far have not engaged in a massive retaliation for the various acts of violence that israel has engaged in.

i think speaks to the power of restraint and to efforts by the united states to try to prevent a broader war. but in general i gave it is not in use interest to get dragged into yet another war in the middle east, and thus far because the united states continue to send these weapons it is signaling to netanyahu that the united states continues to support him and will support him even up to perhaps sending u.s. troops to fight on his behalf, which again americans are so tired of these unnecessary and is worse in middle east. as i do think it's extremely important, back to your question on voting, i think harris is some took a potentially be on this and hiring she's done in a foreign policy team give you some optimism to think that she might be wanting to shift here. if she does win the presidency, but also calling on members of congress is extremely important to signal not only that you want a ceasefire but that it's time to end this provision and use

weapons to israel, to talk for sending u.s. troops to fight on netanyahu's behalf. what are you referring to? >> guest: the transness mobilize resources into the region and thus far that has been successful in preventing escalation of war. however, think about we're a lot about the missiles that get sent back and forth from hezbollah in lebanon and israel across the northern border. and i think the way that is often construed in usb is these are hezbollah missiles but actually i believe that the proximally 80% of the missiles that across the board have been from israel at 11. so again israel engaging in most of the aggression here are israel killing as a mentioned the hamas leader in tehran or attacking the iranian consulate in damascus earlier this spring. . mr. thune: mr. president, before i begin, i just want to say how

grateful i am that president trump is safe after what appears to be a second attempt on his life in the space of two months. the trend this election cycle has taken toward violence is disturbing to say the least. and i hope that this weekend's events will prompt reflection on our political discourse and the importance of not letting our disagreements lead to dehumanization of our opponents. i'm grateful for all the law enforcement personnel who responded and helped prevent another tragedy. i look forward to seeing a thorough investigation. mr. president, perhaps the most important thing we do here in congress is to provide for our nation's defense. i said it before and i'll say it again. if we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. everything else we do in government and our very existence as a nation depends on

our getting security right. and national security, mr. president, is not a one and done kind of a situation. we can't rely on a one-time military buildup with the repetition we have -- reputation we've earned as a super power to gep our nation safe. technology changes. weapons change. and reputations, mr. president, even strong ones, eventually change if they're not backed up with substance. maintaining a robust national defense has to be a permanent focus year in and year out. there is no time in which we can afford to put national security on the back burner or underfund our nation's military. which brings me to where we are today. mr. president, july of this year, the commission on the national defense strategy

released its report. it had this to say, and i quote, the commission finds that the united states military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat. end quote. let me just repeat that, mr. president. the commission finds that the u.s. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and pe veil -- prevail in combat. another quote from the commission's report said this, and i quote again, the commission finds that in many ways china is outpacing the united states and is largely negated the u.s. military advantage in the western pacific through two decades of focused military investment. without significant change by the united states, the balance of power will continue to shift in china's favor. end quote.

mr. president, from the strategic posture commission report and again i quote, today the united states is on the cusp of having not one but two nuclear peer adversaries each with ambitions to change the international status quo by force if necessary, a situation which the united states did not anticipate or for which it is not prepared. end quote. let me again say that, mr. president. a situation which the united states did not anticipate and for which it is not prepared. in short, mr. president, we have work to do. we are not where we should be when it comes to our national defense. and while our preparedness lags, the world isn't getting any safer. if anything, it is getting more dangerous. over the course of the biden-harris administration, we've seen russia invade the sovereign nation of ukraine, china growing increasing will i aggressive in the pacific, a

brutal terrorist attack on israel that left more than a thousand dead, terrorists threatening shipping in the middle east, and the list literally goes on and on. this summer alone russia and chinese bombers for the first time sorted together 200 miles off the coast of alaska, an alarming display of the growing ties between those two nations. taiwan reported 305 air space violations by chinese aircraft in the month of june, the second highest monthly total on record. the chinese continue to swarm and even collide with ships from the philippines. and just two weeks ago, japan for the first time reported an incursion of a chinese aircraft into its air space. in the middle east u.s. military members have continued to combat terrorists on land and houthi attacks on u.s. ships and international shipping in the

red sea. hamas still holds upwards of a hundred hostages in gaza, including seven americans. iran has sent close-range ballistic missiles to russia presumably for use against the ukrainian people. a pakistani national with ties to iran was charged with plotting the assassination, i should say, of multiple u.s. politicians. and i could go on. given all this, mr. president, you would think the democratic leader in the senate would have made our yearly defense bills, the national defense authorization act and our defense appropriations bills which fund that act a priority. but you would be wrong. we are two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, and we haven't touched the national defense authorization act since it was passed by the committee

much less touched the defense appropriations bills. and it's not, mr. president, because we've been passing a bunch of other substantive pieces of legislation. aside from the kids online safety and privacy act, we basically spent the entire summer confirming biden nominees and taking show votes selected by the democrat leader. and as a result, the fiscal year will close and the new one begin without a defense authorizing bill and without defense appropriations bills. instead, our military will have to continue operating under inadequate 2024 funding levels. existing modernization projects will be delayed, and urgent new programs will be put off. and i haven't even talked about the message these delays send to our enemies. anyone who thinks that our enemies aren't emboldened by this careless attitude toward

our national security needs to think again. and for that matter, mr. president, what message do these delays send to our alives? i recently return -- allies. i recently returned from a trip to south korea led by senator hagerty to build relationships and enhance trilateral cooperation. we stressed the imperative of investing in our mutual defense cooperation, a message that will be undercut by our putting defense legislation on the back burner. likewise our message to allies and partners around the world that they should take more seriously their own defense investments will be juxtaposed against our own inaction. mr. president, needless to say, it didn't have to be this way. if the democrat leader had been more interested in meeting congress' basic responsibilities than in conducting show votes he hopes may win democrats a few votes in november, we could have

already passed not only the national defense authorization act but the defense appropriations bill that funds that act as well. as it is, thanks to the decisions of the democrat leader, our military will have to wait, at least until after the election. meanwhile, our adversaries' efforts continue. mr. president, this isn't the first time in the biden-harris administration the democrats have chosen to put our national defense on the back burner. and while we don't know what the senate or the presidency will look like next year, i hope, i sincerely hope that we will have leaders that take our national security a little more seriously. because i suspect that if we don't, we will have cause, great cause to regret it. mr. president, i yield the floor

and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> mr. president, there is perhaps no personal decision one can make than the decision of whether or not to start a family. for many people starting a family is the greatest joy there is. it makes everything else secondary. yet, for millions and millions of people, infertility can be a nightmare and the source of pain. thankfully, we live in a time when thanks to treatments like ivf infertility is not the end of the story. sadly, access to ivf can no longer be taken for granted.

from the moment the maggot supreme court eliminated roe v. wade the hard right made clear that they would keep going there as his earlier this year in alabama, i've yet has become the next target of ultraconservatives, and access to this incredible treatment is more vulnerable than ever. today, the senate will hold a simple and pivotal vote on whether or not to take up once again the right to ivf act. i think senator duckworth as well is murray and booker and all the others have championed this bill for months. they are great leaders on this issue. if the senate votes known today and strikes ivf protections down yet again, it will be further proof that project 2025 is alive and well. ..

outcome of today's idea very by all accounts there's every reason in the world for senators to vote yes. today's food is a motion to be considered and whether or not it's worth the taking. democrats think it is. we democrats extend an open invitation to our republican colleagues to join us. they are the party that stands up for families.

about as profamily as it gets. it says access to idea the basic fight for all and make sure insurance companies ivf treatment. the last is key -- expanding insurance average is something the vast majority of americans support. a survey from last month showed even a majority of republicans supported. nevertheless, three months ago senate republican voted against protecting ivf in this chamber. astounding to watch with a straight face. of course they support ivf. not enough to vote to protect it. it makes no sense. republicans can't just talk their way ultimately matters is

how they vote on the issue. my republican colleagues today get a second chance stand with project due 25 reproductive freedoms stand. if for publicans truly care about helping families, they should focus to protect ivf. a product 2025 conservative agenda, they should vote yes protect ivf it on the other hand, senator publicans vote no today to prove that product 2025 is alive and well ask for publicans to join us on the time of crisis and we need pushback.

twenty-two states have of course passed abortion restriction, 14 essentially and one in three have lost access to reproductive care and many drive hundreds of miles to get the care they need. doctors fear they will be jailed this week america tragically learned first confirmed case in a young woman from georgia, a 28-year-old mother of x-year-old. she had to travel out of state to get reproductive care and

when she needed emergency surgery after rare complication, doctors delayed getting her the care she needed because of the new restriction order placed because of restrictions on the books. by the time she went into surgery, it was too late and tragically passed away. she only on care sooner. worst of all, there are undoubtedly more cases like hers. these are terrible deadly consequences. the tragedy in georgia because of abortion vance so dangerous. that the restrictions to reproductive care, monitoring women's pregnancies, laying the groundwork for national abortion man including ivf at risk.

the choice is yours. americans are watching families. families back home are watching. republicans cannot say they are profamily will vote against protecting ivf. they cannot say they reject project 2025, that's what. and keep the government open on a september 30 deadline, 13 days away. the only way we can prevent the harmful shutdown is filled sides working together to reach a bipartisan agreement. that is the only way. speaker johnson reportedly going to overflow tomorrow but the only thing that will publish is

made clear he's running into a dead-end. we must have a bipartisan plan instead. i am heartened about one thing speaker johnson is doing. topline funding levels of 2024. in not pushing across the board for the american people. i hope it's a sign the speaker realized the spending levels mostly part of any solution moving forward but beyond that speaker yard is to unworkable and urge him to drop his plan to work together a bipartisan agreement with the other

leaders. it you do not have time to spare. >> i need to begin this morning. late last night sheriff's deputies killed in the line of duty. a sober reminder of the law enforcement officials, the first to run toward fire and the first to put themselves in harm's way. today i know the entire woman will our thoughts and prayers.

free speech is animated in my entire career during the senate. from second to no one in my defense it was alarming to. vindicated against centrist government officials. i know this from experience.

the thing that and dice campaign signed into law about president bush to the supreme court but where people go when the words decide to behave like any other branch of government only put other interests forward in the first amendment taken ask a question, it is troubling. the public was those their

donors in certain standing defense against the first amendment is abundantly clear as it was explained. the court only tolerate an actual candidate to ensure election integrity. wants to have free speech. it is shocking.

the supreme court is scrapped and unconstitutional. it is the conduct committee from seeking bootable employment. the federal judges from joining the non- artisan federalist society and allowing him to join the american bar association. unpopular from the judges of all stripes from law firms

litigators in the government without a job. they include and risk the political activity which could compromise the independence of the judiciary. and national disability employment in terms of first amendment on its head. the bed all rights to preserve

to elect mcgrath's get a quick

employment there not the national committee. these are without. wait, there's more. it is based on the bulging halls or. that's right. they refer to private citizens for impeachment without the allegations against him on the judge. whether or not you can and informal official.

they ended up went about another one in the formal officials. for what? senators have already said he this is constitutional law and is all but impossible. it is under increasing attack for democrats who want to destroy it is an independent branch of government and desperate to appear a political and taking affirmative steps.

it would need the disclosure. it would be one thing if it's virtue signaling we are talking about behavior with constitutional provision including first amendment rights so my advice is this -- the way to get avoid politics and on another matter, i'd like to add on something and it's good news in the number of young people of cigarettes dropped the lowest in a decade. the cigarette use is now roughly

one third and it was just five years ago downward trend originated here in the senate. in 2019, the cigarette use mess with my good friend senator mccain from virginia. the bipartisan bill to purchase tobacco products cigarette devices only one. roughly 95% started by the age of. winds up in high school and

opportunity to get their hands on the devices. the close connection but kentucky farmers don't want this anymore. and the first step serious health problems.

i'm proud the senate stepped up to address this public health crisis and grateful to see this legislation is actually making a difference.

the way that our critical ways have been defied reprehensible violence. is there any lesson from the u.s. house of in this moment as we reflect on what happened days ago about this election cycle? >> is true whole thing was to test the proposition in the first federalist that if i and the founders recognized any of them fell to violence or

demagoguery maintain. and the public the principles of the declaration. >> a record and not satisfied in the 80s and 90s. and added to the list. >> the question of trust in government has divided people at the founding and in between the

elections power to achieve the strong economy and always use liberty and power so the fact that people are not sure at any time since the civil war according to scholars. so it's important to get together the constructive exchange of use especially at times to rally around the constitution.

the constitution back in the 80s and 90s when the numbers were higher in the less of an understanding and asking the question on constitution day. >> happy constitution day number 17, still looking forward to an amazing day of celebrations of the national constitutional center it's great to start the day. and there are lots of reasons for that.

it was urgently important for they learn about the constitution and the principles of liberty and the habits of deliberation. the republic and civic education. >> is conversation on constitution day. : from republicans (202)748-8001. will they find at the national

constitution center today? the naturalization federal the privilege do, there's nothing more inspired part of that. justice breyer and he will be here for townhall at 1115 or so and answer their questions. at 1:00 have of course was the academy. khan academy's first invention

the constitutional dollars in his eyes from all perspectives. check out. in education. justice courses will be back and he talks about his new book and have a great conversation. check out and let the learning begin. >> go for all of it. a girl and join us throughout

the next 35 minutes phone calls on constitution. the head this diverse perspective.

>> interestingly, both proposals were included. and agreed to come to that. and shared with the president does. >> i hope you. >> first term limits and second making amendment a little bit and impeachment a little in the

house. >> the legislative veto before the court struck down an executive action and our team could resurrect that. abortion or religion from a they are the structures of government. want to amend or manage the structures of government and none of the tears but we should break up with the constitution or it was failing.

and with the process in the last amendment that was recognized was the 27th amendment in the early 90s that could be proposed as the original bill rights. and it teaches about the idea that outlandish in the national movement. it is an amazing story of the

request of two thirds of the state and has to be ratified by three quarters legislators a constitutional convention. and the book fair last and as a result of your talk, i read your book the pursuit of happyness the moral philosophers greek and roman times and i've been going through the boxes suggested and having a great time. we,

the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 778, mary kathleen costello of pennsylvania to be united states district judge of the eastern district of pennsylvania signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of mary kathleen costello of pennsylvania to be united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania be braupt to a close -- brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. the clerk: mr. graham. mr. grassley.

mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. helmy. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson.

mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey.

mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff.

mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. the clerk: ms. smith ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan.

mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen.

the clerk: mrp vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

senators voting in the affirmative -- casey, gillibrand, klobuchar, merkley, padilla, schumer. senators voting in the negative -- braun, britt, cornyn, cotton, hoeven, johnson, lankford, risch, schmitt. mr. tuberville, no.

mr. thune, no. mr. cane, aye. -- mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mr. gra-- mr. grassley, no. mr. daines, no. mr. brown, aye. mr. hagerty, no.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no.

the clerk: mr. schatz, aye. mr. kennedy, no.

mr. paul, no. mr. heinrich, aye. the clerk: mr. warner, aye.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. mr. carper, aye. mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. ricketts, no. the clerk: mr. sanders, aye.

ms. duckworth, aye. mr. kelly, aye. mr. cassidy, no. mr. warnock, aye. mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye.

the clerk: ms. hassan, aye. ms. smith, aye. mr. young, no. vote:

the clerk: ms. capito, no. the clerk: mr. tester, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye.

mr. welch, aye. ms. sinema, aye. the clerk: mr. booker, aye. mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. helmy, aye.

the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. wyden, aye. ms. hirono, aye. mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, aye. mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye.

ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. markey, aye. mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. moran, no. the clerk: mr. barasso, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no.

mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. shaheen, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. mrs. fischer, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye. mr. graham, aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. budd, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

vote: the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

ms. lummis, no. the clerk: ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye. the presiding officer: the vote is 54 yeas, 42 nays. the motion is agreed to.

under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15. under the previous order, the >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by the television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best providers and we're just getting started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span is a public