tv U.S. Senate Debates Judicial Nomination CSPAN May 25, 2017 4:29pm-5:25pm EDT
i asked her a question. i said, i was a feeling, once i leave tow town, you're going toe up with an endangerment finding. she kind of smiled. so i knew it was true. i said, if you come up with an endangerment finding it has to be based on science. now, what science would you rely on? see said, well, on the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. and she -- and -- now, as -- i wouldn't say as luck would have it, but it's kind of coincidental. right after that statement is when the big scandal that was referred to as climategate came along. it was -- they discovered that the scientists that were with ipcc were not getting the results this that he wants, so they rigged the science. and they were caught doing it with e-mails. so that there wasn't any question as to what they were trying to do. that totally defused the
legitimacy of the ipcc. christopher booker of the "u.k." tellly graph said this is the worst scandal of our generation. that science -- that's where it all came from was the ipcc. crif the financial times said, this is a quote, the closed mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any length to defend a preconceived message is surprising to me. the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. i assumed at that time that would end them as providing the science and justification for passing what would have been the largest tax increase in the history of this country. so anyway, back to the issue here. several of us feel to avoid all this from happening, the best way to do it is have this president when he gets back from his trip do what he campaigned on and pull out of the paris agreement. and i anticipate that he will do
that. with that i -- i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: mr. president, this weekend will mark the beginning of the memorial day remembrances that we do every year. mr. blunt: memorial day of course on monday but many activities will begin even today and tomorrow to honor those who have died in the defense of our country. these men and women had families. they had dreams for the future. they had their whole lives ahead of them, but they did something extraordinary. i remember, mr. president, a few years ago i had the opportunity to be at the american cemetery at normandy. at the end of the guide -- the tour of that cemetery, the guide had us set down over on a ledge with the english channel to our back, and those 8,000 graves in front of us that we had just
looked at and talked about the sacrifices made. and then he flipped open his computer and at that exact same spot on the 20th anniversary of d-day, general eisenhower, former president eisenhower in 11964 was talking to walter cronkite and he said to walter cronkite, you know, walter, my son john graduated on d-day, graduated from west point on d-day. and over the last 20 years i've watched he and his wife raise their family and have the experiences they've had and he said many times i thought about these young men and the life they didn't get to lead because of what they were asked to do. and particularly to have the person sitting there 20 years later who ultimately was the person who asked them to do what they were asked to do and to understand that that's the kind of decision he thought about.
it's the kind of sacrifice we should think about as we think about those who didn't get to pursue their dreams, didn't get to see the family they had grow up or have the family they would have liked to have had because they lay down their lives so that we could take care of our families, so that we could realize our dreams, so we could enjoy the freedoms that our nation is truly blessed with and make us truly extraordinary in our belief and our defense of freedom not only for ourselves but for people everywhere. we are grateful for all these people have done. and this is a time of year when we particularly set aside to honor those fallen heroes, the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen, the marines, the people in the national guard and the coast guard and the reserve called up and losing their life
in that cause. i would also -- it's a good time for us to remember those who served who were willing to make that sacrifice if necessary and often have their own burdens they carry from their service, but maybe that burden was just simply losing those years when others were already at a civilian job that they would only be able to go to later. you know, i'm honored, mr. president, to represent nearly 500,000 missouri veterans. and as a member of the bipartisan veterans congressional -- congressional veterans job caucus, i'm committed to helping our veterans find good-paying jobs as civilians. we took an important step in that direction recently when president trump signed the honoring investment and recruiting and employing veterans act, or the hire vets act. i believe, mr. president, it may
be the first bill the senate passed. i was pleased to be the principal sponsor of that bill and it was the underlying bill on the continuing resolution that funded the government on april 17. and so it became law. it addresses the fact that transferring from military to civilian life represents a number of challenges. it represents challenges for our service members and it can be a difficult personal decision to make that transfer, but it's also difficult to navigate the civilian employment market, to find out who is recognizing the skills and the lessons learned by veterans and who may not be quite at the forefront of that. so the hire vets act helps facilitate that transition by providing veterans more information on employers that offer benefits and opportunities geared toward hiring veterans.
now, many employees say they're veteran friendly and many employers rather say they're veteran friendly and many employers are veteran friendly, but there's really been no standard that anyone could look at to determine whether that was true or not, no standard for what employers aspire to do at their workplace or no standard that future veterans employees can seek out. mr. president, there's a leads standard on energy efficiency. and if you have that standard on your building or at your workplace, people know exactly what that means. this bill asks the department of labor to establish a similar kind of standard for those that are the best and those that are nearly as good and those that are almost as good as them to see what people are doing.
a tiered recognition of employers to see what they're doing to welcome, encourage, recognize, promote veterans. some of the criteria that could go in that evaluation would include the percentage of new hires at your company, the veterans. the percentage of the overall work force that's made up of veterans. what type of training and leadership activities are made available that are designed to maximize what a veteran uniquely has learned as a veteran, and what other benefits and resources are offered, things like tuition remission, things that encourage veterans to go ahead and get one other category of training or more. creating a national standard will help veterans narrow down their employment option and focus their job search efforts on the companies that recognize the value of their military service and what that value will bring to their new workplace.
also companies that will provide a long-term career path where those skills are used and appreciated. and so this is a step in the right direction. i've talked to the secretary of labor just this week who said that they intend to have this plan up and running by the end of this year, quicker than they were required to do but certainly not quicker than we hoped they would be able to do. so this is going to be a priority at the secretary of labor's office, as veterans should be a priority for our society. you know, today we have the most powerful military in the world, but we really need to recognize and i think do recognize that behind that military stands supportive families. families are the backbone of the military today. they provide the kind of support that service members need.
they provide the encouragement for the difficult challenges of going from one post to another and one job to another. and i think there are ways we can recognize those families and what they do in a better way. so i was able this year again to introduce the military families stability act. military families have changed over the years. our military stays in service longer. the skill levels they've awared are more valuable -- acquired are more valuable than the case in the past as the military gets more technical, having invested the time and training in someone in service is a more significant investment than it may have been at another time. our policies that affect military families haven't kept pace with our investment in people who are serving. according to a study by the
military officers association of america, 90% of military spouses who are women are either unemployed or underemployed. 90%. more than half of those people cite concerns about their spouse's service as a deterrent to their prospective employers. have to leave quickly without notice. don't get the ability to transfer from one state to another their training or licensing that's happened in the state they were living in. too often military spouses have to end up sacrificing their own career and i think in any case we'd understand there is some sacrifice here when you're moving from place to place. but there doesn't need to be a needless sacrifice. and so the military families stability act would allow families to address a problem. i consistently hear from military spouses and people in
the military serving, talking about the challenges that their spouses face in missouri and across the nation. an ill-time move that takes a child needlessly out of school a month early or makes a child start a school year a month late or prevents a husband or wife from being able to commit to a nine-month teaching contract or start a graduate program on time because the move that they had anticipated happening is delayed. i've had people come and testify on exactly those two specific things and others that made a big difference in their family and their families' enthusiasm about the service that they were jointly giving to the country. for many families if you make that move early, the family has to absorb the move. i think there's a better way to do this.
i think we can increase stability of military families. this bill, mr. president, enables the service member or family to either move early or remain at their current duty station for up to six months while the spouse or the serving parent begins a new assignment. now, for that to happen, the spouse moving early to the new assignment, the service member moving early or staying a little bit later has to absorb their single service person expenses for staying, but the much more significant expenses of the family goes at a reasonable time when it's better for the family to go. i'm proud that this bill has garnered widespread support from numerous military family and veteran service organizations, including the national military family association, the military officers association of america, and others. i'm also pleased that at this
moment as we've reintroduced the bill, senator gillibrand and i, that secretary mattis, former marine, decorated general, one of our most distinguished officers who has seen the impact on families as he served, staff members at the department of defense, senator mccain, the chairman of the armed services committee and his staff have been working with us to iron out the details on a bill that they all support and agree will help our military men and women and their families. and so, mr. president, the hire vets act and the military families stability act are bipartisan. they're common sense measures that really get us closer to our goal of ensuring we provide the support for service members and veterans who have defended us. we'll also continue our oversight on the veterans administration to ensure that
those who serve receive more choices, their health care benefits, and other benefits that they've earned are benefits that they will receive. mr. president, there's really no reason they can't receive many of those benefits where they would prefer to go as opposed to where the government has previously thought were the only options. veterans' choice is important. they chose to serve. we can now give them more choice than we have in the past to decide what works again for them and their families. and so as we approach memorial day, i know that all the members of the senate are appreciative of those who serve, the families who serve alongside them, and look forward to not only honoring veterans between now and next monday but between next monday and a year from next monday continuing to do those things we can to be sure that those who serve and those who have served are fully appreciated for their service.
bipartisanship in the senate this week, somewhat amazingly and i think it should be celebrated because democrats and republicans agree that the administration's new budget is a complete disaster. it has fallen with a bipartisan thud here in our chamber. i think there's a reason for that. throughout the campaign and now as president, president trump has made a lot of promises. he's promised a balanced budget. he's promised no cuts to social security, medicare, or medicaid. he's promised the best health care for everyone at the lowest cost. he's promised massive new tax cuts. he promised a great wall paid for by mexico. skeptics, including myself, have awaited this budget to see the
hard choices, the details, and the math that could make sense of these promises. and after all those words -- and there were a lot of them -- and all of those promises, we now have a budget, mr. president, and it makes no sense. let's walk through a few of the numbers. every year our country collects, on average, about 18% of our gross domestic product in taxes, the equivalent of about 18% of our gross domestic product in taxes. every year we spend just over 21% of the gdp. that gap is why our national debt continues to grow. instead of closing the gap where you have spending here -- there's a fancy chart that i brought to the floor, mr. president -- spending here and revenue here, instead of closing that gap, the
president's budget proposes further tax cuts that brings down the gross domestic product and cuts defense spending while promising to cut the budget. president trump sent the secretary treasury to congress to tell how it all adds up. he couldn't do it. he couldn't do it. the only way the math in this budget works is by just assuming magically that our economy will grow fast ter than any serious economy -- faster than any serious economist predicts and as a result of that outsized growth that the government would take in an extra $2 trillion in taxes. that's the plan. that's a $2 trillion assumption about the finances of our country and the potential burden on the next generation of
americans, some of whom are sitting here with us today. but even if you accept that math, which i don't -- even if you accept that math, we have another problem, which is that the administration's budget also proposes massive tax cuts that he claims will not add to our debt because of the same $2 trillion in new tax revenue, as has been pointed out, that is double counting, plain and simple. the kind that would cause any freshman in college in america to fail his or her accounting exam. this would be like depositing the same paycheck at two different banks and claiming that your salary had doubled and then increasing spending on groceries and travel, housing, and everything else as if it were actually true that your income had doubled.
you'd go broke, and that's what's going to happen around here. it's no wonder that a republican congressman said this budget was like building a house on what he called a sandy foundation. the administration's only hope of getting this through, i think -- including -- is that americans, including some of the president's strongest supporters, ignore the math and ignore the fact that his proposal actually grows our national debt, cuts social security, cuts medicaid, and savages countless programs that protect vulnerable americans and invest in our future. and on medicaid in particular, a lot of us are scratching our heads that the math alone, the real-world pain that would result should this proposal become law.
the health care bill, which passed on the floor of the house -- and i said about that bill even if i think about the town hall meetings that i had in colorado where people object most strenuously and strongly to what is called obamacare or the affordable care act -- if you set out to design a bill that was less responsive to the people in my town halls that oppose obamacare, you set out to draft a bill less responsive, you couldn't do a better job than they did in the house of representatives. and i thank the presiding officer for his work on health care because i can actually recognize the concerns of my constituents in his fine work as opposed to what we've seen on the house. and one of the things that was so disturbing about that bill was that they're slashing
medicaid by around $830 billion. that's 20% of the medicaid program. it's cut in that house budget. this new budget would gut the program by another $600 billion. combined that would cut medicaid nearly in half by 2026. in half. that means millions more americans -- and this is why the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, told us that 23 million americans would lose their health insurance as a result of the bill because it would mean that the minute all this happened, people would struggle to get quality health care services. in addition to the 23 million that are going to lose it because of the plan that the republican majority passed in the house. in my home state, and i don't think it's different from a lot of places in this regard, in colorado half the people on medicaid are kids.
are they supposed to go to work? or do we want them in school and have the benefit of health care programs. do we expect seniors and lon long-term -- in long-term care go back to work? there are millions living in nursing homes who have spent their entire life savings now for the privilege of being in long-term care nursing home paid for by medicaid. what are they supposed to do? are we going to empty out the nursing homes in the united states? i think to some extent or another -- i always get in trouble with my staff every time i say this but here i'm going to say it again. think to a degree, mr. president, every one of us in this senate is a conservative to some degree if conservative means to protect the institutions of our government,
think carefully before we leap. there's nothing conservative about this proposal on medicaid. it is a radical proposal, 20% medicaid cut. we haven't seen anything like that in our history. and what's amazing about this budget is not just that the math doesn't add up but its targets are shockingly clear. rural communities, vulnerable americans, vital investments in our future. this budget slams communities that are already hurting in our economy. farmers would face a 21% cut to the department of agriculture meaning less help to fight erosion, protect water quality and improve irrigation. the budget eliminates the tiger grant program entirely that builds roads, bridges, and train stations all across the country. it cuts the maintenance budget
for the u.s. forest service by over 70% making it harder to maintain the trails and facilities that support rural outdoor economies. i invite anybody here, i would welcome anybody to come visit colorado. that's not a hardship. it's a beautiful place. but see the condition that our national forests are in and the work that needs to be done and the conditions under which employees of the forest service are being asked to do their job. it's not right. it's not fair. this budget eliminates essential air service which helps connect our most remote areas. it is -- besides water it is the most important life blood of our rural communities. and it cuts assistance to state and volunteer fire departments exposing our mountain towns to even greater risk. this is a horrible budget for rural america, horrible.
this budget also turns its back on families that are struggling the most. it eliminates support to heat low income homes through the winter. that's the reason why democrats and republicans don't support this budget. it cuts safety inspections for coal miners while devastating support to fight pollution and clean up toxic sites that disproportionately harm poor communities. it cuts assistance to the homeless and community development block grants, that promote economic development in low income areas. it slashes food stamps by 25%. it's like the grinch himself wrote this budget. nearly half of those who benefit from that program again are children, poor children. this budget not only ignores our
duty to ensure that kids and poverty don't go hungry, it also fails to invest in their future. this budget cuts education funding by $9 billion. it slashes after school and summer programs for low-income children. it cuts funds to help teachers become better teachers. it cuts programs to help students work their way through college. there's not anybody in america that thinks that it's right that we're brumenting families -- we're bankrupting families and students because of the high cost of college, something that their parents and grandparents didn't have to endower because of choices -- endowerred because -- endured because of choices we made. who in their right mind think it's right to cut work study programs, but that's in the budget. it takes aim at our next generation. budget targets next generation research and technology that we need to compete in the 21st
century. it slashes funds to the national science foundation. you want a reason why republicans and democrats don't support this budget? why we have bipartisan opposition for it? because it cuts the n.i.h., the national institutes of health, by $8 billion, even though it's -- its research supported over 35,000 jobs and economic activity just last year. it cuts research for low-cost clean energy, even though experts predict nearly $8 trillion of global investment and renewable energy over the next 25 years. it devastates the department of energy loan program that spurs private investment and pays for itself. believe me, i've worked at every level of government. i've been in the private sector, too. and i know that there is waste in every level of government. there's waste in the federal government. there are programs that make no
sense. there are decisions that we make that make no sense. and we need to strive every day to become better stewards of taxpayer dollars. i don't think we do a good enough job in this place of oversight of how taxpayer dollars are being used. but this budget does not target waste. this budget doesn't target fraud and abuse. it targets who we are as a nation and what we hope for for the next generation. in these times the american dream is not something that we can take for granted. it is the product of choices that ar our forebearers have mae and choices we make, choices to invest in the future to look out for one another and ensure that all americans have opportunities to make the most of their god-given potential. budgets are more than just dollars and cents. they answer important questions
about our vision for the future and our values as americans. in that sense it's worth considering how this budget would affect the everyday life of americans, of the people that come to our town halls or the people who are too busy working, trying to provide for their family to come to our town halls. if this budget were to pass, a working mom might lose health care for herself and have to worry that her aging mother might not be far behind. she might have to cut back hours at work to pick up her kid whose after-school program was just canceled. driving home she'll wonder whether her child's week-long cough has anything to do with the air he's breathing or the water he's drinking, whether dinner is the last groceries of the month. these are the choices our constituents are going to face and that's not the future that we want. it's not an america we would
choose for our kids. i'm wrapping up here, mr. president. i know my colleague is here from louisiana. the most expensive thing for us to do is to give up on working people, our kids and urban, rural communities too often forgotten by people in washington. and that, i'm afraid, is what this budget does. it gives up. -- real solutions and our basic commitment to each other as fellow citizens bound by a common destiny. this doesn't meet the test. so i look forward to working with republicans and democrats together to write a budget that actually reflects the will of the american people. i look forward to working with the presiding officer and my colleague again from louisiana who's doing such good work on health care. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president,
thank you. thank you for the kind words from my colleague from colorado. mr. president, i rise to speak about our republican effort to repeal and replace the affordable care act. now, i always kind of chuckle when i say the affordable care act. i have a person back home whose quote was $4,000 for one year. that's the awn i forwardable care act. a friend from san francisco whose policy was $20,000 with a $6,000 deductible. i think her husband voted for bernie sanders. she said the heck with this i cannot afford it. and an insurance consultant in washington, d.c. if anyone could get a good deal, the insurance consultant should be able to, and he says, you know, my family premium is $24,000 a year with a family deductible of $13,000. we will pay $37,000 before we receive benefit from our insurance policy.
this is unsustainable, mr. president. now, that said, president trump saw that during the campaign. and he said over and over again, kind of his four pledges, if you will. he wished to maintain coverage, lowering premiums, getting rid of those mandates that americans hate in obamacare, and caring for those with preexisting conditions. this is what he said over and over. it's a great pledge. he actually said something as well, mr. president. he said he wanted to make health care easy. now, we have an approach to do this called -- some people call it auto enrollment. i call it making it easy. and by this way we can increase coverage, achieve the goals of president trump to lower the premiums. we are using something which is already used in medicare and 401(k) plans and again we make it easy to enroll. so let me just elaborate on this. now, if -- people argue we have
to have a mandate because without a mandate, people will lose coverage and if people lose coverage, only the sick enroll and health care expense increases. but i think the senate actually has an opportunity to do something easy. do something better. we can make it easy. under this we can imagine that someone who is eligible to be enrolled in our program is unless they call us up and say they don't want to be. this is what we do in medicare, mr. president. when we, when i, when you, when any of us turn 65, we're automatically enrolled in medicare. i turned 65, on medicare. not a mandate. i can call them up and say i don't want to you never heard anybody complain about it. it's just called making it easy. similarly, when a fortune 500 company puts in a 401(k) plan, they have learned that if they ask somebody to sign all the forms and you can opt into their 401(k) retirement plan, they get
about 65% participation. but if they say you're in unless you call us up and tell us you don't want to be, if they make it totally easy, they get 95% participation in that 401(k) program. so we know both from medicare and from business that if you make enrollment easy, you have 95% participation. now, that is so good in the setting of this because if we have all those who are eligible to join obamacare replace plan enrolled, we make that insurance pool large. we call it a pool for a reason. if you pour a cup of water in an ocean, it does nothing to the level of the ocean. similarly, if you have one person who's ill in a big pool of otherwise healthy people, it doesn't nothing to the expense because the expense of that one person's illness is spread over many. so, mr. president, by making
enrollment easy, fulfilling president trump's pledge, you can just like the ocean with one cup of water, that one person who's sick, expense spread out over many, the impact upon any one person's premium is nil. by let me just say coverage is important. if we pretend that people having coverage is important, it's not true. there are many conversations i had where someone who was poorly insured or uninsured might need some critical medicine or critical procedure and we had to work, scramble and do everything we could to get her the coverage she needed to have a lifesaving procedure. rich lowery had a column saying that the worst argument for
replacing the affordable care act is that coverage is not important. coverage is important. if we go on this kind of concept, make health care easy, you're in unless you are out, stuart butler, and others, have all spoken of using this concept. ni na at the heritage foundation wrote of senator mccain's presidential plan in 2008 that it would be accompanied by a system of automatic enrollment in health insurance either at the workplace, and then they go on. but they were praising presidential candidate, but now senator john mccain's employment of let's make it easy to enroll. by the way, president trump kind of emphasized this. just before he was inaugurated on january 15 he gave an interview to "the washington post". he's talking about his proposed health care law. we mentioned the components that
he said are in it. caring for those for preexisting conditions, getting rid of the mandates, lowering premiums, but he added this -- people under the law can expect to have great health care. it will be in a much simplified form. much less expensive and much better. under obamacare you have 16 pages, you have to fill it out with your w-2's to find out if you're eligible. the patients that i saw where a median income may have been $16,000, people lived in public housing and took public transportation to the public labor in order to log on because they didn't have a home computer because they didn't have an internet, that's not simple. we make it easy. let me emphasize one more time -- if we can get that bigger pool of people, premiums
fall. so for my family member in san francisco who can't afford that premium, get that pool bigger, premiums fall. for the insurance consultant here or my friends in louisiana, if we can make that pool bigger by making enrollment easier, their premiums will fall. i call myself, mr. president, a kitchen ern table conservative -- catchen table conservative. all those families who voted for trump and sit down at their kitchen table and are struggling with their car note, house note, they've given up sending their kids to a private school, they are doing whatever they can to make ends meet and under the affordable care act they are required to pay so much. when they heard president trump say he would lower their premiums, they saw that as a lifeline for their family budget and their vote for president trump was a cry for help. help us with insurance premiums we cannot afford.
now, mr. president, as a kitchen table conservative myself, to those families who voted for republican candidates over the last several elections but who absolutely know they need help with their health insurance, we have a solution for them. but let me pause for a second. you don't have to be a conservative to care for the solution. in fact, people on the left have endorsed this concept as well. so i'll end by saying this -- as we come up with a replacement plan for the affordable care act, it won't be a republican solution, it won't be a democratic solution. at its best it will be an american solution -- an american solution for that family at the kitchen table struggling to pay their premiums who can't do so now but know they need their coverage. if we can cover all those, eliminating mandates by making enrollment easy we will have done our job. mr. president, thank you, and i
yield back. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of following senate resolutions submitted earlier today. s. res. 181, 182, and 183. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar no. 25, s. 110. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar no. 25,
s. 110, a bill to require the secretary of commerce, acting through the administrator of noaa to establish a constituent-driven program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate -- the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 917 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 917, a bill to amend title 36, united states code to designate may 12 as -- may 1 as silver star banner day. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and government affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 657 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 657, an act to amend title 5 of the united states code to extend certain protections against certain personnel practices and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to -- to then convene pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and following each pro forma session the senate adjourn until the next pro ferma, friday may 26 at
8:45, tuesday may 10, 7:00 a.m., friday, june 2 at 9:00 a.m. when the senate adjourns on fry, it next -- friday, it next convene on monday, june ten, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks the senate proceed to calendar no. is is07 -- 107, s. res. 136 as under the previous order. mr. president, i'm told i said tuesday, may ten, i meant to say tuesday may 30 at 7:00 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there have no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until