Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I share my colleague's focus on making sure we never have shortfalls that deny our veterans the care and benefits they were promised. And we are going to vote in just a bit on a VA supplemental package to make sure the VA has the resources it needs. And it even includes reporting requirements similar to what is proposed here. As we implement laws like the PACT Act, which makes worthwhile expansions of our veterans' care, there is going to be some growing pains. That is frustrating, but it is not unheard of. The important thing--and I think we all agree here--is meeting those needs and keeping our word to our veterans and their families, and I would say, as a daughter of a veteran, I take that responsibility very seriously. Now, while I am not convinced all of the elements of this proposal are the most effective way to work with VA on these issues right now, I do sincerely appreciate where my colleague is coming from and I am willing to work with him on this. So I look forward to continuing this conversation and working in a bipartisan way to make sure the VA is working for our veterans. But right now, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, you know, when it comes to supporting our veterans, the bottom line is, we have to live up to our word and get the benefits and care they were promised. I am pleased to say we have a long bipartisan history of coming together and putting our veterans first. That is what the bill before us is about. But this amendment would jeopardize all of that by making partisan cuts to unrelated programs. Our veterans should not be used as partisan leverage, simple as that. Now, I fully outright oppose this amendment on the merits. But even for colleagues who may feel differently, I would urge you to join me in voting against this amendment because we should all agree that veterans are not fair game for partisan poison pills. Our promise to our veterans and their families is a sacred responsibility we have to live up to, not political leverage. I urge all of my colleagues who feel the same to join me in voting no.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today, thanks to the PACT Act, more veterans are getting access to more benefits than ever before. But we need to provide additional funding to make sure we keep our promise to all of our veterans, which is why we now have a bill to provide $2.9 billion in additional funding for the Veterans Benefits Administration to pay compensation and pension and readjustment benefits. This is funding that goes directly to our veterans and that they have been promised. But without this bill, in less than 2 weeks' time, the VA will be unable to issue payments to as many as 7 million veterans and their survivors and 800,000 veterans seeking readjustment benefits. Our veterans were there for us. We have to be there for them. Congress has a responsibility to ensure these veterans and their family members and survivors receive the benefits they have earned on time. It is as simple as that. I hope every single one of my colleagues will join me in standing with our veterans and vote to get this done. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. MURRAY. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 288 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cardin substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered to be read a third time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 493, S. 4698.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Peters substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered and made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4693, an act to provide the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 does not apply to certain reports required to be submitted by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other purposes, and the bill be referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Jenkins nomination, postcloture; further, that all postcloture time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m.; and, finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Lankford and McConnell.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Senate receives H.R. 9614 from the House of Representatives, the text of which is identical to S. 4539, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I really appreciate my colleagues wanting to move forward on our full-year funding bills. I share the absolute urgency that the Senator from Maine just talked about. This is critical work that must get done for the American people. I have to say, as the first order of business, I hope all four corners of Congress can quickly come together as soon as possible to hammer out a reasonable bipartisan CR. We have to keep the government open and avert a needless and disastrous CR. I want my colleagues to know I look forward to working with them on the other side in a strongly bipartisan fashion to pass all 12 of our full-year spending bills before the end of this year. Our committee has worked really hard to get bipartisan bills. We are ready. They are ready. It is frustrating to all us that we have worked so hard on this process. Whether it is funding for our military or VA or countless other essential services in our bill, from childcare to food safety inspection, I believe in the urgency of this. I appreciate my colleagues speaking out on this today. I assure them I will keep working with them and make sure the voice of the Senate is heard and we do the job and get it done.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Border Patrol has very serious needs that actually need funding; namely, new technology, and we should focus on how we get those done in a bipartisan way. We have limited resources. We know a border wall is ineffective and really has no impact in preventing the cartels from bringing fentanyl into our country. I, for one, would prefer we direct those resources toward stopping fentanyl from getting to our communities through our ports of entry along the southwest border. No one should forget there was a bipartisan proposal on border policy changes earlier this year, one that Senate Republicans strongly endorsed, one that was, frankly, probably more conservative than I would have preferred. But instead of voting to so much as take it up for consideration, Republicans decided then that instead they wanted to campaign on the border, as they are attempting to do with this proposal, because one man, Donald Trump, told them: Kill the bill. Trump told Senate Republicans he wanted to let a fire burn so he can campaign on the ashes, and Senate Republicans said, yes, Mr. Trump. I think that history tells us how serious the effort before us today is, but just like when I built the bipartisan border funding bill with my ranking member Senator Collins, I do look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on comprehensive immigration reform and serious solutions to the challenges we are facing at the border. The door is always open. Today, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have been perfectly clear about the glaring issue with this Republican bill. The cold, hard reality is this Republican bill does nothing to meaningfully protect IVF from the biggest threats from lawmakers and anti-abortion extremists all over this country. It would still allow States to regulate IVF out of existence. And this bill is silent on fetal personhood, which is the biggest threat to IVF. It is silent on whether States can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common, necessary part of the IVF process. Talk to the experts who provide this care. Talk to the families who are seeking it. And that question looms large in their mind. What are we supposed to do if our State says these embryos are living, breathing people? Do we have to do this process in another State? What is our legal risk here? That uncertainty is at the core of the chaos Republican bans have caused. The last time Republicans offered this hollow gesture of a bill, I asked the junior Senator from Texas point-blank: Do you support letting parents have unused embryos disposed of? And a funny thing actually happened: He said on the floor ``I will answer that question,'' but he never did. He spoke about what the laws in some of our States are, but he never actually said what he supported; he never said what he believes should be Federal law; he never mentioned that he once pledged to support a constitutional amendment to establish fetal personhood as the law of the land. So I ask all of my Republican colleagues once again: As a matter of national policy, should parents be allowed to dispose of unused embryos? If so, why is that key provision missing from your bill? Well, we all know why. If not, how can you look the American people in the eye and say you support IVF? It doesn't compute. Mr. President, I object.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we once again attempted to move forward on the Right to IVF Act, and Republicans once again stopped us. Now, let's remember a few things about how we actually got here, because it is infuriating. Republicans have tried to claim the right to IVF is not under attack, but it was Republicans' own votes that killed this bill, and it was the Republicans' own efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade and champion fetal personhood--which treats an embryo like a living, breathing, person--that caused the chaos and uncertainty around IVF access. That caused women in Alabama to have IVF appointments canceled earlier this year, jeopardizing women's hopes of growing their families and lighting on fire the thousands of dollars some of these patients spent ahead of treatment. And despite that hard lesson, to this day, there is still widespread Republican support for fetal personhood bills. To this day, in Republicans' own bills to supposedly protect IVF, they say nothing about fetal personhood and do nothing to make sure parents can dispose of unused embryos. Now, Democrats came forward with a bill that would actually protect IVF. Our bill, the Right to IVF Act, protects the right to IVF nationally, and it lowers the cost of IVF for families with stronger insurance requirements. It also includes my bill to make sure more veterans and servicemembers can access IVF services. And many of the same Republicans who have supported fetal personhood laws--the single greatest threat to IVF--are pretending this bill is unnecessary. Many of the same Republicans who are desperate to posture as pro-family and who constantly say they stand by our troops are saying: We can't afford to help more military families get IVF. Funny how they are always game to shovel more money at tax breaks for billionaires, though. But I digress. Mr. President, Republicans voted this bill down--again. They voted down protecting IVF--again. They voted down making IVF more affordable--again. They voted down helping servicemembers and veterans grow their families--again. And they did it fresh off another round of pretending to support IVF. They did it just as Donald Trump, the man who kicked all of this off, the man who proudly boasted that he ended Roe, is trying to say he is the leader on IVF. When Donald Trump says he is the leader on IVF, hear me on two things: First, he almost certainly doesn't understand what IVF is. Secondly, he doesn't understand what leadership is. You do not get credit for opposing a problem that you caused in the first place, especially when your party--the party you lead--won't let us solve it. The entire country just saw, plain as day, that Donald Trump is lying again and that nothing has changed for Republicans since they overturned Roe v. Wade. Nothing has changed for Republicans since the absolute heartbreaking chaos their extremism caused in Alabama. Nothing has changed for Republicans despite Trump's imaginary leadership on IVF and despite all the families who are calling for action. But Democrats are not going to stop pushing. And I have a message for my Republican colleagues who think they can talk about this issue, make big promises to desperate families--like Trump's promise to cover IVF treatment--and then fail to follow through. I would urge them to think again and tread lightly, because that promise may just be an empty sound bite to Donald Trump, but it is so personal to these families. It is personal to women who have been trying for years to start a family with no luck, women who, month after month, get their hopes up and face another heartbreak. The last thing these families need is a broken promise. The last thing their heart can bear is false hope. So don't you dare breathe another word about helping them get IVF when you are not willing to put up the votes and make it happen. Don't you dare talk about protecting their chance to grow their family when you are not willing to stand clear and strong against fetal personhood laws. Don't you dare raise your voice in more fake support when you won't lift a finger to actually help, because these families have been listening to your words. They saw how you voted today. And, Mr. President, they will not forget.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge the service of an extraordinary public servant who is retiring at the end of next week, Robert ``Bob'' Sunshine. Congress depends on the expertise and hard work of our valued staff and supporting agencies. After 48 years of exemplary service to the Congressional Budget Office, spanning virtually the entirety of the agency's existence, few staffers have done more to serve this institution and the American people than Bob Sunshine. As President pro tempore of the Senate, as well as the chair of the Appropriations Committee and former chair of the Budget Committee, I thank and commend Bob for his many decades of excellent public service to CBO and the Congress and wish him and his family all the best in his much-deserved retirement. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Bob for his dedication and service to us and the American people.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay one final tribute to Richard Steele, a close friend and devoted public servant to our environment who passed away recently. He left behind a loving family, many friends--and a legacy that will be remembered and appreciated by countless generations in the form of the Hanford Reach National Monument, which exists today in no small part due to his tireless advocacy. Rich dedicated decades of his life fighting to protect and preserve the Hanford Reach, and he brought to that fight--along with his many other talents--a true fisherman's patience and persistence. Year after year, decade after decade, he never let up when it came to pushing for Federal protections to ensure the waters he loved, and that he loved to share with others, would remain wild, free, and beautiful for years to come. One of his particular joys--and talents--was to bring locals, politicians, and dignitaries on his boat to tour the waters and to win them over to his cause. You see, Rich didn't just know how to fish for trout; he knew how to fish for support, and he knew a boat tour of the beautiful wilds of Washington State was pretty good bait. Once he had a live one on the line, reeling them in was always easy; he just let the river do its thing. As he told a reporter once, ``I always had an unfair advantage, how can you not want to protect this?'' Like so many others, I had the privilege of joining Rich on his boat, the Can Do II, for a tour of the mighty Columbia. The first time I floated down the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, I was captivated by the beautiful landscape, the fish and the wildlife, and the reminders of the vibrant Tribal culture that abounds along the Hanford Reach. As we floated along, we saw the reactors and discussed the role the Tri-Cities played in helping America win World War II, including my father's part in that important piece of history. And of course, Rich told his own stories of the river and shared his comprehensive knowledge of why it was such a valuable resource. That trip is a cherished memory for me. And I know just about every person who took a trip with Rich--and there were many--walked away feeling the same way. Now, I was already interested in saving the river before that tour, but I walked away more energized than ever. Plus, just to give you a sense of how shrewd of a political operator Rich was, he named a beach after me. How could I not fight to save Murray Beach? I worked with Rich for many years afterwards as we pushed to protect Hanford Reach. I spoke of his advocacy here in the Senate before, including when he was awarded the Environmental Hero Award by the Washington Environmental Council. I spoke with him in Washington State when we held a Senate hearing about the Hanford Reach in Mattawa. Rich once again made a powerful case with his characteristic clarity about why we needed to protect this river in the highest, most permanent way possible. And I saw him, beaming ear-to-ear, the day he stepped off the Can Do II with Vice President Gore, who then announced that, earlier that morning, President Clinton had declared Hanford Reach a National Monument. Now I have spoken a lot about Rich, but I know he would also want me to say a bit more about his legacy, about Hanford Reach. This 51-mile stretch remains the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River. It is a landscape that has some of the most dramatic views you can imagine and an incredible variety of wildlife. On the river you can hear the splashing of salmon and steelhead trout which thrive there. In the skies, you might spot a bald eagle, a white pelican, or a blue heron. Hiking the wilds you will find mule deer, coyotes, elk herds, porcupines, and more. You can also see the vibrant colors of wildflowers and, of course, the pristine white of the bluffs--which Rich fought to ensure were included in the boundary. There is so much more to be said about Rich, and his impact on his community, and in my State, but no words can speak as eloquently as a visit to the Hanford Reach, which is not just a National Monument, but to me and many others, it is also a personal testament to Rich's vision and dedication. So I will just close by encouraging everyone to visit this invaluable treasure, to take in the awe of the mighty Columbia, to take in the sights, sounds, and beauty of nature, and to remember my friend Rich who fought to keep that river running free.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today, we are going to vote on a bill that offers a simple statement of values: Do you support a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions? For the vast majority of Americans, the answer is yes--without question. We know that because the American people have been speaking out loudly and repeatedly and at every opportunity to oppose Republicans' extreme abortion bans. The record here is remarkable and unmistakable: Since Trump and Republicans succeeded at overturning Roe v. Wade and ripping away a constitutional right from our daughters and granddaughters, every single time abortion rights have been on the ballot, abortion rights have won--every time. But the American people have not just been speaking with their own votes; they have been using their voices and sharing their own, personal stories of the nightmares that Republicans' abortion bans have put them through: women denied medical care for a miscarriage because of abortion bans; women turned away from hospitals because their doctors' hands were tied until they lost over half their blood, until their husbands found them unconscious on the floor, until the only option was an emergency hysterectomy or, tragically, until it was simply too late; children who couldn't get abortion care after being raped; a teenager delivering a baby, while clutching a teddy bear, being forced through a pregnancy by Republican politicians. This isn't some dystopian prediction. This has all happened recently in the United States of America because of Donald Trump and Republicans' anti-abortion extremism. Just last month, The New York Times profiled the story of one mother in Idaho who woke up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. She was leaking amniotic fluid. She went to the emergency room. She was told there was nothing they could do to help. ``Sorry.'' Because of Idaho's extreme abortion ban, it meant that any doctor who gave her the abortion care she so desperately needed would be risking the loss of his medical license and jail time and heavy fines. The best they could do was give her an emergency flight to another State. And when she arrived, nurses remembered her saying: I just need to stay alive so I can be around for my two other kids. That same hospital in Idaho has already had to airlift six pregnant women out of the State for emergency abortion care this year. That is just one hospital in one State and one horrific variation of the many nightmares that are happening on loop across the country as a direct result of the Republicans' abortion bans. I am going to keep saying it: A forced pregnancy does not have to make headlines to make someone's life a living hell. This is not an issue that Republicans can run away from no matter how much they try to. Donald Trump--a convicted felon and a liar--is trying to tell us he doesn't know anything about Project 2025. That is the playbook that has been written by some of his top advisers for him. He may as well be saying he has no idea who named Trump Tower. We all know Donald Trump ended Roe v. Wade. We all know Republicans championed that for decades, and we know that Trump will absolutely ban abortion nationwide. Republicans do not get to pretend they support the health of the mother while ignoring the horror stories happening today across the country and urging the Supreme Court to rule against ensuring abortion is available in emergencies. Republicans do not get to pretend that they support IVF and birth control while championing a national fetal personhood bill and voting down bills to protect the right to IVF and birth control. Republicans do not get to pretend they only want State politicians controlling women's most personal decisions while supporting national abortion bans, including the fetal personhood bill I just mentioned; supporting efforts to strike down access to medication abortion nationwide; blocking efforts to protect women who might travel out of State for care; and even blocking protections for doctors in States like mine where abortion is legal. I cannot stress enough how transparently unserious it is for Trump and Republicans to pretend they are somehow returning abortion to the people when, in reality, they are doing the exact opposite. Republicans are giving politicians power that once belonged to individual women-- letting politicians force women to stay pregnant--and they are trying to sell that as giving people a bigger voice on this issue. Do Republicans really think Americans are that stupid? Do Republicans really think they can take away a constitutional right and convince us it is a win for freedom? That is insulting. Here is an idea: Do you want to really give the people a say on abortion? How about you let each person decide with their doctors what is right for them? How is that for small government? How is that for letting people decide? If Republicans really want to let people make their own decisions on abortions, that is news to me. It would certainly be news to the countless women who have had that choice ripped away from them by Republican politicians over the past 2 years. But they have a chance to prove it right here, today, right now, when we vote on my Reproductive Freedom for Women Act. This is a plain up- or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. It doesn't force anything. It doesn't cost anything. It is, actually, just a half-page bill simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their healthcare. Seriously, that is it. It is as simple as it gets. If you care at all--even the tiniest bit--about protecting women's access to healthcare and allowing women to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, you should support this bill. Now, make no mistake, I am not holding my breath here today, but I am going to be holding Republicans accountable. Donald Trump is trying to rewrite his abortion record, but I will not let him or anyone else off the hook. If Republicans are going to force women to stay pregnant, we are going to force them to be honest with the American people about their extreme position. By the way, Democrats are going to keep fighting to restore the rights the American people have been so clear that they want back. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, to recap, we just tried to pass some very straightforward legislation: a bill to protect a woman's right to travel across State lines to get the healthcare she needs, a bill to protect a doctor's right to provide legal abortion care to their patients without being threatened by an out-of-State extremist, and a bill to ensure more health professionals can receive critical training in comprehensive reproductive healthcare to help meet the dire need for providers. Not a single one of these bills should be controversial. To oppose these bills, as Republicans have just done, is truly extreme. Are we going to let politicians hold women who want an abortion captive in their States? Seriously. If a woman wants to travel somewhere so she can make her own personal decision about her healthcare, are Republicans going to tie her hands? And if a doctor in a State like mine, where abortion is fully legal and even protected by our State constitution--if our doctors treat a patient from somewhere like Idaho--something that happens every day, by the way--do we want to let out-of-State extremist politicians threaten and try to punish them? Again, we are talking about healthcare providers performing an abortion in a State where abortion is legal and protected. Republicans are all for States' rights until it comes to letting a woman make her own healthcare decisions. When it comes to training, let's be clear: Abortion is healthcare, and in some cases, a patient's life may depend on whether they can get that care or not. That is why we need to make sure that every provider can get the comprehensive reproductive health training that they need by supporting medical training programs that are doing this important work. It is incredibly frustrating to me that, so far, Republicans have blocked these proposals from moving forward. It seems, when it comes to an abortion, there is no bill too simple for Republicans to oppose. There is no right too basic for Republicans to attack and no problem too important for Republicans to ignore. Republicans haven't just voted down our efforts to restore abortion rights in every State, they have voted against the right to birth control; they have voted against the right to IVF; and now they have opposed letting patients leave their States for care, letting doctors provide legal care to anyone who comes to them, and helping healthcare providers get the training they need to save a life. But let's be clear: No matter this outcome, no matter how far Republicans follow the most extreme anti-abortion voices in their party, Democrats are going to keep standing against them, pushing for reproductive rights, and fighting for patients. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here today with a very simple bill to protect doctors who are providing legal care against attacks from extreme out-of-state, out-of-touch politicians. In my State, abortion is not only legal but protected by our State constitution. But when I talk to abortion providers in Spokane, where they see a lot of patients fleeing restrictive abortion bans from States like Idaho, they are terrified that they could face a lawsuit that will threaten their practice and their livelihood, just for doing their jobs, just for providing care their patients need--care that is, once again, completely legal in my State. We are talking about people who are following the law and simply want to provide care to their patients. This should be cut-and-dried. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1297, the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and, further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let's be clear. Republicans who are now in the middle of trying to rewrite history and claim they only want State politicians overruling women--already an extreme position, by the way--just made clear that actually, on second thought, they have no problem whatsoever with politicians targeting doctors in States like mine, where abortion is legal. I think that pretty much gives the game away. I yield the floor.