Brian Schatz

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 652 and the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 652, S. Res. 671, S. Res. 672, and S. Res. 675.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 674, which is at the desk.

Mr. SCHATZ. I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 673 to convene for a pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, at 9 a.m. on Friday, May 3; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7; that, on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 576, Donna Ann Welton, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, and that the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 5:30 p.m.; further, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that upon disposition of the Welton nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 211, H.R. 3935.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, tens of millions of kids in America are anxious, depressed, angry, lonely, sedentary, sometimes insecure, and sometimes suicidal. And just about everybody--whether they are parents, teachers, mental health professionals, or even the kids themselves-- points the finger at the same culprit: social media. We do not need more data to tell us what is so painfully obvious in schools and homes across the country. Social media platforms, with their wildly powerful, covert, and addictive algorithms are driving our kids deeper and deeper into a sea of despair that they can't find their way out of. Kids are being unwittingly sucked into rabbit holes that leave them in a constant state of panic and outrage--ashamed of their own bodies, lacking meaningful friendships and connections. The idea that a young kid--a kid--can feel so unhappy and so unfulfilled at the tender age of 8 or 9--so much so that they seriously contemplate self-harm--is appalling. And it is a uniquely modern crisis created over the past decades by profit-chasing tech companies for whom nothing and no one is off-limits, not even very young kids. The math for them is very simple: Attention means money. And the best way to hold people's attention is to make them upset and keep them upset. You talk to any parent--whether they are raising a toddler or a teenager, whether they are a voter or nonvoter, a Democrat or a Republican--they are worried and they are frustrated about all the ways that social media is harming kids, but they don't know what to do about it or if they can do anything at all. Some might work two jobs and not have the time to monitor what their kids are up to online. Others might lack the technical literacy to operate parental controls and set limits on screen time. All they really want is for their young kids to be off social media altogether, because there is no good reason that a 9-year-old should be spending hours every day scrolling through TikTok that has been programmed with no concern for whether the content is age-appropriate or not. There is no First Amendment right for an 11-year-old to be on Instagram while algorithm targets them with content glorifying starvation and fueling insecurities. By the company's own admission, social media was never meant to be used by young kids. Yet any parent, or anyone who knows a parent, knows that young kids are on these platforms anyway. And the only way that it will stop is if the Federal law finally mandates that companies keep young kids off of their services. Over the past year, my team and I have worked extensively with a broad range of advocates and stakeholders, as well as the Senate Commerce Committee leadership, to update my bill to protect kids on social media. Our updated bill, called the Healthy Kids Act, would do two simple things: It would prevent kids under 13 from being on social media at all; and it would ban algorithmic targeting on these platforms for kids under 17. Delaying the onset of social media use is a straightforward and commonsense way to protect our youngest kids from the very worst of the internet's ills. Let them have a normal childhood in the real world-- play a sport, learn an instrument, read a book, go to the park, walk around with friends. And once kids are on social media at 13 or 14 or whenever, they need protection, particularly from the algorithmic targeting. Just last year alone, social media companies made $11 billion from ads targeted at kids under 18 in the United States--$11 billion. So it is no wonder that they have no appetite to change their business model without a Federal law. It is working great for them--just not for the millions of young kids who are sad and lonely and angry because of it. Kids need help, and they need protection. And because the companies have shown time and time again that they will not step up, Congress must. I am glad that we are seeing renewed momentum and urgency right now with a number of different proposals on this issue in the U.S. Senate. All of them, my bill included, share the same goal of keeping our kids healthy. But at the heart of this effort is an essential question of when our kids ought to be allowed to be on social media. At what age is it appropriate to use? If we are going to protect these kids online and act as a counterweight to the rich and powerful tech companies, answering that question and establishing an age minimum is essential. And that is what the Healthy Kids Act does. It is our job here in the Senate to consider any number of difficult challenges facing the country and the world and to debate what to do about them. What is more fundamental to the role of the Federal Government than to protect the most vulnerable Americans, especially our children? If you think what is happening to kids online is unclear, look at the data. The percentage of high school students surveyed who experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness in the past year is 36 percent to 57 percent females; 21 percent to 29 percent males in 10 years--in 10 years. It might be the phones. It might be the phones. You can consult the data. You can ask the Surgeon General of the United States. You can ask all of the people who have studied this. And they know it is early use of social media where--look, we all use social media, and our adult brains are not powerful enough to overcome the negative impacts. You are 13, you are 9, you are 7, you are going to be overpowered by these algorithms. We have to protect these kids. And if you don't believe the data, talk to any parent--Democrat, Republican, parent of a 2-year-old, parent of a 12-year-old--everybody wants this tool in their toolkit. And the idea that we should pass a Federal law mandating that all the social media companies have to do is have a little thing in settings where you can turn the dials on all the different aspects of your social media account is ignorant. It is ignorant. The idea that all we really need to do is precipitate a conversation between a parent and child about social media use--no. What parents need is to be able to say: I am sorry. That is illegal. I am sorry. You may not use these social media platforms. I think it gets really tricky and really complicated once a kid is 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. I understand that. And we narrowed the bill to be more precise because there is no First Amendment right, there is no public policy upside for a 9-year-old to be on TikTok. Nobody can make that argument with a straight face. And so as we consider our options going forward on tech policy--but specifically protecting children online--the threshold question is, At what age is it appropriate for a child to use social media? If I had my druthers, I would have set it at 16, honestly. But, certainly, we can all agree that there is no advantage to a child's life, a prepubescent child's life--a 9-year-old, a 4-year-old, an 11-year-old--being on social media. I am confident we will get this done. I am confident that if this ever received a Senate floor vote, that it would be a resounding bipartisan majority. And I am confident that the American people support us in this. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, it has been more than 5 months since the President submitted a domestic supplemental appropriations request to Congress. And, among other things, it called for funding recovery efforts in communities across the country struck by disasters, including Lahaina Maui. Every one of these affected communities in Florida, in California, in Vermont, in Mississippi, in Alabama, in Arkansas, in Alaska, in South Dakota, in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee need help. Each one of them is in the middle of a long and difficult process of rebuilding and getting back on its feet. Recovering from a disaster--whether natural or manmade--it is hard, it is time-intensive, and it is incredibly expensive; surveying the damage in the immediate hours and days following the event; undertaking the complex and often dangerous process of debris removal; rebuilding homes and roads and schools and other essential infrastructure that were destroyed; providing financial assistance to people, families, and small business owners who lost their jobs and livelihoods overnight. It takes months and years and tremendous effort from thousands of people to return these communities to anything close to normal. Today, another community is, unfortunately, confronting the colossal task of rebuilding--this time in Baltimore in the wake of the tragic collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. Our hearts go out to the families of the six men who were lost that day. They were fathers; they were husbands; they were brothers; immigrants who worked day and night to provide for their families. And their losses break our collective hearts. As Baltimore recovers, we stand ready to support all of the communities and businesses that relied on that bridge and the Port of Baltimore every day to get around and move goods through. And as the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I am committed to doing everything I can to help pass the necessary funding to rebuild. As we do that, we also have a responsibility to support every other community that has been devastated by a disaster because we are all in this together. No State or county--big or small, red or blue, wealthy or not--can shoulder the burden alone. When a disaster is so big, so catastrophic for any one State or locality to handle, it falls on the Federal Government to step up and help. It is central to the promise of the Federal Government. We can argue about the size and the scope of the Federal Government all we like--which programs to fund, what levels to fund them at--but even the most libertarian among us can agree that helping our fellow Americans when they are in crisis, when they have lost everything, when they are desperate for support--helping them is patriotic and essential to our roles in the Congress. It is why funding disaster recovery has historically been bipartisan--because people on both sides of the aisle have recognized, rightly, that disasters do not discriminate between red and blue and purple areas. Accidents don't pick and choose their victims. Every community that has had the misfortune of being struck by a disaster needs and deserves help. Maui is just one example of what these communities are facing. Eight months on from the devastating fires, the needs remain enormous. Thousands of people are still living out of hotels and vacation rentals, unable to rebuild their lives. Roads and water systems have yet to be repaired. Small businesses and their employees continue to struggle without tourism. For Lahaina to recover, thousands of homes will need be to be rebuilt. Critical infrastructure will need to be restored. Businesses will need to get up and running again. So Congress needs to step up and help. That includes providing funding for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery--or CDBG-DR--Program, as the supplemental request calls for. CDBG-DR funding has long been a lifeline for families and small businesses recovering after disasters. Maui and many other communities nationwide are waiting on this aid. It has been nearly 6 months since the President called on Congress to help communities recover from disasters. We have waited a long time, and we can't wait much longer. The disasters keep piling up and, with them, the urgent needs of the survivors. People need help. We need to pass this supplemental and make sure all the survivors are getting the relief they need. This is not each against all; we are truly all in this together. Every community that has been hurt by a natural disaster deserves help, and Congress must provide it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following legislative fellows in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress: Nancy Connolly, Nico Fairbairn, Will Poff-Webster, and Ashley Nagel.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the 12 noon vote now.

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHATZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, earlier this week, some Republicans--I think the Republican Study Committee, 170 House Members--released their plans for governing next year. Here are some of the things on their healthcare wish list: ending Medicare as we know it, which would drive up costs and threaten care for seniors; trying again--I think we are now on 50 attempts--to gut the Affordable Care Act, leaving tens of millions of Americans without coverage overnight and punishing people with preexisting conditions; and banning abortions, IVF, and contraception in every single State through bills ``designed to advance the cause of life.'' If budgets are statements of a party's value, then Republicans are making no secret of theirs: less access to quality healthcare and less control over their personal health. And there is no reason not to take them at their word, other than that, if we take them at their word, you sort of sound like you are exaggerating. That is the problem. It is that what they are proposing is so outlandish, that it sounds like, you know, a Democrat and someone who wants my point of view to win the day. It sounds like I am exaggerating their point of view. I actually had to read this stuff from the Republican study group, and they are way out of the mainstream--way out of the mainstream. Again, there is no reason not to take them at their word because, in Congress and in Statehouses across the country, Republicans say what they want to do, and then they do it. It doesn't matter how cruel these policies are, how unpopular their positions are. They have not been able to show any restraint whatsoever when it comes to enacting this extreme agenda. And it is extreme. Millions of Americans are left to endure the disastrous consequences of this crusade every day. If Republicans have their way, millions of people will lose their healthcare. Seniors and people with preexisting conditions will be forced to pay outrageous out-of-pocket costs, just to get lifesaving procedures and medications. And young people will be kicked off of their parents' plan immediately. And women across the country will be forced to carry doomed pregnancies to term. Families trying to start a family will have one less option, at least, with IVF not even available to them. This is not what we should be fighting for. We have to work to get more people covered, because high-quality, low-cost healthcare should not be a luxury available to some, and, frankly--and I believe this-- there is going to be a point where we don't fight about healthcare anymore. There is going to be a point at which Republicans realize that taking away people's healthcare, taking away people's autonomy as it relates to their own bodies, is just an electoral loser. We are getting there on Obamacare. I thought we had kind of gotten there after multiple attempts to repeal it, but here they are again, trying to start that effort again. Democrats are focusing on lowering premium and drug prescription costs so getting healthcare doesn't bankrupt people. And even the Republicans in Washington and across the country, as they try to control women by dismantling reproductive freedoms, Democrats are fighting to codify Roe into Federal law. Democrats have done more than just give speeches about healthcare. We have actually delivered. It was 14 years ago that we passed the Affordable Care Act, which has since helped more than 40 million Americans get their coverage and has improved health outcomes for so many people: women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, people in rural communities. And so it is no wonder that, more than a decade later, the ACA continues to grow in popularity and is setting new records every year for enrollment. Why? Because people actually like having healthcare. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, voters, not voters--everybody basically thinks that we should have a system that treats you humanely if you are sick. But it hasn't stopped Republicans from trying again and again to repeal it, through Supreme Court cases, Executive orders, and legislation. They have failed every time. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to build on the ACA's progress, including recently with the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan, because there are now tax credits and other measures in those bills that enable millions of Americans to save, on average, $800 a year on premiums. And the number of uninsured is at an alltime low. The number of uninsured is at an alltime low, and the reason for that is legislation that fortunately passed. But we, unfortunately, did not have a single Republican vote for the Affordable Care Act, for the American Rescue Plan, or for the Inflation Reduction Act. For the first time ever, people with Medicare are paying less for insulin, which is now capped at $35, and saving money on a whole range of other prescription drugs. This is what progress looks like. But there are still millions of Americans, especially in the middle class, who don't get coverage through work but make too much to qualify for subsidies, and they deserve coverage too. The State Public Option Act, which I am reintroducing today with colleagues in the Senate and House, would help to bridge that gap. It helps to provide a public option to anyone who wants health insurance by allowing States to create a Medicaid buy-in program that is not based on income. State public-option programs have shown to lower costs, increase consumers' choice in plans, and improve equity in coverage. Several States--including Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico--are already exploring creating exactly this kind of buy-in approach. The State Public Option Act would help other States to follow suit. The bottom line is this: Healthcare is a necessity and not a luxury, and it shouldn't be something the political parties argue about. In the richest country in human history, having it should not depend on your job or your economic status. It ought to be available, accessible, and affordable to everybody. The vast majority of Americans agree, but there is only one party today fighting to make it a reality.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, earlier this week, some Republicans--I think the Republican Study Committee, 170 House Members--released their plans for governing next year. Here are some of the things on their healthcare wish list: ending Medicare as we know it, which would drive up costs and threaten care for seniors; trying again--I think we are now on 50 attempts--to gut the Affordable Care Act, leaving tens of millions of Americans without coverage overnight and punishing people with preexisting conditions; and banning abortions, IVF, and contraception in every single State through bills ``designed to advance the cause of life.'' If budgets are statements of a party's value, then Republicans are making no secret of theirs: less access to quality healthcare and less control over their personal health. And there is no reason not to take them at their word, other than that, if we take them at their word, you sort of sound like you are exaggerating. That is the problem. It is that what they are proposing is so outlandish, that it sounds like, you know, a Democrat and someone who wants my point of view to win the day. It sounds like I am exaggerating their point of view. I actually had to read this stuff from the Republican study group, and they are way out of the mainstream--way out of the mainstream. Again, there is no reason not to take them at their word because, in Congress and in Statehouses across the country, Republicans say what they want to do, and then they do it. It doesn't matter how cruel these policies are, how unpopular their positions are. They have not been able to show any restraint whatsoever when it comes to enacting this extreme agenda. And it is extreme. Millions of Americans are left to endure the disastrous consequences of this crusade every day. If Republicans have their way, millions of people will lose their healthcare. Seniors and people with preexisting conditions will be forced to pay outrageous out-of-pocket costs, just to get lifesaving procedures and medications. And young people will be kicked off of their parents' plan immediately. And women across the country will be forced to carry doomed pregnancies to term. Families trying to start a family will have one less option, at least, with IVF not even available to them. This is not what we should be fighting for. We have to work to get more people covered, because high-quality, low-cost healthcare should not be a luxury available to some, and, frankly--and I believe this-- there is going to be a point where we don't fight about healthcare anymore. There is going to be a point at which Republicans realize that taking away people's healthcare, taking away people's autonomy as it relates to their own bodies, is just an electoral loser. We are getting there on Obamacare. I thought we had kind of gotten there after multiple attempts to repeal it, but here they are again, trying to start that effort again. Democrats are focusing on lowering premium and drug prescription costs so getting healthcare doesn't bankrupt people. And even the Republicans in Washington and across the country, as they try to control women by dismantling reproductive freedoms, Democrats are fighting to codify Roe into Federal law. Democrats have done more than just give speeches about healthcare. We have actually delivered. It was 14 years ago that we passed the Affordable Care Act, which has since helped more than 40 million Americans get their coverage and has improved health outcomes for so many people: women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, people in rural communities. And so it is no wonder that, more than a decade later, the ACA continues to grow in popularity and is setting new records every year for enrollment. Why? Because people actually like having healthcare. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, voters, not voters--everybody basically thinks that we should have a system that treats you humanely if you are sick. But it hasn't stopped Republicans from trying again and again to repeal it, through Supreme Court cases, Executive orders, and legislation. They have failed every time. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to build on the ACA's progress, including recently with the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan, because there are now tax credits and other measures in those bills that enable millions of Americans to save, on average, $800 a year on premiums. And the number of uninsured is at an alltime low. The number of uninsured is at an alltime low, and the reason for that is legislation that fortunately passed. But we, unfortunately, did not have a single Republican vote for the Affordable Care Act, for the American Rescue Plan, or for the Inflation Reduction Act. For the first time ever, people with Medicare are paying less for insulin, which is now capped at $35, and saving money on a whole range of other prescription drugs. This is what progress looks like. But there are still millions of Americans, especially in the middle class, who don't get coverage through work but make too much to qualify for subsidies, and they deserve coverage too. The State Public Option Act, which I am reintroducing today with colleagues in the Senate and House, would help to bridge that gap. It helps to provide a public option to anyone who wants health insurance by allowing States to create a Medicaid buy-in program that is not based on income. State public-option programs have shown to lower costs, increase consumers' choice in plans, and improve equity in coverage. Several States--including Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico--are already exploring creating exactly this kind of buy-in approach. The State Public Option Act would help other States to follow suit. The bottom line is this: Healthcare is a necessity and not a luxury, and it shouldn't be something the political parties argue about. In the richest country in human history, having it should not depend on your job or your economic status. It ought to be available, accessible, and affordable to everybody. The vast majority of Americans agree, but there is only one party today fighting to make it a reality.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, Congress is failing disaster survivors across the country right now. Whether in Lahaina or in Burlington, survivors are not getting the full support of the Federal Government because Congress has yet to provide funding for long-term disaster recovery needs. That is in spite of the fact that, every passing month, more and more communities are being struck by extreme weather and need help in the rebuilding process. It was more than 4 months ago that President Biden requested $2.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program, or CDBG-DR. CDBG-DR funding is a lifeline for families and businesses that are trying to recover from disasters, helping them to get back on their feet faster and more fully. Yet the spending package that Congress passed 2 weeks ago did not include a dime in new funding for CDBG-DR, despite the efforts of myself and my colleagues--including the Presiding Officer--on both sides of the aisle from disaster-affected States. Supporting disaster survivors has never been and should never be a partisan issue, nor can it be buried at the bottom of a long list of Federal priorities. It is one of our most core responsibilities, as the Federal Government, to show up for Americans in their hour of need, when the State and local governments are overwhelmed. We have a chance to do that by including CDBG-DR funding in the appropriations package that we will be voting on later this week. People on Maui and in every other disaster-struck community are counting on us for support, and it can't be that the Federal Government leaves them high and dry, midway through the process of putting their lives back together, because we couldn't get some numbers to add up. That is unacceptable, and we need to pass this funding now.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. I object.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote--how soon, unclear--but soon vote on an appropriations package which, among other bills, includes one from the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee, which I chair. I want to take a moment to talk about what is in it and why it matters so much. The United States is experiencing an unprecedented housing shortage. Homes are increasingly out of reach for so many families and individuals, and homelessness continues to rise to record levels. There is no question that the Federal Government must act. No appropriations bill--especially one negotiated under difficult spending caps demanded by House Republicans--is going to solve our decades-long housing problem. But what this bill does is provide funding for rental and homelessness assistance for millions of Americans. It also provides $100 million for the Yes in My Backyard Program, which will incentivize building housing and eliminating exclusionary zoning policies that have long kept housing supply down. The bill also includes funding to modernize transportation and make it safer and more accessible. It fully funds the Federal Aviation Administration so that it can staff up and maintain a world-class air traffic control system. Also included is the funding for the Federal Railroad Administration, which, in part, will help to improve rail safety in the wake of the East Palestine train derailment. Crucially, the bill provides vital funding to improve Tribal housing and transportation infrastructure, including more than $1.3 billion for the NAHASDA Native-American Housing Block Grant Program. That is a record increase for Tribal housing of more than $300 million, which will help Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians build affordable housing in their communities and address their unique and urgent housing needs. As always, these bills are the product of a lot of hard work and patience, especially from our excellent staff. That has been particularly true this year. They have worked so hard--long, long hours. When we make a deal, the work begins. Whenever we decide that we have consummated our deal, they don't get to say: Look, I am in the middle of a kid's baseball game or I am at a doctor's appointment or I am on a run or I just woke up. They have to get to work and draft the legislation. So lots of them have spent a lot of sleepless nights. My staff, the Republican staff on the T-HUD Committee, our House counterparts, all of the people in leadership on both teams, everybody worked their butt off to make this possible. I just want to appreciate them. I also want to take a moment to thank Ranking Member Cindy Hyde- Smith, the subcommittee members, as well as our counterparts in the House--Representatives Cole and Quigley--who worked in good faith throughout the process to get us here. There is a lot more that we need to do to invest in housing and transportation around the country, but this bill funds enormously important priorities and projects that so many Americans rely upon. It is essential that we pass it, along with the rest of the bills. We have a deadline of tomorrow night at midnight. I am confident that we will make that deadline, but we have got to run this thing across the finish line. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCHATZ

Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, women and families across the country are confronting impossible choices because of Republican extremism on abortion. Do you risk your own health with a high-risk pregnancy or do you risk being thrown in jail for trying to get an abortion? Do you stay in a State that forces you to carry for months a nonviable pregnancy to term? Do you travel hundreds of miles in secret to get access to a legal abortion in some other jurisdiction? If these choices sound awful, it is because they are. The chaos and the suffering created by Republicans is not just limited to red States. These attacks affect everyone. Take Hawaii, which legalized abortion over 50 years ago and has some of the strongest protections in the country. Yet there is a case before the Supreme Court right now trying to prevent people from accessing medication abortion by telehealth. That means, if you live on an island like Kauai and rely on telehealth to get reproductive care, you would have to take off work and get on a plane to access services. So, if you are in a blue State, thinking ``I am safe,'' you are not. Republicans are coming after all of it, and no one and nothing is off limits. Attacks on abortion threaten the entire system of reproductive care, including things like contraception, family planning programs, and early miscarriage care. Hospitals and doctors are terrified of providing care that will cost them their licenses or land them in jail. For instance, if you are an OB/GYN in a State like Texas, you might be forced to delay or deny treatment to a patient with an ectopic pregnancy because there is enough gray area that the State can arbitrarily decide that you broke the law and punish you for providing lifesaving care. Doctors are not lawyers, and many in these States are understandably either retiring early or quitting or moving to a State that doesn't make criminals out of them simply for doing their jobs. I am joined here in the Gallery today by an OB/GYN resident from Hawaii, Dr. Olivia Manayan. Born and raised in Honolulu, Dr. Manayan is currently a chief resident at the University of Hawaii, and next year, she will begin her specialization in complex family planning--focusing on abortion training, complex contraception, and reproductive justice. We need more people like Dr. Manayan, not fewer--people who are passionate about providing accessible and equitable care to their communities. We ought to be celebrating their contributions, but, instead, Republicans are hard at work criminalizing the whole profession. Republicans are coming after all of it, and they are not going to stop. They have said what they are going to do, and now they are doing it. I think the challenge for those of us on this side of the aisle is that what they are doing is so bananas; it is so offensive; it is so cruel; it is so unpopular that, when we describe it accurately, it sounds like we are being hyperpartisan and freaking out for no reason. That is what it sounds like--I grant you that--but it is literally what is happening: IVF, banned. Contraception, not sure. Ectopic pregnancy, you have got to carry that to term. A nonviable pregnancy, you have to carry that to term and prove that it is nonviable even if your doctor says it is nonviable. The cruelty knows no end. So, if you are a person who thinks, ``Hey, you know, I am kind of uncomfortable with abortion, and so maybe I think I am pro-life,'' I want you to understand what it means to be pro-life in the context of this 50-year fight to eliminate women's control over their own bodies. They are not stopping at Roe. They are not stopping at IVF. They are not stopping at contraception. They are not stopping. They want to control people's bodies. Stopping all of this means fighting with as much coordination and passion as the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades. And that includes men too. This can't solely be a women's issue. We don't get to sit this one out. These extreme policies affect everybody and everyone wishing to start a family or caring for someone who is pregnant, and so we all need to get involved. When and if we have the House and the Senate and the Presidency, we should enshrine all of these reproductive freedoms in Federal statutory law.