Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion.

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

Madam President, I am very pleased that we now have a straightforward, bipartisan compromise to fund the government and avoid a pointless, devastating shutdown. I hope every single one of my colleagues will join us in voting to pass this bill.

Our work does not end here. My hope is that now we can get going in earnest on hammering out bipartisan full-year funding bills, including providing long overdue disaster assistance.

It is time for Democrats and Republicans to negotiate those bills together instead of House Republicans just following the loudest voices on the far right, because it is getting a little exhausting to watch some House Republicans push again and again for the most extreme, partisan cuts and policies--stuff that is not realistic at all--before learning the same lessons the hard way yet again.

You cannot strike a deal to govern with people who do not really want to govern. You can't avoid a shutdown trying to placate the people who want a shutdown. But here is the important thing: You do not have to waste time trying. If you are serious about governing, you do not have to let a few extreme House Republicans set the agenda or let Donald Trump call the shots.

There is a better way, and I know because it is the path that we have been following here in the Senate. Vice Chair Collins and I passed 11 funding bills out of our committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. We negotiated strong bills that could actually be signed into law and would make a real difference for folks back at home.

We did it by listening to each other, by listening to folks back home, rejecting partisan policies, and focusing on how we set our Nation and families up for success. That is the same approach I hope we can now take now that this CR gives us the time we need to negotiate bipartisan, bicameral full-year bills.

I know compromise takes time, and it takes a lot of hard work. I have hammered out with my colleague many tough deals here in my time, but I think we have proven in this Congress, many times over, that the path to bipartisanship is far easier and far more productive than the dead- end MAGA extremism House Republicans keep making their very first priority.

So let's all vote to pass this CR, and then let's get to work, in a serious bipartisan way, on our full-year funding bills and on meeting the long overdue disaster relief needs of so many of our States and our communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer a simple resolution, one that reaffirms the basic principle that when you go to the ER, the emergency room, they should be allowed to treat you. When your life is in danger, doctors should be able to do their job. When you need emergency care, including an abortion, no politician should stop you from getting it.

This seems incredibly simple to me. It should not be controversial, especially if everyone who talks about protecting the life of the mother seriously means it. After all, that is what emergency care is for: saving the life of the mother. And yet, when the Biden-Harris administration tried to make clear that these women should get care, many Republicans actually opposed them.

I really want to emphasize, we are talking about women whose water breaks dangerously early or who are experiencing uncontrollable hemorrhaging or sepsis or pre-eclampsia. And still, Republicans actually filed a brief in court saying, essentially, no, we don't think doctors should be required to provide abortion care when a patient's life is at stake.

Their brief rejected that idea--that basic medical reality--of abortion as a stabilizing care. That is really shocking to me, and it should be shocking to everyone.

After a brief like that, I am not going to let any of my Republican colleagues off the hook just for saying they care about the life of the mother--not if they don't lift a finger to actually protect women and to actually make clear that emergency care can include abortion.

We need to send a very clear message on this. The Senate needs to speak with one voice and tell the American people: Yes, we want to make sure your doctor can save your life. Your doctor can save your life.

Before my Republican colleagues get up to object, let me be clear. You will not get by pretending a resolution like this isn't necessary, not when we are hearing now firsthand from doctors racked with guilt for decisions that Republican politicians made for them; not when they are hearing firsthand from women who have bled, suffered, and nearly died because their care was delayed; and, certainly, not when Texas saw maternal deaths now skyrocket because of its strict abortion ban. The data in Texas paints a clear, brutal picture of the reality. These abortion bans are killing women.

Republicans are also not going to get by trying to shift the blame and argue emergency care is already protected because the whole point of this resolution is to say emergency care is protected. If you oppose the Senate actually saying that, don't you see how this could be part of the problem? Don't you see how that could be very dangerous for women?

I can't emphasize this enough. If you don't see and you don't understand--listen. Women are speaking out. Doctors are speaking out. They are terrified; they are heartbroken; and they

are angry. And they are watching right now to see if we can just pass this simple resolution and do the very bare minimum of saying, with one voice, women have a right to get an abortion when their life is at stake--when their life is at stake.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 828 on the right to emergency healthcare, including abortion care; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma, and let me be perfectly clear about what is happening. Here in America, in the 21st century, pregnant women are suffering and dying, not because doctors don't know how to save them, but because doctors don't know if Republicans will let them.

There are skyrocketing maternal death rates in States like Texas, and as I spoke out on the floor last week, there are at least two women dead in Georgia today because of Republican abortion bans. Those kids are now growing up without a mother. That is the harsh reality.

Republicans can't ignore that. Donald Trump can't shout over it. The American people will not ever forget it. And every day we are going to continue to hold those people who are opposed to this accountable for the cruelty of these abortion bans.

The fact is that the resolution that I offered simply says that doctors can provide emergency care for the life of a mother. I don't understand where the disagreement is, and I hope that we can pass this and give doctors and women the confidence that, in the United States of America, when you are pregnant and having a severe emergency medical situation, you will be treated.

I yield the floor.

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.

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.

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.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a new resolution that I introduced which reaffirms the basic principle that when you go to the ER, they should be allowed to treat you.

When your life is in danger, doctors should be able to do their job. And when you need emergency care, including an abortion, no politician should stop you from getting it. This is so simple.

And yet, when President Biden and Vice President Harris tried to make that clear, Republicans worked to stop them, opposing the basic notion that, yes, ER doctors might have to provide emergency abortion care to save a woman's life.

Make no mistake, we are talking about women whose water breaks dangerously early or who are experiencing uncontrollable hemorrhage or sepsis or preeclampsia.

These are patients we are saying doctors should treat under the basic right to emergency care. These are the women Republicans don't think deserve access to emergency care.

I don't know where on the long path of anti-abortion extremism that saving lives became a bridge too far for so many Republicans, but that is where we are. It is not just an extreme position, it is a very dangerous one, and it is a deadly one.

There are so many tragic stories about how Republican abortion bans are hurting women. Those stories include women who have been unable to get an abortion after a pregnancy became bad for their health, unable to get one after the situation had become a medical emergency, unable to get one until the only option was a hysterectomy that totally ends their dream of having a child one day, and in some heartbreaking cases, women have been unable to get an abortion until it is too late. They have died. They have died because Republican bans denied and delayed the care they needed.

Just this week, we heard the stories of two Black mothers who lost their lives in Georgia due to the State's draconian abortion ban. According to a report from ProPublica, in 2022, after Georgia's 6-week abortion ban went into effect, a pregnant woman went into the ER. She was a single mom. She had a serious infection and needed a D&C. That is a routine procedure and the standard of care for her condition.

Her case was not a mystery, but even if it was clear that a D&C would save her life, it was not clear her doctors could provide that without facing legal danger under their State's abortion law. Her condition worsened. Her blood pressure dropped. Her organs started failing. And by the time she got the procedure, 19 hours after she arrived at the ER, it was too late, and tragically she died.

The State's medical review committee concluded there is a good chance she would have survived if the procedure had happened sooner. Her name was Amber Thurman.

Another Black woman in Georgia died without ever seeking medical care. She was too afraid to see a doctor given ``the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.''

The State's medical review committee also found her death to be preventable, a heartbreaking outcome for the three children she left behind. Her name was Candi Miller.

How can that be the status quo in our country in the 21st century? How is anyone OK with this? How does anyone think that these extreme abortion bans are a good idea? How does anyone oppose clarifying women have a right to emergency care? Don't we want our hospitals to save lives?

How can anyone look at this wreckage? How can you hear the stories from doctors who are wracked with guilt for decisions Republican politicians made for them? How can you hear the stories from these women who have bled and suffered and died? How can anyone hear the chilling accounts of women who have died and just shrug it off and say, ``Well, I am sure this will blow over'' or ``It wasn't so bad''?

And yet we have Republicans, by and large, just trying to ignore this and trying to get everyone to whistle past the graveyard that they spent decades digging.

As if a woman would ever in her life forget the time her doctor said: Yes, you are in danger; yes, we know how to treat you; but, no, I can't do it--politicians won't let them.

As if a mother would ever forget losing her daughter because she was denied care; as if a husband would ever forget losing his wife; as if a kid growing up without a mother because she was denied emergency abortion care will ever, ever for a single day of their life forget this.

We have Republican-led States hearing from providers about how completely unworkable and dangerous these bans are and not really lifting a finger to meaningfully address this problem. We have States where people are trying to put it to the voters, trying to let the people have their say on these bans, and Republicans have been fighting those tooth and nail, tooth and nail, to block them--just to let people have their say.

And we have Donald Trump still, after all this has happened, saying everyone wanted Roe overturned. That is what he said. Everyone wanted Roe overturned? Whom is he listening to? He is saying it is great States can cause this chaos; it is great politicians can effectively lock patients out of an emergency care room.

Make no mistake, this is the post-Roe world Republicans spent decades fighting for. This is the policy outcome that Trump and Republicans moved Heaven and Earth to achieve, and they make that clearer and clearer every time they not only refuse to lift a finger to stop it, but Republicans even filed a brief telling the Supreme Court, essentially: No, we don't think doctors should be required to provide abortion care when a patient's life is at stake--when a patient's life is at stake.

If Republicans thought even in the slightest that this is a problem, they could start by cosponsoring our resolution saying it is a problem. This should not be a hard step. Let's see who takes me up on that offer. I am waiting to see.

When I think about the carnage that Republican abortion bans have caused, I truly cannot put my outrage into words, but I can be here, and I can share the horror stories I am hearing on the Senate floor and give voice to those patients and providers who are living this nightmare firsthand: dying women being turned away from an emergency room, being left to bleed out, left to get sicker, left to miscarry on their own. The lucky ones--the lucky ones--get airlifted to a State like mine where abortion is legal and protected.

By July of this year, one hospital in Idaho, next to my State, had already airlifted six pregnant women out of the State for emergency abortion care. The unlucky ones died.

We can't look away from this hard reality: here in America, in the 21st century, pregnant women dying not because doctors don't know how to save them but because doctors don't know if Republicans will let them.

As the Presiding Officer well knows, we have a maternal mortality crisis in this country, and these bans are making it worse. We are moving in the wrong direction. And to Republicans who have the gall to talk about exceptions for the life of the mother, while arguing against abortion care as emergency care, even when it is lifesaving, what do you think emergency care is for? What do you think emergency care is for?

And let's be clear, providing emergency stabilizing care is the bare minimum to keep a patient alive. These women may have undergone tremendous trauma and suffering up until they meet the threshold for emergency stabilizing care. It should never have to get to that point.

Women should not have to lose organ function before they can get medical care. They shouldn't have to bleed out

in a parking lot. They shouldn't have to be left to miscarry on their own.

Their husband shouldn't have to find them, when he comes home, bleeding and unconscious and call 9-1-1 in a panic. This is what is happening, and I know the Presiding Officer feels the same; we are not going to stand for this. This will not become a new accepted normal, period.

Democrats are going to continue to be here to tell these women's stories. We are going to continue pressing to fully restore reproductive freedoms for every woman in America, and we are going to continue to be putting a white-hot spotlight on the devastating, deadly fallout of Republicans' extreme anti-abortion policies of Donald Trump abortion bans and on the cruel callousness Trump has offered in response--never missing an opportunity to gloat about overturning Roe v. Wade.

Women and families are listening to him gloat. They are not going to forget, and I know we won't.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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:

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.

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.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.