[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 164 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5747-S5749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4638
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are in the middle of a pandemic. Two
hundred thousand people have died, millions more have been infected,
and this crisis is nowhere close to being over. But are Republicans are
offering solutions? Not even close.
We need to be prioritizing science. Instead, they are offering a bill
that prioritizes partisan ideology. We need to be making it easier for
people to get the care they need. Instead, they are offering a bill
with the sole purpose of putting up unnecessary barriers to care. And
not only are they wasting time on their partisan war against abortion
with this bill--which they know is a nonstarter--they are preparing to
jam through a Supreme Court nominee who would make things even worse.
They are fighting to not just overturn Roe v. Wade but to strike down
healthcare for tens of millions of people and strike down protections
for people with preexisting conditions and to send healthcare costs
skyrocketing--all during a pandemic.
I can't believe I have to say this, but we need to be taking steps to
make this crisis better, not worse, which is why I am going to offer a
unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to S. 4638--the
Science and Transparency Over Politics Act, which Senator Schumer and
myself and 32 other Democrats introduced today.
Unfortunately, we have seen the Trump administration repeatedly take
dangerous steps to undermine and overrule the experts at our Nation's
public agencies. We have seen the President spread lies and
misinformation and conspiracy theories about their work. We have seen
his officials meddle with key scientific reports and apply pressure to
promote unproven treatments. And we know this interference can damage
public confidence in the science-based guidance our experts issue to
help save lives and in their efforts to evaluate a vaccine and make
sure it is safe and effective. We just can't let that happen.
This reckless interference didn't start yesterday, and it is clear it
is not going to stop tomorrow. So I believe Congress needs to take
action to make it stop.
The STOP Act would do just that by providing much needed transparency
and accountability. Given how many Republicans have said we need to be
listening to the experts and following the science, this bill should
not be controversial. It should be common sense
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged
from further consideration of S. 4638, and the Senate proceed to its
immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am
disappointed but can't say I am surprised that the Senators on the
other side of the aisle have objected to the SAVE Moms and Babies Act.
The Democrats have shown time and again that they would rather put the
profits of the abortion industry over protecting women. That is what is
happening again today.
Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying to change to another bill
because they want to distract you from what my bill is about. My bill
is about protecting women from dangerous at-home abortions without a
physician involved whatsoever. That is what my bill does--ensure women
have to see a doctor to get this drug, ensure the doctor can examine
her to see if she has any conditions that might make her at higher risk
for complications, make sure she is fully informed and consents that
she is not coerced.
Democrats objecting to this shows you how far to the left the
Democratic Party is on abortion. Passing my bill should be a no-
brainer. The REMS rules were put into place by a Democratic FDA to
protect women. They have been in effect for 20 years, until the judge
in Maryland fell for some far-fetched arguments from abortion
advocates.
The FDA and HHS implement government health and safety regulations to
protect patients and ensure that doctors are doing their job, to make
[[Page S5748]]
sure that drugs are safe and that patients are not harmed. That is why
we have an FDA and why we have an HHS.
I agree with the Senator from Washington State that FDA and HHS
should do this work based on scientific evidence. That is exactly what
happened in 2000 when the Clinton administration and FDA scientists
looked at the evidence and decided these REMS rules were needed to
protect women from the dangers of this abortion drug.
Usually, Democrats support science-based health protections but not
when it comes to abortion. When it comes to abortion, they are in the
pocket of the abortion lobby and would rather play politics rather than
protect women's health.
We can't let Senate Democrats change the subject by trying to bring
up another bill that is not related to these REMS protections
whatsoever. We can't let them try to change the subject from women's
health to their latest conspiracy theory about the President.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
I do ask, invoking rule XIX, that no Senator in debate shall,
directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator
or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a
Senator.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is disappointing that Republicans
would object to a bill that simply provides much needed accountability
and support for scientific decisionmaking. It is especially
disappointing they would object to it during a pandemic and while
simultaneously pushing for an ideological bill that would undermine
patient's care and reproductive rights.
Rest assured, the minority leader, Senator Schumer, and I and the
rest of our Democratic caucus are not giving up, and we will continue
to fight on behalf of women and families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry: What was the
statement that prompted the admonition under rule XIX?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Democrats are in the pockets of the abortion
industry.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that
we have had today between my colleague from Mississippi and my
colleague from the State of Washington. I also appreciate the
thoughtful insight that the Senator from Louisiana provided in his
remarks.
I feel it necessary to address a couple of issues that were raised by
my friend and distinguished colleague from the State of Washington.
There are differences that Members have--differences of opinion--when
it comes to a wide variety of issues.
When it comes to abortion, people have different approaches they
take. I know my own view, and I know the views taken by many of my
Democratic colleagues. But it is important to point out here what we
are talking about and what we are not talking about.
One of the first arguments that we heard today from the Senator from
Washington related to Roe v. Wade. And as long as we are on the topic
of imputing to another person improper motives or motives not apparent
on the face of a piece of legislation, if one is going to impute to the
Senator from Mississippi the intention of undoing a Supreme Court
precedent, I would like to point out that is manifestly not within the
scope of this legislation, nor is it the place of any Senator to
purport to know the subjective motivation behind Senator Hyde-Smith's
legislation here.
I am not going to purport to know the reason why she said that. I
just want to point out, that is not the point of this bill. This bill
has nothing do with Roe v. Wade. You can feel however you want about
Roe v. Wade. This isn't it. I know that is a convenient excuse to not
have to deal with something--something real, something that has to do
with the lives and the health and the well-being of women, to say
nothing about the unborn human lives within them.
From those who would invoke science in opposing this bill, I would
ask, on what planet does science back the idea we should remove the
REMS restrictions from this supposed so-called form of healthcare--a
form of healthcare that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, has resulted
in thousands upon thousands of complications in the two decades it has
been on the market? On what planet can one contend that one can't
support this legislation without being opposed to science?
Back to the Roe v. Wade question. If every single time someone gets
up to try to present legislation--legislation that as far as I can
tell, the Senator from Washington wasn't claiming was outside of our
legislative purview as Federal lawmakers--if every single time someone
gets up to try to raise legitimate questions of public policy regarding
the health, safety, and welfare of the American people, of the American
patient, of American women subjected to very serious side effects from
a piece of legislation--if no one can present legislation without being
accused of trying to undo a 1973 court decision, which is, on its face,
not even at issue in this legislation, then we are going to have a hard
time carefully considering these things.
Last I checked, it is our job to decide questions of public policy--
questions that are squarely within our Federal jurisdiction. One could
argue, I suppose, about whether it was a good idea to put exclusive
jurisdiction over the regulation of pharmaceuticals in this country
under the FDA. One could make that argument.
I don't understand the Senator from Washington to be making a
federalism argument. If she wants to have that conversation, I would
love to have that with her. That would be fantastic. In fact, I would
love to raise federalism concerns anytime we are discussing anything
because it is far too seldom invoked here.
But that is not what this is about. What that argument was about was
instead that the Senator from Mississippi supposedly is trying to
overturn Roe v. Wade. And it couldn't possibly be the fact that she is
there genuinely concerned about the thousands upon thousands of
injuries that have been sustained as a result of this barbaric form of
so-called medical treatment. It can't possibly be that.
If that is the case, if those who were so determined to make
everything about Roe v. Wade--if they are right and if they were to
have their way, then I guess we can't discuss anything even related to
women's health that affects pregnancy.
Surely, that is not the argument. That can't be the argument. I don't
think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Roe V. Wade, regardless
of how they feel about government's role in abortion or not, if what we
are talking about is the fact that we ought not loosen certain
restrictions so as to allow people to gain access to an abortion
cocktail that is dangerous under many circumstances, especially when it
is administered without any kind of direct medical supervision or
attention, if that is where we are, that is not good. That is messed
up. Something is terribly wrong if we can't have a conversation about
women's health without being accused of wanting to undo an entire line
of precedent dating back to 1973.
Look, guilty as charged. I have my own views about that line of
precedent. Those views are no secret. Those views are well-founded as a
matter of science. They are well-founded as a matter of hundreds of
years of American constitutional law, of common law, but I understand
they are not the only views.
You cannot simply walk in here and say that because this addresses a
type of abortion procedure, because Roe v. Wade reached the conclusion
that it did, anyone who proposes a piece of legislation like the one
proposed by Senator Hyde-Smith today necessarily has as its object--
that her subjective motivation behind filing that legislation is the
undoing of Roe v. Wade, and because that is her supposed subjective
motivation, we can't even have the conversation about what this does
for women's health--to say: Let's draw the line, and let's not remove
the REMS restrictions. Let's not let people order these through the
mail and be administered these dangerous drugs without direct medical
supervision.
The next line of reasoning used by the Senator, my friend and
distinguished colleague from the State of
[[Page S5749]]
Washington, is that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. Yes, we
are, but last I checked, that doesn't prevent or preclude us from
discussing and addressing other things, from the funding of the
government to Presidential nominees whom we confirm or don't confirm.
That doesn't preclude us or excuse us from considering other pieces of
legislation. I am struggling to understand how the existence of a
global pandemic means that we can't even address another type of
epidemic--one brought about potentially as a result of the abusive
prescription and reckless misuse of abortion-inducing drug cocktails.
This is beyond my ability to understand.
It is also beyond my ability to understand how a simple requirement
that before one of these drugs is administered, the patient should have
at her disposal a medical examination and some kind of medical
attention. Nothing about Roe v. Wade says that you can't have laws
restricting the manner in which abortions are performed. Nothing about
Roe v. Wade says that a State or Congress itself may not require that
abortions be performed by healthcare professionals under the
supervision of a board certified medical doctor. Nothing about Roe v.
Wade carries any implication for this. This legislation simply says:
Let's make sure that medications like this are not used to harm
American women.
I have other colleagues wishing to discuss this topic and other
topics. Let me say this: Human life matters. Every human life means
something. You can't snuff it out and pretend it doesn't exist, because
it does. Every life matters to God. It matters in the universe. Whether
you believe in God or not, life matters. You can't pretend it doesn't
exist. Every life is unrepeatable, irreplaceable. We should vow to
protect it.
For those who aren't interested in protecting unborn human life,
let's at least focus on protecting the human lives that we all agree
exist. That is what this legislation is about. Shame on us if we can't
even do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Lee for an
impassioned and effective argument.
I rise here today in support of my colleague Senator Hyde-Smith's
SAVE Moms and Babies Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I am
disappointed that my colleagues would object to this bill to help
safeguard and help expectant mothers.
The SAVE Moms and Babies Act would improve women's health by
protecting important safety mechanisms put into place by the FDA. The
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy is an essential mechanism which
ensures that drugs with serious safety concerns are used and prescribed
correctly.
My Democratic colleagues and the abortion lobby may expect Americans
to believe chemical abortion pills are safe to use and should be
available online without an in-person physician consultation, but here
are the facts: Between 3.4 and 5.9 percent of women taking chemical
abortion drugs require surgical intervention to complete the abortion.
This meant 10,000 women in 2017 alone needed surgery after taking an
abortion drug. Chemical abortion has four times the complications as
surgical abortion during the first trimester. The risk of complications
are particularly worsened in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Women
with ectopic pregnancies have suffered serious injury and even death
from taking chemical abortion drugs.
I am disappointed this Chamber could not come together today to
support Senator Hyde-Smith's timely, needed, and important bill to
protect women's health.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COTTON. I know of no further debate on this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no further debate on the
nomination, the question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the
Sonderling nomination?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr.
Johnson) would have voted yea.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris),
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McSally). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--41
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Capito
Harris
Johnson
Sanders
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tillis
The nomination was confirmed.