MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Patty Murray

Democrat WA 7 statements translated

Senate

Nomination of Todd Blanche (Executive Calendar)

2026-08-05

“I don't like Todd Blanche. He worked for Trump. Some people say he did bad things. I don't want him to have power. He might ban abortion in all states. That's bad. I will vote no.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I was never going to come out here and support Todd Blanche for a long list of reasons. I do believe he is one of the most corrupt Justice Department officials in our country's history, for one. He was Trump's former personal lawyer, and it seems that he never quit. The only difference now is that taxpayers are signing his checks instead of Trump. He was the one who negotiated a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay off violent insurrectionists and who cut a backroom deal to give the President and his entire corrupt family immunity from IRS investigations, not to forget that Todd Blanche is the guy who botched the Epstein file so badly that survivors had their names and faces exposed while the names of alleged abusers were hidden. This is a man who wouldn't meet with survivors until Senators put him under a tremendous amount of public pressure. When the meeting eventually got on the books, the survivors made it crystal clear Blanche didn't listen to them. He was more interested in checking a box than in hearing their stories or bringing them justice. All of that is, of course, absolutely unacceptable and disqualifying, but I come here today to sound the alarm on some of the most disturbing comments I have ever heard from the Nation's top law enforcement official. I guess Todd Blanche thought no one was listening because, on a private call with anti-abortion activists, Mr. Blanche told us all exactly what he plans to do if Senators confirm him. His goal was to make the Dobbs decision ``permanent in every single state''--``every single state''--not just in Texas or Idaho. He wants to ban abortion in Washington State, in California, in New York--in every State. He told them: Victory over what exactly? Victory over women who just want to make their own healthcare decisions? Victory over patients in States where abortion is legal--where voters have said over and over at the ballot box: Keep your hands off our rights? A DOJ spokesperson tried to clean up Blanche's words, saying he was only focused on restricting access to medication abortion in all 50 States, as if that is somehow better. I am here to say: I will believe the tape. I believe Todd Blanche's own words. So let's be crystal clear about what this vote is. A vote to confirm Todd Blanche is a vote to endorse his fight to ban abortion in all 50 States. Whatever happened to this being a State's decision? Every Republican who votes yes is voting for exactly that--his words, not mine--and any Republican who votes to confirm him will own that in every State, in every way. This isn't just a confirmation vote anymore; it is a rollcall vote in which Senators endorse banning abortion in all 50 States at the Federal level. I am voting no. I yield the floor.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

AGOA EXTENSION ACT--Motion to Proceed--Continued

2026-08-04

“There are bad fires in my state. Many people had to leave their homes. Over 700 buildings were destroyed. I feel sad. I want the government to give people everything they need. I want the fires to be contained. I will watch the President to make sure the full request is approved. I want people to know I will speak up for them. I will make sure my state gets money from the government. I will do whatever it takes. Spokane will rebuild. I will be there.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I rise today with a very heavy heart because, right now, huge swaths of my State are being confronted by some of the worst fires that we have ever seen. This weekend, three fast-moving wildfires exploded across Spokane County. In a matter of hours, entire neighborhoods were told: Leave now. This may be your only notice. Over 65,000 people I represent have been forced to evacuate their homes. At least 700 homes, businesses, and buildings have been destroyed already. Families are sleeping in the Spokane Convention Center tonight, not knowing whether they even still have a home to go back to. And as of this morning, these fires are still not contained. The photos and videos tell the story: Houses reduced to ash, families embracing outside the burned remains of what they once called home. It is heartbreaking. Smoke so thick over Spokane that the air itself has now become a health hazard. To every family in Spokane and across eastern Washington who has lost a home or a business or a lifetime of memories, hear me: I promise you I am with you today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes to rebuild. And amid this devastation, I also want this Chamber to hear about the extraordinary courage on display in my State right now. Within hours of the evacuation orders, neighbors were opening their doors to strangers. Families who had room to spare simply said: Come stay with us. Volunteers worked through the night at the convention center, handing out blankets, serving hot meals, sitting with frightened kids. Local restaurants showed up with food for evacuees and for the fire crews who are coming off the line. Churches and community groups collected clothes and diapers, pet food. Whatever people needed, someone in Spokane found a way to provide it. Firefighters have been on the lines around the clock in brutal heat against dangerous winds. Local fire crews, crews from across the State, the Washington National Guard--all mobilized within hours. Incident management teams and firefighters who actually came from out of State all the way from Florida to Alaska--there are even firefighters from Australia and New Zealand--because of them, because of the sheriff's deputies and police officers who went door to door to get people out, because of the emergency managers and dispatchers and shelter volunteers, tens of thousands of people got to safety. These are real- life heroes, and, on behalf of the people of Washington State, ``Thank you.'' But gratitude is not enough. The people of Spokane need action, and they deserve to know their government has their back. So here is where things stand as I see them: Our firefighters must have every resource they need to contain these fires--every aircraft, every bit of equipment, every dollar. So far our State has gotten the resources we need from the Federal Government, and I deeply appreciate that. That is how it should be. Yesterday, I led our congressional delegation in urging the President to approve the Governor's request for an expedited emergency declaration. The President has approved part of that request; that is good, and I will be watching closely to ensure the full request is approved. The next few days will no doubt be difficult as local fire crews do their best to try and contain these fires. Looking ahead, it is important to say: Spokane's recovery will not be measured in days or weeks; it will be measured in months and years. Rebuilding homes, rebuilding businesses--it will take a long time, and it will not be easy. But as vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I want the people of eastern Washington to know they have a voice in the U.S. Senate who will speak up for Spokane. I am not someone who will simply write letters to this administration asking for support. I help write the bills that fund the government across every Department and every Federal program, and I will make sure Spokane's recovery is a priority at every opportunity. There is not a single dollar I won't pursue if it means helping Spokane and communities across the State as they rebuild from these devastating fires. Whatever it takes, for as long as it takes. Spokane has been hurt and is being badly hurt by these fires, but Spokane is not broken. A community that takes care of each other in the way we have seen cannot be broken. Spokane will rebuild; Eastern Washington will recover; and I will be standing with them every single step of the way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Government Funding (Executive Session)

2026-08-03

“I don't want more money spent on war. I want more money spent on social programs. I want to blame Trump for high costs. I want to extend some government programs that spend money. I got a rule change to spend money on science grants. I want more spending on infrastructure.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam President, we have our work cut out for us as we work to fund the government for the coming fiscal year. As costs for our families go up and up and up, the President wants a $1\1/2\ trillion war budget, and he wants to cut programs working people depend on to pay for it. No. No way. And as his disastrous war with Iran rages on, Trump is even asking for another $70 billion on top of that to bankroll the war. It is really hard to imagine more backward funding priorities, especially as so many families today are struggling and being hurt by the cuts to healthcare and food aid. Congress is not an ATM to fund Trump's disastrous wars abroad, so, as I have said many times, we need to rip up the President's budget and write a new one. I have been very clear from the start: We absolutely must prioritize helping families and lowering costs as we do that, and that means rejecting the President's astronomical defense request and instead delivering significantly more funding for our nondefense budget so we can invest in helping people here at home. It is clear that we will definitely need more time to get this done and reach bipartisan agreement on the funding levels, just as we have done in the Senate for the last 3 years, which then allows us to draft bipartisan bills for fiscal year 2027. So I am very glad we were able to craft a bipartisan CR to keep the government funded and to make sure we can avert a shutdown that no one wants, while giving us time to reach a bipartisan agreement on a top line in our funding bills. Two weeks ago, House Republicans sent us an incomplete CR with several major issues. It is critical that we address those issues in any CR, and that is exactly what we have done. Perhaps most important, we closed a loophole in the House Republican CR that would have allowed the Trump administration to transfer funding provided for other programs to Border Patrol. That was a nonstarter. Until Republicans finally agree to enact desperately needed reforms to ICE and Border Patrol, we cannot approve another cent for them. This new CR that we have written includes some really important extensions and language that House Republicans did not, and that includes extensions of authorizations for important health, veterans, and infrastructure programs and language to make sure that key housing programs and a program to help feed low-income seniors can continue serving Americans. This bill also rejects requests from President Trump for even more flexibility and funding for the Pentagon, including $1 billion for Trump-class battleships. My Democratic colleagues and I pushed very hard and secured an important provision to prevent the Office of Management and Budget from implementing its corrupt new grants rule, which would have required a Trump political appointee to sign off on every last Federal grant and empowered them to terminate any grant at any point for any reason. That disastrous rule would put politics above science when determining, for example, what cancer research grants to fund. I am going to keep working to kill that rule outright as our spending talks continue later this year. Unfortunately, Republicans would not take action in this bill to protect our constitutional power of the purse and prevent Russ Vought from attempting another illegal pocket rescission, nor would they agree to our efforts to extend critical advanced appropriations for infrastructure, which were provided by the bipartisan infrastructure law. That runs out on October 1. Make no mistake--we will keep fighting to get those priorities done in the negotiations in the fall. We do have a lot of work ahead, and this CR provides us a reasonable runway to get it done. So I hope this CR sets us up to roll up our sleeves and focus on getting to a bipartisan top line so we can then write good, bipartisan spending bills. For all of those reasons, I will be voting yes tonight to advance this bipartisan bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services Relating to "Restoring Flexibility In...

2026-07-30

“I want taxpayers to spend more on child care. I don't like the President's war. The war costs a lot. Many families can't afford child care. The other party is causing high prices for many things. Child care costs so much for some families. I want Congress to pass my bill. My bill will make child care cost less. If you don't pass my bill, people will be upset. If you care about families, pass my bill.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, while President Trump's top priorities are $1.5 trillion in war spending and a golden ballroom, those are not the priorities that American families are focused on. Everywhere I go, I hear from families about the crushing cost of childcare, so it is no surprise to me that 80 percent of voters say the high cost of childcare is a major problem. This is at the beating heart of our economy. If Mom and Dad don't have affordable, high-quality childcare, Mom and Dad can't go to work. But while Trump has plunged us into an affordability crisis, a war that no one asked for, all while families are struggling to get by, he is hell-bent on making our country's childcare crisis even worse. Right now, Trump's HHS ended a 7-percent copayment cap on childcare costs for the very low-income families who already receive Federal childcare support. This is already a very modest Federal program that needs to be supersized in order to meet the needs of every child who needs it. Even with this program, many households are paying more than 20 percent of their household income on childcare costs. When Democrats put forward this policy, we said no family who qualifies for this subsidy should pay more than 7 percent of their income for childcare. Trump tore that up. We should be having a debate about how we increase childcare funding. How about, instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare. Well, Trump's tariffs already tax diapers, formula, and the car seat. Now he is coming for commonsense childcare policies, taking us in the wrong direction at a time when families need affordable childcare more than ever. If Trump had simply done nothing and left the 7-percent cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family. This is really a slap in the face to moms and dads all over the country--and to childcare providers, who are already stretched thin to make their budgets work and keep their doors open and keep qualified employees in a field that has very high turnover. The good news: Congress can now force Trump to reverse course on this--today, right now. Very soon, we are going to be voting on my resolution to overturn Trump's anti-childcare rule and bring back that 7 percent income cap. This shouldn't be controversial. You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them. Not too long ago, President Trump said openly that he believes--and I am going to quote him--we can't afford daycare; we have to pay for war. We can afford childcare. Trump just wants to use our taxpayer dollars to fund war and tax cuts for billionaires. Trump says we can't afford childcare, but he is wrong. The truth is, we can't afford to ignore childcare. I know that investment in childcare is an investment in our families and an investment in a stronger economy. To my colleagues: If you vote to let this rule stand, own it. Go home and tell the parents in your State you voted to raise their childcare bill. You cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one. You just can't. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to join me today and pass this resolution. Every Senator is going to cast a vote today on a simple question: Should working parents pay more for childcare or less? Donald Trump wants them to pay more--more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and now more to drop the child off at daycare. Now the Senate will give its answers, and I promise you this: Parents are watching and parents remember. To my colleagues: Vote for the moms. Vote for the dads. Vote for the kid in the back seat at the 7 a.m. dropoff. When childcare costs as much as the mortgage, whose side are you on? So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote yes to lower childcare costs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 811 (Executive Calendar)

2026-07-22

“You are my friend. But I think your speech will insult Canadians. They will think that you say they don't fight fires. I work hard on wildfires. So do Canadians. They feel insulted by many things. This will make it worse. I want to help our country fight fires. I don't want to pass your bill now.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, let me just say to my friend, and he is a friend, and I do hear his quiet, calm tone. I appreciate it. It is not something we all often hear here. But I will say this, in the words that you hear from this resolution, if you are a Canadian, it is that we are insulting them by saying you are not trying to fight your forest fires. And I will tell you this, I am working my tail off to help us fight our wildfires; our Canadian friends are as well. And I think, in this very heightened time--when I know I don't live far from the border either; we have a lot of trade with our Canadian friends; we go back and forth--they feel very insulted by a lot that is going on. So I think this adds fuel to that fire. So what I say to my friend, let's work on our country, making sure that we are fighting our forest fires, which I outlined in my response to you, of some of the things we can do, and I believe that our Canadian friends are doing the same. But that is why I object at this time.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I think Republicans are wrong. They want Canada to stop wildfires. I don't like that. It is not nice to Canada. Canada helps us with wildfires. The government should spend more money to fight wildfires here. Trump fired Forest Service workers. That was bad. He stopped money for fighting wildfires. I want more money for the Forest Service. I don't like that Trump fights with Canada. I object to this resolution.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I am going to ask pretty bluntly, what on earth are my colleagues doing here? I don't know why Republicans are focused on making a really petty and offensive statement to Canada, saying they need to do a better job of containing wildfire smoke as if the Canadian Government is letting their forest burn and its own citizens inhale wildfire smoke just to spite us. This is a joke. Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't realize this, but Canadian firefighters cross that border to help us fight our wildfires right here all the time. And guess what. Our firefighters do the exact same when they are able. In fact, for the information of all Senators, a firefighter actually just passed away who was helping us fight a wildfire in Colorado; he was from British Columbia. Now, what we don't do is pass resolutions here telling our friends and our neighbors to do a better job of handling wildfire smoke. And also, maybe somebody should alert the President and my colleagues, but wildfire smoke from the United States often makes its way into Canada. It is happening right now where wildfires are burning in Oregon and in Washington. I think what this might be really about is telling Trump that, Mr. President, look how much we agree with you. This is a waste of everybody's time. So, respectfully, to my colleagues, understanding that time on the Senate floor is precious, here are my suggestions: Maybe we should pass legislation to rehire all of the red card holders that Trump fired. Those are the Forest Service employees who are trained here to help fight wildfires. Or how about we pass legislation to stop the Trump administration's so-called reorganization of the Forest Service, which would actually shutter offices across our country, including the research labs that helped us study the wildfires and pushed out even more Forest Service employees. Or maybe instead of entertaining Trump's outrageous requests for a $1.5 trillion war budget, Republicans could work with us to adequately fund our needs here at home. Our Forest Service, right here in the United States, is understaffed and underresourced. Maybe my colleagues don't realize it, but Trump's chaotic funding cuts and freezes, along with the chaotic mass layoffs, have actually hurt our public lands and leave us here less prepared to prevent and respond to wildfires here at home. I remember speaking with a Forest Service ranger last year. He was a longtime dedicated employee. He was a former marine. He served our country in more ways than one, and he did an incredible job. He literally saved people's lives on forest trails, and he fought wildfires here and even saved a small rural town in my State from being burned to the ground. Know what happened to him? Trump and DOGE fired him. No cause, just fired him. That was a huge loss for our State and for our country. So I do want my colleagues to get serious about the wildfires. And I will just say this, the President should actually apologize to our Canadian neighbors for the many threats and insults and, of course, drop those absurd tariffs he is imposing on these wildfires. I am not holding my breath, so enough with gimmicks, Mr. President. You want to work together to prevent wildfires? My door is wide open, and I hope we can all work together to do that. But I will tell you what I am not going to do: insult our Canadian friends to suck up to a President who does nothing but threaten our neighbors. Thank you, Mr. President, I object.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Senate

Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5, United States Code, of the Rule Submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human...

2026-07-16

“You caused a bad program. It hurts old people. I want that program to end. I want you to vote for my bill. Old people need care from doctors. Machines should not decide care. Some old people have pain. That is very sad. The program makes them wait for help. My bill will fix that. I want more people to support my bill. We should all support this bill.”

Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I wanted to talk today about not just how Republicans are making healthcare more expensive but also how they are making it just plain worse for seniors. President Trump came into office saying he would not cut Medicare, but that was clearly a lie because right now his administration is trying to privatize Medicare; in part, by putting AI between Medicare beneficiaries and their healthcare. In January of this year, under Secretary Kennedy and Dr. Oz's leadership, CMS began this pilot program that uses AI to require prior authorization in traditional Medicare for the first time ever, and it is set to run for 6 years. They call it the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model. Well, they got the wasteful and inappropriate part right. The WISeR Model uses AI to deny vulnerable seniors the care they need and that their doctors recommend. Not only that, but the for-profit contractors that conduct this prior authorization are paid a percentage of the cost of care that they deny. They are literally incentivized to rip healthcare away from seniors because that is best for their bottom line. When your business model relies on denials, denials are what seniors are going to get, and that is perverse. WISeR was rolled out in the beginning of this year in my home State of Washington and five other States without safeguards and without any transparency and without the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries at the heart of this program. President Trump is saying: Forget the doctors who went to medical school and took an oath to do no harm. AI knows better when it comes to healthcare decisions for our seniors. The consequences of that poor judgment are real, and they are life- threatening. I hear from Medicare patients in Washington State all the time. They are suffering debilitating pain for weeks because they are not getting the care they need, thanks to this harmful model--patients like Joanne. She is a Medicare beneficiary from Quilcene, WA. She went to her doctor for severe pain. An MRI showed that a herniated disk was pressing on her sciatic nerve. Joanne's doctor prescribed an epidural injection to help ease that pain. This was standard, routine care--care that, before this year, she would have been able to get quickly after it had been recommended by her doctor. But because of this WISeR Model, she had to wait 6 weeks to get approval. That means, thanks to WISeR, Joanne had to deal with unnecessary, unrelated pain for 6 weeks. Because of this nonsense delay, her day-to-day life was disrupted and the burden fell on her then to fight for the care she needed. This is simply outrageous, but that is also WISeR working by design, and that is a direct impact of the Trump administration's actions. We have seen way too many stories like Joanne's from States that have been selected for this pilot program. No way should an algorithm decide if seniors should get the care they need. That is exactly why I join my colleagues here in introducing a resolution to overturn this model. And I want all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it so we can make sure seniors in my State and all over the country can, once again, receive their healthcare on time and without interruption. Let's just use our common sense. It is clear as day that some AI models should never be at the wheel making healthcare decisions left and right. And it is not just patients I have heard from. I have met with healthcare providers all over my State. Whether it is a rural hospital or a doctor in Seattle, no one--no one--has had anything good to tell me about prior authorization in traditional Medicare. Now, I ran for office because I believe regular people deserve a say in how their government is run, and that is especially true when it comes to the government deploying AI technology. I don't know any senior--Republican or Democrat--who asked President Trump to let AI decide if their doctor-recommended treatment was necessary. Of course, AI can help make things more efficient or do good things. That is not what the WISeR Model is doing. So let's get to the crux of it. As a country, we make a promise to American seniors: If they paid their taxes throughout their careers, they earned their Medicare coverage. Full stop. WISeR breaks that promise to seniors with these senseless AI-driven prior authorizations that deny and delay care. Let me be clear, many seniors choose traditional Medicare over other options because traditional Medicare rarely requires prior authorizations. People choose traditional Medicare because they want to make their healthcare decisions with their doctor, not with a private company that is out to make a profit. Simply put, the WISeR Model--which, again, delays and denies necessary care to Medicare patients--is reckless, and it is irresponsible. I want my Republican colleagues to join us in voting to get rid of WISeR once and for all because this should not be a partisan issue. We all have seniors in our States that deserve the highest level of care without having to deal with redtape and delay. Thanks to Trump, AI is getting in between our seniors and their healthcare in Arizona, in New Jersey, in Ohio, in Oklahoma, in Texas, and in my State of Washington. We have an opportunity to stop this harmful experimental pilot program before more seniors are harmed. No senior in America should have to appeal their pain and suffering to a machine. To my colleagues, if it were your spouse or parent who needed care, whom would you want to decide if they get their treatment, their doctor or a for-profit algorithm? Would you want them to suffer in pain for weeks for care that they are entitled to? I know what my answer is. Let's maintain the promise of Medicare. Let's pass this resolution. I yield the floor.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗