We ought to be very guarded in making broad assertions and make sure that they are well grounded in science and medicine

We're prepared, when we get back, to have a vote on a bill already passed by the House, ready to be signed by the president.

It’s something that, yeah, some of our members are paying attention to.

Maybe there is something we can do in the middle as a solution.

We’re going to fix this today, and restore the longtime Senate precedent of expeditious confirmation, and the Senate’s role as first and foremost a legislative body.

It's in their court.

It’s time to move. Time to quit stalling. Time to vote. Time to fix this place.

If they aren't willing to do that, then we'll proceed with the other plan.

We've got a crisis, and it's time to take steps to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what once was understood to be standard practice, and that is the Senate acting expeditiously on presidential nominations to allow a…

There’s a dispute about whether that’s really his signature, so it’s just going to be argued back and forth.

It’s time to take steps to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what once was understood to be standard practice — and that is the Senate acting expeditiously on presidential nominations to allow a president to get his team…

He’s got to take responsibility for, you know: We confirm these people. We go through a lot of work to get them confirmed. And they’re in office a month?

I hope that the process will continue in a bipartisan way as we move toward the September deadline.

There's certainly interest in looking at options that might enable us to break the logjam and expedite consideration of nominees in a way that, in the end, would benefit both parties when their party has the presidency.

At some point, we may need to look at doing things differently on nominees generally, if the Democrats continue this path of obstruction that they're on right now.

I think we should do everything we can to be a helping hand. I know other countries, including the Israelis, are trying to address the food needs in Gaza.

I think that I share the president’s view.

It's going to take 60 to fund the government.

We’re looking at the future, not the past.

If their recent track record is any indication, they’re under a tremendous amount of pressure from that far left wing of the Democrat Party to shut the government down.

Ultimately, keeping the government funded is good for the country, and hopefully we will have bipartisan cooperation to do that.

This is a party struggling for an identity. This is a party that’s completely out of step with the mainstream of this country.

I think he [Schumer] probably thinks that it’s beneficial to their political base, the far left of the Democrat Party, and you can kind of see what’s happening up there in New York politics.

We’ll see what the future holds, but the goal right now is to get into the appropriations process.

We’re all interested in making sure that justice is served and that there is full disclosure and there’s transparency around this.