or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪♪ >> c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> the distinguished-- (laughter) >> gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i thank my colleague for yielding. today my first born is to be married at 5:00. [cheers and applause] again, i find myself standing not one more time when i miss one more event of young children that i love and that love me. to get married in 1990 is an act of love, it's an act of faith, it's an act of hope, it's an act of idealism. the veto is an act of cynicism.

i ask you to cut off this debate. we know how we're going to vote. let's override this veto and let me love my son. [applause] >> c-span, powered by cable. >> and we take you live now to the floorwhere today lawmakers working on the nomination of a member to be on the federal energy regulatory commission. and later, senators will vote on whether or not to begin work on a measure that would protect nationwide access to in vitro fertilization treatment for pregnancies. you're watching live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray.

>> let us pray. for thoseho■w■ purchased our freedom with blood, toil, and fears. lord, give us this day a vivid vision of what you expect our nation to become as we accept the tortures■q of integrity and faithfulness from those who have gone before us. give o our lawmakers reverence for your name and determination to please you with their enable them to bath withds.

fortitude and threat of care and dredgery ofl.ticism and the direct them to sources of meanwhile energy. we pray, in your magnificent name amen. join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. snati■ >> communication to3, the senat.

washington d.c. to the senate. the rules of the senate i appoint. raphael to the chair.. >> the leadership time is preserved. proceed to t executive session change to be a member.

>> we are waiting for a senator to come to the floor to speak. they will vote an a measure to protect nationwide access for ivf treatments. they are working on aion for the federal energy commission. regulating the transmission of oil. if all are confirmed they will maintain a 3-2 majority. you are watching live coverage on c-span 2.

they acted quickly in the state of alabama confusion persists. l other senators support ivf. seeing this confusion. confusion that's been3÷ fueled y democrat partisans. i reached out to senator britt from alabama. i asked senator britt if she would join together though draft legislation, federal legislation that would be a clearhtforward d protection for ivf.

we should set a clear move that no one can ban ivf. we drafted this together. this bill is simple, it's straightforward, it's clear. ivf is profoundly pro family. it's an avenue of hope for millions struggling with infertility. to every mom and dad at home and every woman and man desperately hoping to become a parent, know that our bill will insure that ivf remains 100% protected by law. this is a clear and unmistakable

federal law. we invite our colleagues, in the senate from both sides of the aisle to join together in the crucial legislation. this should be a measure that trscends political divides. a resent poll shows that 86% of americans believe ivf should be legal and protected. this is a opportunity for us to put partisan divisions aside and come together and unite on a shared commitment to protect ivf. that's why, in just a moment i'll ask unanimous consent to pass the legislation. i'd like to yield to senator britt. >> thank you so much, mr. president, i was proud to join my colleague and introduce the ivf protection act. this is an important topic. as a mom, there is no greater

joy in this life than that of being a mother. ivf helps aspiring the miracle of life and start and grow a family. that's why i support continued ivf access. ivf access is fundamentally pro family. for the millions of americans that face infertility every year i hope passing we all have loved or friends that have become parents or grandparents through iff. 2% of babies born are born because of ivf, that's 200 babies per day. since the magnitude of that number and the basis of the story and the dream.

in resent decades millions of people have been born with the help of ivf. along with my colleagues and senator cruz i was honored to join colleagues emphasized shared support and continue nationwide access to ivf. iff is legal and available in every state across america including my home state with the legislationture -- legislature acted quickly to protect ivf for our families. today, the senate has a day to it for our nations families. that's what the ivf protection act would do. it's straightforward. the bill giving aspiring parents nationwide a piece of mind that ivf is legal and available in

every single state. now, i'll break this down as directly as possible. one bill is protecting ivf access. that's the ivf protection act. one bill protecting access while safeguarding religious liberties. that's our ivf act. only one bill protecting access 0 votes in the senate and once again, that's our protection act. that's not the bill the democrats will put-on the floor there week. they are not interrested in a bill to protect ivf access and making it law. that would advance their true goal about partisan elect ction politics. they believe this will help them in november and that's what this

is all about. they are in week two of summer of scare tactics. they will transition into fear mongering. the american people want to secure borders and safe streets and stable prices. they want strong families. my colleagues across if they can't■f sale the record on any f these topics. it's failure after failure. instead, they have to rely on distorting and misrepresent senting republicans on issues for ivf access. the bottom line. it's not better in our bill. the path of common grown solutions and scare tactics. i'd likto applaud the leadership of my colleague from texas and been a champion as we work to make sure the world

knows we are going to protect access to ivf. democrats prioritize scaring families republicans will couldn't to fight. >> m president. >> senator from texas. >> sometimes the folks at home can find the procedure on the floor confusing. i'd like to explain what's about to happen. i'll ask unanimous consent to pass the protection bill in the law. one of two things would happen they can decide ivf sh protected. it will pass the senate 100 to nothing. the other thing that happened is democrats will utter two words. i object ject.

i'd like you to listen to the senate democrats. everything else, understand if the remarks and words i object ject. senate democrats would have made the political decision that democrats don't want ivf protected in federal law. they don't want to provide reassurance and comfort to millions in america. instead, they want to spend millions running chairman pain ads that the republicans would like to takeaway ivf. i get why that's good politics. i hope they are not that cynical. understand again, if you hear the words i object ject, senate democrats are saying, no, we will not protect ivf if federal law because we want to play

politics. mr. president, as if in legislature session, i ask you man muss consent that we are consideration. i farther ask the bill be read a third time in past and motion to reconsider be laid upon table. mr. president. >> senator from washington. >> reserving the right to object. i wouldn't menace words here. it's ridiculous to claim this bill protects ivf when it does nothing of the sort. it allows states to restrict ivf in all sorts of way and literally in the bill text. it didn't take state lawmakers in alabama to pass a ban for clinics in the state to suspend

services. under this bill, there are a million ways, republican lead states can enact burden some and unnecessary requirements to create the kind of legal uncertainty and risks that would force clinics to once again close their doors. additional, even though it is an important part of the ivf process that families will make more embryos than they need, this bill does absolutely nothing, not a single thing to insure families to use ivf to use their clinics disposed of unused embryos without facing legal threats for a standard medical procedure. instead, there bill ignores the matter of what happens to frozen embryos to apiece antiabortion allies.

this was intentional and leaving the door open to a lot of chaos. this bill is a pr plain and simple. another way for them to not be the extremist they are. meanwhile, there are bills some republicans are pushing for right now that would enshrine a matter of law that life begins at exception regarding of used embryos. senator cruz supported an amendment to the u.s. constitution. the junior senator will change the united states constitution to give embryos the same rights as living and breathing humans. this stone-cold reality you can't protect ivf to and champion a person. i'd like to ask my colleagues

offering with this bill and i hope that do answer directly. letting parents disprocessed of unused embryos. this isart of the by it's nature will throw ivf access into chaos. i have a few questions. all of the claims supporting ivf will fall short like this bill does. that's why i object ject. >> objection heard. >> mr. president, senator from texas. >>r. president, the senator from washington suggested this bill doesn't protect ivf. let me read the clear language that unambiguously protects ivf. a state, shall not prohibit

in vitro fertilization. no unit that's ironclad. had the democrats not said, i object ject. that language would have passed 100 to nothing. a strong federal protection of ivf. now, democrats now, that out of 50 states not a single state is seeking the ban on ivf. they know the threat they plan to spend millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real. no state is currently pursuing. they know alabama whose supreme court started the issue. the legislature came and acted

to make clear the senator from washington, i asked a question. i find it interesting and no longer on the senate floor to hear my answer to the question. the senator from washington that suggests those states that pursue the amendments consistent with ivf. alabama, geo and missouri have adopted person hood amendments and protect ivf. it's legal in alabama and missouri. democrat maintain ivf and the facts are to the contrary. understand. why the democrats did what they did. they will tell the voters if you don't vote for me, a democrat,

mean republicans will takeaway ivf. i'll tell you mr. president, the reason they say that is the democrats roster is extreme and out of the mainstream. every democrat covering up the legislation literally up until the moment of birth, up until the 39th or 40th week. rat cal f amic policy position on abortion. look at that and say, that goes too far. among those americans that call themselves pro chose. most of the pro-choice americans look at the positions of the democrats and they say, wow, abortion up until the moment of delivery in the ninthi8 pregnancy is too much. what is the political strategy

and what is the actual record on abortion. try to change the contraceptionk ivf. they know, no state in the union is trying to ban contraception and no state in the union is trying to ban ivf. senator in ty supports the right to contraception. every senator in the body supports ivf being protected. the democrats are counting on a dossal media. they know the bills we are voting on tomorrow will fail. that's n not above but a future. claiming republicans know it i false. one reason the bills are fail tomorrow is they deliberately trample on liberties. there used to be a time when

there was a commitment. no longer the democrats decided the first amendment no longer matters. among other thing force a catholic hospital to provide ivf thprocedures even in contrary to the faith of catholic doctors. >> this drug is a safe drug that's been used for years. this was based not on the merits but lack of standing. we are not yet out of thewoods. this shouldn't be a decision women are forced to fear, year after year, case after case. these health care decisions must be between women, families, and their doctors, not judges nor

lawmakers. now, on ivf, for years, as the hard right sets their sights on roe v. wade -- sorry, for years, as the hard right had set their us kept hearing the same thing again and again and again -- roe can't possibly ever be overturned. we were told that worrying about roe was sensationalism, that its repeals were so remote a prospect that worrying about it was much ado about nothing. many on the republican side who voted repeatedly against codifying roe used the excuse that roe was not in danger, and they used it as an easy way out. the same could happen to ivf. of course,t all came to an end two years ago when a maga majori the supreme court

did precisely what the anti-abortion movement has wanted for decades, the reversal of roe and elimination of constitutional right to an abortion. today, wees of millions of wome are forbidden by law from making the very same personal decisions about their bodies. this is precisely what many republicans assured us would never happen, and, yet, here we are in a modern-day dark age for women's fundamental freedoms. the anti-abortion is not yet finished. now that roe is gone, they have set their sights on a new target, in vitro fertilization. so today the question beforehe senate is very simple. do we agree that americans should be free to use ivf if they want to? question or no.

if yes, then the only right answer is to vote in favor of today's bill. the right to ivf act is common sense and necessary. it establishes a nationwide right to ivf and eliminates barriers for the millions of families looking to use ivf to start and to grow a family. protecting ivf should be the easiest yes vote the senate has taken all year. republicans cannot say they are pro-family and then vote agains and it's very fitting that we take this very important vote today of all days. here in the senate we're voting to protect women's reproductive freedoms, but on the other side of capitol hill, donald trump and his republican sycophants will be talking about tax breaks for the very rich, cuts to the middle class and packing our

courts with more radical judges. the contrast couldn't be clearer. look at the contrast. democrats are protecting ivf, donald trump and the republicans are protecting wel-- protecting wealthy tax breaks. on which side of the american people, it's obvious. look, as we prepare this ivf r colleagues who hate talking about the issue have made the same panicked arguments they made about roe. it's a nonissue. it will never happen. that we're blowing things out of proportion. well, the ivf -- that ivf, they say, is simply not under threat and today's bill is unnecessary. senator cruz and britt even organized a statement yesterday signed by all republican senators saying that of course they support ivf, but they certainly won't be voting on a bill that protects it. easy to see through that one, isn't it?

how strange all 49 republicans are willing to sign a piece of paper saying they like ivf but none of them say -- seem to be willing to vote for a bill that actually protects ivf. it shows you how afraid they are of the issue, but how they're tied in a knot by the maga hard right on committees -- on choice and they can't do anything that the american people want. c

■

he agency that regulates the

transmissionf electric, natural gas, and oil. a if all are confirmed they will maintain a 3-2 majority on the board. watching live coverage of the senate on c-span 2. quorum call: ?g

#

this shouldn't be a decision women are forced to fear year after year and case after case. these healthcare decisions must be between wen families, and their doctors, not jges nor lawmakers. now ivf for years, the hard rightpr set their sights on roe. wade.

■

i8

247th anniversary of the introduction of our united states flag. celebrate f, which was establi 100 years ago by president woodrow wilson. as we pause to recognize all that our flag represents, let us

also honor those who have sacrificed everything to defend it. 2002, senator tom daschle raised a similar resolution with unanimous support from the senate. it passed on the floor uneventfully. today, i ask this body to reaffirm our support for the pledge of allegiance. also, bringing into account somebody from indiana, red skelton. in 1969, the american entertainer, who was his progran hour" wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge. reflecting on his time in vi vincens, indiana, he spoke about the value instilled by one of his high school teachers. after the performance of the speech, cbs received 200,000

requests for copies. i wonder if that would occur in this day and age. this speech would go on to be sold as a single by columbia records and performed at the white house for president nixon. i think it would honor mr. skelton's memory and the importance of the pledge of allegiance if it were recited again today on the senate floor, like i've done several times since i've been here. red skelton, when i was a small boy in vincens, indiana, i heard, i think, one of the most outstanding speeches i ever heard in my life. i think it compares with the sermon on the mount, lincoln's getsiesburg a -- gettysburg address, socrates' speech to the student. we just finished reciting the pledge of allegiance, and mr. laz well, the principal,

called us all together. he said, boys and girls, i've been listening to you recite the t seems that it's become a littleonous to you. or could it be you do not understand the meaning of each word? nd give you a definitionhe of each i, me, an individual, a coteone. pledge, dedicate all of my to g self-pity. allegiance, my love and devotion. the flag, our standard, old glory, a symbol of courage and wherever she waves there is respt. because your loyalty has been given her a dignity that shouts.

of the united, that means we all have come together. states, individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 because of when it was done. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. all divided imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common cause, and that's love of country. of america and to the republic, a republic, a sovereign state in which powers invested into the representatives chosen by the people to govern, and the government is of the people. and it's from the people, to the leaders, no the from the leaders to the people. for which it stands, one nation, meaning so blessed by god. indivisible, incapable of being divided. with liberty, which is freedom, the right of power for one to live his own life without+a fea,

threats, or any sort of retaliation. and justice, the principle and qualities of dealing fairly others. for all, for all that girls, i your country as it is mine. afterwards, mr. lazwell asked his students to recite the pledge of allegiance together, with newfound appreciation for the words. the united states of america, amendment to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. red skelton concluded his speech by saying, since i was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the pledge of allegiance -- under god. wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer it

should be eliminated from our schools as well? just as those students that day, mr. mired skelton included recommitted to the meaning of the words of the pledge of allegiance, i call upon the united states senate to recommit to the meaning of these words. there are times today that the words of the pledge of allegiance are tossed around without care. other times they are alters to remove what today is deemed offensive or antiquated. but americans should not misuse or abuse our pledge of allegiance. the pledge is meant to remind americans of our guiding principles and inspire adherence to those ideas that made our country great.nder the law,

recognized rights to pursuit o happiness. that is why in honor of flag day tomorrow, i am requesting unanimous consent for my colleagues of my resolution expressing support of the pledge of allegiance is passed. mr. president, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration resolution 732, which is at the desk. further, that resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. soc objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution, 732, celebrating the 247th

anniversary of the creation of the flag of the united states and expressing support for the pledge of allegiance. the clerk: the resolution is -- the presiding officer: the resolution is agreed to, the preamble is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, democrats made their latest move yesterday until their yearlong campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the supreme court. their failed attempt to gain unanimous consent on a so-called supreme court ethics bill was yet another attempt to bully the court into ruling the way the democrats want. mr. president, with decisions in multiple controversial cases coming from the supreme court over the next few weeks, including today, i expect this

was just the prelude to yet another dramatic democrat temper tantrum if things don't go mocrats' way. i say if things don't go democrats' wayecause it's a funny thing, mr. president, when the supreme court decides things democrats' way, we hear a lot less about the legitimacy of the supreme court. take the court's decision in the consumer financial protection bureau v. community financial services of america limited, in which most of the court's republican appointees sided with all of the court's democrat appointees to deliver a decision that democrats congresswoman maxine waters, the democrat ranking membe financia committee had this to say, and i quote, with this decision, our nation's justices have decided to put consumers first and reject the baseless attacks led by extreme maga republicans

greedy payday lenders to hamstring the work of the cfpb and put consumers in harm's way, end quote. or take court's decision in moore v. harper, in which after of the court's republican appointees sided with the court's democrat appointees to deliver a decision that was embraced, embraced by the democrat leader here in the united states senate. here's what he had to say, and i quote, today, those who support democracy, fair elections and the rule of law can stand a bit taller. today's ruling reaffirmed the long-standing precedent that respects our constitutional system of checks and balances, end quote. that again, mr. president, from the senate democrat leader. funny how he didn't mention anything in that statement about how the court had been captured by, in his words, the fanatical e maga right. well, mr. president, i could go on, but all of this leads to one

inevitable conclusion, and that is that to democrats the only legitimate court and the only legitimate court decisions are the ones that line up with democrats' policy preferences. it has become clear that democrats are willing to do whatever it takes, up to and including intimidation, delegitimization and court-packing, to ensure that the court rules in line with where democrats want it. this ethics or legitimacy or concern for our democrat institutions,ed a democrats would have you believ. this, mr. president, is about power, and democrats are apparently perct willing to undermine a fundamentaled part of our -- a fundamental part of our system of government for their political ends. because, let's be very clear, mr. president, it's not the supreme court that is undermining the legitimacy of

this essential institution. it's democrats with their unhinged campaign against a duly constituted court composed of nine duly confirmed justices nominate by a duly elected president. a court, it's worth pointing out, that in its last ter unanimously, that's right, ghlye time, and 90% of the time, let me repeat that, 9:00 -- 90% of the time had at least one democrat appointed justice on the majority. mr. president, it would be nice if we could just dismiss democrats' hysteria as the tantrums of a party that discovered that sometimes in a democracy, you don'tr way. but democrats' concerted effort to undermine the legitimacy of the court is widespread consequences it could have. the last thing we should be

doing at a time of deep political divisions is to be shaking americans' faith i legitimacy of our institutions and the impartiality of the court. do democrats really want a public with less faith in the government? perhaps they do. or perhaps they don't care, as long as their policies are ascendant and they can maintain a hold on pure. -- power. but they should care as i said should things not go entirely in the democrats way in the supreme courts decision, we will hear more about the court's hijacking and illegitimacy, but i hope the justices and the american people will tune it out. because democrats baseless and

attempts to delegitimize the court did not deserve to be given the time of day. mr. president, i yield the floor. ■u i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to join my colleague from

south dakota in decrying the relentless smear campaign that's being directed at the supreme court of the united states. of course many of these attacks have come from expected so grou people, for example, who leak the justices' addresses so protests could occur on their lawns, lodging threats against these judges and their families all because they disagree with the decisions that the court has made in one case or another. and, of course, there is one instance where a person who was determined to assassinate justice kavanaugh was thankfully stopped by law enforcement. that demonstrates the dangerousness of some of this -- these political attacks against the court. sadly, the aggressors aren't limited to a small group of

outsiders though. attacks are being waged by elected members of congress. some men and women in this building have sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution but have repeatedly targeted the court over supposed ethics concerns. last year, 15 of our democratic colleagues recommended slashing the srecourt's budget, which actually would be unconstitutional, but they threatened to slash the supreme court's budget if it failed to meet their demand to implement a code of ethics which they had prescribed. a few years ago, five of our democratic colleagues threatened the court could be restructured if it failed to rule a certain way in a case involving the second amendment. and, of course, forget the time when the majority leader, the senator from new york, stood on the front steps of the supreme court and

threatened two justices by name. if they didn't reach a preferred ruling in an abortion case. well, these are unprecedented attacks against the court. they're inappropriate at best, and they are unconstitutional at worst. they show a complete lack of respect for the three separate but equal branches of government that comprise our constitutional republic. and they know that, but they're using these attacks to undermine public confidence in the court. they demonstrate a willingness to do whatever it takes to secure a partisan win, even if that means shredding the u.s. constitution and undermining the separation of powers. the partisan political attacks on the supreme court are varied,

but the underlying objective has always been the same. it's about control. it's about power. democrats want to control the institution, control the juices, and thus direct the o outcomes. in other words, they want to make the judicial bncent branch government, a nonpolitical branch, they want to make it another political branch of like some of the outcomes that the courts have decided. forget fair and impartial courts, that's not their objective. they want judges to fall in line and obey orders. in short, they want to politicize the independent judiciary. and if there is a threat to our democracy today, it is the politicalization of some of our most basic institutions, like

the fbi, the doepartment of justice and now the left is targeting the supreme court of the united states. so far they haven't been successful, but that doesn't mean they're going to stop trying any time soon. last month, "the new york times" published a piece by congresswoman jamie raskin where he -- congressman jamie raskin where he advised a constitutional scholar, self-proclaimed, he wrote an article about forcing two supreme court justices to recuse themselves from a case involving president trump. the piece is literally entitled, how to force justice alito and thomas to recuse themselves in the january 6 cases. here it is, a prominent member

of congress, a democraticss, a constitutional force an independent branch of government to commit to a certain outcome and force the recusal of two sitting justices. he argued that the department of justice has the authority to compel that. he's wrong, but that's his argument. the decision on whether or not to recuse is reserved -- not for members of congress, not for the department of justice, or for anyone else. the code of judicial conduct for u.s. judges provides clear guidelines on recusal, and it's ultimately up to the individual justices. unfortunately, there's a fullpl blur the lines the supreme court from other branchs of government;4. for years liberal activists and dark money groups have b on a warpath to destroy public

confidence in the high court's -- and the high court's independence. one of these groups is called demand justice, an organization whose highest goal is to pack the supreme court and install a permanent liberal majority. a couple of years ago -- years ago one of the cofounders of demand justice said, it's time for the democrats to see the court as a political as much a official and run against it. that's the type of people and the type of agenda we're dealing with here. demand justice and other liberal groups recently sent letter to senator durbin, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, urging him to use his power to investigate these so-called ethics concerns.

they want the senate to craft a law to dictate to the supreme court what their code of ethics should look like. forget about the fact they senate -- democrat senators . want to dictate what that code of ethics should look like. and last night, chairman durbin tried to force a vote on this bill, but this was blocked -- this unanimous consent request was blocked by the ranking member, senator graham. as my republican colleagues and i have said for months, any decisions about the supreme court's practices or procedures should come from the court itself, not from congress. the senate has a limited but important role where it concerns the supreme court andhat is through the confirmation process, and we're all familiar with that. all nine justices underwent a rigorous background check,

endured hours and hours of questioning from members of the judiciary committee, met with senators one-on-one and ultimately were confirmed by a majority vote of the u.s. senate. that's where the senate's role starts and ends. we don't have the authority to drag the supreme court justices beforef some political agenda. there are clear limits to congress's power under the constitution and for good reason. the independent judiciary has been justly described as the crown jewels of our democracy. we have our fights, we have electionings, but -- elections, but ultimately the supreme court gets to decide what the law cas in marbury v. madison. we have three separate but equal

branches. the system of checks and balancesles is to -- if chairman durbin and our senate colleagues on the judiciary committee respect the sep resist this latest attempt to hijack the court. the supreme court is a separate and coequal branch and its operations squarely fall outside the authority of the legislative branch. mr. president, i often think back to a statement issued by chief justice roberts in 2018 when he said, we do not have obama judges, we don't have trump ■h clinton judges. what we have is a of dedicated are doing their level best to do right for the people before them.

it's true then and it's true now. the men and women on the supreme court should not be pawns orers likely to apply perceived political views to cases is dangerous and disingenuous, we have been with the hijacking of our justice system including the fbiée and the department of justice for partisan political purposes, and it's very, verye know what goesd comes around. is set around here, when the shoe is on the other foot, when the majority is in the minority, when the minority is in the majority, that that same precedent will be applied in the future. public trust is absolutely our d

the surest way ais to turn that into a political football. that is what our democratic colleagues are risking. it doesn't matter what cases are before the court or what ruling is handed down, elected officials need to lead by example and support independence. members should sw that includes letting the judges do their the court's going to han down decisions that i don't like and that the presiding officer doesn't like, but that's not the point. the point is there is a fair and impartial process of applying the law and constitution into deciding what the outcome is. i can't count the number of times i've been disappointed by a court ruling, but i've certainly never advocated for restructuring the supreme court to of

mine the next time. i never suggested cutting funds for if judges failed to deliver my preferred ruling. zg that would be wrong and certainly -- certainly i've never threatened justices with violence if they reach a decision i dislike. and i never have and i power of to try to subpoena a sitting member of the court or force justices to recuse themselves contrary to their decisions using the rules that exist the -- the code of conduct that exists for federalpresident, an independent judiciary is absolutely essential to our democracy and i hope chairman durbin and our democratic colleagues will show a little self-restraint and resist the far-left's latest push to

destroy public confidence in the supreme court or in the court's independenceident, i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum -- mr. president, i withhold that request. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk had call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin.■[jg6ú mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

mr. booker. mr. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.3w mr. cornyn.

the clerk: cortez masto.■a mr. cotton.

the clerk: mr. cramer, mr. crapo poe. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty.

the clerk: ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy.

the clerk: mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen.

mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. ■■

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative --

baldwin, barrasso, bennet, booker, crapo, lujan, markey, murphy, risch, stabenow, tester, tillis, van hollen, warner, wyden, young. mr. graham, aye. the clerk: senators voting in the negative -- blackburn, cornyn, cruz, daines, hagerty,

kennedy. the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

the cler mr. rubio, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. vance, no. mr. hawley, no.5z■

the clerk: ms. smith, aye. mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.pó

the clerk: hyde-smith, aye. mr. johnson, no. mr. fetterman, aye. mr. padilla, aye. mr. grassley, aye.

mr. welch, aye. mr. paul, no.■b the clerk: mrs. capito, no.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, no. the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

will boozman, no. -- mr. boozman, no. the clerk: mr. marshall, no. ms. lummis, no. mr. scott of south carolina, no.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye. the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. carper, aye. the clerk: mr. ossoff, rosen, a+ mr. ricketts, no.

vote: mr. thune, no. ms. warren, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. peters, aye.

mrs. britt, no. ms. dmurkowski, aye. ms. ernst, no. mr. kelly, aye. mr. rounds, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. manchin, aye. mr. moran, no.. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, aye. mr. schatz, aye.mr. mullin, no.

mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. brown, aye. the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. mr. cassidy, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

mr. schmitt, no. mr. budd, no.a

the clerk: mr. casey, aye.■■#

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye. the the with

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

the clerk: mr. coons, aye.■h

the clerk: mr. lee, no.■fr÷

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.■■l

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

vote: 5.>

the presiding officer: the yeas are 63, the nays are 33. the nomination is confirmed. the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider with respect to rosner, see and chang nominations be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session. mr. schumer: mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 413, s. 4445. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 413, s. 4445, a

bill to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment including in vitro fertilization. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. mrs. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. last week every senator was put on the record as to whether they defend the right to contraception. despite republicans' words about supporting bir control, their actions voting against the right to contraception act spoke louder. today we are putting republicans on the record on another issue families across the country are deeply concerned about -- the right to ivf. as we saw in alabama, the threat to ivf is not hypothetical. it is not overblown, and it is not fearmongering.

after the alabama supreme court ruled that a frozen embryo is the same as, has the exact same rights as a living, breathe human person, women who waited for months and spent tens of thousands of dollars and were days away from an ivf appointment were left to wonder if it was for nothing when their treatment was abruptly canceled. and families that had already gone through ivf were left to wonder if they could have their providers now dispose unused empre-i don't sees without -- embryos without facing legal threat. this happened. it was national news. it was complete chaos. so republicans' efforts to dismiss this vote as fearmongering are simply not going to fly especially whep right now there are republican bills, right now that would enshrine as a matter of law that life begins at conception and that discarding unused embryos

is essentially murder. that would essentially end ivf in our country. and this is not a fringe bill either. it is supported by the majority of house republicans, including the speaker. mr. president, i don't know how to make this any clearer to my republican colleagues. you cannot support ivf and support fetal personhood laws. they are fundamentally incompatible. democrats are not going to let republicans off the hook for their support for fetal personhood. this is a dangerous and extreme ideology that the public must understand republicans support wholeheartedly. we're not going to let republicans paper over their extremism with their so-called solution, a bill not only silent on ensuring embryos can be discarded but explicitly allows states to put burdensome restrictions on ivf and create

the kind of legal uncertainty that forced clinics in alabama to close their doors. mr. president, i do have goo news for any of my republican colleagues who do genuinely support ivf in a serious, meaningful way. we have a bill before us today that will do just that, and we're going to vote on it very shortly. the right to ivf act. i really want to thank senator duckworth and senator booker for working with me to put together a bill that would protect americans from attempts to restrict ivf and help people get those vital services at a lower cost. the right to ivf act would establish a federal right for patients to get ivf care and for doctors to provide it. it would ensure more health insurance plans cover ivf services, making care finally accessible to middle-class and lower-income families who desperately need it. and this package includes my bill to help more veterans and

servicemembers who have difficulty conceiving get the critical fertility services they need to start their families, including ivf. this is something i've long been pushing for for years now, and it is long overdue. all these men and women who fought to protect our families, we owe it to them to make sure they have the support when they come home to grow theirs. none of this should be controversial, especially if republicans are serious about it. supporting ivf and preventing more chaos like we saw in alabama. i'll have more to say before the final vote, but the bottom line is americans saw earlier this year with painful clarity just how real the threat to ivf is, and they're going to see right now just who is serious about addressing that threat and protecting ivf access. with that, i will turn it ove to my colleague from michigan who's been a champion on this issue. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan.

ms. stabenow: first, i want to thank the senior senator from washington state who's also the president pro tempore of the united states senate, for her incredible leadership on all of the issues related to reproductive freedom. and i just want to start by saying that. i cannot believe that we're in 2024. we're not in 1824. we're in 2024.■7 and we have to stand on the floor in the united states senate and say that we need to protect a woman's right to choose ivf as the process to start or grow her family or that we have to protect her ability to make decisions on birth control or abortion services or any other reproductive issue, any other reproductive issue. this is not for people here to decide what every single woman, every person involved in this

should decide. it's not for politicians, it's not for judges. this is an individual freedom in america and needs to be protected. and that's what today is about as well. for those■1 who want to have children but struggle with infertility, ivf is a path. it's a wonderful path, expensive path, it may take a lot of time, but it is an i to grow a family. i have two senior members of my staff who have chosen ivf for different reasons. one of my staff has a beautiful little boy, carter, celebrated his first birthday not long ago. amazing. and my other staff person is excitedly waiting with her wife for their new son to be born in september. different path, different choices. their choice, their choice. not the choice of politicians, not the choice of judges or

anybody else. their choice. and ivf has helped thousands of americans have children, including brittany from michigan who i know is with us today. after being diagnosed with pcos at 16, she when she was ready t start a family. after three years, six rounds of fertility treatments, countless tests, and two rounds of ivf, she gave l birth to her beautiful baby girl, eloisa, who is now 8 months old. eight months old. despite the strain this journey put on her relationship, brittany told me every penny was worth it for her daughter. every pen nip was worth -- penny was worth it for our dart.

ivf has made our family complete. she's not the michigander who had ivf. sue frombrighton, michigan, used ivf to bring her son into the world. at the time she was an elementary school teacher and her husband was deployed for months at a time. her entire salary went toward the seven rounds of ivf that were needed to have a successful pregnancy, a wanted pregnancy. with insurance only paying for some of the medication, sue spent over $100,000 out of her own pocket on treatment. this journey put an emotional and financial strain on and her husband, as we would expect. and this situation is not unique.

our servicemembers sacrifice so much for our country. they shouldn't have to sacrifice their ability to start or grow their family because these treatments aren't covered. and families shouldn't have to choose between going into debt to cover the enormous cost of treatment and having a baby just because it's not covered by insurance. that's why passing the right to ivf act is a no braern for me. i hope it's a no-brainer for everybody on the floor of the senate. this should be 100 members of the senate supporting this bill. we need to protect the freedom for millions to use ivf. we need to expand and protect t servicemembers and our veterans and cover adoption assistance,

which is in this bill. we need to lower the cost of ivf for everyone. and we need to make sure women have the freedom to make our own reproductive decisions. not right-wing politicians, not judges. that's why we must pass the right to ivf act, and it needs to be done today. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. quem cezantwell mr. president, rise -- ms. cantwell: i rise to join my colleagues toy. thank my collea washington, senator murray, for her leadership, and so many others on the floor today. i come to speak also about the right to ivf act, and want to say how important it is that my colleagues onrt this. i want to take one minute, though, to talk about the important decision the supreme court just made on mifepristone.

it's so important, because 60% of abortions in the state ofi> washington are done with this drug. it's highly safe and effective medication, used by millions of americans, and t on standing alone. it didn't reach any conclusion about the arguments that the plaintiffs were making. so america should not rest on this decision, because anti-choice activists are going to keep using the courts to target abortion. it's just another reminder of why we have to fight for reproductive freedom and why we can't rest. i also, though, want to talk about how important it is to support the legislation in front of us. every american should have a chance to use fertility treatments to bring new life into this world, and to become a parent. this opportunity wasn't always

ailable, and the first child conceived through ivf was born in 1978. that was an era of major advances and new freedoms for women. the right to have your own credit cards, the right to choose to have your access to an abortion and when you start your family, right not to be discriminated against just in so many ways. today, nearly half a century after ivf, it is safe, it is well established, and many, many, many, many american families rely on it. in fact, more than 2% of all children born in the u.s. are born as a result of ivf. we have ivf to thank for over 2,000 new life lives created in the state of washington just in 2022. ivf brings new life into the world and helps families start their families, and it shouldn't be controversial. that's why i can't believe that

we have to take this action today, because there are those trying to make this hard-won right away from families, to take away their reproductive rights and their freedoms. since the dobbs decision revoked the constitutional right to abortion, we've seen waves and waves of different things that affect our health care. february, in alabama, the state supreme court schourekingly ruled that frozen -- shockingly ruled that frozen embryos have the same rights as living children. that forced ivf clinics in the state to temporarily halt their services. one can only guess why they halted those services. at a pacific northwest facility in seattle, a reproductive indo crinologist said her -- endocrinologist said her office got a wave of phone calls from fertility patients wanting to move embryos there, to the northwest, after the alabama

they were terrified that the ruling could cause complications for the embryos and the future of their ivf process. the doctors said there is an increase in cost, in complexity, and risk of damage to embryos associated with moving them because of the possibility of threats to ivf access. so, i've heard so many stories from my own constituents and that of senator murray's. a mother from kirkland told me she gave birth to a baby boy after four year of fertility treatments. but she's afraid that the future in states might force people like her to remain without that option. a spannaway mom of a 19-month-old conceived through ivf asked me to protect ivf so everyone can choose, everyone gets to choose when they srt a family. grandparents from brimmerton of an ivf baby wanted me he to know

that during the ivf process, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything is time sensitive. but rulings like alabama throw the process into chaos, potentially, permanently ripping away the prospects forever these couples of having children. a vancouver woman struggling with infertility due to scarring in her abdomen pointed out that ivf is science. and courts and legislators shouldn't be interfering with it. a woman in everett currently going through ivf process for her second child urged me to ensure everyone has access to those treatments. mr. president, my constituents are right. congress needs to act today to expand and protect the access to i ivf. while it is safe and common, the ivf process still is stressful. it is still expensive. and that is why the possibility of activists going to court in

an overzealous anti-choice state, getting involved in these choices is not what we should support. we should support makinure that this right is protected. attack on reproductive health care in the united states of ama. voting on today would establish theight to access to ivf. it also could expand insurance coverage, which is incredibly expensive. just one cycle can cost between women require more than one cycle, so that cost can be as high as $60,000. it would also allow our veterans to help preserve their opportunities. in february, this chamber tried to pass a narrow bill codifying the right to access to ivf, and it was blocked. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim reproductive freedom isn't under attack. trust me, come to the state of

washington where we have codified these rights, but we are seeing this haians who are r state because they're not sure if they go home across the idaho border that they're not going to get arrested. women coming to get treatment, not sure they can go back to their state. the system now more clogged because more people are coming there because we provide the care. all of this making the system harder to deliver the important things. i should just say, mr. president, that people aren't even thinking of courses where the v■9ertical integratio of health care is making it harder and harder for people like gynecologists to even stay in business. and now we're making it harder and harder on states that are the ones carrying the burden of upholding reproductive rights. so i ask my colleagues support this important measure. let's make sure americans have the freedom to decide for themselves when and how to have

children, and let's put this to rest. let's give americans the certainty that fertility treatments in america are part of your health care delivery system. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. hickenlooper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. hickenlooper: mr. president, this is my son jack, who i think you know. every time i look at him, i remember the doctor telling my wife, robin, and i that we had literally a one in a million chance of naturally conceiving a child, a one in a million chance. like so many other couples in america, we had experienced a family health issue that would make having a child very difficult and exceedingly unlikely, all but impossible. you d is to

hear something so definitive, so final, until you're in that situation. it was the end of a dream we had to create a child together, to grow our little family, our family that, like so many others, didn't have the usual path to this point, the usual path that make having children without medical help all but certain. but regardless what the doctor was telling us, we knew that we would welcome a child with more love and care than i could ever put into words, if we only had the chance. if red states like alabama had their way, robin's and my■a sto would have ended there, in at might have been, what should have been. thankfully for us, we don't live in an america as envisioned by

maga republican extremists in alabama. one in a million odds wasn't the end of our dream. it was just the start a new part. that part was called in vitro fertil fertilization. it's not an easy process. it comes with its ups and downs, its uncertainties and tremendous costs, both economic and em emotional, but it meant our dream could still come true. and in december 2022, my wife and i welcomed this amazing little man, jack hickenlooper, into our family. in vitro gave us what we hoped for. it gave us our one in a million. and we're not the only ones. in 2022 alone, more than 2300 babies were born in colorado through fertility services. across the country it was nearly

100,000 families. now so many families like ours are cherishing the sacred experience of staring into your own child's eyes when they take off the sunglasses, and if that child -- and of that child staring back. every family should have that same opportunity. and to restrict that opportunity in some states but not in others, or for some people but not for others, is nothing more than anti-american. aren't we the country that stands for equality and freedom? we're standing here voting on this today because the supreme court overturned roe v. wade, seizing the rights of millions of women, same-sex couples and families like our own in the process. don't take my word for it. look at alabama. we've already seen in vitro services stopped cold in the

state of alabama. and that's not all. in the aftermath of the roe decision, we've seen red states and maga republicans trying to roll back rights to abo abortion, to in vitro, and even contraception. banning contraception, in america, in 2024. the door is open. the door is open right now for alf show our constituents that american familieshan playing politics, and i certainly hope we all do. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank senator murray for her leadership on this issue, and thank my colleague, senator tammy duckworth. i first met tammy duckworth about 12 years ago. she was my guest at a state of the union address. she was a patient in walter reed hospital.

she was recovering from the wounds which she incurred in a combat helicopter fighting for the united states of america. what happened to her is unima unimaginable. a terrorist shot a rocked-propeled grenade into the cockpit of her helicopter and it landed in her lap. she lost her left leg as a result of it, and went through at least a year, maybe more, at walter reed hospital, patching her arm, thank goodness, and giving her the kind of guidance she needed to live life. when i met her, i knew she was an extraordinary person, an extraordinary american. i didn't know how extraordinary until i called her one day and said would you consider running for office. in a moment of weakness, she says, with medication, she answered yes. her be elected to u.s. house of representatives and to the u.s. senate. she's become more than just a coll colleague. she is a friend i dearly love, and i believe we're lucky to

have in our nation and in the united states senate. she made a pho call to me about eight years ago. i remember it so well. i was driving on 55 up to bloomington for a meeting, and it wasmyome news i said what's up? she said i'm going to have a baby. with a feather. i couldn't believe it. after all she had been through, losing a leg, going through a year or more in walter reed hospital, she and her husband brian finally had their dream come through, through in vitro fertilization, she was going to have a baby girl. as a miracle. i couldn't believe it. yet that happened. we had to change the rules of the senate so that tammy duckworth, the first woman senator to have a child while serving in the senate, could bring her baby on the floor of the senate. we had to have a special rule for that. it meant so much for her, to let her little girl have that experience, and we changed the rules.

the reason i tell you that, it can be re-pieted over and over barb repeated over and over, thousands of times. fifty vieth is the ticket for -- in vitro fertilization is the ticket for military servicemembers and veterans like tammy duckworth to have the joyce of a -- the joy of a child. in fact, she's will a second child through ivf that joy, show she can not only be a great senator and wife, but a terrific mother too. what's at stake here is privacy and freedom as to whether we as americans are going to respect one another in making these fundamental human decisions. there are politicians in this chamber as well as legislatures across the country who want to make that decision for your family. don't let them take that away from you. that's why this vote is so important. what we're guaranteeing is the privacy and freedom of families who want choose ivf.

to support ivf to e, protect expand your family, i listened to senator hickenlooper, i met jack, he is worth all the effort and pain that they went through and people like senator hickenlooper and his wife robin should have that opportunity and we should protect them. let's make sure we do. vote yes on this proposal. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, when i introduced the women's health protection act, the idea that roe v. wade might be reversed was unthinkable. in fact, unimaginable. we are living now in the post

dobbs era, which is one of horror and heartbreak for women across the country. let's be very clear that the ramfications in our law, in our families, in bedrooms of americans is widespread and real. the alabama supreme court's ruling is absolutely horrifying to women and who want ivf to give them the miracle of ch childbirth, the wonderus magic of a new life as part of their family. now, a lot of people are going to look at today's supreme court decision and say, isn't it comforting? no, it is not. this decision on if a per on a t does nothing to restore the

reproductive rights and access to abortion that the supreme court dismantled in dobbs. and it does nothing to reassure families that ivf will be accessible and affordable to them. and that's why we need the right to ivf act to reassure lisa, who lives in norwalk, connecticut, who have a healthy and happy baby girl as a result of ivf but cannot imagine life without it. and families like lisa's wouldn't exist if it weren't for ivf, and many will not exist no those who vote against this measure are not in favor of life, they are anti-women,

anti-choice, antiscience. this miracle is the result of scientific advance. i'm going to close by just recalling a trib that i recently look to -- a trip that i recently took to normandy on the 80thd-day, walking through the cemetery of row upon row of gravestones, white, silently eloquence of testimony to the importance of freedom and the american determination to expand freedom and liberty across our country and the world, and then to walk on omaha beach and see the absolutely insurmountable, three football field long terrain that those soldiers had to confront

and overcome on d-day. i would guess that few, if any of those young men knew of roe v. wade. they were kids, 17 and 18-year-old,ever been away from home before, farm boys, mechanics, but they knew they were fighting for freedom. that's why t into that eight feet of water under a hail of bullets and mortar fire feeting that america respects -- fighting for the ideal that america respects and expands the frontier of freedom. if we had one-tenth, 100th of their courage and determination, today this body will vote for

the right to ivf act because it is about freedom. as one justice of the supreme court called the right of privacy, the right to be let alone, and that's what american families want -- the right to be let alone from politicians or government bureaucrats telling them what to do with their families. we owe it to americans. we owe it to the great tradition of our veterans, of military service, of all who have given their lives to reserve america -- preserve america, the idea and beacon of freedom around the world. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise to support the right to of ivf act. i i want to thank senators booker and duckworth for their work on this.

i'm proud to be a cosponsor. we all know why we're here. we're all here in part because the supreme court made a wildly unprecedented decision in the dobbs case many they threw out decades of precedence, making it the case that my daughter has less rights today than her mom or grandma did, the rule to questions against the riwishes 90% of americans, judges have tried to criminalize doctors for doing their jobs. 21 states have fully or partially banned abortion, the number of u.s. patientstravelin skyrocketed to one in five, know because they come to minnesota from north dakota and south dakota. but it wasn't enough for them to just mess with with a woman's right to decide her own health care. no. now they're trying to control when you choose to start a

family. we saw this happen earlier this year in alabama where the state supreme court brought ivf procedures in the state to a screeching halt. this is merely the latest incidence of the chaos and cruelty that has been unleashed since the dobbs decision. we know what a miracle ivf is. you just saw senator hickenlooper's ado ivf is a miracle for millions of families who can't otherwise have children. and no politician and no court should interfere. since 1978, over eight million children have been born due to fertility treatments like ivf, in 2022 alone, over 1800 babies were born in minnesota, in my home state thanks to ivf. that's why we're fighting to protect these rights. i'm thinking of maria and mata,

who i met this morning, two minnesota moms, they both became parents through the miracle of ivf, as manafort ta said, i'm the proud mother of twin girls and without ivf, i wouldn't be the mother of twins. they are now 8 years old and i can't imagine my life without them, they are incredible human beings who are bringing hope, a that's why with senators murray, duckworth, booker and schumer, i am asking for this act. it ensures that families can be in the driver's seat when it comes to family planning, not people who want to strip away the rights of those who have them. this bill safeguards a patient's ability to seek ivf and a health care provider's ability to provide these critical services. it ensures that our veterans can choose if, when, and how to

start their families. and because the kind of health care insurance you have shouldn't determine whether your family can access the miracle of ivf, the bill requires health insurance carriers to cover fertility treatments. for these last years we've seen complete chaos, a patchwork of laws across the country. what this bill does is protect freedom, protects the rights, protect the rights to start a family. we all have to today to make clear where we stand and i call on our colleagues to join us. the american people overwhelmingly support this bill. let's get it done. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the hawa mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. nearly one in five american couples have trouble conceiving and many of them turn to ivf for

help. in the year 2021, more than 85,000 babies were created using this miraculous procedure. trooul a miracle -- truly a miracle. they will also tell you, these parents, that undergoing these treatments is long, painful, expensive, and physically and ee moaningsly drain -- emotionally draining. they talk to their doctor and after that, their doctor tells them to try this and it may not work. one in five families experience trouble and there's this miraculous treatment to help you start a family. let's be clear what the so-called pro-life movement is about here. it is not about life at all. in this instance it is specifically about assigning the rights of a fully-formed --

fully formed human being to a fertilized embryo in a pepri -- petri dish so they can control females. that is exactly what this is about. and, look, there is a fair amount of washington, more than usual because repubcanderstand how angry families are, how angry people who are not yet able to conceive are. and so they are trying to get people to believe something other than their own eyes and their own experience, but here's the beauty of this place. we youtalk and talk and talk an talk and talk and then we vote. and there is one opportunity and one opportunity only to enshrine the right to ivf in federal statutory law. i don't care what you tweeted.

i don't care what you said on cable news. i don't care what the memo from the campaign arm of the republican national committee says. in a few minutes, we will know the official position of the republican conference on ivf and the susan b. anthony list and the maga court and these extreme forces in our society are going to show the republican party is not for ivf. i wish it were different. i wish we could pass this law, but the beauty of the senate floor is everybody will be on the record by the end afternoon. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. welch: i rise in support of this legislation. i thank my colleagues senator murray, senator

duckworth. you know, there's two things. one is good news, one is bad news. i'll start with the bad news. we have a terrible united states supreme court. it will give in infamy for many reasons, but no more of a terrible decision that took away constitutional rights that american citizens enjoy. they stripped women of their right to choose. enormously bad consequences, it's createdsú an incentive for folks who have their views to try to impose them on others, and we saw that in alabama with their effort to prohibit people from having access to in vitro fertilization. but there's good news. the good news, american families, couples who want to have a child who are so excited about taking on that challenge

of loving this new person and caring through their infancy, through their adolescence, looking forward to when they themselves will be grandparents, that's the good news. and in 2022, 91,000 infants, through ivf, came into these families so that those couples have that opportunity to have this place to give the love that is within them that they can now express having this child. that's really the good news here. yeah, i'm upset about the supreme court but i'm so excited about american families that want to make this decision and have ivf as an option for them to be able to realize their dreams of giving love to this new person in the world. now, our republican colleagues are saying that this is a show vote.

so why pay attention to it? well, you know what? they're right. they're right. it's a vote to show that we want to make certain with the power of the united states congress that the decision of family -- a family wants to make about conc is that they have the capacity to take advantage of the best medicine that is out there to dream about lifeam that is a and what's wrong with showing the people of the united states that each and every one of us in the united states senate wants to not only show that we respect and honor the decision those citizens are making but with the power invested in us as united states senators, we're going to

use the authority of our vote to guarantee they have that right. i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. thank you to senator duckworth for her leadership today on the floor. in february the alabama supreme court placed the medical procedure that has helped millions of americans realize their dream of having children, invitro fertilization or ivf at risk. the alabama judges used the supreme court decision's in the dobbs indication to justify their argument. these extreme judges showed the american people that the dobbs case was never just about abortion. dobbs was a preview of coming atrocities. and the supreme court majority declared open season on american reproductive freedom. and republicans got to work. states passed immediate and overbroad abortion bans, peeled

back protections for access to birth control, iud's, and plan risk. they created confusion, restrictive, and punitive schemes across states and threatened to jail patients and providers. and they aren't finished. republicans don't have to pass a national ban on abortion, birth control, or ivf to effectively achieve that goal. confusion, misinformation, and fear are the point. in some states they make it so difficult and so terrifying to get reproductive care that it's like it is already banned. but in creating this chaos, republicans have made clear their intentions and their position. republicans will not protect the right to an abortion. republicans will not protect the right to birth control. and republicans will not protect the right to start a■ family. republicans will try to hide their extremism and say they support contraception and ivf,

but we are bluff. given the chance to protect access to contraception, they voted no. and today given the chance to vote to protect ivf, they will vote no. republicans will continue to pursue their antichoice, antifreedom, and show the american people what gop really stands for, gutting our protections. the gop are so offended by bodily autonomy that they would rather follow the extremeism of the few and the -- extremism of the few than the majority of the american people who want their reproductive rights protected. we must meet the clarity of their extremism with the clarity of justice. we will fightor reproductive freedom. we will fight for national appreciations for -- protections for abortion, birth control, and ivf. we'll keep putting them on the record. we will guarantee that they are held accountable to the american people who w

tossed away their freedom in pursuit of radical right-wing extremism. thank you, mr. president. and i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: the right to ivf act is simple. it says that all americans should have access to the tools that they need to start a family no matter where they live or how much they earn or whether they serve in the military. that all sounds obvious. we shouldn't even need this bill. but we do need this bill. we need this bill because a judge in alabama ruled that embryos created through basic assisted reproductive technologies like ivf can be considered children, and that even if embryos aren't viable and ivf -- viable, an ivf provider could be held liable for manslaughter or murder if anything happens to those embryos. we need this bill because the

cost for a single round of ivf is enough to bankrupt a family let alone two or three or four rounds, and many parents are forced to bear all of those costs out of pocket. a constituent in oregon said, most fertility treatments considered elective by insurance companies, but i never elected to have a deformed fallopian talk. another parent in oregon who was a public servant for 22 years added up the out-off pocket costs -- out-off-pocket costs. $9,000 to see a reproductive encriminal followingist, $7,000 for medications, $3,000 for creole preservation and storage, five to seven for genetic testg, five,000 for embryo transfer. then she said we hope and pray is works. if not, we do a second round, all cash. our insurance benefits do not cover any infertility

treatments. we have nothing left. treatments are medical care. they should be covered by insurance. full stop. we need this bill because many of our military servicemembers and veterans have been wounded and lost the abi deployed to dangerous combat zones right no. infederal tilty rates for our -- infertility rates for our members of the military can be up to three times higher than the rest of the protection. they protect our families. let us protect their ability to havefamily. and guarantee they have access to ivf and the other fertility care they need. and we need this bill because as we celebrate the month of june as pride month, we know that many of our lgbtq+ friends rely on ivf to conceive. we shouldn't need this bill, but

we do, to protect ivf providers, to cover ivf costs, protect the ability of members of our military and lgbtq community to start a family. anyone who ivf knows that someone who is willing to endure the long and heart-wrenching wrote says that involves truly wants to become a pa parent, to have children, to raise a family. to support them. so i urge my republican colleagues to reconsider. instead of being so antifamily, instead of denying the ability of our community%s members to he children, join us in this protection. thank you. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i

rise -- i want to thank my colleague from washington state who has been issues for years and years, and my friend from illinois. what i'm going to do just briefly, my colleagues have been so eloquent, is talk about why senator duckworth legislation is so important at this crucial time. it is absolutely essential that we pass the duckworth bill. as far as i'm concerned, i'm prepared to stay on this floor. i mentioned this to my colleague -- for as long as it . we're going to stay on until we get this done. the reason why i feel so strongly about this is several decades ago as a young member of the congress, the other body, the house, with a full head of hair and rugged good looks, i wrote a law called the fertility clinic's success rate and certification act. it was supported by the profession. it was supported by patient

and i never imagined after we passed that law that people would be out here on the floor of the united states senate trying to unravel the progress that has been made. and when we passed it, it was all about some simple ideas, particularly clarity for the families trying to navigate the system. it was largely information. it was a new technology then decades ago. it's not now. now proven. families rejoice being able to use it. and never did i imagine that we would have an effort on the floor of the united states senate trying to turn back tryi progress that has been made. that's what senator murray and senator duckworth are■k to turn

and unravel the progress that's been made for so many families. andunfortunately, this is kind of where we've been for a while, trying to unravel the progress with respect to contraceptives, trying to unravel the progress with mifepristone. we'll have more to talk about all of this. but the court ruling out of alabama early this year would have effectively turned back the progress, made ivf impossible. and since then we have seen the far right, as my colleagues have said, trying to build on the effort to take away our freedom. and none of this seemed to me, senator duckworth, imaginable several decades ago when people were rejoicing because they knew how to navigate the system and get information, figure out what providers were right for them. and it worked so well, as it does today. and your bill is absolutely

essential business for the senate. i would just say to my colleagues here, do not vote to unravel ought of this -- all of this progress that families rejoice in. support the duckworth legislation. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: mr. president, i am the senator from delaware and i'm joined by my colleague from delaware. one of the things that has long distinguished delaware, it was one of the first states in the whole country where because of her personal experience with ivf, a former republican, delaware insurance commissioner, helped drive through mandatory insurance coverage for ivf in the state of delaware. years ago. the idea today that we'd be on the floor of the senate advocating on behalf of senator duckworth's bill to put in law

protections, the right to access ivf, would have been unthinkable. i still remembering as someone ho become a parent, struggling with the challenge of working through difficulties, that we as a couple faced in becoming pregnant and talking all the time with friends and neighbors and others who are going through similar challenges. than being a parent. important sometimes all of these■z5z activities and debates here on the floor don't connect. people have a hard time of the thrilled that senator duckworth is leading this effort here on the floor today is it is easy to understand. because of her service to our nation, because of her grievous wounds in combat, why perhaps this is so important to her and her family. but i wanted to share the story of a delawarean, and i'm so

grateful she's allowed me to share her story today. lindsey griffin was diagnosed with stage four endometriosis. it prevented her from ever conceiving naturally. lindsey and her husband were determined to become parents. like so many of us knew that it would be expensive and difficult and take a long time. they even took out a $25,000 loan to pay for ivf. endured pr procedure, surgeries, emabout i crow transfers, even the loss of a pregnancy. now today, years later, they're parents to two healthy boys, 7 and 2. why would we in this country put blessing of parenthood for so many in delaware, in illinois, and throughout our nation at risk? it is already hard enough. today lindsey and her husband are blessed with two children. but in states like alabama,

far-right lawmakers and judges have already tried to deny families this precious gift. the vast majority of americans want us to pass this bill today, want us to protect the right to ivf. 86% of americans in a recent poll want us to do this. so why is this even controversial? in the best of circumstances, the journey to the blessing of parenthood is difficult. the journey to the blessing of parenthood through ivf is incredibly hard, emotionally, financially, physically. let's stand up for families, for the common and shared principle that the blessing of parenting should not in any way be barred by threats to the proceduren. i. president, as someone committed to protecting ivf -- in delaware, in this congress, in this nation. thank you.

the presiding officer: the junior senator from hawaii u. ms. hirono: thank you, madam president. as we approach the two-year anniversary of the disastrousmñ dobbs decision, i am struck by the chaos it has sewn across our country -- sown across our country. last week i was joined by my democratic colleagues in speaking out against the republican attacks against contraception. against the relentless attacks from my colleagues across the aisle that they actually support the right to contraception, when it came down to it, nearly every single republican voted against the bill protecting the right to contraception. today i rise in defense of another tool that has helped millions of people across our country start or grow their families.

this tool is equcalled ivf. for decades, ivf and other assistive reproductive technologies have helped people who otherwise couldn't start families of their own. while some on the right like to paint ivf as some sort of new or untested technology, that is not so. the first delivered via ivf was more than 45 years ago. and since then ivf has helped bring more than 10 million babies -- 10 million babies -- in fact, as a state representative in the hawaii legislature in the 1980's, i led the passage of a bill making hawaii one of the first states in the nation to require health insurance to cover ivf.■@ that was in 1987. years before the iphone, before e-mail, before some of my

colleagues in congress were even born. and yet, thanks to the chaos created by dobbs, a whole range of reproductive rights are on the chopping block. look at alabama, where the state supreme court invoked a fetal personhood law to call into question the legality of ivf, effectively halting ivf treatments in the state. in this very chamber earlier in attempts in passing a bill protecting ivf.é1 the impacts of these conservative attacks are being felt far beyond the red states. in hawaii, a doctor who practices in the ob-gyn field reported that he, quote, observed an increasing level of anxiety among both his fertility patients staff. so hawaii being one of the first states to promote and protect

ivf, this doctor is saying that even his patients are seeing the impact. -- of all these attacks on our reproductive rights. ivf is complicated process as it is, even under the best of circumstances. the last thing people trying to conceive need to worry about is being criminalized by states like -- some of the states mentioned, alabama, because of the whims of far-right jurists and politicians. that's why this bill is so important. it would establish a nationwide right for patients to access ivf and other a.r.t. services and the right for doctors to provide ivf treatment. and crucially, it would require and expand health insurance coverage ofe know access without affordability is not true access. while my republican colleagues appear blinded by their obsession with power and control over women's bodies, they are

unable to support even this commonsense bill, again indicating how out of touch republicans are about the needs of particular women in our country. it is disappointing but not surprising. they continue to show us just how out of step they are with the american people. so today the democrats will vote to protect the right to ivf, as we continue working to ensure people can make decisions about their bodies, tir lives, and their futures free from government interference. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. carper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, as many of our colleagues know, i am a he the proud father of two sons and a stepson, the joy of my life to father. my wife and i love him unconditionally. the journey to parenthood is not

the same for every family, nor is it always an easy one. the lastietnamese veteran serving in the united states senate and i know the importance of helping our servicemembers when they return home from deployments abroad. during my three deployment to southeast asia many of my colleagues came home and started families of their own. many have often struggled wh health issues for years to come, including in fertility. when ivf was not an option for returning vietnam veterans, had it been available, i know it would have helped countless families start their families. we have an obstacles to serve those -- we have an obligation to serve those who served their nation. this bill is a commonsense piece of legislation.

bringing more life in this world should be an issue we all can agree on. i urge my colleagues to join us in passing this legislation before us. with that, i yield back my time. thank you. the presiding officer: the junior senator from minnesota. ms. smith: madam president, i rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the right to ivf act. here is something close to a miracle. people who have struggled to have children are able today through the very best science and medicine to conceive and bring a child into the world. it is incredible. it is a blessing. in 2021, more than 86,000 babies born in america were conceived through ivf, and in my home state of minnesota, i have heard from so many of my constituents who have struggled with infertility and who wouldn't have children but for ivf. so today we have the opportunity to vote on a bill that protects this. our bill is straightforward in its purpose. it would establish a clear and

enforceable nationwide right for people to receive ivf, for doctors to provide ivf and for health insurance to cover ivf. so if you live in a state where a republican state legislature passes a law infringing on ivf, that would be stopped by our bill. if you get your health insurance through your employer, your health insurance would cover your care. if you are a servicemember pour a veteran, as said, you're covered. same for federal employees. and if you get your health insurance through medicaid, a which covers 40% of the births in this country, you are coreso you may be asking, i mea who could disagree with this? it is a good question, and here's the reality. since the extremist supreme court justices, athe pointed by donald trump and confirmed by senate republicans, since they overturn roe, trump abortion bans country have sown chaos an confusion and they have embolden states that have created this chilling effect on

reproductive health care, emboldened states like alabama to restrict ivf. now, if my colleagues on the the other side want to protect ivf, if t that doctors and providers should be able to provide ivf without fear of criminal prosecution, then they would vote for our bill. colleagues, i hope that republicans will vote with us to proceed on our bill so that we can make real progress to protect access to ivf and to say very clearly that government has no business interfering in your family's decion about the health care that you need to treat infertility. if my republican colleagues want to make it clear where you stand on ivf, please join us in voting for this bill today. and if you vote no, your actions speaklloweder than any word -- your actions speak louder than any words. i yield the floor.■ the presiding officer: the junior senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: i rise today to speak about my bill to protect ivf. a constituent of mine had been

pregnant a few years earlier but it left her with scars. she learned that she had cancer. she gave birth early to a beautiful baby girl. then soon after she underwented surgery, chemotherapy, multiple procedures, you name it. a care plan that helped to get rid of the disease but that also left her unable to conceive again. thankfully she had undergone one round of ivf before her treatment for cancer. fast-forward to early 2024. things were finally getting brighter. she and her husband had just begun to search surrogates to carry her viable embryos. then a ruling that changed theirs and so many other families' lives. on february 16, the alabama supreme court declared that frozen extra uterine embryos created through ivf should be considered children under state law. a ruling that painted would-be moms and their doctors as

criminals and one that uprooted the dreams and began the nightmares of aspiring parents as ivf clinics statewide soon pauses treatments out of faoer that their doctors and patients would be punished for trying to start families. now it seemed like her wish for growing her family was snatched away by an extremist court that either had no idea or simply didn't care about had gone into turn her dreams of a family into reality. alyssa's story is exceptional, but it is not the exception. foro many women that livelong is held in limbo. as they're forced to live in fear that republicans' success come november would even further imperil their right to try to create a family, as they remain unsure whether living in a red state under a trump presidency could mean eliminateetting jail time for needing the of

caring care to bring a baby to love. i was stationed in alabama during my service. i didn't know it back at that time that infertility would be one of the struggles of my life. it is only thanks to ivf■ that get to be embarrassingly proud when i hang my -year-old's drawersing on my senate office walls or i get to be tackled in my bed by my 9-year-old who bears the sweetest of hugs and cards. i find it offensive when a bunch of politicians -- my a -- women like me are committing acts akin to murder when all

we're trying to do is create life and not have to suffer thugh more miscarriages. you know, right after the alabama ruling came out, i begged my colleagues to help me pass the bill that no doctor or hopeful parent could be criminalized for ivf. republicans blocked it. this was days and days of the gop claiming to support ivf. this was after they claimed to support reproductive health, this was after days of them claiming this they actually gave a damn about the women in this country. naturally, that was all untrue. all a ruse to mislead voters. the only thing they care about is kissing up to trump and bowing down to the most extreme wing of their party. things like common decency or common sense doesn't register anymore. today i'm trying once again to pass legislation that would enshrine into law every american's right to ivf. now called the right to ivf act.

if republicans actually care more about protecting women's health more than they do about getting invitations to mar-a-lago, then all they have to do to show it is to help me move my bill forward because, look, struggling with infertility is hard. using all your savings to go through round after round after ivf is hard. this vote, well, that's one thing that's actually really simple. vote for t -- it. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes followed by leader schumer for three minutes. mr. booker: reserving the right to object, if the senator would allow me to not give my remarks on the floor but enter them in the record, i am happy to give consent to that. mr. cassidy: absolutely. i didn't mean to cut you off. i didn't know you were in the queue. mr. booker: i am the junior senator new jersey. i am used to be cut off.

i would like to ask unanimous consent to put in my remarks for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: thank you very much. i yield to the senator for his comments. the senior senator. mr. cassidy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that harrison dodry be granted floor privileges until june 2024. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i have been sitting here listening to this. i can't help but notice that my democratic fellow senators have chosen to disrespect and deceive the american people as they politicize a deeply personal issue for short-term political gain. disporting fact -- -- distorting facts capitalizing on families desperate to hold a child. democrats are trivializing for financial purposes the personal investment required of a woman of a family to become■ pregnant

through ivf. let's set the record straight. i support ivf. republicans in the senate support ivf. now the tragic situation in alabama has been used to fearmonger and scare that ivf is somehow in jeopardy, that someone who has a hope for a future fa hope is threatened. and that is not true. let's just say there is no state in the united states of america that prohibits a woman from growing her family through ivf. and democrats know that. let me say that again. there is not a single state which bans ivf. and alabama, which has been mentioned several times, has specifically passed a law after the mobile incident in which they make sure, affirm availabl. so this bill before us today would have done nothing to prevent that which happened in

mobile. where embryos were dropped and destroyed. in the recent case at this mobile center for reproductive medicine, a hospital patient wandered into the embryo lab, how did that happen, destroying embryos. tragically cases like this are not isolating. there is a storage tank failure in san francisco that resulted in the death of 3,000 eggs and human embryos, another in ohio in which 4,000 eggs and human embryos died. a recent investigation into a fertility clinic with locations across the country uncovered multiple incidents of accidental embryo destruction, mislabeled embryos and faulty heating. this year a clinic in california used hydrogen patriotic side

instead of -- per rock side instead of distilled water and rendered killed all the embryos or nonviable. then if you can believe it the clinic allegedly transferred more than two dozen embryos into would-be mothers despite knowing this would not end in a pregnancy. it is expected at a minimum fertility clinics protect and respect human life, keeping these treasured embryos safe. women, mothers, parents, they deserve better. but what we have today is a haphazardly cut and paeft, sets up a messy hierarchy of inconsistent fallacies. for example, under this legislation, pri provide unlimited fertility treatments and related storage, but the bill limits how many treatments a veteran can get through the v.a. clinic.

so why are women receiving care at the v.a. treated differently than those with commercial insurance? if access to ivf is really a problem, and this legislation is really needed, we could address that. if we took this bill through the committee process. but on note that leader schumer plucked it out of the committee before we had a chance to address these shortcomings and brought it to the floor for, i presume, political purposes. by the way, we don't even have a cbo score. that's usually like you can't bring anything to the floor unless you have a congressional budget office score. in because this is not serious legislation. the cbo, by the way, acknowledges that it has not and cannot evaluate this mash-up of bills. the committee process would have allowed us to explore the effect of a mandate on federal programs like medicare, dod, the v.a., small businesses, state medicaid programs how will this legislatn impact that woman business owner

with 20 employees, 10 of whom are women in their child-bearing years? we don't know. we don't know because this is not serious legislation. it was not brought through the committee process. it is a political process. now we can guess, premiums will skyrocket. that woman i described with the small business, has 10 employees -- i ask unanimous consent for two more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cassidy: that small business owner now must make the challenging decision to either absorb the new cost or consider not offering health insurance to employees or laying employees off. interesting, madam president, labor unions got more time to comply with the insurance mandate than others if this is a political bill, you would expect a carve-out for political supporters. the bill requires coverage of genetic testing of human embryos

but to what end. but will these tests be used to screen for life-ending conditions? i only see two limits in this bill. one on the ability of health care providers to exercise their conscience rights from practicing medicine. and two, on states that risch to regulate the practice of medicine in a way that treats human embryos with the value and integrity working with democrats on a sincere bipartisan effort, but this is a show vote. and unfortunately, democrats do not care about working with republicans for protecting ivf access. they wish an issue upon which to run. today's vote is disingenuous, pushing a bill drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all who may pursue ivf treatments. i will end as i started. it seems a deceiving, disrespectful bill to misinform

and scare the public, to gin up democratic votes for november, and that is a shame. americans deserve better. with that, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, today senators face a very simple do you agree americans should have access to ivf? yes or no. if yes, the only correct answer is to vote yes on the right to ivf act. protecting ivf should be the easiest yes vote senators have taken all year. all this bill does is establish a nationwide right to ivf and eliminate barriers for millions of americans who seek ivf to have kids. it's personal to me. i have a beautiful one-year-old grandson because of the miracle of ivf. and so in a perfect world, a bill likehis would not be necessary. but after the fiasco of the alabama supreme court decision

and the generally magaie■tws of some on the supreme court, americans are genuinely worried that ivf is the next target of anti-choice extremists. to my republican colleagues who say they're pro-family, today's bill is, today's bill protecting ivf is as pro-family as it gets. and we should vote yes today. it is a contradiction to claim you are pro-family but then turn around■ and vote to block protections for ivf. and the contrast today is glaring. here in the senate democrats are talking about protecting women and ivf, and a couple of blocks away trump and our republican colleagues are talking about the very wealthy. so the american people are watching how we vote today on a basic freedom. parents back home are watching how we vote. couples who want to become parents are watching how we vote. it's very simple.

if you support access to ivf, then vote to protect access to ivf today. thank you to senators duckworth, murray, and booker, and so many others leading on this&ç legislation. i urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: the the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a vote on an abt to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment signed by 17 senators.tiliz the presiding officer: under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. e question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 4445, a bill to nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

and the the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. v■

the clerk: mr. barrasso. the clerk: mr. bennet. mr. bennet.

mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty.

ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez.■

mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. vote:

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative, baldwin, booker, brown, cantwell, casey, collins, coons, cortez-masto, duckworth, durbin, hassan, heinrich, hickenlooper, hirono, kaine, kelly, king, klobuchar, manchin, merkley, murkowski,

murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, reed, rosen, schumer, shaheen, smith, stabenow, tester, van hollen, warren, welch, whitehouse. senators voting in the negative, blackburn, capito, cassidy, cornyn, crapo, grassley, kennedy, paul, rounds, rubio, thune, tillis, tuberville, wicker, young. mr. mr. moran, no. mr. braun, no.

mrs. fischer, no. mr. lankford, no. mr. scott of florida, no. mr. graham, no. ju mr. johnson, no. mr. cramer, no. hyde-smith, no.

ms. ernst, no. mrs. britt, no. mr. daines, no. mr. risch, no. ricketts, no. mr. wyden, aye.

mrs. gillibrand, aye. the clerk: mr. vance, no. no.

mr. lee, no.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no. the ey, aye. bj

the clerk: mr. peters, aye. mr. boozman, no. ñ7 mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

mr. cruz, no. mr. barrasso, no. warner, aye.

mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

mr. mcconnell, no. wk mr. sullivan, no. the clerk: mr. mullin, no.

vote: vote:

. the clerk: mr. cotton, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.■

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.■ñx

the clerk: lummis, no.

mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. ■r

mr. schumer: i change my vote to no. the clerk: mr. schumer, no. mr. schumer: for everyone's -- sorry. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 48. the nays are 47. s duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, for everyone's awareness, i'm changing my vote on this bill from yes to no in order to have the option of returning to this legislator. we hope some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle see the light and change their minds. madam president, i eo reconside cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar 413, s. 4445.

the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 510. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, katherine e. oler of the district of columbia to be an associate judge of the superior court of the mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.x+ the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 510, cotton rin e. older of the district of columbia, to be associate judge of the district of columbia signed by 17 senators as

followings.r: all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 464. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, mustafa kasubhai to be u.s. district judge for the district of oregon. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 464, mustafa

taher kasubhai, of oregon, to be united states district judge to the district of oregon, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the read the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, june 13, be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. stahl mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the notice of proposed rulemaking from the office of congressional workplace rights be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: 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. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule 22, at a time to be determined by the

majority leader, in consultation with the republican leader, it be in order for the chair to lay before the senate the house message to accompany s.870, and the leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to concur in the house amendments. further, that there be up to two hours of debate, equally divided, and upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on the motion to concur in the house amendment without further intervening action or debate. finally, that if the motion is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, i have some very good news. today, we reached an agreement to move forward on bipartisan legislation to support our firefighters. our firefighters, paid and volunteer, are brave, they risk their lives for us, and they run towards danger, not away from. in that sense, they're like our domestic soldiers. passing this bipartisan legislation would be the best way to support our firefighters

and ensure they have the equipment and personnel needed to do their job. i've long supported this legislation. i was involved in offering -- in putting it together originally, way back when. and i look forward to working with my colleagues to bring this legislation to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. we need to olympic our firefighters. i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. no. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to discuss the differences between democrat foreign policy and republican foreign policy. i suppose i should start over again. i forgot the microphone. i come to the floor to discuss

the differences between democrat foreign policy and republican foreign policy. there seems to be a pattern where if a republican president is elected, partisan pundits warn that it will be very bad for relations. now by contrast, when a democrat president takes over from a repu republican, the same partisan pundits often promise smooth overall international relations. these same left-leaning■v pundi then breathe al sigh of relief -- a sigh of relief that our alliances will be shored up and everything will be

miraculously harmonious. but if you look at the record, it often doesn't work out that way. president carter presided over a string of foreign policy disasters leaving weak and humiliated. ronald reagan was portrayed as a dangerous cowboy who might start a nuclear war. on the contrary, reagan's calculated effortsush back against soviet communism resulted in fewer nuclear arms and freed millions of people from repressive regimes. in 2009 the new vice president joe biden went to munich to deliver the obama

administration's first major foreign policy address. that will address was hailed by some in the media as announcing a more cooperative approach with european countries. biden's promise to defer more to other countries rather than setting the agenda was a foreshadowing of prep's infamous leading from -- president obama's infamous leading from behind policy which turned out to be a disastrous policy. biden also said, quote, it is time to press the reset button an where we can and should be working together with russia, end of quot then look at what rd after that comment.

this comment was six months after russia had invaded and occupied territory of the republic of georgia, which if you remember had sent significant forces to fight alongside the americanilitary in afghanistan and iraq. now, can you believe unilateral effort to show good, meaning goodwill towards russia, the obama-biden reset included abruptly scrapping planned missile defense cooperation■j wh the czech and polish allies of america. to add insult to injury, the

obama administration made the announcement about abandoning our missile defense cooperation with the czech republic and poland on the anniversary of the soviet invasion ofnot an ideal announcement. and of course that announcembye turned out to be a grave error. not only did it offend some of our most pro-american allies, but it also sent the very exact wrong message to dictator vladimir putin. putin's russia like the old soviet union before only understands strength. they respect even enemies that have strength. they're not going to take advantage of somebody that shows

strength. unilateral concessions are perceived by putin as weakness and actually encouraged further aggression, just like we saw against ukraine in obama respon invasion of ukraine was again dangerously weak sending such a signal to putin is the wrong thing to do. this signal amounted to pointing the proverbial finger at russia while denying ukraine the defensive weapons needed to repel the russian invasion. so what did oba do?

his policy was to sendelmets and blankets and then push for negotiations, another show of weakness. doing all this while leaving ukraine helpless with a gun to its head. obviously negotiations under such circumstaes effectively meant russia keeping what it gained by force and freezing the conflict until russia could take more land. is there any wonder then that putin felt he could get away with taking the rest of ukraine in february of 2022? you know what he was getti away with at the same time? killing women, children,

grandmothers, granddads, really kidnapping maybe 20,000 ch children, taking them to russia. president obama's pursuit of a nuclear deal with iran at all costs alienated our closest allies -- ally in the middle east. that close ally, we all know, is israel. but the iran agreement also alarmed saudi arabia, which has been a longtime strategic partner of the united states. and then you remember the drawing of the infamous red line in syria at the time syria was going to gas people to death. and this infamous red line,

before immediately abandoning it, as obama did, sending a very dangerous signal to -- about america's weakness to the axis of iran, russia, and china. now very much cooperating as an axis like germany, italy, and japan did before world war ii and during world war ii. now, all of this about the red line, no doubt, played into vladimir putin's calculations when he to invade ukraine for the first time a few months later.ó now, so far i've just talked i want to talk about republican.

when trump was elected, he scrapped the nuclear deal. this repaired the trust with our gulf partners, and not only tru setting the stage for the abraham accords. -- which accords were cooperations that nobody thought could ever happen between israel and arab nations, because previous administrations said we can't have -- expect any sort of close working relationships between israel and arab countries if we don't have a palestinian state. but president trump didn't palet he had success bringing israel

in economic relationships with a lot of gulf partners. this major diplomatic breakthrough went way beyond the long-sought recognition of israel by arab and muslim countries. it also opened the door to economic and people-to-people ties that have the potential to foster a new era of mutual understanding and peace in the middle east. president obama was also over-ly cautious in dealing with china' sea and too overly deferential to china's imperialistic sensitivities towards taiwan.

now, do you remember in 1979 the taiwans act passed, and it mandated unefficiently, economic -- unofficial, economic and military including military sales. this has been the basis of u.s. policy with taiwan for decades. the more you slow-walk military sales to taiwan out of deference to china's feelings, the more china feels really empowered to dictate aspects of our bilateral relationships with taiwan. president trump abandoned this weak and this dangerous obama policy of appeasement. president trump imposed sanctions against the nord stream 2 pipeline, which russia

was clearly pursuing to give russia geopolitical leverage over europe and ukraine because supplying energy to other countries bringseu that leverag. so the trump administration armed and trained the ukrainian military and cooperated closely with our frontline allies like the baltic nations and poland. the trump administration stopped being deferential towards china. arms sales to taiwan became a regular occurrence, and u.s. government officials got the blessing to interact with their taiwanese counterparts. because, can you imagine china feeling it has the right to tell

senators and people in the administration or u.s. house of representatives members that you can't go to taiwan? now, this message that trump sent, china got that message that it couldn't get away with breaking trade rules and pushing around our allies and partners in the region. most recently, president trump's insistence on resuming to failed obama-era policies has resulted in foreign policy setbacks. the cascade of countries joining the abraham accords would likely have continued to include even saudi arabia, but the biden administration's repeated efforts to resurrect the defunct iran nuclear deal once again

damaged the trust of our regional allies and our partners, at the same time empowering iran.biden promised repair relations with our european allies. what he meant became clear when he dropped sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline. this was a sign of deference towards germany at the expense of our eastern european allies. germany is indeed a close ally in europe, but germany is not all of europe. also, while it is known that there wasflict between president trump and former chancellor merkel of germany, our alliance with

germany to survive both personality conflicts and differences over nord stream 2. in hindsight, everyone, even including the germans, can see the folly in giving vladimir putin the ability to turn the heat on and the lights off throughout all of europe, and he would be glad to have is that power. -- to have that power. this gesture of good will towards germany was certainly not worth bolstering putin and upsetting several central and eastern european allies who saw clearly what was at stake if you gave putin that power. let's face it, trump ruffle

feathers. but his policies, including pushing delink went nato -- delinquent nato members to spend the agreed amount and defense that they're obligated to spend on nato security, these countries were better for it and european security was better for it than the obama and biden policies that simply sought applause from certain european leaders. there are those strongly backing trump and then, as we know, those strongly opposed to trump. both claiming, though, to know what he would do in a second term. i do not have much time for pontificating and political

prognosticating based upon speculation. i prefer to look at the record, and i hope i have reminded people of that record. we should demand a foreign policy based on american strength. sometimes we talk about peace through strength, or sometimes we forget to remind people that a strong american military is the best tool to bring about world peace. so we should demand a foreign policy based upon that rength, and we should also be on guard to not accept a failure of american leadership spun as colh our allies. our allies, who are closest to the threats from russia and

china, really want strong american leadership and need us to push our more what it takes defend the free world. that is what we first trump administration, and it's the kind we badly need right now. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. s can oz i understand -- ms. cortez masto: i understand there is a bill at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to make certain provisions with respect to qualified able programs permanent. ms. cortez masto: i ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 735, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the bill will receive its next reading on the next legislative day. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent the release be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no

intervening action or debate. one more time. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 735, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 735, designating july 17, 2024, as glioblastoma awareness day. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. 4458. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to make a technical correction to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2024, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will

proceed. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completestand adjourned 3:00 p.m. on monday, june 17, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour 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 ler nomination, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: thank you, madam president. iise today because this

saturday marks the 12th anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy, or daca, as many know it. this policy has given hope to so many hardworking individuals who call america home. it's allowed children of immigrants who were brought here as kids to flourish. it strengthened our economy and remained in the only country they've ever really known. these are children. when president obama created daca in 2012, it was a temporary solution focused on helping young people thrive. and wit daca, we told them that if they stayed in school and they worked hard and they contributed, that we'd help them stay here. that was a real promise that dave so much hope to thousands of amazing young people. now it's been 12 years, and daca recipients have done what they promised to do.

they've gone to college, they've become part of our workforce. they paid billions of dollars in taxes. and listen to this. 49% of the initial group of daca recipients in 2012 are college educated. as of 2023, there are over 544,000 daca recipients in the united states. 10,730 of them live in my home state of nevada. but, madam president, dreamers aren't percentages and figures. they're people. i've had the honor ofi1 meeting many of them. and let me tell you, these nevadans make our state stronger. they're teachers, they're doctors, engineers, small business owners, community leaders, and they have families,

and they've spent the last 12 years in holding up their end of the bargain. and it's past time for us to hold up ours. this has been especially urgent in recent years when litigation challenging daca and attacks on the program by former president trump and his allies have caused turmoil for dreamers in this country. by failing to pass legislation to permanently protect dreamers and put them on a path to citizenship, we are failing to fulfill our promise to these individuals. we are leaving thembehind. we know that their status in this country, their safety and stability in their hom could change soon because of lawsuits that are still making their way through the courts. dreamers abide by our laws. they worked hard for an education and they contribute to their communities every single

day. they've earned their place in our country and deserve the privilege, protection, and responsibility of citizenship. now is the time to pass the dream act to ensure that dreamers can continue contributing to the only home they've ever known without living in fear that their lives upended. but here's the deal. at the end of the day it all comes down to this. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to step up, keep their word, and pass a permanent solution for dreamers. i wish i didn't have to stand here and give this speech. this is supposed to be a bipartisan issue that we can all get behind. the american people certainly feel that way. but we're running into the same issue over and over again. how many times have i stood right here on the senate floor and told stories about the dreamers i know in my state? and how many times have i called

for dream act to pass to give dreamers the certainty they deserve? madam president, i want to be honest with the dreamers in my state and around the country. the reason why we haven't passed that legislation in the senate yet is because we need bipartisan support, and some senate republicans have said over and over that we need to fix daca and protect dreamers. so where are they now? they're turning their backs on people who are depending on because the reality is that far-right extremists are only interested in dreamers when they can use them as political pawns. first, i remember this, some of my republican colleagues said they needed to pair solution for dreamers with border security. i remember this becau we had a real proposal to support border security, protect dreamers in

2018, and then president trump said if you bring me that bipartisan bill, i will sign it into law. and what did he do? he didn't sign it. he changed his mind. and then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, wait, here's what we'll do. if you work on border security, if you work on that first and you make some policy changes, then we're willing. then we're willing to help dreamers, and we will focus on that afterwards. so just this remember, we had a bipartisan legislation to secure our border that was actually endorsed by the national border patrol council, and the immigration attorney said it was a great first step. but what happened? again, former president trump, he requested that senate republicans tank the bill.

and why? so that he could campaign on the chaos and not give a win to this congress or this current administration. i'll tell you what, like my dreamers in my home state and across this country, i am frustrated. i am angry that politics are causing so many dreamers across the country to put their lives on hold. it is unacceptable. that is not what this congress, that's not what working with the white house should be. we should be solving problems in this country, not using people and their families as political pawns. the time for stalling is over. it's time for my republican colleagues to uphold their end of this deal and protect dreamers because while they tie themselves in knots and play all these political games, hundreds of thousands of lives hang in the balance. these aren't just statistics here in washington. they are real people in our

states, in our communities, with families, contributing economy, essential part of our workforce. enough is enough. let's come together on this and wo solution that's going to help dreamers and continue to benefit this country. in 12 years, in 12 years it's the least we cano for a generation of people who have given everything they have to the unitestates. i for one won't stop trying. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m.

several decades new frontier the democratic national convention event earlier set of challenges and that's what i intend. >> technically talk to jimmy