washington life and on demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearing some u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from world of politics all at your fingertips. you could also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio app plus a variety of ken bone podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free today or visit our website to spend that orc/. c-span now your front row seat washington anytime anywhere. >> friday nights what c-span's 2024 campaign trail, a weekly round up of c-span's campaign coverage providing a one-stop shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters along with

first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data in campaign ads. watch c-span's 2024 campaign trail friday nights at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now our free mobile app ever, ever you get your podcasts. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> the senate is coming back in now. this afternoon majority leader chuck schumer is putting the in vitro fertilization access bill back on the floor for another vote on whether to advance the legislation. it would expand protections on ivf nationwide. live coverage of thena senate on c-span2. roceed to s. 4445, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar 413, s. 4445, a bill to protect and expand access to

ivf. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mrs. britt: mr. president, i am proud today to be joining my colleague from texas in support of the ivf protection act. i am grateful to senator cruz for his leadership on this important topic.

both senator cruz and i are parents. we can both attest to the fact that there is no greater blessing in life than our children. for many americans, building a family, becoming a mom or a dad, that's their american dream. ivf makes the difference, and achieving that dream for millions of americans who are facing infertility. ivf helps parents to start families, to grow their family. in the u.s., nearly 200 babies are born a day. so nearly 2% of all babies born are because of ivf. this treatment is really a game changer for so many families. that's why i strongly support continued nationwide access to ivf.

ivf is legal and available from coast to coast. in every single corner of america and in all 50 states. that includes my home state of alabama, where governor ivey and the alabama legislature acting quickly to protect ivf access. today we have an opportunity to act quickly and overwhelmingly to protect continued nationwide ivf access for loving american families. our ivf protection act would do just that. it would give aspiring parents nationwide the certainty and peace of mind that i i have will remain -- that ivf will remain legal and available in every state. our bill is the only bill that protects ivf access while safeguarding religious liberty. it also could get 60 votes in

the united states senate and isn't that the point. yet we're going to have a show vote when we've been talking and saying that we want to protect access to ivf but no one is having had to get to the 60-vote. in an era of hyper partisan many had, the ivf protection act, should be the one on the floor today. this is the bill that will give aspiring parents confidence and continued hope that their dreams of bringing life into this world can come true. as i talk to families across alabama and parents who are hopeful they can bring a child into this world, making sure this process is protecting and available is critically important. however, this bill isn't the with unthat democrats are putting on the floor. this is not drafted in that way. it's drafted to be a partisan scare tactic and what we're going to see today.

for example, it's not written in a way to merely cover ivf. it covers completely different treatments and technology, even including human cloning. democrats are choosing to spread misinformation rather than fostering hope. the american people deserve better. the path forward is senator cruz and my's ivf protection act. again i want to applaud nigh colleague from texas for his unwavering and continued support for nationwide ivf access. while democrats prioritize scaring families, republicans will continue to fight for them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president had i want to thank my friend, senator britt, for her powerful and passionate defense of in vitro

fertilization. senator britt has been an incredible partner, as she and i have worked to pass landmark federal legislation protecting ivf for every american. i'm proud to rise once again to speak on an issue that is personal and vital to millions of american families, the protection of in vitro fertilization. ivf is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to millions of families who otherwise might never have experienced it. i am an unequivocal supporter of protecting ivf. and i'm grateful that ivf has given so many parents struggling with infertility the gift of finally holding a child, a baby in their arms, finally having the opportunity to be a mother or a father and to raise a son or daughter and to give all of the love and a family that they

so desperately want to give. today, unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are staging an empty show vote on what they call an ivf bill in order to stoke baseless fears about ivf and push their broader political agenda. let's be clear -- there is not a single senator in this chamber on either side of the aisle who wants to ban ivf. all 100 senators, to the best of my knowledge, support ivf. not a single one has called for banning it. and yet i previously voted against the democrats' partisan legislation because it's not an ivf bill. it's designed to backdoor and federalize broad abortion legislation, which understand is the -- which i understand is the democrats' partisan position, but it is contrary to the views of a great many americans.

and the partisan democrat bill also deliberately overturns the conscious protections of the religious freddie mac restoration act -- religious freedom restoration act. democrats have abandoned a commitment to religious liberty and they are now more than willing to overturn religious liberty protections. instead of pushing a partisan and cynical agenda, i invite my democrat colleagues to actually 0 do what they -- to actually do what they claim they want to do, which is work with me today to pass clear federal legislation protecting ivf. ivf is profoundly profamily. over eight million babies have been born through ivf, providing millions of american families the chance to embrace the joy of raising a child. it's an avenue of hope for those struggle with infertility.

misconceptions and deliberate scare tactics from the democrats only serve to hurt families who are desperately trying to welcome a child in their lives. what the american people deserve is straightforward proivf legislation. that's why my colleague, senator britt and i, have introduced the legislation, offering ironclad federal statutory protection for ivf. our bill does not engage in backdoor politics. it does not infringe on the deeply held beliefs of individuals or organizations. it simply does what needs to be done -- safeguarding the right of couples to grow their family if they choose to use ivf, because this should not be a political issue. instead, it's a deeply human issue. our bill, unequivocally, prohibits any state or local government from banning ivf.

ensuring that no family will be caught in the cross fire of state-level judicial interpretations. it provides peace of mind to parents and to aspiring parents while still allowing states to implement reasonable health and safety standards. it ensures that access to ivf is fully protected by federal law. so that every family praying to have a child will be fully protected in their right to pursue parenthood. this isn't just policy. it is a promise to honor and support your desire to welcome a new baby into your family. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. this is a moment for us toss unite -- for us to unite political divides and ensure our shared belief in the sanctity of family and the promise of life.

in just a moment i will propound a unanimous consent request to take up and pass the cruz-britt bill because if we truly stand with families, we must act now to ensure that ivf remains protected today and for generations to come. now, for those of you in the gallery, those of you at home, there are times when senate procedure can sound confusing. i want to explain what you're about to see a -- to see. i'm going to ask this body for unanimous consent to pass senator britt's and my legislation protecting ivf, putting it into federal law, a clear federal statutory protection for ivf. after i ask for consent, we are going to see a democrat senator stand up and begin speaking. when she begins speaking, you should listen to two magic words -- i object.

if the democrats say those words, i object, it will defeat this bill. and i want you to understand, all that is necessary is for the democrats not to say those words i object. we could have democrat senators stand up and give speeches about all of their policy priorities, but understand, the show vote this afternoon is not about ivf. because if the democrats wanted to protect ivf, this bill would pass 100-0 right now. what the show vote this afternoon is about is democrats want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars running tv ads in an election season falsely claiming that republicans oppose ivf. so listen carefully. if you hear the words i object from senate democrats, then you will understand the only reason that ivf is not protected with strong ironclad protection in

federal statute is because senate democrats cynically object to protecting ivf. and i would note to the members of the media who are writing on this, the democrats are staging the show vote to get the headlines. they want you to write headlines, every republican opposes ivf. if you're going to write those, please include the fact that today the senate would have passed 100-0 strong federal protection of ivf for every mom and dad, every parent in america but for the fact that senate democrats cynically object while they claim to support ivf. well, let's listen and see what happens. let's hear if we hear the words i object. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at finance committee be discharged from further consideration of

s. 4368, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration; i further ask the that at bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i have been perfectly clear about the glaring issue with this republican bill. the cold, hard reality is that this republican bill does nothing to meaningfully protect ivf from the biggest threats from lawmakers and antiabortion extremists all over this country. it with still allow -- it would still allow states to regulate ivf out of existence, and this bill is silent on fetal personhood, which is the biggest threat to ivf. it is silent on whether states

can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common, necessary part of the ivf process. talk to the experts who provide this care. talk to the families who are seeking it, and that question looms large in their minds. what are we supposed to do if our state says these embryos are living, breathing people? do we have to do this process in another state? what is our legal risk here? that uncertainty is at the core of the chaos republican bans have caused. the last time republicans offered this hollow gesture of a bill, i asked the junior senator from texas point-blank, do you support letting parents have unused embryos disposed of?

and a funny thing actually happened. he said on the floor, i'll answer that question, but he never did. he spoke about what the laws in some of our states are, but he never actually said what he supported. he never said what he believes should be federal law. he never mentioned that he once pledged to support a constitutional amendment to establish fetal personhood as the law of the land. so i ask all of my republican colleagues once again, as a matter of national policy, should parents be allowed to dispose of unused embryos? if so, why is that key provision missing from your bill? we all know why. and if not, how can you look the american people in the eye and say you support ivf? it doesn't compute. thank you, mr. president. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: so i would note there

is one reason and one reason only that the senate has not passed 100-0 a clear, unequivocal federal protection of ivf. because senate democrats cynically chose to object. now the senator from washington raised all sorts of issues that are frankly red herrings. the issues she raised are current state law in multiple states, including louisiana, including missouri, including georgia. and yet, ivf is fully protected and available in those states. senator britt and i very consciously focus this bill on issues that could command bipartisan agreement. there is not a word in this bill that any senator, democrat or republican, disagrees with. understand why the democrats are objecting. the democrats are objecting because they do not want to protect ivf in federal statute. it is cynical because we are 49 days away from election day, and

they intend to try to scare voters in elections across the country by misleading the voters. i'll point out at the same time that we have a presidential election, many of us serve with the vice president kamala harris. i remember vice president harris voting again and again and again against border security, against a border wall. and yet right now vice president harris is spending millions of dollars running ads with pictures of donald trump's border wall. it is deeply cynical and it is because she is running away from her open borders record. the same is true here. the democrats are going to spend millions of dollars arguing that republicans are opposed to ivf and ignoring the fact that it is democrats standing up and objecting that prevent it from being protected in federal law. the democrats don't want to protect ivf because if we pass this law, you know what? they couldn't run their misleading campaign commercials.

from a partisan perspective on the democrat side, far better to block strong federal legislation protecting ivf than to actually come together in a bipartisan way and pass this. i wish we had done that, but this is an election season, and perhaps that is asking too much from my colleagues. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i will happily yield to senator cornyn for a question. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i'm a little confused. if the democrats sincerely want to pass a law relative to ivf, wouldn't they ordinarily work to have an amendment process where we can actually have debate and maybe achieve some consensus? it seems to me that by introducing a bill that they know is bound to fail and blocking the bill that you and

the senator from alabama are, have offered, that they are guaranteeing there will be no federal protection for ivf. am i missing something? mr. cruz: as usual, my friend, the fellow senator from texas, you're not missing something. that is precisely what's going on. this not lawmaking. this is politics. this is partisan politics. this is an election campaign commercial that the democrats are engaged in. to make clear, leader schumer knows the result of the vote this afternoon. why? because we had the same vote just a couple of months ago. he knows exactly the result. why are we voting on it again? because they want reporters to write the same headlines again to deceive the voters. again i invite my democrat colleagues, this should be an easy bill to support if, and this is a big if, in good faith you actually want to protect ivf

legislation. if you want a campaign issue, the worst thing for democrats is actually to pass the cruz-britt bill because then it takes the issue off the table because every mom and dad and every woman or man who wants to be a mother or father knows ivf is protected. the democrats don't want that. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for one more question? mr. cruz: i am happy to yield to senator cornyn. mr. cornyn: if senator schumer and senator murray, the senate democrats who have offered this bill, were actually serious about passing a bill to protect ivf, wouldn't the logical approach be to make sure that there was an opportunity to offer and vote on an amendment? and if they were to prevail in their version of the bill, well, 60 senators could determine that and make that happen. if in fact 60 senators agreed with the bill that you and the senator from alabama have offered, then that bill would prevail and go to the house and

then presumably to the president for his signature. but apparently they are afraid to allow the cruz-britt bill to even get a vote. they have so little confidence in the likely electoral outcome of their proposal that they don't even want a vote on the cruz-britt bill. so, again, i just wanted to ask the senator a couple of questions because i was wondering whether i was missing something. this seems like, as you said, a cynical show vote and certainly not one to accomplish a result. i appreciate your answering the question. mr. cruz: the senator from texas is exactly correct. senator cornyn knows well there are multiple ways to draft a bill. what the democrats have drafted is a bill that is intended to force republicans to vote no because that is the objective. they want the no vote so they deliberately put poison pills in

this bill. they call it an ivf bill but it is a radical pro-abortion bill and it is a radical antireligious liberty bill. their objective is they want their bill to fail because this is all about misleading campaign commercials. the bill that senator britt and i drafted, we worked very carefully to draft a bill that every senator could agree with. there's not a word in our bill that the democrats disagree with. look, abortion is an issue that divides this chamber. there are some of us who are pro-life, there are others who are pro-choice. senator britt and i recognize we were not going to resolve the disagreements on abortion on the floor today, so we deliberately drafted a bill that is focused on ivf specifically. there are no poison pills in our bill. there's nothing designed to force the democrats to vote no. and senator cornyn is exactly right that if our bill were on the floor, i believe it would pass. i believe any democrat voting honestly would vote for it. but i think at a minimum we

would get 60 votes and enough to pass it, which is why the democrats object to taking it up, because they want their bill to fail in order to be misleading. mrs. britt: would the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i am happy to yield to the senator from alabama. mrs. britt: it is my understanding as the two of us came together, 49 republicans strong sent a letter, statement saying we strongly support ivf. now if the democrats were serious about needing to protect ivf, which, by the way, is legal and accessible in every state, then wouldn't they have come to us to figure out a pathway forward? but yet today, instead of taking our bill and if they feel like it needs to be approved, working to do that, they're choosing to do a show vote just to give themselves something to campaign on. has anyone approached you about working together to find a pathway forward for ivf, because i am a strong supporter of ivf.

i am proudly here pro-family, believe that we need to find ways to make sure that people do have access and it continues that way. and i think we've been very clear. but no one has approached me. and you have to get to 60. so if you were really going to, if you really believe ivf is in trouble and in jeopardy wouldn't we be the first two people you would come to talk to. no one has talked to me and yet this bill is on the floor. i know they can't get to 60. maybe they can get a few more. my question is has anyone approached you because if they authentically wanted to protect ivf, if they cared about parents and women who want to bring a child into the world and want to give them certainty, don't want something to campaign on, i think they would come forward. no one has spoken to me. it is so disingenuous. this body is supposed to be more than that. has anyone spoken to you? mr. cruz: no. no democrat has spoken to me.

i am like you unequivocally in support of ivf. but understand, the democrats do not want to pass legislation protecting ivf. if you're trying to pass legislation, you don't put poison pills in it. that's what the democrats have done. their objective, their goal is to have their partisan bill fail so that they can use it for political campaigns across this country. it is designed to fail and it's cynical. it's also predicated on, sadly, the failure of the media. i would note there are no reporters that i see sitting in the gallery. it's predicated on what they know. the media will refuse to cover that they are the ones blocking ivf. they're counting on the media to be partisan and to push their deceptive messaging. we should be protecting ivf. we should be be stand unequivocally. as senator britt noted, all 49

republicans stood and signed a joint letter saying we support ivf. we support protecting ivf. i would note the last time senator britt and i came to this floor, we were joined by senator roger marshall from kansas. senator roger marshall is a physician, he's an ob-gyn who has performed ivf for years. he have has helped hopeful parents become parents through ivf and it is literally the cynical decision of democrats that an ivf doctor is opposed to ivf. i want to repeat that for you because it is such an absurd statement. it is the partisan political position of senate democrats that an ivf doctor, roger marshall, has helped hundreds of parents conceive through ivf, and yet senate democrats claim he somehow opposes ivf. that's not true.

use your common sense. this is cynical and it is wrong. but for those of you at home about to be subjected to millions of dollars of false campaign ads from the democrats, just understand if they are telling you that there are senators who are trying to ban ivf, they are deliberately misleading you. and they're doing it because they don't want to defend their actual position on the issues. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, by all accounts, a vote to protect something as basic and as popular as ivf shouldn't be necessary. but sadly, it is very necessary. thanks to attacks against reproductive care by donald trump and his project 2025.

from the moment donald trump's maga supreme court reversed roe, the hard right made clear they would keep going. as we saw earlier this year in alabama, ivf has become one of the hard right's next targets. today senate republicans must answer a simple question. do they support american families' access to ivf or not? if they support it, the only option is to vote yes on the right to ivf act. but -- if senate republicans vote no today and block ivf protections again, it will be proof they stand against the well-being of families. if senate republicans vote no today, it will be further proof that project 2025 is alive and well when it comes to women's rights and reproductive rights as well. republicans claim to care about

supporting families while voting against ivf protections but that's precisely what they did three months ago. today republicans get a second chance, either stand with families struggling with infertility or stand against families and with project 2025. kudos and great thanks to senators duckworth, murray, and booker and everyone who championed this bill. thank you to all my colleagues who have raised their voice on this most personal of issues. i ask everyone to vote yes. and, mr. president, i move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture failed on the motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to calendar number 13, s. 44445. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to proceed to calendar number 13, s. 4445. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to reconsider. all in favor say eye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 413, s. 4445, an act to protect and expand national access to fertility treatment including in vitro fertilization, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the

motion to proceed to s. 4445, a bill to protect and ex pant national access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization, shall be brought to a close upon reconsideration. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. 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. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy.

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. helmy.

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. 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. 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. mr. young. the clerk:

senators voting in the affirmative -- cantwell, duckworth, lujan, murray, schumer, stabenow, and wyden. senators voting in the negative -- britt, capito, cruz, grassley, mullin, and paul. ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: ms. warren, aye. the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye. mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. heinrich, aye.

the clerk: mr. hagerty, no. the clerk: mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. welch, aye. ms. hassan, aye.

vote: the clerk: mr. risch, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. mr. sanders, aye. mrs. gillibrand, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. mr. helmy, aye.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. mr. marshall, no.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no. ms. baldwin, aye. mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, no. the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. mr. murphy, aye. mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. lankford, no. mr. durbin, aye. mr. barrasso, no.

the clerk: mr. rubio, no. mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. braun, no.

mr. young, no. the clerk: mr. cardin, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye.

mr. daines, no. mr. hoeven, no. ms. murkowski, aye. mr. ricketts, no.

mr. fetterman, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

mr. moran, no. mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no. mr. cotton, no.

mr. kennedy, no. mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. lee, no. mr. schatz, aye.

mr. johnson, no. mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. mawly, no. -- mr. hawley, no. the clerk: mr. warner, aye. mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no. the clerk: mr. graham, no.

k the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. the clerk: mr. coons, aye.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye. mrs. shaheen, aye. ms. butler, aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no o.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. carper, aye. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays

are 44, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion upon reconsideration is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. duckworth mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: mr. president, i come to the floor to speak on the bill that recently failed

despite my colleagues' saying they -- i was able to pack my daughter's lunch boxes, it sounds mundane, but when i think about it, even every day moments electronic that with my girls is not mundane. after struggling with being -- the only reason there are pb and j's for me to make for lunch, the only there are are tiny sneakers for me to velcro close, is because after coming home from war, i had the dream of coming from tammy to mommy a reality. i was one of the lucky ones because now that freedom to get reproductive care is at risk for

millions of women whose most desperate hope is to have a little one at home. make no mistake, this is not a future nightmare. this is a reality. countless women had their ivf treatments interrupted after an alabama supreme court ruling treated these women as criminals. in this perilous moment in our country as we stare down november, there's no telling how many more will follow. look, i doubt that donald trump even knows what the acronym ivf stands for, and half the time i wonder if he can spell ivf, despite the embarrassing ram beings that came out of his mouth last week, the reality is he's the reason ivf is at risk in the first place. the dobbs decision is what led us to today's nightmare, taking the power to decide when and how to start families.

donald trump is the one who brags about taking down roe. donald trump is the one who acts like that's something to be proud of. he's like a bank robber who steals quash out of the till and fleece the scene and still expects a reward to falling the police to report a claim. while he may say he will protect ivf, we know the truth, he is the reason ivf is in danger. he is to blame, he and every other republican who stays with trump rather than for the americans they're supposed to be serving. too many of those republicans are in this chamber. this is the third time in the past seven months i have come to the floor begging my republican colleagues pass legislation i wrote that would protect every american's right to ivf regardless of what state they live in. a bill that would ensure no

doctor or hopeful mom could be criminalized for tryingor start a family, one that would hold all insurers to cover treatments and one that would cover reproductive tellings, allowing -- technologies. when i tried to pass it in february, it took the junior republican senator from mississippi what seemed like not one full mississippi second to block its passage. when i tried to pass it again in june, nearly every gop member voted it down. today it was the same old cynical story after republican after republican voted no, no, no. and at this point, it's obvious, despite whatever talking points they force through gritted teeth on cable news, when the rubber hits the road and the vote is called, republicans will get out of anything to pass legislation that would protect women's right

to access reproductive health care. women in this country have been through enough. what women don't need is a man who is found liable for sexual abuse, controlling what we can or cannot do with our bodies. what we don't need are politician who are following -- americans seem to care about protecting life when it consists of some cells in a medical lab freezer, what's about the day when a fifth grader who gets their day shattered by a person who wants to turn a day at school into a massacre, well, then those same republicans couldn't seem to care less about defending the sanctity of life. i'm sure some of my colleagues will try to shrink away from taking accountability, they will

shout some ridiculous excuse like this would allow for human animal -- i say this afternoon's vote was your chance to put your vote where your mouth is. it was your chance to prove that you believe every woman in this country deserves a chance to be called mom without also being called al criminal. instead, your true policy beliefs, your hypocrisy, your misogyny slowed through. i went to fight for this country. i did it because i believed so deeply in the importance of that mission. i wasn't asking my gop colleagues to ask them to share that time in combat. i wasn't asking them to do anything hard, all i was asking them to do was to support a bill that would have represented millions of women's only chance of starting families. all i was asking of them was to vote in a way that reflect the position they claim they had

when they were spouting talking points on fox news. they couldn't do that. to every woman who has faced the sadness of infertility, all i have to say to my republican colleagues is, same on you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i first want to thank our colleague, senator duckworth, from illinois, for her leadership. anyone who sees the beautiful pictures of her two girls with their different per sornality, would understand once you see those kids as we all know people in our families, with our friends, our neighbors who literally their families are there because of this procedure, understand how disappointing this vote was, that's a

minnesota euphemism, what happened in the last hour where we had only two republican colleagues, the same two who voted with us last time, who were willing to stand up for ivf. ivf is a miracle medical treatment for families who couldn't otherwise have children. over the last four decades eight million babies have been born around the world thanks to ivf. yet, today we are moving backwards. the right to ivf is under attack because two years ago the supreme court decided to shred half a century of legal precedent and strip away women's right to make their own health care decisions. now american women are at the mercy of a state laws as my colleague from illinois described, which can deny this treatment. what happened -- in south dakota

and north dakota women have crossed the border to get the kind of health care they need instead, as my colleague noted as this happened in oklahoma and other states, bleeding out in parking lots because they have no choice. we saw it happen, of course, when it comes to ivf in alabama. their february supreme court decision brought ivf procedures in the state to a halt, leaving more than two million women in that state without access to this treatment. whatever happens legally court cases and the like thats change things -- that change things, it is all the same. all of this angst, all of this actual disastrous effect on women's rights could have been prevented. but instead we have a group of people that doesn't reflect 70% to 80% of the people are have decided that politicians should

make these decisions about women's health. that politicians should be the one that are going to decide about ivf or are going to decide about whether or not people can get abortions or the kind of birth control that they want or even have access to mifepristone. i used to think the people that were opposing us on this wanted to bring us back to the 1950's but now it looks like it's 1850's. the people of this country deserve better. i'm thinking of mada, a woman from minnesota who became a mom thanks to ivf. in her own words, i am the proud mother of twin girls, but without ivf and my ability to access treatment, they would not be here today. our twins are almost 8 years old, and i cannot imagine my life without them. they are incredible humans who are already bringing so much love, joy, and hope into this world. every parent deserves that hope. no court, no politician should

interfere with that hope. but right now that hope is under attack, and today many of my colleagues chose to deny that hope to women across the country. in doing so, they are working against the will of 86% of americans who believe ivf should be protected and legal. attacks on reproductive freedom and freedom in general, that's not what today should be about. i refuse to settle for a reality in which my daughter has fewer rites than i do -- rights than i do or her grandmother did. and i will not stop fighting for a future where women and not politicians are in charge of their own health care decisions. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my speech.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. budd: thank you, mr. president. does i have the distinct honor of recognizing my alma tatter on the 125th anniversary of its founding. steaked in boone, north carolina in 1899, it began as a teachers college with 53 students. today it enrolls over 21,000 students, employs more than 3500 employees, and boasts more than 150,000 living alumni who exemplify the mountain year spirit every day. this strong and steady growth has established it as a premier institution as one of the largest in the unc system. giving its worldwide reputation, it has remained true to its mission as a rural institution known for service to its local and regional communities. abstate is committed to increasing enrollment of students in rural populations

and timely graduation with as little debt as possible. the university's regional impact is undeniable contributing nearly $2.2 billion to our state's economy. it continues to maintain a low student to faculty ratio and offers more than 150 undergraduate and 80 graduate majors at its campuses in boone, hickory and online. the university is committed to supporting the work force needs of north carolina as one of our state's leading producers of graduates in business, education, and health care. moreover it has stepped up to meet the growing needs in the area of veterinary technology, health sciences and cybersecurity. its successes reach beyond the classroom to competitive sports with more than 400 mountaineer student athletes. they earned a accumulative gpa above 3.0 for the 12th

consecutive year during the spring semester of 2024. since joining the sunbelt conference in 2014, the athletic programs have won 13 conference championships. four of those titles belong to the nationally ranked football team, the legendary triumphs of which are known from an harbor michigan to college station, texas. on behalf of the citizens of the state of north carolina, i congratulate appalachia state university on 125 years of service to our state and our region. i yield the floor.

mr. boozman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. last week hundreds of farmers and ranchers from all regions of our country representing operations of all sizes and all the major crops traveled to the capitol to encourage us to pass a stronger farm-focused farm bill before the end of this year. i met with many of these individuals, and i'm grateful they took the time away from their families and their farms and ranches to tell us what is at stake if congress fails to pass a farm bill this year. for these farmers this trip came with the additional stress of being away from farm at the height of harvest season.

their visits clearly articulated the anxiety gripping farm country at this crucial moment. for the past few months farmers, ranchers, the organizations who represent them and the agriculture banking sector have all warned of an impending crisis in farm country. producers are struggling to make ends meet in an environment where costs per farm inputs have ballooned from inflation, interest rates have doubled and market prices are far below the cost of production. coupled with consecutive years of losses, the financial stress bourne particularly by our row crop farmers is now being revealed. the reality is there will be fewer farmers in 2025 if congress does not respond. we have been warned that many farmers will struggle to secure operating loans for the next year. this is a devastating realization. the outdated farm safety net

they're operating under is doing nothing to address these realities. that is why the senate needs to take two immediate actions. first we need to provide emergency assistance to address the economic losses that farmers are facing associated with the 2024 crop. even with record yields, farmers are still not breaking even. this is not a crisis they can handle. they in any way ensure themselves or conserve their way out of it. farmers across the country need a bridge to help their family farms survive into next year. we've seen previous ad hoc assistance programs established in a period of weeks as demonstrated by the secretary of -- then-secretary perdue when covid-19 pandemic created disruptions for producers. that level of timely and arduous

response by congress anded administration is once again warranted. in southern states like arkansas, mississippi, and texas many producers have harvested their 2024 crop and many are losing hundreds of dollars per acre of ground they farm. that same experience is beginning to creep into the midwest and northern states as harvest begins in these regions. what do losses of this magnitude actually translate to? not only are producers not able to pay their bills but they won't be able to secure an operating loan for next year's crop, let alone have any income at all to survive on. this is a devastating ripple effect on rural businesses and communities. let me be clear. emergency assistance does not reduce the need to make meaningful investments to the commodity and crop insurance titles over the next farm bill. in fact the clear necessity of

providing ad hoc assistance for economic losses demonstrates how inadequate the 2018 farm bill has become. the next farm bill is the appropriate place to make the necessary long-term corrections to our farm safety net but farmers need timely support addressing the 2024 losses as they enter the winter months when they make planning decisions and secure financing for the upcoming crop year. which leads me to the second action congress must take. we must redouble our efforts to pass a farm bill before the end of the calendar year that mees this moment, one that provides the support our farmers desperately need to stay in business. i'm committed to sitting down with my counterparts for as long as it takes to hash out a deal that our members can support. i was encouraged to see another

appeal made last week. the win doer to make this -- the window to make this happen is closing rapidly. farmers are facing a crisis that is being abouting more dire every day. mr. president, you and i both know and you, as one of our stellar members on the ag committee know that's far from the truth. i know my colleagues want to make sure, all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, want to make sure that we can produce the most affordable and abundant supply of fuel and fiber in the world. but without action, it is an understandable sentiment. we have been sounding the alarm for many months. it is the very reason we have been adamant about the need for

more farm in the farm bill. with that, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. l: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mrs. blackburn: subsidy that we dispense -- i ask that we dispense. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you. across the country, more than three million high school female

athletes compete. for many, their sports are more than just a game. they're a lifelong passion that improves their physical health, boosts self-confidence, and teaches them the leadership skills to succeed on and off the field. in short, women's athletics have done incredible things for women. which is why it is so deeply disturbing to see the biden-harris administration wage a war on women's sports. in their crosshairs, title 9, the landmark civil rights law that codified protections on the basis of sex. by requiring equal resources for training, recruitment and scholarships for female athletic programs. title 9 led to an explosion of women's participation in sports.

in fact, since 1972, the year title 9 became law, the number of female college athletes increased by a factor of seven, while the number of female high school athletes has increased by more than tenfold. yet for years we have seen this administration undermine the very title 9 protections that enabled greater women participation in sports. in 2022, on the 50th anniversary of title 9, the department of education announced new rules that force schools to allow biological males to play on female teams, and just in april the administration redefined discrimination to allow biological men to use women-only locker rooms and bathrooms. are tennesseans and the american people really expected to

believe this is okay? you do not need to be a biologist to understand that there are fundamental, biological differences between men and women. and when it comes to sports, these differences undermine fair play. erase women's hard-earned achievements and put female athletes in danger. thankfully, many young women are bravely speaking out against the biden-harris administration's radical agenda, including tennessee's riley gaines. in 2021, riley was forced to compete against and share a locker room with a biological male during the ncaa women's swimming and diving champ onships. during the 200-meter competition, riley tied for fifth with her male competitor.

but when they went to pick up her trophy, officials told her they were giving the trophy to the male. yours will be coming in the mail. this should never happen in the united states. now more than ever, congress should stand with the female athletes fighting for fair play and celebrate the incredible contributions women have made in the world of sports. that's why i'm calling for unanimous consent for my resolution to establish october 10 as american girls in sports day. of course, we picked that date for a special reason, as the 10th day of the 10th month, october 10 is represented by the roman numerals xx, the same numerals of the female sex chromosome. in the last 50 years, female

athletes have gone from the sidelines to the center stage. as we continue to fight for women's participation in sports, we must keep in mind what is at stake, and the american girls and sports day resolution will help to ensure that we all join together and celebrate our female athletes. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce, science, and transportation be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 669ment, further, that the resolution being agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, reserving the right to object, first of all, let me offer my thanks to the senator from tennessee for all the work she

has done with my colleague, senator blumenthal, to protect our kids online. i am truly grateful for what they have done together. and although she and i have not worked closely on legislation, i am hopeful that we'll be able to work together to find protections to work for our kids. she and i may not agree on a lot -- and as you will hear, we do not agree on this particular resolution -- but i do hope we get the chaens to work together. i mean that, but i also mean this, with all due respect -- let's be clear about what this is, mr. president. this isn't an effort to solve a problem. this whole obsession with transgender kids from the right wing is just about picking on vulnerable kids so that adults can make themselves feel big. bullying and harassing kids because it makes adults feel powerful. as far as i'm concerned, this

whole effort is shameful. it's important to understand that resolutions like this do not stand in isolation. it is part of a massive campaign by the right to convince americans that they should fear immigrants, that they should fear muslims, that they should fear gay children, that they should fear transgender athletes. the world in which republicans want us to live is a world where the biggest problems are not low wages or expensive health care or addiction or loneliness, but the threats posed to us by people of a different race or speak a different language or are of a different sexual orientation or gender identity. it is a massive, coordinated attempt to marginalize people who aren't white, straight, and christian, and it exists for a reason -- to distract you. i have a ton of close republican

friends in this chamber who i work with a lot, but let's be honest -- the republican party's platform today is maybe the most unpopular agenda of any major political party in recent memory. ban abortion, cut taxes for corporations and millionaires, ban books, loosen gun laws. nobody wants any of that. so what do you do if the things you actually want to do, if you achieve power, are super, soar super -- are super, super, unpopular? you distract them with giant, gross lies like immigrants are eating our pets or greatly exaggerates untruths like our high school sports are under aassault from transgender kids. it is all an effort to hide the ball from the real agenda -- abortion bans and millionaire tax cuts. by trying to make you believe

that you should spend your entire day, that you had -- that you should spend your entire life just being afraid of people that are different from you. let me give you the facts a, not the fearmongering. -- about high school transgender athletes and i'd let you decide whether this situation is worthy of hundreds of bills having been introduced by republicans all across the country, whether it's worthy of debate continuously over and over again on the senate floor. there are over million is you xiethdz in high school sports today. for the problem much transjer der girls competing in sports to be a national crisis what percentage of that six million would be transgender girls p? 10%? 5%?

1%? it's none of those. let's take florida. more than 800,000 students participate in high school athletics. before they enacted their ban, how many transgender athletes were in florida? 100? no. 50? no. over the course of eight years, in the entire state of florida before their ban, there were 13 transgender high school athletes. 13. those 13 girls were apparently waging a war against girls sports. that's a pretty small army to be waging a war. you're more likely to be killed by a l falling object in this country than to have your daughter compete against the transgender girl in high school

sports. but what if she did? i think every state and every school district should decide these questions for themselves. i don't think the federal government should get involved. but as a parent, i celebrate those few transgender kids whon spend their entire adolescents being shamed. i celebrate fact that they get the experience of the camaraderie and the happiness that comes with being part of a sports team. i don't think that's grachlt pyoni don't think that is a threat to my kids. i teach my kids to love everybody, include everybody, to see people who are a different race, different religion, even a different gender identity as friends, not as enemies. this is an absurd resolution designed to distract americans from republicans' real agenda. it's designed to build a culture of fear and mistrust, a culture that i and i'm going to tell you

most americans reject. and therefore i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. i would encourage my colleagues to read the republican party platform. it's very short. as a matter of fact, there is nothing in it about banning anything. believe you me, i know that. so i would encourage him to take the 15 or 20 minutes -- it's not a long, lengthy document. it's got 20 actions that we are going to take and then it has some principles on which we stand and believe. i also find it very interesting that he looks at a resolution that would celebrate women as something that should be feared, because it's not about fear. it's not about division. it's not about distraction. this is something that says to

our young girls and these young athletes we are proud of you. keep it up. here's some of the language from the resolution. athletic participation has an important positive impact on young girls, improving their physical health, self-confidence, their discipline. women have been responsible for some of the greatest athletic feats in the sports history of the united states, from the olympic games -- and we all cheered our young women who excelled and won those medals and those that were in competition in the olympics, all the way to professional competition. female athletes have served as an inspiration for generations of women and girls. in tennessee, i will tell you there are young girls probably out in the driveway bouncing a basketball right now.

they want to be a lady vol. that is one of their goals in life. and as for the number of titles and things that have been lost since 2003, biological men displaced women and girls from over 950 championship titles, medals, scholarships and records that should have rightfully gone to these girls. and at least 28 women sports titles in volleyball, swimming, mountain biking, track phenyled, weight lifting and cycling. now this is a celebration of female accomplishment. this is a celebration of female accomplishment. so while i enjoy the opportunity to work with my colleague, i am disappointed to hear him feel and express his opinion that celebrating women and giving a

day to celebrate our female athletes would be something that would strike fear and would cause division. we should all be united around celebrating our female athletes. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

.

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, today we once again attempted to move forward on the right to ivf act and republicans once again stopped us. now, let's remember a few things

about how we actually got here because it is infuriating. republicans have tried to claim the right to ivf is not under attack. but it was republicans' own votes that killed this bill. and it was the republicans' own efforts to overturn roe v. wade and champion fetal personhood which treats an embryo like a living, breathing person that caused the chaos and uncertainty around ivf access, that caused women in alabama to have ivf appointments canceled earlier this year jeopardizing women's hope of growing their families and lighting on fire the thousands of dollars some of these patients spent ahead of treatment. and despite that hard lesson to this day there is still widespread republican support for fetal personhood bills. to this day republicans' own bills to supposedly protect ivf,

they say nothing about fetal personhood and do nothing to make sure parents can dispose of unused embryos. now, democrats came forward with a bill that would actually protect ivf. our bill, the right to ivf act, protects the right to ivf nationally. and it lowers the cost of ivf for families with stronger insurance coverage requirements. it also includes my bill to make sure more veterans and servicemembers can access ivf services. and many of the same republicans who have supported fetal personhood laws, the single greatest threat to ivf, are pretending this bill isn't necessary. many of the same republicans who desperate to posture as profamily and constafrjtsly say they stand by our troops are saying we can't afford to help more military families get ivf. funny how they're always game to

throw more money at billionaires but i digress. republicans voted this bill down again. they voted down protecting ivf again. they voted down making ivf more affordable again. they voted down helping servicemembers and veterans grow their families again. and they did it fresh off another round of pretending to support ivf. they did it just as donald trump, the man who kicked all of this off, the man who proudly boasted he ended roe is trying to say he's the leader on ivf. when donald trump says he is the leader on ivf, hear me on two things. first, he almost certainly doesn't understand what ivf is. secondly, he doesn't understand what leadership is. you do not get credit for opposing a problem that you caused in the first place, especially when your party, the party you lead, won't let us

solve it. the entire country just saw plain as day that donald trump is lying again and that nothing has changed for republicans since they overturned roe v. wade. nothing has changed for republicans since the absolute heartbreaking chaos their extremism caused in alabama. nothing has changed for republicans despite trump's imagine naer leadership -- imagine-year leadership on ivf and despite all the families who are calling for action. but democrats are not going to stop pushing. i have a message for my republican colleagues who think they can talk about this issue, make big promises to desperate families like trump's promise to cover ivf treatment, and then fail to follow through. i would urge them to think again and tread lightly because that promise may just be an empty sound bite to donald trump, but it is so personal to these families. it is personal to women who have been trying for years to start a

family with no luck, women who month after month get their hopes up and face another heartbreak. the last thing these families need is a broken promise. the last thing their heart can bear is false hope. so don't you dare breathe another word about helping them get ivf when you are not willing to put up the votes and make it happen. don't you dare talk about protecting their chance to grow their family when you're not willing to stand clear and strong against fetal personhood laws. don't you dare raise your voice in more fake support when you won't lift a finger to actually help because these families have been listening to your words. they saw how you voted today. and, mr. president, they will not forget. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, here

in this chamber it's your vote that counts, not your tweets, not your public statements, not your tv interviews -- your votes. and today, for otosecond sometime in three -- for the second time in three months, republicans voted against protecting ivf. some of them claim to support ivf. all of them profess to be prolife. but given the chance to be both, they failed. republicans are doing a lot of mental gym mass sticks to try -- gymnastics to try to justify their stand on the one hand this this issue. but let's be clear about what the right to ivf act does. it protects every american's right to hack ssess ivf -- to access ivf and lower the cost of

treatments for families who need it. that means anyone interesting s&ling to start or grow a -- anyone struggling to start or grow a family can start ivf without fear of interference or punishment by the government. and think about the fact that we have to make a law that says families should not be punished for trying to start a family. that's what this bill does. it says you should have access to this care, and you cannot be punished for trying to start a family. it means providers can administer the treatment without worrying that they'll be flown in jail or have -- thrown in jail or have their license taken away just for doing their jobs. and it means insurers can cover ivf without implementing absurd restrictions and onerous requirements that would make it all but impossible to access this miraculous treatment. what this bill is is a commonsense measure that is necessary precisely because of

the environment republicans created with the fall of roe, an environment where over half of women of reproductive age in america now live in states that are hostile to abortion rights and, let's be clear, republicans did that through their vessel of the united states supreme court. and so they can pretend to be for ivf but vote against the bill that would actually protect it for good. they can pretend to be for life while also trying to restrict access to a mir rack also treatment -- miraculous treatment that creates life. they can pretend to have their own bill to protect ivf when that bill literally does the opposite. because here it's your vote that counts. it is not your rhetoric. it is not your statement. it is not even your explanation. they voted no against ivf, and

shame on them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i rise to join my colleagues and want to thank my colleague, senator murray, for her leadership on this important issue over many, many years. but i join my colleagues to say, it's time to put partisan politics aside and stay out of family planning issues and leave that up to families in america. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had an opportunity today to believe that women deserve the chance to start a family through ivf. the miracle for people who have been struggling with fertility challenges. in 2022, more than 2,000 new babies were born in the state of washington, thanks to ivf. this is something we'd like to see every year, but as the court

has struck down important issues and states have gone on various efforts to try to restrict women's access to health care and full reproductive care, ivf has even been questioned. practically everyone knows someone who overcame the challenge desperate to have a pregnancy and the sadness of infertility, and that's probably why 86% of americans say that ivf should be legal. this afternoon we voted on that right, the right to ivf act. that's what we were voting on, a straightforward vote. one of those that would just show the american people the mainstream of america that we agree with them. that's all we were trying to do. as people have punted around this very important right that now, because of actions by individual states, no longer

seems to be guaranteed and yet we all here could have cast a vote saying we want to protect it in voting for this act. it was an opportunity for us to ask our colleagues who previously voted against this measure to say that they actually agreed this time on ivf, to show that they mean what they say, not some version of a bill that basically curtails and makes it impossible for somebody to run an ivf organization. we have no time for a that, no time for a that. my colleagues' voting history shows that if you didn't support ivf before and you didn't support it today, i'm not sure what it is that you think you support. democrats are trying to guarantee the access and republicans are blocking us. democrats tried to guarantee the right to contraception, which 81% of americans say should be protected, and republicans blocked it. we tried to pass a law saying that you can't put a woman in

jail for trying to leave her state just to get abortion care, and that was blocked. and we tried to pass a law saying that you can put -- you can't put a health care worker in jail for performing abortions that their state where with the procedure is legal, and republicans blocked that, too. and today another block of just something very basic -- the right to ivf act. so reproductive freedoms of all sorts and family planning is under attack. we will a chance to speak as you on voice and talk about fertility treatments in the united states of america. instead, families will continue to wonder what ivf is going to be available in the united states of america. americans should have the access to these reproductive rights. americans should have the freedom to decide for themselves when and how to have children. and they should have the freedom

to use ivf for their families and to plan to start a family. this summer i released a health care report along with my colleagues that talked about people who lived in red states where they were forcing people to try travel to other -- to travel to other states just to get health care. it was so sad and scary to find out that basically almost weekly someone from idaho was walking into a facility with a pregnancy complexity only to be told, i'm not going to see you. and then have them flown to a facility in seattle. what kind of hardship are you putting on people? and then with great sadness, i read this article that came out late last night about the death of a young woman from georgia -- i'm quoting the article now -- who decide after waiting 20 hours for a hospital to treat

her complications from an abortion pill that showed the consequences of the actions that we've passed a, donald trump's actions, end quote. this is what we're doing to america. we are leaving reproductive choice up in the air. we are making women travel all over just to get care, and now we're telling americans we don't even know if we believe in ivf. this nonsense has to stop. this is about families' planning. this is about families planning for their future. it is not about politicses putting -- it is not about politicians putting hardships on patients seeking health care and then turning them away and affecting their lives, and in this case the tragedy of this young woman. i thank my colleague, senator murray, for helping organize us. i ask our colleagues, we can do better than this. they need to do better than this for the american people. i thank the president. i yield the floor.

ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i want to thank senator murray for her leadership on the reproductive issues. mr. president, once again today our republican colleagues have shown us where their priorities truly lie. despite insist something time and again -- insisting time and again how much they support the right to in vitro fertilization, or ivf, they just voted again near unanimously to block a bill providing that very right. for decades ivf and other assistive reproductive technologies have helped people who otherwise couldn't start families of their own. while some of the right like to depict ivf as some sort of new

or untested technology, that is not so. the first baby delivered via ivf was more than 45 years ago and since then ivf has helped bring more than 10 million babies into this world. in fact, as a state representative in hawaii in the 1980's, i led the passage of a bill making hawaii one of the first states in the nation to require health insurers to cover ivf treatment. and earlier in year i met dr. laurie kamemoto, an ob-gyn in hawaii, who decades ago helped deliver the first baby born in hawaii via ivf. but now, thanks to the chaos created by dobbs, a whole range

of reproductive rights, including the right to ivf, are on the chopping block. look at alabama, where the state's supreme court invoked a, quote, fetal personhood, unquote, law to call into question the legality of ivf effectively halting ivf treatment in that state. despite the fact that more than 85% of americans support ivf, republicans here in the senate have now on several occasions blocked our attempts to pass a bill to protect ivf treatment. apparently, republicans' obsessions with power and control over women's bodies and our lives knows no bounds. republicans insist that support ivf but refuse to protect access

to ivf. they insist access to contraception is safe and they support it, but i have gnp the chance they refuse to -- but given the chance, they refuse to codify that into law. frankly, can anyone take republicans at their word when they say they won't enact a nationwide abortion ban if given the opportunity? we can't, mr. president. they've shown us who they are, and just how wildly out of step they are with the american people. as republicans continue on their antifreedom, antiwomen crusade, democrats will continue fighting to protect the right to ivf as we work to ensure people can make decisions about their bodies, their lives, and their futures free from government

intrusion. thank you. i yield back. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: actions always speak louder than words. for all their words, our republican colleagues have acted today in a way that will speak for years and longer. it will speak to lisa, a constituent of mine in connecticut. and i ask my republican colleagues to listen to lisa in what she shared with me after

the alabama supreme court ruling and before she and her husband became parents to a healthy, happy baby girl as a result of ivf. she said, and i quote her, if a woman is willing to go through the physical, emotional, and financial toll of ivf treatment to bring a new life into the world, you'd better believe she is going to love that baby more than anyone -- more than anything one can imagine. and we need more love like that in the world. for lisa, that alabama supreme court ruling banning ivf treatment was, quote, heartbreaking and infuriating.

families like lisa's wouldn't exist if it weren't for ivf. i ask my republican colleagues to listen to kim and tina who were married in 2013 and immediately knew they wanted to start a family in connecticut. as a gay couple, they needed to rely on reproductive technology and they were forced to meet standards that their straight friends never encountered. and ivf worked for them. they're now proud parents to twins whom they call, quote, the greatest gifts of our lives. interested in politics and government, trumpets and sailing, their gifts to their community, their friends and their school. listening to parents who have gone through the heartbreak and

pain of infertility and who have found this miracle of ivf is not limited to kim and tina and lisa. it is all of america who knows these stories in their own l lives. every american knows a couple that has tried year after year, and finally if they are really lucky and can afford it, discovers the miracle of ivf. very simply, every one of those families, every american ought to have access to that miracle of life, and yet our republican

colleagues, even though their own constituents would tell them if they were listening about the reasons why ivf should be protected, have acted today, despite their words and their rhetoric, to block ivf prot protection. this scientific miracle is so immensely important, it ought to be nonpolitical, nonpartisan, noncontroversial. there ought to be unanimity. and this vote is the second one. i believe in second chances. if we had wanted to be strictly political about this bill, we could have said, well, no second

chance here. we're going to take you on that first vote because that would be the one politically advantageous. we gave them a second chance to get right on ivf, and they refused. i'm angry, i'm disgusted. most important, i'm sad because this vote was an opportunity to tell american families, we're with you. we stand with you. we know how physically painful ivf is. we know how emotionally painful infertility can be. we know how great families want to build greater families with children who will serve our

country, make it greater. the callousness and cowardice of our republican colleagues speaks louder than words, and this vote will haunt them. it will haunt, at the very least, their consciences. or it should. we have the courage to stand with the american families who need and deserve ivf. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i'm so grateful to be here with colleagues who care deeply about protecting our

reproductive freedoms and supporting families all across america. and i want to thank senator patty murray, who's been our leader on this for many years. it's just incredible to me that in 2024, we are standing here having to talk about this. it's really incredible. and i just want to take us back a bit because this congress, republicans have had 16 chances to protect reproductive freedom. over 16 chances. and every time they have voted no. so today, once again they block a bill to protect access to ivf for thousands of american families. now we had this vote before, and then the former president said he changed his mind excepted to make ivf free, excepted to force insurance companies to cover

ivf. that's great, let's come together in a bipartisan way to be able to move forward and protect this really important part of reproductive freedom. so we bring the bill up again. now i assumed that the former president was on the phone all last night calling our colleagues, calling all of our republican colleagues, like he did for his effort to block and kill the bipartisan border security bill when he wanted to make sure that didn't go forward and he had an issue to run on, he was burning up the phones. given what he said to the american people about his now support for ivf, i assume he was burning up the phones last night. well, if he was, it wasn't very effective. and, mr. president, we know he

wasn't. we know when really wants something what he does. when he really wants something he calls the speaker of the house and says don't support a bipartisan bill to support the government. shut it down. but i bet there wasn't one phone call made last night to support this effort to protect a woman's reproductive freedom and the freedom of families to grow their families. since the fall of roe, republicans have continued their assault on reproductive freedom. ivf, questions about birth control, of course abortion access, and there are a whole range of privacy questions for women in terms of what happens during their pregnancies. we know that ivf is about allowing the freedom to have children. if you struggle with infertility, it gives you a way,

an effective way to start or dproe -- grow a family. it's helped thousands of american families including my friend ellen who now has a beautiful little boy, carter, had his first birthday party not long ago. i mean, how could you not love that face? carter is incredible, and we are all so excited for ellen and for carter. that's the miracle of ivf, mr. president. ivf has also helped brittany from holly, michigan, start her family. after being diagnosed with pcos at 16, she experienced fertility issues when she was ready to start a family. after three years, six rounds of fertility treatments, countless tests, and two rounds of ivf,

she gave birth to her beautiful baby girl, eloisa, who is now 11 months old. what a blessing. despite the strain this journey put on her relationships, brittany told me that every penny was worth it. every penny was worth it for our daughter. ivf has made our family complete. and she's not the only michigander who's been able to start a family because of ivf. when her husband was serving our country in the u.s. navy, sue from brighton, 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 towards

the seven rounds of ivf that were needed to have a successful pregnancy. with insurance only paying for some of the medication, she pent over $ -- she spent over $100,000 out of pocket on treatment to be able to have that baby. this journey put an emotional and financial strain on sue and her husband, and that is certainly not surprising. and this situation is not unique. our veterans and servicemembers sacrifice so much for our country. they shouldn't have to sacrifice their ability to start or dproe a family because these treatments aren't covered and politicians tell them they don't have that choice. 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 voting for the right to ivf act was a no-brainer for me. we need to protect this freedom, access to this opportunity for families. we need to expand and protect fertility treatments for our servicemembers and our veterans, and cover adoption assistance. we need to cover and lower the cost of ivf treatments for all. we need to make sure women have the freedom to make our own reproductive decisions. not right-wing politicians. not judges. when i hear the former president say this was all about sending

the decision back to the states rather than the federal government. no, this is about having individual women and their families make the decision. it doesn't matter if it's a federal politician or a state politician. the point is there should be no politician. it should be a woman and her family making those decisions. the woman herself making that decision about what will happen for her. so that's what we're fighting for, and we're not going to stop fighting for that. in america, we had that freedom for over 50 years. and it got ripped away by donald trump and the appointments he made to the united states supreme court. and now it's just unleashed all kinds of harm, all kinds of

damage for women, and death because of the fact that some folks that think they can control women's lives. i'm incredibly disappointed that our republican colleagues did not join us today in protecting this important freedom. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 700. 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, united states tax court, rose e. jenkins to beinga judge for the united states tax court for 15 years. mr. durbin: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 700, rose e. inns of the -- jenkins, of the district of columbia to be a judge for the united states tax court for 15 years. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum for today be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: on behalf of the majority leader, i ask to -- i

ask that we go to the vote on the costello nomination. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the nomination. mr. durbin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote clo -- vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. 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. cardin. 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. the clerk: mr. heinrich. mr. helmy. 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. 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. 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. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- brown, cardin, durbin, hassan, helmy, hirono, schatz, sinema, and warren. senators voting in the negative -- barasso, cassidy, targ -- hagerty, hoeven, hyde-smith, kennedy, mullin, ricketts, risch, rubio, tuberville, and young.

mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. mcconnell, no. mr. sanders, aye.

mr. thune, no. the clerk: mrs. shaheen, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. warner, aye. the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: mr. padilla, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. ms. rosen, aye. mrs. capito, no.

ms. smith, aye. the clerk: mr. reed, aye.

the clerk: mr. moran, no. mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: ms. collins, aye. ms. cantwell, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, no. the clerk: mr. markey, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. coons, aye. mr. heinrich, aye. the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. scott of florida,

no. the clerk: mr. welch, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

mr. scott of south carolina, no. the clerk: mr. johnson, no. mr. graham, aye.

mr. wicker, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. warnock, aye. vote: the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. braun, no.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mr. marshall, no. mr. van hollen, aye.

mrs. gillibrand, aye. the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. bennet, aye. the clerk: mr. paul, no.

the clerk: mr. budd, no. mrs. fischer, no. the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, no. mr. sullivan, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, no. the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no. mr. boozman, no.

the clerk: mr. daines, no. mrs. britt, no. ms. baldwin, aye. ms. butler, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mer cornyn the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. peters, aye.

the clerk: mr. romney, aye.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no. mr. ossoff, aye. mr. tester, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. lee, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye.

vote: the presiding officer: the yeas are 52, the nays are 41, and the

nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the biden-harris apparent strategic for handling the massive influx of migrants on the southern border has been to funnel them into allegedly temporary parole programs and act like the biden-harris border crisis has been resolved. far from it. there's little public data on the number of people who have actually been released into the united states under these programs whether they're making asylum claims or whether their claims were evaluated in any way before they've been released or

whether they ever leave the country or remain indefinitely. the administration has gone to great lengths to hide-the-ball when it comes to levels of illegal immigration, but the american people deserve to know exactly how many migrants are being released into the country and exactly on what terms. that's why i led the southern border transparency act which would shine a bright light on the catch and release policies of the administration by requiring the department of homeland security to fully report on how it handles migrants encountered at the southern border. this is the most basic of transparency measures, just the facts, that's all we're looking for, and anyone who supports securing the southern border can support this legislation. i appreciate senator grassley's leadership on this issue, and i hope the senate can advance this

bill today. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 3187, and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3187, a bill to require the department of homeland security to publish various publications and reports and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr.

president. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: in the biden-harris america, children disappear every day. you won't see their faces on any

milk cartons, search parties aren't sent for them, and the amber alert almost never sounds. according to the justice department's filings, some of these children reappear years later in emergency departments with injuries from physical or sexual abuse, others resurface as underaged laborers working jobs most adults won't even take and many are never heard from again. these forgotten children are overlooked because they are unaccompanied migrant children. these are the children who crossed into the united states

without their families, without their moms or dads. by february 2023, the nooims nooims "new york times" "new york times" reported the biden-harris administration could not reach the 85,000 unaccompanied migrant children that entered the united states since 2021. then in august of 2024, the department of homeland security, office of inspector general, found the government failed to enroll 291,000 of these children in immigration proceedings over the last five years. of those that were enrolled, 32,000 never showed up to the court. many of them are missing.

government employees working directly with these kids begin to sound alarm. the biden-harris administration responded by quietly, very quietly suppressing attempts to save these missing children in order to avoid politically inconvenient narrative. and the very same democrats and members of the media who had actually decried trump-era immigration policies stayed silent. the media didn't do their job of properly pointing out wrongs except when you have a republican president. at least one whistleblower was

actually walked off site at a shelter for children for reporting that children were earn dangered -- were in danger. others were told they were denied access to records about concerns that children might be trafficked. the most consistent whistleblower complaint that i received was that law enforcement was not given the information needed to save missing children. desperate to find these kids, at least one homeland security agent asked a whistleblower to establish information-sharing channels on imperiled children because there was no formal channel in place for this

information to be shared. now, we all know that denying law enforcement access to this lifesaving information was part of the biden-harris immigration plan. three months into their term, the biden-harris admini administration -- tore information, an agreement between homeland security investigations and those responsible for running the program. they replaced that agreement with a watered down provision that deleted provisions requiring sponsors to be vetted and run through certain law enforcement checks before

receiving custody of a child. today law enforcement has significantly less involvement in vetting sponsors, even if the sponsor is a complete stranger to the child. now, this is not family reunification, as the biden administration wants the entire country to believe. according to government statistics, between october 2021 and september 2022, over 18,000 children were given to distant relatives or unrelated adults. now, turning over custody to a child is one of the most conventional actions a case without objection, can ever -- a

caseworker it ever take. from there on out every decision made for the child belongs to the sponsor, financial, housing, medical, you name it, the sponsor is in control of their decisions. i can't imagine having every decision critical to my survival turned over to a complete stranger who the government hasn't even fully vetted, but child safety wasn't this administration's priority. now, thanks to whistleblowers, we have been provided records and disclosures that were so bad i had to refer the information to law enforcement way back in january to try and rescue kids,

but given the poor vetting, it's much harder to find those same kids. as illegal border crossings surged, pressure mounted from the top of the bureaucracy to process kids faster, to avoid accusations of quote-unquote, kids in cages. during a conference call, secretary becerra, of hhs, admonished his employees that they weren't moving kids out to sponsors fast enough. that's the environment that i'm talking about, getting things done quickly so you can't be politically criticized like trump was criticized. he said, quote, secretary

becerra said, quote, this is not the way you do an assembly line, end of quote. program operators knew this politically motivated rush could have dangerous consequences. but they proceeded anyway. one official said the quiet part out loud to a whistleblower trying to intervene to protect endeaningered -- endangered kids. she was told, quote, we only get sued if we keep kids in care of the government too long. we don't get sued by traffickers, end of quote. now, can you believe that approach to protecting kids? the biden administration published wave after wave of

field guidance meant to push kids to sponsors faster and cover up the consequences of this haste. they removed fingerprint requirements for sponsors claiming to be parents or legal guardians, even without sufficient verification, simply this, just i am who i say i am. they released kids to sponsors before background checks had been completed, they denied law enforcement access to photographs of children. now, during a senate finance hearing, secretary cornyn asked -- senator cornyn asked secretary becerra who the

biden-harris administration believes is responsible for making sure that these children aren't being trafficked. secretary becerra said it's, quote, the communities where they enter, end of quote. so just some community, any place in the united states to be responsible, to make sure that these children are treated and not being trafficked? i'm not sure if the biden-harris administration ever stopped to wonder how local law enforcement looks after a child when this administration won't even give them a photograph of an endangered child. i'm told that law enforcement can't. what resulted from this admini administration's disastrous policies almost inevitably was a

systemic -- systematic abuse and disappearance of migrant children. whiffle -- whistleblowers fought in vein to prevent children from going to men who sexualized them. ms-13 gang affiliated sponsors, and also sponsors who were mass applying for kids. we had an example of where one address someplace, some city in this country, was used to get massive numbers of kids under that address. just hearing that ought to scare anyone. one whistleblower told my office

they called a sponsor only to hear a child's agonizing sc screams, before the line then was quickly disconnected. whistleblowers testified on all this in a heartbreaking detail at an oversight roundtable that i led on this topic just this year in july. i've lost count of the number of reports and letters sent by congress to the unaccompanied migrant children's program, actually sounding alarms that have gone unheeded, even ig ignored. each highlighted program v vulnerabilit vulnerabilities, and there's plenty of those vulnerabilities, each made recommendations that could have saved lives. i've been involved in this in a

bipartisan way for a long period of time. my decade of bipartisan oversight has revealed an unaccompanied migrant children program in which abuse and misconduct have become routine and tolerated. for example, in 2021 oregon democratic senator wyden and i warned of the rampant sexual abuse of unaccompanied migrant children in the care of contractors, especially southwest key. now, remember, that contractor's name is southwest key. not a very good place to put kids. the health and hummen

services -- health and humane service office also identified issues with southwest key's self-dealing and compensation. now, as part of my ongoing investigation, for months i've requested from southwest key and other contractors and grantees basic information on their care of unaccompanied children, including whether these contractors performed background checks of their employees before they had access to these kids. southwest key has failed to fully respond to this inquiry. actually, thumbing their nose at the united states congress. still, the government kept giving southwest key contracts to care for these unaccompanied minor kids. what followed all these

cont contracts? do we know that the kids are safe or not safe? well, a recent justice department lawsuit alleges, quote, a pattern or practice of severe or pervasive sexual harassment of children in the southwest key care, end of quote. so just think, this justice department has said, with this contractor, that there's a pervasive sexual harassment of children in their care. so we have to ask ourselves if we're humanitarians, how many more children have to endure abuse before congress finally says enough is enough. i say it shouldn't be even one

more. i'm offering a bill, then, that's why i'm here, that denies future contracts to bad actors who've been identified by the justice department as abusing unaccompanied migrant children after applying due process, those government contracts would cease until the justice department certifies the conditions leading to the abuse, those conditions are taken care of, they're over. i think this is a very commonsense that no politician, no member of the senate, republican or democrat, should stand against. so, i now make a request, mr. president, as if in

legislative session i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 5073, which is at the desk. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i reserve the right to object, and i'll share a few of my thoughts on this, but first i wanted to note that my colleague from iowa is celebrating his birthday today. so very happy birthday to you. and i understand it's his 91st. we should all -- is that correct? we should all want to be able to engage in public policy and public debate and dialogue when we've reached the -- well, start of our tenth decade.

so congratulations to you. mr. grassley: thank you. mr. merkley: this topic that you have brought up today is one that i've had deep engagement in, because i share your concerns about these congregate care facilities. back in 2018, i was the first member of the house or senate to go down to the border and to witness the separation of children from their parents, and then to go up the road to knock on the door of casa de mi padre, which was run by southwest key, where i heard a rumor that perhaps a thousand boys were warehouse offed. when i knocked, they didn't want to let me in. so we did a live stream feed of the conversation. i was trying to get a manager to come out to brief me, and the

manager said yes, he'd be out, but what he did was called the police to have me arrested. the police didn't arrest me, but they did tell me that cas casa de mi padre had no interest in a member of the senate coming inside. because this was live streamed, it became national news. as a result, the press got in the following weekend. i was able to go back with a group of legislators two weeks later. i very much understand the challenge in the congregate care system, and undertook a deep dive with experts across the country on how do we address this problem. and the long and short of it, those experts all came together and helped draft a bill called the children safe welcome act. because the issues that exist at southwest key are not unique to southwest key. in fact, we've had really deep

challenges in one congregate care facility after another, putting children into large mass settings just does not at all provide a foundation for them to thrive. i'll just note this policy brief, which i'll be asking unanimous consent to put into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: it's called decreasing dependence on congregate care and recommendations for progress, written by the women's refugee commission. i assure you, this piece, this document is not alone. there's commission after commission, expert after expert, who has weighed in to say we have to eliminate those congregate care facilities, which is exactly what the children safe welcome act does. these are children who are going through the process of acc acclaiming refugee status, they're going to go through adjudication of that status, and either be able to stay in the united states when that's eventually adjudicated or be

sent back home. if they're going to stay in the united states, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive as residents of our nation, and if they go back home we want a strong foundation for them to thrive back home in the country they left. in either case, we have a moral responsibility to these children, and that moral responsibility compels us to eliminate these congregate care facilities that are not the right setting. children should be quickly sent to small settings, to homes, they should be in schools, they should be with host families. when there isn't a host family related, they should be in a host family providing a foundation for them. they shouldn't be in a mass congregate care facility, which the name sounds much nicer than the reality. so i'm not going to take the time tonight to go through all of these various reports on how bad congregate care is for the

children, because i think you've already touched on how bad it is with one provider. but shutting down one provider and sending them to other congregate care facilities now means the system is maxed out, which means the children coming in not only go to the remaining beds in a system that's maxed out, it also means that now we have to create temporary influx facilities, which are far worse than congregate care. of this plan, i know it's so well intentioned and i certainly share the criticisms of the certain company you're addressing, but this is not the right answer. the right answer isn't to max out congregate care and create temporary influx facilities that are even worse. the answer is to get rid of these congregate care facilities and do what report after report, recommendation after recommendation has said will provide a foundation for these children to do well. the national center for youth

law said these influx that filths -- facilities would have to be created to place children's safety and welfare at risk. the customs and border patrol facilities, which are the other option if we don't create the influx facilities, are described as so dangerous children have died. it goes on and on and on. so, given your deep interest in this topic and really desire for the children to be well treated, i wanted to invite you to join me in this structure, this bill, children's safe welcome act, that experts have said this is the right thing to do for the children. for that reason, i will do the formal request, but the informal is i know your heart's in the right place, i know you're pointing out flaws that are very, very real and that i've been personally witnessing since 2018, but the answer isn't more

congregate care for these kids or influx facilities or customs and border protection. it's eliminating these congregate facilities and doing what expert after expert, panel after panel has suggested. so, as in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate bill 5073 -- that's your portion. thank you. was about to repeat your very good -- your request. i'm following up here. i ask that you, senator grassley, modify your request, and that the merkley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered and read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. if the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. grassley: reserving the right to object. i'd like to speak to this issue

a little bit and point out some of the shortcomings of what senator merkley is trying to accomplish by amending my motion. i see this amendment merely cementing into place the biden-harris administration policy that lost more than 85,000 migrant children. can you believe that? if there was any question whether democrats prioritize speed over safety when it comes to pushing migrant kids out the door, this partisan amendment lays that question to rest. i think i made very clearly in giving you reasons for my legislation how this is really a big problem. now the text of what he, senator merkley is asking me to do mandates that the government make a placement determination

for a child not later than seven days after government receives the sponsor application, fingerprint-based background checks aren't required. and even the criminal record of a sponsor isn't necessarily disqualifying. question -- what if a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to the child? think of that. well, that's not a problem for this proposal. the fact that a sponsor has no preexisting relationship to a child cannot be the sole basis for denying sponsorship under this democrat-led solution. this amendment just willy-nilly turns over children to sponsors who foot drag on providing the documents needed to verify sponsor identity and safety.

i can't imagine a loving parent or guardian slow rolling the paperwork needed to reunite with their child. to most folks, that would be a very clear red flag. but not to democrats. for them, it's just an administrative inconvenience. so just understand this democrat solution allows the dpoft to release children to sponsors even if there is a risk of harm to that child. according to this text, that's fine, so long as, so long as post release services are in place. in fact, those are the only conditions under which post release services are required, according to this modification

presented to me. after directing the dpoft to make what could be life-or-death decisions for a child on virtually no information, the bill restricts the ability to share lifesaving information with law enforcement. let's go back to what i laid down. i came to the floor tonight to offer a commonsense solution to deny bad actors access to kids. my bill would put contractors on notice that they can't willfully blind themselves to child abuse in order to get rich off taxpayers' dollars. democrats couldn't even take that blindness seriously. i encourage my colleagues to read the justice department recent complaint against southwest key. i refer to this same justice

department action in my opening remarks. this is what justice found out, among other horrors that complaint describes the repeated sexual abuse of a 5-year-old girl, the prostitution of a 15-year-old boy, and acts of a contractors desperate to even cover up all those wrongdoings. so thanks to this democrat-led effort, congress won't prevent contractors like them from getting access to more kids and more taxpayer dollars. so senator merkley, i'm sorry to say that your modification doesn't do what i'm trying to accomplish and leaves in place too much the status quo. so i have to object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. merkley: -- the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. merkley: reserving the right to request. i would just like to note that this bill put together by the best child welfare experts across the country has in it a requirement under section 223, requiring background checks be conducted for each residentf a foster care placement for a noncitizen child. it prohibits children from being placed in a home if a resident has a conviction for child abuse or trafficking or convicted of any offense that has direct or immediate impact on the safety of the child. i know that these sorts of dialogues, our staff worked quickly to try to prepare responses, but your actual criticisms are inaccurate. and indeed, what these experts say is that a child should be put in the most, the least restrictive setting that

approximates a family and in which the child's needs can best be met consistent with the best interest and special needs of that child. the experts know care is not the place to do that. the problems that exist in one bad setting are bad but they exist in the others. i do invite you to meet with the same experts who live this night and day seeking to have a system that creates a safe welcome for children and allows them to thrive so that when they get to that point of that asylum hearing, whether they head back to their home country or whether they become residents of the united states, they will be in a great place, not the sort of terrible place that congregate facilities put them and unfortunately your approach kins to rely on those congregate

facilities. for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that will mc, intern in my office be dpranted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session in the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, when president biden and vice president harris took office, we had the lowest rate of illegal immigration in nearly 50 years. but instead of maintaining strong border policies inherited from president trump, the biden-harris administration rushed to overturn them. they ended remain in mexico, reimposed so-called catch and release and exempted unaccompanied children from title 42.

the result was predictable. the biden-harris open bored policies encouraged the worst rates of illegal immigration ever including over 500,000 unaccompanied migrant children. in fact, the month after migrant children were exempted from title 42 we saw the highest monthly total of unaccompanied children crossing the border in history. the influx under the biden-harris administration overwhelmed the orr. this is the agency responsible for unaccompanied children apprehended at the border and responsible for releasing them to thoroughly vetted sponsors. orr responded to this influx by sending children to hastily constructed emergency care facilities with untrained, unvetted staff, and poor living conditions. the agency also removed key sponsor vetting requirements after senior biden-harris

officials directed orr to and he do it the process of releasing migrant children to outside sponsors. it's so easy to interpret this as a means to shield the white house from the political embarrassment of facilities overrun with unaccompanied children crossing the border that they had just opened. in fact, as early as july 21, orr staff warned superiors that orr leadership had dismantled sponsor vetting policies and these changes weakened orr's ability to protect children from risk such as trafficking and exploitation. despite this, orr left these policies in place for years while hundreds of thousands of children were released to poorly vetted sponsors. you know, sometimes it's easy to think this is partisan.

sometimes it's z easy to lose track as republicans and democrats talk about issues but now we're talking about kids, children that could be our children who are being released to people who are not being vetted. it's easy to forget that. this is not partisan. this is something which should concern us all. as a ranking member of the senate help committee, i'm investing the administration's failure to protect these migrant children from exploitation abuse. i've learned that some of these children were forced into dangerous working conditions and exploited for illegal labor. one such facility currently under investigation, a child was pulled into a meat processing machine. i've also, by the way, again, we're not making this up. we have testimony from witnesses that speak to all of these facts. we have the whistleblowers that came to a roundtable.

we've got the transcripts. i've also learned that orr's weakening of sponsor vetting requirements directly led to children being put in harm's way. in one instance orr neglected to verify whether the sponsors' claimed address was even a real home and they sent the child to an address nothing more than an open field. in another case, a 16-year-old was released to a sponsor who posted sexually explicit photos of the child on social media, including a photo with the sponsor touching the child inappropriately. in addition to my investigation, i joined senators grassley and johnson earlier this summer in hosting a senate roundtable to examine orr's failures and identify steps congress could take to reform the agency. we learned due to failure at orr some unaccompanied children have been forced into drug trafficking, sex trafficking and

other criminal activity to pay off the cartels who brought them here. all this, according to whistleblowers, without follow-up or meaningful oversight from the biden-harris administration. i repeat, this is not rhetoric, not fiction. this is what we're hearing from whistleblowers. this exploitation also seemingly occurs while migrant children are still in orr custody. in july the department of justice filed a lawsuit against southwest key program, the largest orr contractor housing unaccompanied children, alleging that for nearly a decade its employees have committed sexual abuse and harassment against unaccompanied children as young as 5 years old. doj alleges that southwest key not only failed to take sufficient action to prevent

sexual abuse, but p actively discouraged children from officially reporting these instances. this is not rhetoric. this is the result of whistleblowers. this should not be partisan. in august i called on the help committee chair to h hold a hearing with southwest key and/orr officials to answer how these shocking allegations of sexual abuse went undetected for so long. so far help committee democrats have not committed to a hearing or any effort to investigate. and,s by the way, southwest key still receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to operate shelters for migrant kids. if orr will not take action in the wake of these allegations, congress should. that is why i worked with senator grassley on legislation that would prohibit the use of federal funds for southwest key

or any other orr grantee facing suspension and debarment procedures for allowing illegal sexual abuse or harassment of children in its care. i appreciate senator grassley's leadership. the problems with orr and the exploitation of children have been well documented for years. yet there's been no substantive effort by biden nor harris to fix their open border policies which caused these problems to begin with or reform orr to protect unaccompanied children from harm. the exploitation of children should not be partisan. this is not a republican or a democratic issue. when vulnerable children are harmed or die at the expense of bad policies, bad procedures or bad process, everyone should be outraged and everyone should be demanding change.

unfortunately, it is clear that republicans are taking this problem more seriously than democrats. it is not a messaging issue. it is an issue that challenges the humanity within us. it is something we should address whether or not it is an election year. i wish that my democratic colleagues would join republicans tonight to pass this commonsense bill to hold orr contractors accountable for the abuse and exploitation of children under their watch. we should protect these vulnerable children from harm as if they were our own. with that, i yield.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i have seven 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. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the pennell nomination be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. merkley: 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. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary -- mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the

committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 815 and the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions -- s. res. 815 s. res. 823. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. the committee is discharged of s. res. 815, and the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will ready the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: an act that -- tlau

inclusion on certain sanctions lists should also be subject to the imposition of other sanctions and included on other sanctions list. mr. merkley: i now ask for a second reading, and under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. for the information of the senate, senate resolution 815 was discharged from the help committee, not the judiciary

committee. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, september 18. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the court nomination. further, that the cloture motion with respect to the court nomination ripen at 11:45 a.m.. finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. merkley: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under