IVF Protection Act

Mr. President, 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 am 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 am 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 in 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 is not an IVF bill. It is designed to backdoor and federalize broad abortion legislation, 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 Freedom Restoration Act. You know, it is unfortunate that Democrats have abandoned what used to be a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty and they are now more than willing to overturn religious liberty protections.

Instead of pushing a partisan and, frankly, cynical agenda, I invite my Democratic colleagues to actually do what they claim they want to do, which is work with me today and stand together to pass clear Federal legislation protecting IVF.

IVF is profoundly pro-family. Over 8 million babies have been born through IVF, providing millions of American families the chance to embrace the joy of raising a child. It is an avenue of hope for those struggling with infertility.

Misconceptions and deliberate scare tactics from the Democrats about the legal standing of IVF will only serve to hurt families who are desperately trying to welcome a child into their lives.

What the American people deserve is straightforward, pro-IVF legislation. That is why my colleague Senator Britt and I have introduced the IVF Protection Act, legislation that offers 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 is 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 crossfire 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 to unite political divides and affirm 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 are about to see. I am 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 to nothing 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.

Well, if you are going to write those false headlines, at least include the facts that today the Senate would have passed 100 to nothing strong, clear 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 the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4368 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 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.

Mr. President, I would note there is one reason and one reason only that the Senate has not passed 100 to nothing a clear, unequivocal Federal protection of IVF: because Senate Democrats cynically chose to object.

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. Yet, IVF is fully protected and available in those States.

Senator Britt and I very consciously focused 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 will point out, at the same time that we have a Presidential election.

Many of us served with the Vice President, Kamala Harris. I remember Vice President Harris voting again and again and again against border security, against a border wall. 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, do you know what? They couldn't run their misleading campaign commercials. So from a partisan perspective on the Democrat side, it is 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.

I would happily yield to Senator Cornyn for a question.

As usual, my friend, the fellow Senator from Texas, you are not missing something. That is precisely what is going on. This is not lawmaking. This is politics. This is partisan politics. This is an election campaign commercial that the Democrats are engaging 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.

I am happy to yield to Senator Cornyn.

The Senator from Texas is exactly correct. As 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. They deliberately have 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 anti-religious 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 is 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 recognized 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 is nothing designed to force the Democrats to vote no.

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.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

I thank Senator Britt for that question. 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 are trying to pass legislation, you don't put poison pills in it. That is 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 is cynical. It is also predicated on, sadly, the failure of the media--I would note there are no reporters that I see sitting in the Gallery. It is predicated on what they know the media will refuse to cover--that they are the ones blocking IVF. They are counting on the media to be partisan and to push their deceptive messaging.

We should be protecting IVF. We should be standing 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 is an OB/GYN--who has performed IVF for years. He has helped hopeful parents become parents through IVF. And it is literally the cynical position 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 is 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 that if they are telling you that there are Senators who are trying to ban IVF, they are deliberately misleading you, and they are doing it because they don't want to defend their actual position on the issues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on an issue that is incredibly personal and vital to millions of Americans--the protection of in vitro fertilization.

IVF is a medical miracle that has brought the joy of parenthood to millions of families who might otherwise have never experienced it. I am a strong supporter of IVF, and I am incredibly grateful for the technology that has enabled parents, moms and dads desperate to bring into the world little boys and little girls, to finally hold a child in their arms.

It is astounding to note that over 2 percent of all births in America each and every year come from IVF. That translates to millions of parents who have been given the chance to bring new life into the world. To date, more than 8 million babies have been born through IVF.

However, recent developments have caused some confusion and concern among parents and among those who wish to be parents. The Alabama Supreme Court's decision to recognize embryos created through IVF as children under the law has left many prospective parents worried-- understandably worried--about the future legality of IVF.

Now, the Alabama Legislature acted quickly to make clear that IVF is fully protected in the State of Alabama, but nonetheless confusion persists.

To the best of my knowledge, all 100 Senators in this body support IVF. Seeing this confusion--confusion that, unfortunately, has been fueled by Democrat partisans--I reached out to Senator Katie Britt from Alabama, and I asked Senator Britt if she would join together in drafting legislation, Federal legislation, that would be a clear, straightforward, ironclad protection for IVF.

I believe we should put into Federal law a clear and unambiguous protection to make clear that no State in the Union can ban IVF, that no local government in this country can ban IVF.

Senator Britt and I drafted this together. This bill is simple. It is straightforward. It is clear.

IVF is profoundly pro-family. It is an avenue of hope for millions struggling with infertility.

To every mom and every dad at home and to every woman and man desperately hoping to be a parent, know that our bill will ensure that IVF remains 100 percent protected by law. And this should not just be a policy or a general affirmation; this should be a clear and unmistakable Federal law.

We invite our colleagues in the Senate from both sides of the aisle to join together in supporting this crucial legislation. This should be a measure that transcends political divides.

A recent poll showed that 86 percent of Americans believe IVF should be legal and protected. This is an opportunity for us to put partisan divisions aside and to come together and unite on a shared commitment to protecting IVF.

That is why in just a moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass this legislation, but before I do so, I want to yield to the Senator from Alabama, Senator Britt.

Mr. President, sometimes the folks at home can find what happens in parliamentary procedure on this floor confusing, so I want to explain what is about to happen. In just a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass the IVF protection bill into law. One of two things will happen in response: One, the Democrats in this Chamber can decide that IVF should be protected by Federal law, in which case this bill will pass the Senate 100 to nothing; the other thing that might happen is Senate Democrats will utter two words, ``I object.''

So I want you to listen very carefully to the Senate Democrats. And whatever else is included in the speech, understand if the remarks end with the words ``I object,'' then Senate Democrats will have made the cynical political decision that Democrats don't want IVF protected in Federal law. They don't want to provide reassurance and comfort to millions of parents in America because, instead, they want to spend millions of dollars running campaign ads suggesting the big bad Republicans want to take away IVF. I get why that could be good politics, but I hope Senate Democrats are not that cynical.

Understand, again, if you hear the words ``I object,'' Senate Democrats are saying: No, we will not protect IVF in Federal law because we want to play politics.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4368 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 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.

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington suggested that this bill does not protect IVF. Let me

read you the clear statutory language that unambiguously protects IVF:

A State shall not prohibit in vitro fertilization as

defined in section 4(B) of the IVF Protection Act services

and shall ensure that no unit of local government in the

State prohibits such services.

That is clear. That is unambiguous. That is explicit. And that is ironclad.

Had the Democrats not cynically said ``I object,'' that language would have just passed the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing, a strong Federal protection of IVF.

Now, Democrats know that out of 50 States, not a single State is seeking to ban IVF. They know that the threat that they plan to spend millions of dollars trying to convince the voters is real, no State is currently pursuing. They know that Alabama--whose Supreme Court started this issue--the legislature promptly came into session and acted to make clear that IVF is protected.

And the Senator from Washington asked a question. I do find it interesting. She asked a question and wanted me to answer it, but she is no longer on the Senate floor to hear my answer to the question, but I will answer it anyway. The Senator from Washington suggests that those States that pursue personhood amendments, that that is somehow inconsistent with IVF. The one problem she has is facts and reality because there are three States--Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri--all of which have adopted personhood amendments, and all of which protect IVF. So IVF is legal in Alabama. It is legal in Georgia. It is legal in Missouri.

So the Democrats maintain that IVF is in jeopardy, and yet the facts are precisely contrary. Understand why the Democrats just did what they did. Every Democrat on the ballot is going to tell the voters: If you don't vote for me, a Democrat, mean Republicans are going to come take away IVF. And I will tell you the reason they are going to say that is because the Democrats' record on abortion is extreme and out of the mainstream. Every Democrat Senator in this body has voted for legislation that would legalize abortion literally up until the moment of birth, up to and including the 39th and 40th week of pregnancy. That is radical. Only 9 percent of Americans support the extreme policy position of Senate Democrats on abortion. Ninety-one percent of Americans look at that and say: That goes too far.

Even among those Americans who call themselves pro-choice, a majority of pro-choice Americans look at the position of the Democrats, and they say: Wow. Abortion up until the moment of delivery in the ninth month of pregnancy, that is too much.

So what is the Democrats' political strategy? Don't talk about their actual record on abortion; instead, try to change the topic to, last week, contraception and this week IVF.

And they know that no State in the Union is trying to ban contraception and that no State in the Union is trying to ban IVF. Every single Senator in this body supports the right to contraception. Every single Senator in this body supports IVF being protected.

But the Democrats are counting on docile media to pick up their message and carry their message. They know that the bills we are voting on tomorrow will fail. That is not a bug; it is a feature. They want the bills tomorrow to fail. Why? Because this is all about running TV ads claiming Republicans are opposed to IVF. They know it is false.

And, by the way, one of the reasons the bills will fail tomorrow is they deliberately trample on religious liberty. You know there used be a time when there was a bipartisan commitment to religious liberty but no longer. The Democrats have decided that the First Amendment to the Constitution no longer matters.

And so the Democrats' bill would, among other things, force a Catholic hospital to provide IVF procedures, even if it was contrary to the faith of Catholic doctors performing the procedure. Now, our bill does not seek to force anyone to do anything. We all have a right to live according to our faith. So if your faith teaches you not to use IVF, as a doctor, you should have the right not to say: I am not going to participate in that.

But understand the Cruz-Britt legislation that the Democrats just cynically objected to would protect IVF for every parent in the country, and it would become Federal law, except for one thing: The Democrats do not want it to because if we pass clear, strong Federal protections for IVF, the issue that they are planning to campaign on would go away.

What we have just seen is one of the most cynical displays of partisan politics to ever occur on the Senate floor. It is designed deliberately to deceive the American voters. It is unfortunate that Democrats put politics above protecting parents and above protecting

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the bill that recently failed, despite my colleagues' assertion that they support access to in vitro fertilization for all Americans.

You know, this morning I was able to pack my daughters' lunchboxes. It sounds mundane, I know, but when I spend just a second thinking about it, even that kind of everyday moment with my girls isn't mundane at all--it is a miracle.

Because after 10 years of struggling with infertility, after being wounded in combat, I was only able to have my two darling girls through the medical marvel that is in vitro fertilization.

The only reason there are PB&Js for me to make for their lunch, the only reason there are teeny sneakers for me to Velcro closed is because after I came home from war, I had the freedom to seek the healthcare I needed to make my dream of going 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 other women whose most desperate hope in the world is to have a little one of their own. Make no mistake, that isn't some future nightmare; this is our present reality.

Countless women already had their IVF treatments interrupted this year after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling painted women seeking fertility treatment as criminals.

And in this perilous moment for our country, as we stare down November and all the uncertainties that come with it, there is 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 even spell IVF. But despite the incoherent, delusional, and, frankly, embarrassing rambling that came out of his mouth last week, the reality is that he is the reason that IVF is at risk in the first place.

The Dobbs decision is what led us to today's nightmare, taking the power to decide how and when to start families from us women and handing it to politicians in statehouses across the country.

Donald Trump is the one who brags about taking down Roe. Donald Trump is the one who acts like that is something to be proud of. He is like a bank robber who steals cash out of the till and flees the scene and then still expects a reward for calling the police to report a crime.

So while it may now be convenient for him to claim that his support of IVF is as huge as the made-up crowd sizes at his rallies, we know the truth. He is the reason that IVF is in danger. He is to blame. He and every other Republican who cares more about staying good with Trump than about doing good for the Americans they are supposed to be serving.

Many--too many--of those Republicans are in this very Chamber. I know that because today marked the third time in the past 7 months that I have come to the floor begging my Republican colleagues to help me 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 trying to start a family; one that would permit all health insurers to cover the treatments; and one that would require the Federal health insurance plan to cover reproductive technologies, allowing our troops to preserve their sperm or eggs before deploying to a combat zone.

When I tried to pass it in February, it took the junior Republican Senator from Mississippi what seemed like not even one full Mississippi second to block its passage. Then when I tried to pass it again in June, nearly every GOP Member voted it down.

Today it was the same old cynical story, as Republican after Republican voted no, no, no. And at this point, it is 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 do anything to get out of actually passing legislation that would protect women's right to access reproductive healthcare.

Women in this country have been through enough. What women don't need is a man who was found liable for sexual abuse controlling what we can or cannot do with our bodies. What we don't need are politicians who have sworn fealty to a convicted felon treating us like we are the ones who are criminals.

It is tragic. Republicans only seem to care about protecting life when it supposedly consists of some cells in a medical lab freezer. But what about when that life is a fifth grader whose school day gets shattered by a man with an AR-15 who wants to turn their math class into a massacre?

What about when that life is their neighbor's, who is yet one more woman to bleed out on the delivery table, as the maternal mortality crisis among women of color rages on? Well, then those same Republicans couldn't seem to care less about defending the sanctity of life.

Listen, I am sure that some of my colleagues will try to slink away from taking any accountability here. Per usual, they will shout some ridiculous excuse, like this bill would allow for human-animal hybrids, as if anyone would ever believe that. And, for the record, it would not.

Well, to those folks I say that this afternoon's vote was your chance to put your vote where your mouth is. It was your chance to prove that you believe that every woman in this country deserves the chance to be called ``Mom'' without also being called a criminal. Instead, your true policy beliefs, your hypocrisy, your misogyny showed through.

Look, I went to war to defend this Nation's rights and freedoms. I did it because I believed so deeply in the importance of that mission. I wasn't asking my GOP colleagues to head into combat to show that they cared deeply too. I wasn't asking them to do anything hard at all, actually. All I was asking them to do was to simply support a bill that could have represented millions of women's only chance of starting families.

All I was asking of them was to vote in a way that reflected the position they claim to have when they were spouting talking points on FOX News. They couldn't even do that. So on behalf of every woman who has faced a heart-shattering struggle of infertility, all I can say to my Republican colleagues this afternoon is: Shame on you.

I yield the floor.

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 this Republican bill does nothing to meaningfully protect IVF from the biggest threats from lawmakers and anti-abortion extremists all over this country.

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 mind.

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 will 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? Well, we all know why. If not, how can you look the American people in the eye and say you support IVF? It doesn't compute.

Mr. President, I object.

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 hopes 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, in 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 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 is unnecessary. Many of the same Republicans who are desperate to posture as pro-family and who constantly say they stand by our troops are saying: We can't afford to help more military families get IVF.

Funny how they are always game to shovel more money at tax breaks for billionaires, though. But I digress.

Mr. President, 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 that he ended Roe, is trying to say he is 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 imaginary leadership on IVF and despite all the families who are calling for action.

But Democrats are not going to stop pushing. And 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 are 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, across our country, more than 3 million female high school and college athletes compete, practice, and train every day to achieve athletic success. For many of these young women and girls, their sports are more than just a game; they are 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 IX, 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 IX led to an explosion of women's participation in sports. In fact, since 1972--the year title IX became law--the number of female college athletes has 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 IX protections that have enabled greater women's participation in sports.

In 2022, on the 50th anniversary of title IX, the Department of Education announced new rules that forced 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 OK? 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 championships. During the 200-meter

competition, Riley tied for fifth with her male competitor, but when Riley went to the awards ceremony to pick up her trophy, officials told her that they were giving the fifth place trophy to the biological male. ``Yours will be coming in the mail,'' they told her.

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 is why I am 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 of competition. As we continue to fight for women's participation in sports, we must keep in mind what is at stake, and the American Girls in Sports Day resolution will help to ensure that we all join together and celebrate our female athletes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 669; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I would encourage my colleague to go read the Republican Party platform. It is 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 is not a long, lengthy document. It has 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 is not about fear. It is not about division. It is not about distraction. This is something that says to our young girls and these young athletes: We are proud of you. Keep it up.

I mean, here is some of the language from the resolution:

Athletic participation has an important, positive impact on

young girls, improving their physical health, self-

confidence, and 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 who were in competition in the Olympics--

[all the way] to professional competition. . . . [F]emale

athletes have served as inspirations 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.

As for the number of titles and things that have been lost since 2003, biological men have 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 and field, weightlifting, and cycling.

This is a celebration of female accomplishments. This is a celebration of female accomplishments.

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.

I yield the floor.