Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 23; 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 Jenkins nomination, postcloture; further, that all postcloture time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m.; and, finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Monday'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.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Lankford and McConnell.

Mr. President, I really appreciate my colleagues wanting to move forward on our full-year funding bills. I share the absolute urgency that the Senator from Maine just talked about. This is critical work that must get done for the American people.

I have to say, as the first order of business, I hope all four corners of Congress can quickly come together as soon as possible to hammer out a reasonable bipartisan CR. We have to keep the government open and avert a needless and disastrous CR.

I want my colleagues to know I look forward to working with them on the other side in a strongly bipartisan fashion to pass all 12 of our full-year spending bills before the end of this year. Our committee has worked really hard to get bipartisan bills. We are ready. They are ready.

It is frustrating to all us that we have worked so hard on this process. Whether it is funding for our military or VA or countless other essential services in our bill, from childcare to food

safety inspection, I believe in the urgency of this.

I appreciate my colleagues speaking out on this today. I assure them I will keep working with them and make sure the voice of the Senate is heard and we do the job and get it done.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Border Patrol has very serious needs that actually need funding; namely, new technology, and we should focus on how we get those done in a bipartisan way.

We have limited resources. We know a border wall is ineffective and really has no impact in preventing the cartels from bringing fentanyl into our country.

I, for one, would prefer we direct those resources toward stopping fentanyl from getting to our communities through our ports of entry along the southwest border.

No one should forget there was a bipartisan proposal on border policy changes earlier this year, one that Senate Republicans strongly endorsed, one that was, frankly, probably more conservative than I would have preferred.

But instead of voting to so much as take it up for consideration, Republicans decided then that instead they wanted to campaign on the border, as they are attempting to do with this proposal, because one man, Donald Trump, told them: Kill the bill. Trump told Senate Republicans he wanted to let a fire burn so he can campaign on the ashes, and Senate Republicans said, yes, Mr. Trump.

I think that history tells us how serious the effort before us today is, but just like when I built the bipartisan border funding bill with my ranking member Senator Collins, I do look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on comprehensive immigration reform and serious solutions to the challenges we are facing at the border.

The door is always open. Today, I object.

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 rise to acknowledge the service of an extraordinary public servant who is retiring at the end of next week, Robert ``Bob'' Sunshine.

Congress depends on the expertise and hard work of our valued staff and supporting agencies. After 48 years of exemplary service to the Congressional Budget Office, spanning virtually the entirety of the agency's existence, few staffers have done more to serve this institution and the American people than Bob Sunshine. As President pro tempore of the Senate, as well as the chair of the Appropriations Committee and former chair of the Budget Committee, I thank and commend Bob for his many decades of excellent public service to CBO and the Congress and wish him and his family all the best in his much-deserved retirement.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Bob for his dedication and service to us and the American people.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay one final tribute to Richard Steele, a close friend and devoted public servant to our environment who passed away recently. He left behind a loving family, many friends--and a legacy that will be remembered and appreciated by countless generations in the form of the Hanford Reach National Monument, which exists today in no small part due to his tireless advocacy.

Rich dedicated decades of his life fighting to protect and preserve the

Hanford Reach, and he brought to that fight--along with his many other talents--a true fisherman's patience and persistence. Year after year, decade after decade, he never let up when it came to pushing for Federal protections to ensure the waters he loved, and that he loved to share with others, would remain wild, free, and beautiful for years to come.

One of his particular joys--and talents--was to bring locals, politicians, and dignitaries on his boat to tour the waters and to win them over to his cause. You see, Rich didn't just know how to fish for trout; he knew how to fish for support, and he knew a boat tour of the beautiful wilds of Washington State was pretty good bait. Once he had a live one on the line, reeling them in was always easy; he just let the river do its thing.

As he told a reporter once, ``I always had an unfair advantage, how can you not want to protect this?''

Like so many others, I had the privilege of joining Rich on his boat, the Can Do II, for a tour of the mighty Columbia. The first time I floated down the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, I was captivated by the beautiful landscape, the fish and the wildlife, and the reminders of the vibrant Tribal culture that abounds along the Hanford Reach.

As we floated along, we saw the reactors and discussed the role the Tri-Cities played in helping America win World War II, including my father's part in that important piece of history. And of course, Rich told his own stories of the river and shared his comprehensive knowledge of why it was such a valuable resource.

That trip is a cherished memory for me. And I know just about every person who took a trip with Rich--and there were many--walked away feeling the same way.

Now, I was already interested in saving the river before that tour, but I walked away more energized than ever. Plus, just to give you a sense of how shrewd of a political operator Rich was, he named a beach after me. How could I not fight to save Murray Beach?

I worked with Rich for many years afterwards as we pushed to protect Hanford Reach. I spoke of his advocacy here in the Senate before, including when he was awarded the Environmental Hero Award by the Washington Environmental Council.

I spoke with him in Washington State when we held a Senate hearing about the Hanford Reach in Mattawa. Rich once again made a powerful case with his characteristic clarity about why we needed to protect this river in the highest, most permanent way possible.

And I saw him, beaming ear-to-ear, the day he stepped off the Can Do II with Vice President Gore, who then announced that, earlier that morning, President Clinton had declared Hanford Reach a National Monument.

Now I have spoken a lot about Rich, but I know he would also want me to say a bit more about his legacy, about Hanford Reach. This 51-mile stretch remains the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River. It is a landscape that has some of the most dramatic views you can imagine and an incredible variety of wildlife.

On the river you can hear the splashing of salmon and steelhead trout which thrive there. In the skies, you might spot a bald eagle, a white pelican, or a blue heron. Hiking the wilds you will find mule deer, coyotes, elk herds, porcupines, and more. You can also see the vibrant colors of wildflowers and, of course, the pristine white of the bluffs--which Rich fought to ensure were included in the boundary.

There is so much more to be said about Rich, and his impact on his community, and in my State, but no words can speak as eloquently as a visit to the Hanford Reach, which is not just a National Monument, but to me and many others, it is also a personal testament to Rich's vision and dedication. So I will just close by encouraging everyone to visit this invaluable treasure, to take in the awe of the mighty Columbia, to take in the sights, sounds, and beauty of nature, and to remember my friend Rich who fought to keep that river running free.

Madam President, today, we are going to vote on a bill that offers a simple statement of values: Do you support a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions?

For the vast majority of Americans, the answer is yes--without question. We know that because the American people have been speaking out loudly and repeatedly and at every opportunity to oppose Republicans' extreme abortion bans.

The record here is remarkable and unmistakable: Since Trump and Republicans succeeded at overturning Roe v. Wade and ripping away a constitutional right from our daughters and granddaughters, every single time abortion rights have been on the ballot, abortion rights have won--every time.

But the American people have not just been speaking with their own votes; they have been using their voices and sharing their own, personal stories of the nightmares that Republicans' abortion bans have put them through: women denied medical care for a miscarriage because of abortion bans; women turned away from hospitals because their doctors' hands were tied until they lost over half their blood, until their husbands found them unconscious on the floor, until the only option was an emergency hysterectomy or, tragically, until it was simply too late; children who couldn't get abortion care after being raped; a teenager delivering a baby, while clutching a teddy bear, being forced through a pregnancy by Republican politicians.

This isn't some dystopian prediction. This has all happened recently in the United States of America because of Donald Trump and Republicans' anti-abortion extremism.

Just last month, The New York Times profiled the story of one mother in Idaho who woke up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. She was leaking amniotic fluid. She went to the emergency room. She was told there was nothing they could do to help. ``Sorry.'' Because of Idaho's extreme abortion ban, it meant that any doctor who gave her the abortion care she so desperately needed would be risking the loss of his medical license and jail time and heavy fines. The best they could do was give her an emergency flight to another State. And when she arrived, nurses remembered her saying: I just need to stay alive so I can be around for my two other kids.

That same hospital in Idaho has already had to airlift six pregnant women out of the State for emergency abortion care this year. That is just one hospital in one State and one horrific variation of the many nightmares that are happening on loop across the country as a direct result of the Republicans' abortion bans.

I am going to keep saying it: A forced pregnancy does not have to make headlines to make someone's life a living hell.

This is not an issue that Republicans can run away from no matter how much they try to.

Donald Trump--a convicted felon and a liar--is trying to tell us he doesn't know anything about Project 2025. That is the playbook that has been written by some of his top advisers for him. He may as well be saying he has no idea who named Trump Tower. We all know Donald Trump ended Roe v. Wade. We all know Republicans championed that for decades, and we know that Trump will absolutely ban abortion nationwide.

Republicans do not get to pretend they support the health of the mother while ignoring the horror stories happening today across the country and urging the Supreme Court to rule against ensuring abortion is available in emergencies.

Republicans do not get to pretend that they support IVF and birth control while championing a national fetal personhood bill and voting down bills to protect the right to IVF and birth control.

Republicans do not get to pretend they only want State politicians controlling women's most personal decisions while supporting national abortion bans, including the fetal personhood bill I just mentioned; supporting efforts to strike down access to medication abortion nationwide; blocking efforts to protect women who might travel out of State for care; and even blocking protections for doctors in States like mine where abortion is legal.

I cannot stress enough how transparently unserious it is for Trump and Republicans to pretend they are somehow returning abortion to the people when, in reality, they are doing the exact opposite. Republicans are giving politicians power that once belonged to individual women-- letting politicians force women to stay pregnant--and they are trying to sell that as giving people a bigger voice on this issue.

Do Republicans really think Americans are that stupid? Do Republicans really think they can take away a constitutional right and convince us it is a win for freedom? That is insulting.

Here is an idea: Do you want to really give the people a say on abortion? How about you let each person decide with their doctors what is right for them? How is that for small government? How is that for letting people decide?

If Republicans really want to let people make their own decisions on abortions, that is news to me. It would certainly be news to the countless women who have had that choice ripped away from them by Republican politicians over the past 2 years.

But they have a chance to prove it right here, today, right now, when we vote on my Reproductive Freedom for Women Act. This is a plain up- or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions. It doesn't force anything. It doesn't cost anything. It is, actually, just a half-page bill simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their healthcare. Seriously, that is it. It is as simple as it gets.

If you care at all--even the tiniest bit--about protecting women's access to healthcare and allowing women to make their own decisions about their pregnancies, you should support this bill.

Now, make no mistake, I am not holding my breath here today, but I am going to be holding Republicans accountable. Donald Trump is trying to rewrite his abortion record, but I will not let him or anyone else off the hook. If Republicans are going to force women to stay pregnant, we are going to force them to be honest with the American people about their extreme position.

By the way, Democrats are going to keep fighting to restore the rights the American people have been so clear that they want back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here today with a very simple bill to protect doctors who are providing legal care against attacks from extreme out-of-state, out-of-touch politicians.

In my State, abortion is not only legal but protected by our State constitution. But when I talk to abortion providers in Spokane, where they see a lot of patients fleeing restrictive abortion bans from States like Idaho, they are terrified that they could face a lawsuit that will threaten their practice and their livelihood, just for doing their jobs, just for providing care their patients need--care that is, once again, completely legal in my State. We are talking about people who are following the law and simply want to provide care to their patients. This should be cut-and-dried.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1297, the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; and, further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let's be clear. Republicans who are now in the middle of trying to rewrite history and claim they only want State politicians overruling women--already an extreme position, by the way--just made clear that actually, on second thought, they have no problem whatsoever with politicians targeting doctors in States like mine, where abortion is legal. I think that pretty much gives the game away.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to recap, we just tried to pass some very straightforward legislation: a bill to protect a woman's right to travel across State lines to get the healthcare she needs, a bill to protect a doctor's right to provide legal abortion care to their patients without being threatened by an out-of-State extremist, and a bill to ensure more health professionals can receive critical training in comprehensive reproductive healthcare to help meet the dire need for providers.

Not a single one of these bills should be controversial. To oppose these bills, as Republicans have just done, is truly extreme. Are we going to let politicians hold women who want an abortion captive in their States? Seriously. If a woman wants to travel somewhere so she can make her own personal decision about her healthcare, are Republicans going to tie her hands? And if a doctor in a State like mine, where abortion is fully legal and even protected by our State constitution--if our doctors treat a patient from somewhere like Idaho--something that happens every day, by the way--do we want to let out-of-State extremist politicians threaten and try to punish them?

Again, we are talking about healthcare providers performing an abortion in a State where abortion is legal and protected. Republicans are all for States' rights until it comes to letting a woman make her own healthcare decisions.

When it comes to training, let's be clear: Abortion is healthcare, and in some cases, a patient's life may depend on whether they can get that care or not. That is why we need to make sure that every provider can get the comprehensive reproductive health training that they need by supporting medical training programs that are doing this important work.

It is incredibly frustrating to me that, so far, Republicans have blocked these proposals from moving forward. It seems, when it comes to an abortion, there is no bill too simple for Republicans to oppose. There is no right too basic for Republicans to attack and no problem too important for Republicans to ignore.

Republicans haven't just voted down our efforts to restore abortion rights in every State, they have voted against the right to birth control; they have voted against the right to IVF; and now they have opposed letting patients

leave their States for care, letting doctors provide legal care to anyone who comes to them, and helping healthcare providers get the training they need to save a life.

But let's be clear: No matter this outcome, no matter how far Republicans follow the most extreme anti-abortion voices in their party, Democrats are going to keep standing against them, pushing for reproductive rights, and fighting for patients.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about why the funding decisions we make here in this building matter and how the Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps will continue to hold America back, undercutting our economy, competitiveness, and future, unless the Senate can come together and take action.

The Appropriations Committee has now held nearly 40 hearings on the resources that we will need in fiscal year 2025. We have discussed exactly what our Nation needs to stay strong, safe, and competitive, and there is a big, obvious takeaway from those hearings: The FRA caps for fiscal year 2024 are already causing serious pain and serious challenges, and the caps for fiscal year 2025 are grossly inadequate.

In fiscal year 2024, the FRA froze nondefense funding while increasing defense funding by nearly 30 billion more, to say nothing of the billions in the supplemental. In fiscal year 2025, the caps mean just a 1-percent increase for nondefense and defense alike. Needless to say, that does not begin to keep pace with inflation or other rising expenses. That means net cuts in terms of real resources across the government.

Let's all remember why we have these caps in the first place. House Republicans took the debt ceiling hostage and demanded funding caps and cuts in exchange for not destroying our Nation's credit. I warned at the time that we passed the FRA--and I have warned repeatedly since-- that these caps undermine our country's future in a really serious way. That is not speculation. I am speaking from experience.

Back in 2011, the last time a large group of Republicans leveraged the full faith and credit of the United States to extract spending caps under a Democratic President, we got sequestration, which both parties quickly recognized was a disaster, and we got a decade of harmful caps. The effects of that still echo today.

Nondefense funding, except veterans' medical care, is down 6 percent from 2010 when you adjust for inflation and down 14 percent when you adjust for inflation and population growth. That is not just a number on a page. That is less support for families, fewer research grants to keep us on the cutting edge, fewer officers cracking down on crime in neighborhoods. It is just so many opportunities lost, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why we would want to go through something like that again.

Now, I am glad so many of my Republican colleagues are in strong agreement, at least when it comes to defense, but every Senator calling to boost defense spending alone is seriously missing the point. And any Senator who thinks I will let us leave nondefense spending behind is seriously misreading the situation. There is a simple reason I pushed for the principle of parity when I struck the budget deal that ended the worst of sequestration with Paul Ryan in 2013, and it still applies today.

Nondefense investments matter to families. They matter to our economy, our competitiveness, our future, and, yes, it matters to national security. I can't emphasize that enough.

Here in Washington, DC, we call it nondefense discretionary spending, or NDD--very wonky. Back home, we call it making sure parents have childcare, helping families put food on the table, supporting quality affordable healthcare in our communities, fixing our roads. Back home, we call it clean water, safe food, fresh air, affordable housing.

When air traffic controllers keep our planes operating safely, that is NDD. When the FDA pulls an unsafe product off the shelf, that is NDD. When kids go to a public school or get a Pell grant that makes college possible for them, that is NDD. NIH researchers working to cure cancer, weather forecasters warning us of a disaster, agents cracking down on the flow of fentanyl and going after criminal organizations, fighting wildfires, enforcing sanctions against Russia, negotiating tough agreements with allies and adversaries alike--that is NDD.

So I hope I have made my point. What we are talking about here is spending that is, by no stretch of the imagination, the largest portion of our budget--just about one-eighth of our total budget. But that makes a real tangible difference in family's lives and our country's safety and success every single day.

We are also talking about things Americans overwhelmingly support. Seriously, I encourage my colleagues to go ask your constituents in any part of this country--conservative, liberal, Washington to Kentucky: Do you care if you have clean water? Do you care if your kids get sick from foodborne illness? Do you want to wait longer when you call the Social Security office, if you can reach anyone at all? Do you want someone making sure that the bridges that you drive across are safe? Do you want to stall our progress on cures and treatments for cancer or Alzheimer's or other deadly diseases?

And yet NDD has been consistently underfunded, and it is a constant target for cuts by House Republicans, as we are now seeing.

I am here to say: Enough is enough. If we keep cutting and stretching and shortchanging those programs, something is going to snap--something important.

But more cuts are exactly what a 1-percent cap actually means--not treading water, not keeping up. A 1-percent cap means pain.

If we let families down, that means we let our competitors get ahead. It means we leave our Nation vulnerable. That is not politics; it is cold, hard math. One percent is not enough to keep up with rising costs, growing needs, and new challenges.

The issue here isn't whether we can make more tough choices. It is whether we are going to be honest about the tough realities of a 1- percent cap. There are so many priorities lawmakers on both sides of the aisle care about that just can't happen with a 1-percent increase.

Here is what 1 percent means in practice: 1 percent means letting families go hungry. WIC, a literal lifeline for nearly 7 million mothers and babies is going to need a nearly 10-percent increase next year. Anything less will force us to choose which moms, which babies are getting the food they need and which are getting put on a wait list. Think about that.

One percent means we are letting rural families lose their homes. We need a 5-percent increase for rural rental assistance alone. Falling short means thousands of rural families will lose assistance and may face eviction.

How is that right?

One percent means losing law enforcement. The FBI already can't fill about a thousand open positions because of what happened in fiscal year 2024. At 1 percent, in fiscal year 2025, it would have to trim another 1,300 positions. That is far fewer agents going after transnational criminal organizations, fentanyl traffickers, violent crime, cyber attackers, and more.

Meanwhile, DOJ would have to lose or freeze nearly 5,000 positions. We are talking about attorneys and agents that defend our civil rights, prosecute dangerous criminals, and keep our Nation safe.

Do Republicans really want to defund law enforcement?

One percent means slashing pay for our Federal firefighters. Any family

whose house has been threatened by one of the many devastating wildfires in recent years will tell you firefighters are not an optional expense. But over a quarter of the Forest Service's wildland firefighting jobs are vacant. And unless we provide funding to save our firefighters from a pay cut, those vacancies will get worse.

This is the very definition of a ``must-have,'' not a ``nice-to- have,'' kind of investment.

One percent means we are blunting momentum for lifesaving biomedical breakthroughs.

NIH is looking at a $280 million shortfall as Cures Act funding tapers off. That absolutely cannot be filled with a 1-percent bump. And that is on top of the $678 million in NIH Cures Act funding that already expired last year that we couldn't make up for because of the caps.

There are countless patients who would be devastated to hear that totally arbitrary spending caps are stifling research that could save their lives.

But that is barely scratching the surface. One percent means no major new funding for the opioid or mental health crisis.

It means fewer kids in Head Start, which is facing now a severe staffing shortage.

It means long waiting times for seniors and people with disabilities who need help with their Social Security benefits.

It means laying off meat inspectors and consumer product safety workers.

And let's not forget that 1 percent means we are giving up ground to our competitors and adversaries in just about every way.

It means delaying NASA missions.

It means letting adversarial governments fill the void in global politics and influence, failing to counter an aggressive Putin in Russia and allowing partners to succumb to economic coercion from Beijing and withdrawing from the world stage to let competitors set the international norms that impact our safety and economic strength.

It means falling way behind on innovation, which we should be leading the way.

Do you know how much the Chinese government is increasing their research and development spending this year? It's 10 percent--10 percent.

How do we expect to compete at 1?

You know, we authorized some truly transformative programs and funding levels in the bipartisan Chips and Science Act, but that doesn't matter if we don't provide bipartisan investments that live up to those ambitions.

The FRA has already forced us to fall short; and without more nondefense funding, it will force us to fall behind the Chinese government.

I have covered a lot, but here is the rub: This is not even close to a comprehensive list of what those spending caps mean for our country.

I cannot emphasize enough that under the caps for nondefense, everything struggles to keep up with rising costs. Programs that our kids, the future of our country, depend on--public schools, public health, nutrition assistance, to name a few--cannot get by on 1 percent.

Programs that keep our economy strong and growing--childcare, training for our workers, support for small business and for farmers, cutting-edge research--can't get by on 1 percent.

Programs that help communities thrive--affordable housing, transportation, broadband, and, of course, support for our Tribes-- cannot get by on 1 percent.

Programs that keep us safe--diplomacy, Border Patrol, food inspectors, law enforcement--cannot get by on 1 percent.

It is entirely self-defeating to box our future in, leave our families behind, and give our adversaries an opening to charge ahead.

Congress needs to decide, Do we want a stronger America?

House Republicans are saying ``no'' and writing fiscal year 2025 bills that ignore the deals that they negotiated in favor of devastating cuts to nondefense.

The Senate, however, needs to come together and chart a different path in a bipartisan way that says ``yes'' to a stronger America.

So, to me, the path for the Senate is clear: We have got to provide additional resources beyond the caps to address major shortfalls and new challenges.

I appreciate my colleagues who want to do more for defense. I also think the defense cap is too low. But I feel strongly that that increase cannot happen in a vacuum. We have to do more for nondefense as well.

Parity is the order of the day because investments in our families, in our economy, in communities' safety and success are no less important than investments at the Pentagon. They are, actually, in fact, connected. After all, a new submarine isn't just built with money; it is actually built by people who need schools and childcare for their kids, roads and public transportation to get to work, safe food and water, workforce training programs so they can take on new roles in advanced manufacturing, and more.

So let me be clear: I will not let us boost defense alone while leaving families and our country's future in the dust. That is a core principle for me. It is who I am.

Now, I want you to know I am not asking for the moon here. Parity for defense and nondefense is not new or radical; it was the norm. I should know.

When I sat down across from Paul Ryan--a principled conservative--to reach a deal that undid the worst of sequestration a decade ago, we didn't agree on everything. In fact, we didn't agree on a lot of things. Family and football and fishing was all we agreed to start with. That is where we started.

But we both understood the only way we were going to reach a deal, undo massive cuts, and help folks back home was by working together and producing a deal that may not be what we would have written alone but addressed concerns that both of us brought to the table.

A cornerstone of that agreement--and of numerous agreements since-- was parity for defense and nondefense.

Parity is not new. It is not some antiquated concept either; it is as relevant today as ever, because I think we can all agree that making sure planes fly safely overhead, making sure we invest in R&D as the Chinese government now spends 10 percent more, making sure our kids don't get hungry is not some second order priority.

So we cannot shortchange either side of the ledger. We increased defense funding by tens of billions this year while nondefense was held flat; and I worked extremely hard alongside my colleagues to ensure we delivered on a $95 billion national security supplemental to address the major global threats we are facing.

In fiscal year 2025, I cannot accept net cuts in real resources to NDD, which is what a 1-percent increase means.

Our duty to our constituents is to pass bills that make their lives better: to provide funds that let us actually meet this moment, support families, protect our Nation, and stay ahead of our competitors.

That will require more resources for nondefense. And I am ready to work with my colleagues to provide the same for defense.

Last year, we were able to produce strong, bipartisan bills in committee. I am very hopeful we are going to be able to do the same again this year.

I plan to hold our first fiscal year 2025 markup the week we return from the Fourth of July recess. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to make sure we meet this moment, take the concerns that we are hearing back home, and write and pass strong, bipartisan Senate Appropriations bills.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, every Senator was put on the record as to whether they will defend the right to contraception, and despite Republicans' words about supporting birth control, their actions--voting against the Right to Contraception Act--spoke louder.

Today we are putting Republicans on the record on another issue families across the country are deeply concerned about: the right to

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not going to mince words here. It is ridiculous to claim that this bill protects IVF when it does nothing of the sort. In fact, it explicitly allows States to restrict IVF in all sorts of ways. It is literally in the bill text.

Remember, it did not take State lawmakers in Alabama passing a ban on IVF for clinics in the State to suspend services.

Under this bill, there are a million ways Republican-led States could enact burdensome and unnecessary requirements and create the kind of legal uncertainty and risk that would force clinics to once again close their doors.

Also, even though it is an inherent part of the IVF process that families will make more embryos than they need, this bill does absolutely nothing--not a single thing--to ensure families who use IVF can have their clinics dispose of unused embryos without facing legal threats for a standard medical procedure. Instead, this bill completely ignores the matter of what happens to frozen embryos in order to appease Republicans' extreme anti-abortion allies.

This was intentional, and it leaves the door open to a lot of chaos. So this Republican bill really is a PR tool, plain and simple. It is just another way for Republicans to pretend they are not the extremists that they keep proving they are.

Meanwhile, there are bills some Republicans are pushing for right now that would enshrine, as a matter of law, that life begins at conception and that discarding unused embryos is essentially murder.

Senator Cruz himself supported a personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No way around that. The junior Senator from Texas wanted to change the U.S. Constitution to give embryos the same rights as living, breathing human beings. Look, the stone-cold reality is that you cannot protect IVF and champion fetal personhood.

So I would like to ask my colleagues who are offering this enormously inadequate bill--and I hope they do answer it directly--do you support letting parents have clinics dispose of unused embryos, which is a typical part of the IVF process, or do you support fetal personhood, which by its very nature will throw IVF access into chaos? Because until they clearly answer that question--and it is a couple simple ones--all the claims of supporting IVF will fall obviously short, just like this bill does. That is why I object.

I ask for the yeas and nays.