Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Wagner cloture motion be waived.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and with respect for my colleague Senator Hyde-Smith with whom I serve on the Agriculture Committee, I fear this bill is another attempt to distract from the truth, which is that Republicans are trying to make it harder for women to access reproductive healthcare.

Now, this bill purports to empower and support women and families facing fertility challenges--something that I would certainly agree with. But instead of protecting access to IVF services and other assisted reproductive technologies, what it would do is to direct the government to actually steer people away from using evidence-based services like IVF in favor of ``restorative reproductive medicine.''

Now, let me be clear, women and their families deserve the freedom and the autonomy to decide for themselves how to start and grow their families in consultation with their doctors, and they don't need politicians deciding what kind of care they should or shouldn't be getting.

But if you need more evidence, the Republicans are trying to distort their record on these issues, look no further than section 2 of this bill, which would declare that Congress finds that ``in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies are not under threat at the Federal level or in any State or territory of the United States.'' That is in section 2.

I would say: Tell that to the families in Alabama who saw their fertility treatments interrupted by the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling.

Just last week, all but two Republicans voted against a bill that would have provided comprehensive protections for American families trying to start or grow their families through IVF.

So when they present bills like this one as evidence that they care about women's reproductive health, they should remember that in these situations, actions speak louder than words.

And their message here is clear: Republicans will do anything, except the most obvious things, to protect women, pregnant women, mothers, and families.

So for those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, with respect to my colleague and friend Senator Britt, this bill is another attempt to shift the narrative for Republicans away from the fact that they have blocked every attempt to pass bills that would actually protect women's reproductive health and freedom.

By overwhelming majorities, Americans support protecting acts such as contraption, IVF, assisted reproductive technologies, and safe, legal abortion care. Republicans know that they are out of step with the American people, and that is what we are seeing here today.

Ever since President Trump's Supreme Court overturned Roe with the disastrous Dobbs decision, women's healthcare in this country has been thrown into chaos, and every day we hear more stories of the cruelty brought by these Trump Republican abortion bans across the country.

The solution to this problem is simple and obvious: Congress should pass comprehensive protections for contraption, for IVF, and for reproductive freedom. But, instead, Republicans have

been blocking those bills and are putting forward bills like this one, which would create a Federal Government website, among other things, that functions basically as a crisis pregnancy center. To be clear, healthcare providers who provide information about the full range of their options to women, including abortion care, would be blocked from this website.

This website would allow women to put into the website their ZIP Code, and they could then find a list of resources for adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers, which, I think we know, can intentionally mislead and pressure and shame pregnant women against seeking abortion care and sometimes even block them from accessing that care.

I want to be clear that this bill does not require anybody to put in their contact information, but it also does not include any restrictions on how the Federal Government could use or share that data that people input.

I don't think Americans need another government website. What they need is for their government to respect their freedom and their dignity and their autonomy to make their own decisions about if, when, and how to grow their families.

For this reason, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that the crisis facing women and families in this country is a crisis of access with respect to healthcare. The solutions to this crisis are obvious, and I am sorry to see that our Republicans are blocking those solutions at every turn.

This bill claims to protect healthcare workers if they refuse to participate in abortion care due to moral or religious obligations, but, of course, we know that those protections already exist in Federal law. And I think this bill would actually go well beyond that. It would, in fact, create a pathway for providers to object to providing other critical prevention and treatment services--for example, treatment to HIV.

So I think this is another effort to distract Americans from the core fact that Republicans are trying to restrict access to reproductive health care and reproductive freedom while Democrats are trying to protect them. I, for those reasons, Mr. President, object.

Mr. President, 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 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 710.

I ask unanimous consent 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 737, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 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; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Oler nomination, postcloture; further, that the cloture time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 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 Senator Kennedy.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Right to IVF Act. So here is something that is close to a miracle. People who have struggled and struggled to have children are able today, through the very best science and medicine, to conceive and to bring a child into the world. It is incredible; it is a blessing.

In 2021, more than 86,000 babies born in America were conceived through IVF. And in my home State of Minnesota, I have heard from so many of my constituents who have struggled with infertility and who wouldn't have children but for IVF. So today, we have the opportunity to vote on a bill that protects us. Our bill is straightforward in its purpose. It would establish a clear and enforceable nationwide right for people to receive IVF, for doctors to provide IVF, and for health insurance to cover IVF.

So if you live in a State where a Republican State legislature passes a law infringing on IVF, that would be stopped by our bill. If you get your health insurance through your employer, your health insurance would cover your care. If you are a servicemember or a veteran, as my colleague Senator Carper said, you are covered--same for Federal employees. And if you get your health insurance through Medicaid, which covers 40 percent of the births in this country, you are covered.

So you may be asking: Who could disagree with this? It is a good question. And here is the reality. Since the extremist Supreme Court Justices--appointed by Donald Trump and confirmed by Senate Republicans--since they overturned Roe, Trump abortion bans across the country have sown chaos and confusion. And they have emboldened States that have created this chilling effect on reproductive healthcare and emboldened States like Alabama to restrict IVF.

Now, if my colleagues on the other side want to protect IVF, if they believe that doctors and providers should be able to provide IVF without fear of criminal prosecution, then they would vote for our bill.

Colleagues, I hope that Republicans will vote with us to proceed on our bill so that we can make real progress to protect access to IVF and to say very clearly that government has no business interfering in your families' decision about the healthcare that you need to treat infertility.

If my Republican colleagues want to make it clear where you stand on IVF, please join us in voting for this bill today. If you vote no, your actions speak louder than any words.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Ms. Stella Whitney-West on her illustrious career and much-deserved retirement from NorthPoint Health and Wellness Center in Minneapolis, MN. Ms. Whitney-West will retire from NorthPoint on June 30 after 20 years with the organization, having served as CEO since 2007. Under her leadership, NorthPoint has evolved

and expanded their impact exponentially. Ms. Whitney-West has been a lifelong champion of equitable health outcomes for all and has promoted health equity while expanding NorthPoint's footprint and offerings. She shepherded the center to become a certified Health Care Home, provide expanded interpreter services, transition to an electronic health record system, and much more. Most importantly and impactfully, during her tenure Ms. Whitney-West oversaw a historic $100 million campus expansion project, doubling the size of NorthPoint's main campus facility and opening several satellite clinic locations throughout North Minneapolis. As a result of her leadership and commitment to these historic changes, NorthPoint is now able to serve over 30,000 residents of North Minneapolis and provides a wide range of health and human services. As a lifelong member of the community, Ms. Whitney-West has surely made a meaningful impact at NorthPoint and in our community, creating standards for health and wellness across Hennepin County and the entire State of Minnesota. I wish you the best in your retirement.

Madam President, I rise today with my colleagues to urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Right to Contraception Act.

At its core, this bill is based on a very simple value. The value is that every individual should have the right to make decisions about their lives, their medical care, their families, and their bodies.

Passing this bill would not only protect the right to get birth control free from government interference, but it would protect this core American value because if you don't control your reproductive life, you don't control anything about your life.

This is a bipartisan issue at least in the Nation, if not in this Chamber. Over 80 percent of Americans support access to birth control, including over 70 percent of Republicans, but despite this overwhelming level of support, many of my Republican colleagues seem set to block this bill today. You know, I wish I could say that I was shocked, but there is a direct through line we see between Senate Republicans and Donald Trump in confirming Trump's extremist, anti-choice Justices, overturning Roe, and bringing us to this day. So this is not an accident; this is a plan.

In the era of chaos ushered in by the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, the Republicans' refusal to protect access to birth control is just another example of this cruel and reckless approach to women's health, and every day, we are confronted with the grave consequences that overturning Roe has had for Americans.

Today, one in three women of child-bearing age lives in States with a Trump Republican abortion ban, and from those States, we hear the stories of the impact of that on people's lives--women trying to get reproductive health care and being turned away, sometimes until their conditions become life-threatening; doctors trying to provide healthcare that they feel is best for their patients but they can't because of the fear of prosecution. It is clear that the people responsible for this either don't understand women's health and bodies or they just don't care.

Now, people access contraceptive care--birth control--for a whole host of reasons, including to treat conditions like ovarian cancer, endometriosis, and migraines. Laws and regulations that restrict access to birth control harm people. They harm people, and they harm their families. That is why this is so important.

The Right to Contraception Act protects more than just your right to make your own decisions about whether and when and how to become a parent; it protects your right to chart the course of your life and to make decisions without politicians and judges interfering. So when Republicans vote no, what they are saying is that they want to be in charge of your freedom, your autonomy, and your personal dignity.

You know, you may be thinking as you are listening to this debate: I mean, why is this law necessary? I mean, what is out there? Who is out there who is actually trying to restrict access to contraceptives?

Well, the reality, colleagues, is that this is happening. You can see it in Republican efforts to redefine some contraception, like IUDs or the morning-after pill, to redefine those kinds of contraception as abortion--based not on the science, not on the best medical expertise, but on their political views. You can see it in their relentless efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and to cut title X funding.

Now, colleagues, title X is the bipartisan law that was signed by President Nixon. It is the only Federal program dedicated to providing comprehensive family planning and preventive healthcare. Title X helps low-income people afford wellness exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS. It also provides basic infertility services. It is a godsend for over 2.5 million Americans. Most of them are without any health insurance and are under the age of 30. We should be supporting title X and not tearing it down.

Many of you know that long before I came to this body, I worked at Planned Parenthood. When I was there, I saw every day what it means to get access to basic reproductive health care, how that frees people to be able to live the lives that they choose, and how much they depend on those services. Now Donald Trump and extreme Senate Republicans have created a healthcare crisis by banning abortion for one in three women of child-bearing age in this country.

If my Republican colleagues are really interested, truly interested in helping women and families, you would vote for this bill, this Right to Contraception Act. You would vote for it today. I am here to tell you that actions speak louder than words. A ``no'' vote means that you don't trust women to make our own decisions about our bodies, our health, and our lives. So I urge you to join us in voting yes.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have great respect for my colleague from Iowa, our neighbor to the south, but we just disagree on this issue.

I think that this is an attempt by Republicans to claim that they are increasing access to contraception when, in fact, this bill does not accomplish that goal at all. And I also think our Republican colleagues believe that they have a message problem when it comes to women's health when, in fact, they have a policy problem. And I regret to say this bill is not going to fix it.

One in three women in this country face barriers to accessing prescription contraception, and only half of women that are interested in over-the-counter birth control pills can afford them. But instead of addressing this very real and very well-understood challenge, this bill does nothing to improve access to contraception. It does not address the lack of insurance coverage for prescription and over-the-counter birth control--carve-outs that Republicans have repeatedly supported which make contraception more expensive for patients.

It does not protect patients from efforts to roll back the ability of providers to prescribe birth control. It does not enable patients to know what is best for themselves to get birth control without unnecessary barriers.

Instead, the bill directs the FDA to prioritize review of applications to convert prescription contraception to over-the-counter; but, in fact, an over-the-counter birth control pill has been approved for almost a year and has been available in stores since March of this year. And this bill does nothing to get that product into patients' hands. In fact, it explicitly restricts access to this important product for young people.

This bill also directs a study, a Federal funding for contraception. We don't need a study to tell us that there are problems here. We know what the problem is. We know that President Trump's anti-abortion Justices at the Supreme Court and Republicans' years of policies here in Congress and in State legislatures around the country have restricted access to birth control.

In addition, this bill reinforces the misguided view that emergency contraception causes abortion. That is not what the science says, and it is not what doctors say.

If Republicans truly support increased access and fewer barriers to contraception, then they should vote for the Right to Contraception Act. Our bill would actually guarantee the right for people to obtain and use contraceptives and for health providers to provide contraception, contraception information, all free from government interference.

The Right to Contraception Act is the bill that we all need to support, and I look forward to voting for this bill this afternoon. And for these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation vote on the Martinez nomination occur at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 2024, and that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen upon disposition of the Martinez nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 58 is made, the motion to proceed be agreed to and that at 6 p.m., the joint resolution be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, which is the strong, bipartisan farm bill proposal that has been put forward by our colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Chair Stabenow's framework reflects more than 2 years of work and outreach and contains more than 100 bipartisan bills, and it puts the 2024 farm bill back on track for being signed into law this year. As Chair Stabenow says, this farm bill is designed to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong.

The farm bill touches nearly every aspect of life, and it touches the life of nearly every American. It is a big, complicated piece of legislation, but at its core, it does three things.

The first is that it governs how nutrition assistance, like SNAP, works for 42 million Americans, including 2.5 million rural residents.

The second thing is that it sets the rules for how farm and forestry programs work, including conservation and risk management tools like crop insurance, animal health, research and education, and forestry and timber.

Third, it drives rural development by supporting rural broadband, housing, childcare, and rural energy so that rural America can be strong, prosperous, and competitive.

For many years, the farm bill has bucked the tide of partisanship in Congress by finding common ground, providing stability and predictability to farmers, ranchers, and rural communities, and by sustaining nearly 23 million jobs across the country.

And why does it pass with such broad bipartisan support? Because we have all agreed in Congress to support what I think of as the three pillars of the farm bill: nutrition assistance, farm and conservation programs, and rural development.

This has been the grand bargain of Congress--that we agree together to keep each of these pillars strong, and then you can pass the bill. If you weaken any of these pillars, then a bipartisan farm bill just doesn't stand.

Colleagues, this grand bargain will be the recipe for success for the 2024 farm bill as well. So I want to spend a few minutes talking about where we have agreement and what more we need to do to pass a strong bipartisan bill.

Chair Stabenow released her proposal in early May, and, just this week, the House Agriculture Committee will mark up Chair Thompson's farm bill proposal. While Chair Thompson should be commended for including many proposals with broad bipartisan support, his bill significantly weakens nutrition and conservation programs. This undermines the grand bargain that is necessary to pass a bipartisan bill.

Here is what I am talking about when it comes to nutrition programs: Almost 45 million Americans live in homes that don't have regular access to affordable food. Almost all of these households are working families or seniors or people who are living with disabilities. This is interestingly and especially a rural issue. Households in rural areas are even more affected. Of the top 10 counties facing the greatest food insecurity in this country, 9 are primarily in rural areas.

So Chair Stabenow's proposal, which I support, strengthens nutrition assistance. It makes certain that nutrition assistance now and into the future is going to meet the needs of Americans by making sure that monthly stipends are enough so that families can afford the food that they need.

I want to just note that it is not as if people are getting lots and lots of money here. I think the average cost for a family--the average benefit of a family--is somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 a day. So we are not talking about a lot of money per person.

In contrast, the House Republicans' proposal prevents nutrition assistance from keeping pace with food costs. What does that mean for a family that is relying on SNAP benefits, for example? The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House Republicans' farm bill could result in a $30 billion cut to SNAP over the next decade. This is going to hurt people. It is not going to help them. It won't work, and it won't pass with bipartisan support.

Simply put, any farm bill proposal that weakens nutrition assistance now or in the future can't pass Congress.

The foundational farm bill risk management, research, and conservation programs--those foundational programs--are also incredibly important. They should be strengthened and not weakened in the next farm bill.

To that end, Chair Stabenow's farm bill includes many bipartisan provisions that I have fought for, along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It updates and improves crop insurance and other USDA programs so that they work better, especially for small and beginning farmers and farmers from more diverse backgrounds. I am thinking, in Minnesota, of Native farmers, of Black, Hmong, and Latino farmers, and of farmers who are recent African immigrants.

It is interesting that, across the country and in Minnesota, the average age of farmers and ranchers in America is 58 to 60 years old. So it is essential for the future of our food system and for agriculture and farming that crop insurance is going to work for the next generation of farmers taking over, and that is what Chair Stabenow's bill does.

I want to also note that Senator Stabenow's farm bill maintains the sugar program, which is so important to Minnesota's sugar beet farmers. The U.S. sugar policy runs at zero cost to taxpayers. What it does is to just simply make sure that American farmers can compete on a fair playing field against subsidized foreign sugar.

Senator Stabenow's farm bill also includes updates to the Dairy Margin Coverage Program that we established in the 2018 bill. I expect this is important to the Vermont dairy farmers, as it is important to Minnesota's dairy

farmers. It basically provides them with an additional tool to help them manage the inevitable ups and downs in the sector in which they are competing.

When it comes to what we need to do around conservation, Senator Stabenow's farm bill also protects the transformational conservation and climate-smart laws that we passed in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Now, you don't need to tell Minnesota farmers that climate change is real. They see it every day in the growing intensity of the storms and droughts and fires and floods that they contend with. They also appreciate that better support for conservation programs for working farm and ranch land is good for their bottom line and improves their resilience. American family farmers are good stewards of their land, and Federal conservation programs need to support them.

Climate-smart conservation means healthier soil and less need for expensive inputs. It is a win for farmers, for rural communities, and it is a win for the fight against climate change. It is also true that we need to get a better understanding of and be able to measure better how farming and ranching practices are working to sequester carbon and improve soil health.

So I appreciate Chair Stabenow's work to include ideas from my bipartisan bill with Senator Young of Indiana to work on this and to help farmers identify best practices to make their farms more resilient and to combat climate change at the same time.

Now is not the time to dismantle or weaken conservation and climate- smart agriculture efforts. This is why proposals in Chair Thompson's bill in the House to strip out the climate-smart guardrails within our conservation programs--I mean, that just won't work, and it will not get the bipartisan support that the farm bill needs.

Both Republicans and Democrats, I know, appreciate the importance of a strong rural development title in the farm bill. I want to touch on that for a minute as well.

Small towns and rural places are creative. They are entrepreneurial. They are diverse, wonderful places to live and to raise a family. They produce our food and our energy. They are hubs of manufacturing, small business, education, healthcare, the arts, and culture. The farm bill needs to support them, and that is what Chair Stabenow's framework accomplishes.

This farm bill has a strong energy title, including reauthorizing REAP. That is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps ag producers and small businesses design and build projects to improve energy efficiency and to build out new renewable energy sources. This is good, of course. It creates jobs, it reduces energy bills, and it cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

So I am glad that improvements and updates I pushed for are included in the chair's framework. I am also glad to see included proposals that I support and have worked on to increase childcare options and to improve broadband. People living in rural areas and in Tribal communities should not be stuck with slow internet speeds that folks in the cities would never put up with. This farm bill mandates faster minimum speeds for USDA broadband programs. That is what I pushed for in the work that I have done as well.

Over the last several years, many individuals and groups have done excellent work to develop a strong farm bill, so as I conclude, I want to particularly note the excellent work and advocacy of the Native Farm Bill Coalition. This is over 170 Tribes and Native groups that have worked together to improve how USDA and farm programs work with Tribal governments and Native producers, from farming and ranching to nutrition programs, rural development, and forestry.

This is incredibly important work, especially because, too often, Native voices have not been heard in this policy development. In 2018, the farm bill changed that. Under Chair Stabenow's leadership, the 2018 farm bill included over 60 provisions that benefited Indian Country. This was a huge success, and we learned a lot from that. This next farm bill has to continue that progress.

Members of the Native Farm Bill Coalition are visiting Washington just this week to testify to our responsibility in Congress, as defined in our treaty and trust obligations, to include Native farmers and Tribal governments in decisions about agriculture and forestry. We need to listen to them. It is actually our obligation to listen to them and to right the wrongs that have been perpetrated since the beginning of Federal farm and nutrition policy and long before.

Tribal self-governance is an essential step here. Self-governance-- what it does is it recognizes that Tribal nations' authority to administer Federal programs--they have that authority within their own communities, and it recognizes that. This is not a new idea; it has worked successfully for over 30 years and is widely seen as one of the most successful Federal Indian policies that we have moved forward. It works because it recognizes that Tribal governments are in the best position to know what their communities need, and they know best how to deliver for them.

This is called 638 authority. Folks may have seen this on the buttons of people walking around the hallway talking about 638 authority. What it comes from is the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. It says that Tribes can have the authority to plan and conduct and administer Federal programs.

The 2018 farm bill created several self-governance pilot projects in forestry and in nutrition programs. These were very successful, and they should be made permanent. Chair Stabenow's bill does this, along with also including many other provisions to recognize and respect the role of Tribal governments and Native producers.

We can do more, and we should. With expanded self-governance authority, Tribal nations will be able to build food systems that address food insecurity. They will be able to increase access to indigenous foods and to use indigenous knowledge for forest management and to support strong Tribal economies. Tribal leaders often say ``Nothing about us without us.'' This value must guide us as we pass a 2024 farm bill.

I will continue to stand with Native leaders so that we can continue to make progress and pass the very best farm bill possible--one that respects our responsibilities to Tribes and to Native people; one that keeps farmers farming, families fed, and rural and Tribal communities strong.

We have a lot more work to do, but we have made progress, and I am ready to keep up the work with my Democratic and Republican colleagues to pass a farm bill that delivers on this promise.

I yield the floor.