[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 12, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2357-S2359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2801

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in hopes of passing a bill 
in a few minutes that would support our veterans and our servicemembers 
by making sure that when they want to grow their family, they can get 
the care and services they need, including IVF.
  The recent chaos in Alabama caused by far-right ideology put a 
national spotlight on just how crucial IVF is to so many women and 
families who are desperately hoping and trying to have children. The 
first thing we heard after IVF was thrown into uncertainty in Alabama 
was the horror of women and their families who had their dreams turned 
into nightmares as appointments were canceled--tens of thousands of 
dollars, months of appointments were callously tossed out of the window 
by the Alabama Supreme Court. Its decision rested on extreme ideology--
an ideology Republicans are working right now to enshrine into law 
nationwide.
  Next, we heard Republicans tripping over themselves to proclaim that 
they stand for IVF even while still standing by the same extreme fetal 
personhood laws that caused all of this chaos in the first place.
  I have said this before, but given how Republicans refuse to publicly 
disavow fetal personhood, it clearly bears repeating: When Republicans 
support legislation that says a fertilized egg has the same rights and 
protections as a living, breathing, human person, that is fundamentally 
incompatible with supporting IVF. That is the very ideology that caused 
the disaster in Alabama, and right now, the majority of House 
Republicans are cosponsors of a national abortion ban that would 
enshrine fetal personhood in Federal law, endangering IVF treatments 
everywhere.
  But if Republicans really do now want to support IVF, if they really 
do want to help people who are trying to grow their families, why not 
start with our veterans and our servicemembers? These are the men and 
women who fought to protect our families. Why don't we make sure they 
all have the support they need to grow theirs?
  I reintroduced a bill with Senator Duckworth last year--the Veteran 
Families Health Services Act--and it would do just that. I have been 
working to pass this bill for well over a decade now. It has gone 
through countless rounds of technical edits and reviews and is more 
than ready for prime time.
  This is exactly the kind of straightforward legislation that we 
should pass through unanimous consent. It hasn't just passed committee 
before; it actually passed the Senate before.
  The goal of this bill is very simple. It expands the fertility 
treatments and family-building services that are covered under 
servicemembers' and veterans' healthcare. That means finally having the 
coverage that gives servicemembers and veterans the option to freeze 
eggs or sperm before deployment, it means expanding adoption assistance 
at the VA, and it means expanding access to IVF for all of our veterans 
and servicemembers. Current coverage policies for VA and DOD still 
leave out many committed, loving people who want to start a family. We 
are talking about a bill that would help our wounded warriors get the 
care and coverage they need to start a family.
  I am really glad DOD and VA have been taking some steps under 
President Biden to offer this care to more people, including the 
expansion that the VA announced just yesterday, but we still have a 
long way to go.
  I hope that every one of my colleagues would agree that our country 
should keep that basic promise we make to our servicemembers to take 
care of them when they come home; that when a soldier comes home with 
injuries and subsequently needs IVF because of that to start a family 
or really when any soldier needs IVF to start a family, they should be 
able to get it. So how about we take action right now, today, to make 
that a reality. It should not be controversial, especially if 
Republicans are serious even in the slightest about supporting IVF.
  This bill is just saying: Yes, we want to make sure that all of our 
veterans, all of our servicemembers have access to the family-building 
services and fertility treatments they need. Given all that we have 
heard in recent weeks, this should be hugely bipartisan.
  We stand by our veterans. If you stand by IVF, if you want to see our 
military families growing and thriving, we need to send that message 
now and send this legislation that I will be asking unanimous consent 
on shortly to the President's desk as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I know I have a number of Members who are coming to 
the floor to speak to this, so I will suggest the absence of a quorum 
until that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very proud to be here today to 
join my great colleague from the State of Washington to support the 
Veteran Families Health Services Act.
  At a time when there are many, many complex and difficult issues--
some of them nowhere near black-and-white; a lot of gray areas of 
policy abroad and at home--there is one issue that ought to be 
absolutely clear, unequivocally, in terms of what we should do--the 
right thing to do--really, the obligatory thing to do. And that is to 
make sure that our men and women who serve in uniform and our veterans 
have access to the healthcare they deserve and, in particular, 
reproductive healthcare and, most especially, IVF treatment.
  The Alabama Supreme Court in the LePage decision is another step in 
the assault on women's rights and women's healthcare and, in fact, on 
women. The kinds of restrictions placed on IVF treatment have been, 
essentially, disowned and disavowed by many Republicans who want to run 
away as far as they can as quickly as they can from that decision and 
are saying: Well, we are in favor of IVF but not against laws that 
restrict IVF.
  They can't have it both ways. Here is a chance for them to show, in 
supremely important terms, that they are in favor of this kind of 
treatment for our men and women who, in some sense, have earned it and 
deserve it more than or as much as any other American because they are 
the ones who put on uniforms and defend our rights and our freedoms. 
And they are the ones who, afterwards, come back to their community as 
veterans and continue to serve us.
  This measure, essentially, provides guarantees for Active-Duty 
servicemembers and veterans access to IVF. It expands adoption 
assistance at the VA and counseling services for couples navigating 
that process. There is very little to be said that wouldn't repeat the 
basic common sense of this proposal, and it shouldn't even be needed

[[Page S2358]]

to be said that military families don't choose where they live. They 
are assigned to one State or another, one country or another. When they 
answer the Nation's call, they don't sign up for service in Connecticut 
at the subbase. They sign up, and they raise their right hand. And 
their access to IVF shouldn't be dependent on the State where they are 
assigned or the country. It ought to be available to every 
servicemember regardless of their posting. They defend our rights every 
day, and we must protect theirs with this bill.
  And veterans who have completed their service honorably deserve the 
same protection and access to family planning services. Our veterans 
who receive care at the VA deserve the highest standard--the gold 
standard--not some diluted standard because of a State law that 
restricts access to IVF. Their lives are already complex and 
challenging enough. We shouldn't complicate them further with 
administrative barriers.
  I will just repeat what I said on the floor the other day in favor of 
IVF treatment. There is nothing so moving and so profound as a family 
who wants a child and is having difficulty having it. There is nothing 
so moving as two parents or people who want to be parents. And in our 
military, that predicament is especially moving because they have 
committed to give up a part of their lives--one could say their lives--
to serve our country, and we should make sure that they have access to 
this fundamental right.
  Again, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington, and I thank 
other colleagues who will be here today and all who are supporting this 
important measure, which we should be proud to support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we all know it is Women's History Month; 
and though this work should be done year round, during March 
especially, we focus on policies that improve the lives of women in 
America, including the lives of women veterans.
  For most of America's history, America's Armed Forces were made up 
primarily of men in uniform. Not anymore. Today, more than 17 percent 
of the Active-Duty Force in America are women. As our Armed Forces 
better reflect the diversity of America, that means our support system 
and resources for veterans must also meet the needs of that population.
  And one of those resources must be supporting our veterans and 
servicemembers when they want to start a family. Those who serve our 
Nation are at an elevated risk for injury. That is part of the reason 
we owe them such a debt of gratitude. They do risk life and limb to 
protect America.
  But when servicemembers are injured in the line of duty, one 
consequence can be obstacles to conceiving children. That is why we 
should pass the Veteran Families Health Services Act immediately. This 
comprehensive legislation will expand fertility treatments and family-
building services that are covered under servicemembers and veterans' 
healthcare plans. This includes services across the board to safeguard 
future fertility, adoption assistance, and, most likely, in vitro 
fertilization.
  Access to IVF recently came into the national spotlight when the 
Alabama Supreme Court ruled last month that frozen embryos are children 
and that their destruction can be treated like the wrongful death of a 
child. That decision by the Alabama Supreme Court had major 
consequences on reproductive rights in Alabama as major healthcare 
providers stopped IVF procedures out of fear of civil and criminal 
liability.
  Not surprisingly, Republicans across the country started scrambling, 
fearing that such an unpopular restriction on reproductive rights could 
hurt their electoral chances in the next election.
  In the weeks since the ruling, Republicans have claimed to support 
access to IVF, and yet many also support so-called fetal personhood 
bills that codify that life begins at conception and lack carve-outs to 
protect access to IVF. The simple reality is you can't have it both 
ways. Although Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a law last week that 
attempted to ensure that IVF treatments continued in her State, many 
legal experts and fertility doctors are still concerned that the rush 
to stopgap that measure will do more harm than good.
  And when Senator Tammy Duckworth--my Illinois colleague, a veteran 
herself who relied on IVF to start her family--came to this floor of 
the U.S. Senate and asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill that 
would establish Federal protection for access to IVF and other 
fertility treatments, a Republican Senator blocked it.
  If the Republicans are truly pro-family, pro-military, as they claim 
to be, there should be no hesitation supporting this bill that supports 
our servicemembers and veterans who want to start a family.
  Let me make one thing clear. No one should have to choose between 
serving our Nation and having a child. We should be expanding these 
services, not restricting them. Our servicemembers sacrifice much to 
keep our families safe. The least we can do is to make sure they have 
the full range of care options they need to start families of their 
own.
  I want to thank the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, for 
calling us together for this important stand, one that I think will 
benefit families across the board and, certainly, benefit veteran 
families who want to start a family.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as in legislative session, 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XX, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2801, the Veteran Families Health Services Act of 
2023, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object, I, like most Americans, 
have friends who have loved ones who have children who were born 
through IVF.
  I am passionate about the value of every single child and grateful 
for every single child who we have in our Nation and for their 
potential future. I have friends who are in the process right now of 
actually adopting embryos that were still frozen. They could not have 
children of their own, and so they are adopting those embryos to make 
sure that they are able to come to life. IVF is not a controversial 
issue for me in that sense. We are passionate about it, as every State 
now protects that right and continues to honor that.
  I understand it has become vogue in this current season right now to 
be able to say Republicans are somehow opposed to life because they are 
opposed to IVF. I just don't find that. But within this bill that is 
actually coming, this bill--actually, part of it came through the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. That bill, itself, when it came 
through--it is substantially similar to that--it tried to come to the 
NDAA and was not included in the NDAA. It had an objection.
  The CBO scored it somewhere around a billion dollars a year. This 
bill, itself, I understand, doesn't have a CBO score because it 
includes not only that section that was a billion dollars a year but 
actually includes another section that has not gone through the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. In fact, it was brought up in a 
previous Congress in the Senate Committee of Veterans' Affairs. It 
didn't have a hearing on it nor a markup. And then during a Democrat-
led Senate and then a Democrat-led Senate, as well, didn't even 
recently, this session, even have a markup on it.
  So all of these issues, I look at and say: This has not been fully 
vetted through what this actually is and what it actually does, nor the 
cost of it, much less to be able to have 24 hours later to try to come 
for unanimous consent.
  This bill itself includes some overly broad definitions that I think 
need some conversation about. Quite frankly, we are in the Senate. This 
is what we are supposed to do. It includes things like assisted 
reproductive technology, fertility treatments. It leaves the door open 
for future definitions for

[[Page S2359]]

gene editing and cloning and leaves those at the discretion of the 
Secretary, whoever the Secretary may be, in the future.
  The bill's definition of infertility includes ``the inability to 
reproduce or safely carry a pregnancy to term.'' It is a very broad 
term trying to be able to figure out what that means. Obviously, that 
means everyone who is not a woman as well would be included in that.
  The bill also expands the eligibility to ``partners.'' You do not 
have to be TRICARE beneficiaries. This would be the first time that DOD 
would be required to provide medical care to someone who is not 
otherwise entitled to it by virtue of their relationship to the 
military in other ways. This breaks new ground in that area.
  So there is not only issues of questions of definitions and such, but 
there is also just definition of cost or working through the committee 
process through committees that have, so far, either not passed it or 
have refused to even have a markup or a hearing on it.
  So I don't think it is good for us to be able to bring this for 
unanimous consent to be able to move it at this time. Let's move it 
through in a broader conversation, but I would also encourage, just as 
a body, I don't find Republicans who are just broadly opposed to IVF.
  And I know this is a broad part of the conversation right now to 
leave that implication after what happened in Alabama, but I am a 
Republican who is passionate about the value of every single child who 
also doesn't have an issue with IVF and am grateful to know people who 
have gone through the process and know their kids and know the value of 
every single one of those children.
  So for the sake of honoring life and for the sake of honoring, 
obviously, what we do as a Senate and how we function together, for 
those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed but not 
surprised.
  Let the record show I have been trying to pass this legislation into 
law for well over a decade. It wasn't yesterday. It wasn't last year--
for well over a decade.
  And for the entire time Republicans have been the ones who have 
blocked efforts to include this bill in any legislative package.
  I had really hoped, after the outpouring of public statements in 
support of IVF from my colleagues across the aisle, they might finally 
change their tune, but the American people understand that actions 
speak louder than words.
  On the unofficial CBO score that was mentioned, let's just say, I 
think it is a real overestimate of how many people dealing with 
fertility would make use of IVF and other fertility services at that 
cost.
  And my understanding is it also adds the cost of children conceived 
through IVF being covered on VA healthcare for the rest of their 
childhood, which doesn't make a lot of sense since many of those 
families will have children one way or the other anyway. So I dispute 
that, but I will say, it is pretty clear, Republicans do not support 
IVF, despite their language, not even for wounded servicemembers and 
for veterans.
  But having said that, my door is open. I am determined. If a 
servicemember goes overseas and is wounded and comes home and cannot 
conceive a family, we should be there to provide service for them. It 
is our promise to our veterans that when they serve us, we will take 
care of them when they get home.
  What is not more basic than making sure they can have a family after 
serving our country? So I am disappointed once again, but I will not 
stop working on this. It is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.