Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume 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 have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 960, introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I move to adjourn until 6:40 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, March 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 31; further, at 12 noon, the Senate vote on cloture on the Miran nomination, and if cloture is invoked on the Miran nomination, the postcloture time expire at 2:15 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Miran nomination; further, if cloture is invoked on the Sonderling nomination, the postcloture time expire at 5:15 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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 Blumenthal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of proceedings be approved to date.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc.

In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding en bloc.

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

Mr. President, last week the Washington Examiner published an article highlighting Democrats' third--third--filibuster of this new Congress. That is right. You heard it--third.

The party that mere months ago literally was gleefully making plans to destroy the filibuster is now using the filibuster left and right. But as we know, for Democrats, it is, ``One rule for me, another for thee.'' As the Washington Examiner piece made clear, some Democrats are even embracing their hypocrisy.

``You use the rules that exist,'' one Democrat said. ``I might advocate for a higher speed limit, but I still observe the speed limit until it is changed.''

Well, OK, but are Democrats still crusading to abolish the filibuster while Republicans are in charge? The answer is, of course, not because abolishing the filibuster isn't about principle for Democrats; it is about political advantage. So Democrats will unashamedly support different rules depending on who is in charge.

Now, I could spend my whole time today talking about Democrats' rank hypocrisy when it comes to the filibuster, but I would also like to talk about the content of the bills that they filibustered and what that says about the Democratic Party.

In the few short weeks of this new Congress, Democrats filibustered three bills: the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act; the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, otherwise known as the ICC sanctions bill; and the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was a simple bill. It simply stated that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be given the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby would be given. That is it. You would assume such a bill would be entirely uncontroversial.

Democrats may not believe in protecting unborn human beings, but surely--surely--they still believe in protecting born human beings. But as it turns out, protecting born human beings, at least when they are born alive after an abortion, is not on the Democrats' priority list.

In fact, every Democrat in the Senate--every Democrat, without exception--voted against this bill. And I am afraid the sad truth is, the Democrats are so deeply concerned with preserving the supposed right to kill unborn babies that they couldn't bring themselves to protect born babies for fear that it would eventually lead to recognizing the humanity of the unborn.

All I can say is that a party that was so committed to killing unborn babies that it can't vote to protect born babies is nothing short of morally bankrupt. So that was the first bill the Democrats filibustered.

The next was the ICC sanctions bill, and that was another straightforward bill. It would have sanctioned foreign individuals who are involved in International Criminal Court efforts to investigate, arrest, or prosecute U.S. citizens or citizens of U.S. allies that are not party to the ICC or the International Criminal Court.

The bill was a response to the ICC's decision to pursue warrants for Israeli officials, and it was also designed to protect Americans and American soldiers, in particular, who had been targeted by the ICC in the past. But once again, Senate Democrats--with one lone exception-- found themselves incapable of taking a stand.

Now, I am not sure if it was anti-Israel animus or if they were afraid of antagonizing the anti-Israel wing of their party or if they are simply too beholden to Big Tech, which lodged some tenuous concerns about this legislation, but for whatever reason, Democrats filibustered the bill.

In doing so, they not only failed to rebuke the ICC for its illegitimate targeting of Israeli leaders, but they failed to protect U.S. citizens.

The third bill the Democrats filibustered--and filibustered just this past week, I might add--was the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. This legislation was designed to restore the original intent of title IX, which is giving women equal opportunities in education by ensuring that women and girls, and women and girls only, are permitted to play in women's sports at federally funded educational institutions.

The bill, of course, is a response to the growing problem of women's sports being invaded by biological males.

I want to quote for you something from August 2024. This is a United Nations report from just last August, a report from the United Nations on violence against women and girls.

The replacement of the female sports category with a mixed-

sex category has resulted in an increasing number of female

athletes losing opportunities, including medals, when

competing against males. According to information received by

March 30, 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400

competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different

sports.

``[O]ver 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.''

That is a quote out of a United Nations' report on violence against women and girls in August of last year.

It is not even remotely fair. Girls should not be having to compete in races that are stacked against them. Women deserve their own athletic opportunities--opportunities that are not taken away from them by biological males who have their own spaces in which to compete. But try explaining that to Democrats. Democrats like to portray themselves as leading the charge on women's issues, but not one Democrat--not one--could bring himself or herself to vote in support of women and girls. Biological males, not women, got Democrats' support last Monday.

Well, apparently, Democrats' commitment to equal opportunity for women only runs so deep and quickly falls by the wayside when the left demands adherence to some new ideology.

The outcome of the 2024 Presidential election was partially a rebuke of far-left dogmas and ideologies. Apparently, Democrats have learned nothing from that electoral rebuke.

Today, the supposed party of the little guy, the underdog, the disadvantaged, has become a party willing to sacrifice born human beings to abortion extremism and equality for women and girls on the altar of transgender ideology. I have to say it is no wonder the American people rejected them in November of 2024.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up Grassley amendment No. 1237.

Mr. President, I ask that the reading be dispensed with.