Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, March 25; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume the House message with respect to S. 1383.

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 Coons and Sanders.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have been debating the SAVE America Act for 7 days now, and what has been made clear in this debate is how out of touch Democrats are with most Americans.

Polls show that the commonsense policies in the SAVE America Act have support from the American people, but Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated they don't share the American people's interest in securing our elections.

And despite Americans' concerns, Democrats continue to embrace transgender ideology that allows men to compete in women's sports and children--children--to undergo irreversible, life-altering gender transition procedures.

At the start of this debate, the Democratic leader had the audacity to say that the SAVE America Act is a ``radical bill.'' ``Radical''-- that is what he said.

Well, what is radical, I would say, about ensuring that only American citizens are voting in American elections? What is radical about asking voters for a photo ID?

And I don't know what world Democrats are living in, where keeping biological men out of women's sports is a radical proposition.

What is radical is men lining up alongside women at the starting line and winning medals and trophies meant for women. What is radical is telling female athletes that they have to share a locker room with a biological male. That is radical.

Now, perhaps what is most radical about Democrats' position is that they seem to have no problem with gender transition procedures for minors. Democrats are more than happy to let transgender ideology reign, even when there is little to no evidence to support gender transition procedures for minors and increasing amounts of scientific evidence about the harms of these procedures for children.

But Democrats ignore the science. They ignore the fact that multiple European nations that have looked at the science have reined in gender transition procedures for minors.

They ignore the stories of Americans who underwent irreversible procedures as minors and have long lived to regret it.

So the SAVE America Act is not radical--radically common sense, maybe--so common sense, in fact, that only congressional Democrats could oppose it.

Mr. President, as debate continues on the SAVE America Act, Republicans are also working to advance two nominees for important posts in the Trump administration.

One of those is Colin McDonald, whom President Trump has nominated to lead the new National Fraud Enforcement Division at the Department of Justice.

Fraud is a serious issue. Last year, it became clear that widespread fraud had taken root in the State of Minnesota. Prosecutors are working through cases and indictments related to at least $9 billion in fraud, impacting 14 federally funded programs in that State alone.

And Minnesota is just the tip of the iceberg. The Government Accountability Office estimates that as much as $500 billion in Federal funds is lost each year to fraud.

Now, needless to say, Mr. McDonald has his work cut out for him; and he is well suited to the challenge.

Colin McDonald is a career Federal prosecutor, which means, for his entire career, he has had only one client, and that is the American people.

Until coming to Washington to work at the Department of Justice, last year, Mr. McDonald spent 10 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of California. In that position, he spent a considerable amount of time trying cases in Federal court, including cases dealing with fraud, money laundering, and public corruption.

And his work has received notable praise. During one case in the Ninth Circuit, the judge actually interrupted proceedings to praise Mr. McDonald. None other than Judge Harry Pregerson, a notably progressive judge, said of Mr. McDonald:

I want to commend you on your candor, your openness, and

your honesty with the Court.

Colin McDonald is well suited to provide justice for American taxpayers in this role, and I look forward to confirming him swiftly so he can get to work.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, it is rare for the Senate to be in session on a Sunday. Needless to say, the fact that we are here today tells you that what we are doing is important work; and that is the SAVE America Act. The core of the SAVE America Act is securing American elections, and a big way the bill accomplishes that is with two commonsense policies: requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and requiring a photo ID when you go to cast a ballot.

Polls show that both measures have support from a vast majority of the American public. In fact, one poll showed that most Americans think you already--already--have to prove you are a citizen in order to register to vote.

Proof of citizenship is a requirement when you apply for government benefits. Proof of citizenship or legal status is required when you go to join the military. And every job in this country requires new hires to fill out a form I-9, proving that they are a citizen or otherwise eligible to work in this country.

If we expect this of Americans in other aspects of their lives, why shouldn't we expect it when Americans go to register to vote? It is just common sense. But under current law, you don't need to prove you are actually eligible to vote when you register.

State efforts to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote have been challenged in court, and courts have said that States cannot go beyond the requirements of the standard Federal voter registration form created by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, a form that does not--does not--require voters to prove that they are American citizens. The SAVE America Act would fix that by requiring that individuals provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

When it comes to showing photo ID at the polls, not only do most Americans support it; 36 States already require it--red States, blue States, swing States. And I suspect that one of the reasons requiring a photo ID seems so common sense to Americans is because showing a photo ID is something the American people have to do for a whole host of other things in their daily lives.

If you drive a car, you need to have a license with you. If you do an early pickup at your kid's school, you need to show a photo ID. If you want to get a library card, you need a photo ID. And, as I pointed out the other day, Washington, DC, requires a photo ID to use a city recreation center. But you can vote--you can vote in DC--perhaps even in that same rec center that requires an ID to play basketball, without showing an ID. That doesn't make any sense.

Republicans aren't asking for much here. We are just asking to make our elections as secure as the local rec center.

Now, while Democrats have long acted as if requiring a photo ID is some sort of intolerable burden to place on voters, since the SAVE America Act debate began, they have spent a lot of time hedging on this issue. In fact, on Tuesday, Leader Schumer announced that Democrats now support voter ID.

And then, on Thursday, the junior Republican Senator from Ohio--the current Presiding Officer and a former chief election official in his State--offered a bill to require photo ID to vote. That is all it would have done, require a photo ID when you go to the polls--driver's license, military ID, Tribal ID, passport. And Democrats--Democrats-- blocked it. And they more than blocked it. Their response was to offer a bill that included, if you can believe this, a nationwide ban on voter ID for absentee ballots.

That is right. Democrats, who now claim to support voter ID, proposed a nationwide ban on voter ID requirements--requirements that already exist in a number of States, including my State of South Dakota.

Well, if that is Democrats supporting voter ID, I would hate to see what them opposing it would look like.

There will be other opportunities in this debate for Democrats to support commonsense voter integrity measures, including--including-- voter ID, and every Democrat will be put on the record for the American people to see.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, the truth eventually will get out. Democrats

have spent the last week or two attempting to hedge on photo ID, to suggest that, in fact, Democrats actually support photo ID, it is just the rest of the SAVE America Act they are concerned about.

So, on Thursday, the junior Republican Senator from Ohio decided to give them an opportunity to do something about it. Not interested in the rest of the SAVE America Act's commonsense proposals? OK, he said, and he offered a clean photo ID bill--no other provisions, just a measure to require showing photo ID at the polls, which could be a driver's license or State ID card, a passport, a military ID, a Tribal

Mr. President, this motion--and when I hear the phrases used like ``no strings attached'' or how ``simple'' this is--there isn't anything that would be more complicated than this.

This is a Schumer motion to suspend the rules to refer the House message--the bill that we are on--to the Rules Committee, which doesn't have jurisdiction over appropriations or spending, and he is trying to call it a vote to fund TSA.

I mean, we have had countless votes to fund TSA. We had one yesterday. We have had countless motions by our side to pass a continuing resolution that funds all of DHS--including TSA--and consistently blocked by this side.

So this is a convoluted--I mean, I don't know how you come up with this. This is very--I will give you credit for coming up with something that is this convoluted. But it doesn't do anything that the leader says it does. It has nothing at all to do with funding TSA.

The opportunity to fund TSA has come and gone multiple times here, when we have had votes here on the floor, including as recently as yesterday; and countless motions, continuing resolutions, to fund all of DHS, including TSA, numerous times, over and over and over again. And our colleagues on the other side have blocked it.

Sure. Sure.

Mr. President, this is not an appropriations bill. The legislation we are on right now, which has to do with whether or not citizens--and only citizens--ought to be able to vote in American elections has nothing to do with funding the government.

We have had countless votes and countless appropriations bills brought in front of this institution, the U.S. Senate, that actually would fund TSA. And we ought to fund TSA. Let's get to work doing it.

And if that group that is meeting can't come up with a solution here pretty quickly, things are going to get worse and worse and worse--and they already are. People at airports--anybody who has gone through an airport lately, they don't see what is happening here as ``serene.'' They see this as a convoluted mess, and that is what is happening across the country if we don't fund the government--DHS--including TSA.

We are all for it. We have tried repeatedly to do it. This has nothing to do with funding TSA. This is a ploy--nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Let's vote.

The tree, I would say to my colleague from New York, has on it right now a vote that we just completed, and there will be other opportunities to vote on other amendments related to the legislation that we are on here today.

But if we want to have--

If you want to have a debate on appropriations, we can have that.

We have made ourselves available. The White House is available. There are meetings going on right now which I hope ultimately lead to a result where we get these Agencies opened up again, including TSA. In order for that to happen, you have to have a willing partner and somebody who is willing to sit down at the table and negotiate with you, which we haven't had until 2 days ago.

Now, hopefully, these discussions will lead to what ultimately will be a result to fund all of these Agencies, including TSA, but that is not what this is about, and you know that.

Mr. President, I will just say, when you talk about doing something quickly, referring it to the Rules Committee, which has no jurisdiction over spending, over appropriations, on a bill that has nothing to do with funding these Agencies--but we are happy--we are happy--we will pivot immediately to fund all these Agencies when you are ready to do it.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this.

Cloture Motion

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 697.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate that I was going to use the word ``commonsense'' a lot, and that is because the SAVE America Act unites a bunch of commonsense policies, the kind of things that are just intuitively obvious--or, at least, they should be--and should be getting 80 to 90 votes, or more, here in the Senate.

I have talked at length this week about commonsense election policies like showing a photo ID at the polls and demonstrating that you are an American citizen, in other words, eligible to vote when you register.

Today, I want to talk about a couple of other commonsense policies in this bill, in this case, not about protecting our elections but about protecting our youth.

In recent years, we have seen men--biological men who identify as

women--take up spaces in athletics meant for actual women and girls. And this is happening across a range of sports: track, swimming, volleyball, basketball, soccer, softball, and the list goes on.

Now, I don't think I really need to tell anyone the problems with that. They are pretty obvious. There is the physical danger, of course, that can be posed to women by men competing in their sports.

But more than that, this is an issue of fairness and equality. At the most basic level, every roster spot that goes to a male is a roster spot that doesn't go to a female. That is a high school girl who has lost out on the chance to play high school sports because a male has taken up her space.

And for those women who are on the roster, the presence of a male on the team can, and frequently does, rob them of opportunities to excel. The simple biological, scientific fact is that men possess physical advantages when it comes to sports, things like greater muscle mass and greater aerobic power. And that means that, by and large, men are likely to dominate in women's sport, taking wins and medal opportunities away from women.

And it is not just about the unfairness of losing out on a place on the podium. Being knocked out of medal contention can mean the loss of things like college scholarships. As one female runner who was robbed of multiple wins by a biological male described the situation, ``it robs girls of the chance to race in front of college scouts who show up for elite meets, and to compete for the scholarships and opportunities that come with college recruitment. I'll never know how my own college recruitment was impacted by losing those four state championship titles to a male. When colleges looked at my record, they didn't see the fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.''

Let me read that again.

When colleges looked at my record, they didn't see the

fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-

place runner.

That is unconscionable, and what is even more unconscionable is that my Democrat colleagues are apparently OK with allowing this to happen.

With the way they talk about themselves as defenders of women's rights, you would think they would be the first--the very first--people up to bat for fairness and equality for female athletes, but they are not.

Last March, the Senate took up the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, legislation to ensure that women--and women only-- participate in women's sports at federally funded educational institutions; and every single one of my Democrat colleagues voted against the bill. Not one Democrat had the courage to say that women's sports are for women.

As the father of two female athletes and grandfather to a granddaughter who started playing sports, I feel pretty passionately about the subject.

I am grateful for the tremendous strides we have made in women's athletic programs over the past half century, and I cannot believe that one half of the U.S. Senate is apparently content to see those gains undermined by allowing men to take up places in sports meant for women.

With the SAVE America Act, Democrats are getting another chance to vote for legislation that would protect women's sports. It would be nice if this time they had the courage to stand up for female athletes.

I wish this were the only issue--the only consequence of radical transgender ideology--that we had to worry about. But as bad as it is for a female athlete to lose out on a college scholarship because her achievements are overshadowed by those of a biological male, the subjection of children to gender transition procedures is even worse.

In recent years, substantial numbers of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria have been prescribed puberty blockers--cross-sex hormones--and, in the most extreme cases, been approved for irreversible surgical procedures that permanently mutilate their bodies. And all of this has been done with little to no scientific evidence to support these dramatic interventions.

The Cass Review--a landmark, comprehensive study on medicine, gender issues, and youth conducted in Great Britain--repeatedly highlights the lack of scientific evidence to support gender transition procedures for minors. And thanks in substantial part to that review, Britain's national science service decided to largely discontinue providing puberty blockers to children.

And Britain is not the only European country that has reined in its provision of gender procedures for minors--Finland, Sweden, and Denmark have also done so. And a New York Times piece notes that there is reason to believe that there are other European countries that may follow suit.

Meanwhile, both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have come out against surgical gender transition procedures for minors, noting the lack of evidence to support their use.

It has become very clear that we simply do not have substantial scientific evidence to suggest that gender transition procedures benefit children. What we do have, however, is scientific knowledge of how dangerous these procedures can be, and the list of side effects is long and serious.

A 2025 report from the Department of Health and Human Services notes that side effects for gender transition procedures can include infertility, loss of bone density, heart disease and metabolic disorders, surgical complications, negative cognitive impacts, psychiatric disorders, and more.

It is unthinkable that we are subjecting children to these dangers before they can have any real understanding of what they are consenting to.

Mr. President, 12- and 13-year-olds cannot understand what it will mean to possibly damage their bones for the long term. And 14- and 15- year-olds are not capable of comprehending what giving up their fertility could mean. That is because they are children. They are still changing and growing and developing, and through no fault of their own, they simply don't have the experience and knowledge to grasp the full magnitude of what they are consenting to.

The Senate has been officially debating the SAVE America Act, which would ban gender transition procedures for minors, since Tuesday; and I have been struck by the near total silence of my Democrat colleagues on this issue during this debate.

Despite their embrace of the extreme sort of radical gender ideology--witness the refusal of even one Democrat to stand up for women in sports--I am not sure I have seen a single Democrat come to the floor to defend gender transition procedures for minors.

Now, they could just be keeping their powder dry for now, but I have to wonder if maybe some Democrats are reluctant to publicly advocate for subjecting children to, in many cases, irreversible medical procedures backed up by little scientific evidence with a whole host of serious, long-term side effects.

Open the 2025 HHS report on gender transition for children, and you come across this horrifying passage:

In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established

as safe and effective in adults before being extended to

pediatric populations. In this case, however, the opposite

occurred: clinician-researchers developed the pediatric

medical transition protocol in response to disappointing

psychosocial outcomes in adults who underwent medical

transition.

I mean, just say that again:

[C]linician-researchers developed the pediatric medical

transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial

outcomes in adults who underwent medical transition.

We have essentially been using children as guinea pigs. It is unconscionable, and it should stop now.

The SAVE America Act will give every Member of this body a chance to take a stand against the abuse of children, and I urge every Member of this body to vote to protect children from further harm.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote from February 24 on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 696.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. President, Americans are pretty used to presenting their photo IDs. These days, you need one for just about everything you do. Driving a car, you better have your license on you. Starting a new job, you will need to show a photo ID. Want to be an emergency snow shoveler in New York City, you need to bring two forms of ID for that. You need a photo ID to open a bank account or visit your doctor. You could be asked for a photo ID before you get on a plane or check into a hotel. You need to have your ID ready to buy an alcoholic drink or to go into an R-rated movie.

So it is safe to say Americans are taking their IDs out on a regular basis and having a pretty easy go of it. Yet, when it comes to voting, Democrats talk like requiring a photo ID is some kind of an insurmountable burden, and that really doesn't make sense. As I said, most Americans are taking out their IDs on a regular basis and for things that are a lot less important than voting.

In the city of Washington, DC, for example, you need to show a photo ID any time you go to use a city rec center. Yes, if you are in a basketball league or trying to swim a few laps in the pool, you need to show an ID here in Washington, DC. But you can vote in this city, perhaps in that very rec center, without showing a photo ID. Now, how does that make any sense?

There is a very clear difference between using a city facility and casting a vote to determine how your city or

Federal Government is run. And, logically speaking, doesn't it make sense that our elections should at least be as secure as the local rec center?

I think so, and the American people seem to think so too. Poll after poll shows that the American people support voter ID. Yet despite years of Democrat fearmongering about the implications of requiring a photo ID to vote, the American people view voter ID as just common sense. North of 80 percent of Americans in a poll last year said they support requiring all voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

An NBC News headline this week reads: ``Most Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. Democrats in Congress reject it.''

Well, that is pretty much it. Requiring a photo ID to vote is something that is so common sense only congressional Democrats could oppose it, and I would really like to know their reasoning.

Of course, Democrats are now hedging, suggesting that they do kind of support voter ID. Well, if they do, it would certainly be news to me. As I said, for years, Democrats have acted like asking for a photo ID would be an intolerable burden to place on voters.

When he was a Senator, Barack Obama opposed a national voter ID amendment, saying that it was an attempt ``to restrict the approach for people voting throughout the country.''

As Vice President and later as President, Joe Biden decried State laws that required voter ID.

And a few years ago--and this one really baffles me--then-Vice President Kamala Harris said:

I don't think that we should underestimate what [voter ID

laws] could mean. Because in some people's mind, that means

you're going to have to Xerox or photocopy your ID to send it

in to prove who you are. Well there are a whole lot of

people, especially people who live in rural communities who

don't--there's no Kinkos, there's no OfficeMax near them.

That was from then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Well, I spend a good amount of time in rural South Dakota, and I am happy to share that people in rural areas do, in fact, have photo IDs and regularly use them, and they would be more than happy to show them at the polls. In fact, under South Dakota law, voters already-- already--have to show a photo ID to cast a ballot.

And the former Vice President will be happy to know that copy machines have also made it to rural America.

Despite Democrats' fearmongering, requiring a photo ID is not some sort of an impossible thing to ask of voters, and I think Democrats actually know this. A photo ID was required to get into the Democratic National Convention in 2024. Vice President Harris required an ID to get into her campaign events. The senior Democrat Senator from Georgia required a photo ID to get into his recent rally.

The other day, the junior Senator from Oregon said that the SAVE America Act is ``about stopping groups from voting who tend to vote for Democrats.''

Well, if that were true, why would Democrats be requiring a photo ID for their voters to get into their campaign events? Needless to say, it is not true.

Requiring a photo ID to vote is just common sense, and it is not that hard. You need a photo ID to see a doctor, stay at a hotel, start a job. It is not too much to ask to require it when you go to vote.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for Senate amendment No. 4421.