Floor Statements

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 Grassley.

Mr. President, it is 1 year this week since President Trump signed an Executive order to protect women's and girls' opportunities in sports. The order denied Federal funding to institutions that allow women's sports to be hijacked by biological males.

Well, this is an issue that means a lot to me. Sports are--always have been--a big deal in my family. And I am the proud father of two daughters, both of whom excelled as student athletes, one of whom is in both a high school and college Hall of Fame. One of my granddaughters has started playing soccer and basketball, and I want all of my granddaughters to be able to enjoy the opportunities and benefits that sports offer.

Women's sports have made tremendous strides in the past decades. Once a low--or nonexistent--priority for schools and universities, women's sports today are thriving, thanks, in large part, to title IX, the landmark 1972 legislation that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in education, opening up equal spaces and opportunities for women.

But now women's sports are facing a new challenge: the push to allow biological males to compete in women's sports. Now, let me start by saying that this is a problem my Democrat colleagues and others on the left would like to minimize.

``It is not a big deal'' is the clear message we get from them. Well, it is a big deal. Biological males are taking up places meant for women across a wide variety of sports: basketball, swimming, track, softball, volleyball, soccer, wrestling. And women are losing out as a result.

At the most basic level, I should say, they are losing out on a slot on the team. Every roster place that goes to a male is a roster place that does not--does not--go to a female.

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

And those wins and medal opportunities aren't just chances to excel; for high school students, they can also be the key to 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.''

A 2024 United Nations report on violence against women and girls-- this one focused on sports--had this to say:

Policies implemented by international federations and

national governing bodies, along with national legislation in

some countries, allow males who identify as women to compete

in female sports categories. . . . 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.

Let me just repeat that:

[O]ver 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions

have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.

You cannot allow biological men to compete in women's sports without disadvantaging women. That is just simply a fact. It is also common sense. I have given examples and cited a U.N. report, but most people don't need to know that the idea of biological males taking up space in women's sports is wrong. Polling shows that a huge majority of the American people oppose biological males playing in women's sports.

And last year I gave Members of both parties the chance to take action to uphold the intentions of title IX and to ensure that there are genuine spaces and opportunities for women. The Senate voted on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, legislation from my colleague Senator Tuberville, a former high school girls' basketball coach, to ensure that women, and women only, participate in women's sports at federally funded educational institutions, and every single Democrat opposed the bill.

Every Democrat voted against protecting spaces for women and girls in sports. Not one Member, not one Member of the party that likes to style itself as the champion of women's rights, could bring himself or herself to support women. Transgender ideology won the day, and women took second place.

And so the challenges for women and girls in sports continue. Thanks to this administration's actions, title IX is being enforced and upheld, and women and girls playing sports at federally funded educational institutions are protected.

But thanks to my Democratic colleagues, those protections can be removed or reversed by the next administration. Generations of women have benefited from fair competition and equal opportunity thanks to title IX. Will Democrats spell the end of title IX's achievements?

I hope not.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have nine 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:

Mr. President, with tax filing season underway, the American people are beginning to feel the impact of the working families tax cuts. They are seeing smaller tax bills, bigger refunds, and more money in their pockets. And perhaps one of the biggest boosts from this law is for the hard-working Americans who will now be able to deduct tips and overtime pay from their taxes.

That is right. Thanks to the working families tax cuts millions of Americans who earn tips and work overtime will see tax relief on that income and save hundreds of dollars on their taxes. Six million Americans claimed tips on their taxes last year, and it is fair to say that for many of these hard-working people, no tax on tips is a game changer.

Tyler, who is a waiter in Nevada, said:

It will be nice to be able, instead of saving for taxes, to

be saving for our future.

And he is not alone. Cora, who works at a restaurant in Iowa, echoed that. She said:

In the service industry, too, you're always constantly

worried about what that end of the year number is going to be

. . . now with this we . . . have some relief with that too.

We are not talking about an inconsequential sum of money. A waitress in California said she owed $900 in taxes last year.

And Americans who earn tips already have plans where to put their tax savings. Some are planning to put it into

their education and savings, toward groceries and rent, or as one mother in Michigan said, toward raising her four kids.

Because of the working families tax cuts, when someone puts their tips in their pocket at the end of their shift, their money stays in their pocket.

Republicans' landmark tax relief bill also created the new deduction for overtime pay. Overtime is a significant part of a lot of Americans' incomes: police officers, firefighters, paramedics, nurses, manufacturing workers, and tradespeople. But up until now, the impact of those extra hours and extra wages was muted by taxes--no longer. Now these hard-working Americans will be able to keep more of the money they earn when they spend extra hours away from their loved one, often doing very challenging jobs.

This is especially true for nurses and other healthcare workers for whom overtime is a routine part of their week. One nurse in California said:

Nurses are now asking for overtime, thanks to the no tax on

overtime provision.

Whether it is more money for a vacation, for education, or for just paying for day-to-day expenses, the working family tax cuts is a game changer for a lot of Americans. And no tax on tips and overtime is on top of permanently lower tax rates, a higher standard deduction, a $2,000 tax credit, and so much more. It all adds up to hard-working Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money to spend, invest, and save how they see fit.

Despite all that the working families tax cuts does for middle-income Americans, Democrats are once again peddling the lie that this bill is about tax breaks for billionaires. That obviously is very far from the truth. I have talked about some of the people who are benefiting from this bill today. Not a single one of them is a billionaire. They are not millionaires either. In fact, a lot of the people who are benefitting from the working families tax cuts live paycheck to paycheck. They work every day to have enough money to pay the bills, support their families, and maybe put something away for the future.

That is who Republicans had in mind when we wrote this bill, and that is who is benefiting.

Democrats can say what they want, but the American people are seeing the benefits from this bill with their own eyes.

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 ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, all cloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Peterson nomination at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow; further, that the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen following disposition of the Peterson nomination; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Benton nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session of the Senate, 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, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 613.

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

Mr. President, I have six 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:

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar, under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, on Friday, the Senate passed five of the remaining six appropriations bills: Defense appropriations; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; Financial Services and General Government; Labor-Health and Human Services; Education; and National Security and Department of State--in all, five appropriations bills that fund all of those various programs and Agencies.

It has been a long road to get here, with the process most notably interrupted by the Democrats' 43-day shutdown in the fall. But I am proud to be able to say that the Senate has passed 11 full-year appropriations bills.

When I became leader, I made it very clear that I wanted a return to regular order consideration of appropriations bills.

Too many times the Senate has resorted to long-term continuing resolutions in omnibus bills written behind closed doors. That is not how I wanted to do things, and I am proud that, despite some hiccups along the way, we have returned the lead to the committees and have now considered 11 of the 12 individual bills on the Senate floor.

The advantages of a Member-driven process are myriad. First and foremost, it empowers Senators of both parties to make their voices and the voices of their constituents heard, and it provides for genuinely serious consideration of spending priorities.

This year's appropriations bills together spend less than if we had simply extended current spending levels under a continuing resolution. We are saving taxpayer dollars by doing full-year appropriations bills.

We are also supporting our national defense. Endless continuing resolutions aren't good for any part of the government, but they are especially dangerous for our military readiness.

Under CRs--or continuing resolutions--the military can be prevented from starting essential new projects. Current projects can face delays and cost overruns, and the appropriate resources may not always be available for operations.

Funding the military through the yearly Defense appropriation bill instead of through CRs is essential, and I am very pleased that we passed the full-year bill on Friday.

Before I close, I want to extend my gratitude to Appropriations Committee Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray and all the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for their tireless work this year.

Appropriations work is demanding, and I appreciate all they have done to make it possible for us to pass 11 of the 12 fiscal year 2026 bills.

Now, on that 12th bill, we had a bipartisan agreement on the Homeland Security appropriations bill that included funding for deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as body cams for ICE officers.

Nevertheless, Republicans agreed to Democrats' request for additional time to allow for additional consideration of this bill before final passage, but any conversation--any conversation--has to include a discussion of how to make it safer for our Federal law enforcement agents to effectively carry out their duties.

We need to address not only issues like increased training for ICE officers but things like preventing the constant harassment--and worse--that officers have faced for simply trying to do their jobs.

The President's border czar Tom Homan recently traveled to Minneapolis at the President's request, and his efforts have gone a long way to restoring order in that city and ensuring immigration operations can be carried out safely.

One thing he is trying to accomplish is increased cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE. That is another thing the Democrats should be willing to address in the coming days.

It is notable how much more peaceful things have been in cities where local law enforcement has been authorized to cooperate with ICE. It is time to bring an end to the dangerous practice of local jurisdictions refusing to cooperate with Federal law enforcement.

So I hope there will be a set of issues like those that Senate Democrats and the administration can find consensus around. But one thing is clear, if the Democrats' goal is simply to make it harder to detain and deport dangerous illegal aliens, then they will find no interest on this side of the aisle. I hope that is not the case because the stakes are high.

Republicans provided for ICE enforcement in the Working Families Tax Cuts, but the Homeland Security bill funds a number of other critical Agencies, including the TSA, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Agencies that we cannot leave behind. We need to give these Agencies the security of a full-year funding bill without delay.

I, once again, thank Senate appropriators for helping us to get to this point, and I look forward to finishing our 2026 appropriations work in the coming days.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 609.

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.