-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. 311, H.R. 7147.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. 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 ID.

And Democrats--Democrats, the party that the Democrat leader said does not object to photo ID--well, Democrats blocked it.

So, as it turns out, Democrats support photo ID for voters, just as long as you don't actually ask them to support a photo ID bill. They want to have their cake and eat it, too; shield themselves from criticism, since polls show Americans overwhelmingly support photo ID for voters, but also save themselves from having to back up their words with actions.

I am still waiting for Democrats to come down to the floor and to call out requirements to show photo ID to board a plane. I am still waiting for them to attack doctor's offices and hotels and movie theaters and banks for requiring photo ID.

I am still waiting for Democrats to explain why it is perfectly logical for them to demand photo ID for their own rallies and yet oppose photo ID at the polls.

Is voting the one thing the Democrats don't think should be taken seriously? Do they think voting is so trivial that it really doesn't matter if those coming to vote are who they say they are? Well, I would like to know.

Democrats may have rejected a commonsense photo ID measure on Thursday, but they will have another chance to support common sense today when the Senate votes on an amendment to protect women's sports from being highjacked by men.

Over the past few years around the country we have seen men-- biological men who identify as women--take up spaces and medals in athletics meant for actual women, and this is happening across a range of sports: swimming, softball, volleyball, basketball, tennis, and the list goes on.

Needless to say, men have inherent biological advantages when it comes to sports, things like greater muscle mass, greater aerobic power. That is just a simple scientific fact.

And those biological advantages mean that men are likely to dominate in women's sports, taking medals and opportunities that should belong to women.

One female runner had this to say:

Twenty-seven times during my high school career, all four years, I had to return to the line and settle into blocks next to first one, then two biologically male athletes to run a race that everyone knew wasn't fair. I lost podium spots, awards, recognition, and four state championship titles during my junior year--the time when it was most crucial for college recruitment. . . . My teammates and I watched those two athletes dominate the girls' events. They won 15 women's state championship titles--titles that were held by nine different girls in 2016--set new . . . individual meet records, and eliminated girls from advancement opportunities more than 85 times.

They won 15 women's state championship titles . . . and eliminated girls from advancement opportunities more than 85 times.

And that was the effect of just two male athletes in women's track in just one State, and this is happening across the country and in a wide range of women's sports.

I want to know: Are my Democrat colleagues OK with this? Are they OK with two biological males eliminating girls from advancement opportunities more than 85 times?

Are they OK with the fact that, as the U.N. reported in 2024, ``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 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports''?

Are Democrats OK with that? They think that is fair? They think women's opportunities to excel should be taken from them by biological males? I want to know.

Are Democrats willing to abandon decades of progress in women's sports the minute the transgender lobby comes calling? Well, I guess we will see today. Do Democrats stand with women or will they continue to sacrifice fairness and equality at the altar of radical transgender ideology? Department of Homeland Security

Mr. President, the situation at U.S. airports continues to worsen thanks to Democrat's refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Thousands of Homeland Security employees have been working without pay for more than a month.

The problems of having an unfunded Homeland Security Department continue to multiply. And Democrats, well, they just seem to shrug. I guess the Democrats' 43-day full government shutdown from earlier this fiscal year ought to have made it clear that Democrats are happy to deprive government workers of their salaries if it serves their political ends.

But I still marvel at the fact that Democrats have been willing to deprive some government employees of pay for almost--almost--80 days now over the course of less than 6 months, to say nothing of their willingness to defund law enforcement and jeopardize national security.

Thirty-six days, the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down now. The White House has offered a substantial number of reforms to Democrats, but Democrats have yet to move a step off their original list of demands, and I hope that will change. So far, the concept of negotiation--which involves compromise and give-and-take--seems utterly lost to them.

Or perhaps it is simply that Democrats don't want a solution here. After all, if they get reforms, like many of the reforms the White House has offered, Democrats might not be able to use this as a campaign issue, and I strongly suspect that Democrats are less interested in fixing problems than they are at having issues that they can use in the November election.

Of course, I would caution them that their renewed commitment to defunding law enforcement may not play as well as they think it will. Democrats had to dial back on their hostility to law enforcement once before for political reasons. It turns out that defunding the police and defunding law enforcement isn't such a popular issue after all. So, perhaps, they ought to think twice before making defunding law enforcement and Homeland Security their signature issue this November.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source