[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 44 (Monday, March 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Page S1620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Filibuster

  Mr. THUNE. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.