[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 52 (Saturday, March 21, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1461-S1465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed--Resumed
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R.
7147.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
SAVE America Act
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the truth eventually will get out.
Democrats
[[Page S1462]]
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.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
S. 1383
Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, today, every Senator must answer a
very simple question: Senator, do you want chaos at our airports to
come down--yes or no, Senator?
Let me repeat the question: Republican Senator, do you want the chaos
at our airports to come down--yes or no? If you have had enough of long
lines, if you want TSA workers to get paid, then vote yes on the motion
I am bringing before the Senate today.
It is unacceptable for workers and travelers and entire airports to
get taken hostage in political games, but that is what the Republicans
are doing. It is unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it
is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms, but that is what
the Republicans have been doing.
Democrats want to pay TSA workers ASAP, with no strings attached. A
``yes'' vote will do that. That is the first time in this Chamber that
we will have an opportunity to vote yes or no on whether you want to
pay TSA workers ASAP, with no strings attached.
Every bill they have brought before the Senate says: Oh, yes, we want
to
[[Page S1463]]
pay the TSA workers, we want to reduce the lines at airports, but only
if you pass ICE funding with no reform.
And the American people want reform. They know that, but you have got
Stephen Miller up there in the White House and so many others who don't
want any reform of ICE, and our Republican Senate friends are willingly
going along with that and holding airports, travelers, and TSA workers
hostage.
We Democrats want to bring down the long lines at the airport, and a
``yes'' vote--plain and simple--would do just that. I urge Republicans
to support my motion.
The chaos at airports has reached a boiling point. People have been
waiting for 2 hours, 3 hours--sometimes more--just to get through
security. One couple in Austin said the lines stretched right out the
door and into the grass outside the airport.
Meanwhile, TSA workers are about to go a full month without pay. That
is unacceptable. It means they cannot pay the rent or the mortgage,
they cannot buy groceries, and they are digging into their savings just
to get by--these hard-working, good people. And at the same time, they
are being asked to work brutal hours.
It is no surprise many of them have been calling in sick. It is not
even a surprise that many are looking for other jobs. They have to
support their families and themselves. We need to bring this to an end
today--today--and that is what we can start doing with a ``yes vote''
on our motion.
As I have said, we have seen a lot of rollcall votes over the past
few weeks on the floor related to DHS funding, and they say they want
to get up and fund TSA. But they want to fund all of DHS--even ICE,
even Border Patrol--with no reform.
This vote today is different from what our colleagues on the other
side have offered. It is a breakthrough because it says: Fund TSA only.
Vote ``fund TSA with no strings attached.''
Republicans, in essence, say they want to reopen all of DHS but only
if there are no changes to ICE and Border Patrol when they vote. That
is not acceptable, not just to us, not just to Democrats but to the
American people.
The American people feel very strongly that ICE's conduct needs to be
reined in. Trump himself, the originator of these horrible ICE goon
squads, has said they have gone too far.
We can't just give ICE a blank check to keep operating without
guardrails, as Republicans have proposed in their previous votes. So,
today, Democrats offer to pay TSA without the anchor of demanding
funding of ICE and CBP without any guardrails, which is what the
Republicans are doing.
We want to open TSA with no strings attached.
Let me repeat: no strings attached.
There is not one bill the Republicans have brought forward that
doesn't have strings attached--strings that don't let it have a
majority vote.
Now, we are having productive conversations on reforming ICE and CBP,
and Democrats remain committed to securing reforms. But that is an
ongoing process. We are meeting today again, but we must fund TSA now.
Let us keep negotiating the outstanding issues with ICE, but let us
start sending paychecks to TSA workers now. Let us bring the long lines
at the airports--let us end the long lines at the airport now. This is
the logical, expedient, correct thing to do.
So in conclusion, I urge my Republican colleagues: Vote yes if you
want to pay TSA. Vote yes if you want to bring down the long lines at
airports. Vote yes today.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
SAVE America Act
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, we are having quite a debate, and I do
believe that the American people are learning quite a bit about the
Democratic Members of the Senate and the Republican Members of the
Senate as we go through this debate on the SAVE America Act.
Now, what we have heard from some of our Democratic colleagues is
showing a voter ID is common sense. I am glad that they have come to
that recognition and that they realize it does make sense that you
would show an ID when you go to vote, that they show an ID many times a
day, whether it is to pick up a prescription at the pharmacy or to
register for Federal benefits or to go to a child's school. Voter ID is
something that makes sense because the American people are accustomed
to verifying to individuals that they are indeed who they claim to be.
But our friends across the aisle, only here in this Chamber, are
saying: Oh, we can't vote for that. Now, 71 percent of all Democrats,
85 percent of all Independents, and over 90 percent of all Republicans
agree voter ID is a good idea.
We also see the same type of numbers when it comes to the other
commonsense provision that if you are going to vote in a U.S. election,
you really ought to be a U.S. citizen. That makes sense to people. They
know that when they travel to other countries they don't vote in those
elections, even if they are there on an election day. But because our
friends across the aisle want to make it easy to cheat, they want to
allow individuals that are illegally in the country or people that are
here on a visa or people that are here as permanent residents or people
that are touring our country to show up at a poll, grab a ballot, give
an address, and cast that ballot because in 12 States in this country
you can vote without showing anything when you go to the polls--just
give them your name and cast that ballot.
Well, quite frankly, the American people think that the right to vote
is precious and that we should defend ``one person, one vote.'' They
look at casting that vote as their duty and their honor. And they are
fully aware that if someone illegally in the country, someone not
entitled to vote, casts a ballot, then it negates their ballot.
So the American people are watching and observing and learning, and
we see that not only are they blaming the Democrats for this latest
shutdown of Homeland Security; they think they have lost their ever-
loving minds that they will not support voter ID and being a citizen of
the Nation in order to cast a vote.
Now, there is another provision that I want to call attention to, and
we are going to vote on this amendment in a few minutes. This is
protecting girls in sports. We know that title IX has opened the doors
for young women and girls to compete in sports.
Now, 50 years ago, when title IX came to be, we only had about
300,000 college and high school female athletes that were competing.
Today, that number is over 3 million. And I know many of us are
watching March Madness and the talented young women that are playing in
this tournament. We love cheering for them. We love watching them excel
and succeed. We love it when we are watching college sports and we see
young women who have come together, who have formed a team, who have
built that camaraderie and know how to compete as a team.
They like that, but obviously our friends across the aisle, who once
upon a time liked to say that they were leading the pack supporting
women, decided they no longer support women; they can't even define the
word ``woman.'' So therefore they are not able to support women, and
therefore they want to tear down title IX, which has opened doors of
opportunity for young women.
Now, thank goodness President Donald Trump has tried to chase away
some of the adverse actions against title IX that were carried out
during the Biden administration, when opportunities for young women and
girls were lost, when women would be forced to share a locker room with
guys because the guy decided he was going to claim to be a female so he
could compete, whether it is track or swimming or volleyball, softball.
The guy couldn't win in the guys' category, so they claimed to be
female so they could take away that opportunity, so they could take
away that trophy, so they could take away the scholarship from young
women.
Actually, I think that is disgusting--absolutely disgusting--but our
friends across the aisle support that. They want to diminish these
opportunities for women. But President Trump said:
[[Page S1464]]
I have had enough of that. He did an Executive order banning men from
competing in women's sports.
Secretary McMahon, who is doing a fabulous job as our Education
Secretary, is investigating educational institutions all across the
country that are violating title IX and are allowing men to compete in
women's sports and thereby take away the opportunities from women.
Thank goodness she is doing that, and thank goodness these institutions
are being held to account for discriminating against these women who
want to compete, who want to be able to do it safely and without being
injured.
In just a few moments, Senator Tuberville and I are going to push to
pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act. We are doing this
as part of the SAVE America Act because it is another of these issues
where you have 80 percent of the American people, 90 percent, 70
percent of the American people who are for this.
What the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act will do is to
codify President Trump's Executive order.
I am asked regularly by Tennesseans: These Executive orders are
great, but when are you going to codify this and put it into law so
that it will have the force of law behind it?
So today, when it comes to protecting women in sports, to making
certain men cannot compete in women's sports; when it comes to
affirming biological reality, we are going to take that vote as the
Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is offered as an amendment.
To my friends across the aisle, I would encourage them: Choose today
to honor women. Choose today to stand with women. Choose today to
support so many young women that absolutely want to be able to compete.
You know, today is a beautiful day in the great State of Tennessee,
which I think is the best place on the face of the Earth to live. It is
a gorgeous spring day. The forsythia is bright yellow and blooming. The
red buds are purple, and they are magnificent. The Sun is shining.
In driveways all across our great State, you have young girls who are
out bouncing that basketball. They are hoping for their shot to play
for Vanderbilt or to be a UT Lady Vol and to make that college team.
They want to be able to compete. They are watching what is happening
with March Madness. They are following women that they have seen
compete on these college teams.
I hope they find it as absolutely disgusting as I do that our
colleagues across the aisle have chosen a course of action. They cannot
define ``woman,'' and they will not defend women. I would encourage
them to change course and vote for the Protection of Girls in Sports
Act.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, it seems like ``Groundhog Day'' in
here to me. I have been here 6 years, and this is the fourth time that
I have had this bill on the floor, and I am still trying. I am going to
continue to try until I am gone. I can't believe this is even an issue,
but nothing, basically, has surprised me since I have been here, the
things we have either voted for or voted against here in this body.
I have come to the floor, as I said, four different times to try to
get the Senate to pass the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.
It is not very complicated. For some reason, we are making it
complicated. Every time we have voted on this, I have not gotten one
single Democrat to vote for it.
I think you can look back at the election this past year in 2024. One
of the main issues that put a majority in here, a majority in the
House, and control over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is because for some
reason, my Democrat colleagues do not want to protect girls and women
in sports. It is ludicrous.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how biological males can be
given the right to take away the rights of young girls--elementary
school, junior high, high school, junior college, 4-year universities,
and even in pro sports. I cannot understand it.
We have women's sports, and we have men's sports, and that is the way
it should be. That is the way it has been up until just a few years
ago.
President Trump has changed that since he took office. He Executive-
ordered that no men participate in women's sports. Here is the deal: We
all know that Executive orders only last a certain amount of time. If
the Democrats take control of the White House, that will change
overnight. Biological men will be allowed to participate in women's
sports
But surely to goodness, everybody in here has daughters or nieces or
granddaughters that love sports--one of the best things this country
has going for it. You are taught teamwork, dedication, work ethic, time
control, organization. You get all those things out of sports.
I did it for 35 years. I have seen people change their lives because
of what sports did to their lives. Sometimes they are not very focused
through a school--whether it is high school, junior college, or a 4-
year university--but if they participate in that and they go through
the grueling practice and meetings and lifting and all the things they
have to do, they learn. They learn how to control their lives. They
learn how to take care of themselves. But for some reason, we don't
want women and girls to have that opportunity. In this body, the
Democratic Party wants biological men to be able to participate.
So what would you say to the volleyball player at San Jose University
who thought that on a road trip, you double up--whether it is men's
sport or women's--you double up in a hotel room before you play the
next day. She did not realize that she was sharing a room and possibly
even a bed with a male. She didn't know he was transgender. She did not
know it. She quit school and did not get her degree because she was
petrified at what she had to go through because of this body right
here. It is ridiculous--absolutely ridiculous.
Female athletes suffer long injuries because of competing against
bigger men. Can we not figure that out? Can we not figure that out?
How about the trophies and awards that are stolen from young girls
and ladies that work all their life to win a game or a sport or win
some kind of award in the sport they are in, and they put all their
dedicated life into that, and they lose to somebody that is much more
physical--bigger, stronger, and faster--because of us in here? Not
anybody else; because of us. Because we won't vote to say: No, they
can't do it. It really makes no sense whatsoever.
But do you know what? The people of this country voted. They voted
their tails out a majority in the House, in the Senate, and the White
House, and one reason was because of no common sense--none. And they
should, and it is going to get them again next year.
If I was a leader over there, I would go: Hey, listen, we are getting
our tails kicked on this. Let's go vote for this and get it over with
because we are going to lose a lot of votes.
Eighty percent of the country believes that men should not play in
women's sports, but, no--they are going stand up for the 20 percent--
the 20 percent crazies that have no clue of what they are doing when
they are voting for men to play in women's sports.
So I appreciate President Trump's Executive order to put life back
into women's sports. And we are not talking about all 18-, 19-, 20-
year-olds; I am talking about 4 or 5 years old--all of women's sports.
So this is an 82-20 issue--common sense. I mean, there is not a lot
of common sense up here because my colleagues on the left a couple
years ago tried to push on the United States that men can have babies.
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? What country do we live in when
we have leaders of this country trying to push an idea that men can
have babies?
We have lost it, and we better get control of it. I think that my
colleagues on the left have really lost touch with reality. Because
why? You would ask yourself why. You go home and think, why would
anybody vote for that?
[[Page S1465]]
And I will tell you why. There is a group of people they are trying
to protect that would vote for their power. They are not voting for
young women. They are not voting for older women. They are voting for
power so they can push this nonsense on you all over this country. And
enough is enough of it. Enough is enough.
So I hope today when we vote on this bill for the fourth time that
men cannot play in women's sports, that when they walk up to vote and
say: No, I am against that, look at the damn camera up there and let
the people see you vote against women in this country to have the same
rights as men when it comes to athletics.
Please do that so we can put your picture on television. Don't vote
for this guy next November because there is no possible way that you
can elect somebody that believes this nonsense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Kansas.
____________________