John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11; 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 motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out on Friday. Over the weekend, the Trump administration and congressional Democrats engaged in meaningful talks on a path forward. Democrats have made their demands known in detail. Some of them are positive starting points for further discussion or are nonstarters and unnecessarily tie the hands of law enforcement. In the coming days, the administration and Democrats will need to work out their differences. I expect that the Trump administration, with the full backing of congressional Republicans, will continue to resist any effort to make it harder for law enforcement to detain and deport dangerous illegal aliens, which is what many of the Democrats' demands would do. I expect that the administration--again, with the backing of Republicans here in Congress--will insist on reforms of its own. I expect that those will include changes aimed at protecting Federal law enforcement officers, who are increasingly under threat from an organized and well-funded campaign to undermine immigration enforcement efforts. Equally important is addressing the cooperation--or the lack thereof--between local and Federal law enforcement. Too many jurisdictions prohibit local police from cooperating with immigration enforcement--a policy that not only defies common sense but makes things more dangerous for everyone. So I hope my Democrat colleagues are prepared to talk about these and other issues. As in any good-faith negotiation, there will be some back and forth. We have already seen the Trump administration act in good faith. Last week, Tom Homan announced an agreement to draw down 700 Federal agents in Minnesota--something made possible thanks to increased cooperation from local law enforcement. The Trump administration has already said it will deploy body cameras to all officers deployed in Minneapolis. And, as I have mentioned before, Republicans previously agreed to provide additional money for body cameras and deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in a bipartisan, full-year Homeland Security bill, but Democrats reneged on that deal. Going forward, it is my hope that Democrats will work constructively and honor their commitments because Republicans are serious about getting this funding bill done. That is one of the reasons we wanted to provide more time for negotiations. We are just a few days away from a deadline that Democrats chose, and it is very possible we won't have our work finished by then. If Democrats are serious about finding a solution here, they may need to find more time to bring these efforts to a productive conclusion. A government shutdown--even one that affects just one Agency--is not in anybody's interest, least of all in that of the hard-working Americans who staff these Agencies and the American people who depend on their important work. As Roll Call reported, the Coast Guard is awaiting funding ``for new cutter and icebreaker ships, plus new helicopters and drones, not to mention higher spending on day-to-day missions'' in a full-year bill. DHS oversees cyber security missions that, if not fully funded, would leave America vulnerable to a cyber attack. FEMA is a DHS Agency, and it needs certainty to be able to both prepare for and respond to natural disasters. Then there is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which provides instruction for Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officers, not to mention for our own Capitol Police. I could go on about the important work that falls under the Department of Homeland Security and the need to pass a full-year bill to fund the entire Department, but I will leave it here. We need to keep working toward a solution, and if it is going to take longer than a few days, we need to provide the time necessary to finish the job. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have 1 week and 1 day left to pass the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Democrats demanded a tight timeline for the DHS continuing resolution. Republicans warned Democrats repeatedly that such a short timeline would be challenging, if not impossible, but to prevent Democrats from shutting down a big part of the government and denying paychecks to soldiers and Federal workers, we ultimately gave it to them. Now the onus is on Democrats to negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement quickly. Notice I said ``negotiate.'' This is not a blank- check situation where Republicans just agree to a list of Democrat demands. Democrats had previously agreed to a Homeland Security appropriations bill which included additional money for body cameras as well as deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and additional oversight of funds that have already been appropriated to DHS. Those were all things that were agreed upon when that bill was initially negotiated and supported by Democrats in the House and Senate. Well, now they have reopened negotiations, and that means taking up ideas and priorities from both sides. We need to have a serious discussion about the climate of harassment--and worse--that law enforcement officers have been facing for simply trying to do their jobs. We also need to address the issue of cooperation between local and Federal law enforcement. Too many jurisdictions prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a situation that makes things more dangerous for everyone. The President's border czar Tom Homan yesterday announced that the Department of Homeland Security will be withdrawing 700 Federal agents from Minnesota, in large part, because of cooperation from local law enforcement. So I hope my Democrat colleagues are ready to have some conversations with the White House about these and other issues. The White House has demonstrated that it is taking things seriously, and it has already resulted in body cams for all officers deployed to Minneapolis and, as I said, the drawdown of Federal agents thanks to the increased cooperation with local law enforcement that Tom Homan has facilitated. I want to see my Democrat colleagues take things seriously as well. I would also like to remind Democrats that they are putting funding for some critical Federal Agencies in jeopardy. TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center are all funded by the DHS appropriations bill. I think all Americans remember the travel disaster Democrats created by shutting down the government for 43 days last fall. Should Democrats fail to agree to a DHS funding bill and shut down the TSA as a result, there is a very good chance we could see more travel problems. I would also like to remind my Democrat colleagues that the only way to get any reforms at ICE is to agree to a bill. A CR would not include any of the reforms already included, as I said earlier, in the DHS bill, which they helped negotiate and supported before they changed their mind and didn't support it. And a CR certainly wouldn't include any new reforms. The Democrat leader was complaining about the announcement about body cams for Federal officers in Minneapolis, asking why it wasn't for the whole country. Well, I would like to remind him that the DHS bill we negotiated already includes money for additional body cams--somewhere on the order of $20 million for additional body cameras. The Democrat leader also complained he doesn't trust the administration's reforms and that we need a law. Well, getting a law is well within the Democrats' power, but, again, Democrats have to be willing to actually reach an agreement. If they are coming to the table demanding a blank check or refusing to consider any measures but their own, they are likely to end up with nothing, which is fine if Democrats just want a political issue. But if they actually want to do something, then, again, they are going to have to be willing to reach agreement with the White House on a final bill. One week and one day more, that is the timeline that the Democrats demanded, and I say ``demanded'' and actually got. They were granted. After having negotiated a six-bill package, which included the DHS appropriations bill, they decided, no, we are not going to do that. People want to blame the White House. They want to blame Republicans. Republicans had nothing to do with that. It passed the House, the six- bill package, including the DHS appropriations bill, with 341 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives. Almost 80 percent of the entire House had cleared the DHS appropriations bill that was included in the package that the Senate was going to vote on that the House had already passed. And then it came over here, and the Democrats decided to blow it up. All of a sudden, the bill that they helped negotiate and write and be a part of, which included all the reforms that I mentioned--deescalation training, body cameras--all those things were included in the bill that they said they didn't then want to pass. So they wanted a separate discussion about those issues and demanded that if we didn't give them that, they weren't going to vote for the package. And so they got what they wanted. And then we had a debate about how long should the CR go for to allow the sides to come together behind an agreement. And I suggested--our side suggested--that perhaps 6 weeks would be a sufficient amount of time to have an earnest negotiation with all the parties at the table and then time to execute actually passing whatever is agreed upon across the floor of the House and the Senate and getting it on the President's desk. The Democrats demanded a 2-week CR or they wouldn't vote for the package. And so they got what they wanted, which is a 2-week continuing resolution to fund the Department of Homeland Security and the other things I mentioned--FEMA, TSA, Coast Guard, all those things--for 2 weeks. And yet they haven't appeared yet to want to negotiate on all the things that they are demanding. They put out a list of demands yesterday. Our team, our folks, have tried to get with them to sit down at the table and with the White House to reach an agreement that would enable the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill to actually be passed here in the Senate and the House and sent to the President. But that is not, right now, even in the realm of possibility because they are not engaging. We have got a now 1 week and 1 day timeline in which to do this, which is entirely unrealistic and a Democrat Party, both in the House and the Senate, which seems a lot less interested in getting a solution to this than they do in having a political issue. If, for some reason, the Department of Homeland Security ends up in a shutdown, it is going to be totally on them. They will own it. We have tried repeatedly, they have agreed repeatedly, before they decided not to agree and to demand something else, which they also got. But as of right now, we aren't anywhere close to having any sort of an agreement that would enable us to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and so I would hope that the Democrats will come to the table. The timeline that they asked for has been granted, and I hope that they are finally ready to get this done. It is important for the American people. All of these Agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees disasters in this country--we have a number of weather-related disasters in this country that are going to require the able attention of FEMA--a lot of important Agencies that won't get funded if they remain in this posture of resisting anything that doesn't give them all of their demands. But worse yet, not only insisting on all the demands, most of which are, as they know, very unrealistic and unserious, but perhaps even more important than that, at least as of right now, they are not willing to engage in a negotiation and discussion to try and reach a result. I hope that changes. I want to get this done. We want to get this done. I hope that there are Democrats who also want to get this done, and I know the President of the United States is prepared to sign a bill once these negotiations get underway and reach an agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 608.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 646 and all the nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up 10 minutes each.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have three 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration S. Res. 600, submitted earlier today.

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Con. Res. 25.

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m., Monday, February 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour deemed expired time, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motion with respect to Calendar No. 608, Daniel Burrows, ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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: