Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled on its 90th anniversary. The National Library Service, or NLS, is an important part of the Library of Congress, an institution that has long been committed to serving readers with disabilities. The concept of a national library for the blind was introduced in 1897 by the seventh Librarian of Congress, John Russell Young, who established a reading room for the blind that included more than 500 books and music items in raised characters. In 1913, Congress began to require that one copy of each book be made in raised characters and deposited in the Library of Congress for educational use; however, as impressive as this collection was, it was only available to people who were able to visit in person. In 1930, legislation was introduced in both the House and the Senate to fund a Library of Congress program to provide service to blind readers on a national scale. This led to passage of the Pratt-Smoot Act which, on March 3, 1931, established what we now know as the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled. The act has been amended several times, not only increasing funding for the program, but also expanding service to children and people with physical and reading disabilities and adding what is now the world's largest accessible music materials collection. Missouri has wonderful local libraries that play a key role in connecting the NLS program to my constituents across the State. NLS and the Wolfner Talking Book and Braille Library serve nearly 6,500 individuals and more than 600 intuitions in Missouri, providing daily access to all the incredible resources NLS has to offer. NLS is continuing its innovative and adaptive approach to serving Americans with disabilities. NLS has a vibrant history that spans phonograph records, cassette tapes, flash memory cartridges, and the internet, all while continuing to supply hardcopy and digital braille materials. With its modernization efforts underway, NLS no doubt has a very exciting future ahead. Today, it is my pleasure to congratulate NLS on its 90th anniversary. I wish the wonderful staff at NLS continued success as they work to ensure the NLS mission ``that all may read.''

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, on January 20, the world watched as we inaugurated the 46th President of the United States on the west front of the Capitol, as we have done now for the last four decades. But this was the 59th time in our Nation's history that we have gathered to witness one of what has really become one of our most iconic and sacred ceremonies. I described it that day, as President Reagan did 40 years earlier, as ``commonplace and miraculous.'' Commonplace because we have done it every 4 years since 1789; miraculous because we have done it every 4 years since 1789. This is the second time I have had the privilege to serve as the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies or, as it is normally known, JCCIC, and that is how I will refer to it in the rest of these remarks. Senator Klobuchar, the ranking member at that time on the Rules Committee, was a big part of helping with that, as were the other four members of that committee. In a normal year, organizing an inauguration is a major undertaking, but when you add a pandemic and then you add the events of January 6, it is uniquely challenging. Without a doubt, this was an inauguration of twists and turns, where adaptability, creativity, and determination were crucial. Today, I am here on the floor to thank the staff, the partners, and the volunteers who met those challenges and made this year's inauguration a success. As I mentioned earlier, the two factors that posed the greatest challenges this year were the pandemic and security. In order to keep the inauguration from becoming a superspreader event, we consulted with public health authorities at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Cleveland Clinic. We engaged experts from the National Football League, the Major League Baseball, NASCAR, the National Hockey League, Disney, Ardian Group, and CLEAR about pandemic protocols and technology that relates to them. We were in regular consultation with the Office of the Attending Physician, particularly Dr. Monahan and his chief of staff, Keith Pray. And we relied on support from the Defense Health Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services' COVID-19 Joint Command Cell. Testing was required for all attendees, and over 7,000 tests were administered at two sites, one in the Capitol and one in the Pentagon. Masks were required to be worn by all attendees. Graciously, Ford Motor Company produced a significant quantity of masks, truly a first for this or any inauguration, and we are grateful to them, and 3M provided some specialized masks for the limited indoor activities that we had. The health and safety measures put together really created significant logistical challenges. All of this couldn't have been done without the leadership of Robin Mangan, our director of operations for that health activity and that testing activity. Her team, Dr. Alex Lazar, who was on sabbatical from MD Anderson; Jordan Wilson was with us from Rob Wittman's office; Shannon Ryder, detailed from the Capitol Police Office of Emergency Management to help with that part of what we did. Security is always the foremost consideration for an inauguration. It is a time of great exposure, frankly, for our democracy and our Nation's leaders. And, as I said earlier, just 2 weeks earlier, the inaugural platform itself had been stormed and damaged. The officers who fought valiantly that day to protect the Capitol were also in charge, 2 weeks later, with keeping the inauguration safe. And while carrying the burden of the events of January 6, the U.S. Capitol Police officers, with the assistance of the National Guard, ensured that the inauguration was secure and that the events of the day would occur without interruption. Our committee's Capitol Police liaison, Lieutenant Jillian Jeffers, seamlessl coordinated the work of the JCCIC and the department's Inaugural Task Force. I want to thank Lieutenant Jeffers, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the Inaugural Task Force, along with the National Guard, and the entire Executive Steering Committee, and law enforcement elements of this National Special Security Event for maintaining the security of the Capitol Complex during the inauguration. Because COVID significantly limited in-person participation, we had to put a particular emphasis on ensuring that people at home could also experience the inauguration. I believe we succeeded. Viewers of the 59th Inaugural Ceremonies totaled more than 108 million people. The enhanced viewing experience provided by JCCIC was viewed by more than 75 million people across social media platforms and the committee's website. This was more than double--surprising to me, at least--the viewership of the traditional national television news broadcast, which tallied about 33.8 million people. In addition, the JCCIC was able to generate 5.2 million individual impressions on Twitter, making it one of the bigger Twitter events ever. One of the most well-received aspects of the JCCIC production was the narration provided by two Capitol Visitor Center guides, Janet Clemens and Ronn Jackson, who described the various events through the day, offering viewers a behind-the-scenes experience that only somebody who spent day after day totally understanding the Capitol Building could have done. We appreciate the technical expertise and the creative insights offered us by industry professionals, like Gorilla Flicks and Razor Management, Showcall, Castle Technologies, and TRI Leadership Resources. All of those groups came together to help give us advice and assistance. I want to especially thank Paige Waltz, the JCCIC's communications director. Paige was on loan from Senator Romney, and her vigorous efforts to overhaul the JCCIC brand and the website and to realize innovative ways to make our ceremonies more inclusive for Americans and viewers around the world really paid off on inaugural day. I think we can all agree that Paige and her team--Spring Binsted, Corinna Schutte, Channing Foster, and Matthew Mondello--outshined any expectations anybody would have had for what we were able to get across in this different kind of Inauguration Day. There was much to be seen on what we call ``I-Day,'' as the staff called it, and there is so much that we didn't get a chance to see. The staff worked tirelessly in the background. That is the work we didn't see--the months for some, weeks for others--to make the inaugural presentation seem like it was basically effortless, even though there was incredible effort. Jen Jett, on loan from Senator Wicker's office, was our director of administration and kept a master timeline, a lengthy document and intricate task that allowed the President to be sworn in before noon, as required by the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. We all watched President Biden take the oath of office at 11:48. Jen was ably assisted by Abby Stahl, who was the first to greet you when you called or visited the JCCIC offices, as we made preparations for this inauguration. Todd Beyer, our director of advance, made certain we all knew where to be and when to be there through all the ceremonies of the day. Jackson Blodgett skillfully supported those advanced efforts and facilitated an immense undertaking of credentialed access. Grace Higgins, hired to support our alternative plans for inclement weather, instead became responsible for successfully managing a complex technical solution and the integration of elaborate health screening processes to ensure everyone's health safety. Sam Burke, most recently a Marine Corps Senate liaison officer, served as the JCCIC's operation manager and military liaison, where he worked closely with the joint task force officials from the military district of Washington, who also played an incredibly instrumental role on that day. Martha Scott Poindexter, now the Republican staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee, served as our director of member services and ticketed and was responsible for assisting Senators, Representatives, Governors, foreign dignitaries, former Presidents, and former Members, frankly, as only she can, through the complexities of participating in this year's ceremonies. Volunteers manager, Molly Harris Stevens, who was on loan from Representative Stauber, and Vincent Brown, on loan from Senator Klobuchar's Rules staff, recruited and managed 278 essential volunteers over months of unacknowledged tasks. Molly also helped design and implement a brandnew and seamless integration of our health and security operation, fielded by our volunteers. Without the volunteers, an inauguration would not be able to be carried out. We want to thank each of them, and the names of each of them I would like to be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that those names be printed in the Record

Mr. BLUNT. While the JCCIC had to make the difficult decision to forgo a traditional congressional luncheon this year, we are grateful to partners like Korbel, Lenox, and the Smithsonian American Art Museum for working so closely with us on planning. Emily Kearney, the first person hired by the JCCIC, who early on worked with our partners at the Government Printing Office to design the tickets, invitations, and programs, is certainly to be commended for her work and to later coordinate and maintain the tradition of gifts presented to the President and Vice President in the Capitol Rotunda. Lauren McBride, detailed from the House Sergeant at Arms to manage our exercises and rehearsals, expertly led our JCCIC team and core partners through a series of new ways to prepare for inclement weather, and she directed the massive undertaking of the dress rehearsal. There is also a small group of dedicated staff who returned to support inauguration after inauguration: Celeste Gold, from Senator Romney's office; Michelle Reinshuttle, from the House Appropriations Committee; Tim Mitrovich from the Senate Sergeant at Arms returned to the JCCIC and once again loaned their experience to benefit the ceremonies. Special thanks to Jen Daulby and Tim Monahan, the Republican staff director and deputy staff director, respectively, of the Committee on House Administration, for their assistance in the inauguration's performers and program participants. I also want to thank the JCCIC staff representatives of our committee members, my personal staff, and my Rules Committee staff, who, in addition to their normal duties, were also able to lend their considerable talents and expertise to the JCCIC. I especially want to thank Rules Committee staff Fitz Elder, who served as the dedicated staff director of the JCCIC, overcame the extraordinary challenges presented to the committee, and was undeniably paramount in the ultimate success of the ceremonies; Rachelle Schroeder, deputy staff director; Jackie Barber, chief counsel; Cindy Qualley, chief clerk; and James Ferenc, director of information technology. Cami Morrison, the deputy inaugural coordinator, was once again responsible for the organization of the Presidential platform. She seated every single person in attendance and made certain we were 6 feet apart or sitting right by somebody whom we sit by all the time. I am thankful for her tireless efforts, patriotic heart, and inaugural expertise. This was Cami's fifth inauguration on the JCCIC staff. Maria Lohmeyer, chief of inaugural ceremonies--this is the second inauguration that I have asked Maria to take responsibility for, and she helped once again to plan and execute this in a way that I am very grateful for. I am glad she did it the first time and even more pleased she was willing to come back and do it again. Right before she joined us with JCCIC, she had been deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as part of her duties in the Navy Reserve. Maria, ever the determined professional, developed a plan and then another plan and then another plan and then another plan. She built a staff and a positive culture in a really challenging time. She exceeded expectations and with determination made certain that democracy prevailed on January 20. Finally, I want to thank the Office of the House Chief Administrative Officer; the Appropriations Committee and especially the Legislative Branch Subcommittee clerks, Jessica Berry and Lucas Agnew; Julie Adams and many of the behind-the-scenes staff in the Office of the Senate Secretary, especially Sydney Butler, Senator Curator Melinda Smith, and Senate Historians Betty Koed and Beth Hahn; and Clerk of the House Cheryl Johnson for lending the technical expertise of her communication editorial staff, Catherine Cooke and January Layman-Wood. I want to thank Architect of the Capitol Brett Blanton and his staff, who not only had to build a platform and put in a sound system, but they had to repair that platform and replace the sound system; from Brett Blanton's staff, in particular Mark Reed, Jason McIntyre, Raynell Bennett, and Dwayne Thomas. I thank Acting House Sergeant at Arms Tim Blodgett and his staff, especially Ted Daniel and Davita Jones, and Acting Senate Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway and her staff, especially Becky Schaaf and Carly Flick. I also want to thank Acting Chief Pittman of the U.S. Capitol Police and in that case especially Inspector John Erickson, who commanded the ITF and took personal responsibility to safeguard our JCCIC staff. On January 20, 2021, the world witnessed the 59th inaugural ceremonies--``Our Determined Democracy: Forging a More Perfect Union''--as a periodic event that has really become, as I said earlier, both commonplace and miraculous. The inaugural ceremonies are not only a hallmark of American governance and democracy but also fulfill our constitutional duty and give assurance of our unbroken commitment to continuity, perseverance, and democracy. With great thanks to everybody mentioned and with tremendous cooperation from Members of the House and Senate, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, a year ago, schools began to close due to the coronavirus. Teachers quickly scrambled to try to figure out how they were going to teach kids who weren't there. They set up virtual classrooms on the internet. Parents started googling activities to keep their children motivated and active, but they didn't start that a year ago. They started 11 months ago. It didn't take long to figure out that kids at home are different than kids at school. And even before that, many parents had to start accommodating their schedule to try to figure out how they were going to deal with this new and unanticipated schedule. Congress stepped up. On multiple occasions, we passed emergency legislation to get money to schools to clean classrooms, to buy laptops for students, and to do almost anything else that schools thought they might need at the elementary and secondary level. But what started as what I believe everybody thought was a stopgap--certainly no longer than until the weather got hot in the summertime as we finished up the last school year--has become, in many places, permanent, full time now, where students for a year have not been in school. That is despite a lot of widespread consensus that both scientists and medical experts think that kids can be back in the classroom. The science on studying and learning is also clear that when schools are closed, students suffer. There have been a lot of studies to show that prolonged remote learning puts kids at higher risk for falling behind, for failing classes, for suffering from mental health problems, and, in many cases, just deciding not to show up. And, you know, the one thing about virtual is it is pretty easy to not virtually be there as well. The risks on all those areas--the mental health problems, the falling behind, the failing grades--are even greater for students with disabilities or for minorities or people who live in generally underserved areas. A study by McKinsey looked at the toll prolonged remote learning has taken on students. It estimated that when it comes to mathematics, students, on average, are likely to lose 5 to 9 months of learning by the end of this school year. It said that students of color--this is according to McKinsey--could be 6 to 12 months behind at the end of this school year. Think about that. One year of remote learning could leave students 1 year behind where they should be in math if you look at these expert studies. In addition to the academic damage, remote learning has led to an increase in mental health challenges facing students. A report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that mental health problems accounted for a growing proportion of students' visits to hospital emergency rooms. Visits were up 31 percent for kids between ages 12 and 17 and 24 percent for kids between ages 5 and 11, and according to the CDC, many of those visits are based on a mental health challenge rather than some other kind of health challenge. The risk of keeping kids at home are significant. What is worse, they are unnecessary by the growing number of people who are looking at this. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who is the head of CDC, recently appointed by President Biden--she began her work there on January 21--talked about what we should do earlier this month. She said that there was ``increasing data''--``increasing data that schools can safely reopen.'' That ends the quote, but she went on to say, even if teachers aren't vaccinated for the virus. Anthony Fauci--Dr. Fauci echoed that point. He said: ``I would back the CDC recommendation because that is really based on data . . . we need to try and get the children back to school.'' That ends Dr. Fauci's quote. He went on a step further by saying that it is not even workable to wait for every teacher to be vaccinated before schools reopen because, when you think about that, if every teacher had their first vaccine today in the double-vaccine world we are still in, it will be the end of March before every teacher had their second vaccine, and you are so far down the line, before you know it, the school might not be able to reopen in that circumstance. Dr. David Rosen, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Washington University in St. Louis, said: There is no situation in which schools can't be open unless they have evidence of in-school transmission. The Biden White House actually immediately said they just didn't agree with the experts on this, even the ones in their own administration. The President's Press Secretary said that Dr. Walensky was speaking in her personal capacity when she said that you can go back to school even if teachers weren't vaccinated, even though she was speaking in an official White House coronavirus briefing. Now, how the head of the CDC speaks in her personal capacity at an official White House coronavirus briefing on this topic, I don't know, but that is what happened The White House just keeps repeating these points that teachers should be a priority for vaccination. I don't have a problem with that. I think that would be a great thing. It would make teachers more comfortable and might make parents more comfortable. In fact, when we were debating the budget resolution just a couple of weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would have incentivized school districts to get kids back to school after teachers had been vaccinated. That is more stringent than the President himself has said and more stringent than the CDC has said, but my amendment was blocked on a party-line vote. Every single Member of our friends on the other side voted against an amendment that would say we should incentivize, financially, getting kids back to school when teachers have been vaccinated. Now, a couple of my friends on the other side walked up and said: Well, we just need to work this language a little bit because all of us that have kids know how important it is that we get our kids back to school. Democrats say we need emergency legislation to help the schools. I have been part of five bills that did that, and we provided $67.5 billion for K-12 schools to reopen safely. So far, States have spent just under $7 billion of that $67 billion, so clearly money is not the obstacle to getting back to school. The new plan would give an additional $128.6 billion for schools, according to the CBO, and, again, only 5 percent of that money would be spent by the end of this fiscal year, only about $6.5 billion. The rest of the money would be available over the next 7 years. Hopefully, that money is not money that is designed to get kids back to school. We don't need to be waiting 7 years to get kids back to school. If schools need money right now, they, first of all, should spend the money that the Congress has already provided. There is no reason to have over $60 billion still waiting to be spent if that is what it takes to get kids back to school. This probably isn't about funding. It is really a discussion about whether the schools should reopen and what else we need to do with money that might be available right now because of this coronavirus legislation. We need to be sure we get back to school. Our goal should not be to keep the schools closed. If it is, why are we providing all this extra money so that schools can reopen, even though it will be a long time before that is spent? I started out my career, after college, as a high school history teacher and then later I was a university president. I know the challenges educators face every day and the ways well-meaning policy experts sometimes miss the reality of the classroom. I also know that teachers are used to big challenges. They see them every day. They meet them every day. They do their best every day to overcome the challenges in front of them. Teachers want to help kids learn, and they don't know what to do when they can't have the contact they need to have with the kids. They know that kids won't be doing as well as they need to do, in more cases than not, until they are back to school. In a recent Axios poll, teachers said they would return to school and are ready to do that. It is really time for a commonsense appraisal of what needs to be done to get kids back in school. This should not be something that we wait till next fall to do. It is something that needs to happen right now. The CDC guidelines are helpful, but they need to be more flexible. We need to constantly look at all the data. As people working hard to get kids back to school, we need to be sure that we understand where that is working, why that is working, how that is working, and we are getting that information out to school districts all over America. It is time to go back to school. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Vote yes on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 48

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 48 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am offering an amendment today to reopen our Nation's schools once teachers are vaccinated and the potential for tying COVID funding to that reopening. The evidence is clear, school closures are hurting students, prolonged remote learning puts kids where they are at high risk of falling behind, of failing classes, and of having mental health problems. And even a greater number of students with disabilities in underserved areas are impacted by not going to school. Science confirms schools can and should reopen safely. Just this week, the CDC Director said that vaccines aren't even a prerequisite to getting kids back to school. There shouldn't be any further delay. This amendment does include teachers vaccines as part of the criteria; but with vaccines, we should get back to in-person school. The case is strong. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, may I have additional time?

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is engaged in what I personally believe to be a disappointing exercise of, really, partisan political power at the expense of American taxpayers. When it became clear that the Senate was going to be split 50-50--by the way, it doesn't get closer than that--there was a moment of hope, I think, on both sides that this would be the opportunity that we would all have to really begin to seek ways to find how we could work together and not have any 50-50 votes and not keep the Vice President busy in breaking ties on votes. So far, that hope appears to be a little bit short-lived. We are supposedly voting to pass a budget right now that expresses the priorities of the Congress on how limited tax dollars should be allocated. Now, you don't have to be a genius to figure out that passing a budget--October, November, December--4 months into the calendar of the budget year probably isn't, technically, just to determine how you are going to allocate limited tax dollars. Frankly, there seems to be very little discussion in this budget about limited tax dollars. What we are really doing here is passing a budget that allows us to set up what, I think, is an ill-advised, partisan moment, where one side believes it can do whatever it wants to without the other side. President Biden, when campaigning, said over and over again that he wanted to work with Republicans. I actually believe that is true. In his inaugural address, he said: ``We have never ever, ever, ever failed in America when we've acted together.'' Now, the inaugural address was only a few days ago. Here we are, 2 weeks later, and the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to go forward, and the only way to go forward is to go forward their way. If that happens to be the way forward, it is going to be a long 4 years, and for the majority, it might be a pretty quick 2 years because I don't think that this is the message that people sent on election day-- that they wanted one side to be able to do whatever it wanted to do. We have the narrowest House majority in about 150 years, and the Senate majority--again, I will say--couldn't be closer than it is. We haven't finished taking down the platform from the inauguration, and our colleagues are already forcing a one-sided endgame. Now, I would suggest that the endgame in this case really just sets the stage for the rest of the time we are going to be trying to work together, and I think we will look back and find out it didn't set the stage in a helpful way. The plan is to muscle through a really partisan $1.9 trillion package that claims to be about COVID relief but covers really a number of totally unrelated things. People have talked a lot about the fact that the minimum wage is there and whether it would meet the standard of reconciliation. We haven't talked very much about the fact that the education money in the proposal that we are looking at for reconciliation doesn't include private schools, even private parochial schools. It doesn't include the schools that more than any other have done their best to stay open during the pandemic. It really breaks a pattern of recent years for all schools and post-World War II for higher education to where public schools was not the defining thing. The defining thing was, if you could qualify for government assistance, you were able to take it to any accredited institution that you wanted to. Clean energy is in the COVID relief package. COVID relief is different from clean energy. It is certainly a debate worth having, but let's not suggest that it is COVID relief when it is not. If one-half of the Senate is determined to impose its will on the other half without even working to find a real path forward, I think that is an unfortunate sign. Democrats have said there is an urgent need for this COVID relief--so urgent we can't wait to have a real debate. You know, we just passed $900 billion in relief. Now we are beginning to talk about such big numbers here that suddenly $900 billion is sort of passed away as, well, that is not nearly enough. But the truth is, the $900 billion bill was just signed into law December 27. That was 5 weeks ago--$900 billion. Most of that money remains unspent, and suddenly we want to spend another $1.9 trillion. That is an aggressive pace even by the standards of some of my friends in the other half of this Chamber or the other half of Congress. It really in so many ways is simply too soon to really know exactly what we need next. We haven't taken the time yet to get the other money out of the door. We haven't taken the time to see how it is going and whether the policies we planned are the policies that really work. We haven't taken the time to decide what else we might need to do. But here is what we have done already: We have provided $8.75 billion to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for vaccine distribution. So far, they have released $3 billion of that money. So we are rushing with billions more when 5.75 of that 8.75 amount of money for vaccine distribution hasn't been released yet. With nearly $6 billion left in that fund, how do we know exactly how it is working or exactly how much we need? We seem to be sure that what we have isn't enough. I am not sure we even know that yet. But I have been an advocate in every one of the bills we have done for money for distribution of the vaccine, and I would love to see how the money that is out there works. We need to be thinking about what to do next, but there was a time when debate was part of the Senate. Debate was very much part of the Senate when President Biden served in it. It should be part of the Senate now. Frankly, if we debated and figured out a bipartisan plan, we would get that done quicker than reconciliation. It is going to be several weeks before we can have the vote that we could have had to provide part of this money right now. A significant amount of this money is agreed to, particularly the amount that does relate to vaccine purchase and vaccine distribution. The parts that relate to testing, the parts that relate to getting kids back to school--that could all be available in a couple of weeks. But it won't be a couple of weeks when we go through this process of reconciliation that I think my friends on the other side will find out is harder to do than they thought and substantially harder to do in a 50-50 Senate than it would be anywhere else. You know, in December, we provided $82 billion for schools and for education. Elementary schools that were supposed to get almost $70 billion of that money to reopen haven't reopened. Many of them haven't had a chance to spend the money. In fact, many of the K-12 schools haven't even spent all the money they got in April. So money from April not yet being spent, and we are rushing to decide how much more money they need right now in these last few weeks of the school year. Last week, Dr. Fauci said in an interview that it was the goal of President Biden to get K-8 students back to school in the nex 100 days, but at another event that same day, he said--maybe as truthfully as you could possibly be--it might not work out that way. We need to be really committed to getting kids back to school. Now, there are more than a million people who have lost their jobs in education at the State and local level since the pandemic started. That is often given as the reason we need more State and local money. But many of that million-person number were the busdrivers, the cafeteria workers, the coaches, the support staff who, frankly--if you are not going to school, most districts have decided they shouldn't be paying that staff who is not part of what the school is doing right now. Those losses are not about loss of revenue; they are really about the loss of in-person school. You know, I have served as the chairman of the Labor, Health, and Education Subcommittee in Appropriations. I am now the top Republican in that 50-50 committee. Last year, our subcommittee provided funding for schools that would help them address the pandemic and reopen. We provided money to develop and distribute vaccines and treatments. We provided money to continue critical funding for programs to address substance abuse and mental health and suicide and things that have been a real problem for an isolated, pandemic-bound population. We need to do all of those things. I am more than happy to be part of that discussion. I want to help meet these challenges. I have hope the administration understands that. I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that. But we need to be sure that we know what we are doing before we commit another $1.9 trillion, as if that money is really--I am hearing occasionally-- not nearly enough. Two trillion more dollars after five bipartisan bills that produced real results, just kind of out of hand not nearly enough? Now, that is easier to say because virtually nobody in this Chamber or in the country, including me, really has a concept of how much money $1.9 trillion is. So it is easy to say ``Well, it should be 2.9 or 3.9'' or ``Whatever it is, it is not enough'' because we really, I don't think, have a sense of how much it is. We have had real success in developing vaccines. We need to have more success in getting out those vaccines. I have not seen the administration or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make the case yet as to why we need to spend the amount of money they are talking about spending. I have not seen anyone make the case of why it is good to start off this administration and this term of Congress in the most partisan, one-sided way possible before we have really had a chance to talk this out. There are a lot of things here we agree on. There are a lot of things here that could be improved around the margins, but you have to have the willingness to talk about that before it goes forward. I was glad to see the White House accepted the offer of 10 of our Republican colleagues to at least meet and talk about some bipartisan issues, but the unwillingness of the Democratic leader here to slow down this process made it clear that, really, there may not be that much interest in really trying to find a solution, but at least there was some interest in talking about trying to work together. Bipartisanship is not something you do just for show. Compromise is not ``my way or the highway.'' Unity is not telling everyone else that the only option is to accept your side of the argument. I hope my colleagues think better of this bipartisan exercise, come to the table, and explain what we really need and why we need it. If they don't, I hope we can still figure out how to recover and move forward in the only way a 50-50 Senate can move forward, and that is working every day to find things that more than 50 Members--and I would hope substantially more than 50 Members--of the U.S. Senate agree on and send those to the President and get our work done. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

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

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this week is the 48th annual March for Life. It is an event when thousands of Americans come together to advocate for the value and protection of unborn human life. They will be coming together this year differently than they have for almost 50 years, but for almost 50 years, millions of people have marched to Capitol Hill to try to build a culture wherein every human life is valued and every human life is protected. That includes tireless women and men and children from my home State of Missouri who come to Washington, both individually and along with the Missouri Life Caravan, every year. It will be the first year in a long time I haven't spoken to that group in person, but as they meet virtually, their cause is still as resonant as it is in person. I know that Missourians will continue to advocate for life. They will continue to remember the unborn and those whom we have lost from abortion. This year's theme of the march is ``Together Strong: Life Unites!'' It is a pretty hard theme to argue with no matter how you feel about this particular topic. ``Unity'' doesn't mean believing the same thing about everything, but it does mean agreeing about one very important thing in terms of this event, and that important thing, of course, is the value and protection of life. This belief in life cuts across religion. It cuts across party lines. It cuts across geographic boundaries. People and organizations from all religious backgrounds--and even those who have no religious affiliations--are part of the pro-life movement, and they oppose abortion in almost all cases. Polling shows that more than a third of Democrats in America support protections for life, and there are groups dedicated to showing that pro-life is not a partisan issue. Frankly, that is a move in the right direction to where you don't feel like you are included in one party or excluded from one party because of your view on this issue. Last year's Geneva Consensus Declaration brought together more than 30 countries to promote women's health and strengthen the family, including the preservation of human life. We need to do everything we can to save the lives of babies and of mothers. Maternity mortality is a big problem in our country and around the world. It has become a focus of the Congress in recent years and needs to continue to be. Even though the issue of life so often is polarized in the U.S. Congress, I am still encouraged that we see a powerful commitment, over and over, to protect the unborn and how that breaks through in other areas outside of the Congress. For the past 4 years, we have seen an unprecedented advance in the protections for the unborn in State legislatures. In the next few years, we can expect to see efforts to try to move things in another direction, to weaken or remove life protections in, for instance, the title X family planning program or in our foreign aid programs. There is a well-funded effort to abandon even the longstanding Hyde amendment, which prevents taxpayer funding of abortion or abortion coverage in Federal healthcare programs. As the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee, I oversaw the yearly renewal of the Hyde amendment, which has been included in that bill for the past 40 years. Now I won't be the chairman of that committee in this Congress, but I will still be fighting to see that we maintain this area where there has been great consensus that went beyond political parties. I will continue to support and advocate for the Hyde amendment and for permanent Federal protections for the unborn through legislation like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, among other things. Although the pro-life movement can expect challenges in this Congress, there are still many signs that one day we will succeed in creating a culture where every human life is valued and protected. For now, however, I want to thank the men, women, and children who dedicate their time and talents to making this happen, who today are marching virtually as they join together to talk about this important cause and remember the theme of this year, which is ``Together Strong: Life Unites!'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I request to have printed in the Congressional Record my full remarks delivered on January 20, 2021, at the 59th inaugural ceremonies.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, pursuant to Senate rule XXXIII, I wish to inform all Senators that on December 18, 2020, the Committee on Rules and Administration adopted the ``U.S. Senate Alternate Vehicle Parking Regulations,'' which supersede and replace the current ``Regulations Governing Use of Bicycle Racks Hart Office Building Garage.'' The updated regulations describe the eligibility and process Senators and eligible staff use to request, register, and obtain parking permits for alternate vehicles. The proposed regulations also expand the use of the garage parking racks beyond bicycles to include newer commuting technology such as electric scooters. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the regulations as adopted be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5076 introduced earlier today.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I further ask that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 606, S. 4556.

Mr. BLUNT. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 586, S. 2346.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn; that the Wicker substitute at the desk be agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Mr. BLUNT. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 558, S. 3948.