John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it doesn't seem like that long ago--it wasn't; it was only January 20 of this year--that we heard President Biden talk about healing the divisions in our country and promoting unity. He promised to restore respectful, bipartisan communication and cooperation. He spoke eloquently, saying: Without unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos. It really was a fine speech. But here we are, 7 weeks into the Biden administration with a lot of bitterness and fury and outrage over the President's first big, broken promise. On Saturday afternoon, following an all-night voting marathon, our Democratic colleagues passed, by themselves, their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Sadly, the lack of bipartisan support was not a surprise. After all, our Democratic colleagues decided to abuse the reconciliation process for this very reason. They wanted to pass a bill they knew would not generate any support among Republicans because it really is a Trojan horse for their liberal wish list. And the only way they could make that happen would be to exclude Republicans, turn down offers of bipartisanship, as the President did when 10 Republicans visited him at the White House just a few weeks ago and decided to go it alone, which is what our Democratic colleagues did. Since Republicans had no say in the drafting of the bill and because our Democratic friends chose to skip the normal committee consideration, our only opportunity to make any changes to the bill came through the amendment process on the floor. From roughly 11 a.m. on Friday until 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, the Senate voted on more than 30 amendments, largely from folks on our side of the aisle, almost all of which were rejected in a party-line vote. Outside of Washington, DC, not many people stay up for 24 hours straight to watch Congress vote on budget amendments, so I think it is important that we recap what the American people missed while they were sleeping. The first amendment vote last Friday was a good barometer of what was happening on the other side of the aisle. The first vote, teed up by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Sanders, would have more than doubled the minimum wage at $15 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office said that this would kill 1.4 million jobs, and then the Senate Parliamentarian said that this was an improper use of the budget reconciliation process. But our Democratic colleagues wanted to take this shot anyway, so they voted to waive a budget point of order, but it did not go well. Eight Democrats voted alongside all Republicans to prevent this abuse of the budget reconciliation process and prevent this job-killing minimum wage mandate from becoming part of this bill. As it turns out, there is bipartisan opposition to killing jobs at a time when our economy is already on a fragile footing. Who would have thought otherwise? And once Senators cast their votes, our Democratic friends held the vote open for a recordbreaking 12 hours as they tried to whip their caucus into shape on the most critical amendment, which was next in line. I am not one to tell our friends across the aisle how to do their job, but normally, when you have a vote, you know ahead of time how that vote is going to come out. That is just legislation 101. But when you are trying to rush, at warp speed, a nearly $2 trillion wish list to the President's desk, I guess you don't have the time to do things the right way, and you certainly don't have an interest in getting them done in a bipartisan fashion. But on the rest of the votes we held, over and over again, our Democratic colleagues held together and blocked commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle. For example, there were amendments to stop blue States from receiving more than their fair share of the State and local funding. The Democratic proposal includes a jaw- dropping $350 billion for State and local aid--more than double what was spent in the CARES Act last March when the economic picture was far more dire. Unlike the CARES Act funding that was distributed based on population, this proposal separated the funds into two pots of money-- one to be distributed based on a population formula while the second is based on the unemployment rate. Senator Graham from South Carolina offered an amendment which would have required this funding to follow the same formula that we did in March, in a bipartisan way, rather than this new formula that favors blue States. Since the primary argument for the bill was that States needed this funding because of lost tax revenues, it made sense that the largest population States should receive the most funding, a per capita formula. This would eliminate a big windfall for blue States that have largely kept their economies on ice and shuttered, even as COVID-19 cases decreased. Then there was an amendment from the Senator from Utah, Senator Romney, which would have ensured State and local funding was only going to those States that actually need it. What a concept. His amendment would require States to apply for aid through the Treasury Department. They could then receive funds to help recover pandemic-related expenses, revenue losses, or unexpected Medicaid costs. But, of course, in a party-line vote, our Democratic colleagues blocked that amendment as well. And it is not just State and local funding that folks on my side of the aisle wanted us to use more responsibly. I offered an amendment to improve the quality of care for unaccompanied migrant children who arrived along the U.S.-Mexico border. We know that these children are especially vulnerable and their health and safety should have been addressed in this COVID package. Well, President Biden's border crisis is shaping up to be one of epic proportions. Border agents reportedly detained nearly 100,000 migrants along the southern border last month alone. That marks the highest total for the month of February since 2006. The numbers have now climbed so high that the administration is allowing facilities to house children to operate at 100 percent capacity, when our kids aren't even going back to school in many school districts around the country because of concerns for their safety. Forget that. The Biden administration is now allowing these facilities that house children to operate at 100 percent despite the COVID risk. An amendment I offered would redirect unnecessary funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and instead send it to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. This office is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and this extra funding would help keep these children safe and healthy. Unfortunately, for these children, many of whom have endured long and dangerous journeys in the hands of human smugglers, our Democratic colleagues chose the National Endowment for the Humanities instead of these children in distress. Well, the list of rejected amendments goes on and on. Senator Scott of South Carolina offered an amendment to ensure States weren't fudging on the nursing home death count totals, like the disastrous situation developing in New York that we are just now learning about the magnitude of nursing home deaths that were covered up by the Cuomo administration. This amendment would have required States to certify the accuracy of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes in order to assess funding for nursing home facility strike teams. Once again, a party-line vote blocked that amendment. One of the highlights of this long and drawn-out process, which just left me scratching my head, was an amendment from Senator Cassidy, the Senator from Louisiana, that would have prevented stimulus checks being sent to people in prison and one from Senator Cruz, my colleague from Texas, that would have stopped payments from going to people who are not even legally present in the United States. Both amendments were blocked in a party-line vote by Democrats. Our colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, offered an amendment to incentivize a safe return to in-person learning at our Nation's schools. The crux of it was simple: If schools wanted Federal funding, they should actually educate children in the classroom and do so safely, according to CDC guidelines; otherwise, why do they need this huge amount of extra money if they are not actually going to use it to educate our children? Well, our Democratic colleagues blocked that amendment too. While Americans were sleeping, Senate Democrats stood in the way of numerous commonsense reforms to this behemoth of a partisan bill. They have proven, once again, this so-called COVID-19 relief bill has next to nothing to do with what is best for the country and everything to do with what is best for their liberal partisan agenda. This bill includes a long list of liberal priorities that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand. I think roughly 90 percent of it is unrelated to COVID-19. Blank checks for mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice--whatever that is--backdoor money for Planned Parenthood, an exclusive paid leave program for bureaucrats, those are just some of the greatest hits in the vote- arama. Even the portions of the bill that are related to the pandemic are completely out of proportion. The legislation provides $130 billion for schools when tens of billions of dollars that we have already appropriated last December remain to be spent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $6.4 billion will be distributed through September of this year. The remaining $122 billion would trickle out the door through not just 2021 but through 2028. Of course, there is the blue State bailout. Despite the fact that tax revenues have largely rebounded and many States are still sitting on piles of cash from previous COVID-19 relief bills, our Democratic friends want to send another $350 billion to State and local governments but not just on an equitable population-based formula. They rigged the formula to make sure blue States reap the biggest cash benefits. We know this wasn't the only path forward. We worked, time and time again, this last year on five different occasions to show we can unite to provide COVID-19 relief to the American people. We could have built on that record this year, which after listening to President Biden's inaugural speech, I had hoped we might do. The first legislation to pass during the Biden administration could have been a bipartisan pandemic relief bill with overwhelming support. We wouldn't have needed to go through the vote-arama or the abuse of the budget reconciliation process. We could have had a bill that supported the hardest hit families, got kids back at school, and helped expedite vaccination. But those types of policies, obviously, weren't top of mind for our Democratic friends. They wanted to have a payday for the most radical element of their party at an absurdly high pricetag, which our children and grandchildren are going to be saddled with. They assembled a laundry list of unrelated wasteful and downright partisan provisions and rejected even the most commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle. Sadly, this legislation passed the House without a single Republican vote. It passed the Senate without a single Republican vote. And now, our Democratic friends are on track to write a $2 trillion check completely funded by deficit spending without even a trace of bipartisanship. They don't have a figleaf to hide behind. This was a partisan bill intentionally. Either the President sold snake oil on Inauguration Day or he has already caved into the most radical elements of his own political party. Either way, it is bad news for the American people.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate equally divided.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the United States is facing a brewing humanitarian crisis at the border. At the same time, we are experiencing a global pandemic. This motion will help make sure we are prepared. In January 2021, the Border Patrol recorded about 75,000 encounters on the southwest land border. That is a 60-percent increase over the last year, which was just before the last major migrant surge. The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly projecting that it will apprehend 117,000 unaccompanied children this year. The Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement are struggling to maintain enough bed space to shelter all of these unaccompanied children transferred into their custody. It is estimated the COVID-19 restrictions have reduced their capacity by about 40 percent. The Biden administration has reactivated a facility at Carrizo Springs, TX, to handle this influx of unaccompanied children, and press reports indicate that an additional facility may be necessary. So this motion, simply put, would commit the bill to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to provide adequate funding for the Office of Refugee Resettlement to address this brewing humanitarian crisis.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus. That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that were signed into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support. That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills. We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash. The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice. Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it. You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and ``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders. And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes. This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously. There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions. Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill. In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check. While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill. In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion. Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules. Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill. Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there. This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to $70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated. Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in- person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Government aren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work. I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair. Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice. It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy. What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more. Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great- grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back. This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that. Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more. But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news. The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster. Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week our Democratic colleagues are striving to break Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic relief. Last year, five relief packages were signed into law, each with overwhelming bipartisan support. No bill received fewer than 90 votes here in the Senate, and 1 even passed unanimously. The reason why these bills received such broad support is because they address the crisis at hand in a targeted manner; no controversial provisions or unrelated partisan priorities, just clear-cut relief for the American people. As I said, the perfect record of commonsense, bipartisan relief packages will apparently end this week. The bill our Democratic colleagues are preparing to bring to the Senate floor has been drafted by only one party. As you can imagine, that process lends itself to a sort of partisan Christmas tree decorating. Democrats have taken the framework of the COVID relief bill and added a range of liberal priorities that have absolutely nothing to do with COVID-19: a Silicon Valley subway system, a blank check for mismanaged union pension plans, a bridge from New York to Canada, and funding for climate justice. It is no surprise that this bill passed the House on a strict party- line vote. But the COVID-19 relief label isn't fooling anybody. This is a partisan wish list that does more to advance a political agenda than to respond to the legitimate public health and economic needs of our country. That is why our Democratic colleagues have chosen to abuse the budget reconciliation process in order to make a law. Based on the pricetag of this bill, you would think it was March 2020 all over again. Despite the fact that we have made serious headway in vaccinations, our economy is recovering by leaps and bounds, and all signs show we are moving toward that light at the end of the tunnel, our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another $1.9 trillion of borrowed money. That is about half as much as all previous bills combined. What is even more concerning than the cost is how the money is going to be spent. One great example is funding for education. So far, Congress has provided more than $110 billion for K-12 education, including $68 billion in the relief bill that was signed into law in December, just a couple of months ago. Schools in Texas have used this money to update air filtration systems, purchase personal protective equipment, and implement regular disinfecting so students and teachers can safely return to the classroom. After all, we know in-person instruction is best for our children. I have had sections of my State where at least a third of the lower income students don't have dependable access to broadband, much less the kind of supervision that they would need in order to continue their learning. Study after study has shown that kids have fallen behind while learning virtually, especially in foundational subjects like math and reading. The learning deficit is even greater for students of color and those in high-poverty communities. One study found that, for math, White students began the school year about 1 to 3 months behind in learning while students of color were more likely to be 3 to 5 months behind. And the impact on our students isn't purely academic. As we know, there are serious mental, social, and emotional tolls to be paid as well. We need our schools to open, and, of course, we need to do so safely. The experts tell us that not only is that possible, but it has already been done in States across the country. The Centers for Disease Control published a report in January that found: ``There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission.'' The lead author of that report affirmed that even in places with high infection rates, there is no evidence that schools will transmit the virus at a higher rate than the general community. In short, schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19 as long as appropriate precautions are taken, and they can reopen safely. The good news is there is already plenty of funding to make that happen. In December, the Centers for Disease Control estimated schools would need about $22 billion to open safely. As of February 9, of the $68 billion that was provided for K-12 schools in the combined relief packages, only about $5 billion has been spent. So $68 billion has been provided, and only $5 billion has been spent. Despite clear evidence that, one, kids are struggling with virtual learning; two, schools can safely reopen with the right precautions; and, three, that there is plenty of funding to help schools implement these measures, our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend another $130 billion for K-12 education without any sort of incentive or requirement for children to return safely to the classroom. Sadly, many of our schoolchildren are coming up on the 1-year anniversary of their virtual learning. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little momentum for letting those students return to the classroom, and, unfortunately, by default, they are falling further behind. Since most of the existing funds remain to be spent, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bulk of spending of this new proposed funding would occur next year and beyond. In other words, this isn't an emergency relief bill designed to deal with the present need; this is about spending money in 2021, after which, hopefully, virtually everybody in the United States is vaccinated and we have established herd immunity. Only $6.4 billion would be distributed through September of this year, and the remaining $122 billion would trickle out the door through not just 2021 but through 2028. That is, the majority of the education funding in the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill wouldn't even be touched until the pandemic has been put in the rearview mirror. Now, I have advocated for funding to help schools prepare for a safe return to the classroom, and, of course, the experts, as I said, have told us that more than enough funding is already available to make that happen. So I ask: What is the rationale for asking the taxpayers to foot another $130 billion bill if there is no need for that funding in the first place? And I would add to that, this is not money that actually exists. This will be money borrowed from future generations that is added to the deficit and to our debt. There is certainly no excuse to ram this and a range of other partisan priorities through Congress without the support of a single Republican. It was January 20 when I thought that President Biden gave a very eloquent and appropriate speech at his inauguration, talking about the need for the Nation to heal, for the divisions to heal, and for unity, but doing this partisan reconciliation bill when there is no demonstrated need for this deficit spending is not healing the divisions in our country or promoting unity. Saturday will mark 1 year since the first COVID-19 response bill was signed into law. Since then we have, tragically, lost more than a half million Americans; families have struggled with job losses; small businesses have closed their doors; and children have fallen further and further behind. The list of hardships endured over the past year is long indeed, but now our colleagues across the aisle are trying to capitalize on that pain by passing the so-called and misnamed COVID-19 relief bill that does more to advance partisan goals than to bring an end to this national nightmare. It does nothing to get our kids back in school or our American workers back on the job. It doles out taxpayer dollars for favored infrastructure projects-- these are colloquially called earmarks--like the bridge in the majority leader's home State of New York and a subway system in the Speaker's home State of California. What do those have to do with COVID-19? Where is the emergency there? Why should we borrow money from future generations to fund these infrastructure projects that have nothing to do with the pandemic? We can deal with infrastructure, and we should, going forward, but opportunistically exploiting the public's concern about COVID-19 in order to fund these infrastructure projects in New York and California is simply inexcusable. (Mr. LUJAN assumed the Chair.) Only 1 percent of the funding in this massive $1.9 trillion bill goes toward vaccination efforts. We all understand that vaccinating the American people is the key for ending this crisis. So far--and I am sure I am a day or so behind--a couple of days ago, we vaccinated 68 million people--68 million vaccinations, perhaps. Some of them involved two shots. And we are vaccinating people at the rate of 3 million shots a day. That is really, really encouraging. But only 1 percent of the funding in this $1.9 trillion bill goes toward that eventual key to unlocking the future. As I said, every penny that is spent on pandemic response is borrowed from our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Somebody is going to have to pay the money back--not us, not now, apparently. We are going to borrow the money, add to deficits and debt. As Larry Summers and others have said, we are even risking inflation by throwing so much money into the economy so quickly, at a time when it is growing at more than 4 percent a year. And we are not, if this effort is successful, spending this money responsibly. Being responsible means doing what is needed--no more, no less--to bring this pandemic to an end and get this country back on its feet. I think this bill is a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars. And it is outrageous that it is entitled the COVID-19 relief bill when so little of this bill actually deals with the pandemic. As we say, where I come from, if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last Friday, I joined Governor Abbott, fellow Members of the Texas congressional delegation, and several State and local leaders and joined President Biden on his first trip to Texas since taking office on January 20. We only wish it could have come under better circumstances. Texans, of course, are still reeling from the deadly winter freeze that crippled our critical infrastructure and left millions without power and water. Thousands of Texans are still without clean water and under a boil instruction, and countless others are dealing with the damage caused by burst pipes. I truly appreciate the President and the First Lady coming to Houston to learn more about the ongoing response and recovery efforts, and I thank the President for answering the request of Senator Cruz, Governor Abbott, and myself to order a national disaster declaration. During times of crisis, Texans are always eager to lend a hand to their neighbors, and the last couple of weeks have proved to be no exception. I am always encouraged by those heartwarming stories of folks helping others in ways big and small: welcoming people into their homes, checking on their elderly neighbors, delivering hot meals to those in need, and much more. So I am glad the President and First Lady were able to see the incredible work also of one of the Houston area's most reliable friends, and that is the Houston Food Bank. For more than 40 years, the Houston Food Bank has fought hunger in the Houston region through a variety of programs serving Texans of all ages. When COVID-19 hit last year, the need for that assistance skyrocketed, as you might imagine. I was able to visit the food bank last summer to learn more about how they have adjusted their operations to keep up with the demand, while implementing precautions to keep their volunteers safe and healthy. So I was glad to join the President and First Lady to learn more about the incredible ways that the Houston Food Bank has continued to serve the community in the wake of this winter storm. As I have said before and, as the President reiterated on Friday in Houston, there is no red team, there is no blue team during a time of crisis. FEMA officials have said that disaster response efforts work best when they are locally executed, State managed, and federally supported, and I agree that is the appropriate formula. This structure gives local officials the ability to cater response efforts to their specific communities while tapping into the range of resources available from the State and Federal Government. I want to assure my fellow Texans that I and the entire Texas delegation here in Congress will continue to do everything we can to be responsive to the needs that they have. Part of that, though, is through rapid mobilization of resources. After Governor Abbott, as I said, made the formal request for an emergency disaster declaration, Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to grant that request. And, as I said, he did so without delay. So this formal disaster declaration has allowed our State to receive a range of resources to respond to the crisis, including blankets, bottled water, generators, and additional fuel. These resources were vital to sustaining hospital operations and supporting the most vulnerable Texans while power and water were being restored. Senator Cruz and I also wrote to the President urging him to grant the Governor's request for a major disaster declaration and all types of public and individual assistance for each of Texas's 254 counties. A major disaster declaration opens up even more Federal resources to help communities and individuals recover in the aftermath of an emergency like this. It can include everything from housing assistance for folks who are unable to stay in their home due to water leakage and burst pipes to unemployment assistance to crisis counseling. So far, President Biden has approved the major disaster declaration for 126 counties, and I know State and local leaders are working with the administration to seek approval for the remaining counties. Insurance industry leaders believe this could be the costliest weather event in our State's history, and we have to do everything we can to lessen the burden on Texas families. Of course, my staff and I are in close contact with State and local leaders who are managing and executing the response, and we are constantly looking for ways to assist and move the recovery along. In the aftermath of these widespread outages, of course, two questions jump out at you: One is, What happened? And, two, how do we prevent it from ever happening again? We know now, at least so far, that there wasn't a single point of failure. But where it has to do with the power, this was the result of failures in equipment across the State that weren't properly winterized. Natural gas lines, wind turbines, and other power equipment froze, cutting off a huge percentage of our power generation capacity. The remaining generators were overloaded by the sky-high demand of these subzero temperatures, and much of Texas went through rolling blackouts and more. This storm claimed the lives of nearly 80 Texans. It left millions without power and water for several days. It destroyed homes and businesses and created a sense of fear across the State. We need to do what we can now to ensure that Texas's critical infrastructure will be able to withstand anything Mother Nature sends our way. It is not just about Texas. It is really about the critical infrastructure throughout the United States. I am working on a measure to build grid resiliency, so we can maintain reliable power throughout any type of extreme weather. Whether it is a polar vortex or a heat wave or a hurricane or tornado, our grids and energy sources across the country must be able to operate without disruption. This should be a bipartisan priority for folks from every corner of the United States. In Texas, we are accustomed to our infrastructure being able to withstand the high temperatures we are used to during the summer, but not the rare subzero temperatures that paralyzed the State 2 weeks ago. In other parts of the country, grids may face the opposite problem: They are able to operate during freezing temperatures but not during a heat wave. I am trying to work on a way to get funding to the States to help build grid resiliency in a way that makes sense for each of those specific needs. Our Nation has had issues with funding grid resiliency and modernization efforts, and this is a good opportunity to make an investment in that infrastructure. My hope is that this will be a big bipartisan effort, including fellow Members of the Texas delegation and colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate. We need to do everything we can as Americans and Senators to strengthen and modernize our grid before it is tested again. Team Texas will do everything we can to get our neighbors on the road to recovery and prevent us from experiencing widespread outages in the future. In conclusion, I want to thank everyone who has supported our State in ways big and small over the last couple of weeks and who will no doubt work with us in our efforts to come back stronger in the days that lie ahead. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have had some bizarre weather in my State in the last week or so. We are still reeling from a deadly winter storm that hit all 254 counties in the State of Texas last week. The snowstorm brought snow, ice, and prolonged subfreezing temperatures. We don't have temperatures below zero in Texas--or at least we haven't for a long, long time, but we did last week. As a result, it paralyzed much of our critical infrastructure, leaving millions without electricity, leaving them without heat, and leaving them without running water for days on end. The good news is that power has now been restored for the vast majority of Texans, and cities are slowly lifting water boil notices as water filtration systems come back online. But a number of families are still facing outages, and as we have seen during previous disasters, low-income and minority communities are the hardest hit. Our top priority is to restore power and clean water to every single Texan. Throughout this episode--this tragedy, really--my staff and I have been in contact with local, State, and, of course, Federal officials to determine what kinds of things we can do to help and how we can mobilize resources as soon as possible. As recovery efforts continue in the coming days and weeks, I will continue to try to do that. This is not unlike what we have to do periodically for hurricanes that seem to find their way to the State of Texas. But in this case we know that some of the problem was not an act of nature; it was a failure to anticipate these subfreezing, subzero cold temperatures. So we have got to ask not only ``What happened?'' but ``How can we prevent it from happening again in the future?'' As I said, we experience, from time to time, hurricanes, occasionally tornadoes and tropical storms or record-low temperatures, but we cannot allow our infrastructure to go offline for days on end. I want to thank the countless Texans who supported each other during this crisis. There are those that have gone above and beyond the call of duty in their official capacities, whether it is as first responders, emergency dispatchers, utility and energy workers, healthcare workers--the list goes on and on. But there are also the unsung heroes--those who invited neighbors into their homes, delivered hot meals to those in need, checked on an elderly neighbor, those who towed vehicles stuck in the snow, and so much more. I just want to assure all of my constituents that we are in this together, and we will do everything we can not only to find out how this happened but what we can do to make sure it never happens again.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my State is no stranger to severe weather. In the past few years, we have experienced the devastation of major hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes. But last week brought something entirely new in the form of extreme weather--winter storms, prolonged subfreezing temperatures, and treacherous roadways across the entire State. And unlike, for example, the State of Massachusetts, where that may not be entirely uncommon, we are not used to that subzero freezing weather. Our State was not prepared, I think it is clear to say, correct to say, for these low temperatures or the devastating impact they would have on our critical infrastructure. Frozen natural gas wells and wind turbines, among other issues, led to widespread power outages, and millions of Texans were left without a way to keep their family warm throughout the historic low temperatures. Compounding matters even further, some 12 million Texans faced water disruptions due to the lasting power outages and frozen or broken water lines. Cities across the State issued boil notices, and folks whose taps are still dry resorted to boiling snow as their only option for drinking water or perhaps even to flush the toilets. The weather created incredibly dangerous conditions for many across the State, especially our most vulnerable citizens. We know of nearly 80 Texans who have died due to this extreme weather, and that number is likely to climb in the days ahead. These widespread outages will prompt a necessary investigation into the high level of generation failures, as well as the overall security and reliability of our energy grid. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that these deadly mass outages never occur again--no matter what Mother Nature sends our way. There is no reason for millions of people in one of the most energy-rich places in the world to be left without reliable power. Senator Cruz and I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to grant Governor Abbott's request for an emergency disaster declaration, and I appreciate the President's quick action to ensure our State could receive the full range of Federal resources to respond to this crisis. I also worked with the Governor and the Department of Energy to secure an emergency order allowing Texas power generators to increase production, and I appreciate the fact that that, too, was quickly approved. In times of crisis there is no red team and no blue team, and I want to thank every person who has supported the response to this crisis so far, whether they are Texans or not. I know more will be needed in the days and weeks ahead, and I want to assure the folks back home that I am listening, I am working, and I am here to help any way that I can. And I know that I speak for the entire Texas delegation. I know there are still many without water and electricity, and I want to assure them that you are the Nation's priority. But in the face of hardship--and, as I started my remarks, we have been through a lot over the last few years--I am always in awe of the way Texans show up and help one another--neighbors helping neighbors. We have seen countless inspiring stories in the past, and this disaster is no exception. There are stories like that of Ken Everly, an 82-year-old Air Force veteran from Grande Prairie. Mr. Everly is on hospice care. He relies on a breathing machine to keep him alive and a special air mattress that prevents bedsores to keep him comfortable. When his home lost power, Mr. Everly was in serious danger of losing his life. The breathing machine cut off, and the air mattress deflated, leaving him struggling to breathe on an iron bed frame. His son-in-law Nate pleaded for help on Facebook, and within hours help arrived. Nate said: ``I don't know where it came from, but a generator showed up.'' Thanks to the generosity of a stranger, Mr. Everly once again had his breathing machine operating, a comfortable mattress, and heat in his home. The best part of that story, though, is that it is not unique. In ways big and small, we have seen other examples of neighbors going out of their way to help one another. Jeep drivers in North Texas teamed up to offer free rides to and from work for healthcare workers and first responders. Restaurants across the State offered free food to folks without power. And countless Texans shared offers on social media to deliver warm meals, bottles of water, and a range of other supplies to those in need. One of the big issues that folks back home have faced is a lack of safe drinking water, a need Houston-area breweries stepped up to fill. The breweries already had a supply of clean water on hand for their brewing process, and they spread the word to their communities: Come by with a container, and we will give you some clean water. These breweries collectively donated thousands of gallons of clean drinking water completely free of charge. Across Texas, churches, schools, nonprofits, community centers, and local organizations opened their doors as warming centers. One of those warming centers is operated by Houston's most beloved furniture store owner, known as ``Mattress Mack.'' Dating back to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Mack has opened the doors of his stores to provide food and shelter to those impacted by extreme weather. Over the last several days, Gallery Furniture, his furniture business, has been open around the clock for Texans to stay as long as they need, whether it is an hour for a hot meal or for several nights. These stories warm my heart, and they are a reminder of the strength and generosity of Texans and an encouraging reminder of the endless amount of goodwill that still exists in the world. The outpouring of love exemplifies a quote that I heard some time ago from a Texas county commissioner after one particularly terrible accident in West Texas. He said: ``Being a Texan doesn't describe where you're from; it describes who your family is.'' Well, I am grateful to those countless Texans who supported our communities across our State during this crisis. First responders and 9/11 dispatchers have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Healthcare workers, fighting a pandemic already, have now had to deal with power outages, staffing shortages, and water disruptions because of the storm. Utility workers and energy providers have worked, of course, around the clock in dangerous conditions to restore power and safe drinking water to Texans. And millions of unsung heroes have helped their fellow Texans get through these dark days: checking on an elderly neighbor, helping drivers whose vehicles were stuck in the snow, welcoming people into their homes, donating supplies to those in need, and so much more. I would like to offer a special thank-you to members of my staff in Texas who continued working throughout this crisis while battling power and water outages themselves. Because of their diligence, my office has connected Texans in need with local resources to provide shelter, food, and water. We have stayed in contact with State and local emergency officials about the ongoing crisis, and we have assisted local critical care facilities in need, including a large COVID testing lab in Austin. We helped connect it with local resources to receive additional fuel for its generators so millions of dollars of COVID testing materials and pathology tests would not go to waste. The past year has dealt us a tough hand. I would say that is true for America. But I have faith that we will come through this crisis just as we always have before--together. I continue to say a prayer for those impacted by the storm and assure my constituents, my friends and neighbors in Texas, that I will continue to do everything in my power to help our State recover and rebuild

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it has been more than a month since a violent mob stormed this building and attempted to disrupt the congressional certification of Presidential electors--the vote of those electors. Rather than a peaceful transition of power, some of the mob turned their grievances into violent action. But, again, that is the problem with mobs. No matter what the intentions were of those who were simply exercising their rights to free speech and free assembly, mobs invariably degenerate into the lowest common denominator. That element of the mob assaulted police officers, destroyed property, and trespassed in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. Some roamed these halls in search of Members of Congress against whom they actually threatened harm. And if not for the heroism of the men and women of the Capitol Police, the human cost would have likely been higher. The criminal acts of the mob were disgraceful and indefensible. Regardless of party or politics, there should be no disagreement on that most basic point. The people making up this mob came to Washington with the idea that the results of the 2020 election were not final. President Trump fed that fantasy by repeatedly claiming the election was stolen, even after he had exhausted all of his legal remedies in dozens and dozens of lawsuits. The President's actions were reckless. He should have known better than to stoke a flame he could not and did not control. But the events of January 6 are only part of the story, and it is the congressional response, including impeachment, that I now want to talk about. Simply put, this snap impeachment raises serious questions about fundamental fairness, due process, or, more accurately, a lack thereof. Unlike previous impeachments, there was no formal inquiry, no investigation, no hearings, no witnesses, no cross-examination, no nothing. We know impeachment is not like a traditional judicial proceeding. It is not a court of law. But it does make common sense-- and I think this was the direction we gave the House during the last impeachment trial--that it is the House's obligation to investigate, develop the evidence, and then charge, not the other way around. Historically, this has been true for impeachment proceedings. Each time, the House has conducted a full-scale investigation before a vote on the Articles of Impeachment. As I said, that was the case last year when the House spent months deposing witnesses, holding hearings, building a case against the President before ever announcing formal charges. But this time around, they took an entirely different approach. In attempting to justify this unprecedented departure from a fair and dignified proceeding, some of our Democratic friends claim that no evidence needs to be presented, saying that we were all witnesses to what happened on January 6 and that we can be jurors, witnesses, and, in the words of at least one Democratic Senator, victims all at the same time. This week, President Trump's defense team will have the opportunity to present its case, and I expect the lack of due process to be a major area of focus and rightfully so. Unfortunately, that is not the only problem with this impeachment trial. The Constitution requires the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to preside over the impeachment trial of a President. But since this is the trial of a former President, a private citizen, someone who no longer holds office, Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding. As a result, the senior Senator from Vermont will now serve as both a judge and a juror, in addition to being a witness, I presume, and, in the words of another Senator, a victim. I respect Senator Leahy, but the fact of the matter is, he cannot be an impartial arbiter. He has a conflict of interest. Following the House's impeachment vote, Senator Leahy called President Trump ``the greatest threat to the Constitution and t American democracy in a generation.'' He voted to convict Donald Trump during the last impeachment trial and apparently has already decided to do it again in this trial. The fact of the matter is, no American, let alone a former President, should be tried before a juror who has already determined guilt or innocence and who also serves as a judge. I want to be abundantly clear, though, on one point. President Trump's words and actions leading up to the attack were reckless and wrong, but as we all know, the constitutional standard for impeachment isn't recklessness. Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors--those are the offenses that the Constitution allows Congress to impeach and remove a President from office for violating or from committing, which brings us to one of the biggest concerns I have. Donald Trump is no longer President of the United States. He is a private citizen. Our Democratic colleagues moved so fast that they could impeach the President while he was in office but failed to transmit the Articles to the Senate until he became a private citizen. Legal experts have debated not only the constitutionality of trying a former President but also the wisdom of doing so, and I share concerns on both those fronts. I think this ill-timed impeachment trial sets a dangerous precedent for future former Presidents. As politicized as impeachment has become, it could become a reoccurring political exercise that would be toxic for our democracy. Prominent Democrats have warned about the dangers of using impeachment as a political weapon against an opposing party. During the impeachment inquiry of President Clinton, Senator Leahy himself counseled: A partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election. I agree with him. The problem with one party using impeachment to exact political retribution on an opposing party's President at the end of his term or even after that President has left office seems quite obvious to me. It is political retribution. Depending on which party controls Congress and which occupies the White House, this could turn into a regular blemish on our democracy. Rather than focusing together on our future and a new administration, seeking common ground and unity, as President Biden has called for, such a precedent of trying a former President could create an endless feedback loop of recrimination. I think this is a dangerous and destructive path, and I would implore my colleagues on both sides to consider the long-term implications of this precedent. As Justice Story explained, the Framers saw the Senate as a tribunal, in his words, ``removed from popular power and passions . . . and from the more dangerous influence of mere party spirit,'' and was guided by ``a deep responsibility to future times.'' So, as before, I don't take my role as a juror lightly, and I will reserve final judgment until both the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team have had the opportunity to present their cases. But I do think, indeed, I fear, we are skating on very thin ice and are in danger of inflicting great harm to our country by this rushed, unfair, and partisan proceeding. May God help us.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, over the last year, coronavirus relief has dominated our work here in the Congress. To the surprise of some, Republicans and Democrats have worked closely together to bolster our response on both the public health and economic front so we can bring an end to this crisis as quickly as possible. Not surprisingly, there were some disagreements along the way--there always are--but both sides understood the importance of action and reaching a bipartisan deal. Part of the reason was pure function. With a divided government, every piece of legislation involves compromise. You are forced to work with folks on the other side of the aisle to reach an agreement. That is a good thing because that is what it requires to reach the President's desk and earn the President's signature. But the reasons for working together on COVID-19 relief are more than just the practical or functional requirements. Over the last year, I have spoken with countless Texans who have faced incredible challenges and dealt with unimaginable hardship. There are folks who have lost their jobs and have lost loved ones, who fought this virus on the frontlines in hospitals, and who have tried to support their communities throughout this crisis. I know colleagues throughout the Chamber have heard similar stories from their constituents back home because every State and every community has been impacted by this virus. Regardless of politics, we all realize this virus has taken a devastating toll on the American people, and we need to remain committed to providing relief. There have been big disagreements, of course, about the best way to do that, but in the end, if we share the same goal--to bring an end to this pandemic as quickly as possible and minimize the pain and suffering of the American people--we can figure out how to make this happen. That common goal has led to five bipartisan relief packages that have represented the best ideas of each party. None of these bills are perfect, but I am sure both sides will agree that, in the end, every COVID package that has been signed into law has received overwhelming bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, none of the bills have received less than 90 votes, and one passed unanimously. That is spending close to $4 trillion. That is a remarkable, remarkable accomplishment. In the beginning, President Biden appeared to agree that a continuation of this bipartisan approach was the best for the country. After all, his campaign was built on a theme of unity, and he has consistently talked with great eloquence about the need to heal our divisions and work together and compromise. To his credit, he has met with a number of our Republican colleagues at the White House earlier this week to discuss what a compromise package might look like. Ordinarily, that would be seen as an encouraging development. We have a Congress with a record of bipartisan COVID-19 bills and a President who talks about the desire to broker deals that could win the support of both political parties. But, unfortunately, what might seem like good news and a positive development really isn't because in the mix you have the Democratic leader, who is not on board with the President's call for unity and bipartisanship. Less than 24 hours after the bipartisan meeting at the White House and just 15 days after the President's inauguration, the majority leader laid the foundation to pass President Biden's massive $1.9 trillion package with zero Republican votes. They are not interested in doing the hard work it takes to build consensus. Rather than take the normal legislative process, which was used for each of the bipartisan bills that had previously passed, the Democratic leader is preparing to use the budget reconciliation process to pass this controversial legislation. And please note: We passed a $900 billion bill in December, and only 20 percent of the money that we appropriated is even out the door yet. This is not the time to try to make political statements. This is the time to try to parse where the needs are and to target those resources to the people who need them--not a time to pass your liberal outbox and agenda. So, unfortunately, this reconciliation process is designed not to encourage bipartisanship, not to encourage negotiation, not to get bipartisan buy-in. In short, it is not designed to achieve unity at all--just the opposite. Well, after spending almost a trillion dollars this December, just about a month ago--again, with only 20 percent of that money actually out the door and on the way to the people who need it--our Democratic colleagues are prepared to spend nearly double that amount when a huge portion of the previous funding hasn't even reached its intended target. As of a couple of weeks ago, States had spent just $4 billion of the $68 billion we appropriated for K-12 schools--$4 billion of the $68 billion. And what do our Democratic colleagues want to do? They want to continue to shovel money out the door. The CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, has distributed only about a third of the $9 billion we have already appropriated for vaccine distribution--only a third. And then there are tens of billions of dollars in unspent funds for everything from COVID-19 testing to the Paycheck Protection Program. So it is hard for me to see--and I am sure I am not alone--the justification for spending tens of billions of dollars more in places where previous funding is still waiting to be spent. There is also the question of whether the current funding is even serving its intended purpose. Federal funding has helped K-12 schools prepare for a safe reopening, and in Texas these have been used to update the ventilation systems, purchase masks and personal protective equipment, and make other investments in classroom safety. But there are other school districts across the country that have gladly accepted that funding but have zero plan to reopen their schools to in-person education. They have capitulated to the teachers unions that have demanded that schools stay closed. Some have said they refuse to go back until all students are vaccinated--not all teachers but all students. There is not even a vaccine approved for people under the age of 16, but that is the demand of the teachers unions, who have showed zero interest in their students but a lot of self-interest. Some of these districts have gladly accepted the funding to prepare for a safe reopening and, in many cases, have put their teachers at the front of the line for vaccines, but somehow the teachers unions are appalled at the idea that schools would actually use these tools to get children back in the classroom. Before we pass another multitrillion-dollar spending bill and add to our rapidly growing national debt, we need to determine where the needs truly are and whether the teachers unions are on board with our goal to get children safely back into the classroom, which is our goal. I will not support a COVID-19 relief proposal that sends hard-earned taxpayer dollars to places where they already have billions that they haven't even spent yet. One great example is additional funding for schools. Our Democratic friends would provide $130 billion more for K- 12 education when there is still $64 billion remaining from the money we appropriated in December. They want to spend $130 billion more when there is still $64 billion available to be spent. Well, even that is a high number because the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, estimated that schools only needed about $22 billion. In other words, they have almost three times more than they already need, according to the CDC, but our Democratic friends want to spend another $130 billion. I will be the first person to advocate for additional relief when and where it i needed, but this massive relief package creates more problems than solutions. I continue to believe that targeted relief bills are the most effective way to support our country without driving up unnecessary spending. Somebody is going to have to pay this money back, and we shouldn't be frivolous about the way we spend it. If there is a need, let's do it. But if there is not a need, it is reckless and irresponsible to continue to shovel money out the door. If there is a need to reinvest in critical areas like unemployment benefits, the reopening of schools, vaccine distribution, or the Paycheck Protection Program, we can and we should replenish those funds through targeted proposals; and I would hope, as before, we would be able to proceed on a bipartisan basis. While Senator Schumer is clearly on the warpath to get this massive relief to the Senate on a partisan vote, at least one of our Democratic colleagues has shown some hesitation about going along with his plan. Senator Manchin, the Senator from West Virginia, said this week he wouldn't vote for a COVID-19 package that wasn't bipartisan. I hope he will stick by his guns. Congress has passed five overwhelmingly bipartisan COVID-19 bills last year. We have overcome disagreements before, and I have no doubt that we could, if we were to try, do so again. This crisis has affected Americans in red States and blue States alike. It would be a shame for the Democratic leader to shut out half of this Chamber in an effort to claim a reckless win for his party. We need to remember, just like the teachers who teach our students, they need to keep their focus on the children and on their education needs and their safety, and we need to keep our attention on our constituents and what their needs are and try to be responsive to their needs--not try to gain some partisan advantage at their expense. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I call up my amendment No. 558 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the amendment I offered would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide additional resources to our Nation's law enforcement officers. We know that the money provided by the Federal Government could be used for a number of reasons, like deescalation training, crime victims' outreach programs, mental health and drug treatment programs to reduce recidivism, and the like. This money could also be used to support the efforts to combat domestic and international terrorism. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. We have a chance to show that we back the blue by voting yes on this amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote for it. Vote on Amendment No. 558 Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all have learned, the devastation caused by COVID-19 reaches far beyond the health impact of the virus itself. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs or other sources of income. Countless small businesses no longer exist, and the stress and uncertainty surrounding the pandemic has taken a toll on the mental health of every American. That is especially true for children, whose worlds have been flipped upside down. Last spring, schools in Texas and across the country transitioned from in-person to virtual instruction in order to help stop the spread of the virus. In the beginning, we thought this was a short-term measure, a way to keep students, teachers, and their families safe from the virus we knew very little about at the time. I don't think any of us expected that those closures would last as long as they have, with many students across the country coming up on their 1-year anniversary of virtual learning. As weeks turned into months, it became clear that online instruction was no replacement for classroom learning. We know many families just don't have the ability either to access broadband or they don't have the supervision at home of family members to help keep children on task when it comes to virtual learning. It is a poor substitute, in most instances, unless it is just absolutely necessary. Last spring, schools in Texas and across the country transitioned to virtual instruction, as I said, to stop the spread of the virus. We thought this would be a way to stop the spread, but as weeks turned into months, it became clear that many kids were falling behind, especially in foundational subjects like math and reading, and the learning deficit is even greater for students of color and those in high poverty communities. One study found that for math, White students began this year about 1 to 3 months behind in their learning, while students of color fell 3 to 5 months behind. We know that the impact is not purely academic. There is also a serious mental and emotional toll. The Texas Tribune recently shared a story of one student, a boy they refer to as Jordan. He was a student in the Frisco Independent School District, and like kids across the country, he struggled with the challenge of virtual learning. This fall, his normal A's and B's dropped to F's, and the further he fell behind, the harder it was for him to catch up. In October, Jordan opened up a Google doc and typed an absolutely agonizing message. He said ``give me 10 GOOD reasons why I shuldnt kill myself here.'' And when you think that can't get any more heartbreaking, it does. The list was blank. An 11-year-old boy felt so lost and defeated, he couldn't come up with a single reason to continue living. Well, if there is a bright spot in this otherwise very dark story, it is that this incident did not go unnoticed. Jordan was using a school- issued computer, and the school district's technology department quickly flagged this alarming information for counselors, who alerted Jordan's mother. She was able to intervene, thankfully, before those dark thoughts could be turned into action and get Jordan the mental health treatment he needed. While I am glad to report that Jordan is now back in the classroom where his grades are improving and he is able to spend time with his friends--an important part of the socializing function of our schools and going to class with others--but, sadly, the pain and suffering this student experienced is not unique. The Frisco Independent School District, where Jordan is a student, has already surpassed the number of students hospitalized for mental health concerns from last school year, and the number of students considering attempting or dying by suicide is also on track to break previous records. The pandemic has simply taken a devastating toll on our children academically, socially, and emotionally. So I am here to add my voice to those who say we need our schools to open and, of course, to do so safely, which I believe they can. In December, the then-President-Elect Biden promised to safely reopen the majority of schools within the first hundred days in the White House. He said it should be a national priority to get our kids back into school and to keep them in school. I agree. Our children deserve the quality and the stability that only in-person instruction can provide, and parents deserve the option to choose the learning model that works best for their kids. That is why Congress has appropriated more than $110 billion to support education, including $67 billion specifically for K-12 students. This funding has allowed schools to supply their students with what they need for virtual learning where that is required, including laptops and hotspots, while also preparing for a safe return to the classroom. Administrators at each school are able to evaluate their individual needs and risks, and I am sure all of them vary by circumstance to some extent. But they also need to implement the necessary precautions to keep, obviously, the students and teachers safe. Texas schools have used Federal funding to update their air filtration systems, purchase personal protective equipment, and implement regular disinfecting. The results are pretty clear. A headline from the Houston Chronicle in December read: ``COVID Spread Remains Minimal in Texas Schools Despite State Surge.'' The truth is, the virus doesn't affect all of us identically. There are a lot of differences according to age. The President has repeatedly emphasized his trust in science, so let's take a look at the science here. Just last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report that found ``there has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission.'' The lead author of that report affirmed that even in places with otherwise high infection rates, there is no evidence that schools will transmit the virus at a higher rate than the general community. In short, it seems that schools are not a breeding ground for COVID- 19, and as long as commonsense precautions are taken, then schools can reopen safely. I know that has been the case in a lot of the parochial schools where, frankly, if they didn't have students showing up for class, they would be out of business. It is only in the public schools where you see this phenomena of extended virtual learning and a refusal of many teachers to return to the classroom. I know this has presented a dilemma for President Biden because in this case the science is at odds with a key group of his supporters, which are teachers unions. Unions in a number of major cities, like Chicago, have refused to return to school, despite the fact that evidence shows that schools are able to open safely--again, if proper precautions are taken. And Congress has provided tens of billions of dollars to help them do so, and teachers, like others across the country are being vaccinated. Teachers unions demand, in some cases, that schools be closed altogether. Just outside of the District of Columbia, in Fairfax County, VA, the situation is even more bewildering. The school board and teachers union have said they will not return to schools until all students are vaccinated. As a reminder, there is currently no approved vaccine for children under the age of 16 and, likely, won't be for some time. Yet even with no return to in-person learning in sight, teachers are still receiving the vaccine, which I think is a good thing. More shots in arms ought to be all of our goal. But as you can imagine, the Biden administration is having a tough time explaining this one away--how, on one hand, the President said, ``Let's get children safely back into classrooms,'' and, on the other hand, many teachers unions refusing to return. In a recent television appearance, the President's Chief of Staff was asked why the teachers unions are overruling what the studies would otherwise show, and he appeared to come to the defense of the unions' decision. Well, that is not a commitment to science, and it is important that all of us listen to the science when we make our decisions and that they not be made based on a political agenda or who is for or against the proposition. Our focus ought to be clearly on the students and the quality of education that they are receiving, as well as the collateral damage that is being done by keeping them out of the classroom. The science is clear. If the proper precautions are taken, it is safe for our schools to reopen. Again, we have provided tens of billions of dollars to support safe reopening, including $55 billion to K-12 schools in the omnibus that was signed into law just last December, just about a month ago. This funding is helping schools safely welcome their students back to the classroom, where they can better learn, socialize, and build a strong foundation for a successful future. We need our children to be well educated. This is the fundamental right in our democracy and a necessity in a self-governing form of government. The administration shouldn't try to distance itself from the President's 100-day promise. It should do more to encourage a safe return. When it comes to reopening schools, President Biden needs to take his own advice and listen to the science and not the teachers unions. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, relations between the United States and Russia are more precarious today than at any other time since the Cold War. From Russian-backed mercenaries fighting in the Middle East to the Kremlin's attempt to poison Putin's critics like Alexei Navalny using a nerve agent, the actions of Russia are growing more and more aggressive. That is especially true when it comes to actions against the United States and our allies. We know Russia made a clear attempt to interfere with the 2016 election and delegitimize our democratic processes, like our elections. Through everything from highly coordinated disinformation campaigns to targeted attacks on voting systems, it sought to undermine and potentially change the result of a democratic election. Of course, it is not just our voting systems that have come under attack. Moscow has launched massive cyber attacks against private companies and government agencies alike, the latest being the SolarWinds hack. Last year, Russia attempted to steal coronavirus vaccine research from the United States and our closest allies. The Biden administration has responded to these mounting threats in an unlikely way--by giving Russia exactly what it wants. Sure, I know there were some press reports about a conversation between President Biden and President Putin, but then again, that is all it was--words, not action. This Friday is the expiration date for the New START treaty--the only remaining bilateral strategic nuclear agreement between the United States and Russia. Since New START entered force a decade ago, there has been no lack of criticism about its shortcomings. For example, here on the Senate floor last week, I outlined some of the main issues with New START, including the fact that it only placed limits on strategic nuclear weapons, leaving room open for an endless arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which were particularly of interest to Russia in a potential land war in Europe. The new Senator from Tennessee and former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Bill Hagerty, has echoed that concern as well. But it is not just Republicans who acknowledge the need for a new approach. Victoria Nuland is an experienced and accomplished diplomat with more than three decades of experience, and she has been nominated by President Biden for a high-ranking position in the State Department. In an opinion piece she wrote last year, she wrote that the United States ``should not grant Moscow what it wants most: a free rollover of New START without any negotiations to address Russia's recent investments in short- and medium-range nuclear weapons systems and new conventional weapons.'' In other words, Russia is building new weapons that will not be included in the New START negotiations, but they should be. The President didn't take the advice of Ambassador Nuland, obviously. He didn't advocate for new limits on tactical weapons or these new weapons systems or impose any other conditions to combat Russian aggression. In a call with President Putin last week, President Biden agreed to a clean 5-year extension--no conditions, no negotiations; in short, a capitulation. He gave him a green light to keep doing what they have been doing. Well, it didn't take long for Russian leaders to celebrate this win. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia declared that the United States had agreed to extend the treaty on Russia's terms, and both houses of Russia's Parliament unanimously voted in favor of the ratification of the extension within hours of the announcement. In other words, the Biden administration is on exactly the same page as the Duma. That ought to give them some pause. It is fair to say there has been no celebration here in the United States, but the truth is, there has hardly been any attention paid to this issue at all, including here in Congress. The administration has tried to maintain its focus on the President's long list of executive actions. In his first 2 weeks in office, President Biden has used the power of the pen to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline, rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, stop drilling on Federal lands and in Federal waters, and so much more. Why did the President focus on this agenda? Well, because he has called climate change--not nuclear weapons--the existential threat of our time. Don't get me wrong--I think our country can and should do more to reduce emissions and preserve our land and waters for future generations, but those measures shouldn't come at the cost of thousands of jobs, reduced energy independence, and higher prices for consumers, including seniors on fixed incomes. I have always been a proponent of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy, which relies on fossil fuels and renewables, as well as innovative technologies to provide our country with reliable, affordable, and lower emissions energy sources. In fact just about a month ago, I introduced a bill to help spur that innovation, which was signed into law. But based on the emphasis of the Biden administration on climate change and the near silence we are hearing on nuclear treaties, you would think that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than a nuclear war. Only in a fevered imaginary world could that be true. Our Democratic colleagues in the Senate and many members of the media played along as well, praising the President's efforts to combat one self-proclaimed crisis while ignoring its failure to address a clear and present danger and a threat to the planet. The fact is, the administration missed a huge opportunity by extending the New START treaty without any other conditions, and it has to do with much more than just the threats posed by Russia. While the United States and Russia are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, we are not the only ones. There are five nonproliferation treaty states, two of which are Russia and the United States. But there is also the UK and France, both of which provide regular information about the size and makeup of their nuclear arsenals. The fifth and final power is China, a police state and one of the world's greatest secret keepers, especially when it comes to its nuclear arsenal. China, we think, has quietly been growing its nuclear arsenal for years, and the thick cloak of secrecy surrounding the Chinese Communist Party has made it nearly impossible to verify information about the breadth and depth of its nuclear capabilities. But from the information we have, we know China continues to pursue a nuclear triad, and experts estimate China to have about 300 nuclear weapons. Assuming that figure is correct, it makes China the third most powerful nuclear country in the world, behind the United States and Russia, and we have every reason to believe that the size of its arsenal will continue to grow. In May of 2019, then-Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Robert Ashley, said China is likely to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile over the next decade. He referred to this effort as ``the most rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal in China's history.'' Here we are, a year and a half after that estimate, and there is no reason to believe that China has changed its course. In fact, it appears the announcement of a New START extension received a warm welcome in Beijing, just as it did in Moscow. The story that ran this weekend in the South China Morning Post said this extension ``means the gap between China and the two nuclear giants. . . . will not widen and Beijing could spend the next five years catching up.'' There you have it. That is the real takeaway of a clean extension of New START. The Biden administration has agreed to leave in place a framework in which the Russians continue to cheat, the Chinese play catch up, and the United States is left to play by the rules of a bygone era. Rather than enter into a 5-year extension of New START, the administration should have used its leverage to convene multilateral nuclear talks. America should invite the other nonproliferation states--Russia, China, France, and the UK--to the negotiating table and encourage multilateral talks limiting the growth of nuclear arsenals worldwide. I understand President Biden's desire to focus on the issues he campaigned on--whether it is climate change, immigration reform, or any other policy area--but in doing so, he should not ignore the larger threats to global security or relinquish the leverage we have to secure a deal that improves global security at large. Nuclear weapons, not climate change, are the greatest existential threat we face, and the United States cannot sit idly by while Moscow and Beijing pass us by. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Biden built his campaign for the Presidency around a theme of unity, the promise that he would work to heal the deep divisions that exist in our country and restore respect and bipartisan communication. He has consistently pointed to his decades in the U.S. Senate as proof of his understanding and his ability to achieve results--and for good reason. Senator Biden had a record of working across the aisle and brokering bipartisan deals, but so far, at least, the actions of President Biden have run counter to his image as a pragmatic dealmaker. Let's look at the first big test, which is coronavirus relief. This, of course, has been the main focus of the Senate for nearly a year now. We passed several bipartisan bills, ranging from far-reaching, multitrillion-dollar packages to smaller, more targeted bills, and every single one received overwhelming bipartisan support. Make no mistake, the path to getting those bills signed into law was not easy. The Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled House had very different ideas about the size and shape of those bills, but we managed to overcome those differences and provide trillions of dollars in relief to support our response on both the healthcare and economic fronts. President Biden has made COVID relief a top priority and laid out a framework for a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which includes everything from bipartisan priorities, like funding for vaccines, to partisan ones, like slush funds for blue States. I don't support the President's proposal in its current form, but I do believe that it is a good place to start to kick off bipartisan negotiations. I also believe that before we rush out and throw trillions of dollars--I should say more dollars--at this problem, we need to see how what we have done is already working. In fact, it was only a month ago when we passed our last COVID-19 relief bill with big bipartisan votes, and that money is not even out the door yet. As we look to the future, I had high hopes that we could continue this trend of working together. After all, that is the idea the President ran on--bipartisanship, deal making, and reaching across the aisle to build consensus. President Biden knows the rough and tumble of the legislative process very well. He helped broker many compromises during his career and promised to use that experience to restore bipartisanship in Washington. But that is not what the early days of this administration have looked like, not even close. Our Democratic colleagues kicked off the year with threats to eliminate the filibuster. We know the filibuster is the single biggest safeguard of the minority in the Senate, whether it be Republican or Democrat, because it requires--indeed, it forces--bipartisan compromise in order to advance legislation For the past 6 years, as the minority party, our Democratic colleagues have proudly filibustered bill after bill. They have blocked the Senate from considering legislation on everything from coronavirus to justice reform, to border security. Make no mistake, Republicans were frustrated. It is frustrating to have the majority and not be able to get what you want. But the integrity of the filibuster and its ultimate purpose was never called into question, even though Leader McConnell faced calls from many-- including President Trump--to toss it out the window. But in this new reality of a 50-50 Senate, the Democratic leader has so far not been interested in playing by the existing rules. He wants an easy, compromised-free path for the Democratic radical agenda, and he is prepared to go full-scorched earth to make it happen. Senator Schumer has threatened to eliminate the legislative filibuster and subject the country to the chaos that a majority-ruled Senate would create. The difference here, of course, is that Leader McConnell stood up to those in his own party who called for this. Senator Schumer so far has led us to believe that he will not do the same. Fortunately, the Senators from West Virginia and Arizona, Senators Manchin and Sinema, have vowed not to participate in this dangerous exercise. And it is clear--or it should be clear, but I will emphasize--that this is not for the benefit of the minority party. This is for the benefit of the Senate as an institution and the country as a whole. With the elimination of the filibuster off the table, because at least two Democratic Senators will not vote to eliminate it, Senate Democrats have found a new opportunity to break the rules, ignore precedent, and pave a path for partisan legislation. If the reports can be believed, our Democratic colleagues are preparing to abuse the budget reconciliation process to ram President Biden's coronavirus relief proposal through the Senate. This is a process designed as a way to enact certain fiscal policies in a budget resolution--things like spending reductions, tax relief, or tax increases. Unlike the traditional legislative process, which is used for the majority of the bills that move through the Senate, there is no 60-vote threshold when you use budget reconciliation. But that doesn't mean you can or you should fast-track partisan legislation. In fact, our predecessors have warned us against that. One of the most influential Senators in protecting this budget reconciliation process was Robert C. Byrd, the longtime Senator from West Virginia. He was the architect of the now so-called Byrd rule, which is used to keep the reconciliation process from being used to circumvent the normal legislative process. In short, he wanted to prevent the process from being abused in the way Democrats appear to be preparing for now. The referee in all of this is the Senate Parliamentarian, a nonpartisan expert adviser on Senate rules and procedure. Folks on both sides of the aisle know and respect our Parliamentarian and the people who work with her. We respect their guidance to understand the rules of the Senate and ensure that both sides are treated fairly. The most senior Member of this Chamber, the President pro tempore, once said: I've been here with many, many parliamentarians. All were good. But she's the best. Throughout modern history, Senate Parliamentarians have advised the Senate on which provisions can and cannot be included in a budget reconciliation bill based on the application of the Byrd rule. In fact, the Parliamentarian gives it a process known as ``a Byrd bath.'' While the majority party technically has the power to determine whether or not to accept the Parliamentarian's advice, there has never been much of a question about whether to do so or not. Think about this. It would be like allowing a batter in the World Series to ignore the umpire's balls-and-strikes call and treat every pitch as if it were a ball. I am sure it is no surprise, then, that the last time either party ignored the Parliamentarian's ruling was 1975-- nearly 50 years ago. Since then, both Republicans and Democrats have understood the dangers of such reckless action and have respected the advice of the Parliamentarian, even when it punches a hole in their own legislation. But if reports are to be believed, it looks like our Democratic colleagues may be preparing to break precedent once again. With the filibuster--legislative filibuster--still intact, our Democratic colleagues are no doubt considering a plan to shove President Biden's massive coronavirus relief bill through the Senate using reconciliation, and that plan involves ignoring any adverse rulings from the Parliamentarian. Over the last several decades, Senators on both sides have refrained from such a dangerous move because of the precedent it would set. Here is another instance where, despite pressure from some in my party, Leader McConnell refrained from eliminating the legislative filibuster. He knew how detrimental it would be to the U.S. Senate as an institution. Basically, what we are hearing now about budget reconciliation and considering eliminating the Byrd rule is essentially a backdoor method to eliminate the filibuster and push the most partisan, controversial measures through with only a simple majority. In 2001, Senator Byrd said: ``Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be used as a shield for controversial legislation by depriving Senators of their rights and their duty to debate and amend.'' But that is precisely what our Democratic colleagues are reported to be considering now--to overrule the advice of a nonpartisan adviser to the Senate so they can deprive Senators of their duty and ability to debate and amend legislation. I urge our colleagues not to go down this road. After all, you would have thought they learned a lesson now that the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to nominations and the filibuster. In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid went nuclear and eliminated the 60-vote cloture requirement on judicial nominees--something distinct and different from a legislative filibuster but applied to nominees. Leader McConnell told our colleague from Nevada at the time: ``You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.'' And as it turned out, he was right. As our colleagues now know very well, the Republican-led Senate confirmed more than 230 judges who were nominated by President Trump, all thanks Harry Reid's rule change. This action cleared the way to eliminate the 60-vote cloture threshold on Supreme Court nominees, which lead to the confirmation of three Supreme Court Justices during the Trump Presidency. There are inherent and perhaps unintended consequences of changing the rules in a place where your power is never permanently guaranteed. Chipping away at the rights of the minority may help you now, but you are sure to regret that someday, just as Democrats now regret the day Harry Reid cleared an easy path for hundreds of conservative Federal judges. There are a few ways to stop this madness before Democrats head down this dangerous path. The first is for President Biden to intervene and warn Senate Democrats not to break the rules by ignoring decades of precedent. We are less than 2 weeks in a Biden Presidency, which was won on the promise of working together. President Biden consistently pointed to his experience as a U.S. Senator as evidence of his ability to reach across the aisle to get things done. This will be his first test. Will he urge Senate Democrats to pursue a bipartisan approach to legislating, or will he give up on his single largest campaign promise less than 2 weeks into his administration? The second option is for our Democratic colleagues to speak up. Senators Manchin and Sinema stood up to the Democratic leader when he threatened to eliminate the filibuster. As I see it, this is no less dangerous. Whatever precedent you set or break when you are on one side will affect you when you are on the other side, which you, inevitably, will ultimately be. If Democrats destroy the budget reconciliation process now, it will clear the way for them to pass a progressive agenda with absolutely zero need for Republican votes. That could include everything from Federal funding for abortions to heavyhanded climate policies. And when Republicans ultimately find themselves in the majority, all of these policies could be eliminated with a party-line vote and replaced with new laws. This is a dangerous and unnecessary road to go down, and our Democratic colleagues have a duty, I believe, as Members of this body, to respect its rules and respect the Senate as an institution. The Senate should not replace the Byrd rule with Harry's rule. I would like to once again share some wise words from our late colleague Senator Byrd, who was known as a master of the Senate rules and process and procedure. Not long before his death, he spoke in a Senate Rules Committee hearing about the importance of protecting minority rights--something the Senate has been known for. Oddly enough, the current Democratic leader was presiding at the time. Senator Byrd said: As I have said before, the Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.