John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''; and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio, and I would ask that this amendment be adopted by voice. Vote on Amendment No. 52, As Modified

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in his victory speech and in his inauguration address, President Biden pledged to be a President for all Americans. He said: I pledge to be a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn't see Red and Blue states, but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people. He reiterated that sentiment at his inauguration stating: On this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together. Uniting our people . . . uniting our Nation. It is a sentiment that I honor. As I said the day after the inauguration, if President Biden can truly be a President who governs for all Americans and who respects all Americans and who works to win the confidence of the whole people, he will have done our Nation a great service. But it is not enough to talk about unity. It has to be matched with action. Too many of the President's actions so far have been more calculated to appeal to the far-left wing of the Democratic Party than to unite Americans. In his 2 weeks in office, the President has signed off on a long list of Executive actions, many of which read like a wish list of leftist priorities. In a nod to the far-left environmental wing of the Democrat Party, the President issued a new moratorium on oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and called a halt to the Keystone XL Pipeline, even though we are a long way from significantly reducing or eliminating our need for oil and natural gas. Domestic oil and gas production is essential to maintaining an affordable and reliable energy supply here at home. Halting new oil and gas drilling could jeopardize the stability of other affordable energy supply and will definitely jeopardize American jobs supported by this industry. As for the Keystone XL Pipeline, stopping this project--which I would point out is well underway--is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. America will still need reliable sources of oil, and a modern pipeline is a cleaner way to transport. Keystone XL has been through multiple exhaustive environmental reviews, and, on top of that, its builder has committed to fully offsetting its operations with $1.7 billion in renewable energy purchases. The oil trains, trucks, and other pipelines still moving crude oil today aren't doing that. In fact, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a staunch liberal, included the pipeline in Canada's clean energy plan. It is also worth noting, in addition to eliminating an environmentally responsible means of transporting oil, canceling the pipeline project will cost thousands of jobs, which is particularly unfortunate given the many jobs that have been lost during this pandemic. On day one of his Presidency, President Biden effectively fired 2,000 pipeline workers and told another 9,000 never to show up. Then, of course, there is the President's order halting construction of the border wall on our southern border. The Biden administration has plans for sweeping immigration reform but does not seem to be placing much of an emphasis on border security. Instead, they have reduced the wall to a symbol of the Trump administration and chosen to satisfy immigration activists by halting construction without offering adequate alternate ways to secure our borders against the flood of illegal immigration or drug and human trafficking and other criminal activity. Then, of course, there is the President's decision to overturn the Mexico City policy, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries. The majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. A new poll released last month showed a majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars going to fund abortions, yet the President has acted to ensure that American tax dollars can go to fund overseas abortions whether Americans want them to or not. In addition, this administration has given every sign that it intends to pursue a radically pro-abortion agenda that is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans. Last week, the New York Times published an editorial urging the President to slow down the Executive orders and to embrace policymaking. The Times correctly pointed out that permanent legislation on issues like immigration is better for the country than wild policy shifts between administrations, and the Times urged the President to focus less on Executive orders and more on legislating. The editorial noted the President's pledge to seek unity and that on the campaign trail he ``often touted his skill at finding compromise, and his decades as a legislator, as reasons to elect him over Mr. Trump.'' Now is the time for the President to show that he does really mean to live up to his inaugural pledge and to unify our Nation. That means not just talk, but action. It means working with lawmakers of both parties to develop legislation, not pushing exclusively Democrat measures. It means urging Democrat congressional leaders to actually negotiate with Republicans instead of trying to force through an agenda that lacks the support of half or more of the country. It means focusing less on checking off the priorities of the far left and more on actually representing the views of the majority of Americans. The President has a chance to genuinely unify our Nation, but he will have to decide whether or not he wants to take it. S. Con. Res. 5 Mr. President, yesterday, I came down to the floor to talk about Democrats' decision to pursue a partisan budget resolution designed to pave the way for a partisan COVID relief measure, despite the fact that Congress has produced five--five--prior COVID relief packages and appropriated trillions of dollars on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. Republicans put forward several ideas to improve the measure: an amendment to protect small businesses hit hard by the pandemic from sudden tax increases; an amendment to ensure that schools actually open, especially after teachers receive the vaccine; an amendment to ensure that States deal honestly and transparently with the tragic COVID deaths that had happened at certain nursing homes; an amendment to protect healthcare workers who travel to other States to help during the pandemic from getting surprise tax bills from those State as a thank-you note. I would like to think the Democrats would support some of these amendments. My amendment to protect healthcare workers is based on legislation I advanced that has received strong bipartisan support, although it has been opposed by a handful of States, like the Democratic leader's, that aggressively tax mobile workers. So far Democrats have not shown much of an inclination to entertain Republican ideas, no matter how much they would help address the effects of the pandemic. Democrats have indicated that they may allow a handful of amendments that enjoy some Republican support, but that doesn't change the essentially partisan character of this undertaking, which is designed to allow Democrats to pass the legislation that they want on an entirely partisan basis. Will we see political amendments on the floor during this process? Sure, we will, from both parties. Democrats have chosen a political maneuver instead of seeking to replicate the bipartisan success we had with COVID bills like the CARES Act. We did five--five--COVID bills while we were the majority at the 60-vote threshold, which is required for most legislation here in the Senate, but with bipartisan support. Here we are in a purely partisan legislative exercise on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So yes, Republicans will offer some political amendments, but we will also offer COVID-related amendments the Democrats should support if they truly want to deliver help to those in need. It is deeply disappointing that Democrats are heading down this partisan path. If they really wanted to govern for all Americans, they would work with Republicans to pass yet another bipartisan COVID bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 52 be called up, as modified, and reported by number.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one significant thing we could do to provide genuine relief to Americans is to address the tax situation facing remote and mobile workers, like the medical professionals who travel from other States to help during the COVID crisis who now may be facing a surprise big, fat tax bill. Mobile workers generally have to file tax returns in multiple States, as tax rules often differ, and with COVID, many employers had their employees begin working from home, presenting a possible tax problem for workers who live in a different State than the one they work in. This amendment would address these challenges. It would create a uniform standard for mobile workers, codify the prepandemic status quo for remote workers, and establish a special 90-day standard for healthcare workers and others who traveled to another State to help during the pandemic and to ensure that these workers don't face an unexpected tax bill. I would ask that we adopt the amendment.

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

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

Mr. THUNE. I yield back time.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I had the opportunity to pay my respects to U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who lies in honor right now in the Capitol Rotunda. By all accounts, Brian Sicknick decided early on that he wanted to be a police officer. He joined the National Guard as a way to achieve this, serving our country for 6 years before finally joining the Capitol Police in 2008. On January 6, 2021, he joined his fellow police officers to defend the Capitol from invasion by a violent mob. He was attacked by the invaders, pepper-sprayed twice, and reportedly hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. He later collapsed at his office as a result of his injuries and was transported to the hospital, where he died the next day. While reading accounts of Officer Sicknick's death, I was particularly struck by reports that he returned to his division office after the day that he had had. A lot of us, after having been pepper- sprayed twice and hit on the head, would probably have made a beeline for the hospital or for home. Even if, like Officer Sicknick, we weren't aware of just how badly we had been injured, I am not sure we would have returned to the office. But Officer Sicknick did. His family noted that Officer Sicknick had ``an incredible work ethic. He was very serious about showing up to work on time and refused to call out sick unless absolutely necessary.'' We saw that dedication on January 6. His first thought was not of his injuries but of the job that he was committed to. We are the beneficiaries of the service and dedication of men and women like Brian Sicknick, men and women who get up every day not knowing what they will face but willing to sacrifice up to and including their very lives to protect those that need protecting. In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells his disciples, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' All of us marvel and are moved when we hear stories of those who have laid down their lives to protect others: the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies, the mother who leaps in front of her child to protect her, the firefighter who dies trying to rescue someone from a burning house. But Officer Sicknick's story hits particularly sharply because Officer Sicknick laid down his life for us. He died for us. He died for me, for every Senator in this Chamber, and for every Representative, for every staff member, for every cafeteria worker and maintenance worker and administrative worker in the Capitol Complex. We were in danger, and he stepped forward to protect us. And he died for us. Greater love hath no man than this. There is no repaying such a sacrifice. There is no earning it. We can only honor it and try to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of it. Officer Brian Sicknick died as he lived: defending the U.S. Capitol and all those within it. My thoughts and prayers are with Officer Sicknick's family and with all those who loved him as they mourn the life of this brave man Bipartisanship Mr. President, in his victory speech and later in his inauguration address, President Biden made it clear that he intended to govern for all Americans. He pledged to be ``a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn't see Red and Blue states but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people.'' I was encouraged by his words and hopeful of the potential for a new day in American politics and real bipartisan legislative work on the priorities facing the American people. It is still a hope I have, but I am discouraged by the path that we are on here in Congress. Yesterday, Senate Democrats voted to proceed to a budget resolution designed to allow Democrats to pass COVID legislation on a purely partisan basis. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, it is common to talk about unity at inaugurations. I have been to a lot of them, but all too often that commitment is quickly forgotten. And, unfortunately, we are already seeing signs that Members of the Democrat leadership are rapidly abandoning the President's call for bipartisanship. Democrats' turn toward budget reconciliation--a process that allows certain legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority instead of 60 votes, which is normal here--would be more understandable if Republicans had categorically refused to consider any additional COVID legislation, but that isn't even close to being the case. Republicans share Democrats' commitment to COVID priorities, like vaccinating Americans and getting our children back in the classroom. In fact, we passed five--five--COVID relief bills so far in Congress, totaling more than $4 trillion, and every single one of those bills was passed under Republican leadership in the Senate, with bipartisan cooperation, at the 60-vote threshold. Just this week, a group of 10 Republicans outlined a $600 billion COVID proposal that would fund vaccine distribution, extend enhanced unemployment benefits, and provide additional economic support to Americans who need it most. And on Monday night, at the same time that Speaker Pelosi released her budget bill, those 10 Republicans were meeting with President Biden in the Oval Office for 2 hours. Republicans are more than ready to work with Democrats on additional COVID relief. Now, I won't pretend that we don't have reservations about some of the measures that Democrats have proposed. For instance, I don't think an emergency COVID bill is the place to push through a change that would more than double the Federal minimum wage and directly increase expenses on businesses that have been decimated by the pandemic. I also think that sending checks to those who don't need them and won't spend them is not a good use of taxpayer money. But disagreement over aspects of the Democrat proposal does not mean that Republicans are not willing to work with Democrats on COVID relief. Democrats' move toward a purely partisan pathway on COVID legislation is troubling, but what is even more disturbing is the noise that Democrats are making about gutting the Byrd rule, which was named for and introduced by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and adopted to prevent abuse of the budget reconciliation process and protect the rights of the minority in the Senate. It limits the proposals that can be considered under budget reconciliation so that the majority party in the Senate cannot use the budget reconciliation process to push through any legislation it wants with a bare majority vote. But some Democrats are suggesting doing away with the Byrd rule as a way of getting around the legislative filibuster, and that is a big problem. Preserving minority rights was a priority for the Founders. They knew that, in democratic forms of government, tyrannical majorities could easily trample the rights of the minority, so they were determined to put in place a system of checks and balances that would protect the rights of the minority. One of those checks was the U.S. Senate. And as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the Senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact on protecting minority rights in the Senate. But the Byrd rule has played a key role as well. By limiting Senators' ability to use budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster, the Byrd rule has helped ensure that the minority has at least some voice in most legislation passed by the Senate. In 2017, when Republicans held the majority in Congress as well as the White House, there were calls within our party to gut the Byrd rule and to abolish the filibuster, but the Republican majority in the Senate refused. We knew that abolishing the legislative filibuster, or de facto abolishing it by gutting the Byrd rule, would seriously weaken minority representation in the Senate. So for the long-term good of the Senate and the country, we refused. We knew that it would be a betrayal of our obligation to Senators to undermine the Senate's key role as a protector of minority rights. I would just remind Democrats that, back in 2017, they strongly agreed with our decision. I trust that their opinion has not changed simply because they are now in the majority. Minority representation would be important even if elections tended to break 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of one party or another across the country. All Americans deserve to be represented in government, but it is particularly important when you consider that our country and the Senate is pretty evenly split right down the middle, which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means disenfranchising half of the entire country. While the far-left wing of the Democrat party would like to use this election to implement every extreme, pie-in-the-sky, socialist proposal on its list, that is not what the American people voted for in this election. Americans voted for a Presidential candidate historically regarded as a moderate. Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives. And while, thanks to the Vice President, they have a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, they did not actually win a majority of seats in the Senate. My point very simply is that if any mandate was given in this election, it was a mandate for moderation, for bipartisanship, for unity. And I hope that Democrats remember that and resist calls from the far left to gut the Senate's rules and fundamentally change the character of this institution. I still believe that we can come together in this Congress to address the challenges facing our country, but it is going to require a lot more bipartisanship than we are seeing from a lot of Democrats. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize those South Dakotans participating in the virtual March for Life tomorrow. We have gotten used to saying ``it is going to be a little different this year'' during the pandemic, and that applies to the March for Life as well. Usually, tens of thousands of Americans travel to Washington, DC, every January to participate in the march--Americans from every State in the union, of every political persuasion, of every religion or none at all--all united by their commitment to defending the dignity and value and humanity of the unborn child. This year the march will be virtual, but pro-life Americans will still be united in spirit. To all of those South Dakotans virtually marching tomorrow and to all those Americans everywhere united in the pro-life cause, thank you. Thank you for standing--standing up every year on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Most of all, thank you for everything that you do throughout the year, because the biggest work of the pro-life movement happens outside of the March for Life. It happens in churches around America, where congregations collect money to support prenatal care for pregnant women in need or gather diapers and baby supplies to give to struggling mothers. It happens on college campuses, where pro-life students educate their peers about the reality of abortion. It happens in crisis pregnancy centers, where moms and dads facing unplanned pregnancies are met with resources and love and support. It happens at maternity homes, where single moms get the support they need to have their babies and to build job skills or get an education. Every day, you are building a culture of life in this country with your work and your political action and your prayers. I know that is not always easy, but the race is not to the swift nor the strong. It is to those who endure, and I am confident that, sooner or later, right and justice will prevail because we have the truth on our side--the truth that every human being, no matter how old or how young, no matter the race or the color of their skin, no matter their religion or political persuasion, is created in the image and likeness of God and has infinite dignity and worth. So keep standing up for the babies, and tomorrow I will be joining my prayers with yours that one day soon the right to life of unborn human beings will be protected in law. May God bless you all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.