John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, yesterday I voted to advance out of committee President Biden's nomination of Pete Buttigieg as head of the Department of Transportation, and the full Senate will soon vote to confirm him. I had a good meeting and discussion with Mr. Buttigieg last week. We talked about a number of South Dakota transportation priorities. Our Nation is due for another major infrastructure bill, and I asked Mr. Buttigieg to commit to maintaining strong investments in rural highway funding and other rural transportation priorities as part of any infrastructure legislation. A strong rural transportation infrastructure benefits the entire national transportation system by connecting major highways and railways to the regions that produce so many of the agricultural and industrial products that we rely on. It is key to helping South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around the country get their products to market. I also asked Mr. Buttigieg to work with me to improve Tribal transportation infrastructure. Right now, prosperous Tribes in populous areas receive a disproportionate amount of Tribal transportation funding, even though their needs are often less pressing than those facing large rural Tribes, like those in South Dakota. I am committed to ensuring that rural Tribes get their fair share of Tribal transportation funding, and I was pleased that Mr. Buttigieg agreed to work with me on this issue. I also enjoyed discussing autonomous vehicle legislation with him. He shares my interest in the technological, environmental, and safety benefits self-driving vehicles can offer, and I look forward to working with him on this issue. Highway bills have always been a place for bipartisan cooperation, and the bill released last Congress by Senators Barrasso and Carper was no exception. I hope that bipartisan tradition will continue in this Congress and that Democrats and Republicans can work together to deliver a significant infrastructure package in the near future

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on the subject of bipartisanship, I am disturbed by the rumors that Democrats plan to use reconciliation to force another COVID bill through Congress on partisan lines before even giving good-faith effort to bipartisan negotiations. Republicans are more than willing to work with Democrats on additional targeted COVID relief legislation. 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 relief 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. That is a policy with a lot of economic consequences, and it shouldn't be pushed through Congress in a hasty fashion. Republicans are also concerned about the enormous amount of money that Democrats want to spend. We have already spent more than $4 trillion to address this pandemic, and we need to be very careful--very careful--about additional spending and appropriate only what is necessary to respond to this pandemic and with an eye to the burden that we are putting on the economy and on young Americans as we increase our national debt. The higher our national debt, the greater the drag on economic growth and the more likely it is that young Americans will face increasingly burdensome tax bills in the future to meet our debt obligations. But let me be very clear. While Republicans certainly have concerns about some of the Democrats' proposals, we are committed to defeating this pandemic and to getting Americans vaccinated, and we are ready to work with Democrats on any necessary COVID relief legislation that would achieve that objective. It would be very disappointing if Democrats decided to shove a partisan bill through Congress without even attempting to work with Republicans.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Friday, we observed the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade--the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. It is a somber day every year, as we contemplate the millions of lives lost to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and if you look at the polling on the issue, one thing becomes clear: The majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Some believe that abortion should be completely illegal. Some believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. But the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion. Why is that? Why, despite the best efforts of the far left, do the majority of Americans think there should be at least some restrictions on abortion? I suspect the answer is that every person knows on some level that when we are talking about abortion, we are talking about a baby, a human being. It is not rocket science; it is biology 101. Human moms and dads have human babies. Take one look at an ultrasound, at a baby girl sucking her thumb or a baby boy kicking his feet, and it is pretty hard to argue that is just a clump of cells. I believe that is why, despite years of fierce abortion advocacy from the far left, the majority of Americans do not believe in unrestricted abortion, because they know--they know--the unborn child is a human being, and they know a human being deserves to be protected even when they are small and weak and vulnerable--especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable. The truth is, advocates of abortion are fighting an uphill battle. It doesn't always feel like that. After all, they have a lot of support from the entertainment industry and magazines and media outlets and Democratic politicians. The pro-abortion left has a lot of money. They have won too many victories, and too many babies have been killed. But despite their money and platform and advantage, in 48 years, advocates for abortion have not won their fight. They have not managed to convince anywhere close to a majority of Americans that abortion is an unqualified good and should be available unrestricted and on demand, and that is because, for all their advantages, they are fighting an unwinnable battle because they are fighting against reality, they are fighting against truth, they are fighting against science, and they are fighting against the knowledge that is written on every human heart, a truth that gets obscured but is hard to completely erase, and that is, every human being has value and deserves to be protected. Last week, I came down to the floor to praise President Biden's call for unity, and I suggested that one way he could show that commitment was by nominating individuals for key posts who represent a majority of Americans instead of the far-left wing of his party. I think several of the President's nominations have demonstrated his commitment to unity. While perhaps not the people I would have chosen, I believe that a number of his nominees will serve Americans well, and I have voted accordingly, casting votes in favor of President Biden's choice for Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense, among others. But unfortunately President Biden has also nominated some individuals who represent the extreme left of the Democratic Party rather than mainstream Americans, and nowhere is that more true than with his radically pro-abortion nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of the House of Representatives, Javier Becerra accumulated an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record, even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous and repulsive, it is difficult even to describe. As attorney general of California, he used his position to advance the pro-abortion cause. On top of that, he has shown a disturbing tendency to use his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As California attorney general, he sued an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor to try to force them to offer health insurance benefits that violate their faith. That is right--he thought it a good use of his time as attorney general to sue an order of nuns who care for the elderly poor. He also enthusiastically sought to enforce a California law that forced crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which overturned the California law because it violated the free speech protection of the First Amendment. It is bad to support evils like abortion. It is worse to not only support an evil but to attempt to force others to participate in it in violation of their consciences. I know the President is a man of faith, which makes it particularly perplexing why he would choose to nominate an individual who has used his position to attack freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Becerra would have the ability to not only push an extremist abortion agenda but to roll back important progress made to protect individuals' conscience rights. I am disappointed by the President's choice. Javier Becerra's pro-abortion views do not represent the views of the majority of Americans. I am also very disappointed by the announcement that President Biden will overturn the Mexico City policy, which protects taxpayer dollars from being used to finance abortion in other countries. This is not a unifying action. Americans were not clamoring to have their tax dollars start supporting abortions abroad. This is only a priority for the pro- abortion lobby. As I said, I am disappointed in the President's actions, and going forward, I hope he will not let his Presidency be hijacked by abortion extremists. But whatever policies this administration pursues, I and many of my colleagues will continue to work to promote a culture of life in this country. The arc--the arc--of the moral universe is long, but I believe it does bend towards justice. I look forward to the day that we will secure justice for unborn human beings by ensuring that they are protected I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about the legislative filibuster here in the Senate over the last few days. As we started the new Congress evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican leader had proposed that the Democrat leader include a commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster and the power-sharing agreement the leaders have been working out. This should have been easy. Less than 4 years ago, with a Republican President in the White House and Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of 61 Senators affirmed their support for retaining the legislative filibuster, stating: ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.'' There are 26--26--current Democratic Senators--a majority of the current Democratic caucus--who signed that defense of the legislative filibuster when they were in the Senate minority. It is disappointing that the Democrat leader failed to express his support for this essential Senate rule. Nevertheless, thanks to the recent commitment from two Senate Democrats to oppose any attempt to eliminate the filibuster--a commitment which secures this key protection for minority rights-- Leader McConnell is now moving forward without a statement from the Democrat leader. But it is worth taking a moment to reiterate why the legislative filibuster is so important. The legislative filibuster, of course, is essentially the requirement that 60 Senators agree before the Senate can end debate and vote on a bill. In other words, you need 60 percent of the Senate to agree before you can pass a bill. This usually means that you need the support of at least some Members of the other party before you can move legislation. The party in power doesn't always enjoy that rule. All of us would like the opportunity to pass exactly the legislation that we want. But most of us recognize that it is a good requirement. The legislative filibuster ensures that the minority is represented in the legislation. This would be important even if elections tended to break 60 to 40 or 70 to 30 in favor of one party or another. All Americans, whether or not they are in the majority, deserve to be represented. But it is particularly important when you consider that our country is pretty evenly split down the middle. While the advantage sometimes goes to Democrats and sometimes to Republicans, the truth is that our country is pretty evenly split, which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means disenfranchising half of the country. Of course, the party in power generally gets to accomplish more than the minority party--and that is appropriate. The country may be fairly evenly divided, but sometimes it wants to move more toward one side or the other. What is not appropriate is to eliminate meaningful minority representation, which would be the consequence of eliminating the legislative filibuster. Our Founders recognized the importance of putting safeguards in place to ensure that majorities wouldn't curtail or eliminate minority rights. That is why the Founders created the Senate. They made the Senate smaller and Senators' terms in office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation or attempts to curtail minority rights. And as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the Senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the Founders' vision of the Senate. Thanks to the filibuster, it is often harder to get legislation through the Senate than the House. It requires more thought, more debate, and greater consensus--in other words, exactly--exactly--what the Founders were looking for. I am grateful to my Democrat colleagues who have spoken up about their commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster. Republicans were committed to protecting the vital safeguard of minority rights when we were in the majority--despite, I might add, the then- President's calls repeatedly to eliminate it--and I appreciate that a number of my Democrat colleagues share that commitment. I am particularly grateful to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arizona for their uncompromising defense of minority rights and the institution of the Senate here in recent days. Again, however, I am disappointed the Democrat leader chose not to express his support for this essential Senate rule. I would point out that when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, they made frequent use of the legislative filibuster. I hope that the commitment to the legislative filibuster expressed by President Biden and a number of Senate Democrats means the end of any talk of eliminating the filibuster. No matter how appealing it might be in the moment, destroying this longstanding protection for minority rights would be a grave error that both parties would live to regret. I hope that all Senate Democrats will recommit themselves to preserving this fundamental feature of the Senate and to find compromise. We have work to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to start by congratulating President Biden and Vice President Harris, who took office yesterday. We have a team of former Senators in the White House. Yesterday was a hopeful day. The Capitol Building, so recently besieged by violence and lawlessness, resumed its rightful place as the seat of our democracy and backdrop for the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next that is a hallmark of our system of government. The faith of many Americans has been shaken in recent weeks. But yesterday reminded us that our democracy still stands and our Nation endures--bruised, maybe, but unbroken. I also want to express my profound gratitude to the Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement who, though outnumbered and overrun, defended this Capitol on January 6, and to the soldiers and the law enforcement who have guarded this building in the days since. We live in peace and freedom because of the service and sacrifice of our military and our police officers. After the election of November, President Biden gave a victory speech in which 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.'' He reiterated that commitment in yesterday's speech, stating: ``On this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.'' That is what we need right now--a President who will unite us. If President Biden can truly be a President who governs for all Americans, who respects all Americans, and who works to win the confidence of the whole people, he will have done our Nation a great service. And I do think President Biden is capable of doing this, but I do want to sound a cautionary note. It is common to talk about unity at Presidential inaugurations. But all too often that commitment to unity is forgotten--by the President or by the members of his party. I hope this commitment will be backed up with action and that Democrat leaders in Congress will embrace the President's words. That means respecting those Americans who didn't vote for President Biden as well as those who did. It means working together to confront our Nation's challenges, instead of adopting an ``our way or the highway'' approach. It means preserving minority rights in the Senate when it comes to legislation, the heart--the heart--of what makes the Senate special and something Republicans, I might add, defended during our time in the majority. For the President, it means nominating individuals who represent a majority of Americans, not the far left fringes of his party. I have seen some hopeful actions from President Biden. Several of his nominees for important posts, while perhaps not those whom I would have chosen, are public servants whom I believe will serve our country well in positions like Director of National Intelligence, whom we voted on yesterday. And the President has demonstrated both his leadership and his concern for all Americans by prioritizing the pandemic and focusing on getting Americans vaccinated. But there have been troubling things as well. While the President has nominated some mainstream candidates, other nominations raise serious concerns on issues like overregulation of the economy and life and conscience protections. While I applaud the President's focus on the pandemic, I am concerned that a number of the measures in his pandemic relief proposal are heavily partisan--and, certainly, not things that should be rushed through Congress without serious consideration of the long-term impact they would have on our economy and American families. If there was any mandate given in this election, it was a mandate for moderation. A historic number of Americans voted for President Biden, but a historic number voted for President Trump as well. Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives, and the Senate is evenly divided. I hope--I really hope--that Democrat leaders and the President will remember that and not allow the far left, which has sought to hijack the Democratic Party in recent years, to determine their agenda. We have a chance--a chance--for a new day here in this country, and I believe that President Biden is committed to leading us there. I pray that that commitment will endure and that we can spend the next months and years working together, legislating together, and ensuring the voices of all Americans are respected and heard. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I think the Washington Post editorial board, in most cases, has been very sympathetic to the argument of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. THUNE. I have not seen the Tax Policy Center, but I know math, and I know as a basic principle that when you stick bigger numbers in there and you are using the same formula to phase something out, you are going to make it available to people who make a lot more money. That is a mathematical fact. And what you are saying, when you talk about the same formula, it skews entirely different in the income scale, and you know that. And all I am saying is don't misrepresent the facts.

Mr. THUNE. Well, very simply, what you are suggesting--what you are saying here is that the owner of the Washington Post, who said this is really bad policy and shouldn't be done in this way at the end of this year--is that what you are saying? That because he is a wealthy person, that somehow that is why he is making that statement?

Mr. THUNE. In fact, they take a liberal point of view on almost every issue. My point, very simply, is that we have a limited amount of resources. This is borrowed money, as the Senator from Vermont knows. And when we spent months--literally months--and you ask: Why can't you guys just come down here, why can't you just come down here and debate this, we tried for months to get the Democrats down here to debate a bill. We put a bill on the floor in September, we put a bill on the floor in October, a coronavirus relief bill, and you guys blocked it. You didn't even want to talk about it. You didn't want to have an opportunity to amend it. We have been working at this for months, and we finally arrived, after months, at a proposal that helps people who need it the most, including nutrition assistance, including rental assistance, and including checks to people--

Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to respond to that question?

Mr. THUNE. Well, I just think that you are making a point in the statement which is not accurate because you are saying the formula is the same. The formula is the same, but the inputs change, and so the way it ramps down means that somebody who makes $350,000 gets a payment under the Sanders-Hawley proposal that they wouldn't--but they wouldn't--no, and it phases out a lot sooner, as you know. So let's be clear about how that formula works. You are misrepresenting the way that formula works.

Mr. THUNE. So if the same formula is used, and you are increasing the amount by $1,400 per person--so you are going from, basically, for a family of four, what would be a $2,400 payment to an $8,000 payment, and you phase that down using the same formula, does the Senator from Illinois understand the math and why that skews toward people who make a lot more money than they would under the other formula?

Mr. THUNE. The Senator from Illinois makes a good point. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mrs. Loeffler), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mrs. Loeffler), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and let me say, through the Chair, thank you to the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Illinois, and others here for the opportunity to spend New Year's with them. I know that has always been something that has been on my bucket list--maybe not on top of the bucket list. But, nevertheless, thank you for that opportunity. It does feel like a long time ago, but it was, actually, only--if you can believe this--the beginning of last week when both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol came together to pass a targeted, responsible, and necessary relief package, which became law with overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed here in the Senate 92 to 6. Members on both sides of the aisle, myself included, have demonstrated that we are willing to dedicate resources to those who are struggling during this pandemic. The problem with what is being put forward--the House-passed CASH Act--is that it is not targeted to help those who are the most in need. I will just point out that it is not just our saying that; even the Washington Post editorial board called it ``one last bad idea'' for 2020. It singled out as ``especially wrongheaded'' the efforts of the progressive left to depict this ``as aid to `desperate' Americans despite the huge amounts''--this is the Washington Post's term-- ``destined for perfectly comfortable families.'' As others here on the floor have noted, the bill would provide a payment to a family of five making up to $350,000. A family of five making $250,000 would receive a $5,000 benefit. Just to put that in perspective, that is more than was paid to a middle-class family of five under the CARES Act that we passed back in March. In addition, the bill would add an additional $463 billion--nearly half a trillion dollars--to the annual debt. Again, it is all money we have to borrow. All of this is money we have to borrow, and that is more than the first two economic impact payments combined. Put that in perspective, and think of other ways you could use that amount of money. The truth is that those types of sums could potentially be spent in many more targeted ways, but our colleagues on the Democratic side don't even want to debate some of those alternatives. Allowing small businesses a second draw from the Paycheck Protection Program would cost, approximately, $285 billion. For the cost of the CASH Act, we could do another round of assistance to help small businesses keep their employees on the payrolls and still have almost $200 billion left over. The expanded unemployment benefits--signed into law last week--will cost approximately $120 billion for 11 additional weeks. That means, for the same cost as this proposal, we could provide an additional 40 weeks--10 months--of enhanced unemployment insurance benefits to those who have lost their jobs. This is simply not targeted relief for the people who need it the most, and those who say that we should just vote on this flawed House bill conveniently leave out the fact that they do not want us to amend it to make it better in order to deliver more assistance to the people who are hurting the most. Again, I will just point out one last time that it has been less than a week, really, since the Senate voted and the President signed into law a proposal negotiated, literally, over months. Every fine point of that proposal was negotiated, and it was signed into law to provide targeted, fiscally responsible assistance to the people of this country who need it the most. This proposal is a shotgun approach, where a rifle makes a lot more sense. If you really want to help people who need this the most, at a time when we are running a $26 trillion debt and are borrowing every penny that we are making available to do this, we ought to sit down and figure out how to do it in the most efficient, effective, targeted way possible. This, absolutely, does not do that. When you have a family who is making $350,000 a year in this country getting up to thousands of dollars of payments and a family making $250,000 a year in this country getting, under this proposal, a $5,000 check, I would argue that it is not targeted, that it is not fiscally responsible, that it is not efficient, and that it is not an effective way to spend the American taxpayers' dollars. Let's help the people who need it the most. We just passed and signed into law a proposal that does that. I think many of us on this side of the aisle are willing to look at other ideas and things that we could do that would help these people more, but this is certainly not it, so I object.