Floor Statements

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. President, I send a question to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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. 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.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it has been more than a year now since the first COVID-19 case was confirmed here in the United States. As the war against this virus has been fought, it has evolved over the last 12 months, and our country has been challenged like never before in my memory.

Healthcare workers across the country have heroically battled this cruel virus, often with insufficient equipment and personnel. Frontline workers in delivery trucks, grocery stores, and other essential businesses have kept the cogs of society running.

As a whole, we have hunkered down and tried to stop the spread of the virus until enough Americans could get vaccinated. We all have come to realize that is really the gold standard in defeating this virus. The Trump administration launched Operation Warp Speed to accelerate the research and development of therapeutics and vaccines to move us toward that goal as soon as possible.

Just last summer, when President Trump predicted we would have an effective vaccine by the end of the year, there was some serious skepticism--and you might even call it blowback--from some of the critics. One media outlet published a fact check saying it would require nothing short of a ``medical miracle'' to have a vaccine by the end of last year.

Thanks to the leadership on a bipartisan basis here and the marvels of science and human ingenuity, that so-called miracle came true not once but twice, and we are expecting more vaccines to eventually be approved in the near term. The world's brightest scientific minds used the foundation built by decades of vaccine research to craft lifesaving and, in fact, world-changing vaccines.

Less than 11 months after the first COVID-19 case was discovered in the United States, the very first vaccine was administered after it was approved--11 months. The number of Americans who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 is growing every day, and so far, more than 24.5 million doses have been administered nationwide.

Nearly 2 million of those doses have gone into the arms of my fellow Texans. Texas became the first State to administer 1 million doses--an accomplishment that underscores the hard work of our State and local leaders and our public health officials, our private partners and healthcare workers.

Every day, our public health experts are evaluating the current distribution process to make improvements and speed up the vaccination process. The State has now set up mass vaccination hubs to expedite distribution and administer as many doses as they can as quickly as they can.

While these sites are an efficient way to administer vaccines to Texans, we need to do more in rural parts of the country. I was glad to see in my State Governor Abbott's announcement that the State is launching a mobile vaccine pilot program to ramp up vaccination efforts in rural parts of the State. Those vaccinations kick off today, and with the support of our incredible Texas National Guardsmen, more at- risk Texans will be vaccinated against this virus.

With currently two approved vaccines and potentially more on the way, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it is getting bigger and brighter every day. But we can't take our foot off the gas--we all know that. Just as we led an aggressive effort to develop vaccines, it is time to redouble our efforts to distribute those vaccines.

I worry we are not starting off on a strong footing. In December, President-Elect Biden announced his administration's goals to get 100 million shots in the arms of Americans within the first 100 days of his Presidency. That announcement came about a week before the first doses of the vaccine were distributed--before we had a real-world test of the processes that had been in planning for months.

We are now several weeks into this nationwide vaccination campaign, and the Biden administration has stuck by this initial benchmark. The President has repeatedly described this as an ``ambitious goal''--a statement that has led to a fair amount of head-scratching, not because it is too aggressive, as some people thought President Trump's proposed vaccine delivery date was, but because it is too modest.

One physician and public health expert described this as ``a disappointingly low bar.'' An Associated Press headline evaluated the situation pretty well when it said: ``Biden's early approach to virus: Underpromise, overdeliver.''

The truth is, we were largely on track to meet President Biden's ambitious goal even before he took the oath of office. On Inauguration Day, more than 1.6 million doses had been administered, and over the last week, the average number of vaccinations has exceeded 1.5 million a day. It is hard to really frame this as a goal when in reality you could throw the entire operation on cruise control and surpass it.

On Monday evening, President Biden appeared to up the target to 150 million doses in the first 100 days, which would track with the 1.5 million doses we are currently seeing administered. But the White House Press Secretary walked back that claim the following day.

One hundred million doses in 100 days is certainly catchy, and I have no doubt the administration has tried to underpromise so it can be seen as overdelivering. That is not altogether a bad strategy. But the goal here is not to set a target you are almost certain to meet. After all, we didn't see the previous administration set a target of a successful vaccine by the summer of 2021, which is what many experts believed to be the most feasible. So I

would urge the administration and all of us to accede to a truly ambitious vaccination schedule and motivate the newly assembled team at the White House to achieve it and to provide the resources that they may need from Congress in order for them to execute that plan. There is no reason to stick to a goal we were on track to meet before President Biden was even sworn in.

President Biden, of course, ran a campaign criticizing the previous administration's handling of the COVID-19 virus, and he campaigned on the promise to lead us out of that crisis. But this modest goal is not going to get us there fast enough.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston say we need to be vaccinating 3 million people a day. That is double the pace we are seeing right now and triple the Biden administration's self-described ambitious plan.

The past year has been full of scientific developments and bold action by Congress and the administration to develop and distribute vaccines to the American people. We simply can't afford to put it in cruise control now. Our only option is to mobilize every resource and to push as hard and as fast as we can to get the American people vaccinated and to finally bring an end to this pandemic.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me express my gratitude to the Senator from Alaska for his words. I could not have said it better than he did, and I am grateful to him for coming and articulating that important message so clearly and emphatically.

Chris Wray, the FBI Director, is a pretty laid-back guy. As a matter of fact, I frequently tell people he reminds me of the typical G-man-- you know, not a lot of emotion, not a lot of animation. But the FBI Director, who I think is doing an outstanding job and has been doing an outstanding job, gets positively animated when it comes to China and the threats presented there. Of course, the FBI is principally in charge of the counterintelligence mission against foreign countries like China that try to steal our intellectual property, spy on our country using a number unconventional means. I just want to say to our friend from Alaska: Thank you for making that point. It is really, really important.

Madam President, yesterday afternoon we confirmed another one of President Biden's Cabinet nominees. Antony Blinken has led an impressive career in the public sector and is well versed in both the vast responsibilities of the State Department, as well as the diplomatic challenges we will face in the months and years ahead, the most important of which is China, but it is not China alone.

While Mr. Blinken and I have policy differences--some of them very serious--I have confidence in his ability to represent our Nation on the global stage. It is important for a new President, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat, to have qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in their Cabinet without delay.

Over the past week, we have worked to confirm nominees for some of the most critical Federal Departments and Agencies. The Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, as well as the Director of National Intelligence, have each been confirmed by the Senate with broad bipartisan support. And we will continue to process more of the President's nominees in the days ahead.

Four years ago, our Democratic colleagues approached President Trump's nominees with a grab bag of antics, including everything from intentional delays to brazen theatrics. In most cases, this behavior wasn't a reflection on the nominee or their qualifications, but of our colleagues' antipathy toward President Trump.

Clearly we are adopting a different approach, and I hope it is one that will deescalate these battles and one that will serve the national interest rather than harm it.

Throughout my time in the Senate, I have tried to evaluate nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, and their ability to carry out the responsibilities for the job they have been nominated for, and I will continue to either support or oppose nominees based on those merits and those criteria, not based on the party of the President

Madam President, we know it has been the tradition of the Senate to prioritize nominees for national security positions, and there has never been a more critical time to ensure that President Biden is surrounded by an experienced and capable team. From the threats posed by an increasingly hostile Iran to those by an unpredictable North Korea, there are many, many challenges on the horizon.

One of the first the administration must confront is the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as New START. This is the only remaining bilateral strategic arms agreement between the United States and Russia, which are the world's most powerful nuclear states, and it is set to expire in a matter of days.

Last fall, the Trump administration advocated for a 1-year extension of New START, with the condition that both countries would cap nuclear weapons--nuclear warheads during that period.

Unsurprisingly, Russia preferred a clean, 5-year extension with no warhead limitations. President Putin delayed the final stages of talks in the hopes that the potential Biden administration would strike a deal more favorable to Russia. And it appears now, at least as things stand today, that President Putin has hedged his bets correctly.

Following a call yesterday between President Biden and President Putin, the White House announced that the United States and Russia are set to extend New START for 5 years, with no conditions attached. This was President Biden's first major foreign policy test, and, unfortunately, he played right into Russia's hand.

For starters, it is no secret that New START was deeply flawed from the beginning. And it is no secret that Russia cheats, which is why verification is so essential.

The counting mechanisms in New START don't effectively keep our countries on a level playing field, which is the primary goal of any arms treaty because it promotes mutual deterrents. The treaty limits the number of bombers each nation could possess but places no limit on the number of warheads each bomber can support. Making matters worse, the limits only apply to strategic, not tactical, nuclear weapons. Russia has taken advantage of this loophole in New START, amassing some 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons compared to only 500 for the United States.

Russia's nuclear doctrine signals its increasing willingness to use those tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict, particularly in Europe, as it warily eyes NATO. Another 5 years under New START will allow Russia to continue growing its arsenal of tactical weapons and cement its advantage over the United States, perhaps permanently.

Once that happens, the likelihood of Russia deploying and ultimately using these weapons goes higher. These treaties ought to make the world safer, not a more dangerous place due to imbalances, the potential for mistakes, or miscalculation.

Beyond sheer numbers, there is also the question of trust or, I should say, of verification, because it is hardly controversial to say Russia isn't the most trustworthy partner. Last fall,

the Kremlin attempted to poison a Putin opponent using a nerve agent. Russia has launched massive cyber attacks against private companies and government agencies here in the United States, the latest being the SolarWinds hack. And last year, it attempted to steal coronavirus vaccine data from the United States and some of our closest allies.

In short, Russia does not play by the rules, and New START does little to prevent further cheating. By granting Putin's request for a clean 5-year extension of New START, the Biden administration will not only be rewarding Russia for its hostile actions against the United States and our allies but also enabling Russia and other nuclear states to continue growing their stockpiles while the United States plays by outdated rules: no cap on nuclear warheads, no enhanced verification measures--in short, no need for assurances for Russia to follow the rules laid out in New START.

The expected treaty extension by the Biden administration wouldn't address any of those blinking red lights. The biggest failure of a clean, 5-year extension, though, is relinquishing the leverage we currently have to take a more comprehensive approach to nuclear disarmament.

As I said, the United States and Russia are the most powerful nuclear states in the world, but together we account for only two of the five nuclear armed states recognized by the nonproliferation treaty. Two of the other countries, the United Kingdom and France--both of whom provide regular information about the size and makeup of their nuclear arsenal--are not a problem.

The fifth and final power is China, one of the world's biggest secret keepers. It is a police state and opaque, as we learned once again when it came to the virus from Wuhan Province.

As if we needed a reminder of the critical information China withheld from the rest of the world, all we need to do is look at the COVID-19 pandemic. The first cases of COVID-19 appeared in China as early as November of 2019, and the Communist Party of China willfully withheld the information from the rest of the world, and it sought to downplay the potential impact of the virus. China repeatedly silenced the brave men and women of its own country who tried to sound the alarm, and, as a result, countries around the world were ill-prepared for these critical early stages of the fight against COVID-19. Now, more than 2.1 million people have died from this virus, including more than 420,000 Americans.

It is impossible to gauge how many of those lives could have been saved by earlier intervention, but this should serve as a cautionary tale when it comes to managing threats from China. We cannot allow China to continue sitting on the sidelines while the four other nuclear states play by the rules as we hope they will. The administration must push to get China to the negotiating table--at the negotiating table.

The thick cloak of secrecy surrounding the Chinese Communist Party has made it nearly impossible to verify information about the breadth and the depth of China's nuclear capabilities. What we do know is that China continues to pursue a nuclear triad, and experts estimate China to have about 300 nuclear weapons.

Assuming that figure is correct, it puts China slightly ahead of France and the United Kingdom in terms of raw numbers. That would make China the third most powerful nuclear state in the world, and we have every reason to believe that the size of its arsenal will continue to grow.

In May of 2019, then-Director for the Defense Intelligence Agency, GEN 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.''

Despite this already large and constantly growing nuclear threat, there are virtually no measures in place to hold China accountable or to bring them to the table. A simple extension of the New START leaves in place a framework in which the Russians cheat, the Chinese are not at the table, and the United States is playing by the rules of a bygone era.

This must change. It must change. If you think about the fact that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used on this planet, it is a result of tough negotiations and a system of mutual deterrence because we know, were nuclear weapons to be used, that it could result in the extermination of the planet.

So that is why deterrence is so important. That is why reciprocity and transparency are so important. The Cold War-era approach to nuclear disarmament does not make sense in the modern world. Rather than enter a 5-year extension of New START, the administration should use its leverage to convene multilateral talks. America should invite the other nuclear nonproliferation treaty states--Russia, China, France, and the UK--to the negotiating table and encourage multilateral talks aimed at limiting the growth of nuclear arsenals globally.

There is far too much at stake to merely cave in to the demands of President Putin in Moscow and cave in as well to the recalcitrance of Beijing to come to the table. The administration must pursue a multilateral, comprehensive approach. It is the only practical and workable solution to the vast nuclear threats posed by both China and Russia.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.