Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I had the opportunity to pay my respects to U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who lies in honor right now in the Capitol Rotunda.

By all accounts, Brian Sicknick decided early on that he wanted to be a police officer. He joined the National Guard as a way to achieve this, serving our country for 6 years before finally joining the Capitol Police in 2008.

On January 6, 2021, he joined his fellow police officers to defend the Capitol from invasion by a violent mob. He

was attacked by the invaders, pepper-sprayed twice, and reportedly hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. He later collapsed at his office as a result of his injuries and was transported to the hospital, where he died the next day.

While reading accounts of Officer Sicknick's death, I was particularly struck by reports that he returned to his division office after the day that he had had. A lot of us, after having been pepper- sprayed twice and hit on the head, would probably have made a beeline for the hospital or for home. Even if, like Officer Sicknick, we weren't aware of just how badly we had been injured, I am not sure we would have returned to the office. But Officer Sicknick did.

His family noted that Officer Sicknick had ``an incredible work ethic. He was very serious about showing up to work on time and refused to call out sick unless absolutely necessary.''

We saw that dedication on January 6. His first thought was not of his injuries but of the job that he was committed to.

We are the beneficiaries of the service and dedication of men and women like Brian Sicknick, men and women who get up every day not knowing what they will face but willing to sacrifice up to and including their very lives to protect those that need protecting.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells his disciples, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

All of us marvel and are moved when we hear stories of those who have laid down their lives to protect others: the soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies, the mother who leaps in front of her child to protect her, the firefighter who dies trying to rescue someone from a burning house.

But Officer Sicknick's story hits particularly sharply because Officer Sicknick laid down his life for us. He died for us. He died for me, for every Senator in this Chamber, and for every Representative, for every staff member, for every cafeteria worker and maintenance worker and administrative worker in the Capitol Complex.

We were in danger, and he stepped forward to protect us. And he died for us. Greater love hath no man than this.

There is no repaying such a sacrifice. There is no earning it. We can only honor it and try to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of it.

Officer Brian Sicknick died as he lived: defending the U.S. Capitol and all those within it.

My thoughts and prayers are with Officer Sicknick's family and with all those who loved him as they mourn the life of this brave man

Bipartisanship

Mr. President, in his victory speech and later in his inauguration address, President Biden made it clear that he intended to govern for all Americans. He pledged to be ``a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn't see Red and Blue states but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people.''

I was encouraged by his words and hopeful of the potential for a new day in American politics and real bipartisan legislative work on the priorities facing the American people. It is still a hope I have, but I am discouraged by the path that we are on here in Congress.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats voted to proceed to a budget resolution designed to allow Democrats to pass COVID legislation on a purely partisan basis.

As I noted a couple of weeks ago, it is common to talk about unity at inaugurations. I have been to a lot of them, but all too often that commitment is quickly forgotten. And, unfortunately, we are already seeing signs that Members of the Democrat leadership are rapidly abandoning the President's call for bipartisanship.

Democrats' turn toward budget reconciliation--a process that allows certain legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority instead of 60 votes, which is normal here--would be more understandable if Republicans had categorically refused to consider any additional COVID legislation, but that isn't even close to being the case.

Republicans share Democrats' commitment to COVID priorities, like vaccinating Americans and getting our children back in the classroom. In fact, we passed five--five--COVID relief bills so far in Congress, totaling more than $4 trillion, and every single one of those bills was passed under Republican leadership in the Senate, with bipartisan cooperation, at the 60-vote threshold.

Just this week, a group of 10 Republicans outlined a $600 billion COVID proposal that would fund vaccine distribution, extend enhanced unemployment benefits, and provide additional economic support to Americans who need it most. And on Monday night, at the same time that Speaker Pelosi released her budget bill, those 10 Republicans were meeting with President Biden in the Oval Office for 2 hours.

Republicans are more than ready to work with Democrats on additional COVID relief. Now, I won't pretend that we don't have reservations about some of the measures that Democrats have proposed. For instance, I don't think an emergency COVID bill is the place to push through a change that would more than double the Federal minimum wage and directly increase expenses on businesses that have been decimated by the pandemic.

I also think that sending checks to those who don't need them and won't spend them is not a good use of taxpayer money.

But disagreement over aspects of the Democrat proposal does not mean that Republicans are not willing to work with Democrats on COVID relief.

Democrats' move toward a purely partisan pathway on COVID legislation is troubling, but what is even more disturbing is the noise that Democrats are making about gutting the Byrd rule, which was named for and introduced by Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia and adopted to prevent abuse of the budget reconciliation process and protect the rights of the minority in the Senate.

It limits the proposals that can be considered under budget reconciliation so that the majority party in the Senate cannot use the budget reconciliation process to push through any legislation it wants with a bare majority vote.

But some Democrats are suggesting doing away with the Byrd rule as a way of getting around the legislative filibuster, and that is a big problem. Preserving minority rights was a priority for the Founders. They knew that, in democratic forms of government, tyrannical majorities could easily trample the rights of the minority, so they were determined to put in place a system of checks and balances that would protect the rights of the minority.

One of those checks was the U.S. Senate. And as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the Senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact on protecting minority rights in the Senate.

But the Byrd rule has played a key role as well. By limiting Senators' ability to use budget reconciliation to get around the filibuster, the Byrd rule has helped ensure that the minority has at least some voice in most legislation passed by the Senate.

In 2017, when Republicans held the majority in Congress as well as the White House, there were calls within our party to gut the Byrd rule and to abolish the filibuster, but the Republican majority in the Senate refused. We knew that abolishing the legislative filibuster, or de facto abolishing it by gutting the Byrd rule, would seriously weaken minority representation in the Senate.

So for the long-term good of the Senate and the country, we refused. We knew that it would be a betrayal of our obligation to Senators to undermine the Senate's key role as a protector of minority rights.

I would just remind Democrats that, back in 2017, they strongly agreed with our decision. I trust that their opinion has not changed simply because they are now in the majority.

Minority representation would be important even if elections tended to break 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of one party or another across the country.

All Americans deserve to be represented in government, but it is particularly important when you consider that our country and the Senate is pretty evenly split right down the middle, which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means disenfranchising half of the entire country.

While the far-left wing of the Democrat party would like to use this election to implement every extreme, pie-in-the-sky, socialist proposal on its list, that is not what the American people voted for in this election. Americans voted for a Presidential candidate historically regarded as a moderate.

Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives. And while, thanks to the Vice President, they have a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, they did not actually win a majority of seats in the Senate.

My point very simply is that if any mandate was given in this election, it was a mandate for moderation, for bipartisanship, for unity. And I hope that Democrats remember that and resist calls from the far left to gut the Senate's rules and fundamentally change the character of this institution.

I still believe that we can come together in this Congress to address the challenges facing our country, but it is going to require a lot more bipartisanship than we are seeing from a lot of Democrats.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay.''

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

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

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

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

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.

Madam President, before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize those South Dakotans participating in the virtual March for Life tomorrow.

We have gotten used to saying ``it is going to be a little different this year'' during the pandemic, and that applies to the March for Life as well. Usually, tens of thousands of Americans travel to Washington, DC, every January to participate in the march--Americans from every State in the union, of every political persuasion, of every religion or none at all--all united by their commitment to defending the dignity and value and humanity of the unborn child.

This year the march will be virtual, but pro-life Americans will still be united in spirit. To all of those South Dakotans virtually marching tomorrow and to all those Americans everywhere united in the pro-life cause, thank you. Thank you for standing--standing up every year on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Most of all, thank you for everything that you do throughout the year, because the biggest work of the pro-life movement happens outside of the March for Life. It happens in churches around America, where congregations collect money to support prenatal care for pregnant women in need or gather diapers and baby supplies to give to struggling mothers. It happens on college campuses, where pro-life students educate their peers about the reality of abortion. It happens in crisis pregnancy centers, where moms and dads facing unplanned pregnancies are met with resources and love and support. It happens at maternity homes, where single moms get the support they need to have their babies and to build job skills or get an education.

Every day, you are building a culture of life in this country with your work and your political action and your prayers. I know that is not always easy, but the race is not to the swift nor the strong. It is to those who endure, and I am confident that, sooner or later, right and justice will prevail because we have the truth on our side--the truth that every human being, no matter how old or how young, no matter the race or the color of their skin, no matter their religion or political persuasion, is created in the image and likeness of God and has infinite dignity and worth.

So keep standing up for the babies, and tomorrow I will be joining my prayers with yours that one day soon the right to life of unborn human beings will be protected in law.

May God bless you all.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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.