Floor Statements

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted ``No'' on the nomination of Anton George Hajjar, of Maryland, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service.

Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted ``No'' on the nomination of Eric S. Lander, of Massachusetts, to be Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are here tonight for a very simple reason with a very simple proposition--that the American people deserve to know about the origins of COVID-19. They deserve to know how this terrible pandemic that has ravaged the globe and our country, how it got started and what China's role was in starting it.

Now, we have seen a parade of government officials speculate about the origins in one place or another. And there is increasing speculation and, indeed, increasing numbers of statements from government officials saying that perhaps this virus originated in a Chinese lab, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Well, I think it is time that the American people got to decide for themselves. It is time that they actually got to see the evidence that the U.S. Government has collected on this issue, and that is exactly what the measure that we are introducing here tonight would do. It would make available to the American people the evidence that the U.S. Government has about the origins of this terrible virus and this terrible pandemic.

I am proud to be joined in this effort by Senator Braun, and I know that he would like to make a few remarks.

Mr. President, the American people can be trusted with the truth. More than that, the American people deserve the truth.

They deserve to know the true origins of this virus. They deserve to be able to evaluate the evidence for themselves. They deserve it. Their government owes it to them, and it is time to act.

And the American people deserve something else. They deserve to have this government hold accountable that nation which started this virus, whose lies about this virus turned it into a global pandemic, whose lies about this virus prevented our country and many others from being able to address it effectively in time. Of course, I am talking about China. The American people deserve to have all of the evidence and deserve to have this government's full effort and the effort of our allies and partners in holding accountable China for what it has done, not just to this country but to the world, and to make sure that something like this never happens again.

So, Mr. President, I ask now unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1867, which is at desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate for this action tonight.

This is, as Senator Braun said, an important first step. It is only a first step, but the truth is always the right step, and that is the action that we have taken tonight.

I yield the floor.

Order of Business

Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 30, Adewale O. Adeyemo, of California, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. President, on my behalf and the behalf of Senator Cramer, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. President, I want to begin this evening by saying thank you to the men and women of the Capitol Police, the National Guardsmen, the Metropolitan Police, and others who came to this Capitol and put their lives on the line to protect everybody here who was working inside. I want to thank law enforcement all across this country--in my home State of Missouri and everywhere else--who do that day in and day out.

I just want to acknowledge that, when it comes to violence, it was a terrible year in America this last year. We have seen a lot of violence against law enforcement, and today, we saw it here in the Capitol of the United States. In this country, in the United States of America, we cannot say emphatically enough: Violence is not how you achieve change. Violence is not how you achieve something better.

Our Constitution was built and put into place so that there would be, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, no appeal from ballots to bullets, which is what we saw, unfortunately, attempted tonight. There is no place for that in the United States of America, and that is why I submit to my colleagues that what we are doing here tonight is, actually, very important because, for those who have concerns about the integrity of our elections and for those who have concerns about what happened in November, this is the appropriate means. This is the lawful place where those objections and concerns should be heard. This is the forum that the law provides for--that our laws provide for--for those concerns to be registered, not through violence--not by appealing from ballots to bullets--but here, in this lawful process.

So to those who say that this is just a formality today--an antique ceremony that we have engaged in for a couple of hundred years--I can't say that I agree. I can't say that our precedent suggests that. I actually think it is very vital, what we do. The opportunity to be heard and to register objections is very vital because this is the place where those objections are to be heard and dealt with, debated, and finally resolved--in this lawful means, peacefully, without violence, without attacks, without bullets.

Let me just say now, briefly--in lieu of speaking about it later--a word about Pennsylvania, which is a State that I have been focused on and have objected to, as an example of why people are concerned--why millions of Americans are concerned--about our election integrity.

I say to Pennsylvania, quite apart from allegations of any fraud, you have a State constitution that has been interpreted for over a century to say that there is no mail-in balloting permitted except for in very narrow circumstances, which is also provided for in the law. Yet, last year, Pennsylvania's elected officials passed a whole new law that allowed for universal mail-in balloting, and they did it, irregardless of what the Pennsylvania Constitution said.

Then, when Pennsylvania's citizens tried to be heard on this subject before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, they were dismissed on grounds of procedure and timeliness, in violation of that supreme court's own precedent.

So the merits of the case have never been heard. The constitutionality of the statute, actually, has never been defended. I am not aware of any court that has passed on its constitutionality. I actually am not aware of anybody who has defended the constitutionality, and this was the statute that governed this last election in which there were over 2.5 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania.

This is my point, that this is the forum. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn't heard the case, and there is no other court to go to, to hear the case in the State, so this is the appropriate place for these concerns to be raised, which is why I have raised them here today.

I hope that this body will not miss the opportunity to take affirmative action to address the concerns of so many millions of Americans--to say to millions of Americans tonight that violence is never warranted, that violence will not be tolerated, that those who engage in it will be prosecuted, but that this body will act to address the concerns of all Americans across the country.

We do need an investigation into irregularities, fraud. We do need a way forward together. We need election security reforms. I bet my friends on the other side of the aisle don't disagree with that. We need to find a way to move forward on that together so that the American people from both parties and all walks of life can have confidence in their elections and so that we can arrange ourselves under the rule of law that we share together.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is an honor to rise today to speak in this Chamber on behalf of the people of Missouri. When I think of those who have served my State here before me, I am humbled. When I think of the true and strong Missourians who have sent me here, I am sobered, because to represent them will be a great responsibility indeed. I pledge to my fellow Missourians that I will work at this task with all the strength that God can give me, and I will serve without fear and without favor to any man.

We Missourians are known for our frankness, and today I will be frank because this is a moment of great need for my State and for our Nation. This Nation was born in a revolution by ``We the People'' and premised on a revolutionary faith that it is the people--the common man and woman who make democracy work--and it is the calling of every generation to renew that revolution for their day. In our time, our revolutionary faith is faltering, and in the heartland of this country, the great challenge of our age is unfolding.

I come from a town called Lexington, MO. It is a small place, but a proud one. It is a place where people wake early and work late to make a life for themselves and their children. It is a place where people value honesty and gumption and life's simple pleasures: a fine morning in a deer stand, reading

to the kids before bed, and Sunday dinner at Mom's. Although it is humble, it is a place that reflects the dignity and quiet greatness of the working men and women.

These are the people who explored a continent, who built the railroads, and who opened the West. These are the workers whose labor launched the Industrial Revolution and whose ingenuity made the American economy the marvel of the world. These are the families who have rallied to this country's flag at every hour of danger and who bear the burden of defending our Nation even now. These are the patriots who man the fire department and coach the Little League. These are the generous who give $25 a month out of their gas money to assist people halfway around the globe whom they will never meet just because they believe in helping others. They don't ask for much, and they live by a simple creed: Give the best of yourself to your family, your community, and your fellow man. America is a place of promise, because in these hearts, honor lives.

These working men and women are confronting crises today, and, as they do, so does our democracy. After years of sacrifice, the great American middle is being pushed aside by a new arrogant aristocracy. The new aristocrats seek to remake society in their own image, to engineer an economy that works for the elite but few else, and to fashion a culture that is dominated by their own preferences. When they think of helping their fellow citizens, they think of making everyone else more like themselves.

And Washington has just gone along. This town has embraced the politics of elite values and elite ambition rather than building opportunities to thrive in the great and broad American middle. This has left middle America--the great American middle class--under siege, battling the loss of respect and work, the decline of home and family, and an epidemic of loneliness and despair. This is the crisis of our time.

I am afraid you wouldn't know it to listen to the talk of this town much of the time. As the crisis deepens, the political establishment looks the other way, rehearsing and rehashing the political debates of 30 or 40 years ago. There is no time for that any longer. The 21st century is upon us, and the great struggle of this century can no longer wait. The crisis that we face goes to the heart of our revolution.

The United States is unique in history as a republic governed not by a select elite but by the working man and woman, because we believe it is through the working man and woman that God chooses to change the world. That change comes not through spectacular feats of daring or glory but through everyday work and everyday sacrifice and everyday acts of courage and love. It has been the proud working people, our farmers and mechanics, and teachers and tradesmen who have defined the character of this country.

For too long now, neither our economy nor our culture has lent them much support. Instead, our policymakers have entrenched the new elites and undermined the way of life that once bound this country together. It is time to face the facts.

Over the last 40 years, our economy has worked best for those at the top--the wealthy and the well-educated. If you have a job in Silicon Valley or an expensive and prestigious degree, this economy has worked for you, and Washington has focused on how to get more people to join this elite. But if you want a life built around the place where you grew up, if your ambition is not to start a tech business but to join the family business, to serve in the PTA or in your local church, well, you are told that you are not a success, and you are told that you are on your own.

This is no accident. The people who make the rules now, who run our large corporations, and who set the tone for our popular culture all belong to the same class. This economy has been their economy. They made it for themselves.

But in places like the one where I grew up in middle Missouri, good- paying jobs that you can raise a family on are going away. The jobs go overseas or south of the border or to cities on the coasts. Once vibrant towns decline, taking with them the network of schools and neighborhoods and churches that make up middle-class life.

Rural America has been particularly hard hit. Rural Americans' life expectancy has not just leveled off. It has actually dropped, and for women without a high school degree, that drop has been staggering. In some rural places, residents struggle with outright deprivation. My home State contains some of the poorest counties in America, all in rural places that once boasted thriving small towns. As those communities struggle, want sets in.

The crisis reaches well beyond economics. The message that Washington has sent our whole society is loud and clear: Our elites are the people who matter and those who aspire to join them. Everyone else is unimportant or backward.

Millions of Americans are left with a sense that the people who run this country view them with nothing but contempt and value them as nothing but consumers. These trends tear at our country's social fabric, and they undermine our common ethic of citizenship because being a free person and being an American isn't just about what you can buy. It is about the pride that comes in supporting a family. It is about contributing something of worth to your community. It is about being able to look a neighbor in the eye and know that you are his equal. It is about respect, and too many Americans haven't been getting it.

They are certainly not getting it from our cultural elite. The media, Hollywood, and academia relentlessly press their values and their priorities on the rest of us. They advocate liberation from the duties of family and tradition. They look down on the plain virtues of patriotism, self-giving, and faith. They idealize fame and preach self- realization through consuming more stuff, and as they do, they assault the foundations of the great American middle.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, then, at the epidemic of loneliness and despair that is spreading across working communities. Fewer young people are getting married and starting families. Drug addiction is surging. The opioid menace has ravaged every sector, every age group, and every geography of working people.

It is not only pills. It is heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth, and, of course, marijuana that have flooded our streets and our homes. Everywhere, deaths of despair are mounting among farmers and among the young. Most shockingly, the young are the hope of our society, but in America today, they are taking their lives in numbers we have never seen in our history.

The well-off frequently note that our Nation has never been richer, but the tragedy of youth suicide betrays a profound poverty of hope. And is that really so surprising? Today's youth must make their way in a society increasingly defined not by the genuine and personal love of family and church but by the cold and judgmental world of social media.

A typical young person is bombarded by video games and violence and the relentless status-seeking imposed and modeled by our cultural elite. There is no more shocking illustration of our cultural poverty and no more damning indictment of our cultural leaders than these lost lives.

The sum of it all is that too many Americans are losing their standing as citizens. They are losing their voice in the life of this Nation, and with that, they are losing their liberty. To be free is to have a voice. It is to have a say, and it is to have the power of self- government.

The chattering class often tells us that all of this--the jobs, the despair, and the loss of standing--is a result of forces beyond anyone's control, as if that is an excuse to do nothing, but in fact, it is not true. Today's society benefits those who shaped it, and it has been shaped not by working men and women but by the new aristocratic elite. Big banks, big tech, and big multinational corporations, along with their allies in the academy and the media-- these are the aristocrats of our age. They live in the United States, but they consider themselves citizens of the world. They operate businesses or run universities here, but their primary loyalty is to their own agenda for a more unified, progressive, and profitable global order.

These modern aristocrats often claim to be a meritocracy, and many of them truly believe they are. What they don't see or will not acknowledge is that the

society they have built works mainly for themselves. They have effectively run this country for decades, and their legacy is national division and national decline.

It is time to reclaim our revolutionary heritage and reassert the democracy of ``We the People.'' To those who despair at the task ahead, I say the hour is not too late and the crisis is not too deep for the determined effort of a great people, and to those who feel forgotten and unheard, I say this is your time. Now we must stand together to renew the promise of our enduring revolution. We must put aside the tired orthodoxies of years past and forge a new politics of national renewal.

We must begin by acknowledging that GDP growth alone cannot be the measure of this Nation's greatness, and so it cannot be the only aim of this Nation's policy because our purpose is not to make a few people wealthy but to sustain a great democracy. We need not just a bigger economy but a better society. We need a society that offers rewarding work for every worker who wants it, wherever she is from, whatever degree he might have, whether their ambition is to start a business or to start a family. We need a society that will allow towns and neighborhoods to flourish across the great heartland of this country and not just in the megacities of the coasts. We need a society that puts American workers first, that prioritizes them over cheap goods from abroad and offers them the chance to better their station. All this we must fight for and more.

We need to repair the torn fabric of our common life. We need a politics that prioritizes strong marriages and encourages strong families, where children can know their parents and be nurtured by their love. We need strong schools and churches and co-ops because these are the things that make liberty possible, for liberty is more than selling or buying or the right to be left alone. Liberty is the ability to master our own fate and, as a free people, to set our own course. That is the promise of the American Revolution, and we will renew it for our day.

Washington has ignored the need for this renewal for too long. It has rested easy with the priorities of an earlier age. Now it must wake up and face the facts of this day. Now we must ask new questions, force new debates, articulate new priorities, and find new solutions to make the great American middle thrive again.

This is not the work of a day or a season. It is the work of a generation. We will make it the work of this generation and so do our part to see the success of liberty in our time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my privilege to recognize a family-owned small business that is dedicated to its customers, employees, and community. In honor of the U.S. Small Business Administration's National Small Business Week, it is my pleasure to name Burgers' Smokehouse of California, MO, as the Senate Small Business of the Day.

Burgers' Smokehouse began in 1927 with E.M. Burger, a man who decided to use his mother's recipe to start curing hams for himself. Though this was a time with limited potential for a meat business, Burger sold six hams in his first year and then doubled to 12 hams in his second year. From there, E.M. Burger started employing the help of his family to grow his business to its official launch in 1952 when they opened their first ``Ham House'' in California, MO. This opening would lead them to become the first country cured meat company in the United States to receive Federal inspection just 4 years later in 1956 which allowed them to ship meat between State borders.

Today, Burgers' Smokehouse is now operated by the third and fourth generation of the Burger family and has become one of the Nation's leading provider of cured meats. Burgers' Smokehouse now employs over 200 people and operates two locations, the original ``Ham House'' in California, and a newly opened second facility in Springfield, MO. The company distributes over 12 million pounds of products each year and supplies restaurants such as Bob Evans, Cracker Barrel, and Waffle House. This success was not only due to the quality of their product, but also to the utilization of the latest technology. Burgers' Smokehouse has been recognized in several magazines and newspapers for the cutting-edge innovations used in their production and food safety processes.

In addition to the excellence within Burgers' Smokehouse's walls, the Burger family is intentional about being excellent to those outside of their walls. Employees participate yearly in the Moniteau County Relay for Life. Burgers' Smokehouse has raised over $100,000 to help fight cancer through this effort. In 2006, Burgers' Smokehouse also sent care packages, which included some of their sandwiches, to U.S. soldiers overseas. Today, they still offer free shipping to anyone who will place an order to a military post. Aside from Burgers' Smokehouse's direct charity, the Burger family also set up a foundation under E.M. Burger's name, the founder of Burgers' Smokehouse. This foundation specializes in gifts to the arts and education and frequently gives grants to the Moniteau County school system.

Burgers' Smokehouse embodies the traits of a true family-owned business. Armed only with his mother's recipe, E.M. Burger sold just six hams in his first year. Ninety-two years later, the third and fourth generations of the Burger family operate his legacy selling over 600,000 hams a year to people all over the country. As a result of the hard work this family and their employees have put in, Burgers' Smokehouse has been the recipient of numerous awards and visited by President Eisenhower, Hank Williams, Jr., and Johnny Carson. It is my distinct pleasure to honor Burgers' Smokehouse as the Senate Small Business of the Day. You make Missouri proud, and I look forward to watching your continued growth and success.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate three extraordinary World War II veterans from St. Louis who were recently awarded the French Legion of Honour. Established by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802, the Legion of Honour is the highest civilian honor awarded by the government of France.

Mr. Eugene Harmack, Mr. Glenn Harrison, and Mr. Alfred Villagran served when the United States and its allies needed them most. These heroes bravely fought against the Nazis and helped liberate Europe from Hitler's fascist regime.

When he was 24, Eugene Harmack fought in one of the deadliest battles in American history, the Battle of the Bulge. During the battle, Harmack secured a vehicle trapped behind enemy lines and used its radio to restore vital communications for the American forces that defeated the last major Nazi offensive.

In 1944, Glenn Harrison was a 23-year-old B-17 bomber pilot who had flown 17 bombing missions against the Nazis. On one mission, Harrison and his crew were shot down on the way to Munich, Germany. Following the crash, Harrison was captured and forced to march 300 miles to a Nazi prisoner-of-war camp, where he was held from June 1944 to January 1945.

At the age of 19, Alfred Villagran was a gunner and radio operator on a B-17 Bomber. On one mission, Villagran's plane was shot and lost two of its four engines. As the plane flew back to England, Villagran and his crew came under fire again and lost the third engine. With only one functional engine, the crew safely landed thanks to the Allied fighter planes that provided cover.

As we approach the 75th anniversary of D-Day, I wish to thank these American heroes for their service and bravery. As a nation, we are forever grateful for their sacrifices.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my remarks.

Madam President, I rise to discuss a new and growing fundamentalism--a fundamentalism of intolerance and bigotry that is spreading on our college campuses, in our university systems, and in the media. It is a fundamentalism that wraps itself in the language of tolerance but that is, in fact, a cloak for discrimination against people of faith. This new fundamentalism would undermine the most important constitutional guarantees and traditions of our Nation that have allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for over 200 years, and that is the subject of my remarks this afternoon.

The latest example of this new fundamentalism of intolerance comes from Yale University--in particular, from Yale Law School--where we learned last week that Yale Law School had imposed a new policy that would block students who work for certain faith-based organizations from accessing resources that are available to all other students. Specifically, that policy would prohibit students from receiving school resources if they decided to work for an organization that takes religious faith into account when hiring. Unlike Federal law, Yale's policy, as announced, failed to include an exemption for religious organizations even though Federal law recognizes the rights of religious organizations to hire based on their faiths.

What we are talking about here is something very simple. Yale said to a group of students that if those in the group wanted to work for faith-based organizations, they would not be able to access the same funds or the same loan repayment programs that are offered to all other students who work for all other organizations. As to what Yale held out to students as being a neutral and generally available program for folks who chose to work in the public's interest either during the summer or after law school, Yale Law School, last week, said: Oh, no. It is not going to be available if you are a student of faith and choose to go to work for an organization that is faith-based and want to pursue its faith-based mission.

Ironically, this was done in the name of tolerance. Yale said it was trying to

foster a more tolerant environment. In fact, this is the most rank intolerance. It is flatout discrimination. It is discrimination against religious organizations and nonprofit organizations that are pursuing their good work and that are, in many instances, doing so without asking their clients to pay a single cent. It is discrimination on the basis of faith, pure and simple. It is discrimination against students of faith who want to go to public interest organizations that share their faith missions and who want to do good in the world by pursuing those beliefs while helping those who are in need. It is discrimination, at the end of the day and at the root of the matter, that rejects this country's commitment and our First Amendment's commitment to pluralism.

You know, our First Amendment is an extraordinary text. When enacted, it was the first of its kind in the world, and it makes an extraordinary commitment. It says that the people of this country have the right to pursue and to observe their religious beliefs, whatever they may be, so long as they do so in peace with one another. It is, as an old friend of mine once said, the right to be wrong. The First Amendment guarantees that every single American can pursue his or her most fundamentally held, deeply held religious beliefs so long as they don't harm other people. That doesn't mean we all have to agree on what our religious beliefs are. It doesn't mean we have to agree on the outcomes our religious creeds lead us to.

Our First Amendment recognizes the right to be wrong, but this new fundamentalism, this new intolerance and bigotry does not recognize the right to be wrong. In fact, it wants to eliminate the right to be wrong. It wants to say that, no, we all have to agree. We all have to now share Yale's view of what an appropriate religious mission is. We now have to share Yale's view of what students should be doing with their time. We have to share Yale's view of what our deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, should be.

This sort of fundamentalism insists on a monochromatic view of the world that we all believe the same thing, that we all act in the same way, that we all behave the way our elites want us to behave. Well, I submit to you that is not the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is not our great tradition of pluralism. That is not what has allowed us to live in civil peace and civil friendship for these many years.

The question is, Why do Yale Law School and other institutions pursue policies like this? Well, it is not because of the law. Let's be clear about that. In fact, Federal law and, indeed, our Constitution prohibit precisely this kind of targeting of people of faith for disfavor. Just in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Trinity Lutheran that policies that target the religious for special disabilities based on their religious status are unconstitutional. Indeed, as I said earlier, Federal law explicitly prohibits the targeting of individuals for their religious faith.

No, Yale Law School is not enacting this policy because the law requires it; they are enacting this policy because they no longer believe in the right to be wrong. They no longer believe that our religious faith is so fundamental, is so significant, and is so meaningful that we ought to be allowed to pursue it peacefully, in harmony with one another.

You know, Yale said of their policy that ``the law school cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates''-- that is their understanding of what religious organizations do when they ask that the members of the organization share the same faith; they call that discrimination--``the law school cannot prohibit a student from working for an employer who discriminates, but that is not a reason why Yale Law School should bear any obligation to fund that work.''

Well, Yale Law School can certainly pursue its own beliefs, its own objectives, and its own values, but why should they be doing it with Federal taxpayer money? That is my question.

Yale University receives millions of dollars in Federal taxpayer subsidies every year, which they use to pad their multibillion-dollar endowment. Yale Law School, this seat of privilege, does not have to accept this money from the Federal Government--I submit to you, is not entitled to this money from the Federal Government if they are going to engage in patterns of discrimination targeted at religious students and religious organizations for special disfavor.

So I propose this: If Yale Law School and Yale University want to pursue a policy of discrimination towards religious believers, they may certainly do so, but they may not do it with Federal taxpayer money.

You know, Yale said at the end of last week that they would add an exemption now. They said they would add an exemption for religious organizations and religious believers. We haven't seen that exemption yet. I notice that it took days of pressure and outcry for them to come forward with this. I hope they will add an exemption. I hope they will stop targeting religious students for special disfavor. But what I hope above all is this: I hope that Yale Law School and Yale University will recommit themselves to our proud tradition of pluralism, of diversity, of the right to be wrong, which has been the basis for our civic friendship, for our civic peace, for the extraordinary diversity of thought and belief we so cherish in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Joplin High School Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, one of the oldest such programs in the United States.

At a time when our Nation faces extraordinary challenges at home and abroad, preparing the next generation is paramount. The future lays in the hands of our youth. Since 1919, Joplin High School JROTC has been developing outstanding citizens for Missouri through leadership development, discipline, and service.

Today, less than 1 percent of Americans serve in the military; yet, Joplin High School JROTC has 120 cadets who are part of the program's historic legacy under the leadership of Lt. Col. (Ret.) Joshua Reitz and 1SG (Ret.) Richard Banks. Some of these cadets will go on to put the lessons and leadership training they received into practice through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Military service is not only a career, but a lifestyle full of continuous reward and knowledge. For those that choose the path of Military Service, we should thankful.

To the members of Eagle Battalion, I urge you to uphold your school's core values of truth, honor, and loyalty. These values may be no guarantee of popularity, comfort, or success, at least not as the world defines success; yet, a life of integrity characterized by these virtues is a life of which you can be proud.

The path of leadership is a difficult one and often lonely. America needs strong servant-leaders in the next generation willing to confront the challenges we face with courage, rooted in the principles that make our Nation great.

As your Senator, I have been given the solemn responsibility to nominate young women and men for placements at our Nation's service academies. It is a duty I do not take lightly, knowing that these future leaders will be on the frontlines of securing American freedom. I encourage those of you who have been a part of Joplin High School JROTC to seriously consider applying for one of these highly selective spots. The program's legacy of excellence demands that I give your candidacy the consideration it deserves.

I want to thank Joplin High School ROTC for their dedication to their school, to Joplin, to Missouri, and to our country. Congratulations on the first 100 years of service, and here is to the next century of service.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 130, which I am proud to cosponsor. This legislation would ensure that healthcare providers treat babies who have been born alive, after failed abortion attempts, with the same care they would treat any other baby born at the same stage of pregnancy.

I also thank the Senator from Nebraska for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this issue to the floor.

In one sense, it is very hard to imagine this legislation is even necessary in the United States of America. In the 21st century, when, every day, new, advanced technologies bring new revelations about the wonders of human life, it is hard to fathom the extremism of the politicians in New York and now in Virginia who would deny the protections of law to the most vulnerable members of our society--the innocent unborn--and allow them to be aborted, allow them to be killed right up to the moment of birth. It is hard to comprehend statements like those of Ralph Northam's, the Virginia Governor, who said that if he had his way, infants who survived abortion attempts would be delivered and kept comfortable--that is his word--while the doctors and the parents decided their fate. Is this really what it has come to in the United States? Is this really the social vision of today's Democratic Party? Frankly, I can't imagine a vision less just or less consistent with the goodness and compassion of the American people.

In another sense, perhaps we should not be so surprised. After all, the cruelty and extremism that has been advocated by a growing number of Democratic politicians made up the conventional wisdom for much of recorded history.

We often hail the ancient Greeks as the founders of democracy, but, of course, most of the Greeks believed that most humans were born to be slaves and that their lives were utterly worthless. Oh, they had a democracy, of course, but it was the democracy of the few ruling over the many.

The Romans took the same view. They kept most of their subjects in chains. They infamously killed children they didn't want and left them to be exposed on hillsides or in deserted places. The Romans had a republic, but citizenship was for the few. The strong ruled. Most lives, they thought, didn't matter.

This has been the general rule of the ages. The Aztecs, the Mayans, the Incas all practiced child sacrifice. Archaeologists recently discovered a burial ground dated to the tomb of the empire in Peru where more than 140 children were dismembered in a ritual of sacrifice. So it has gone down through the years. The strong prey upon the weak. The few rule the many. Individual lives don't count.

We here in the United States of America hold to a different conviction. Our Constitution was written and the whole edifice of American liberty depends on a very different belief, on a belief that is as simple as it is powerful--that every life matters. We believe and it is our pride to believe that every person has dignity and worth-- worth that is not given to one by the strong or the rich, that does not come to one from the State or the city, that does not depend on place of birth or social status, but is one's by right because of who one is--a human being created in the image of the living God.

That is our faith, and against the drift of history, it is a revolutionary creed. It is a creed that inspired the early Christians to rescue those infants the Romans left to die and to bring them up to be free. It led them to found hospitals and schools and, later, universities on the supposition that all people should be cared for, that all could learn, and that all could govern themselves. It is a creed that has brought down empires and raised up the forgotten.

It is the faith of our Constitution and of our whole way of life. Yes, we have struggled to realize it in this Nation. We have struggled to make it real, and we have fallen short many times, but this struggle for this faith defines our history and binds us together as Americans, and this faith is again at issue in our time.

I know some are tempted, when they see this rising tide of barbarism and cruelty, to feel despair, but I do not. I think of the words of Lincoln, who spoke of the unfinished work of this Nation, and I take courage that all of these years later, we are a revolutionary nation still.

So we must press forward in this generation for our revolutionary faith. Let us not go back to the darkness and cruelty of the past. Let us not go back to the arbitrary rule of the powerful and the few. Let us affirm again our founding belief in the equal worth and equal dignity of all. As we do, we will do our part for liberty and justice in our day.

I yield the floor.