Floor Statements

Mr. President, now on one final matter, this week marks the end of Jennifer Hemingway's service as the Senate's Acting Sergeant at Arms. I am happy and grateful that Jennifer is actually not going anywhere. While she is stepping aside from the top job, as is custom when party control flips, Leader Schumer had the excellent judgment to retain Jennifer as the Sergeant at Arms Chief of Staff.

So, instead of a farewell, I just want to offer a few thanks.

I cannot imagine tougher circumstances than those in which Jennifer stepped into in this job. She had already impressed everyone as Deputy Sergeant at Arms, but when the Capitol was breached on January 6, she leapt into action on a whole new level.

It then fell to Jennifer to take the reins during challenging times. Her sure-handed leadership and institutional knowledge helped us get through a safe and successful inauguration just 2 weeks after January 6. Then came the fourth-ever Presidential impeachment trial, and there have been all the critical daily missions the Sergeant at

Arms team fulfills, from physical security to IT infrastructure.

So we were lucky to have such a poised professional on the job, and we are lucky she is sticking around. I know all of my colleagues share their gratitude for Jennifer's superlative service.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Last week, our Democratic colleagues had to resort to a rare tactic to rescue the stalled nomination of Xavier Becerra to run the Department of Health and Human Services.

The distinguishing feature of this nominee's resume is not his expertise in health, medicine, or administration. That part of the resume is very brief. What stands out are Mr. Becerra's commitments to partisan warfare and his far-left ideology.

He has supported the sweeping government takeover of healthcare they call ``Medicare for All,'' which would actually end Medicare as we know it and would rip away families' private insurance plans.

As the administration's policies continue to create a border crisis, Mr. Becerra is someone who believes we should not just have blanket amnesty, but that entering the country illegally should not even be a crime.

And even amid a global pandemic, the most significant health-related experience on the nominee's record is his efforts to wield the legal system against religious Sisters to make them violate their faith and conscience.

Up to now, every person who has ever been confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services has either been favorably reported by the Finance Committee or discharged by unanimous consent. There is ample reason why this nominee would be a glaring exception.

I continue to urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam President, fortunately, the Senate will first be confirming a thoroughly qualified nominee to be the new administration's top trade official.

Katherine Tai is just the kind of qualified and mainstream person who is positioned to serve President Biden and the country quite well. That is why she received broad bipartisan support from the Finance Committee and why the vote to advance her nomination yesterday was 98 to 0.

I look forward to working with Ms. Tai to embrace trade and push back on abusive practices from China and other anticompetitive countries.

Trade is a huge strength of America. It drives job creation and economic growth. Just look at my home State, for example. Exports support more than 140,000 jobs in Kentucky. Hard-working Kentuckians supply nearly 200 countries with everything from agricultural goods to medicines, to aerospace parts and motor vehicles.

In the last Congress, we modernized our trade with our neighbors to the north and south through the USMCA. We gave Kentucky farmers, workers, and consumers a long-awaited boost.

But our job creators still face unfair barriers, including those targeting American spirits. The Bluegrass is proud to craft 95 percent of the world's bourbon, but, currently, tariffs put Kentucky distillers at a disadvantage in their largest export markets.

Ms. Tai should address these unfair international headwinds facing Kentuckians. I would encourage her to focus on expanding markets and reducing barriers for products and services from all 50 States.

Americans would welcome the growth in opportunity and prosperity. And, if you ask me, the whole world could benefit from a little more Kentucky bourbon

Madam President, tomorrow, the Secretary of State and the President's National Security Advisor will have their first face- to-face meeting with Chinese officials. I am glad our officials met with regional allies like Japan and South Korea right beforehand and have been in touch with Australia and European allies as well. It is essential that we and our friends present a united front.

Now, the United States and the whole world need the President's team to deliver a strong message tomorrow.

During the campaign, President Biden spoke dismissively about the threat from China. But thus far, in office, his team has shown signs they understand that Communist China threatens America, our allies, and the prevailing international system.

The world spent years presuming that welcoming China into the international community would inevitably cause its rulers to play by the rules. Twenty years ago, President Clinton said: ``[E]conomic innovation and political empowerment . . . will inevitably go hand in hand.'' But since then, rather than the rest of the world exporting liberty and transparency into China, Beijing has found more success exporting authoritarianism and corruption beyond its borders.

In Japan, on Tuesday, Secretary Blinken called out the ``coercion and aggression'' that China deploys at home and abroad. He said this administration will push back on Beijing. That clear-eyed talk is certainly welcome, but it is just the first step.

Walking the walk will mean actually responding in tough ways to espionage and cyber attacks, to violations of human rights, to military bullying, to stealing intellectual property and cheating on trade. If the administration is up to the task, they will find strong partners in this Republican conference.

Here is one big test: Are they willing to keep investing in our own defense?

Our financial commitment to defending America is our most important policy lever in this competition with China. Our allies and adversaries do not heed American Presidents because they are charming or good- looking. The world has respected America for our overwhelming military and economic superiority. When that edge erodes, we invite trouble.

As a share of our economy, American defense spending has fallen significantly, not just from Cold War-era heights but even just recently. Meanwhile, China used its growing prosperity to modernize its military, develop new and longer range weapons to hold U.S. forces at risk from further away, and turn a particular eye towards space and cyber space.

Defense spending is about protecting our homeland. It is about projecting power. It is about preserving global influence, supporting our allies. It is really a barometer of our national will.

It is also about innovation and the future. Many life-changing innovations throughout our economy were first rooted in military R&D.

Unfortunately, reports suggest the Biden administration may plan to freeze defense spending. Of course, that means a reduction, after inflation. Dozens of Democrats are pressuring the administration for even steeper cuts than that. If the administration is serious about competing with China, deterring Russia, and preserving American leadership, the most important test will be in the President's budget submission.

Some of our Senate Democratic colleagues have expressed interest in crafting bipartisan legislation related to China. If any issue is ripe for a regular-order, bipartisan process, it would be that one.

Defense spending is the crucial first step, but there are a whole variety of subjects concerning our competition with China that could benefit from a serious look.

There is bipartisan support for improving security reviews of foreign investment and protecting against forced technology transfer, for cracking down on Chinese espionage and political influence campaigns, for supporting the people of Hong Kong, and human rights, and deterring aggression against Taiwan. There is bipartisan support for fostering specific industries of national-security importance, such as semiconductors, and for broadly strengthening American R&D.

There is an opportunity for fruitful discussion here. Certainly, this is an area where bipartisanship will be especially crucial, so strategies don't change schizophrenically with every election. As one of our Democratic colleagues said in a hearing yesterday, ``the U.S. will not out-compete China . . . with short-term legislation and never- ending uncertainty.''

That is another great argument for not trashing the legislative filibuster. Imagine if every action the Senate takes with national security implications were constantly subject to being wiped clean. While China plans years and decades at a time, our Federal legislation would be reduced to a shelf life of a couple years.

These issues need to be addressed thoughtfully and deliberately. Identifying critical technologies and the best ways to promote and protect advancements needs to be a smart, fact-based process, not a political guessing game or throwing cash at industries with the right connections.

Our work on this front should strengthen our ties with our allies and partners, not try in vain to simply go it alone.

And the Democratic majority must resist the temptation to pile a long list of unrelated policy wishes into a big package and try to label it ``China policy.'' It would be quite a remarkable coincidence if our Democratic colleagues' vision for a so-called China bill ends up being indistinguishable from a list of things that just happen to delight liberal interest groups.

Getting America on a stronger footing will not require some sweeping far-left transformation of our economy. It will mean continuing to complement the principles and ideas that are our greatest strengths, and it will mean working on these issues the right way, across the aisle

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

Mr. President, today I would like to begin with a few quotations.

The legislative filibuster . . . is the most important

distinction between the Senate and the House. Without the 60-

vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a

majoritarian institution like the House, much more subject to

the whims of short-term electoral change. No Senator would

like to see that happen. So let's find a way to further

protect the 60-vote rule for legislation.

That was the current Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, in April of 2017, less than 4 years ago.

Now, here is another quote, Mr. President:

What about [the] nuclear option doing away with the

filibuster?

I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it

was originally devised and created going back to our Founding

Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority,

and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition

and in its procedure.

That was the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Durbin, in 2018, about 3 years ago.

A few years ago, 33 Members of the Democratic side signed a letter insisting that ``we preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions'' regarding legislation. Now, under pressure from the outside, many of our Democratic colleagues are abandoning their stated principles as fast as possible.

Yesterday, Senator Durbin said the filibuster is not a core principle but ``an offhanded clerical suggestion.'' An offhanded clerical suggestion.

A number of Senate Democrats are trying to pressure the senior Senators from West Virginia and Arizona to abandon their own very recent commitments to honor this central rule of the Senate.

The Framers designed the Senate to require deliberation, to force cooperation, and to ensure that Federal laws in our big, diverse country earn broad enough buy-in to receive the lasting consent of the government. James Madison said the Senate should be a ``complicated check'' against ``improper acts of legislation.'' Thomas Jefferson said that ``great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.''

Senate Democrats parroted all these arguments when they were the ones benefiting from minority protection. When President Trump pressed Republicans to kill the filibuster, our Democratic colleagues cried foul. When our Republican majority stood on principle and refused to wreck the rules, our Democratic colleagues happily used the filibuster themselves. In some cases, they flat-out blocked legislation, like Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. In many other cases, Democrats did what minority parties always do and leveraged the existence of the filibuster to influence must-pass legislation long before it got to the floor.

There is so much emphasis on the most extreme bills that either party might pass with a simple majority. People forget that the Senate's 60- vote threshold is the only reason--the only reason--that any routine, must-pass legislation is bipartisan except during divided government. Big funding deals, appropriations bills, farm bills, highway bills, the NDAA--the Senate's 60-vote threshold backstops all of it. It is not just about controversial items; it is about everything we do.

The Senate Democrats who are pressuring our colleagues from Arizona and West Virginia to reverse themselves are not just arguing for some procedural tweak, not a procedural tweak; they are arguing for a radically less stable and less consensus-driven system of government. Forget about enduring laws with broad support; nothing in Federal law would ever be settled.

Does anyone really believe the American people were voting for an entirely new system of government by electing Joe Biden to the White House and a 50-50 Senate? This is a 50-50 Senate. There was no mandate to completely transform America by the American people on November 3. That may be what a few liberal activists want, but does anyone believe that millions of Americans thought that is what they were electing? Of course not.

There is an ironic element to this whole conversation. Some Democratic Senators seem to imagine this would be a tidy tradeoff. If they could just break the rules on a razor-thin majority, sure, it might damage the institution, but then nothing would stand between them and their entire agenda--a new era of fast-track policymaking. But anyone who really knows the Senate knows that is not what would happen.

So let me say this very clearly for all 99 of my colleagues: Nobody serving in this Chamber can even begin--can even begin--to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like.

None of us have served 1 minute in the Senate that was completely drained of comity and consent. This is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon, to proceed with a garden-variety floor speech, to dispense with the reading of lengthy legislative text, to schedule committee business, and to move even noncontroversial nominees at anything besides a snail's pace.

So I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task-- every one of them--requires a physical quorum, which, by the way, the Vice President does not count in determining a quorum. Everything that Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump and everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama would be child's play compared to the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities if--if--they break the Senate.

So this is not a tradeoff between trampling etiquette but then getting to quickly transform the country. That is a false choice. Even the most basic aspects of our colleagues' agenda, the most mundane tasks of the Biden Presidency, would actually be harder--harder--not easier for Democrats in a post-nuclear Senate that is 50-50, dead even.

If the Democrats break the rules to kill rule XXII on a 50-50 basis, then we will use every other rule to make tens of millions of Americans' voices heard. Perhaps the majority would come after the other rules next. Perhaps rule XXII would just be the first domino of many, until the Senate ceases to be distinct from the House in any respect. This chaos would not open up an express lane to liberal change. It would not open up an express lane for the Biden Presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100- car pileup--nothing moving.

And then there is the small matter that majorities are actually never permanent. The last time a Democratic leader was trying to start a nuclear exchange, I remember offering a warning. I said my colleagues would regret it a lot sooner than they thought. In just a few years and a few Supreme Court vacancies later, many of my Democratic colleagues said publicly that they did. Touching the hot stove again would yield the same result but even more dramatic.

As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldn't just erase every liberal change that hurt the country. We would strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies, with zero--zero--input from the other side. How about this: nationwide right-to-work for working Americans; defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one; a whole new era of domestic energy production; sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn; concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 States and the District of Columbia; and massive hardening of the security on our southern border.

We saw during amendment votes, just days ago, that some commonsense Republican positions actually enjoy more support right now than some of the Democratic committee chairs' priorities, and this is with them in the majority. So the pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing hard.

My colleagues and I have refused to kill the Senate for instant gratification. In 2017 and in 2018, I was lobbied to do exactly what Democrats want to do now. A sitting President leaned on me to do it. He tweeted about it. What did I do? I said to the President at that time: No. I said ``no'' repeatedly, because being a U.S. Senator comes with higher duties than steamrolling any obstacle to short-term power. I meant it. Republicans meant it.

Less than 2 months ago, two of our Democratic colleagues said they mean it too. If they keep their word, we have a bipartisan majority that can put principle first and keep the Senate safe.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, last Thursday, I spoke about the pain and disruption this pandemic has caused this past year. I also discussed the optimistic springtime that lies before us. The brighter horizon is not a product of a partisan bill that was signed last week or an administration that was sworn in less than 2 months ago; it was built by the American people and supported by the five historic and completely bipartisan bills that Congress passed just last year.

Later on Thursday, the Nation heard remarks from President Biden. The President spoke in a heartfelt way about grief and loss, but his vision for the days ahead was badly lacking. Along a number of crucial dimensions, the Biden administration keeps trying to rewrite recent history and overrule science.

Let's take vaccinations. The President's speech tried to reinforce the myth that his administration inherited a shambles on vaccines, set goals that nobody believed were achievable, and has met those goals against all odds. This is just not true.

The President said:

I set a goal that many of you said was . . . way over the

top.

But the benchmark of 100 million vaccines in 100 days was not some audacious goal that was met with great skepticism. A million shots per day was just the pace that the Biden administration actually inherited. We averaged more than 1 million shots per day the week of the inauguration. We totaled more than 1.5 million the day the President was sworn in.

The groundwork we laid last year is proving a historic success. Where the

Biden administration is continuing to help streamline distribution, they should, of course, get some credit, but their effort to sprint to the front of this yearlong campaign should not fool anybody.

The President announced another supposedly audacious goal on Thursday: that all adults in all 50 States should be eligible to schedule vaccinations by May 1. Here is the problem: Dr. Fauci said a month ago we would be there by April.

I would imagine by the time we get to April, that will be

what I would call . . . `'open season'' . . . namely,

virtually everybody and anybody in any category could start

to get vaccinated.

That was Dr. Fauci's prediction last month. So the President's announcement of May 1 wasn't ambitious good news; it was actually a walk-back.

Something tells me that if the last administration had contradicted Dr. Fauci and pushed the vaccine milestone back a whole month, we might have heard about it from the media.

Then there is the K-12 schooling. For months, science has confirmed that schools are remarkably safe and do not surge transmission of the virus. This administration's own experts amplified this before liberal politics got in the way.

In early February, President Biden's CDC Director specifically said vaccinating the grownups who work in schools should not be a prerequisite for reopening them, but on Thursday, instead of calling for schools to reopen right now, the President endorsed Big Labor's moving goalposts. He said that because the Democrats passed their spending plan and because he has tried to move teachers toward the front of the line for vaccines, now--now--schools can move toward reopening. This approach has put liberal interest group politics ahead of vulnerable kids and their parents.

It was reported last week that the following message was posted in a private online group for members of one public school union in California.

Friendly reminder: If you are planning any trips for Spring

Break, please keep that off of social media. It is hard to

argue that it is unsafe for in-person instruction if parents

and the public see vacation photos and international travel.

Further reports from California suggest some local governments may consider using some of the massive bailouts that Democrats sent them on bonuses. Reportedly, one union argues that grownups should get bonuses for things like ``an airplane trip to Hawaii when this is all over.'' A lot of working-class families in the country are struggling through untenable situations--in large part thanks to the liberal dogma that schools have needed lots more cash to become safe--and now unions are talking about trips to Hawaii?

Every day that the Biden administration does not urge schools to reopen safely right now with simple precautions, it hurts kids who cannot afford these moving goalposts.

President Biden also made news with the big proclamation that maybe-- maybe--if citizens behave themselves, we will be able to have small outdoor gatherings by July 4. He made sure to stipulate that politicians reserve the right to clamp down again, however, but that carrot dangled before Americans was small outdoor gatherings about 4 months from now. This was bizarre and problematic on several levels.

No. 1, let's be clear: The Federal Government does not instruct free citizens how they may gather in small groups with their own families. I have advocated strongly for following science, wearing masks, and taking all the precautions throughout this pandemic. The White House confers a bully pulpit. It does not confer supreme authority over daily life.

Let's not forget that about 10 months ago, many liberal politicians applauded massive outdoor gatherings because they supported a political cause. I am not sure how much capital these officials have to micromanage backyard barbecues.

No. 2, this strange proclamation was out of step with science. Current CDC guidelines say it is already safe right now--right now--for fully vaccinated people to meet in small groups, not just outdoors but indoors, and they can be joined by an unvaccinated household if they are low risk. That is the CDC's advice, talking not about July 4 but right now. Right now

So the President went on national TV to move the goalposts way beyond what his own CDC is saying. Why? There is no science-based reason why a few fully vaccinated people couldn't get together outdoors right now-- not July 4; today. And if a healthy young adult who is still waiting for the vaccine wants to meet up with a few vaccinated relatives, that is about a personal assessment of a very small risk, not a matter of Presidential policy.

That brings me to point three. The President's proclamation was far out of step with what is already happening across the country. It was advice for an alternate universe. The President and his advisers may need to get out more. Americans are already getting together in small groups outdoors in blue States and red States, in small towns and big cities. The country is not locked down waiting for July 4.

In my home State of Kentucky, the Governor has backed indoor gatherings of up to eight people from up to two households. Here in the District of Columbia, as of next week, outdoor gatherings of up to 50 people will be permitted--50 people here in the District.

Americans are getting vaccines. They have learned about this disease. They have learned about the low risks of outdoor transmission. They are making their own determinations as free people.

Look, I have been a consistent advocate for following the science, wearing a mask, and taking precautions. I believe we should all keep following the science. Nobody wants to fumble the ball on the 5-yard line. But that doesn't mean just citizens; it means politicians too. And science doesn't only run in the direction of more restrictions.

The American people were told 12 months ago that accepting major disruptions for a limited time would flatten the curve and prevent a healthcare collapse, and Americans rose to the occasion.

One year on, if the President and his administration want to continue to give advice to free citizens, I suggest they exit the alternate universe, stick to the actual science, and get acquainted with where the American people actually are.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, a year ago, coronavirus cases were beginning to climb on U.S. soil. Shutdown measures were starting to take effect.

Americans have endured one of the strangest and most painful years in living memory. Nearly 2 million Americans have been hospitalized with serious cases of the virus. More than half a million have lost their lives. Millions of students and workers have had their lives completely thrown off course. But these dark times have also spotlighted some of the best of America: heroism, selflessness, ingenuity.

Last March, the night we passed the CARES Act without a single dissenting vote, I said we would see a new generation of American heroes, and so we have. Doctors and nurses and first responders have worked tirelessly to help their fellow Americans. Essential workers kept manning their posts and prevented economic collapse. Neighbors looked out for neighbors, and small businesses shifted gears almost overnight. Children and parents have fought to adapt to extraordinary disruptions, and incredible heroes in lab coats in America and worldwide worked at light speed to decode this new enemy and create lifesaving vaccines in record time.

Today, together, we are standing on the cusp of a new springtime for our

country not like anything we have experienced in our lifetimes. More than 95 million vaccine doses have reached American arms; another 2 million every single day. COVID-related deaths have plummeted, now less than half of their high, particularly for the elderly and the vulnerable. Science reaffirms kids can be safely in the classroom right now. States are starting to lift blanket restrictions, freeing citizens and small businesses to follow smart precautions themselves. For weeks, every indicator has suggested our economy is poised to come roaring back, with more job openings for Americans who need work.

None of these trends began on January 20. President Biden and his Democratic government inherited a tide that had already begun to turn toward decisive victory.

In 2020, Congress passed five historic bipartisan bills to save our health system, protect our economic foundations, and fund Operation Warp Speed to find vaccines. Senate Republicans led the bipartisan CARES Act that got our country through the last year.

The American people already built the parade that has been marching toward victory; Democrats just want to sprint in front of the parade and claim credit.

So when 10 Republican Senators went to the White House to suggest working together, the Democrats said: Uh, no. Both the Democratic leader and the White House Chief of Staff now indicate they think President Obama's problem was that he was too bipartisan.

This time, as one journalist put it, the situation was ``Democrats to GOP: Take it or leave it.'' The ``it'' that we are talking about here was a bill that only spent about 1 percent on vaccines and about 9 percent on the entire health fight. The rest of the tab went to things like this: a $350 billion bailout for State and local budgets unrelated to pandemic needs, with strings attached to stop States from cutting taxes on their own citizens down the road--take the money, you don't get to cut taxes; massive Federal school funding spread over several years, without requiring quickly reopening; sweeping new government benefits with no work requirements whatsoever--a time warp to the bad times before bipartisan welfare reform--which Democrats already say they want to make permanent; and agricultural assistance conditioned not on specific financial need but solely on the demographics of the farmer, which some liberal activists are celebrating as ``reparations.'' Only about 20 percent of the spending went to $1,400 direct checks, to try to keep all of the unrelated socialism out of the spotlight.

This wasn't a bill to finish off the pandemic; it was a multitrillion-dollar Trojan horse full of bad, old liberal ideas. President Biden's own staff keep calling this legislation ``the most progressive bill in American history''--hardly the commonsense bipartisanship that the President promised.

So we pause today at the 1-year mark to remember and to mourn, but we also look with great optimism toward the future. Twenty twenty-one is set to be a historic comeback year, not because of the far-left legislation that was passed after the tide had already turned but because of the resilience of the American people.

(Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.)

Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, at noon today, the Senate will vote on whether to pluck the Becerra nomination out of committee after it failed to garner enough support to advance.

Every one of President Biden's nominations the Senate has considered so far has received bipartisan support for confirmation. There is a reason Mr. Becerra could not get one single Republican vote to move out of committee. It is because he is such a thoroughly partisan actor with so little subject-matter expertise and such a demonstrated history of hostility toward basic values like the freedom of conscience. There is nothing about Mr. Becerra's record in Congress or in California to suggest he is the best possible person to run the Department of Health and Human Services in the middle of a once-in-a-generation viral pandemic--not even close.

This is too important a job at too important a time for this administration to put raw partisanship ahead of qualifications. So I would strongly urge all Senators to vote against rescuing this nomination from committee. Let's give the President the opportunity to make a better selection.

Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, as I have mentioned, it is customary for some top Senate staff positions to see new faces when party control changes hands.

Today, it is my honor to pay tribute to Mary Suit Jones, a huge asset to this institution who has become an institution herself.

Tomorrow, Mary will finish her second separate run as Assistant Secretary of the Senate and conclude a Senate career that has spanned more than a quarter of a century.

I first met Mary Jones in the mid-1990s when we brought her on board to help manage my office. Neither I nor Mary's colleagues back then could have predicted that nearly 30 years later, she would depart as one of the most senior officers in the entire place. But the truth is, if you had told us, nobody would have been even a little surprised either.

I have entrusted Mary with a lot of different responsibilities over the years. She served as our office manager just a few years out of college. She came with me to the Rules Committee, first as deputy staff director and then the top job. Senator Frist had the good judgment to ask her to be Assistant Secretary in the early 2000s. Then she returned to Rules and resumed serving as our staff director under Senators Bob Bennett, Lamar Alexander, and then Pat Roberts. Finally, she generously brought all of this expertise and institutional knowledge back to the Assistant Secretary role 6 years ago.

In her first job in my office, Mary organized one team of people and our infrastructure. In her current job, she has overseen 26 departments and scores of Senate staff, pushing resources and guidance down and pushing information up. In between, at Rules, she tackled things like helping run Presidential inaugurations.

Through it all, I cannot name one time when Mary Jones did not deliver. She is consistent, competent, and completely reliable. No wonder her name has become a kind of catchphrase around the Senate when anyone is trying to track down some key piece of wisdom or is puzzling over how to get something done: ``Well, let's ask Mary Jones.'' ``Have you checked with Mary Jones?'' ``I think Mary knows all about that.''

Everyone from junior staff to senior Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have been able to count on Mary for expertise and execution. On a million different subjects, she knows the answer to the question you are going to ask before you even finish asking it. A rock-solid administrator, a consummate professional--she is just that good.

So I am sorry to see Mary depart the Senate, but she has given generously to this place. She has certainly earned the opportunity to apply her many talents to some new challenges and perhaps knock a few miles off of her famously epic commute while she is at it.

The whole Senate thanks Mary for her excellent service. We wish her, her husband, and their kids all the best in the exciting new chapters that lie ahead.