Floor Statements

Mr. President, for nearly 50 years, Steve Gilmore has been making his mark on the city of Ashland. As an educator, a parks commissioner, and finally as a mayor, his contributions to northeastern Kentucky have shaped a legacy anyone could be proud of. Today, I would like to recognize this incredible public servant and wish him well as he begins a richly deserved retirement.

Steve got his start in public service at 29 as a member of the local parks board. In the following years, he led the renewal of Ashland's public spaces, pushed for the repainting of its iconic bridges, and helped champion a major renovation of the riverfront. In 1978,

Steve made his first run for the city commission. Time and again, the people of Ashland put their trust in him. In 2002, Steve became the city's mayor. He made history soon after as the first Ashland mayoral candidate ever to run unopposed.

I would like to mention one of Steve's accomplishments in particular. Over the years, Ashland has taken tremendous advantage of its geography and scenic beauty on the banks of the Ohio River. I had the opportunity to work with Steve about a decade ago to revitalize downtown Ashland and to make a dramatic investment into its river heritage. With more than $10 million in Federal funding I brought to the project, Steve and his team created an impressive new venue right on the water. Now, the Veterans Riverfront Park is a center for recreation and entertainment across the region. I am especially proud of their decision to dedicate the park to the men and women who sacrificed to protect our country.

Steve ended his first stretch as mayor with remarkable success. Then, he took on a new challenge as superintendent of Ashland Schools. He accepted the responsibility to keep making a difference for his city not just today, but for years into the future. Thousands of students and graduates continue to benefit from his leadership.

When it came time to close the book on his career as an educator, Steve knew he had more to give to his beloved city. In 2016, he was reelected to the mayor's office. With a team of city commissioners and devoted public servants, Steve began once again steering the community toward growth. He continued renovating the face of Ashland and making it a destination for visitors and employers.

Steve plans for a retirement filled with spending more time with his family doing the things they love. Perhaps he will take a few more trips down to the river along the newly dedicated ``Steve Gilmore Way.'' He has certainly earned it. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to express my thanks to Steve for his decades of service and leadership in Kentucky.

Mr. President, January 6 was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election.

Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful--disgraceful--dereliction of duty.

The House accused the former President of ``incitement.'' That is a specific term from the criminal law.

Let me just put that aside for a moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago. There is no question--none--that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President, and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth.

The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on January 6. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged ``trial by combat.'' It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths--myths-- about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.

Now, I defended the President's right to bring any complaints to our legal system. The legal system spoke. The electoral college spoke. As I stood up and said clearly at that time, the election was settled. It was over. But that just really opened a new chapter of even wilder-- wilder--and more unfounded claims.

The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.

Now, sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors--we saw that--that unhinged listeners might take literally, but that was different. That is different from what we saw. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing President who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.

The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence actually began. Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day, whatever reaction he says he meant to produce, by that afternoon, we know he was watching the same live television as the rest of us. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.

It was obvious that only President Trump could end this. He was the only one who could. Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the administration. The President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so Federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored. No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily--happily--as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election.

Now, even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters, the President sent a further tweet attacking his own Vice President. Now, predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as a further inspiration to lawlessness and violence, not surprisingly.

Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he didn't call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.

In recent weeks, our ex-President's associates have tried to use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind of human shield against criticism--using the 74 million who voted for him as kind of a human shield against criticism. Anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That is an absurd deflection. Seventy-four million Americans did not invade the Capitol. Hundreds of rioters did. Seventy-four million Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage that provoked it. One person did it--just one.

Now, I have made my view of this episode very plain. But our system of government gave the Senate a specific task. The Constitution gives us a particular role. This body is not invited to act as the Nation's overarching moral tribunal. We are not free to work backward from whether the accused party might personally deserve some kind of punishment.

Justice Joseph Story was our Nation's first great constitutional scholar. As he explained nearly 200 years

ago, the process of impeachment and conviction is a narrow tool--a narrow tool--for a narrow purpose. Story explained this limited tool exists to ``secure the state against gross official misdemeanors''; that is, to protect the country from government officers.

If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge. By the strict criminal standard, the President's speech probably was not incitement. However--however--in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction.

Now, this is a close question, no doubt. Donald Trump was the President when the House voted, though not when the House chose to deliver the papers. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who reached either conclusion.

But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article II, section 4 exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried, or convicted. It is the President. It is the Vice President and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former office holder who is now a private citizen.

Here is article II, section 4: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

Now, everyone basically agrees that the second half of that sentence exhausts the legitimate grounds for conviction. The debates around the Constitution's framing make that abundantly clear. Congress cannot convict for reasons besides those. It therefore follows that the list of persons in that same sentence is also exhaustive. There is no reason why one list--one list--would be exhaustive but the other would not.

Article II, section 4 must limit both why impeachment and conviction can occur and to whom--and to whom. If this provision does not limit impeachment and conviction powers, then it has no limits at all. The House's ``sole power of Impeachment'' and the Senate's ``sole Power to try all Impeachments'' would create an unlimited circular logic, empowering Congress to ban any private citizen from Federal office.

Now, that is an incredible claim. But it is the argument the House managers seemed to be making. One manager said the House and Senate have ``absolute, unqualified . . . jurisdictional power.'' Well, that was very honest, because there is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the Senate to convict former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen--an absurd end result to which no one subscribes.

Article II, section 4 must have force. It tells us the President, the Vice President and civil officers may be impeached and convicted. Donald Trump is no longer the President.

Likewise, the provision states that officers subject to impeachment and conviction ``shall be removed from Office if convicted''--``shall be removed from Office if convicted.''

As Justice Story explained, ``the Senate, [upon] conviction, [is] bound in all cases, to enter a judgment of removal from office.'' Removal is mandatory upon conviction. Clearly, he explained, that mandatory sentence cannot be applied to someone who has left office. The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.

In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term--an argument we heard made by the managers. But this underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice--never meant to be the final forum for American justice. Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intragovernmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.

Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were-- and this is extremely important--``still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice.''

Put another way, in the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen--unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. He didn't get away with anything yet--yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former Presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.

I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution doesn't give us, and the Senate was right not to entertain some light- speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction.

It took both sides more than a week just to produce their pretrial briefs. Speaker Pelosi's own scheduling decisions conceded what President Biden publicly confirmed: A Senate verdict before Inauguration Day was never possible.

Now, Mr. President, this has been a dispiriting time, but the Senate has done our duty. The Framers' firewall held up again. On January 6, we returned to our post and certified the election. We were uncowed. We were not intimidated. We finished the job. And, since then, we resisted the clamor to define our own constitutional guardrails in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. We refused to continue a cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response.

The Senate's decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day. It simply shows that Senators did what the former President failed to do: We put our constitutional duty first.

That is correct. I know of no further questions on our side.

Oh, I am sorry.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the majority leader's request.

January 6 was a day of fear for those who work here in the Capitol and of sadness for many more watching from afar, but that awful day also introduced our Nation to a group of heroes whom we in Congress were already proud to call our colleagues and to whom we owe a great debt.

In the face of lawlessness, the officers of the U.S. Capitol lived out the fullest sense of their oaths. If not for the quick thinking and bravery of Officer Eugene Goodman in particular, people in this Chamber may not have escaped that day unharmed. Officer Goodman's actions reflect a deep personal commitment to duty and brought even greater distinction upon all of the brave brothers and sisters in uniform. So I am proud the Senate has taken this step forward, recognizing his heroism with the highest honor we can bestow.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

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

Madam President, first, briefly, I am pleased that Leader Schumer and I were able to reach an agreement on a fair process and estimated timeline for the upcoming Senate trial.

This structure has been approved by both former President Trump's legal team and the House managers because it preserves due process and the rights of both sides. It will give Senators, as jurors, ample time to review the case and the arguments that each side will present

Madam President, on a completely different matter, on Saturday, we lost a great statesman and scholar who gave more than 80 of his 100 years to his country.

George Shultz's service began in the U.S. Marine Corps. From the beaches of Palau, he was among the Americans who helped retake the Pacific from Japan. Back home, he earned a Ph.D. in economics. He taught at MIT and would later helm the University of Chicago's Graduate Business School. But public service beckoned, and George Shultz began a decades-long run of ping-ponging prolifically between academia and top government posts.

The first of three Presidents who would benefit from his expert counsel, Dwight Eisenhower, hired him as a senior staff economist back in 1955. A decade and a half later, he was back, this time as President Nixon's Secretary of Labor, where he worked on desegregation and, later, as OMB Director. Then, at a pivotal moment for the U.S. and world economies, George Shultz was tapped to lead the Treasury Department. He fought inflation and worked

to modernize our monetary policy so American leaders could control America's destiny.

After an interlude in the private sector, Secretary Shultz's country came calling again. He spent 6\1/2\ of President Reagan's 8 years as Secretary of State. He helped steer the smart and strong foreign policy that clinched the free world's victory over the Soviet Union, but even as the Reagan administration nudged communism into a box canyon, this top diplomat's master touch was vital in making sure that tensions did not rise too high.

As amazing as it sounds, this impressive resume doesn't fully explain George Shultz's incredible reputation. It wasn't just all he did. It was how he did it. He led with thoughtfulness, fairness, and, above all, integrity. He lived by the maxim he shared in his centennial reflection just a few weeks ago.

Here is what he said:

Trust is the coin of the realm.

His honesty and thoughtfulness won wide admiration that transcended politics. He won the trust of career diplomats and State Department staff, including those who did not naturally lean to the Reagan right.

Famously, when new Ambassadors met with him on their way abroad, the Secretary would spin a globe and ask them to point out ``their country.'' The unlucky ones who fell for the trap and pointed to their foreign destinations were swiftly corrected. ``No,'' he said. ``Your country is always America.''

At the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, we host a distinguished speaker series. George Shultz honored us as our very first ever distinguished speaker back in 1993, and he kept right on writing and speaking and mentoring young people up until just a few weeks ago.

America was his country, all right. He loved it deeply and served it always. The Senate's prayers are with the Shultz family and all the friends and colleagues he leaves behind, a truly remarkable life.

Madam President, in 2020, a Republican Senate and a Republican administration led five historic pandemic rescue packages on a completely bipartisan basis.

We marshaled the largest Federal response to any crisis since World War II--about $4 trillion across five bills--all of it completely bipartisan, but now Washington Democrats have other ideas. Even though we are still pushing out $900 billion in relief that Congress passed less than 2 months ago, even though a group of Senate Republicans met with President Biden to discuss bipartisan avenues for hundreds of billions of dollars more, Washington Democrats have decided they want to go it alone.

It was last March--remember?--when a senior House Democrat called this disaster a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Americans are suffering, but their side seems to see an opportunity to ram through ideological change. That is the impulse behind the Democrats' latest $1.9 trillion proposal. Their plan for more massive borrowing puts leftwing myths ahead of the scientific evidence and the Nation's urgent needs. While the Biden administration's own scientists say schools could reopen safely right now with smart and simple precautions, their proposal buys into the myth from Big Labor that schools should stay shut a whole lot longer.

While Republicans want to save as many jobs as possible, Washington Democrats are backing Senator Sanders' demand to more than double the minimum wage. The Congressional Budget Office says this would kill 1.4 million American jobs. Nonpartisan experts say it would send more people to the unemployment line than it would lift out of poverty. But remember, this is all about liberal dreams, not urgent needs.

Some Democrats even want to break Senate rules to jam this through. Last week, the Senate had a 14-hour voting marathon on amendments to the phony, partisan budget that Democrats jammed through as a procedural first step. We got Senators on the record on a host of questions that matter to American families. Sadly, the Democrats blocked our efforts to say that, at the very least, school districts where teachers have been vaccinated certainly need to reopen, to press States to accurately report nursing home deaths, to protect the free exercise of religion, and several more.

Other amendments divided Democrats and were adopted. For example, over some Democrats' objections, the Senate said that illegal immigrants should not receive stimulus checks, that the Keystone XL Pipeline should not be canceled, and that our government should not declare war on fracking. But, amazingly enough, at the end of the night, the very same Senate Democrats who had sought to appear moderate by supporting those three things turned around and voted in lockstep to strip them all out again.

Our colleagues who said they supported these changes voted to strip them right back out at the end of the evening. That is about as Washington, DC, as it gets.

For the sake of America's kids, American jobs, Americans' health, Democrats should put the political games aside and resume the same kinds of bipartisan talks they demanded constantly all of last year. American families deserve a process and a bill that put their actual needs at the center.

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

Madam President, this pandemic hit our Nation with compounding layers of crisis. American families have faced a health crisis, a jobs crisis, a small business crisis, an education crisis, and, frankly, a social

and community crisis--all piled on top of one another.

In response, Congress has built the largest Federal response to any crisis since World War II--by far. In the last 11 months, we have passed five major bipartisan rescue packages that sent about $4 trillion to fight the virus and to help American families.

For context, total net spending by the entire Federal Government back in 2019 was $4.4 trillion. We have borrowed and spent almost as much fighting COVID-19 as the Federal Government spent on everything in 2019. Our national debt is now larger than the size of our entire economy for the first time since World War II.

This crisis has been historic. So has the Federal response. The American people deserve for the conversation about the next steps to begin with them and their needs--not partisan rush jobs, not talking points. We need to start with the needs of our country. The most recent package, another $900 billion, was literally passed 6 weeks ago--just 6 weeks ago.

Let's talk about, then, where we are right now. On the health front, we have come through a terrible year. We have lost more than 450,000 Americans and counting. But our healthcare heroes held the line. The genius of science plus Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in record time. The science and Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in record time. This administration's stated goal of 1 million shots per day is exactly the pace they inherited from the prior team.

As we speak, nearly half of the money Congress has sent for testing and about two-thirds of our funding for vaccine distribution is still in the pipeline. That money has yet to be spent.

Let's talk about jobs. Last year, States had to take one of the best job markets in American history, with layoffs and firings at 20-year lows, and literally slam on the brakes to protect public health.

We spent historic sums to soften that blow. Two waves of direct payment hit families' bank accounts. Multiple rounds of the Paycheck Protection Program have helped small business workers stay employed. We passed and extended extra Federal jobless benefits. As a result, even as economic production fell last year, total personal income actually went up. We saw the largest annual increase in disposable income in almost 40 years. Household savings have shot up. Things are even looking up in the service sector, where literally yesterday a key measure of optimism hit a 2-year high.

There is no doubt that some families are still struggling. This isn't finished, but experts agree the remaining damage to our economy does not require another multitrillion-dollar, nontargeted bandaid.

Then there is education. Temporary emergency measures have sadly become an enduring new normal for our students, parents, and teachers as well, but, again, the horizon looks bright. Mounting evidence confirms that in-person schooling is remarkably safe with smart and basic precautions.

Let me say that again. The Biden administration's own scientists say school can be quite safe and kids should be back in person. Dr. Fauci says:

We need to try and get the children back to school. It's

less likely for a child to get infected in the school setting

than if they were just in the community.

The new CDC Director, Dr. Walensky, says:

I . . . want to be clear that there is increasing data to

suggest that schools can safely reopen, and that safe

reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be

vaccinated . . . [as] . . . a prerequisite.

These experts are not looking at hypothetical data conditioned on Congress pouring even more huge sums into schools. They are describing the science right now. They are describing the science right now.

Just 6 weeks ago, Congress sent another huge sum to help schools. It brought the total for K-12 to about $68 billion. As of the latest update, only $4 billion of the 68 had been spent. Ninety-four percent of the K-12 funding we have already provided is still in the pipeline, unspent.

So our Nation stands at a turning point on all these fronts. A dark year is in the rearview mirror. Brighter days are already starting to dawn, and much of the groundwork for a strong recovery is already in place.

It will not serve Americans to pile another huge mountain of debt on our grandkids for policies that even liberal economists say are poorly targeted to current needs. It will not serve Americans to ram through a one-size-fits-all minimum-wage hike that CBO says would kill more than a million jobs for the most vulnerable workers, affect States unequally, and already has bipartisan opposition.

This is no time to send wheelbarrows of cash to State and local governments that simply, factually, do not need it. Nonpartisan economists say States and localities are already ``well positioned to weather the storm,'' with ``additional needs that are far less than the $500 billion . . . in the Biden [plan].''

By the way, State and local tax receipts already fully rebounded-- fully rebounded--in quarter three to their highest level in American history.

This is no time to ignore the science on school safety in order to chase moving goalposts from Big Labor and pour endless sums into school districts that unions will not allow to reopen.

If you combine the Democrats' new proposal with what just became law 6 weeks ago, the Democratic law plus this new proposal would dwarf the size of the CARES Act, which sustained the country through months of lockdowns

This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make perpetual lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. Let me say that again. This is not the time for trillions more dollars to make perpetual lockdowns and economic decline a little more palatable. This is the time to focus on our smart, targeted bridge to the day when we end this chapter and win this fight.

Notwithstanding the actual needs, notwithstanding all the talk about bipartisan unity, Democrats in Congress are plowing ahead. They are using this phony budget to set the table to ram through their $1.9 trillion rough draft.

Last year, the Democratic leader kept saying we need a true, bipartisan bill. He said: ``Sitting in your own office, writing a bill, and then demanding the other side support it is not anyone's idea of bipartisanship.'' That was the Democratic leader last year. Well, that was then; this is now. Now Democrats reject the bipartisan approach that built all five of our historic COVID packages. All five of them were bipartisan.

So let's hope President Biden remembers the governing approach he promised and changes course. In the meantime, if we are to debate this phony, partisan budget, we will create some clarity for the American people. We are going to put Senators on the record.

Expect votes to stop Washington from actively killing jobs during a recovery, like terminating the Keystone Pipeline; that job-killing, one-size-fits-all minimum-wage hike; and whether to bar tax hikes on small businesses for the duration of this emergency.

Expect votes that would help target this plan towards Americans' needs, issues like stimulus checks for illegal immigrants, pouring money into schools where unions are blocking reopening, and the commonsense step of delaying new spending until existing funds have actually gone out the door.

We will see what this resolution looks like on the other side and what signals Democrats send to the American people along the way.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 889 and I ask that it be reported by number.

Colleagues, what they have done here is to reverse three important amendments that were adopted on a bipartisan basis. They, in effect, have taken out the proposal that prevented checks from going to illegals, they have taken out support for fracking, and they have taken out support for the Keystone Pipeline So they are trying to reverse what they previously adopted along with us on a bipartisan basis.

I would urge the adoption of my amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 889

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

Mr. President, this morning, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick lies in honor under the dome of the institution he swore to defend--and died defending.

Four weeks ago, the Rotunda was strewn with the debris of an insurrectionist mob. Today, it is adorned in solemn thanksgiving for the sacrifice of a hero. On January 6, those who sought to obstruct our democracy were confronted by a sworn officer and military veteran who was determined to protect it. In the face of lawlessness, Brian Sicknick paid the ultimate price to uphold a solemn oath. He gave our Nation the last full measure of devotion.

Our democratic Republic was built to endure, but it needs heroes like the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police to support and defend it. So, today, we mourn and give thanks for the true patriot who lies in the Rotunda. The Senate and the entire country send our deepest condolences to Officer Sicknick's family and all who loved him. His name will never be forgotten.

Schools

Now, Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, this pandemic has forced Americans to confront numerous and compounding tragedies. Almost 450,000 Americans have been killed; millions of livelihoods have been upended; and millions of American kids, especially those who attend public school, have been robbed of an entire year--and counting--of proper school.

Despite heroic efforts from students, parents, and teachers, so- called remote learning has proven a poor substitute for the real thing. Research suggests that, even if the average remote-learning student had gotten back in the classroom last month, they would already have missed multiple months' worth of learning compared to a normal year.

Forty percent of high schoolers in St. Paul now have failing grades. In Houston, it is 40 percent of all students. Tampa's school district has reportedly just lost track of thousands of kids altogether--and this pain isn't spread equally. The worst has fallen on the most vulnerable, including lower income households, students of color, and students with special needs and their families.

The fallout isn't just academic. Replacing the structure, friendships, and activities of school with isolated screen time has predictably caused spikes in mental health concerns. Schools normally keep an eye on kids with challenging home lives and are too often the most reliable sources of hot meals and on and on.

We know with certainty now that K-12 schooling cannot move online indefinitely, like a white-collar workplace. It is more like routine medical procedures--something that can be postponed a few weeks in a pinch but which our society really cannot do without, and some families aren't having to. Many private and parochial schools have been in person since the fall, and many European countries have kept kids in school nearly this whole time, but in places across America, where public education depends on the whims of powerful public sector unions, the best interests of children have often come dead last.

As the months have rolled by and the data have poured in, it has become clear that schools can open safely. Just last week, CDC researchers affirmed:

``With proper prevention efforts . . . we can keep transmission in schools and educational settings quite low.''

This confirms what scientists were observing as far back as October, when it was reported: ``Transmission by young children to adults seems to be negligible as long as safety measures are in place.''

Dr. Fauci, whose expertise was supposed to guide the Biden administration's whole approach, said last week: ``We can keep the children in school and get them back to school safely.'' That is Dr. Fauci.

An administration that puts facts and science first would be conducting a full-court press to open schools.

Federal funding is not an obstacle. That is more goalpost-moving. Congress has poured more than $110 billion into making education safe. As of last week, States and local school districts had only spent about $4 billion of the roughly $68 billion we set aside for K-12 schools. That leaves $64 billion in the pipeline already.

Remember, science tells us that schools are largely made safe with simple precautions. Science is not the obstacle. Federal money is not the obstacle. The obstacle is a lack of willpower not among students, not among parents--just among the rich, powerful unions that donate huge sums to Democrats and get a stranglehold over education in many communities.

Apparently, Big Labor's talking points have already displaced Dr. Fauci as the White House go-to source. The President's Chief of Staff keeps saying we need even more massive Federal funding before teachers can go back. There is no scientific basis for that, none whatsoever.

The goalpost-moving doesn't stop with money. In several places, these unions sought to elbow toward the front of the line for vaccinations-- only to turn around and say: Thanks for those vaccinations but don't think these will necessarily get our folks back in the classroom any time soon.

Too often, local officials just roll over and submit to these tactics. In my hometown of Louisville, KY, the largest school district in the State has a union-funded board of education vice chair. He is now saying that, even if all school personnel get vaccines, he would still be reluctant to open schools. In San Francisco, the 28-year-old board of education president--28 years old--argued a few days ago that vulnerable kids aren't really missing out on learning; they are just learning different things, and it is the system's fault for not measuring all of the valuable cultural experiences they have had while being stuck at home.

What nonsense.

Families are losing patience--and fast. We could not function with remote police or remote firefighters or remote dental surgeons, and we would never pretend otherwise. Kids, parents, and a lot of talented teachers have given online learning their all, but we will be deluding ourselves if we continue to accept this pale shadow of proper schooling when all of the science--all of it--points the other way.

No more goalpost-moving. States and districts have got to follow the science and get American education back on track

Budget Reconciliation

Mr. President, on a related matter, in the past year, Congress has worked together to pass five major rescue packages on a bipartisan basis. The Democratic leader spent months saying that any pandemic relief should pass with broad bipartisan support.

He said last July: ``Sitting in your own office, writing a bill, and then demanding the other side support it is not anyone's idea of bipartisanship.''

But, yesterday, less than a day after several Senate Republicans spent, literally, 2 hours meeting with President Biden, Senate Democrats plowed ahead with a party-line vote to set the table for a partisan jam. The new President talks a lot about unity, but his White House staff and congressional leadership are working with a different playbook.

We will be discussing the facts on schools, on jobs, and on healthcare in depth in the days to come, but the rushed budget process that will play out this week is exactly the wrong path toward making law. Senate Republicans will be ready and waiting with a host of amendments to improve the rushed procedural step that is being jammed through.

We will be getting Senators on the record about whether taxpayers should fund checks for illegal immigration, whether Democrats should raise taxes on small businesses in the midst of this historic crisis, and whether generous Federal funding should pour into school districts where the unions refuse to let schools open, and this is just a small taste.

The American people will see Republicans are focused on smart and responsible policies to reopen the country, and they will see Democrats who seem desperate to make their first act in power the same kind of massive, partisan, poorly targeted borrowing spree that permanently wounded the last Democratic Presidency right out of the gate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I appreciate these assurances from the majority leader. The right to offer amendments is important to Senators on our side as well, and we look forward to full and vigorous debates, including amendments, as the Senate takes up the many important issues before us. On a related note, I have discussed with the majority leader concerns that have been raised about debates on motions to proceed. I think many times cloture has to be filed on a motion to proceed because Members want to ensure they are given the right to offer amendments. Given the assurances regarding the ability of Senators to debate and amend legislation in this Congress, that should help in alleviating that practice. Also, when we are proceeding to bills with broad bipartisan support, it is my hope that we will not need to have lengthy debates on motions to proceed.

The resolution provides that the committee budgets and office space will be divided equally, subject to the customary set-aside for administrative expenses and nondesignated staff. It is our expectation that the details of those arrangements will be negotiated and agreed to by the respective chair and ranking member, in consultation with other members of each committee.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's nominee to be Secretary of Homeland Security.

Up to this point, I have voted in favor of the President's mainstream nominees to key posts. I will have my differences with Secretaries Austin, Yellen, and Blinken on policy, but they were mainstream choices from the President.

Mr. Mayorkas is something else. He does not deserve Senate confirmation to lead Homeland Security. Frankly, his record should foreclose confirmation even to a lower post. The problem isn't experience--not exactly. Mr. Mayorkas is all too familiar with the levers of power that control U.S. immigration law. The problem is when he is chosen to pull those levers--and for whose benefit.

As a high-ranking official in the Obama administration, Mr. Mayorkas did his best to turn U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services into an unethical favor factory for Democratic Party royalty. Governors, a DNC chair, Hollywood executives, a Senate majority leader from Nevada--they all received special treatment to a degree that stunned and disturbed the Obama administration's own inspector general over at that Department. His independent report blasted the ``appearance of favoritism and special access.'' We are talking about shoving through green cards as political favors and intervening to overturn denials. The IG confirmed this wasn't just about speed; Mr. Mayorkas's improper influence actually changed outcomes.

This wasn't the first time this nominee abused an office for political purposes. Before his tenure at DHS, while U.S. attorney, the nominee had helped his fellow California Democrats get a well-connected L.A. drug kingpin onto President Clinton's infamous eleventh-hour pardons list. The drug dealer's father was a Democratic Party donor. Mysteriously, several notable California Democrats took an extremely keen interest in the case. Both Mr. Mayorkas and yet another one of President Biden's nominees, Mr. Becerra, came under scrutiny for their personal roles in the special treatment that was dished out to this donor's son.

When questioned about these actions, Mr. Mayorkas responded with false and conflicting statements, including while under oath. Reviews of USCIS under Mr. Mayorkas found intimidation and retaliation against employees when they were too focused on rooting out fraud instead of merely rubberstamping applications. According to some of his own employees, his leadership led to ``a culture of fear and disrespect.''

Does this sound like somebody who deserves a promotion?

Employees reported Mr. Mayorkas viewed the people applying to live here as the Agency's ``customers,'' whom it was their job to please and satisfy. They said the crucial goal that defined his approach was not enforcing American laws, protecting American jobs, or defending the American homeland, but rather ensuring there were ``zero complaints'' from the customers.

I will close with one observation. Last week, I heard the Democratic leader compare the confirmation timelines for Mr. Mayorkas versus Gen. John Kelly--an ethically compromised partisan lawyer versus a retired four-star general whom the Senate confirmed 88 to 11. The contrast could not be sharper. For one thing, I would say Secretary Kelly understood that our customers, first and foremost, are always the American people. It is, frankly, remarkable that someone with his record is even up for a Cabinet appointment.

I will be voting against this confirmation and urge our colleagues to do the same.

Now, on another matter, the United States and democratic countries around the world are anxiously watching events in Burma. I have had an interest in Burma for many years, since I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for State and Foreign Operations.

Just last November, here on the floor, I cautiously celebrated Burma's recent elections. I warned that its military remained a toxic influence and an obstacle to democratic progress.

Sure enough, the world was horrified over the weekend when Burma's military rounded up the country's civilian political leadership, including Aung San Suu Kyi and civil society leaders. The military was afraid the popular support of the new government would yield the constitutional economic reforms they long opposed. So they tried to simply claim control for themselves.

I spoke with President Biden and Secretary Blinken yesterday about the situation in Burma. The new administration deserves credit for approaching the situation in a way that is bipartisan and coordinated with Congress.

The world is watching. I hope and expect the United States will quickly make the obvious legal determination that this is a military coup and impose significant costs on the military for its attack on democracy. We already have sanctions in place against key military officials in that country, and Congress has already given the executive branch the authorities it actually needs to swiftly apply even more sanctions to the military and its infiltration into Burma's economy.

But we will also need the help of our friends and allies to effectively pressure the junta. It is time for freedom-loving nations to stand up for democracy and impose their own meaningful costs on the military junta.

The Chinese Communist Party's state news organ dismissively called the events in Burma a ``major cabinet reshuffle.'' A ``cabinet reshuffle''? That is a joke and the free world knows it. This is a military coup and an attack on democracy--plain and simple.

There are two paths before Burma. It can continue to grow into a modern, democratic country connected to the global economy or remain a corrupt, impoverished authoritarian backwater in the shadow of the People's Republic of China.

The people of Burma have said which they prefer. They have spoken at the ballot box. The threat of force must not be allowed to silence their choice.

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