Floor Statements

Madam President, normally, today and tomorrow, we would be welcoming many thousands of Americans to the Capitol for the annual March for Life. Every year, the march is one of the most important things that happens here in Washington. Americans of all ages, diverse backgrounds, and many faiths speak up peacefully and powerfully for the most fundamental human right. They make our Nation confront the fact that even the most modest protections for innocent life are still not secure.

The pandemic has taken this year's march online. That is a particular pity, given signs that the new administration may be poised to steamroll even the most limited--limited--safeguards for conscience, let alone for life itself.

The new Washington needs to hear the marchers more than ever. A case in point, the word is out our new administration is planning to rescind the Mexico City policy this very day, run over the consciences of American taxpayers, and put them back on the hook for funding abortions overseas. An administration that wanted to pursue unity might observe that 77 percent of Americans--including a majority of Democrats--and 85 percent of Independents don't want taxpayer dollars to fund foreign abortions.

This and many other commonsense pro-life policies enjoy broad support from the American people, but the radicalism of the modern Democratic Party seems dug in. Fortunately, political dynamics change, but the moral truth does not. Executive orders can't alter the basic science of human life. So I thank my fellow Kentuckians and all Americans who are participating. We will see you in person next year

Madam President, now, on a totally different matter, the country has waited to see whether the new administration would follow a pro-job, pro-worker, pro-working family approach or give in to the far left and put ideological concerns before kitchen table ones. Unfortunately, we didn't have to wait long.

As recently as October, now-President Biden said: ``You can't [legislate] by executive action unless you're a dictator.'' Well, in 1 week, he signed more than 30 unilateral actions, and working Americans are getting short shrift.

The President abruptly canceled the Keystone Pipeline, a massive setback for energy security in North America. The Canadian leader called it ``a gut punch.'' I imagine the 11,000 American workers, including 8,000 union workers who were counting on that work, feel the same way.

We have headed back into an international pact that would have us self-inflict serious pain on working families, has failed to curb China's emissions, and without which our own emissions have been dropping anyway. And yesterday, the administration slammed the brakes on further domestic energy development on the huge swaths of land owned by the Federal Government: no new oil, gas, or coal leases on Federal land.

Our responsible use of these lands accounts for more than a fifth-- one-fifth--of our domestic production, about 2.8 million barrels per day. That is almost the equivalent of Kuwait's daily oil production from our Federal lands alone; plus, more than 10 percent of domestic natural gas.

And 2019 marked the first time in nearly 70 years when U.S. energy exports outpaced imports. For the first time since the 1950s, our Nation ran an energy surplus, not a deficit. That has been great news, but some leftwing elites are not happy. The sources of this affordable domestic energy are not sufficiently trendy.

As John Kerry explained yesterday on behalf of the administration, he wants the large numbers of American workers in those sectors to find ``better choices''--better choices than their good jobs that feed their families and strengthen our independence. Remember, with the pipeline cancellation, the President effectively closed the door on thousands of American jobs with the stroke of a pen.

According to one news report, one welder from Pipeliners Local 798, who had been working in Nebraska, says he has already had to lay off his whole

team before losing his job himself. He said he sat down in his truck and simply cried.

This latest new prohibition will replicate that heartbreak many times over. According to one study, the decision on Federal lands will leave us down nearly 1 million American jobs by next year alone--1 million lost jobs by next year alone.

It is a heck of a way to kick off a Presidency: mass layoffs of our own citizens, and working Americans in other sectors will pay as well. One analysis found this decision could increase household energy costs by almost $20 billion over the next decade, and President Biden, John Kerry, and the whole gang appear to be just getting warmed up.

Mr. Kerry admitted yesterday that even if the United States somehow brought our carbon emissions to zero, it wouldn't make much difference in the global picture. That is because our competitors, including China, have already gone roaring past us.

But there is one kind of cooling these policies will achieve. They will ice the job market in communities all across America. In the State of New Mexico, 65 percent of oil and gas production is tied to Federal lands. By one estimate, 16,000 jobs will be on the chopping block in that State alone--that State alone--next year if President Biden's ban holds up.

In Colorado, it would cost another 3,000 jobs and more than 40 percent of the State's natural gas production.

As a Kentuckian, I am all too familiar with the way these Democratic policies can hurt communities. Kentucky paid dearly for the first round of these liberal policies under President Obama. We have no desire to be subjected to a sequel, especially when John Kerry says we should take the rate at which coal is already declining and quintuple it.

In her confirmation hearing yesterday, the President's nominee to be Energy Secretary referenced ``jobs that might be sacrificed.'' Yeah, that is absolutely right. Well, she gets some points for honesty. That is what happened the last time these folks called the shots. Jobs were sacrificed, including, ultimately, some of the jobs of the Democratic politicians who backed these policies.

There is a concept in sports that a coach or a manager should never make a decision that will make the opposing team happy. If they are torn about a risky play call or if they are overthinking a pitching change, they should ask themselves which decision their opponents would rather see and do the opposite. Our new administration is failing that test on domestic energy.

China, Russia, and our other competitors must be thrilled, absolutely thrilled that our new government is essentially declaring war on some of our own economic foundations to satisfy a craving for symbolic gestures--willfully throwing our own people out of work, reducing our domestic energy security, raising costs and prices for working families--all for no meaningful impact on global temperatures, just to buy applause at those international conferences, where the participants all assemble by private jet.

It shouldn't be this way, not with a President who campaigned on protecting the lunch-pail union jobs that his left flank wants to eliminate. The President was not elected to enact policies that prompt a certain young Congresswoman from New York City to boast online that her radical ideas are shaping his energy policies. The last 4 years proved that growing our prosperity, reducing emissions, and expanding domestic energy are actually not in tension. We can achieve all three.

There is nothing green about a tsunami of pink slips for American workers or carting Canadian crude around in trucks and trains instead of a pipeline. This piecemeal Green New Deal is the wrong prescription, wrong for the environment, wrong for national security, and most of all for the working Americans who will soon be formerly working Americans if this keeps up.

Mr. President, the American Printing House for the Blind, APH, has held a special place in Gary Mudd's life since he was in the sixth grade. Over the last three decades, he has become one of the leading voices and most successful advocates for the world's largest nonprofit creating educational products for people who are blind and visually impaired. Now, Gary is closing that book and beginning a well-deserved retirement. As he does, I would like to offer my congratulations and recognize his many contributions to APH's mission and its future.

As a student, Gary took classes next door to APH at the Kentucky School for the Blind in Louisville. His textbooks prominently displayed APH's name. His teachers spoke of the organization with the highest esteem. And at night in his dorm room, he could hear the churn of the braille printing presses. At this early age, Gary was surrounded by the positive difference APH could make in a person's life.

Of course, his path to APH wasn't as easy as walking next door. Gary got his start working in radio. After 4 years, he decided he wanted to join the printing house. Anyone who knows Gary could tell you that once he set his mind on the job, it was only a matter of time before a new opportunity became available. To hear him tell it, Gary badgered APH's then-president until he got the chance to put his skills to work as a marketing associate in 1986.

Decades of Gary's characteristic persistence brought more opportunities and new responsibilities. At last, he got the chance to steer the organization as its vice president of government and community affairs. Through books, tactile educational products, and ever improving technologies, Gary helped APH drive inclusion and help students and adults achieve success.

At every step, Gary has continued learning and adapting to advance APH's mission. He has built strong relationships with educational experts and community leaders. In 2011, he even had the chance to join Dolly Parton on stage as they announced a partnership with the music icon's Imagination Library.

I have had the pleasure of working closely with Gary to deliver hundreds of millions of Federal dollars to help APH serve people throughout the country. On Capitol Hill, Gary's loyal guide dogs, Heathcliff and Denver, are probably as well-known and admired as he is. With a gentle nature and a passion for his work, Gary has made friends and allies throughout Washington who are eager to support APH's inspiring work.

Gary has a lot of plans for his retirement, but they don't include slowing down. He looks forward to pursuing passions like biking around Louisville, reading the books on his shelf, and maybe even going back to school. His first goal is to spend more time with his wife, Susan, their daughters and their grandchildren. He has earned every minute of it. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking Gary for his leadership in Kentucky and to send him into retirement with our best wishes.

Mr. President, yesterday, we confirmed Antony Blinken, our new Secretary of State. Like the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Treasury, it was another big, bipartisan vote here in the Senate.

Four years ago, Senate Democrats subjected mainstream nominees to lead State and Treasury to a full gauntlet of partisan delay tactics. They forced cloture votes. Those were nearly party-line. So were the final votes. Neither got on the job until February. But this President's mainstream nominees to key posts are receiving fair consideration and a timely process.

Republicans have no shortage of substantive policy differences with the new administration. We will be discussing them with Secretaries Austin, Yellen, and Blinken in the course of normal committee oversight.

But unlike what took place 4 years ago, Republicans are not gratuitously delaying people who are mainstream and qualified whom the new President has asked to serve in key posts. If we find somebody unfit, unqualified, or outside the mainstream, you bet we will oppose them.

But I have just spent 4 years arguing that Presidents deserve some latitude to assemble their team. I meant it, and I mean it now.

With my vote to confirm Mr. Blinken, I wanted to reinforce the need for a true bipartisan consensus on the core objectives of our foreign policy.

Yesterday, while discussing the legislative filibuster, I talked about the chaos that would ensue if every domestic policy swung wildly back and forth with every election. The same goes for our foreign affairs. American statesmen should make commitments and issue threats that can endure beyond their terms in office.

To be clear, Presidents bear the primary responsibility for foreign policy, and I am not suggesting different leaders should not have different ideas. But they will be more successful and their legacies more enduring if they make the effort to build bipartisan support among Congress and the American people.

Neither America nor our allies will like the world that results if the world's leading Nation starts over like an Etch A Sketch every 4 years.

For starters, in several important areas, the new administration should build on bipartisan consensus that actually already exists.

Let's start with China. The Trump administration helped build a long

overdue awakening to the reality that we are in strategic competition with the PRC, that Beijing will not magically conform itself to the so- called international community, and that these challenges demand fast and serious action from the United States and from our friends. President Biden and his new Cabinet must keep working with Congress to continue building a whole-of-government, whole-of-economy approach to checking China.

We need Secretary Austin to keep focus on modernizing our forces, deterring Chinese threats from the Indo-Pacific to space and cyber space, sustaining robust defense spending, and investing in defense partnerships across the world.

We need Secretary Yellen to keep focused on the coercive manipulation the PRC uses to ensnare the developing world in its orbit.

We need Secretary Blinken to keep clarifying the China threat to our allies and European partners, to focus on contesting their growing influence in Africa and the Middle East, and to hold Beijing accountable for its unacceptable repression in places like Tibet and Hong Kong and its hostility toward Taiwan.

Now, we know China is not the only great power with whom we need to hang tough. In concrete policy terms, the United States just spent 4 years developing a more clear-eyed approach to Russia. Rather than chasing naive ``resets'' with the Kremlin or worshipping arms control like a religion, we leaned into military assistance to Ukraine, serious sanctions, cyber countermeasures against meddling, and other strong steps.

The Biden administration will find willing partners on Capitol Hill if it builds on this process, keeps imposing real costs on Moscow, pushes back on expansionism in the eastern Mediterranean, and, importantly, encourages our allies to join in this effort.

Great power competition is key, but, of course, it does not exhaust the threats that we face. In the Middle East, I know President Biden will face political pressure from the left to rejoin Obama's Iran deal, just as President Trump faced pressure from the right to abandon it.

Had President Obama not tried to circumvent Congress and pursue a partisan policy, this critical national security challenge might not have become so polarizing, but that is where we are.

There is no question that Iran is the biggest threat the United States and our partners face in the region. It poses threats beyond just its pursuit of nuclear weapons: sponsoring terrorism, its sectarian agenda, its work to undermine its neighbors' sovereignty, its development of ballistic missiles and lethal drones, and its appalling--appalling--record on human rights.

Confronting this multifaceted challenge will take bipartisanship at home and solidarity with Israel and our Arab partners abroad. Those things need to exist before making major changes or racing to rejoin a deal.

And our new President must be ready to respond to violence with force, as the Trump administration did when they removed Soleimani from the battlefield.

Speaking of the Middle East, I have consistently and vocally stood up during administrations of both parties against withdrawing our limited forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria too rapidly or without a smart plan. A supermajority of the Senate joined me last Congress in warning against abruptly abandoning battlefields recklessly on bad terms.

Finally, all of this important work will require that we keep our friends close. The United States needs to be a partner that neither strains alliances unnecessarily nor hands out free passes. President Biden should continue prodding our partners to honor their promises, pay their share, and put real capabilities on the table--and reemphasize that we have their backs.

One early test for the new administration and congressional Democrats will be the defense budget. If President Biden and his team are serious about contesting China, Russia, and these other threats, they will need to show it. Without continued, robust investment in a modern global force presence, American leadership would be little more than hollow rhetoric.

I voted to get President Biden's top foreign policy advisers on the job swiftly. I hope and expect that our shared work will lead to frequent, close, and bipartisan work with the Senate.

Mr. President, yesterday, two Democratic Senators confirmed they will not provide the votes to eliminate the legislative filibuster. The senior Senator from West Virginia issued a public ``guarantee'': ``I do not support doing away with the filibuster under any condition.''

Any chance of changing his mind? ``None whatsoever.''

The senior Senator from Arizona made the same commitment. She opposes ending the legislative filibuster and ``is not open''--not open--``to changing her mind.'' Our colleague informed me directly last night that under no circumstances would she reverse course.

Now, it should not be news that a few Members of the majority pledge they won't tear up a central rule, but the Democratic leader was reluctant to repeat the step I took as majority leader in unified government when I ruled out that step on principle.

Rather than relying on the Democratic leader, I took the discussion directly to his Members. Basic arithmetic now ensures that there are not enough votes to break the rule. This victory will let us move forward with the 50-50 power-sharing agreement containing all the elements of the 2001 model because it will sit on the very same foundation.

I want to discuss the precipice from which the Senate has stepped back. In 2013, Senator Harry Reid began the ``nuclear'' exchange over nominations. I said Democrats would regret it. A few years later, we have many Federal judges, including three Supreme Court Justices, who were confirmed with fewer than 60 votes.

The back-and-forth exchange over nominations had one institutional silver lining, because, routinely, filibustering nominations was itself a modern invention pioneered by Senate Democrats in the 2000s. So, on nominations, for all the fighting, the Senate just simply circled back to the simple majority threshold that had been our longstanding norm on nominations; that is, on the Executive Calendar.

Legislation is very different. When it comes to lawmaking, the Framers' vision and our history are abundantly clear. The Senate exists to require deliberation and cooperation. James Madison said the Senate's job was to provide a ``complicated check''--a ``complicated check,'' he said--against ``improper acts of legislation.'' We ensure that laws earn enough buy-in to receive the lasting consent of the governed. We stop bad ideas, improve good ideas, and keep laws from swinging wildly with every election.

Our friend, Lamar Alexander, put it this way in his farewell speech. He said: ``The Senate exists to produce broad agreements on controversial issues that become laws most of us have voted for and that a diverse country will accept.''

More than any other feature, it is the Senate's 60-vote threshold to end debate on legislation that achieves this. It ensures narrow interests cannot ignore the rest of the country. It embodies Jefferson's maxim that ``great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.''

The bar for lawmaking is high. It should be high, even if both bodies take turns at being slightly frustrated by it. If your legislation can't pass the Senate, you don't scrap the rules or lower the standards. You improve your idea, take your case to the people, or both.

Four years ago, Republicans had just won unified control. President Trump and others pressured us heavily--me, in particular--to scrap this rule when it was protecting the Democratic minority. But we stood firm. I stood firm and endured many tweets on the subject. I said we would not do that to our colleagues in the minority.

No short-term policy win justifies destroying the Senate as we know it, especially since laws would become so brittle and reversible. So Democratic Senators used the 60-vote threshold to shape and block legislation. They stalled COVID relief, they blocked police reform, and they stopped even modest measures to protect innocent life because I chose not to destroy the tool that allowed them to do that.

That same tool that some Democrats now want to destroy, they used freely and liberally throughout their years in the minority, and I protected their ability to do that. Republicans understand you don't destroy the Senate for a fleeting advantage. Our friends across the aisle must see the same.

I have talked a lot about principle. We should also make this a little more tangible. So let's take a look at what would happen if in fact the legislative filibuster were gone. If the Democratic majority were to attack the filibuster, they would guarantee themselves immediate chaos, especially in this 50-50 Senate. This body operates every day and every hour by consent, and destroying the filibuster would drain comity and consent from this body to a degree that would be unparalleled in living memory.

So let's look at some examples.

The Constitution requires the Senate to have a quorum to do any business. Right now, a quorum is 51, and the Vice President does not count to establish a quorum. The majority cannot even produce a quorum on their own, and one could be demanded by any Senator at almost any time.

Our committees need quorums to function as well. They will also be evenly split. If this majority went scorched-earth, this body would grind to a halt like we have never seen. Technically, it takes collegiality and consent for the majority to keep acting as the majority at any time they do not physically--physically--have the majority.

In a scorched-earth, post-nuclear Senate that is 50-50 like we have today, every Senate Democrat and the Vice President could essentially just block out the next 2 years on their calendar. They would have to be here all the time.

It takes unanimous consent to schedule most votes, to schedule speeches, to convene before noon, to schedule many hearings and markups. As Democrats just spent 4 years reminding us, it takes consent to confirm even the lowest level nominees at anything beyond a snail's pace.

None of us has ever seen a Senate where every single thing either happens in the hardest possible way or not at all. Heck, once or twice every day the majority leader reads through an entire paragraph of routine requests. Objections could turn each one into multiple, lengthy rollcall votes.

None of us on either side wants to live in a scorched-earth Senate. The institution and the American people deserve a lot better. But there is no doubt--none--that is what we would see if Democrats tear up this pivotal rule. It would become immediately and painfully clear to the Democratic majority that they had indeed just broken the Senate.

This gambit would not speed the Democrats' ambitions. It would delay them terribly, and it would hamstring the Biden Presidency over a power grab which the President has spent decades warning against and still opposes.

Finally, at some point, the shoe would find its way to the other foot. When Republicans next control the government, we would be able to repeal every bill that had just been rammed through, and we would set about defending the unborn, exploring domestic energy, unleashing free enterprise, defunding sanctuary cities, securing the border, protecting workers' paychecks from union bosses--you get the picture.

But a few years later, the Democrats would try to flip it all back. So instead of building stable consensus, we would be chaotically swapping party platforms, swinging wildly between opposite visions that would guarantee half the country is miserable and resentful at any given time. We would have inherited resilient institutions but left behind a chaotic mess.

We are in a politically charged period, but when factional fever runs hot, when slender majorities are most tempted to ram through radicalism, these are the times for which the guardrails exist in the first place.

Republicans said no--emphatically no--to pushing the Senate over this precipice. When I could have tried to grab the power, I turned it down. I said: ``President Trump, no,'' repeatedly, because the Nation needs us to respect the Framers' design and the Senate's structure, and because, as I said in a different context on January 6, we have a higher calling than endless partisan escalation.

We have placed our trust in the institution itself, in a common desire to do the right thing. I am grateful that has been reciprocated by at least a pair of our colleagues across the aisle. I am glad that we have stepped back from this cliff. Taking that plunge would not be some progressive dream; it would be a nightmare. I guarantee it.

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

Madam President, our Nation has spent nearly a year locked in this terrible battle with COVID-19. This virus that spread from China around the world has taken more than 400,000 American lives. It has effectively cost many children an entire school year. It made us slam the brakes on one of the best job markets in modern history and threw millions of families into financial chaos.

But thanks to a lot of hard work in 2020, the dawn of 2021 has brought a turning point. The genius of science and the support of Operation Warp Speed produced vaccines in record time. And in December, after months of delay, Democrats finally let Congress move ahead with another major rescue package. The light at the end of the tunnel is getting closer, and both Republicans and Democrats are going to continue working together to accelerate victory.

Curiously, the President's candidate to run the Department of Health and Human Services is the famously partisan attorney general of California. His recent experience in health policies seems largely limited to promoting abortion-on-demand and suing groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, which dare to live out their religious convictions.

In an interview just yesterday, Mr. Becerra compared the current state of vaccinations inherited by the Biden administration to an airplane in a nosedive--a disaster. He contrasted the status quo with the new administration's stated goal of 1 million vaccinations per day, which he called ``ambitious.''

There is a problem here. Even the press has repeatedly pointed it out, which said our Nation is already meeting that very pace--already meeting that very pace. That is not a big new goal. It is exactly what they inherited from the Trump administration in Operation Warp Speed.

Inauguration Day, Thursday, and Friday, each topped 1 million vaccinations. As of today, we are averaging 1.16 million shots per day over the last

week. They are claiming the exact same number can either be a total catastrophe or a smashing success. I guess it depends on whether Democrats are in power. So much for science without politics.

Here is how the Washington Post put it:

The accelerating speed of the [vaccine] program undercuts

assertions by some Biden advisers that they were left no plan

by the Trump administration, and suggests they need only to

keep their feet on the pedal to clear the bar they set for

themselves.

Yesterday, Mr. Becerra was asked about increasing vaccinations in the months ahead. Here is what he said: ``I first have to be sworn in to give you a timeline.'' Perhaps that is like the time the Speaker of the House famously said she had to pass a bill before the public could learn what was in it.

The new administration campaigned heavily on having a new master plan to fight the pandemic. Well, now they are in office, President Biden has said: ``[T]here's nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months,'' and his administration is apparently content to maintain the same vaccine pace they actually inherited.

Let's talk about Congress's role in the pandemic relief. Our Democratic colleagues spent last summer and fall using the legislative filibuster to delay the next rescue package until after the election. Now, that would be the same tool that some Senate Democrats now suddenly say they oppose, as if they hadn't leaned on it liberally over the last 6 years.

But, finally, last month, they let us act. We passed another package totaling nearly $900 billion in urgent relief. We provided more than $80 billion to help K-12 schools, $280 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program, billions more for Federal unemployment insurance supplements, nutrition and rental assistance, and direct cash aid and massive new investments in purchasing and distributing vaccines. Some of that money has already gone out the door. Other portions are still unspent--a massive, historic, almost trillion-dollar package that was passed into law just 5 weeks ago.

Since last March, Washington, DC, has spent a historic amount of money standing up one of the most enormous policy responses by any government to any emergency that the world has ever seen. Nobody thinks the support has been perfect--far from it--but it has been historic and strong.

For example, a nonpartisan study in November showed that because of the historic emergency legislation passed through Congress, American personal income was actually--listen to this--higher in September than it had been before the pandemic.

Last month, Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's NEC Director, confirmed that relative to our underlying economy, our multiple rescue packages have brought American household income all the way back to a level that equals or even exceeds what he would expect if we weren't in a crisis.

So, to be clear, nobody thinks our bipartisan work fighting this pandemic is completely finished. Nobody is arguing that. And we all understand that overall national statistics do not explain away the terrible struggles facing many families. But experts and economists from the left to the right agree: Any further action should be smart and targeted, not just an imprecise deluge of borrowed money that would direct huge sums toward those who don't need it.

That is why the new administration's first draft of their sprawling proposal misses the mark, and press reports make clear this is not just a Republican view. Multiple Democratic Senators agree that it is not the right path forward.

So as the $900 billion package from 5 weeks ago continues to come online and as the remaining needs continue to come into focus, Republicans will be ready and eager to continue bipartisan discussions about smart steps forward for the American people. Bipartisan action helped our Nation endure the last year. Bipartisan action helped us turn the corner, and it will be smart, bipartisan actions that help us finish the fight

Madam President, now on a related matter, this afternoon, the Senate will confirm Dr. Janet Yellen, the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, to serve as President Biden's Secretary of the Treasury. Her speedy confirmation will contrast sharply with the way the Senate Democratic minority handled many of the last President's key Cabinet nominations 4 years ago.

Secretary Mnuchin had to sit through a stunt where Senate Democrats literally boycotted his committee hearing. He was not confirmed until mid-February.

Dr. Yellen came out of committee on a unanimous vote and will begin to work 5 days after the inauguration. That is even faster than Secretary Geithner's nomination in 2009 in the teeth of a financial crisis.

This certainly isn't because Dr. Yellen's or President Biden's economic policy views have unanimous support here in the Senate. I expect we will have no shortage of spirited policy discussions with Dr. Yellen in the months ahead, especially if some Democrats keep trying to use this historic emergency as a pretext--a pretext to push through permanent far-left policy changes.

The 50 Senators on our side have great confidence in our pro-job, pro-worker vision that helped build the greatest job market in living memory. But the simple fact is that, when the American people elect a President and when the President selects qualified and mainstream people for key posts, the whole Nation deserves for them to be able to assemble their team.

I will be voting to confirm Dr. Yellen today. I look forward to working together on pro-growth policies that will help rebuild the thriving economy for American workers that was in place just 1 year ago.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday evening, we learned that some of the National Guard forces who were helping protect the Capitol Complex were being made to rest in parking garages between their shifts. I don't think a single Senator feels that was acceptable. I am glad the situation was resolved, and I hope we learn exactly what happened.

In that regard, I want to thank all the National Guard, including more than 300 Kentucky Guardsmen, and local and Federal law enforcement who helped supplement our very own Capitol Police in the wake of January 6. Your Congress and your country appreciate all you have done to secure the Capitol and the inauguration.

Later today, I will have the honor of meeting a number of my Kentuckians who have been helping out here at the Capitol. It is going to be the highlight of my day.

In the near future, Congress needs to smartly transition toward a more sustainable security presence. Keeping the Capitol safe cannot and will not require huge numbers of uniformed troops and vast systems of emergency fencing to remain in place forever. With the inauguration behind us, we should find the right middle ground between the unacceptable lapses 3 weeks ago and the extraordinary short-term measures that have been put in place since that time. In the meantime, we need to make darn sure that we look after the men and women who look after us.

Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, while business proceeds on the floor, the Democratic leader and I are continuing to flesh out the structure of this 50-50 Senate.

When Leaders Lott and Daschle wrote a similar agreement 20 years ago, there wasn't a need at all to reaffirm the basic standing rules that govern legislation here in the Senate. It was safely assumed that no majority would break this rule for short-term gain.

Floor remarks surrounding those 2001 discussions specifically cite the legislative filibuster as an important and unquestioned part of the backdrop that lay beneath the negotiations on the finer details. It was assumed no one would ever take that step.

After the fact, Leader Daschle, the Democrat, praised the legislative filibuster as a crucial rule. President Biden has praised this distinctive feature of the Senate on many occasions.

Our current Democratic colleagues used it liberally--liberally--over the last several years when they were in the minority. More than two dozen signed a bipartisan letter in 2017 saying our Republican majority should not break the rule by brute force. Let me say that again. Two dozen Democrats signed a bipartisan letter in 2017 saying our Republican majority should not break this rule by brute force. I agreed. I didn't do it. President Trump was not happy with that. He tweeted against me numerous times because I didn't put an end to the legislative filibuster. So the Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to. They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every major bill I took up.

So we will continue to request that our Democratic colleagues reaffirm this standing rule of the Senate, which they have been happy to use on many occasions, I can attest. If we are going to truly replicate the 2001 agreement, we need to reaffirm this crucial part of the foundation that lay beneath it.

Mr. President, yesterday I also shared a proposal for the pretrial steps in the Senate impeachment process that appears to be headed our way and, as I understand it, will be headed our way on Monday. By Senate rules, if the article arrives, we have to start a trial right then.

This impeachment began with an unprecedentedly fast and minimal process over in the House. The sequel cannot be an insufficient Senate process that denies former President Trump his due process or damages the

Senate or the Presidency itself. Senate Republicans strongly believe we need a full and fair process where the former President can mount a defense and the Senate can properly consider the factual, legal, and constitutional questions at stake.

For that reason, we suggest the House transmit this article next Thursday, but that apparently is going to be next Monday; that former President Trump's answer and the House's pretrial brief, I suggested, be due on February 4; and that the former President's pretrial brief be due, I suggested, on February 11. That timeline would have provided the Senate some more floor time before we step fully into the unknown of a trial--which, by the way, would have been of substantial benefit to the incoming administration and allowed them to get more of their Cabinet confirmed, on which we are cooperating as best we can to expedite

Finally, Mr. President, on one final matter regarding nominees, we are considering President Biden's nominees to key Cabinet posts.

On Wednesday, Admiral Haines was confirmed as Director of National Intelligence on a big bipartisan vote, including my own. We hope to be able to consider Tony Blinken to be the Secretary of State early next week.

Today, we are considering GEN Lloyd Austin, President Biden's nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense. I voted to approve the waiver that would allow him to serve in this post yesterday, notwithstanding the 7- year cooling-off period after military service, and I will be voting in favor of his confirmation.

I am voting yes because the nominee is clearly qualified and because Presidents should get real latitude to fill their teams with qualified and mainstream people of their choosing. At the same time, the Senate should pause and reflect on the fact that we will have begun two consecutive Presidential administrations by issuing a waiver to a four- star general and former CENTCOM commander to lead the Pentagon.

The Armed Services Committee held a hearing last week to examine the waiver and the current state of civil-military relations at the Pentagon. I expect the committee will continue to pay close attention to this important issue in the months ahead and will investigate steps that Congress can take to help restore balance over at the Pentagon.

The law that we keep waiving actually exists for a good reason. Civilian control of the military is a fundamental principle of our Republic. We emphatically do not want high-ranking military service to become a tacit prerequisite for a civilian leadership post over at the Department of Defense.

It is not just about a simplistic fear that the military will end up running itself. To the contrary, many experts worry that military leaders' appropriate fixation on being nonpolitical may not prepare them for the job, to forcefully fight for our armed services amid the political rough-and-tumble in the executive branch and here in Congress. To put it another way, they are taught from the beginning to stay out of politics entirely. But we do want a Secretary of Defense who is willing to engage in the issue-based discussions that we have related to the Department.

Nevertheless, I will vote today to confirm a clear patriot with an impressive career, but I will cast that vote with the understanding that our new Secretary of Defense specifically commits to balancing civil-military relations, empowering civilian leaders at the Pentagon, and playing an active role in the inherently political budget process to get our forces what they need. Our intensifying competition with China, Russia, and all the other threats we face demand nothing less.

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

Mr. President, for this 117th Congress, the American people chose an evenly split Senate--50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. With the election of Vice President Harris, that means the Democratic leader will act as majority leader.

So I want to congratulate my colleague from New York. His pride and emotion were palpable yesterday as this self-described ``kid from Brooklyn [and] son of an exterminator and a housewife'' became the first Jewish Member of Congress to lead either Chamber--a historic milestone.

Now, the Senate has handled an even split before. Twenty years ago, faced with the same scenario, the two leaders brokered a power-sharing agreement so the institution could function smoothly.

The Democratic leader and I are discussing a similar agreement now. I have been heartened to hear my colleague say he wants the same rules from the 2000s to apply today, because, certainly, 20 years ago there was no talk--none whatsoever--of tearing down longstanding minority rights on legislation.

The legislative filibuster is a crucial part of the Senate. Leading Democrats, like President Biden himself, have long defended it. Democrats themselves just spent 6 years using it, literally, to block bills from Senator Tim Scott's police reform to coronavirus relief.

And less than 4 years ago, when it was Republicans who held the Senate, the House, and the Presidency, 27 current Democrats plus Vice President Harris signed a letter insisting this longstanding rule should not be broken.

So if the talk of unity and common ground is to have meaning and, certainly, if the rules from 20 years ago are to be our guide, then I cannot imagine the Democratic leader would rather hold up the power- sharing agreement than simply reaffirm that his side won't be breaking this standing rule of the Senate.

I appreciate our ongoing, good-faith discussions and look forward to finding the solution together.

Our side takes a great deal of pride in the accomplishments that three consecutive Republican Senates have delivered for the American people.

In 2014, our majority was elected to check and balance the last years of a lameduck Presidency.

In 2016, we were reelected to help ignite a real, all-American economic comeback, rebuild and modernize our military, and fight for the forgotten corners of our country. Together with the Trump administration and a Republican House, we did just that.

In 2018, we were rehired again on those strong results, especially the historic job market for American workers and our commitment to the judiciary.

And now, even as voters chose President Biden for the White House, they simultaneously shrunk Democrats' House majority and elected this evenly divided Senate.

The 2020 election was as far from a sweeping mandate for ideological transformation as any election we have seen in modern history. The American people stunned the so-called experts with the number of Republicans they sent to the House and to the Senate to make sure commonsense conservative values have a powerful say in the government.

So our side is ready to share ideas and work with the Biden administration, applying common sense to find common ground for the common good. But if and when our Democratic friends depart from common sense, when they retreat from common ground or their proposals harm the common good, then we will use the power the American people have given us to push for what we think is right.

On the Biden administration's very first day, it took several big steps in the wrong direction. The President reentered the failed Paris climate agreement, a terrible bargain that would set us up to self- inflict major economic pain on working American families with no assurance that China or Russia would honor their commitments. In fact, the United States has already been reducing carbon emissions, while China and other nations in the agreement have kept increasing theirs. Rejoining will just set us up to kill American jobs while our competitors continue to roar on by.

The President also unilaterally canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline. The day-one priority was to kill thousands of American jobs, including union jobs, disappoint our strong ally Canada, and reverse some of our progress toward energy security. This is a project that the liberal Canadian Government and Prime Minister Trudeau support--an investment in North American energy. Even the Obama State Department concluded it would not harm the climate. But because canceling the pipeline project just feels like the green thing to do, the new administration killed all these jobs. This was not the day one the American workers deserved.

The new administration has also sketched out a massive proposal for blanket amnesty that would gut enforcement of American laws while creating huge new incentives for people to rush here illegally at the same time. This kind of failed approach will invite another humanitarian crisis on our border and privilege powerful interests ahead of American workers.

For all the talk about norms within government, last night brought a truly unprecedented move at the National Labor Relations Board. The President fired the Board's independent general counsel almost a year before the end of his term. Even leftwing activists called the unprecedented move ``aggressive.''

Now, it is still early. There is still plenty of time for President Biden to remember that he does not owe his election to the far left. The President can and should refocus his administration on creating good-paying American jobs, not sacrificing our people's livelihoods to liberal symbolism. Senate Republicans will be ready, willing, and eager to help make that happen.