Floor Statements

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, yesterday would have been John Lewis's 81st birthday. That a fearless young man, who was threatened, jailed, beaten half to death so many times for the cause of love and justice, actually lived to reach the age of 80 seems like a miracle.

Now, as America celebrates our first Black History Month since his passing, we miss him, but we still have the moral force of his message. John made sure of that. Two days before he died, he wrote an essay for the New York Times. He asked the paper to print his words on the day of his funeral--of his ``homegoing,'' as he said. It was his last message to America.

In his essay John Lewis recalled how, when he was a little boy in Alabama, the threat of White supremacist violence and government- sanctioned terror was a fact of everyday life.

He also remembered the moment that changed his life: hearing a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., on the radio. From Dr. King's sermons he learned about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He also learned that when we tolerate injustice, we are complicit.

When we see something that is wrong, he wrote, ``each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out.''

John Lewis spent the next 65 years on Earth following Dr. King's teachings. I never met anyone in my life so unshakably committed to nonviolence and the transformative power of love.

There was another person who inspired John Lewis to spend his life getting into what he called ``good trouble.'' He said he was inspired into the movement to end America's brutal history of race discrimination by the brutal death of Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955. When Emmett Till was brutally murdered for supposedly whistling at a White woman, he was only 14 years old. John Lewis was 15.

Emmett Till had traveled to Mississippi that summer to visit relatives from his home on the South Side of Chicago. When his body was returned to his grieving mother, Mamie Till, she made a decision that changed the world. She demanded that her son's coffin remain open at his funeral so that the world could see what hatred and racism had done to her only child.

Emmitt Till's murder and Mamie Till's courage launched the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century. It was one of the greatest periods of racial reckoning in our Nation's history. Just 3 months later, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, AL, bus. She said that she thought of Emmett Till, and that courage covered her like a quilted blanket.

Earlier this month, the city of Chicago designated the home in which Emmett and Mamie Till lived as a city historical site. There are plans to preserve it as a museum.

Five years ago, the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture opened in Washington, DC. It represents America's first official attempt to tell the story of African Americans. But you don't have to go to a museum to see evidence of racial injustice in America or to see people bravely getting into ``good trouble'' for justice. You see that all around us.

Nine days before he died, weak from his chemo treatment, John Lewis made his last public appearance at the newly renamed Black Lives Matter Plaza in front of the White House. He explained the reason for his visit in his final letter to America. It begins with these words: ``While my time here has now come to an end, I want you to know that in the last days and hours of my life you inspired me. You filled me with hope about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power to make a difference in our society.''

Lewis went on: ``That is why I had to visit Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington. . . . I just had to see and feel it for myself that, after many years of silent witness, the truth is still marching on.''

John Lewis drew a direct line from the civil rights movement to the Black Lives Matter protest of today, and he said: ``Emmett Till was my George Floyd. He was my Rayshard Brooks, Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor.''

As we celebrate this month, we can see the ravages of racial injustice in this pandemic, which has hit our Black and Brown brothers and sisters with a disproportionate ferocity. African Americans still live sicker and die younger in America. The average Black family still possesses only a fraction of the wealth of White families, even after a lifetime of backbreaking work. African Americans still face voter suppression and intimidation a half-century after John Lewis fought for voting rights.

Just weeks ago, White nationalists helped lead an armed insurrection against our democracy, and a man in that mob paraded a Confederate battle flag through the halls of this Capitol. We have work to do.

Truly, we have things to celebrate. Black history in America is a record of brutal subjugation, racial violence, and discrimination, but it is also the story of resilient people who survived those horrors and created a rich and vibrant culture. From Crispus Attucks, the first American who gave his life in the Revolutionary War, to Officer Eugene Goodman, one of the heroes in the January 6 insurrection; from Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman to Vice President Kamala Harris; from the enslaved people who built this Capitol and the White House to Barack Obama, our first Black President; from John Lewis, the youngest speaker at the March on Washington, to Amanda Gordon, the youngest inaugural poet in our Nation's history, African Americans have enriched America in every field of thought and every walk of life and made us freer, more prosperous, and truer to our founding promises. I celebrate Black History Month.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is necessarily absent.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I was just noting that the Senate Chamber has been rearranged because tomorrow we commence the impeachment trial, the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

In the center of the well is a podium and microphone where the attorneys representing the House managers who voted the impeachment resolution will stand to make their case a few hours after we commence the trial. The President's defenders will have the same opportunity.

They will be standing in a spot that is literally 4 or 5 feet away from a location still fresh in my mind. It was there right in the center of the aisle between the majority and minority leader of the Senate, on January 6, when two men appeared whom I had never seen before in plain clothes and stood in the center of the well holding automatic weapons.

It was just minutes after the Vice President had been removed from the chair where you are sitting, whisked off the floor of the Senate by the Secret Service, I imagine. He was pulled off the floor. It wasn't a ``follow me, Mr. Vice President''; they pulled him off the floor. That was at 2:15. Within a few minutes, the mob which had invaded the U.S. Capitol was on the march, on its way toward this Chamber where most of us were sitting, having dealt with our constitutional responsibility of counting the electoral votes.

I remember when they interrupted the quorum call that they were conducting for one of the Capitol policemen to stand before us and say: Everyone stay in your seats. We are going to bring all the staffers. They are going to line the walls. We are going to lock all the doors. This will be the safe room in the Capitol.

It couldn't have been more than 10 or 15 minutes later when the same policeman said: Everybody out now.

The mob had come through the Capitol, through the Rotunda, and was now on the Senate side of the building within easy reach of 100 Senators. So we filed out the back door and down a staircase, over to the tunnels, and down to the Hart Building, hoping to escape them. I watched through the window as I went down the steps and saw all the flags coming up toward the Capitol--American flags, Trump flags, flags I didn't recognize--all the people coming up here.

We know what happened later that same day. The mob crashed through the doors into this Chamber, posed for pictures at our desks, and scrawled messages to us, went through our desks and looked at them, literally interrupted the business of the U.S. Senate counting all the electoral votes.

Was that just an accident, that thousands of people were in Washington on January 6? Was that just an accident, that they gathered at the Ellipse for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to speak to them? Was it just an accident that within 40 minutes or 45 minutes after the President sent them off to the Capitol, they were here breaking windows and breaking down doors to come inside? No, it was by design.

We are now learning who designed that strategy and that attack on the Capitol, and tomorrow we are going to start a trial to determine whether the former President of the United States of America bears responsibility for inciting that mob or inspiring that insurrection.

When you read the history of the writing of the Constitution, it is almost impossible--maybe it is impossible to put yourself in the moment. These men, all men, gathered in Philadelphia. They had just fought a bloody, long war, a Revolutionary War against one of the most powerful nations in the world, and they were setting up a government on this side of the ocean with the hopes that it would survive. And they were worried. They were worried about the enemy from without and the enemy from within. They talked about our responsibility to maintain this democracy and the challenges we might face.

At the time, they were wary because of what they lived through. As we read about it now, we wonder, what was the concern? What was behind all that concern?

If you are honest, you know that in 1861, our Nation went to war with itself in a Civil War with over half a million lives lost. So it was a fragile democracy, as they thought. But we never dreamed--at least, I never dreamed that in the 21st century, there would be a concern over an insurrection to overthrow the Government of the United States with violence. No, not in America. Not in 2021. That is exactly what happened on January 6. That is why we will be meeting tomorrow for the accountability of Donald Trump for that event.

Now, there are people who have told us we should get over it. Get over it. He is gone. Why do you keep talking about Donald Trump? Let him ride off into the sunset, as one fellow shouted at me at the airport a few weeks ago. Why would you want to keep reminding us of our differences in visions

Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. We can't reach real unity in America until we deal with the reality of America as Donald Trump left it, and January 6 was a classic illustration.

There is one other image I share in my thinking about this trial when I hear former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, the former Governor of South Carolina, say ``Get over it'' to the Democrats. I think of that solemn scene in the Capitol Rotunda last week as we honored Capitol Hill Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was murdered by that mob--murdered by that mob.

I spoke to his mom and dad afterwards. He always wanted to be a police officer. He served in the Air Force, but he wanted to be a police officer. His mom said: ``We thought of all places for him to be a police officer, the safest had to be the United States Capitol building.'' And she lost her son to that murderous mob. I can't get over that. I am sure his family will never get over it.

If we can't give an honest answer to the American people for what happened and who was responsible for it, shame on us.

America came close to losing this democracy on January 6. This President's

design was to make sure an election didn't count, that November 3 was ignored. What happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, make no mistake. As others have pointed out, an attempted coup that is not punished is a trial run for the next time.

Over the 4 years of his Presidency, someone decided to take account of the many times that the President lied to the American people. They were in the thousands. Many of his lies were an attempt to discredit anyone or any institution that stood in his way. It is an old trick straight out of the authoritarian handbook: Tell so many lies that people can no longer tell fact from fiction.

His last and most damaging lie was, over and over he repeated to the American people: They stole the election. They rigged the election.

Donald Trump's apologists will come to the floor of the Senate in the next few days and say that he had a First Amendment right to say whatever he wanted, whether it was the truth or not. But no one, not even the President, has a First Amendment right to incite an insurrection against this government. That is not a right; it is a crime, a high crime.

When he first ran for President in 2016, Donald Trump said the only way he could lose is if the election were stolen. Four years later, he tweeted the lie of a stolen election so many times at his rallies.

When he lost, he tried to convince the courts. He went to 60 different courts pleading that the election had been rigged and stolen. They laughed him out of the court every time.

He tried to bully officials in swing States and members of his own administration. On January 2, as Americans were dying of COVID-19, Donald Trump was on the telephone to the Republican secretary of state of the State of Georgia, spending more than an hour pleading and threatening him to somehow ``find the votes'' to overturn that State's votes in the Presidential election. Trump failed. The Republican secretary of state refused his request. He was not intimidated by his threats and had the foresight to tape record the conversation so there could be no denial.

For weeks before January 6, Donald Trump exhorted his followers to come to Washington on the day that Congress would assemble to certify State electoral votes. He knew that his extremist followers were waiting for their signals and their orders.

Over the summer, when armed extremists stormed and occupied State capitals, demanding an end to COVID safety instructions, Donald Trump cheered them on.

On January 6, he whipped them into a frenzy just a few short moments from here. He spoke for more than an hour at that rally at the Ellipse. This is some of what he said--and I quote Donald Trump--to the mob on its way to the Capitol.

``We will never give up,'' he said. ``We will never concede. It doesn't happen.''

Then he said, ``We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election.''

Then he spoke of his Vice President, and he said, ``I hope Mike is doing the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. . . . All [the Vice President] has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.''

Then he said, ``We have to fight like hell,'' Donald Trump said to that crowd before they made it up to the Capitol. ``If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,'' Donald Trump said. ``Our boldest endeavors have not yet begun. . . . We're going to the Capitol. We're going to try and give [the Republicans] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.''

Donald Trump wasn't shocked at what happened next. The crowd followed orders. He was excited. According to reports, he ignored police pleas from the White House, who begged him--people around him begged him to do something to calm the mob before they got to the Capitol.

At 2:11 p.m., the mob smashed through the doors and windows and began pouring into this building.

Thirteen minutes later, while the mob chanted ``Hang Mike Pence,'' Donald Trump tweeted ``Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country . . . giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts . . . USA demands the truth!''

At 6:01 p.m., Donald Trump again tweeted to the mob 4 hours after they had broken into this building. Here is what he said: ``These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.''

And he closed, ``Remember this day forever!''

I will. And those of us in this building at the moment will. Brian Sicknick's family will.

Now nearly all of our Republican colleagues tell us it is time to move on. Forget about it. Forget the authoritarian President and his contempt for democracy that summoned this mob. Forget the failed coup without accountability. Just move on.

Polls show that the majority of Republican voters in America believe Donald Trump's lie. They still believe him, even after it has been rejected by local and State election officials of both parties. That is why the Senate is proceeding to the second impeachment trial tomorrow.

Donald Trump is gone from elected office, but the poison he injected into the national bloodstream remains, and it grows even more toxic.

On the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it was different from any I have seen, and it was the tenth one that I witnessed. The crowd was contained in a very small garden area. There were many more National Guardsmen in the streets of Washington as he was sworn in on January 20 than the crowd that assembled on the Mall.

I used to go to Central America and visited countries like El Salvador. I can remember being at the capitol of El Salvador. I was struck, at the time, by soldiers standing on the street corners with automatic weapons, and I thought: What kind of country can this be that soldiers will stand up just like a normal cop on the beat with automatic weapons?

We have reached that point here in Washington. We have reached that point in the Senate Chamber. It is a reminder of the fragility and vulnerability of our democracy.

There is a great cost to what we have just been through, and we continue to incur it to keep the people in this Capitol safe and those who visit. But there is a deeper cost. Brian Sicknick is part of the cost of January 6. He was proud to protect this Capitol. He gave his life for doing it.

Last Wednesday, Officer Sicknick's ashes were carried in a wooden box into the Rotunda of the Capitol, where we honored him. The silence of his return was made more painful by remembering how an angry mob had desecrated this building that he loved. Brian Sicknick paid for that hushed peace with his life. He is one of a long line of patriots who have given their lives over more than 240 years to protect this country.

For his sake, for all of those wounded on January 6, and for the safety of our democracy, we have to put an end to Donald Trump's big lie, once and for all, and look honestly at the culpability of the man who incited this mob to attack Congress, to attack the Constitution, and to attack our way of life.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, someday I will write a book--maybe--and one of the topics that I have thought of, because I spent most of my adult life in the world of legislating, is what motivates or inspires the idea to introduce a bill that might one day become a law.

I think many people would be surprised at what the motivation could be. For example, on health issues, I have found Members who were inspired because of the knowledge of someone in their family or a friend who went through a challenge with a medical

condition and asked them if they would help in the field of research. Of course, many bills come to us from constituents who contact us and have problems and challenges, and we realize the only real recourse is a change in the law. That is the case with the bill I am introducing today.

It was 20 years ago that we got a phone call in my office in Chicago, and a woman who was the director of a music program in the city of Chicago asked for some help. The program is known as the MERIT Music Program, and a very kind lady left some money to the program with the instruction that it should be used to teach students--low-income family students--in public schools how to play a musical instrument and to actually buy the instrument for them.

It has been spectacularly successful. And, of course, we learned that many students, if they take up music, turn out to be not only musicians but very good students.

The MERIT Music Program has quite a history. Well, they called and told us 20 years ago that they had an amazing young woman who was part of the MERIT Music Program, who had started playing the piano at the age of 12 and was nothing short of a phenomenon. She had applied for music schools that she might attend, and the major music schools--like Juilliard and Manhattan Conservatory of Music--had expressed an interest.

They had run into a problem, though, because when she filled out the application form and they asked for her citizenship status. She said, unfortunately, that she didn't know what it was, and her mother said: Why don't we call Senator Durbin's office?

And that is how we got into the picture.

Her name was Tereza Lee. Tereza Lee was Korean American. She was brought to the United States on a visitor's visa at a very early age, at the age of 2, to Chicago. And when the visa expired, no effort was made to renew it or to file any papers with the Federal Government.

She was a classic case of the undocumented alien. Her parents, some of whom were here legally, and her siblings, some of whom were citizens, did not spare her the problem that she faced in determining her own status, and that is why they called us.

We learned that, even though she was 17 or 18 at the time and had been in the United States all of her life that she could remember, she did not have legal status. And the law said that Tereza Lee, at the age of 17, had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in legally.

I couldn't believe it when I heard it. My staff told me that they didn't know what to tell her to do, and I soon realized the only thing to do was to change the law and to give to young people brought here as infants and toddlers and babies and young kids a chance to become legal in America. That is why 20 years ago I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was for Tereza Lee.

I am going to interject here part of the story because I always forget to tell the happy ending. Tereza Lee ended up applying to music school in New York. She was accepted, and she went to school because of the kindness of several families in Chicago who were so impressed with her talent. She finished the 4 years of education at that music school and was so good that she played in Carnegie Hall and then married an American-born jazz musician in New York.

She is now the proud mother of three children. She is a music teacher herself and an American citizen, by virtue of her marriage to the other musician.

Tereza was the first Dreamer, but there were many just like her who didn't have as much luck. They are still in a suspended animation status when it comes to immigration and citizenship. So for 20 years on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I have introduced this bill and told the stories of the Dreamers.

I think I have gotten through to a number of people because the word ``Dreamer'' now really signifies more this citizenship status than anything else. I joke that when I first started this mission, if you were to ask people who were the Dreamers, older folks would have said: Why, that is a British rock group, with a fellow named Freddie who is the lead singer. But today when you mention the word ``Dreamers,'' people automatically think of these young people and their situation in the United States, which, to this day, because of our failure to pass the Dream Act, is still unresolved.

They came to the United States as kids. They are American in every way. They went to our schools, and they stood up every morning and put their hand over their heart to pledge allegiance to that flag--the only flag they have ever known. They thought they were just like the kids next to them, and then one day, the parents sat down and told them the reality.

They go to school with our kids. We see them in church. We know that they stand by the beds of our neighbors and relatives who are fighting COVID-19. We know that they are injecting lifesaving vaccines in the arms of our parents and loved ones. And they are giving back to America as teachers, nurses, engineers, and soldiers, but they are not citizens of the United States.

Today, I will once again reintroduce the Dream Act with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, as my cosponsor. I want to thank him for doing this and making it a bipartisan effort. We have a long history of working together--though we disagree on many things, but on this issue, we believe that Congress has an obligation to fix our broken immigration system.

It was, as I mentioned, many years ago that I introduced the bill, but it was 11 years ago that Republican Senator Dick Lugar, of Indiana, on a bipartisan basis agreed to call on President Obama and ask him to do what he could do to protect these young people from deportation. President Obama created the DACA Program. The DACA Program meant that these young people came forward, identified themselves, paid a substantial fee, went through a criminal background check and a national security check, and, if approved, were given a 2-year renewable protection from deportation and a 2-year renewable right to work.

More than 800,000 of these Dreamers came forward and received the protection of DACA. It unleashed their full potential. I can tell you over and over and over again, they will say to me: DACA changed my life; I finally thought I had a chance to be part of America

And so they became soldiers and teachers and business owners and everything imaginable.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential infrastructure workers. That is not my term. That is the definition of the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump.

Among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry: doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists--all of them in a suspended immigration status because the Dream Act is still a bill and not a law.

On September 5, 2017, former President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of these Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported.

Last summer, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's effort to end deportation protection for Dreamers. In an opinion--an amazing opinion--by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that President Trump's attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, was ``arbitrary and capricious.''

In one of his first official acts--I can't thank him enough-- President Biden signed an Executive order on January 20 to restore DACA. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for making DACA one of his highest priorities.

Without DACA, hundreds of thousands of talented young people who have grown up in our country cannot continue their work and are at risk of deportation to countries they barely remember, if they remember at all. But the resumption of DACA is just the first step toward justice for Dreamers. Only legislation by Congress can provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers.

We know now that there are still efforts under way to eliminate DACA protection in the courts of America. A recent case in Texas is a reminder that a law has to pass.

I am honored that I have a chance to serve as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in this new Congress.

As the child of an immigrant, I never dreamed that I would have this opportunity to lead the committee in the Senate that writes our Nation's immigration laws.

To all of the Dreamers out there, let me tell this: Passing the Dream Act is still my highest legislative priority.

There was a fellow named Jack Valenti who worked for LBJ years ago, and he used to say: ``Every good speech has six words in it.'' And so he told me those words, and they are these: ``Let me tell you a story.'' I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to tell the story of the Dreamers 128 times.

Today, I want to tell you about Ana Cueva. She was born in Mexico and came to the United States when she was 5 years old. She grew up in Utah. What a student--she was president of the National Honor Society at her high school, graduated in the top 10 percent of her class, and volunteered at local hospitals in her junior and senior years.

Ana's dream? She wanted to become a nurse. Ana wrote me a letter, and here is what she said about her dream:

My mom became very sick. She required emergency surgery for

a brain tumor. It was one year after arriving to the U.S., so

her English was [very] limited. After her recovery, she has

always said the nurses who cared for her were kind and

patient. Even though they couldn't communicate very well,

they touched her very deeply.

Ana said:

I wanted to do for others what these nurses did for my mom.

Driven by that commitment, Ana earned an associate's degree and a bachelor of science in nursing at Utah Valley University. Thanks to DACA, she became an ICU registered nurse. Most of her nursing career has been in her home State of Utah, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, she has become a travel nurse and has worked in California, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Texas.

Here is what Ana said about the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic:

My soul aches. I have seen more people die in the past year

than my five years [before] as a nurse. I have held more

hands as people passed away alone and cried with families

through FaceTime and on the phone. I became numb for a short

while [there]. But as I find myself again, I remembered why I

do what I do.

I want to thank Ana for her service on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. She is a health hero. She is an immigrant health hero. She is the face of DACA.

She has put her life at risk and her family at risk to protect others. She should not also have to worry about whether she is going to be deported and her family ripped apart.

So some people think we would be a stronger country if Ana Cueva would leave: Go back to Mexico; you are not one of us. We have numbers of immigrants we can accept each year, and you are not in that number. You are illegal, you are undocumented.

What a loss that would be. If we lose Ana and people like her in the middle of a pandemic, what would we be thinking? The fight is on for Ana and for hundreds of thousands just like her who simply want a chance to earn their way to legal status and citizenship in the United States of America.

It would be a tragedy for us to turn away these brave, talented, and determined professionals in the midst of this pandemic. So we have to get to work in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. This is the year. This is the time when we can come together and make a difference in the future of America.

To Ana, we need you. We want you. We want to make you part of the future of this country because you are such an important part of America today. This Dream Act means a lot to me. We need to make it the law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me clarify something at the outset. Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for stimulus relief under current law or any proposal by the Biden administration. This amendment is unnecessary.

There are estimated to be 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, 7\1/2\ million ITINs. These are men and women working in the United States, paying Federal taxes, living in this country.

We can save the debate for another day as to their entitlement for any financial relief, but let me hope that we do agree on one basic thing: Children who are legal citizens in the United States of America are entitled to help, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

Unfortunately, Senator Young's amendment, as written, would preclude these children of immigrant parents from this financial assistance. Whether you are for or against their parents receiving a payment, be fair to these American children, these legal citizens in the United States, and vote no on the Young amendment.

Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, community policing is not a one-size-fits- all approach. The Congress and the administration should respect the judgment of local leaders when it comes to identifying public safety needs.

Hundreds of cities and counties have decided they don't want to be immigration police. Why? Because their resources are stretched thin, and doing so will deter people from reporting crime and cooperating with police investigation.

Instead of laying off this responsibility to local government, I have got a radical idea: Why doesn't Congress do its own work and fix this broken immigration system once and for all, instead of blaming local police departments?

Vote on Amendment No. 553

Mr. President, it is already current law that all Federal protections for people apply to every infant born alive, including those born alive during the course of an abortion. Simply put, you cannot kill an infant, regardless of how they came into this world.

This is the law of the land thanks to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed the House and Senate by a voice vote and was signed into law by President George Bush in 2002.

Does it work? In 2013, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was found guilty on three counts of murdering babies born alive in his clinic after botched late-term abortions. He is currently serving three life terms in prison.

I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, of course we agree. People like Dr. Gosnell should pay a heavy price. But to put this into a budget resolution just doesn't fit, and I am afraid one page doesn't do justice to even the explanation that was given.

I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand

the Senator from Utah's sentiments, and I share them.

There is a physical need to call the roll, which takes an amount of time, which sometimes can be more than 10 minutes. If we reach a tie situation and have to call in the Vice President, it takes even longer.

The most effective thing I have seen in the Senate to deal with this issue is for Members to sit in their chairs and to vote as their names are called. We can bring the rollcalls to an end much more quickly. Now they are running around 30 minutes.

I am going to object to your suggestion, but I would suggest that when we reach the point where Members are sitting in their chairs, amendments are called, and we vote on them quickly, we can come to a conclusion in a much faster way.

I think you are going to find that 10 minutes is not practical. I wish--I am for electronic voting, just to go way out on a limb, but I want to tell you--

I object.

Madam President, in this ragtag, middle-of-the-night procedure, the Senator from Utah asks a basic question: What if my freedom conflicts with your freedom? Specifically, what if my freedom of religious belief says that I don't have to sell my home to an African American? What if my religious belief says that I don't have to pay women the same thing as men who work for me? What if my religious belief says that I can discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation?

I read the Senator's amendment as saying the answer is obvious: religion prevails.

I don't think it is that simple. It is not that simple in this building or across the street in the Supreme Court.

If we are dealing with the fundamental question of discrimination based on religious belief, we all want to make certain that we acknowledge and respect religious belief, but we also feel pretty strongly about the rights of individuals when it comes to their gender, their identity, their sexual orientation, their color, the fact that they may be disabled.

Arguing that religious belief would allow me to discriminate with impunity is a pretty large question to assert at this time of night.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this Lee amendment.

Mr. President, the Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices. That is up to Congress. Congress has a long history of altering the makeup of the Court. The number of Justices changed six times before we arrived at the number nine. This amendment chooses to ignore the history.

For the record, there is exactly one living Senator who has effectively changed the size of the Supreme Court. He is Senator McConnell, who shrank the Court to eight seats for nearly a year, in the last year of the Obama Presidency, by refusing to fill the Scalia vacancy. Now President Biden has established a bipartisan commission to study Supreme Court reform. Let them do their work.

Point of Order

Mr. President, come to think of it, should we be changing the Senate rules in the budget resolution? I think not.

In fact, Mr. President, as a result, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution. Therefore, it violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, the solution sounds so simple, and it is simply wrong. May I give you an example?

Barring additional green cards for hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers stuck in the backlog won't help American workers since these immigrants are already working here. In fact, it would hurt American workers by creating an incentive to hire more guest workers who can be paid lower wages.

This is not the approach we need for coronavirus immigration reform.

Point of Order

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution. Therefore, it violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

In the course of the last year, more than 425,000 Americans died. We all know the story, and we know it personally.

Elected officials at every level have been called on to respond to this pandemic. Mayors and Governors have had to make critical public health choices they didn't believe they would ever face in their professional lives. They had to decide whether certain businesses would be opened or closed, when to open and close schools, whether or not they would have churches that would be open. It was a myriad of opportunities to make the right decision or the wrong decision.

Some of them learned the hard way. Some were courageous; some were not. Some listened to the scientific community and some ignored it. But I believe most of them tried to do their best.

Sadly, when it was all said and done, many made wrong decisions in terms of when to open and how many people to allow in certain places. It was just a fact of life--a novel coronavirus--and they were trying to respond to infection and death.

Sadly, what the Senator from Oklahoma is charging is if there was a discrimination against a church in the process--

The people in the community would be penalized to receive less Federal funds because of the decision the Governor had made.

The Senator from Florida is asking us to lock in the relationship with Remain in Mexico and the Migrant Protection Protocols. The new President, Joe Biden, is in the process of reviewing that at the very moment. The question is whether we are going to adopt the Rubio amendment and tie his hands to accept the outcome.

Allow this President, elected by a large majority of the American people, a chance to lead and to respond to a real challenge. Vote no on the Rubio amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 651

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

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

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

Mr. President, I just returned from the memorial service for Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. It was held in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, a place which is reserved on such occasions for those who have brought special honor to the United States. It was appropriate that Brian Sicknick receive that honor.

On January 6, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick reported for duty and never returned home. A simple red wooden box contained his remains at the service. Tributes were given to him, all deserved, because this man gave his life to protect our Nation, to protect me.

It was protection from an enemy--not foreign enemy but, as we say in our oath, a domestic enemy, American-born and -bred terrorists who streamed into this Capitol building on January 6 at the instigation of President Donald Trump. He had summoned them to Washington on that day because the Constitution required that the Congress meet that day, that we count the electoral votes and announce to America who would be the next President officially. We knew the results State by State. They had been verified over and over again, challenged and verified again.

But this was the formal ceremony which involved calling the States and the vote counts in the House, and if there were objections, considering them, the objections, in both the House and the Senate. That was the process that President Donald Trump set out to disrupt, so he called a rally of his loyal followers. They met on the Ellipse. He fired up the crowd and sent them to the Capitol Building to stop the count--as they said in their warped logic, ``stop the steal.''

They weren't permitted to enter the building, and so they broke it down--the doors, the windows. We have seen the videos over and over. They assaulted every law enforcement officer who stood in their way. Brian Sicknick, of course, lost his life, but there were 140 other police officers who were beaten and maimed and stabbed, who still suffer from those injuries today. The same terrorist mob that took Brian Sicknick's life stormed past everyone who stood in their path. What a day in the history of the United States of America.

Their occupation of the Capitol included their occupation of this Chamber. They marched into this Chamber, opening desks, taking photographs of documents, posing for pictures at the President's chair. They had a jolly time showing off to their friends that they could take over the U.S. Senate.

Next week, we begin the impeachment trial. The House of Representatives has accused this President of instigating an insurrection. When you think of it, could there be anything more serious than provoking a group for the violent overthrow of a legitimate government process?

Some say we shouldn't do this impeachment. They argue any speech given by the President to his mob was protected by the First Amendment. Well, if the First Amendment was designed to protect activities to overthrow our government, then it was a recipe for democracy that would die of its own accord. I think we know better. The Founding Fathers expressly included the impeachment clause in the Constitution for a President who would be so bold as to challenge the very existence of our democracy and the peaceful transition of power.

After the ceremony in the Rotunda, I went to the Rayburn Room in the House and met with Officer Sicknick's family. We stood and talked for a few minutes. In respect to them, I will not repeat our conversation, but I am going to remember it, and I am going to remember them. And although I didn't meet him personally, I will remember him next week when this impeachment trial is underway.

For anyone who makes the argument that when it comes to January 6, it is time for America to ``get over it,'' I am going to remember one Capitol Police officer who gave his life to protect me and this Capitol. I am also going to remember his family, the loss that they have endured because of a political exercise based on a big lie propagated by the former President of the United States.

Coronavirus

Mr. President, the headline in last Thursday's Chicago Sun-Times captured the grim reality of tens of millions of Americans desperately seeking a COVID vaccine. The headline read: ``Looking for a vaccine appointment at your pharmacy? Get ready for `The Hunger Games.' '' For those who don't know ``The Hunger Games,'' it is a fictional book turned into a movie about a dystopian future where people are forced to fight one another to the death just to survive.

The Chicago Sun-Times assigned two reporters to try to book COVID-19 vaccine appointments for relatives older than 65 in any one of the major drugstore chains in the Chicago area. The results were discouraging. The websites were hard to navigate, appointments were scarce to nonexistent, and even when they searched for appointments in pharmacies as far as 50 miles away, no luck.

Reporters spoke to people who had gone online at 2 in the morning in the hopes of landing a coveted vaccination slot--no luck. They spoke to a Chicago-area woman who had been trying for days to book a vaccination appointment for her mother, who is 75 years old and battling cancer. That woman knew too well what failing to receive a vaccination could mean. Her mother-in-law is recovering from the virus. Her 85-year-old father died from it 1 week shy of his first official vaccination. After several frustrating days, she was finally able to book an appointment for her mother to be vaccinated. She is relieved for her mother. She is worried about others who are eligible but can't find a vaccination. She said, ``It's not fair. It's absolutely ridiculous.'

Earlier this week, Illinois administered its one-millionth dose of COVID vaccine--an important milestone--but in my State and nearly every State, the process for distributing vaccines or getting shots in the arm is still too limited, too slow, too confusing. Too many elderly and other eligible Americans are still scrambling to receive the vaccination.

Let me say in defense of the State I proudly represent. Under Governor Pritzker, we have a pretty good record of vaccination rates. He is doing his best. Unfortunately, the supply is limited and he needs more, and he certainly has plenty of people anxious for it.

This isn't just a Chicago problem. It is a statewide problem. It is a nationwide problem. It reflects that while the Trump administration worked quickly to discover the vaccine, it failed to work with the States in implementing a plan to vaccinate people.

When Joe Biden took office, there were more COVID-19 vaccines in freezers than in the arms of Americans. That was 10 or 12 days ago. The results of those earlier missteps are staggering. Today, the United States, with 5 percent of the world's population, is home to more than 20 percent of the

COVID infections and deaths. As of Monday, more than 26 million Americans have been infected and nearly 440,000 Americans have died of COVID-19. In my State of Illinois, we have seen 1.1 million infections and more than 19,000 deaths.

Even as the Trump administration tried to conceal the truth and squandered precious time in responding to this crisis, other Americans were working heroically to protect their neighbors and friends. These heroes included doctors and nurses on the frontline, orderlies who kept hospitals and health centers clean and safe, even grocery store clerks, truckdrivers, mail carriers, teachers, and many other essential workers. They worked around the clock. They included brilliant scientists and researchers who not only developed COVID vaccines but watched for the variants that were emerging that may or may not be protected.

Sadly, their dedication was not matched by the performance of the previous administration. President Biden is trying to change that. He is trying to dramatically increase the production of vaccine and also the distribution. His plan sets some worthy goals: 100 million Americans vaccinated in 100 days. Boy, I want him to be right. He even said there may be more if we count to the end of the summer. We want to get a pace and have a momentum to break the back of this pandemic once and for all. He calls it the American Rescue Plan. It includes necessary assistance for vaccinations first and foremost, and it should, but then it speaks to the economic crisis that also devastates this country.

His plan provides economic assistance for small businesses--many just barely hanging on; extends unemployment relief for millions of Americans who lost their jobs; and increases funding for food stamps, SNAP benefits, so that 1 in 10 Americans who right now can't afford to put food on the table have an alternative. The President's American Rescue Plan includes funding to dramatically ramp up production of COVID treatment. It includes funding to help schools and universities reopen safely and stay open. It includes funding to help get teachers vaccinated and key administrators.

The American Rescue Plan represents the best thinking of leading economists and public health experts. We can debate it if we wish, but we can't drag our feet. We can't waste a day. People are dying every minute. In fact, every 30 seconds, another American dies from COVID-19.

As the virus circulates and replicates and we dither, variants emerge, mutations emerge, and we wonder if our vaccine is ready for them. Scientists warn that our current COVID vaccines are less effective with new strains. We could rush through this double-shot vaccination across America and perhaps reach our goal sooner rather than later and find that some mutant or variant is a new challenge that requires a booster shot.

I am not a scientist. I certainly don't have a medical degree. I am not professing any expertise. But we do know that variations are emerging, and shame on us if they don't spur us to action as quickly as possible. We are in a life-and-death struggle, a race against the clock to vaccinate Americans against the variants before they become dominant.

The cost of the rescue plan that President Biden has proposed is $1.9 trillion--about the same as the CARES plan that the Senate passed a year ago. We passed it with 96 votes a year ago. We passed some $900 billion more this last December. This $1.9 trillion is no small sum, but do you know what would be even more expensive? Continuing down this path of the pandemic, watching this deadly virus mutate and eat up companies and jobs and hope and education for our kids. Doing nothing is unacceptable. Doing too little is unacceptable.

Remember when you took your kids to the doctor with that earache or sore throat or whatever it was? He said: I will tell you what I can do, Dad. I am going to give you a prescription for your little child, and it is for 5 days on the antibiotic. Now, I have to warn you ahead of time that the child is going to start looking better and feeling better in 2 days and, in 3 days, will want to run outside and play with the other kids, and you are going to think, ``Fine, that is behind us,'' but don't do it. Give that antibiotic all 5 days because we know, in many cases, if you stop giving the antibiotic, the illness returns.

A similar situation faces us with COVID-19. If we don't put enough into the vaccination effort, if we don't put enough into strengthening the economy, if we don't put enough into sustaining those unemployed and underemployed--if we don't put enough into this--we will be back again. It may not be $1.9 trillion then. It may be even more. So shouldn't we take all of our medicine? Shouldn't we do it as most doctors and, in this case, economists order to make certain that we have a positive impact on the economy?

Now I want to say a word about the 10 Republican Senators who met with the President of the United States the day before yesterday.

I thank the President for the meeting because he was sincere, and I was told by those who attended that he was responsive to their questions, and he was well prepared. When they went in and started talking about the different programs and how much we should spend on each one, one Republican Senator said: He had a sheet of paper in front of him, with a few things written on it, and for 2 hours, we kept active conversation. It was like another Member of the Senate speaking to these 10 Republicans. That to me is gratifying. It is the reason I supported this man to become our President. I knew he would be ready for the job and anxious to try to bring America back together.

So the 10 Republicans who met with him have said they want to work on a bipartisan basis. Well, I know them. I know each and every one of them pretty well. I sat through those meetings with them before, when we prepared the last COVID relief bill. They are sincere. They are well prepared. They argue their cases. Even if I disagree with them, I respect the way they argue.

I would say to them there are two things that are critically important. First, respond quickly. We can't drag this out for weeks or months. It is unacceptable. We have deadlines looming in the middle of March when unemployment benefits are going to be cut off for many Americans, and we certainly have a vaccination crisis we have to address right now. Secondly, don't err on the side of stopping the medicine before you are really protected and well. We need to put the medicine into the economy. I am talking about the dollars--the money-- into the economy to get people back to work so that schools can reopen, for goodness' sake. Anyone with a child or a grandchild knows this is unsustainable for these kids to be out of the classroom. It is hurting them, and it is holding them back in terms of their educations. It needs to end and end quickly.

So, to my Republican friends, thank you for joining us, but stick with us for a real solution to this. We can't delay. Every day we wait is another day that this virus mutates and grows stronger. Every day we delay, thousands of Americans die from this virus; businesses close; workers lose jobs; families get more desperate. This is terrific devastation we have lived through, but it can come out right in the end if we stick together on a bipartisan basis as a nation.

We are going to soon deal with the budget resolution here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and then move to reconciliation. I have tried my best, though I have been a Member of the Senate for a number of years, to understand reconciliation and, particularly, to understand the famous Byrd rule. It is named after a man who was a Senator for many years, from West Virginia, named Robert C. Byrd. He used to sit at that desk.

When he came to the floor, there was such respect for him and his knowledge of this institution that the standing order was people who were speaking stopped. Senator Byrd is here. Defer your remarks until he is finished. That was done over and over again. As a new Member of the Senate, I thought: Who is this man? Well, I came to understand the reputation which he ha garnered in the U.S. Senate and he, I suppose-- maybe others with him--was the author of the reconciliation process. Originally, it may have been intended--I underline ``may''--for deficit reduction. Now it is something different. Deficit reduction is not the goal

per se. Instead, there have to be measurable revenues and losses involved in any proposal within reconciliation.

Holding to the Byrd rule is going to be a matter of interpretation by the Senate Parliamentarian and a decision by the Senate as to whether that interpretation will be respected. There could be items that are objected to by the Parliamentarian and others that will be accepted. I think it is too early to speculate on that, but it is one of the more arcane elements of the Senate rule process; yet it has a massive impact.

Years ago, when the Republicans were in similar positions as the Democrats, they used reconciliation for tax cuts. Some who believed that reconciliation dealt with deficit reduction could never understand how a tax cut wouldn't add to the deficit. They argued the other way. They prevailed. Reconciliation was used for a tax cut. Now we come up with a proposal, the American Rescue Plan, which either, in part or in whole, is going to be offered in reconciliation, and the question is whether each category of that plan that is included in reconciliation is eligible under the Senate rules.

I will say there is one fundamental difference which one of my colleagues raised earlier. Instead of talking about tax cuts for the wealthiest, we are proposing changes in the reconciliation for the American Rescue package by President Biden which are really designed to help working families and those who are struggling in our economy.

For instance, the tax changes that are proposed in the American Rescue Plan, if they are included in reconciliation, will include additional assistance to families with children. There will be substantial tax relief and tax credits--refundable tax credits--to those in poverty, raising children. We have economists who tell us that, if the Biden proposal on these tax benefits for families with children are enacted into law, we will cut child poverty in half in America. Think about that--a dramatic change.

We hear so many conversations about the state of the economy, of those who are being left behind, and whether or not income inequality is going to be addressed. Starting with the children, I will say to President Biden, is the right starting point. It would be wonderful if we had bipartisan support for helping these kids. I can tell you this: The money it costs for these tax cuts and credits is far less than the expense that would be incurred by America as a nation if these kids don't have an opportunity to grow up healthy, educated, and productive. So I am watching carefully as this debate continues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this morning, of course, to support the nominations of Pete Buttigieg to be Secretary of Transportation and Alejandro Mayorkas to head the Department of Homeland Security. They are both exceptional choices by the administration to fill critical positions.

This afternoon when we vote on Mr. Mayorkas, it will be the completion of three of the four national security elements of the Cabinet for President Biden, having previously voted for the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

The post remaining, of course, after today's actions--if they are favorable, and I believe they will be--is the office of Attorney General, and I would like to address that directly.

First, let me say this. When you feel that you are the target of terrorists--a personal target of terrorists--you will never forget the moment. It has only happened twice in my life. On 9/11/2001, as a U.S. Senator, I was in a meeting in a room just several feet away from the Senate Chamber when the attack on the World Trade Center took place and the attack on the Pentagon. Those were terrorists at work, killing innocent people.

There was one more plane in the air. We didn't know where it was headed. It was early in the morning on that day that we were told to evacuate the Capitol Building, the first time I had ever faced that as a Member of Congress.

We quickly ran out the doors and down the stairs and stood on the lawn outside of the Capitol, wondering what was next, for fear that this building--this symbol of America and its greatness--was the next target of an attack. It could have been.

We are not sure. We never will be. But thanks to the heroic efforts of passengers on an airplane--they attacked the attackers, went after the terrorists, personally, and brought that plane down in Pennsylvania at the cost of their own lives--in a way, many of us were spared of being targets of terrorism that day.

When we reflect on those 3,000 innocent Americans who lost their lives in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon, I will never forget the feeling that I was spared that act of terrorism and the hope that no one in America would ever have that fear again.

Fast forward to January 6, 2021, fewer than 4 weeks ago, here in the U.S. Capitol. Again, I felt I was the target of terrorists. That was the day when an insurrectionist mob stormed the Capitol, broke through the doors, beat down the windows, and came marching toward the Senate Chamber. I will never forget that moment, and I don't think anyone who was here at the time could possibly forget it.

It was 2:15 in the afternoon when the Vice President of the United States was removed from the chair that you are sitting in, Mr. President. He was whisked off the platform to a safe room so he could be spared from anything that might come from this mob.

The rest of us were told to sit at our desk. We would make a safe Chamber--one safe room in the Capitol. We lined the walls with staffers to protect them against this insurrectionist mob, and we waited, but only for a few minutes.

The order was reversed quickly: Leave the Chamber. What had happened, we came to learn, was that the same mob of terrorists continued to advance through the Capitol, despite the valiant efforts of the Capitol Police and other law enforcement.

It was during that period of time when this mob of terrorists was attacking this building, the United States Capitol, when Officer Brian Sicknick of the Capitol Police lost his life.

We honor him tomorrow by bringing his remains to the Capitol for him to lie in repose, a place of honor, for all of us to thank him and his family and to thank all of the men and women who risk their lives--and, certainly, one who gave his life--in the service of our Nation.

These men and women who stand in silen service every single day are often overlooked by visitors, but they are literally risking their lives. In the time I have served in the House and the

Senate, this is at least the third occasion when members of the Capitol Police have given their lives to protect me, and Brian Sicknick will not be forgotten.

For those who want to take this insurrectionist mob and the incitement of this mob as just another political protest, I ask them to reflect for a moment, please, on the graphic video evidence of what happened on that day, as people who were part of this mob took baseball bats, sticks, everything they could get their hands on, and beat up against those law enforcement agents. It was a sad moment.

Yesterday's New York Times spelled out what led up to it: a big lie that the former President of the United States actually won the November 3 election.

He did not. The votes were counted and he lost, but he has never been able to accept that reality, and what he has done in the meantime is to foment a revolt against our government at the grassroots level across America.

That is the reason why a new Attorney General brought to the position of leadership as quickly as possible is so important. I regret that, once again, I need to come to the floor to call on the Senate Republicans to stop blocking Merrick Garland from receiving a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We all remember the way Merrick Garland, a judge in the Circuit Court of the DC Circuit, was treated by Senate Republicans in 2016 when he was nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court. I am not going to recount the entire history today, but I will tell you, it was not a proud moment for the U.S. Senate when Senate leaders on the other side of the aisle announced they would not give him a hearing. They literally would not even meet with him to give him the dignity of such an opportunity to discuss his nomination for the Supreme Court.

But I do want to talk about the urgency of putting President Biden's national security team in place, including Merrick Garland, the President's nominee for Attorney General. Our country faces, as we learned on January 6, challenges of great importance at this moment in our history.

As we faced that mob assault on the Capitol Building for the first time since the War of 1812, our Capitol was breached by attackers, domestic terrorists. Domestic terrorists were part of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to stop the Government of the United States. That situation needs to be carefully reviewed and examined by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General as quickly as possible.

There is no person better qualified to lead this investigation, to bring these perpetrators to justice, and to prevent future domestic terror attacks than Merrick Garland. When he previously served at the Justice Department, Judge Garland oversaw the investigation and prosecution of the largest domestic terrorism attack in recent history--the Oklahoma City bombing. His qualifications and experience are well suited for the moment we face.

As our Nation's top law enforcement officer, the Attorney General is a key part of the President's national security team. The Attorney General oversees our Nation's law enforcement response to threats both foreign and domestic.

My Republican colleagues frequently talked about letting the new President get his national security team in place at the start of his administration. Despite the unresolved nature of the Senate's organizing resolution, other subcommittees have come together on a bipartisan basis to schedule prompt hearings and votes for nominees, including the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Secretary of State. We need to do the same when it comes to the nomination of Merrick Garland to serve as Attorney General.

Why would we allow partisanship to get in the way of national security?

I have urged my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee-- current Chairman Graham and incoming Ranking Member Grassley--to consent to start the hearing for Merrick Garland as soon as possible.

I proposed February 8, next Monday, as a hearing date, in part to accommodate Senator Graham's request to avoid holding a hearing during the impeachment trial. A February 8 hearing date gives the committee sufficient time to review Judge Garland's record. It would follow the same timeline--the very same timeline--that Senator Graham used for Judge Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court last year.

Remember, the committee has already received the vast majority of Judge Garland's record, including his speeches, interviews, and publications, that less than 5 years ago was presented when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. We have had this material in the committee for years. Senator Graham claims that important paperwork for Judge Garland is still missing. The only thing that has not been filed is Judge Garland's FBI background investigation. As important as it is, the Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings for previous Attorney General nominees before the FBI background investigations had been submitted. For example, the committee received then-Senator Jeff Sessions' FBI background investigation just 5 days before his hearing, and we are still 6 days away from a proposed hearing date. So what we are asking is not unprecedented or unrealistic.

Senator Graham points out that Attorney General nominees typically have 2-day hearings--1 day to question the nominee and the other day to question outside witnesses. This isn't always the case. For example, the Republicans held a 1-day hearing to consider Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be Attorney General. Yet, if the goal is to ensure there is sufficient time to question the nominee and to hear from outside witnesses, I am willing to do just that--allow for two rounds of questions of the nominee and an outside witness panel.

I also find it surprising that Senator Graham objects to committee business on the eve of an impeachment trial. Just remember the history. On January 16, 2020--the same day that the previous impeachment trial of this President started--Senator Graham held a committee markup during which the committee considered 11 judicial nominees. There was nothing sacred about the day before or day of an impeachment trial then, when Senator Graham was chairman.

Judge Garland is a consensus pick. As even Senator Graham has acknowledged, the Senate should generally be deferential to a President's Cabinet nominees, and that is particularly true for national security positions. There is an even greater urgency to move swiftly to confirm Judge Garland, given the events of January 6 and the Justice Department's role in investigating and responding to those events and other national security threats.

I hope Republicans will consent now to notice a hearing for February 8. It would show real bipartisanship and fairness. Under our committee rules, we can still notice the hearing with less than 7 days if my Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee agree to do so. We need to get the Attorney General confirmed, and there is no justification for any further delay.

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

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.