>> mr. president. >> mr. majority leader. >> i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> call the roll. today at 2:30 p.m. senators will be sworn in as members of the court of impeachment. deadlines for pre-trial briefs by the house managers and trump legal team to be submitted and approved and a summons issued to former president trump, the trial is expected to begin in earnest on tuesday, february 9th with senator patrick leahy presiding. >> while the senate preechlt trial against former president trump opens this afternoon senators will spend the early part of the day on the secretary of state nominee,

antony blinken. we'll take you live now to the senate floor. . the senat. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the lord of all,

prepare our lawmakers today to serve you and country. give them grateful hearts for your daily blessings, as they comprehend that their times are in your hands. lord, inspire them to make a right relationship with you one of their top priorities. like a potter with clay, mold and make them as you desire so that they may be vessels of honor for your kingdom. may they daily seek you and find joy in your presence. we pray in your great name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in he reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, january 26 , 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable raphael warnock, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. as we move through the first full week of the beemed, the

senate -- the biden administration the senate will continue the important work of confirming president biden's cabinet. today the senate will hold a confirmation vote for tony blinken to be the next secretary of the state. mr. blinken is the right person to reassure america's proag -- prerogatives on the be global stage. for four years the donald trump weakened our alliances, emboldened our adversaries and tarnished america's reputation abroad. we must reaffirm our commitment to nato and other alliances throughout the world. we must hold russia accountable for malicious interference in democracies. we must confront china's political and human rights abuses and we must work with the family of nations to combat the existential threat of climate change. once confirmed, mr. blinken

will also inherit a state department workforce in desperate need of a leader that knows that everyone on the team plays a critical role in advancing america's interests abroad. under president trump, our nation's diplomats and state department civilians were relegated to the sidelines, and too many positions in the state department were left vacant or relegated to irrelevance. so none of this will be easy, but i'm confident that mr. blinken is exactly the right person for the job. i look forward to seeing this chamber confirm his nomination later today. and after that, both parties must keep working together to confirm the rest of president biden's outstanding cabinet. we're off to a decent pace with the confirmation of the president's' secretaries of defense, treasury and the director of national intelligence. i appreciate the republican leader's cooperation and hope that we'll continue, because the country needs that. that pace must continue this

week with the confirmation of the secretaries of homeland security and transportation. after that, we need a health and human services secretary installed to oversee the public health response to covid, an education secretary to facilitate the safe reopening of schools, guided by the science. a secretary of h.u.d. to help america's struggling families stay in their homes during this horrible economic crisis. the senate is working at an encouraging pace and will not let up. now on the organizing resolution, well, since the last time i addressed this chamber, there has been notable progress in my discussions with the republican leader about organizing the senate. last night the republican leader dropped his demand for additional provisions on the organizing resolution and will agree to the 2001 rules that last governed the 50-50 senate,

exactly what democrats proposed from the start. i am glad the republican leader finally relented and we can move forward now to organize the senate, set up committees, chairs, and ranking members, and a process for moving bills and nominees to the floor from committees with an evenly divided number of members. i'm glad we're finally able to get the senate up and running. my only regret is that it took so long because we have a great deal to accomplish over the next several weeks and months. now on covid. in addition to the critical cabinet nominees, the senate will soon move forward to address the twin crisis facing our country, the public health crisis and the economic crisis. in december, congress took the important step of passing interim emergency relief to the

country, but we left the job unfinished. i understand that recent opposition from the political right to more spending has increased in volume now that there's a democrat in the white house. but the pandemic doesn't particularly care that there's been a change in the administration. the needs of our country are still great and the urgency to act is clearer than ever. the congressional budget office told us last fall that the covid-19 pandemic has taken more than $17 trillion out of our economy -- $17 trillion. no doubt congress has passed substantial relief, but looking at the data, we are nowhere close to filling the covid-sized hole in our economy. expanded unemployment insurance will once again expire in march, state and local governments which have cut over a million jobs are still reeling from

budget deficits and have not received assistance. the amount of payments in the previous bill was lower than many of us, including myself wanted. we must continue supporting the rapid and massive distribution of the vaccine to finally crush this virus once and for all. so the senate is going to press forward on another covid relief bill. we want to work with our republican colleagues to advance this legislation in a bipartisan way, but the work must move forward preferably with our republican colleagues, but without them if we must. we are still in the midst of a once in a century crisis that has reshaped our economy and altered nearly every aspect of american life. americans are still getting sick. americans are still dying. americans are still losing their

jobs. we must not suffer timidity or delay. there is great urgency to continue the work of covid relief, and that's exactly what the senate will do. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, yesterday two democratic senators confirmed they will not provide the votes to eliminate the legislative filibuster. senior senator from west virginia issued a public, quote, guarantee, end quote. i do not support doing away with

the filibuster under any condition, end quote. any chance of changing his mind? quote, none whatsoever. the senior senator from arizona made the same commitment. she opposes ending the legislative filibuster and, quote, is not open -- not open to changing her mind, end quote. 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 pledged they won't tear up an essential rule, but the democratic leader was reluctant to repeat the step i took as majority leader and 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 a 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 reed, -- senator reid, harry reid began the nuclear exchange over nominations. i said that democrats would regret it. and now we have 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 2000's. so on nominations for all the fighting, the senate just simply circled back to the simple majority threshold that had been our long-standing 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 address broad agreements 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 innovation should not be forced on slender majorities. the bar for lawmaking is high. it should be high. even if both bodies take turns 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, 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 to brittle and reversible. so democratic senators used the 60-vote threshold to shape and block legislation. they stalled covid relief, they

blocked police reform, they stopped 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've 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 was 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, 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 the 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. and will also be evenly split. if this majority went scorched

earth, this body would grind to a halt like we've 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 a majority. in a scorched earth, post-nuclear senate, that's 50/50 like we have today, every senate democrat and the vice president could essentially just block out the next two 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 four years reminding us, it takes consent to confirm even the lowest level nominees at anything beyond a snail's pace.

none of us have ever seen a senate where every single thing either happens in the hardest possible way or not at all. heck, mr. president, once or twice every day, the majority leader reads through an entire paragraph of routine requests. objections could turn each one into multiple lengthy roll call votes. none of us on either side want to live in a scorched earth senate. the institution and the american people deserve a lot better. there is no doubt, none, that's 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 seed 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. and 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, democrats would try to flip it all back. so instead of building stable consensus, we would be chaotically swapping party

platforms. swinging wildly between object sit 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're in a politically charged period. so 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.

told president trump no repeatedly because the nation needs us to respect the framers' design and the senate's structure. because, as i said in a different context on january 6, we have a higher calling than endless partisan escalation. we placed our trust in the institution itself and a common desire to do the right thing. i'm grateful that has been reciprocated by at least a pair of our colleagues across the aisle. i'm glad we have stepped back from this cliff. taking that plunge would not be some progressive's dream. it would be a nightmare. i guarantee it.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership -- morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, antony john blinken of new york to be secretary. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. under the previous order, the time until 12:00 noon will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the majority whip is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president, it has been my good fortune to serve in the senate for 24 years. i have great respect for this

institution and continue to believe that men and women who serve here are extraordinary examples by and large of public service. and that we have done great things of an historic nature. i think of the days of the obama presidency when we had to rescue our economy, make reforms on wall street that made a difference, and build a public health system that we aspired to for decades. we achieved those goals, not easily, with hard work and determination, and i'm glad to have been a part of it. when i hear the republican leader come to the floor and talk about his memory of the senate, i hasten to add there is another side to the story. i will come to the floor in a few days to out line the history of the filibuster, but i'm sure the senator from kentucky who has been in the senate and the

staff in an elected capacity for decades, would concede this point. up until the 1960's, the filibuster was rarely used in this united states senate. the demand for once 67 votes, then 60 votes was rare. oh, it was remembered that in the 1960's, civil rights legislation floundered on the floor of this united states senate because of the filibuster, but it was rarely applied. that changed under the senator from kentucky's leadership. it became so commonplace. the filibuster that was -- was being used so frequently that it led senator reed, then the democratic leader, to make some fundamental changes in the senate rules. i remember that day very well. i remember the anguish that senator reed felt at the time -- senator reid felt at the time, but he felt he had no recourse

because the filibuster had become commonplace, the 60-vote requirement commonplace. i don't know exactly what the argument is from the other side at the moment, but i think any fair-minded senator would concede the senate is capable of doing great things. it is capable of being deliberative. and yet, it still can be decisive. there comes a time when we should act. and to merely let every issue get mired down into a 60-vote requirement and filibuster and nothing come out of this chamber as a result cannot be what our founding fathers envisioned the role of the united states senate. i want to address that issue at another time in more detail with facts and figures on the use and misuse of the filibuster, but at this moment, i would like to raise another question which is related. we are in the midst of a global pandemic. more than 420,000 american lives

have been lost. three -- just three short weeks ago, 20 days ago, this capitol, this age-old symbol of america, was attacked by a homegrown domestic terrorist. it was overrun for the first time since the british invasion in the war of 1812. after this horrific attack on this capitol, this mob, insurrectionist mob, -- i hope that the united states can finally come to grips with the reality of terrorism today. i remember 9/11 very well. who could forget it if you lived through it. i was in this building and fully expected an attack on this structure. we ran out down the steps onto the grassy lawn and stood wondering what to do next. this was going to be the next target. thank goodness for the heroism of those who came forward and took control of the plane and at

least diverted it into pennsylvania. some would dismiss the insurrectionist mob as just another rowdy political crowd, not unlike many other political demonstrations. in fact, i heard comparisons. black lives matter rallies in comparison to the terrorist attack of january 6. but there was a fundamental difference 20 days ago. and that fundamental difference is the fact that five americans died as a result of that mob invading the capitol, including one capitol policeman. we've heard rumors of the details of how he died. i'm sure we're going to hear more as the investigation continues. but this was just not another political demonstration. it was an example of terrorism, period.

american grown, american sponsored. the security of our nation is still at stake. there was a demonstration yesterday in downtown chicago by white supremacists. over 80 of them gathered. over 80 of them in downtown chicago. they stand up and defiantly show they were alive and well and ready to act. the very least we can do is to ensure that the agency responsible for our protection against this sort of terrorism has leadership. that agency is the department of homeland security. president biden has suggested a man to lead that department, ali mayorkas. he is an extraordinary public servant. the senate has confirmed him three times. previously, he served for seven years at this agency.

he has been nominated now to lead it. most recently, he served as the homeland security deputy secretary, the second in command and chief operating officer. he was in charge of counterterrorism, cybersecurity, border security, emergency management, and other critical matters. he did the job and did it well, and we need him again. we need his expertise and experience at the department of homeland security today, today. perhaps the republicans have forgotten about the last four years of failed policy and chaos at the department of homeland security. just a little reminder. it was under president trump that the agency experienced an unprecedented leadership vacuum. consider this, mr. president. the department of homeland security lurched from one secretary or acting secretary to the next. six, six people headed that agency during the trump

administration. only two of them were confirmed by the united states senate. that's more agency heads in the last four years than in the 13-year history of the department of homeland security before the trump administration. they couldn't keep a leader in place. the president was firing them and they were resigning right and left. for over a year, that agency, the department of homeland security, was led by an unlawfully appointed acting secretary chad wolf. and then just nine days before donald trump left the white house, mr. wolf resigned, replaced by yet another acting secretary. an agency with the critical task of keeping america safe, keeping our families safe, couldn't even agree on who would head the agency. four former secretaries of homeland security, two republicans and two democrats, every person who served as a

senate-confirmed d.h.s. secretary prior to the trump administration say that ali mayorkas is the man for the job. they said he is, quote, a man of integrity, experience, and compassion, a proven leader to right the ship. in their endorsement of mr. mayorkas, they went on to say the leadership vacuum and turmoil at the department of homeland security may have contributed to the failure to anticipate and adequately prepare for the attack on the capitol. that's the reality. after four years of disorder and disarray at the department of homeland security, the security of america, including the security of this very building, suffered because of lack of leadership under the trump administration. over the last four years, we have watched the politicization of the department of justice and homeland security. we have seen some horrible things occur. operation zero tolerance,

2,700 infants, babies, children separated from their parents at the border of the united states. cast into a bureaucratic system and forgotten until a federal judge in southern california said enough. i want to know who those kids are and i want to know why they haven't been reunited with their parents. that was months after they had been separated. mr. president, i went to an immigration court in chicago, downtown in the loop in a big high-rise office building. i didn't expect to find a court, but i did. i got off the elevator, and the walls were lined with people. the hallways were packed with those waiting for a hearing before this immigration court. i met the judge. she had been on the bench there in the immigration court for almost 20 years. she was a good person, you could tell. she said, senator, i wish you'd stay for the docket call

this morning in this immigration court. this was in the middle of the zero tolerance separation of children from their parents. i want you to see the first two clients who are going to come before us. and i waited. and they called the docket, and they said that everyone in the courtroom should be seated. there was difficulty seating one of the persons on the docket. you see, she was -- marta was her name. she was two years old. she had to be lifted into a chair and handed a stuffed animal. luckily the little boy who coincidentally had the name hamilton, was enticed to climb up on the chair when they put a matchbox car on the table. two of the children separated by the zero tolerance policy of the department of homeland security under president trump. there was of course a decision

to postpone a hearing on their case for six months. they were put back into the system, and i don't know what ultimately happened in the meantime, but i can tell you this, it was months before marta was returned to her mother. and when she was returned to her mother, did she run to her with open arms? no. she r refused to look at her. she turned her back on her. she felt she had been abandoned. she had not been abandoned by her mother. she had been abandoned by anyone with a conchens at the department of -- conscience at the department of homeland security. that's what happened. is it any wonder that we need new leadership, we need an accounting of these children? there are still only rumors, but they are heartbreaking rumors, that some 200 children are still adrift in the system, never reunited with their families. i pray that isn't true. i will tell you if it's within

my power, the senate judiciary committee will certainly investigate that. the failure of the department of homeland security in that instance is going to be one of the most shameful chapters in the modern history of the united states. and the failure of our nation's national security leaders to address the threat of violent white supremacists and other far-right extremism really gives evidence to why we need to fill this spot immediately. so what's the problem? president biden has nominated ali mayorkas. ali mayorkas turned in his paper work required by law, submitted his name in a hearing and appeared before a committee of congress. why isn't he being approved here? one senator -- the senator from missouri -- has a hold on his nomination. why? well, he may disagree with him on some policy, he said publicly. i'm sure he does.

i'm sure he disagrees on many policies. is that enough? is that enough to say that this critical agency will not have a leader because the senator from missouri disagrees with him on a policy? occasionally i tune in to fox to see what folks are saying there. the other night, last week when i tuned in, there was this breathless reporting of a brown-skinned invasion at our border. thousands in caravans destined for the united states. over and over again we've heard that story. what agency is responsible for making sure that their arrival at our border is orderly, that they do not cross the border improperly? it's the department of homeland security, the same agency that is being denied leadership by one senator on the other side of the aisle. it's time to get over it. it's time to give president biden the leadership we need at that agency as quickly as possible. we, in contrast, know that

america is a unique nation, and what makes us special is that people from all over the world can come to our shores and become americans not because of their race or ethnicity, but because they embrace america's democratic ideals. the son of a holocaust survivor and an immigrant from cuba, mr.d america can be a beacon of hope and promise for those facing execution. mr. mayorkas is an experienced national security leader who can restore integrity and decency at the department of homeland security. i personally appreciated the skill and dedication he showed as director of the united states citizenship and immigration service. there in the year 2012, he implemented daca, the deferred action for childhood arrivals, that allowed more than 800,000 people to have a chance to be part of america. as deputy secretary, mr. mayorkas oversaw a $60

billion budget and led a workforce of 230,000 individuals. he is the right man for the job, and he should be on the job today. he excelled in that role, receiving the department's distinguished service award, the highest civilian honor. u.s. coast guard's distinguished service award, and a special commendation from the national security agency for his achievements in national security and cybersecurity. among his numerous responsibilities, he led the department's response to the zika and ebola outbreaks, relevant expertise we can use now in this pandemic. he served as a senate-confirmed u.s. attorney to california earlier in his career. the national president of the fraternal order of police enthusiastically endorsed mr. mayorkas and said his professionalism, integrity, and commitment to just and fair enforcement of the law makes him an ideal candidate to lead the department. mr. mayorkas has pursued criminal wrongdoers and has

protected the rights of the innocent with indefatigueable vigor. his work reflects all that is right in government. that was the statement from the fraternal order of police about this nominee. he is an outstanding nominee to be secretary of homeland security. his experience, qualifications, expertise and integrity will serve america well at a time when we desperately need him. i ask the senator who is holding his nomination to release the hold today. let mr. mayorkas go to the head of this agency where he is desperately needed and show the kind of leadership he has over and over again for this country. i urge my colleagues to expedition -- expeditiously confirm mr. mayorkas so he can serve as the next secretary of homeland security. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip is recognized. mr. thune: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there's been a lot of talk about the legislative filibuster here in the senate over the last few days. as we started the new congress evenly divided between republicans and democrats, the republican leader had proposed that the democratic leader include a commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster in the power-sharing agreement the leaders have been working out. this should have been easy. less than four years ago, with a republican president in the white house and republicans in control of the senate and the house of representatives, a bipartisan group of 61 senators affirmed their support for retaining the legislative filibuster stating, and i quote, we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the senate floor, end quote. 26, mr. president, 26 current democratic senators, a majority

of the current democrat caucus, signed that defense of the legislative filibuster when they were in the senate minority. it's disappointing that the democratic leader failed to express support for this essential senate rule. nevertheless, thanks to the recent commitment from two senate democrats to oppose any attempt to eliminate the filibuster, a commitment which secures this key protection for minority rights, leader mcconnell is now moving forward without a statement from the democratic leader. burkes -- but, mr. president, it is worth taking a moment to reiterate why the legislative filibuster is so important. the legislative filibuster is essentially the requirement that 60 senators agree before the senate can end debate and vote on a bill. in other words, you need 60% of the senate to agree before you can pass a bill. this usually means that you need the support of at least some members of the other party before you can move legislation. now, the party in power doesn't

always enjoy that rule. all of us would like the opportunity to pass exactly the legislation that we want, but most of us, mr. president, recognize that it's a good requirement. the legislative filibuster ensures that the minority is represented in legislation. this would be important even if elections tended to break 60 to 40 or 70 to 30 in favor of one party or another. all americans, whether or not they're in the majority, deserve to be represented. but it's particularly important when you consider that our country is pretty evenly split down the middle. while the advantage sometimes goes to democrats and sometimes to republicans, the truth is that our country is pretty evenly split, which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means disenfranchising half of the country. of course the party in power generally gets to accomplish more than the minority party,

and that's appropriate. the country may be fairly evenly divided, but sometimes it wants to move more toward one side or the other. what is not appropriate is to eliminate meaningful minority representation, which would be the consequence of eliminating the legislative filibuster. our founders recognized the importance of putting safeguards in place to ensure that majorities wouldn't curtail or eliminate minority rights. that's why the founders created the senate. they made the senate smaller, and senators' terms in offers longer with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or inl temperate legislation or attempts to curtail minority rights. and as time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the founders' vision of the senate. thanks to the filibuster, it's

often harder to get legislation through the senate than through the house. it requires more thought, more debate, and greater consensus. in other words, exactly, exactly, mr. president, what the founders were looking for. mr. president, i'm grateful to my democrat colleagues who have spoken up about their commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster. republicans were committed to protecting this vital safeguard of minority rights when we were in the majority despite, i might add, the then-president's calls repeatedly to eliminate it. and i appreciate that a number of my democrat colleagues shared that commitment. and i'm particularly grateful to the senator from west virginia and the senator from arizona for their uncompromising defense of minority rights and the institution of the senate here in recent days. again, however, i'm disappointed the democrat leader chose not to express his support

for this essential senate rule. i point out that when democrats were in the minority in the senate, they made frequent use of the legislative filibuster. mr. president, i hope that the commitment to the legislative filibuster expressed by president biden and a number of senate democrats means the end of any talk of eliminating the filibuster. no matter how appealing it might be in the moment, destroying this long-standing protection for minority rights would be a grave error that both parties would live to regret. and i hope that all senate democrats will recommit themselves to preserving this fundamental feature of the senate and to find compromise. mr. president, we've got work to do. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: today we'll be voting on -- i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. without objection. mr. paul: today we'll be considering the nomination of antony john blinken to be president biden's secretary of state. the problem i have with his nomination is that for decades now we've been at war in afghanistan. the war is now called the forever war. people lament that it goes on so long and people say how could it possibly keep going on? 65% to 70% of the american people -- 65% to 70% of american veterans, veterans who served in the theater say the war is enough. we should end the war in afghanistan. how does it go on? we've got a new president. are things going to change?

here's the problem -- why do the wars continue? why do the wars in syria and libya and somalia and afghanistan continue? because the more things change, the more they stay the same. mr. blinken has been a full-throated advocated of military intervention in the middle east. for 20 years. we're fooling ourselves if we think we're going to to get a new policy. we're going to get more of the same. in his hearing i said to him the problem isn't that we don't compromise or we don't have bipartisan consensus. the problem is we have too much bipartisan consensus for war. for 20 years he has advocatedded for military intervention. he advocated for the iraq war as did the president. president biden was also an advocate for the iraq war. later on they say the war wasn't that great of an idea, but we were lied to by george bush and the intelligence. i'm willing to admit there is

some truth to that, but there's a bigger lesson here. the lesson is that regime change doesn't work. they often get unintended consequences and you often get the opposite of what you think you're getting. they say we must go to iraq to topple saddam hussein because he's a terrible dictator. yeah, he was a despot, dictator, autocrat, wreaked havoc on his people, probably gassed the kurds, many different horrible things. yet, when he was gone what did we get? we got a power vacuum, we got more terrorism. we're back in there then years later because the government is nonfunctional. what's the final result? iran is stronger. what is everybody talking about? iran, iran, iran. why do we worry about iran? because we toppled their biggest adversary. we used to have a balance of power, despot on one side, despot on the other but at least a balance of power. who is iran's best ally now? iraq. think about it. iraq is allied with iran.

aircraft is also allied in many ways with russia, as well as us. but they ask us to leave, it's like thanks for our freedom but y'all can take off now. but who supported the war? president biden, antony blinken. we're back where we were 20 years ago. like i say, there's some retrenchment, there's some backing off of the position, but i don't hear from either president biden, candidate biden, or from the antony blinken that regime change is wrong. if it were wrong you would expect there was a learning from the iraq war and they would say we won't do the same. but it turns out when we had the obama administration with blinken and other militarying interventionists we got more war. they went into libya. once again the same idea, the idea that regime change works and we will topple this terrible dictator qadhafi and out of the

embers, out of the fire will arise thomas jefferson, the thomas jefferson of libya will take over and freedom will ring. didn't work out so much. so mr. blinken in his hearing admitted as much. he said, well, maybe we overestimated the possibility that there would be rivals to replace him. you think? but see, this is sort of expected pattern of the middle east. the middle east doesn't have this thousand-year english tradition of trying to control central power, dating back to even before the magna carta. but even 350 years ago the english had a revolution trying to restain the power of the -- restrain the power of the king. 250 years ago we had our revolution to try to further restrain the power of the king. we had this long-standing tradition. in the middle east there is more of this tradition of tribalism. you had an iron fist but when you get rid of the iron fist it's replaced by another iron

fist or nothing, by across. in libya you get rid of cads daffy supported -- qadhafi. you have the toppling of qadhafi but what did you get? chaos, more terrorism. it's unclear who we support, whether we support the current government, the u.n. government or general ahtar or who we support. we fan the flames by shipping arms to everybody in the region as well. it didn't work. so mr. blinken acknowledges, yes, we underestimated the possibility there would be a rival government or rival faction strong enough to rule libya. well, yeah. so did they learn their lesson? no. about this time or a little bit later they decided we must go into syria. so they spent about $500 millioo train about 60 fighters.

they did it in a remote area of syria, and they got them trained, they spent their $500 million, and they sent ten of them into battle. they were all captured or killed in the first 20 minutes. $500 million to train 60 million of the so-called moderates. but guess what? the same holds for libya that held for iraq. guess what. another despot. who are the people fighting against the despot? the most fierce fighters were al-nusra and al qaeda. the more jihadists and the better the fighters were, whether doctors or lawyers or academics or people who want a secular form of government? sure, but the people out there fighting and the people winning the battles were the jihadists. so there was always the danger if you get rid of assad, we get another jihadist regime. so we have to think through the policy of this. but blinken and biden both

supported the iraq war. it was an utter failure. they admit as much. they support offed the libyan, deposing of qadhafi in war. they don't take any learning or knowledge of that and say maybe we shouldn't go into the next one, syria. yet they went into syria. and what blinken's response is should tell you a little bit about the danger of what we may get from a blinken as secretary of state. he have said the problem in syria was not doing too much, but doing too little. he says what we really should have done is gone in with full might. if we had put 100,000 troops in there, like we did in afghanistan and like we did in iraq, if we would have used an efficient enough force we could have toppled assad. but in the end he said we didn't do enough. so the lesson to blinken and biden and his administration isn't that regime change doesn't work. it's that if we're going to do

it we need to go bigger. we need to go all in. i would posit that regime change doesn't work, that we should not support evil regimes if they are despots or dictators, we shouldn't arm them. but i'm not for toppling every one of them either, because i'm not so sure what you get next. so how would this be in the real world? saudi arabia has shown themselves to be an autocratic anti-woman, anti-modern administration that would actually kill a journalist and dismember him. they were rewarded by the previous administration with arms. terrible idea. but what would we do if there was a rational, realistic, more realism in foreign policy? we would not topple the government of saudi arabia but we might not sell them arms. i think that would be a reasonable thing. we also might not sell them arms because they were committing atrocities and killing in the war in yemen. if you look p back at the war in yemen, the obama and biden

administration did not have very strong opposition to the war in yemen. they do now but in the beginning they didn't. supplying weaponry and smart bombs occurreddened -- occurred under the obama and biden administration and continued under the trump administration. so we have to ask ourselves, we have so many unintended consequences, how will we ever make things different? our founding fathers envisioned something different. our founding fathers envisioned that war should be difficult. it was james madison who said that the executive branch is most prone to war, and therefore the constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. to declare war was to be split between the house and the senate and by majority vote to declare war. we don't do that. it's passe. that's an anachronism some say. when antony blinken is asked about this, asked about a use

of authorization of force, he's asked do you need it? and this was when he was working for the obama and biden administration. he said we would welcome discussion and debate and advice from the senate. but we don't need it. he's not alone in this. this isn't a democrat and republican thing. this is most of the foreign policy establishment in both parties particularly once they work for a president, will tell you we'll listen to your advice. we welcome you coming down. please come down. we'd love to sit down and have tea, but really don't tell us what to do. we can do whatever we want under article 2. and you think, well, gosh, that sounds harsh. it sounds like you're describing blinken as some sort of john bolton. yeah. there are similarities. but there are similarities between both parties when they get to the executive branch that they don't think they need congress' permission. this is a real problem. so some in the senate have tried to narrow the definition of where a war would be. and i looked at their narrower

definition last time and said you narrow it from the whole world to 24 countries. i don't want to be at war with those 24 countries either. think about it. we have more military action in africa right now than we do in the middle east. somalia, mali, all throughout africa we've got troops. we had four soldiers die a little over a year ago in mali and people were like we have 800 soldiers in mali. people in the armed services were like we have 800 soldiers in mali? yet that goes on without our permission, without a vote of the people's representatives, without consulting the people at all. it just goes on and on and on. so my opposition of mr. blinken to be secretary of state is not so much because i oppose the administration. it's because i oppose the bipartisan consensus for war. if we're ever to end these wars, we're going to need to not keep nominating the same retreads who have gotten us into these wars. so i will vote against

mr. blinken because i'm against war. i'm against war that's not declared by congress. i'm against war that is executed primarily by the president. i'm against them doing it without the permission of the people. so i will oppose mr. blinken's nomination. i don't think i'll get many people from the other side. it's difficult to vote against nominees from one's own party. i would say, if we are to end war, we need to have a real discussion in this body about when we go to war, whether or not we have to declare war and we have to talk about whether or not our developments -- developments -- involvements work in the middle east and instead of saying it was all george bush's fault, faulty intelligence, there is some truth to that, but it is it really about the idea of regime change and that we know what is best for everybody else and when we put in a new regime, it turns

out worse. i hope my colleagues will consider voting against mr. blinken because i think he's more of the same. thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for three minutes on the nomination of antony blinken to be secretary of state. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. risch: mr. president, i bring to the floor this morning the nomination of antony blinken to be secretary of state. he's been nominated, of course, by president biden and senator menendez and i have had the honor and privilege to work together to move as rapidly as we could to move mr. blinken's nomination. obviously these things do take some time and we're fortunate to be able to bring it as quickly as we have to the floor. this is, in my judgment, the most important nominee that there will be to the president's cabinet in light of a number of things, but not the least of which is they are in succession -- the line of succession for the presidency. mr. blinken has a long and

distinguished history when it comes to statecraft and foreign relations matters. certainly he is very qualified for this job. obviously, we don't agree on all things. nobody ever does. i will say that there are 200 countries, approximately on the planet, and each one of them has unique and very distinguished issues. in speaking with mr. blinken on these matters, i find that there's a tremendous amount of agreement that he and i have. obviously whenever these things happen, there are areas of disagreement and obviously the media and a lot of people focus on these. and i should mention that at least one of those, ron, -- one of those is a wide disagreement that we have. in my judgment, the jcpoa was a

colossal failure and real blunder for american policy overseas. in talking with mr. blinken, he does not share that view and obviously he's going to work with the president, carrying the president's water, to get us back into the jcpoa, i think that's a mistake. and we have talked about this at length and certainly whatever the consequences of that are, those that do it are going to have to live with it it. i -- live with it. i can tell you this is not a partisan issue. there are people on both sides of the aisle that have real reservations about going back into the jpcoa, particularly if there aren't significant side boards put on that. the effort to going to be made and we will advise, as we can,

and go down that pike. again, i say that this is one issue and out of the many, many issues that we discussed, there was very little, in fact, no daylight between us on some of them. a good example of that would be turkey. i -- i think mr. blinken shares my reservations about turkey. again, the vast majority of this body, of the united states senate, has deep, deep reservations at the -- at the direction that turkey is going. in any event, we need a secretary of state. this is the person for the job. with that, i will yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, first i ask -- i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly

noted. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i will just remark of how quickly you have risen in the senate, so we welcome you here. i rise today in support of antony blinken's nomination to be secretary of state. i want to thank senator risch for working with me expeditiously to get this nomination to the floor, and i appreciate his work in common cause to achieve it. we all know mr. blinken has impressive credentials. he was confirmed by the senate as deputy secretary of state, and before that served as a deputy national security advisor and as the staff director of the senate foreign relations committee. but apart from his extensive experience, he showed in almost five hours of hearing testimony that he is thoughtful, willing,

able to grapple with the most complex, challenging issues facing our country, and committed to engaging congress, and he did so on both sides of the aisle. not surprisingly, the foreign relations committee reported him out by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. now, mr. president, some in this body may not be aware of mr. blinken's family tradition which reflects the best of this country in two ways. our history of welcoming those in need of refuge and the contribution that immigrants and refugees have made in the service of our nation. mr. blinken's family came here fleeing persecution. his grandfather, maurice blinken, fled russian pogroms. his father's wife vera blinken fled communist hungary. and his late stepfather survived nazi concentration camps and met the first u.s. soldiers he saw

with the only english words he knew -- god bless america. and from that family, our country has benefited from the service of two ambassadors, an assistant secretary, and a deputy secretary of state. what a testament to the power of the american dream. mr. blinken must be confirmed so we can start addressing the challenges we face abroad. every day, there is an event or calamity across the globe, and whether it is a massacre in ethiopia or democratic protests in russia, we need u.s. leadership and engagement to chart our foreign policy through these troubling times. we now have a covid vaccine but troubling new variants and strains are appearing in the united kingdom and south africa. we need a confirmed secretary of state and a robust state department to revitalize the traditional u.s. role as a leader on global health issues.

this is just one of the many things we have to do to bring this pandemic to an end, both in this country and abroad. it's also important that mr. blinken be confirmed to help address the challenges we face closer to home. the state department is suffering from a historic crisis stemming from low morale with the departure over the past four years of many of our most experienced diplomats and the lack of accountability for the political leadership at the top during the last four years. mr. blinken's experience and expertise is necessary to begin to repair the damage and rebuild the state department. moreover, the office of secretary of state is fourth in the presidential line of succession and is one of the most important national security positions in the government. to paraphrase former secretary of defense james mattis, if we do not support diplomacy, our armed forces will ultimately need more ammunition. he was right.

robust diplomacy means that we are all less likely to have to send our sons and daughters to fight wars, and it means more opportunities for americans and american businesses abroad. i strongly support mr. blinken's nomination today because he is the right person for the job. and because we cannot afford to leave this post vacant any longer. i hope my colleagues will all join me. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any members wish to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 78, the nays are 22. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative session and will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: this impeachment is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to further

divide the country. democrats claim to want to unify the country but impeaching a former president, a private citizen, is the antithesis of unity. democrats brazenly appointing a pro-impeachment democrat to preside over the trial is not fair or impartial and hardly encourages any kind of unity in our country. no, unity is the opposite of this travesty we are about to witness. if we are about to try to impeach a president, where is the chief justice? if the accused is no longer president, where's the constitutional power to impeach him? private citizens don't get impeached. impeachment is for removal from office and the accused here has already left office. hyper partisan democrats are about to drag our great country down into the gutter of rancor

the likes of which has never been seen in our nation's history. instead of doing the nation's work with the new majorities in the house, the senate, and the executive branch, democrats are wasting the nation's time on a partisan vendetta against a man no longer in office. it's almost as if they have no ability to exist except in opposition to donald trump. without him as their boogieman, they might to -- have to legislate and convince them this their policies are the right one. democrats are about to do something no self-respecting senator has stooped to. democrats are insisting the election is actually not over and so they insist on regurgitating the bitterness of the election. this acrimony they are about to unleash has never before been tried. why? because calmer heads have

typically prevailed in our history and allowed public opinion to cast blame where blame is deserved. this sham of an impeachment will ostensibly ask whether the president incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of january 6 when he said, i know everyone here will soon march to the capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. peacefully and patriotically. hardly words of violence. but what of democrat words? what of democrat incitement to violence? no democrat will honestly ask whether bernie sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed steve scalise and volunteer coach. the shooter nearly pulled off a massacre. i was there because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by

bernie and other democrats such as the republican health care plan for the uninsured is that you die. is this about bernie supporter shot steve scalise nearly killing him and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, this is for health care. ask me or anyone if that's incitement. no democrat will ask if cory booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get up in their face of congress people, a very specific incitement. no democrat will ask whether maxine waters incited violence when she told her supporters, and i quote, if you see a member of a trump administration at a restaurant, at an department store or any place, you create a crowd and you push back on them? is that not incitement? my wife and i were pushed and

surrounded and screamed at by this same type of mob that maxine likes to inspire. it is terrifying to have a swarm of people attempt to kill you and cursing you and hold you hostage until the police come to your protection. in a night i wasn't sure if we would survive. no democrat suggested impeaching maxine about her violent rhetoric. republicans never thought it was important to censor or impeach the democrats. to hold these democrats for antifa and black lives matter that have consumed our cities resulting in over a billion dollars of destruction, looting and property damage, not one republican said, let's impeach the democrats who are inciting this because it would be

ridiculous. many on the democrat side of the aisle cheered them on. kamala harris famously offered to pay the bill for those who were arrested. i wonder if she'll be brought up on charges of inciting violence for that now that she is vice president. should kamala harris be impeached for offering to pay for violent people to get out of jail who have been burning our cities down? no. and no republican has offered that because we're not going down the road the democrats have decided, this low road of impeaching people for political speech. should republicans impeach the democrat mayor of seattle who incited and condoned violence by calling the armed takeover of part of her city a summer of love. did any republicans try to impeach her? on june 8, the "new york post" cited u.s. justice department statistics reported that more than 700 law enforcement

officers were injured during the antifa -- black lives matter riots. there were at least 19 murders including 77-year-old tired police officer david dorn. yet democrats insist on applying a test of incitement to a republican that they refuse to apply to themselves. i want the democrats to raise their hands if they have ever given a speech that says take back, fight for your country. who hasn't used the words fight figuratively, and are we going to put every politician in jail or are we going to impeach every politician who has used the words fight figuratively in a speech? shame. shame on these angry, unhinged partisans who are putting forth this sham impeachment. deranged by their hatred of the former president. shame on those who seek blame and revenge and who choose to pervert a constitutional process

while doing so. i want this body on record, every last person here. is this how you think politics should be? look, we have now got crazy partisans on the other side of the aisle trying to censor and remove two of the republican senators for their political position. now, look, i disagree. i don't think congress should overturn the electoral college. but impeaching or sense sewering or expelling a member of congress you disagree with. about the truth so narrow that only you know the truth? we now have the media on their side saying there is only one set of facts, only one truth. you can only interpret it this way. now we have seven senators on the other side trying to expel, censor, or impugn two senators on this side. i disagreed with their position, but you can't impeach, or expel

people you disagree with. what's this coming to? in a few minutes, i will insist on a vote to affirm that this proceeding we are about to enter is unconstitutional, that impeachment of a private citizen is illegal and essentially a bill of attainder. and that no sense of fairness or due process would allow the judge in the proceeding to be a partisan democrat already on favor of the impeachment. a sham, this is, a travesty. a dark blot on the history of our country. i urge my colleagues to reconsider this report and move forward to debate the great issues of our day. with that, i'd like to relinquish the last moment or two of my time to the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i would first like to thank my colleague from kentucky for his consistent --

over the years, consistent fighting -- i use that word -- fighting for the constitution. i truly appreciate it, and i appreciate him raising this constitutional point of order in an hour or so. the issue he raises is one of constitutionality versus unconstitutionality. i have been reading positions on both sides. and i understand there are legitimate arguments on both sides of that question. but the fact of the matter is three weeks ago, we came together in this body, and we collectively decided that it was not wise, it was not smart -- regardless of the constitutionality or the ability for us to do so, it was not smart for congress to overrule, overturn the wishes of voters and of states that certified the electors. we felt that was not wise.

yet, in a couple of hours, we're going to be voting on -- we won't be able to debate, which is why we are rising today -- or at this moment -- we're going to debate whether a trial of someone who is no longer a president, no longer a civil servant, a private citizen, whether that is constitutional or not constitutional. and again, there is good arguments on both sides. senators will vote differently and have justification for whatever side of that argument they take. what i would like my colleagues to consider when they decide how to vote on that is not the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of that. i want them to consider is it wise. will a trial of a former president, of a private citizen, will it heal? will it unify? i think the answer is clearly it will not.

a trial of a former president is simply vindictive. it will divide. it is like opening up a wound and throwing salt in it. that is not a healing process. so again, the question when we vote on this in a couple of hours for every senator should be is it wise, is it the right thing to do. i think from that standpoint, the choice is very clear. it will not heal, it will not unite. let's put an end to this now. let's dismiss this trial and rule it unconstitutional. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

>> c-span2 was greeted by america's cable-television companies and today we are brought to you by deese television companies who provide

c-span2 to viewers as a public service. >> before heading to the weak lunch meetings the senate voted on antony blinken for secretary of state. senate democratic leader chuck schumer talked about the nomination before discussing the power-sharing agreement between democrats and republicans for the next two years. you will see the senate republican leader mcconnells response following the majority leader. >> now as we move through the first full week of the biden administration the senate will continue the important work of confirming president biden's cabinet. today the senate will hold a confirmation vote for tony blinken to be the next secretary of n state. mr. lincoln is just the right person to rebuild and reassert america's national security prerogatives onri the global ste and we established the first instrument of american power, diplomacy. for four