they come around on the positions that 80% of americans already support, but proposed promise bears more than a passing resemblance to the paragraph that their party touted for years. it even introduces lack of proposal to automate redistricting which is certainly constitutionally dubious. at the end of the day, madam president, which concocted crisis the democrats must for their top legislature priorities doesn't make much difference. they've made it clear that the behind s-1 is to rig the rules permanently, permanently in the democrat's favor. that's why they'll give this no

quarter. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. continuing working on president biden's nominee for national intelligence director, and a confirmation vote ban for 11:45 eastern today followed by a vote limited debate on the white house personnel management. senators will be voting on elections, campaign ethics. live on floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord, our god, thank you for permitting us to bear witness to your glory. may our lawmakers, with their words and actions,

prompt people to glorify your name. give our senators the wisdom to foresee the dangers ahead and take precautions. as they listen to the voice of conscience, may our legislators reverently seek to fulfill your purposes on earth. remind them often that all things are possible by faith and through fervent prayer. today, continue to guide them as they dedicate themselves to strive to honor you. we pray in your glorious name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in 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. is the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, june 22, 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 j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence, christopher charles fonzone of pennsylvania to be general counsel.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, act 77 was passed in 2019 by the pennsylvania state legislature when republicans held the majority in both houses. among other voting reforms, the bill provided for no excuse absentee voting and extended registration deadlines. at the time republicans in the state legislature were operating under the assumption that mail-in voting would boost participation among seniors who tend to lean republican. every single republican state senator voted for the bill. in the statehouse, 105 pennsylvania republicans voted for the bill and two voted no. that was 2019. fast forward one year later,

donald trump, fresh off a resounding loss in the 2020 presidential election, cried foul and lied, lied that the election was stolen from him like a petulant child. one of his favorite bugaboos, as we all know, is mail-in voting. so a little over a year after 132 pennsylvania republicans voted for act 77 with only two against, they introduced a bill to -- you guessed it -- repeal act 77. a law that republicans passed while they were in the majority just a year before. mr. president, there is a rot, a rot at the center of the modern republican party. donald trump's big lie has spread like a cancer and threatens to envelope one of america's major political parties. even worse, it has poisoned our

democracy, eroded faith in our elections, which is so detrimental to the future faith people need to have in this democracy, and, of course, it became the match that lit a wildfire of republican voter suppression laws sweeping across the country. because of one man's lie, republicans are now doing the dastardly act of taking away voting from millions of americans, millions of americans , making it much harder for them to vote, and many, many, many will not. from georgia to montana, from florida to iowa, in 14 different states, through 22 different laws, republican state legislatures are conducting the most coordinated voter suppression effort in 80 years. and as the example of act 77 in pennsylvania goes to show, there

is no principle behind these laws. not fraud, not election integrity, not security, not better election administration. the only principle is blatant partisan electoral advantage aimed at people of color, young people, urban people, people who vote democratic. nothing to do with fraud. they haven't pointed out that there is more fraud in those areas than in other areas. it's just blatant, blatant partisan advantage. whatever voter changes -- voting changes republicans think are good for them, they'll make them, even if it means resorting to the awful and un-american act of voter suppression. so in state after state, state after state, republicans are reducing polling hours and locations and the number of drop

boxes, so that americans of all parties, but particularly aimed at democratic voters, people of color, young people, poorer people, have a harder time finding the time, place, and manner to vote. they are limiting the kind of i.d.'s you can use like student i.d.'s, while statement removing requirements for any form of licensing to own a firearm. has any study shown that there is less fraud among firearm owners than students? there's probably very little among either, but they pick one group and not the other, and we know why. republican legislatures are making it easier to own a gun than to vote. republican legislatures are making it harder to vote early, harder to vote by mail, harder to vote after work. they're making it a crime to give food or water to voters waiting in long lines. they are trying to make it harder for black churchgoers to vote on sunday.

and they are actually making it easier for unelected judges and partisan election boards to overturn the results of an election, opening the door for some demagogue, a trumpian type demagogue, maybe he himself, to try and subvert our elections in the very same way that trump tried to do it in 2020. republicans say these elections are about -- these laws are about election integrity. quote-unquote. they say they are trying to, quote, unquote, secure the vote. some of my friends in washington have reverted to the old refrain that elections are best left to the states, ignoring the fact that we in congress for generations have passed federal election laws and constitutional amendments to prevent exactly this kind of discrimination and voter suppression. we all know what these laws are about.

i dare say my republican colleagues know. they're not stupid. when the state of texas proposes to limit voting hours on sunday to only a few hours in the evening, do they really believe that's about preventing fraud? do my senate friends want to back up that kind of thing, prevent it from being even talked about here on the floor of the senate? when georgia republicans say it's a crime to give voters some water or food as they wait in line on a hot day? do they really think they are preventing voter fraud by denying them a snack? give me a break. give me a break. republicans across the country are deliberately targeting all the ways that younger, poorer, nonwhite and typically democratic voters access the ballot. republicans claim they are making it easier to vote and harder to cheat in an election.

in reality, they are making it harder to vote and easier to cheat in an election. we all know it. and all we want to do here is debate it. regular order. regular order, which colleagues on both sides of the aisle have asked for. that's what we are asking for here, just to debate these things. and they won't even do that because they are so afraid of what that debate will show. that this is not election integrity, but this is voter suppression and voter suppression directed only at one group of voters. well, we're going to see what happens today. later today, the entire country will see whether our republican friends are willing to even debate this issue in broad daylight. this afternoon, the united states senate will vote on a motion to proceed to voting

rights legislation. we all know what a motion to proceed is around here, but let me explain it. all it says is let's go forward with debate. let's debate something, and this is among the most important things we could ever debate, the right to vote, what our soldiers have died for, what peaceful marchers have been bloodied for. the right to vote. it takes 60 votes to start that debate. everyone knows you still need 60 votes to end the debate on a bill. so even if the republicans don't like the legislation at the end of the process, let them vote against it then. but no, they don't even want to debate it. they don't even want to debate it because they're afraid. they want to deny the right to vote, make it harder to vote, for so many americans, and then they don't want to talk about it. they want to sweep it under the rug and hope that americans

don't hear about it. but americans will hear about it. we're going to make sure of that, and millions in the country who are rightly and correctly outraged by what is happening will let everyone know what has happened. now, only by starting the process can senators offer amendments, change the bill, forge compromise. only then can senators engage in a full-throated debate about what this chamber should do about the assault on voting rights in this country. obviously, there are arguments about what should be done to protect voting rights and safeguard our democracy. obviously, there are arguments about which policies are the most effective. but shouldn't we at least agree to debate the issue? that's the only question for the united states senate today. to -- do my republican colleagues believe that voting rights, the most fundamental in a democracy, the right that generations of americans have marched for and protested to

achieve, that generations of american soldiers have fought and died to secure, is that worthy of debate? of course it is. should the united states senate even debate how to protect the voting rights of our citizens? there's only one correct answer. we'll see if our republican colleagues choose it this afternoon. it is not simply a partisan issue, as partisan as the republican side and the state legislatures and now here in the senate seem to make it. it is about the fundamental values of this country. it's about what we're all about. when the constitution was started in most states, you had to be a white male protestant property owner to vote. there has been an inexorable more to expand that right to vote and allow more and more americans that right to vote. this is a giant step backward.

obviously, it's a partisan issue to the republicans, but it's a much deeper issue than that. will our colleagues stand up for what generations of americans have fought for, marched for, and died for or will they just slink away and say we're not going to even debate this? i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: over the weekend iran held what its supreme leader might call a presidential election. to the rest of the world, including millions of iranians, what actually happened was quite clear. the regime's favorite choice was selected from a limited field of approved candidates in a carefully controlled by the of political theater. there's no doubt this charade works as intended. the ayatollah got a president-elect with a record of strict adherence to his regime's revolutionary orthodoxy, meanwhile former presidential candidates who emerged as leaders in the popular 2009 green movement remain under house arrest. like his predecessor, ebrahim

raisi will serve as a figurehead as the revolutionary guard run the show. tehran has a proven history as a hard-line theo accurate. for decades from his time on a so-called death committee in the 1980's, the president-elect played an intimate role in the trial, conviction, and summary execution of political prisoners and peaceful protesters. there's no question he's an extreme hardliner, even in the iranian context. and now he's set to be the so-called counterpart to president biden as this administration reengages eagerly with the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. in some circles a looming

takeover of the iranian leadership is a reason for the white house to rush even faster than it already is to restoring the obama administration's failed nuclear deal. one particularly eager assessment from "the new york times" called the next six weeks a unique window to clench an agreement where president biden might need to take whatever he can. rationale observers know that the fundamental reality of the u.s.-irannian relations certainly has not changed. in the selection of a new hard-line figurehead in tehran sends any signal, it's a reminder that showering the regime with sanction relief and expecting a change of behavior is a reckless approach. president-elect raisi said as much.

iran's deal is not negotiable and meeting with president biden is not on the table. iranian politicians and diplomats are known to lie and deassemble and so we should pay close attention to this regime's actions. what will they actually do? here's the truth. political developments in tehran don't absolve the biden administration of its responsibility of iran's nuclear -- it abuse of human rights and its relentless efforts to destabilize the entire region. if president biden hopes to earn bipartisan support for an iran policy that could outlast its time in office, he needs to start explaining how he intends to respond as iran ramps up threats against the united states and our closest partners in its backyard. so remember, mr. president, the thousands of rockets hamas fired at israel last month were made

possible by iran. so were the precision-guiding munitionings and the ballistic missles and u.a.v.'s launched into saudi arabia by the houthis. and the attacks in iraq carried out by iran. they have an eager engagement with the iranian regime months to hash out a better plan than rewarding terrorist sponsors with sanctions relief, an explanation to congress is long overdue. now on an entirely different matter, later today the senate will vote on whether to advance democrats' transparent plan to tilt every election in america permanently in their favor. by now the rotten inner workings of this power grab have been exposed to the light. we know it would shatter a

decades-old understandings that there should be a bipartisan referee and turn the federal election committee for democrats to wield against their political opponents. it would let washington bureaucrats to direct money into campaign accounts, government money for yard signs and attack ads. it would let democrats to take a red pen to election laws to each of the 50 states neutering voter i.d. and ballot harvesting. it's a recipe for undermining confidence, remaking the entire system of government to pursue the efforts of one far end. if they could, many democrats would pass it with the slimmest possible majority even after its companion faced bipartisan opposition over in the house. what a craven political

calculation, what a way to show your disdain for the american people's choices. of course it isn't even limited to election law. among the most dangerous parts of s. 1 is the way it would equip partisan regulate rors to discourage -- regulators private citizens from engaging in political speech. sth a fam con -- sth a fam concept for too many americans. it isn't hard to imagine democrats have ideological grudges and chilling free speech. it happened before. the nation was reminded a few weeks ago how unable the government is to protect people's private information. but conservatives didn't need a reminder of what became institutionalized -- when private contributors and

nonprofit advocacy groups see that s. 1's disclosure requirements would intentionally unlearn the lessons of the i.r.s.' abuses, they have plenty of reasons -- plenty to fear. naming and shaming not a hypothetical concept. it's been a concrete reality for thousands of private citizens and today democrats are asking for a green light to supercharge the intimidation machine that makes all that possible. we've heard this entire package described in many ways over the years. it's been around for a while. these same rotten proposals have sometimes been called a massive overhaul for a broken democracy. sometimes just a modest package of tweets for a democracy that's working perfectly and sometimes a response to state actions which this bill actually predates by many years.

but whatever label democrats slap on the bill, the substance remains the same. it's always been a plan to rewrite the ground rules of american politics and, by the way, no matter what far-left activists are telling our colleagues, this most sensitive subject would not be the best place to trash the senate's rules to ram something through. in fact, these issues would be the worst possible place to push through a power grab at any cost. the senate is no obstacle to voting laws done the right way. i've helped write legislation regarding our democracy that has soared through this chamber on huge bipartisan margins. the senate is only an obstacle when the policy is flawed and the process is rotten. and that's exactly why this body exists. today the senate's going to fulfill our founding purpose, stop the partisan power grab and reject s. 1.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico is recognized. a senator: what is the status of the floor? the presiding officer: the senate is considering the fonzone nomination. a senator: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: mr. president, let's be clear. we are facing the most dangerous and overt threat to our

democratic system in generations. supreme court decisions like citizens united and mcutchin wrongly equated money with speech. and in the decades since unaccountable dark money has flooded into our political system. this broken campaign finance system allows billionaires to drown out the voices of ordinary americans with no accountability. this lack of transparency also opens the door for dangerous disinformation campaigns. after the supreme court gutted article 5 of the voting rights act in another terrible decision, we have also seen state legislators -- legislatures across the country take up and pass voting laws designed explicitly to prevent black, brown, and young voters

from exercising their right to vote. these new laws in states like georgia, arizona, texas are right out of the prevoting rights playbook of the jim crow south. some call it gym crow 2.0. they make it harder to register to vote. they reduce early voting times and polling locations. they restrict access to vote by mail. and in the president's state in georgia it is now illegal to hand out water to someone who has been standing in line for hours to vote. waiting to vote. could anything be more wrongheaded? my home state of new mexico is a good example of what it looks like to enhance rather than attack participation in our

democracy. i am proud of the ways that election officials in my state have stepped up in recent years to make voting safer, to make it more secure, and at the same time more accessible for every new mexican. and our state has seen greater participation in our elections as a result. now, unfortunately, we are seeing the polar opposite of this approach in our neighboring states. just last week democratic lawmakers from texas came to washington, d.c., to warn us just how dire the situation has become in their state. texas' governor greg abbott, a republican -- and republican lawmakers in austin are hellbent on passing vote rg restriction -- voting restrictions as a power grab.

it would reduce voting hours, push back the start of sunday voting and eliminate polling locations in larger urban counties. the goal of this type of legislation is pretty plan to see. this shameful transparent attempt to take away texans' right to vote and similar attempts to disenfranchise voters in many other states should be a wakeup call to every single american many we should all be able to see that these attacks on voting are taken advantage of and in many cases being driven by our former president's lies and conspiracy theories about the last election. make no mistake, former president trump's big lie about his loss in the 2020 election has sown widespread and damaging

distrust in our elections. we should never forget that this same distrust and misinformation fomented a mob of insurrectionists that stormed into this heart of democracy less than six months ago. now, unfortunately, that cat is out of the bag. i don't see this widespread public distrust in our elections going away any time soon as a result, especially as long our former president continues to add more fuel to the fire and particularly when republicans, even republicans who know that he is lying, continue to follow him down that rabbit hole. in one of new mexico's other neighboring states in arizona, there is a so-called audit of the votes cast in their largest county. this bogus audit is being conducted by a private company

paid for by secret pro-trump funders with no effective oversight. when you outsource nonpartisan election work to a firm calling themselves the cyber nijas -- ninjas, you know things are off the rails. all of the things begin ginned up by the former president is coming together to have -- to restore faith in our elections and our democracy. the right of every lawful american to vote is just that. it is a right, and no one, no one should be able to take that away. the public should have confidence that our leaders are working on their behalf, not in fealty to a class of dark money billionaires. they deserve transparency so

that they can see who is behind the political ads on their television screens and their social media feeds. most importantly, they deserve to know that our fundamentally american right to vote is secure, accessible, and easy to navigate for every single lawful american. that's why it is so important for the senate to take up the for the people act this week. this comprehensive legislation addresses all of the critical challenges facing our political systems and our democratic institutions. the for the people act would restore transparency, accountability, and strong ethics rules for our elections. it would stop billionaires from being able to anonymously pour buckets of cash into our elections in an effort to buy them. it would put an end to partisan gerrymandering and broken election rules that allow

republicans and democrats alike to rig the system for themselves and for special interests. and it would modernize voting systems so that every american, no matter their race, their political party, or their zip code, can have confidence in their ability to exercise their right to vote. democrats and republicans in the senate should come together to pass commonsense election security, voter protections and campaign finance reforms in the for the people act. each of these provisions on their own have won bipartisan support at the state and local levels. in a previous less partisan time, these ideas would have earned broad bipartisan support here in congress. these are not democratic or republican ideas. they are fundamental reforms that we need to pass in order to restore the essential american

idea that each of us, each of us has a say in who we elect as our leaders. the house has already passed the for the people act earlier this year. it is now the senate's turn to take up this critical legislation. unless we can pass the reforms that are in the for the people act, we will keep living under a broken status quo where the special interests wield far too much control and state lawmakers can continue to undermine and ignore constitutional rights. it is outrageous that senate republicans, as we heard from the minority leader, are planning to block legislation to restore voting rights and bring much-needed transparency and ethics into our elections. their refusal to even allow

debate on the for the people act should be seen for what it is. it is a ringing endorsement of former president trump's conspiracy theories and his attacks on our elections and on reality itself. refusing to take up the for the people act will prop up the campaigns that are, that we are seeing in states across the country that strip americans of our hard-won right to vote. mr. president, i want to be clear, if senate republicans are successful later today in using the filibuster to block the senate from even debating the for the people act, this cannot be the end of the story. we simply cannot give up on passing voting rights legislation in this congress, not when our democracy is what is on the line. we should all remember that the

filibuster is a rule, a rule that cannot even be found in the constitution. but voting, voting is an american right. when i think about this, i remember my former colleague across the hall from me actually when i served in the house, representative john lewis. it was one of the most humbling experiences of my life to be able to serve in the same chamber as congressman lewis. john lewis dedicated his entire life to the fight for the right of all americans to cast their ballot safely and without fear of discrimination. more than 50 years ago he and so many others marched, put their lives on the line to call on president lyndon johnson and members of congress from both parties to pass the voting rights act.

back then and every time the voting rights act has been reauthorized since, senators from both parties have found a way to protect our democracy and preserve the right to vote. right now america is facing down daunting threats to our democratic values here at home. for the first time since the civil war, the greatest threats to the republic are from within. history will judge all of us based on what we do to defend that fundamental right for all, not some, but all of our fellow americans. mr. president, will we meet this moment? if we fail to rise to the discrimination baked into these state laws, our failure will cast a long shadow. i will be proud to cast my vote

on the side of democracy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip is recognized. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, later today the senate will vote on senate bill 2093. senate bill 2093 is the new senate bill 1. it's the latest version of the so-called for the people act, which is a massive, massive takeover, federal takeover of election law. so why are we taking up a massive federal takeover of election law? well, that's a good question. two years ago democrats told us that we immediated to pass this law -- we needed to pass this law because our electoral system was broken. well then came 2020. we had a record voter turnout, largest voter turnout since the election of 1900. largest turnout in 120 years in

american history. and democrats won the white house. after that, after that it got a little awkward to complain that our electoral system was broken, so democrats found a new argument. now we have to pass this legislation to stop states from taking away voting rights. according to democrats, states moves to update or clarify their election laws in the wake of pandemic challenges and vote counting confusion are really plots to restrict voter access. of course so far most 2021 state election law updates have approved to be both standard and mainstream. but that hasn't stopped democrats who have at times resorted to outright lies in their efforts to persuade americans that we're facing a voting rights crisis. after all, democrats need to give some reason for why we should allow the federal government to take over our

entire electoral system. and democrats' real reason, because they think s. 1 will give them an advantage in future elections, is not really one that they can use to sell the bill. although speaker pelosi did admit, i should say, on national television that she thought s. 1 would boost democrats' electoral chances. mr. president, the question is where to start when it comes to the bill's content. as i said, like the original s. 1, the new s. 1 is an unprecedented federal takeover of elections. historically, running elections has largely been a matter for states who tailor election laws to the particular needs of their cities and communities. s. 1 would impose one-size-fits-all federal regulations on elections in many cases deeply problematic regulations. s. 1 would require states to allow unlimited ballot

harvesting, which is the controversial practice of allowing political operatives and others to pick up and deliver ballots with all the possibilities for fraud that that creates. it would gut, it would gut state voter i.d. laws, laws which i would point out are supported by a strong majority of the american people. a recent poll said 80% of americans support voter i.d. laws. it would remove legal penalties for registering individuals who are here illegally, and so much more. but the new s. 1, like the old s. 1, goes way beyond undermining security of our elections and increasing the likelihood of voter fraud. the it would implement public funding of political campaigns which would mean that government dollars, money that belongs to the american taxpayer, would go to funding yard signs and attack ads. sitting senators alone could

qualify for more than $1.8 billion in public funding. and that doesn't count their challengers. yes, with a record high debt, democrats apparently think that dropping a couple billion dollars here and there on attack ads and partisan rallies is a good use of taxpayer dollars. and from there, believe it or not, the ideas only get worse. s. 1 would permanently undermine confidence in our electoral system by turning the federal election commission, the primary enforcer of election law in this country, into a partisan body. that's right, the democrats' bill would turn the primary enforcer of election law in this country into a partisan body. i'm interested to hear how this is supposed to enhance voter confidence in our electoral system. every single f.e.c. ruling would

be suspect. and on top of all this, mr. president, s. 1 makes a concerted attack on freedom of speech. it would impose onerous new requirements and restrictions on political speech. it would open up private americans to retaliation and intimidation simply for making a donation to support a cause they believe in. and it would allow the i.r.s. to consider organizations' beliefs when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-testament -- tax-exempt status. the american civil liberties union actually opposed the house's version of s. 1 in the last congress because the bill would, and i quote, unconstitutionally burden speech and associational rights, end quote. that's right, mr. president. the american civil liberties union opposed the legislation because the bill would unconstitutionally burden speech and associational rights.

mr. president, as hard as it is to believe when you look at the bill's provisions, s. 1 was built as an election integrity bill. in fact, this legislation would undermine election integrity, making our elections less secure and more susceptible to fraud. and it would undermine voter confidence in our elections. the partisan divide in this country has reached new heights and voters on both sides have lost confidence in our electoral process. any election legislation that we take up should be focused on building voter confidence in the fairness of our electoral system, not undermining it. to my democratic colleagues -- do my democratic colleagues seriously believe, seriously believe that s. 1 would do anything to increase voter confidence and the unbiased character of our electoral system? do they seriously believe that their bill looks like a nonpartisan attempt to protect american elections? they can't possibly.

from the newly partisan f.e.c. to an i.r.s. empowered to reject tax-exempt status for organizations whose beliefs it doesn't like, s. 1 is very clearly a bill designed purely and simply to enhance political power, the political power of democrats hope of the democratic party. it is the very opposite of a nonpartisan reform bill. and i have to ask my democrat colleagues do you really want an electoral system that's perceived as partisan in which half the country -- and which half the country doesn't trust? haven't we seen the consequences of that? are you really prepared to sacrifice voter confidence in our electoral system just so you can win elections? mr. president, later this afternoon, we will vote on s. 1, and i fully expect that this

legislation will be blocked, and it should be. the senate's rules which require the agreement of 60 senators to move forward to consider legislation were designed, designed for times just like these, times when a narrow partisan majority attempts to shove through partisan legislation, times when a partisan majority attacks the freedoms of our government -- that our government exists to protect. the senate was established to act as a moderating body and to check attempts to ride roughshod over minority rights or to curtail our rights and our liberties. and today the senate will fulfill that role and prevent this dangerous, partisan takeover of our electoral system from moving forward. mr. president, to elaborate on that point for just a moment, when i asked the question early on about why would you bring

this bill to the floor, it's a good question, i think, knowing full well that it's going to fail and should fail later today but why would you bring it to the floor? well, allegedly, the reason to bring it to the floor was to provide pressures on certain democrat members that this is the reason that they need to vote to do away with the legislative filibuster, which is something that has been part of the senate going back to our founding fathers. in fact, the very reason the founding fathers created the united states senate was a check and balance against majoritarian rule, against running roughshod over the rights of the minority here in the united states senate. and the legislative filibuster has ensured and provided that protection. so much so that it was used extensively in the last six years when republicans were in control of the senate by the democrats to filibuster

legislation. in fact, it was used to filibuster coronavirus relief bills. it was used to filibuster police reform bills. it was used over and over to block the former president's nominees. and yet now, mr. president, we are being told that the senate needs to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that all those democrats, all those on the other side of the aisle who used it extensively to block republican legislation over the past six years are now -- now believe that we need to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that this bill is example number one for why that is necessary. well, it's really ironic and interesting to hear members on the other side make that argument, given where they were a couple of years ago. it was just a couple of years ago, maybe three years ago, that

33 democrat senators signed a letter, a letter to the republican leader at the time, senator mcconnell, saying we need to preserve the filibuster, the legislative filibuster in the senate because it's so crucial to the essence of the senate and the protections that it provides for the rights of the minority here in the united states senate. 33 democrats, many of whom are still serving in this body adopted that position. and in fact the democratic whip, my counterpart on the democrats side, said a couple of years ago on a morning show i can tell you that it would be the end of this senate as it was originally devised and created, going back to our founding fathers. we have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure. i can tell you, he said, the

democratic whip, the senator from illinois, that it would be the end of the senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers. in other words, mr. president, we need to preserve the filibuster to preserve our democracy. it's essential. that was the view as recently as a couple of years ago. and now, now we have got to get rid of the filibuster to preserve our democracy two years later. the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, which in various forms have served our republic now for over two centuries. it's been a part of the united states senate, of the checks and balances that the founders envisioned for this country, yet here we are bringing a bill to the floor for no other purpose than to have a show vote to try and pressure certain democrat senators who rightfully are defending the legislative filibuster as an essential

element of protecting the rights of the minority and the senate, of requiring cooperation and collaboration and bringing people together on legislation. solutions in the senate historically -- and i was a staffer here back in the 1980's. that's how long my tenure at least as a staffer and now subsequently as a member goes back, but the senate is a place where solutions tend to be found in the middle because that's required. it's required that there be 60 votes to move consequential legislation, and as a result of that, members on both sides have to come together. if you want to pass big things in the senate, you have to figure out a way to get 60 votes. right now that would require in the senate if you had every democrat, 50 democrats, you would have to get ten republicans. as was the case when we had the majority in the senate, we had to get seven democrats to do anything. and so in order to even move

essential legislation like the coronavirus bill, we had to reach out to the other side. and it forced that compromise, that collaboration, that willingness to come together and work in a bipartisan way on solutions that are durable, that are durable for this country. and, mr. president, it is really interesting in this "washington post" op-ed by senator sinema where she points out -- makes that very point, that if you can do something at 51 votes today and one side blows up the rules in the senate, that when the majority changes -- and it always does in the senate, and she points out that sometimes when you get in the majority, you think you're going to be there forever. well, i have been here long enough to have been in the majority and the minority and the majority and in the minority again. it goes back and forth. so what are you going to do then the next time the senate majority flips and all those

things that the other side thinks are awful, awful ideas that the republicans have, and they would love to be able to block them or at least force republicans to come to the table and negotiate a solution that would require some bipartisan participation to get to 60 votes, what are you going to do then where we have 51 votes when one side gets the majority, 51 votes, and we go back and forth and we have this policy, this sort of kind of policy roller coaster that provides no certainty, no predictability and certainly gets away from the checks and balances that the founders intended? mr. president, the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, the rules of the senate, the procedures of the senate are designed to protect or preserve democracy, not to undermine it. what undermines it is cynical attempts to try and use a piece of legislation that the leadership on the other side knows is going nowhere and bring

it to the floor for a show vote to put pressure, to put pressure on senate democrats who, as i said, rightfully are defending that very procedure which has worked so well to their advantage for the past six years, and now we're told the reason they have to change it is because republicans are being s, we're not -- we're sticks in the mud, we're stopping and blocking things. we -- we've only been -- we haven't even been in the minority now for six months. we spent the last six years in the majority, as the other side extensively -- and i emphasize extensively because any study of the data would suggest that -- to block republican initiatives, to force republicans to come together to find 60 votes. that was their position and posture for the past six years, including 33 democrat senators who as recently as three years

ago sent a letter to the republican leader saying that we have got to protect the legislative filibuster. statements, statements like the one made by the senator from illinois that doing away with the filibuster would end the senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our founding fathers. one of the essential elements of this republic constitutionally was the need for checks and balances, and the bicameral creation of the founding fathers, the house which is based upon a majority, two-year terms, designed to reflect the will of the people, the balance and the check that was created against that was the united states senate with six-year terms, where you have procedures and rules that make it more difficult and challenging, that force this place to be more deliberative, to be more

compromising, to consult and to work together. and so what we're doing today, you're going to get up and my colleagues on the other side are going to talk about how critical it is that we do this because all these states are enacting these terrible, terrible election reforms. as i said earlier, most of which, at least from what i have seen, are very mainstream and consistent with what the founders designed in our constitution, and that is for states to have principal primacy when it comes to controlling and regulating elections in this country, but as i said it was argued two years ago -- three years ago in 2019 when this bill was introduced that it needed to be introduced because we have got to do something to increase participation in our elections, that we really need to encourage people to be more active in our

elections, we need -- we have got to get people to vote, which they did in record mums. biggest turnout since 1900. biggest voter participation in the 2020 election literally in 120 years in american history. so now they introduced the bill this year, and the stated reason is we have got to do this to stop all these states who are adopting these legislative solutions that are going to make it more difficult for people to vote. well, all i can say is the rationale for what we're doing today changes, depending on the year, depending on the election, but the goal is the same, and that is to create a permanent political advantage for one party. that's all this is about. and to persuade and pressure certain democrat senators to do away with one of the fundamental elements of the united states

senate in the form of the legislative filibuster. mr. president, i hope this vote will make at least some democrats think twice about the wisdom of permanently politicizing our electoral system, and that it will encourage them to make sure that any future election reform proposals are genuinely bipartisan in nature. unfortunately, i think it's more likely that democrats are going to use this vote to argue for destroying the senate's long-standing protections for minority rights, but today, today at least the senate will fulfill its constitutional mandate and act as a check on this attempt to undermine our basic freedoms. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. warnock: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warnock: mr. president, i rise today at a defining moment in american history. and at a time when i sincerely believe that what we do or fail to do will have long lasting and far-reaching implications for the health, viability and vitality of the world's greatest democracy. we debate many important issues in this chamber, but this issue, the issue of voting rights, i

argue, is decidedly different. it is formative and foundational. it is the framework in which all of our other debates take place for this issue is about the preservation and the protection of the democracy itself. that is, after all, what we claim to be. that is who we are. a democracy built on that sacred idea of one person, one vote. with all of the arguments taking place in the country right now, with all of the audits being ordered, and with all of the voting legislation being feverishly passed in states all across our country, clearly, ironically there is agreement, albeit for different reasons, on

the right and on the left that democracy itself is in danger. folks on the left and folks on the right believe that there is something broken that needs to be fixed. and if that is, indeed, the case, what kind of congress would we be in the whole history of congresses if seeing that discussion out there we refuse to even debate the matter in here? who are we and how are we to hide in a moment like this? and so i rise, mr. president, with what i think is a simple request to my colleagues. let's do our job. resist the easy route, the

temptation to hide behind senate procedure and let's have a principled conversation in front of the american people about voting rights. let's have that conversation right here right now. how could we do otherwise? it is said that we are the most important, deliberative -- important libertyive body on the -- deliberative body on the planet. well, folks, how derelict would we be if in this defining moment we refuse to even have a debate -- a debate about how best to preserve and protect that which is most precious, the democracy itself? in my maiden speech this past march, i made an urgent call

upon this body to act to protect the right to vote. and i warned then that the chords of our democracy were dangerously frayed. that was not theoretical stuff for me. i hail from georgia. i argued then that our democracy was being frayed by unfounded conspiracy theories that led to an attack on this very chamber and undermined by an onslaught of state-level proposals aimed at suppressing the vote. since i gave that maiden speech things have only gotten worse. when i spoke here in march, 250 voter suppression proposals had

been introduced in 43 states. 250 proposals. now it is 389 proposals in 48 states. an assault on this capitol now ma as itty sizing -- metastasizing in voter suppression all across the united states of america. since i spoke here in march, georgia and 13 other states have enacted these voter suppression bills into law, 14 in total. that's 14 states and counting where partisan actors, power-hungry activists have

acted along party lines to make it harder for voters to cast a ballot and guarantee it will count. in georgia, after a record voter turnout in an historic provision, there is a provision in sb202 that allows partisan actors to take over the board, to take it over, to take over the process at the local level. as voters are casting their ballots, imagine that. that same law also allows any citizen to challenge the voting rights of an unlimited number of citizens, making it difficult to see how you could certify any election. let's not kid ourselves. in this chamber, of all places,

a few months after january 6, this is dangerous stuff. and that's one reason we need to debate the legislation before us. i'm hoping to include a provision i introduced yesterday with some of my colleagues that will prevent politicians from being able to overrule local election officials and therefore subvert the voice of the people. it will protect volunteers from harassment and intimidation. right now across the nation, constitutional rights are being assaulted and i fear if we don't act as a body in this moment, we will have crossed a dangerous rubicon in our nation that will make it extremely difficult for the next generation to secure voting rights for every eligible american. and so, mr. president, this is not just another moment in

another congress. we should not think of this as routine. this is a defining moment that calls upon us to speak, to debate, to act. after all, congress represents the people. it is the job of congress, as prescribed in article 1, section 4 to ensure that the people are not squeezed out and locked out of their own democracy. this is not our house. this is the house of the people. we are stewards of that trust. we have to ensure that the voices of the people can be heard in their own house. and that's why i'm urging my colleagues to begin debating on the voting rights legislation before us. that debate is happening right now out there.

how could it not happen in here? i know some of my republican friends are vowing to prevent this debate to stop it before it begins. and we're not talking yet about passing the bill. be very clear, we're just talking about talking about it. and they don't even want to do that. really. surely some of my republican friends believe at the very least that in this chamber we should be able to debate about voting rights. after all, voting rights are preservative of all other rights and what could be more hypocritical and cynical than invoking minority rights in the senate as a pretext for preventing debate about how to preserve minority rights in the

society. mr. president, i stand here as a proud american. i believe in democracy with all of my heart. i believe that democracy is the political enactment of a spiritual idea. that we're all children of god. that we have win us a spark of the define and -- divine and therefore to determine our country's direction. i believe in democracy, government of the people, by the people, and for the people. i believe that the blind spots in our public policy and the wrongs in our history are made right through the power of democracy. people of diverse perspectives helping us to see more fully and embrace more completely what it means to be a government of the

people, by the people, for the people. it is how black people finally gained their citizenship. women, the suffrage. members of the lgbtq, their dignity and equality under law. diverse perspectives and voices help us to see what we would not otherwise see. and that is precisely what is being imperiled right now by all of these voter suppression bills and by some in this chamber to forestall a necessary debate about voting rights at this defining moment in our history. mr. president, who are we and how are we to hide at a moment like this? why are some people hiding? to what end? for what purpose?

at whose behest? from whom are they hiding, the american people who sent us here in the first place? and so i hope we can take a bipartisan vote to begin debate on this important piece of legislation because that's what democracy is all about. history is watching and the future is waiting to see if we are who we say we are. the united states senate, a serious-minded deliberative body, the united states of america, a nation built on that simple but sublime principle, one person, one vote. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i had not planned to

speak about the democratic power grab known as s. 1 and h.r. 1, the for the people act. i've said my piece on this bill before on the senate floor and many other forums. but i listened to my democratic friends all day long talk about this bill. we will later today vote on what's known as a motion to proceed to the debate on this bill. that motion will fail. it won't come close to passing. our democratic friends are saying they won't even debate, they won't even debate election reforms. well, first off, let me say if you ask me what the republican plan to federalize our elections is, my answer is, we don't have a plan to federalize our elections. we don't think we should federalize our elections. we think the states and their counties have done a pretty good job traditionally of running our elections. i'd also remind my democratic friends that what they present as some kind of unprecedented affront having a democratic debate in the senate happened

repeatedly, hundreds of times in the last administration. my democratic friends simply voted not even to have a debate, not even to have a debate on, say, a coronavirus relief package last summer which could have gotten aid to families and businesses when they needed it, when the pandemic was still raging, when vaccines were still months away, they filibustered even a debate until after the election, when we passed in december almost the exact same bill that was under consideration. they blocked even a debate, even a debate on policing reforms last summer that might have helped provide police departments across the country with additional financial support or training resources. i could go on and on about the bills which they blocked, even a debate like protecting unborn children who can survive outside their mother's womb. yet today the democrats act as

if it's some terrible affront that we're not even going to have a debate on a bill that would be one of the biggest power grabs by washington in the history of our democracy. so then you have a lot of democrats who are complaining that the senate rules and customs, the filibuster has to go. they say it's a racist relic of the jim crow era. i will acknowledge that some democrats over the years used the filibuster to block civil rights progress, but i'll also remind my democratic colleagues yes, they used the filibuster hundreds of times in the last administration. i'll also enter into the record, with request for consent, mr. president, this letter written on april 7, 2017 persuasively authored by susan

collins and chris coons and signed by more than 60 of our fellow senators, urging senator mcconnell and senator schumer to preserve the existing rules, practices and traditions as they pertain to rights and members to engage in extended debate on legislation. they note that these rules have changed on our executive calendar when we consider judicial nominees or executive branch nominees. but they say we are mindful of the unique role the senate plays in the legislative process and we are steadfastly committed to ensuring that this great institution continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. therefore, we are asking you, senator schumer and senator mcconnell, we are asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing rights and prerogatives of senators to engage in full, robust and extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future. let me remind you, more than 60 senators signed this.

26 democrats currently serving in the senate signed it, 27 if you include the vice president. let me give you a few notabilities -- notables. the vice president signed it, the following chairs signed it -- senators leahy, warner, campbell, cantwell, stabenow and menendez. it was authored by senator coons, one of joe biden's closest friends in the united states senate. senator king who often finds himself in the middle of consequential debates. senator heinrich who apparently has changed his tune and today is advocating aggressively to eliminate the filibuster, just like senator schatz, senator booker. senator feinstein, one of the longest serving senators in the senate. senator tester, again, who often finds himself in the middle of consequential bipartisan negotiations. yet, somehow something's

changed since 2017. something's changed, and most of these democratic senators now think that the senate rules must be destroyed so they can pass their massive power grab. what could it be that's changed? what could it be? i don't know. maybe, maybe it's that democrats have the most slender reed of power with joe biden in the white house and a 50-50 senate and a four-seat majority in the house. i wish that my democratic colleagues understood that the shoe can pinch when it's on the other foot. but now moving on, mr. president, i request the following remarks be recorded in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: huawei is no ordinary phone company. it is the eyes and ears of the comiens communist party. according to our department of defense, huawei is a communist

chinese military company that's controlled by the people's liberation army. a former officer in the p.l.a. founded huawei. huawei was built upon stolen technology from american companies like cisco and it's engaged in he is >> naj around the -- espionage around the world on behalf of its masters in beijing which raises important questions. should american citizens work on behalf of a communist chinese military company? if they do, should they then go on to serve in senior positions in the united states government, making policies that will directly affect our safety and security? these aren't academic questions. the senate is now considering whether to confirm one christopher fonzone for senior legal position in the office of the director of national intelligence. by all accounts, mr. fonzone is a capable lawyer. i don't question his qualifications or his character, but there is reason to question his judgment.

while working as a law partner, mr. fonzone performed legal work for huawei as well as china's ministry of commerce. he performed this work during a l critical period, when our government was actively exposing huawei as a chinese spy company and applying sanctions to it. he also wasn't just a longtime lawyer in private practice with long-standing clients to include foreign clients. he had spent most of his career in government, primarily in national security roles. i cannot imagine that he was not aware of the china threat in general or the huawei threat in particular. after all, the house intelligence committee had produced a landmark report exposing huawei in 2012 while he served in the obama administration. now i recognize he didn't do all that much work for huawei, just

a few billable hours here and there, but the fact remains that he first served huawei and now he wants to serve in the united states government. nor is he willing to foreclose the possibility of working for such companies in the future. unfortunately, mr. fonzone is far from alone in his lapse of judgment. there's a rapidly revolving door in washington, d.c. that shuttles people in and out of government. unfortunately some of those people go on to work for companies with ties to the chinese government, and the people liberation army after they cycle out of government. these individuals are part of what i call the new china lobby. they work at white shoe law firms and sprawling multinational corporations and big banks. their pockets are cliend -- lined with chinese communist cash like ivory tower academics.

some of them get very rich by doing beijing's bidding. consider a recent article in the financial times which reported that some of the richest banks and investment firms in america have been forming partnerships with chinese state-run banks. similarly, some of america's biggest companies like nike and coke-cola are so addicted to abz to the chinese -- access to the chinese market that they lobbied last year against a bill to crack down on goods made by slave labor. all because that bill would make it more difficult for coke and nike to make their products in china and to keep access to the chinese market. at the same time as our country wages a cold war against the chinese communist party, some of our best and prietest are taking -- brightest are taking their talents, to borrow from king james, lebron james, who is up to his ears in chinese cash, to work for companies that are little more than puppets of chinese state.

that's deeply troubling and it's high time the u.s. senate take a stand against the china lobby. that's why i will regrettably oppose mr. fonzone's nomination, though he's far from the worst offender, it's time we start drawing a line. and in the future i will, therefore, carefully scrutinize nominees for ties to the regime in beijing and military companies like huawei. if you wish to serve in the united states government in the future, let me be very clear. do not do business with the chinese communist party or its military or the companies that support it. stop it today. don't take the work. don't take the meeting. don't cash the check. a man cannot serve two masters. it is as true today as it was in the old days. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that senators

rubio, peters and i be allowed to complete our remarks before the scheduled roll call vote. the presiding officer: is there objection in seeing none, without objection. mr. hawley: mr. president, i'm here today to talk about those things that unite us as americans, and i'm here to talk about those things that divide us. for centuries public service has been something that unites americans, drawing us together. citizens from all walks of life serve in our military, they serve in federal and state and local governments. they serve in police units and fire departments across our country. they serve as teachers and coaches, and we as a nation are better off for their service and for their sacrifice. those who serve our nation do it not because they have to, but because they want to. they do it because they believe this nation is worth serving. they do it because they believe this nation is worth defending. they believe it is worth

celebrating. and they are right to think all of those things. service to this country is an act of selflessness that affirms our nation is a place worth believing in. but i'm concerned that the present administration and this president, president joe biden, do not share this point of view. i'm worried that president biden is nominating for federal office individuals who do not share a view of america as a good and decent place, who do not believe that the history of this nation ising worth celebrating -- nation is worth celebrating. nominating instead people who believe that this is a country founded in racism and shot through with corruption. many of these nominees are partisans of a viewpoint that goes by different names, but shares several features in common, a view that america is

a systemically racist place and systemically unjust. a view of america as corrupt. a view of american society as one that needs to be deconstructed, that needs to be pulled apart, torn down and then rebuilt in a fundamentally different way. now this broad ideology has been known in public as critical race theory or sometimes just critical theory. let me tell you, as someone who has taught in our nation's universities, someone who has seen our institutions of higher learning up close, i would say to those in the media and elsewhere who now deny that there is any such thing as critical theory, that critical theory is in fact very real. it is very influential. and it appears to have become the animating ideology of this administration. and that is cause for great concern. critical theory is an ideology that says the united states is rotten to its core.

the leaders of this movement think our society is defined by white supremacy. they think our leaders are complicit at best. they think that all americans are either oppressors or oppressed. in our world class military, these critics see a vehicle for discrimination. in our american flag, they see propaganda and our family businesses, they see white supremacy, in our police officers, they see agents of racial oppression. these critics allow no room for merit, for experience, or for grace in our life together. they pit whiteness and blackness against each other in a manner that reduces every american no matter their character or creed to their racial identity alone. one of these critics, dr. ibram

kinney wrote that the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. that's right. that's what he said. think about that for a moment. he's saying that he's opposed to equality under the law. he's opposing our merit-based system for federal employment. dr. kindy and his followers are in no uncertain terms are advocating for state-sanctioned racism in the united states of america. now it's a free country. dr. kindy and these other authors can write these books and debate their views and put them out in public. it's their right to do so. they are welcomed to do so. but what we cannot allow, what we must not allow is our federal government is to affirm and sanction and advocate this critical race theory.

we cannot allow the united states of america, the greatest nation on earth to legitimatize a new era of racial engineering. in the past few years, critical race theory has gained new prominence in the giant corporations, in the media, in the military, even in our children's schools. we're seeing this across the country. we've seen too many of our children exposed to a curriculum like the 1619 project and its derivatives that encourage division rather than unity, that rewrites our history and the service of an ideological agenda rather than the service of truth. young children sent off to school with eyes full of hope and hearts full of pride in their country only to be taught that white privilege defines the nation, that subjects like mathematics are inherently racist, that the christian faith is oppressive. they are taught that the nuclear family perpetuates racism.

now, imagine for a moment if you were taught the same. imagine if you were taught that your dreams were unjust or unfair, that your family were oppressors, that you are at fault for the problems of our society today. these are just children. we should be nurturing their dreams. we should be in nurturing their hopes. we should be giving them a great hope for the future, for the future of this great nation known as the united states of america, a hope for the future of the greatest nation in the history of the world rather than treating them to mistrust their classmates and to distrust their own history. last year we discovered that federal agencies and other organizations, funded by taxpayers, were holding workplace training sessions where federal employees were told that virtually all white people contribute to racism. that's a quote. or where civil servants were

required to say that they benefit from racism. now president trump put an end to this divisive curriculum and he was right to do so. workplace diversity training should focus on bringing people together, not on driving them apart. but under this new administration, i mean that critical theory is making a comeback. in march president biden rescinded the former president's ban on this divisive curriculum and now he's nominated kiran arjandas ahuja to be director of the office of personnel management. that is a key position that runs human resources for the entire federal government and millions of employees and her nomination is before the senate today. i'm concerned that ms. ahuja is a disciple of radical critical they are yorists.

she called dr. kendi a thought leader. and last year ms. ahuja wrote we must free the nation from the daily trials of white supremacy. those are her words. she appeared to endorse dr. ke ndi's claim that the ee liks of president trump was -- election was part of racist product and that we must realize dr. kendi's vision for america. as the federal government's h.r. director, she could divide america. she could bring critical theory back into federal government training and i'm not alone in this concern. all of my republican colleagues on the homeland security committee opposed ms. ahuja in a vote back in april. two weeks ago the federal law

enforcement officers association, they represent a00,000 police officers that -- a hundred,000 police officers that protect us every day, they announced they oppose her nomination because of her advocacy for critical theory. i agree with them. we should nominate candidates who are fair and who are impartial under the law. i want to be clear, mr. president, i do not, for a moment, question ms. ahuja's sincerity or integrity. in fact, i thank her for her willingness to serve the nation, but i cannot agree with what appears to be her fundamental ideology. at the end of the day, this is not about politics or percents. -- personalities. this is that the government

stands with unity, not division, harmony, not hate. as the -- as dr. king said, we should judge fellow citizens by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. we need a strong nation with strong citizens who see each other as americans, not as oppressors or oppressed. i heard a lot of criticism about my position here today. i heard that the corporate media and those on the left say that i misunderstand critical theory or that it's not real or not a real problem. i heard many say the united states is, indeed, built on oppression and remains a systematically, systematically racist place. all i can say, mr. president, that is not the america i see and that's not the america that i know. the working people of this country who have rallied to

nation's flag in every hour of danger, who are the first to help a neighbor in need, who coach our little leagues and volunteer at our churches, who go to work day in and day out to provide for their families and protect the place they call home, these are not oppressors, mr. president, these are liberators. these are not oppressors, mr. president, these are great people. they live with a spirit of liberty that has made this country the greatest country in the history of the world and they want to see that liberty extended to every member of the american family. that's who the american people are. that's what makes them great. that's what they believe. and because they are a great people, mr. president, our future is a cause for hope and not despair. the advocates of critical theory tell us we have to dismantle our culture, our history, our families, our diswriewish and

chris -- our jewish and chris yarn heritage. they say that the future will be defined by racial division and racial strife. mr. president, i reject that prophecy of our future and take my stand on the goodness of our people. i take my stand on hope. mr. president, it is not oppression that defines the american story. it is hope. from the minutemen in concord, to the pioneers who found a new life in the west, to the heros of therailroad to workers to won suffrage, to the young men who twice liberated europe, to the civil rights demonstrators who faced down the likes of bull connor, to the firemen and police officers who rebuilt new york and gave this country confidence again in the years after 9/11, it is love for one another and love for our country that we call home that has

defined our story and given us hope. and that love and that hope will define our future once again. i am confident of it. in this nation we are not united by ethnic creed or race or religion and proudly so. we are united by our shared history. we are united by what we love together. we're united by the radical belief that those who liberate others, those who practice grace and mercy, those who call forth the best in those around them, they are the ones who change those around them, that hope drives that history and we are not done yet. the greatest nation in the history of the world is not done yet. critical theory in all of its guises distorts our history, it destroys our common loves, and

it would leave us hopelessly divided and alone. to this dark vision we must say no to radical hope -- to radical hope we must say yes. for these reasons, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to vote no on ms. ahuja's nomination, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, i rise to support kiran arjandas ahuja's nomination to be director of the office of personnel management or o.p.m. she is a proven leader who has the experience and commitment needed to restore confidence in o.p.m. and provide a vision for the future of the federal workforce. o.p.m. is an independent agency that supports more than two million federal employees who serve all across government.

both o.p.m. and the federal workforce have faced unprecedented challenges in recent years, from attempts to dismantle the agency to a record-setting government shutdown, to the coronavirus pandemic. and, unfortunately, these challenges were made worse due to the lack of consistent and committed leadership at o.p.m. our dedicated public servants are on the front line every day, responding to the ongoing pandemic, protecting our national security and delivering vital services to the american people each and every day. the dedicate men and women who serve at o.p.m. and throughout the civil service deserve a qualified, experienced leader who is committed to supporting the people who make government work. ms. ahuja's career includes over two decades of management experience, including running nonprofit organizations, leading

the white house initiative on asian americans and pacific islanders during the obama administration and serving as chief of staff at o.p.m. throughout this confirmation process, ms. iewj has common -- ms. ahuja has demonstrated she understands the mission of o.p.m. and safeguarding the nonpartisan civil service. she is committed to working openly and transparently with congress to strengthen and modernize the federal workforce. i'm confident that ms. ahuja is the right person to lead o.p.m. at this pivotal time. she will provide strategic vision and the management needed to reinvigorate the federal workforce. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation of kiran arjandas ahuja for director of o.p.m. and, mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 55. the nays are 45. 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 action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar 107, kiran arjandas ahuja of massachusetts to be director of the office of personnel management signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate of the

nomination of kiran arjandas ahuja of massachusetts to be director of the office of personnel management shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: on this vote the ayes are 50, the nays are 50, the senate being evenly divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination under -- the clerk: nomination, office of

personnel management, kiran arjandas ahuja, of massachusetts, to be director. the vice president: the senate >> the recessed now for their weekly lunch meeting on policy. when they come back to confirm the personnel office director this afternoon 5:30 eastern dancing democrat feel dealing with finance before. live senate coverage is here on c-span2. >> we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast . >> comcast is partnering with

1000 community centers to create wi-fi and a list so students of low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything . comcast supports c-span2 as a public service along with these other television providers you a front row seat todemocracy . >> c-span landmark cases explores stories and constitutional drama behind supreme court decisions . sunday at 9:40 5 pm eastern what gideon versus wainwright were clarence earl gideon tried for petty crimes was denied a court-appointed lawyer. the supreme court ruled under the sixth amendment the accused must be provided a lawyer if they can't afford one or the opportunity to defend themselves. what landmark cases of the night at 9:40 5 pm eastern on c-span2, online c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app.

class michael casey and justice department officials from the clinton, bush, obama and trump administration talk about federalism and separation of powers read the federalist society hosted the discussion. >> welcome to our audience. i'm coming to you from our virtual courtroom at the sixth circuit which has been home for the last 14 months but i'm happy to report last week we went back to court in person for thefirst time . that was a thrill and i hope we will be back tomorrow morning for some programs, do this kind of thing together in the coming weeks and months. it's a privilege to have 4 lawyers in court of the caliber of the four lawyers for this program. with the exception of the solicitor general and a few others, our speakers answered in the foremost important