i would say and all racial language but pelosi was on the right track when she said to end any reference to gender but you can't -- gender is pretty strong but. >> host: alright, couple of points, congressman davidson. >> guest: yes, we should deal with the divisive factors. everything that has, for example, recently training for their employees encourage them to be less white. imagine if someone encouraged someone to be less black or less hispanic. i think the emphasis should be the other way. >> we leave this recorded program at this point to continue our over 40 year commitment to live congressional coverage. you can continue watching this program on our website c-span .org. u.s. senate about to gobble in today. lawmakers will consider the nomination of marcia fudge to be housing and urban development secretary with the phones to advance her nomination at

5:30 p.m. eastern today. they will move merrick garland's attorney general nomination forward and we will hear the maiden floor speech of new california senator. now, live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. dr. black. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, today, make our senators custodians of truth. remind them that when people call a lie the truth,

they tamper with their value judgment. give our lawmakers the wisdom to know that to scrape away their value judgment will eventually cause them to lose their sense of moral distinctions. may they understand that deception is difficult to quarantine and will corrupt all sense of moral discrimination. lord, thank you for being a shelter for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble. we pray in your great name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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 president pro tempore: so 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. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of housing and urban

development, marcia louise fudge of ohio to be secretary. the president pro tempore: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: most americans know that there are two sexes, male and female, and that sex is rooted in science. most americans also know that we ought to treat all people, including those who feel conflicted about their gender, with respect and dignity without sacrificing the truth in the process. these beliefs, though, are now under attack from some of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world. just a few weeks ago, while house democrats were passing their far-left equality act and the left-wing media was busy canceling dr. seuss, amazon quietly erased a book from its online store without notice, without warning, without explanation. that book is "when harry became sal," responding to the transgender moment, by ryan

anderson. amazon claims it banned this book for violating its brand-new policy on hate speech. of course, that excuse is arbitrary and patently false. if you go to amazon right now, right now, you can go to amazon on your phone or on your computer and buy copies of actually hateful books. you can get hitler's "mein kampf," the unabomber manifesto written by a serial killer who murdered three people. you can even get how to blow up a pipeline. i assume the title speaks for itself. all of those books are available for purchase on amazon right now, one click away, but amazon wants you to believe that a conservative book is somehow beyond the pale, unacceptably hateful, literally worse than hitler, as they like to say. my office asked amazon to send us the exact passages from "when harry became sally" that it

deemed so hateful that it couldn't even sell the book on its website. shocking surprise, i know, they never got back to us. that's because the book doesn't say anything hateful. to the contrary, the book makes very clear that we should treat people who feel conflicted about their gender with the same respect and compassion that are due to all people. to quote the author, we should have abundant compassion and charity and patience with people who feel this form of alienation, but we also need to insist on telling the truth. end quote. that's not hate. that's far from it. the author's real offense, his only offense was telling the truth. he said calmly and compassionately that boys are boys and girls are girls, and the richest man in the world banned his book from his company's platform. but of course you don't have to agree with the commonsense, historic understanding of gender in order to acknowledge how dangerous it is for one of the

biggest corporations in the history of the world to start banning books, because while amazon's censorship may start with conservative views, it could easily mutate to censor other views that offend jeff bezos and his bottom line. perhaps amazon will come after union organizers next since they're trying to bust up a union election in alabama. or maybe environmental activists. or maybe trust busters, since so many people are talking about potential antitrust violations in the world of big tech. and even if, even if amazon goes only this far and no further, the damage to free speech has already been done. books like "when harry became sally" won't get published anymore. writers who hold unfashionable opinions that just a few days ago were considered basic mainstream views of a large majority of americans may decide to sub censor, stay silent.

the virtual book burning may spread to other companies. maybe amazon will put a book-burning app on its kindle so readers can drag books from its catalog into the virtual bonfire. political correctness will only grow for oppressive if it its enforcers like amazon don't face some consequences for their actions. amazon, for instance, makes billions of dollars a year each year hosting websites and storing data for their government. almost all of amazon's profit is made in these enterprise services, not in its consumer-facing retail business. and those are our tax dollars flowing to a company that uses its power to censor the beliefs of a large majority of americans. perhaps it's time for lawmakers to reconsider whether these contracts are in the best interests of our country. i would also note that amazon is the country's largest bookseller, selling three out of every four books, e-books in

america. it is time for lawmakers to evaluate whether amazon's practices are consistent with our antitrust laws, whether antitrust laws need to be updated to address this type of behavior from a monopolistic firm. we better hurry, though, because maybe they will ban all books on antitrust and monopoly behavior before we have a chance to study the question. i'll close by quoting from the book that amazon banned which predicted the very events we're witnessing here today. quote -- if tranactivists succeed in their political agenda, our nation's children will be indoctrinated in a harmful ideology and some will live by its own lies about their own bodies at great harm to themselves physically, psychologically, and socially. lives will be ruined, but pointing out the damage will be forbidden. dissent from the transgender world view will be punished in

schools, workplaces, medical clinics. trying to live in accordance with the truth will be made harder, end quote. this is not a fight over hate or bigotry, respect or compassion. it's a battle over truth itself. the truth of who we are as human beings and the judgment freedom to speak that truth or any other truth without fear. throughout our history, americans have never surrendered to an oppressive tyranny of opinion, whether a majority or in this case a small but highly influential minority, and we won't be silenced today. we will fight for what's true. we will fight for the freedom to say it. and no matter what the cultural forces arrayed against us do, we will never back down. madam president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, the senate returns this week to the business of nominations. today the senate will confirm congresswoman marcia fudge to be the secretary of housing and urban development, followed by confirmation votes later this week for merrick garland to serve as attorney general and michael regan to serve as the

administrator of the environmental protection agency. finally, the senate will begin the confirmation process for congresswoman deb hall land before the week is out. she would be the first native american cabinet member of any agency and the first indigenous secretary of the department of interior, a profoundly historic moment given the troubled relationship between the federal government and tribal nations. despite republican obstruction, representative haaland will be confirmed. i will file cloture immediately after my remarks. on the rescue plan, on saturday, the american people got to see what a responsive and effective government looks like. senate democrats followed through on our promise to deliver a bold covid relief bill to help crush the virus, lift

this country out of the crisis, and set our economy on a path to a strong recovery. earlier today, a the final text of the senate bill was sent to the house of representatives. congress remains on track to deliver the american rescue plan to president biden's desk for his signature before enhanced unemployment benefits expire on march 14. we said we would do it, and we are doing it. once president biden signs the american rescue plan into law, it will immediately become one of the most sweeping federal recovery efforts in modern history. it will help restore americans' faith in government at a time when that is sorely needed. and it will deliver more help to more people than almost anything congress has accomplished in past being dids. already the positive reviews are pouring in. according to several reports, the bill will help millions of americans save hundreds of dollars in health care costs. thanks to an historic expansion of the child tax credit, up to

$3,000 per child under 17 for an overwhelming majority of families, analysts predict the american rescue plan will cut child poverty in half. let me say that again. analysts predict the american rescue plan will cut child poverty in half. this has been the goal of this country for decades, and now we are taking real steps to accomplish it. in fact, the tax policy center predicts the american rescue plan will boost the incomes of the poorest americans, of the poorest 20% of americansly 20%, including significant boosts all the way through the middle class. meanwhile, the wealthiest one percent of americans will receive an income boost of zero -- zero percent for the top one percent of wealthiest americans. let me say that again r a 20%

boost in incomes for americans who are struggling the most. zero percent for those who are at the top already, who are doing very well. let's contrast this to the republican tax bill, which skewed in exactly the opposite direction. if people want to know the difference, the difference in terms of how democrats feel about who we should help and how republicans feel about who we should help, contrast this bill with the most major accomplishment during the four years that donald trump was president. and it's very apparent. back in december,democrats promised that if we won the majority, we would deliver $2,000 checks to american families. that's exactly what we've done. promise made, promise kept. we helped pass $600 checks in december and added $1,400 in the bill we just passed. because democrats kept that promise, americans are going to

receive the help they need quickly. the checks will stimulate the economy and they are targeted to those americans who need it the most. it is a promise kept. the organization of economic corporation and development projected that the american rescue plan could as much as double america's economic growth this year. as a result, it there is revised upwards its pproximatelis -- projections for the entire economy. because of what the senate did last week, health care costs will go down. child poverty will be cut in half. americans will receive direct financial support. and the economy is set for an enormous boost. it is a great beginning for a new administration and new senate. that's to say nothing of the schools who will receive support to reopen faster and safer. the restaurants and small

businesses who will receive a lifeline. the millions of recently unemployed americans who will continue to receive enhanced benefits until labor day, and the millions of workers and retirees who will see their pension plans protected. of course, one of the most important aspects of all is the support this bill will give to speed vaccinations and expand testing -- connect what we need to -- exactly what we need to defeat the virus. in short, this is one of the very most significant pieces of legislation to pass the senate in years. it is broader, deeper, and more comprehensive in helping working families and lifting americans out of poverty than anything, anything congress has accomplished in a very long time. so i am extremely proud of the bill we passed this week, exceedingly proud. i am exceedingly proud of everyone in our caucus, our committee chairs who acted

quickly at a moment when americans needed help fast, and the membership who pulled together and realized no one is is going to get everything he or she wants but the need to come together and get something done when we had no margin for error was wonderful. i want to thank president biden for his bold and steady leadership. he was instrumental in putting this bill together and helping get it over the finish line. and i am exceedingly proud of the staff who toiled behind the scenes, who work incredible hours under incredible stress to prepare, perfect, and pass the american rescue plan. the staff are the unsung heroes of this bill. so i want to spend just a moment to sing their praises. first of all, to all the members and staff of the senate committees, thank you t i have submitted all of their names into the "congressional record" to acknowledge their weeks of hard work, assembling portions

of the bill, negotiating compromises, writing legislative text, petitioning the parliamentarian, and managing a colossal amendment process. to all of the floor staff, the doorkeepers, the clerks, the reporters, the cafeteria workers, the custodial staff, the capitol capitol police and l guard. the entire senate gave you a standing ovation on saturday and you deserved every second of it. thank you, thank you, thank you once again. and finally, i need to spend some time thanking my own staff. i think they're the before the staff anyone could ever have s their amazing. they are amazing. every senator believes they have the best staff on capitol hill, i guess. but i am no exception. i couldn't do what i do without them. they are amazing, the chiefs who run the show mike lynch, martin brennan, aaron sager brawn. the floor staff, the amazing

garry myrick, tricia engel, the whole floor staff, thank you. and then three names that i have to give a particular shout out to, because you could truly say without these three we wouldn't have a bill -- jerry patrella, playingen tira, charlie elseworth. my staff, a i'd like to brag about them in i might, my staff boasts some of the most brilliant legislative minds in the country. folks who know the nitty-gritty of every issue in their portfolio, who fashion solutions to the most difficult problems in the country and then turn those solutions into action. so -- and thank you to my executive team who keeps me somewhat on time and is a tremendous asset to the entire democratic caucus. thank you to our phenomenal research team ready to supply the right fact at the right moment. you ask them, look it it up shall find this out, boom! the answer appears right away.

to everyone at the senate democratic media center who are clipping and editing videos at 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 in the morning. to a macing press team, our engagement team who does fantastic work with the groups affected by the legislation we passed, and our entire state staff -- i just visited some of them, i just came back from buffalo and serious -- who make -- and syracuse, who make sure that our work always responds to new york. i want to mention each of these different groups but in reality they are a team. they pull together and they're friends as well. they celebrate holidays together and we share each other's joys and sadnesses in life. a team that works together, helps each other, supports each other, and supports me. a team that gets up every

morning with the passion to make the lives of their fellow citizens better. it's impossible, just impossible not to be inspired by them and by that. so i would ask unanimous consent to enter the names of my entire staff into the record because, as i told them on the phone sunday, even if they do nothing else in life, they have saved, by their work, many, many lives. they have made the lives of millions, millions of people considerably better because of their hard work, their dedication, and their caring. so i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter the names of my entire staff into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i want them all to know how much i appreciate their work, but how much the country does and what a great difference it has made in the trajectory of our wonderful nation. i yield the floor. no, i don't yield the floor.

i finished my speech, but i will not yield the floor because we have some business to do. madam president, i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 31. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, debra anne haaland of new mexico

to be secretary. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to cloact 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 number 31, debra anne haaland of new mexico, to be secretary of the interior. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to this motion be waived. the presiding officer: op op? -- is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: since we were last in this chamber our democrat colleagues were shooting down amendment after amendment to ensure their non-related covid plan remained very liberal and purely partisan. republicans proposed americans for extra government help for americans, to ensure direct checks would only go to citizens and legal residents and not to people in prison, to rein in a runaway state and frow -- enforce the bill on actual needs p but democrats banded together to defeat every one of these changes. as the democratic leader happily explained to reporters on saturday, his whole party put

lock step unity ahead of substance. the spending spree that president biden's chief of staff brags is the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation is on its way over to the house. already we hear reporting that this giveaway will simply wipe out the budget deficit of new york state and eliminate a big part of the deficit in san francisco, courtesy of the taxpayers in kentucky and middle america. already we hear the administration saying they want some of these sweeping new welfare policies to become permanent, like a no-strings-attached benefit that disregards all the prowork lessons of bipartisan welfare reform. meanwhile it only manages to spend about 1% on vaccinations and less than 9% on the entire health fight.

democrats inherited a turning tide. the vaccine trends and economic trends were in place before this bill was ever voted on, before this president was sworn in, but they're determined to push to the front of the parade with an effort to push america to the left. now meanwhile, madam president, house democrats are wasting no time pursuing even more purely partisan legislation. last wednesday the house passed h.r. 1, their effort to rewrite the ground rules of american elections and seize power from states and localities. and just like the spending plan in both chambers, once again the only thing bipartisan about the bill was the opposition. this is house democrats' bid to put federal bureaucrats in charge of local election rules, to undermine voter i.d. requirements with massive loopholes that undermine them, to require every state to permit ballot harvesting which lets

paid political operatives produce stacks of ballots with other people's names on them to overturn or change hundreds of state election laws, to turn our nation's highest election authority, the equally balanced f.e.c., into a partisan majority body to crack down on speech and ideas they don't like. it's quite the recipe for rebuilding public faith in our democracy on all sides. a purely partisan effort to seize unprecedented power for washington, d.c. on a razor-thin majority. it is, madam president, a hugely harmful idea at the worst possible time. now on a different matter, this week the senate is set to consider more of president biden's nominations. i've consistently said the president should have latitude to staff up their administration with people of their choosing, so long as they nominate qualified and main street,

mainstream individuals. that's why i and many other republicans supported many of the president's mainstream nominees -- secretary austin and vilsack were each confirmed with more than 90 votes. secretaries raimondo, yellen and buttigieg with more than 80. secretary cardona and granholm each got more than 60 votes. even with the time spent on impeachment, half of the nominees i just mentioned were confirmed faster than president trump's nominees to the same spots. and most of them received a more bipartisan margin now than four years ago. so this administration is receiving perfectly fair treatment from the senate. frankly, the president and his team must be thrilled that senate republicans are proving

to be more fair and more principled on personnel matters than the democratic minority's behavior just four years ago. but the fact remains that millions and millions of americans elected 50 republican senators, an even split, to stand against policies and personnel who lean too far to the left. that's why many of us voted against confirming secretary mayorkas, who stood idly by while a major crisis has exploded on the border in just his first several weeks. rather than confront the problem, he absurdly claims that a record number of unaccompanied children in custody overflowing shelters and catch-and-release policies during a pandemic do not actually constitute a crisis at all. half jay becerra, whom the

president nominated to run health and human services during covid-19 could not even get one republican vote to get out of committee. so republicans will continue to distinguish between qualified, mainstream people and nominees who are way outside the mainstream. i've already announced i'll support judge merrick garland whose nomination to be attorney general we will vote to advance later today. but we'll continue to fight hard against people who are the wrong choices for the key positions. we're going to shine a bright spotlight on anyone who seems more focused on far-left ideology than on serving all of the american people. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: assistant majority leader.

mr. durbin: madam president, i had a press conference this sunday back home in illinois to talk about what the american rescue plan means to our state. it is dramatic. dramatic. millions of dollars will be coming in our state to buy vaccines. i can tell you, all across illinois people are asking when is my turn? when do i get my chance? and we want to make sure they get that chance sooner rather than later. think about what president biden inherited just a few weeks ago. surely they had found some vaccines, excellent vaccines by pfizer and moderna approved by then, but he came to the white house to find there was no plan to administer those vaccines across the nation. vaccine is important, but it's of little value if it's not in the arms of americans. and so he set out to establish a standard that we would be distributing this vaccine across the united states as quickly as possible and a mechanism,

infrastructure to make certain that it's administered by professionals who know what they're doing. that's quite an undertaking. it's the largest vaccination in the history of our nation. but president biden said he needed help to do it, not just money for the vaccine but money for testing, money for the genomic sequencing to detect variants in the united states. that was a major element of the bill that passed this senate last saturday. he put money in there promised to the american people. remember when president trump said $2,000 for every american? we agreed on a bipartisan basis. the first down payment was last december, $600, and the remainder, $1,400, was included in the bill that passed on saturday. i have yet to hear a republican senator come to this floor and criticize that sum of money. all of them, i should say most of them, have publicly

supported it and others say little or nothing about it. but no one is saying that it shouldn't be given as a result of the promise made. we kept that promise. that was part of what we were doing. we also had a responsibility to millions of americans who were still collecting unemployment. as of march 14, they were going to lose their opportunity to continue that unemployment check. there were arguments made on the floor here that these were just lazy people, and if you give them an unemployment check they'll just continue to be lazyant woand go -- lazy and won't go back to work. i don't buy that. i don't believe it. are some lazy? possibly. i think the vast majority of these people are desperate. they're desperate because they have been laid off or lost their jobs, and they need to keep their families together. unemployment benefits do that. and they also give fuel to the economy to recover. we were told that by the chairman of the federal reserve and others, to put enough stimulus back into this economy so we can come out of it strong

sooner rather than later. i believe that. and yet people like the republican senator from ohio came to the floor talking about the recovery underway and we don't really need to do as much as president biden had asked for. i disagree. all across the board, the bill that we passed, whether it's money for schools or money for hospitals or money for clinics or money for administering this vaccine, was money that will be well spent in the state of illinois and all across the united states. now what troubles me is this, last year we had two major bills for covid relief. they talk about five. there were two major bills. the first in march, the cares act, that was worth $2 trillion, that bill passed the united states senate after it had been engineered by treasury secretary mnuchin of the trump administration, it passed the united states senate with every senator voting yes. 96-0. every democratic senator voted for it. then came the follow-up bill in

december, some $900 billion for more covid relief for temporary first quarter and this year fix. when you look at the final roll call there, it was 92-6. all six no votes were republicans. every democrat who voted, voted for it. again, a trump proposal that we supported on the democratic side. so then the tables turned on january 20 and a new president came to town, and joe biden said let me finish this and do it effectively. give me an american rescue plan. how many republican senators stood up and said, well, since the democrats, in the spirit of responding to this pandemic, came around and supported the trump plans last year, we'll do the same this year? the number? zero. not one republican senator supported the bill that passed on saturday. we passed it with 50 democratic votes. that's what it took, one republican senator being missing. but what a disappointment that

is. to think that this pandemic and the economic crisis that followed was addressed on a bipartisan basis with every democratic vote in the major legislation last year and this year under president biden we couldn't get one republican senator to join us in that effort. it's a disappointment, but i hope it isn't a portent of things to come. we have a lot to do and we need to do it together on a bipartisan basis. the american people are going to count on us to do it. i also might say a word about the nominations that senator mcconnell referred to earlier. it is true that some of these nominees are getting votes that indicate a strong majority in support, and that does evidence republican cooperation, and i want to thank them for joining us in that bipartisan spirit, but it evidences something else as well. these are good nominees. these are good men and women who can serve this country effectively. given a chance, they will. and the votes that have been cast in support of them indicate

that as well. i won't go into an experience four years ago with the trump nominees, but many of them had troubled records and some of them didn't even file the necessary disclosures before their names were submitted to us for consideration. so there are a lot of things that changed in the four-year period of time. now we have a chance to improve as a team for president biden and filling out his national security team. the last person up, merrick garland, nominee for attorney general. he is, simply put, the right nominee to lead the justice department. i believe that's true for three primary reasons. one, his integrity. two, his experience. and three, his humility. let me begin with integrity. the attorney general occupies a tree role in the cabinet. although serving at the pleasure of the president, responsible for implementing his policy initiatives, the attorney general is also the nation's law enforcement officer. the a.g. oversees a department

that must remain impartial, unbiased, and independent. to balance these two rules requires a nominee who is beyond reproach, who understands the need to separate personal preference from constitutional principle, and who has the courage to stand steadfast in the face of political pressure. merrick garland is such a nominee. as a judge of the d.c. circuit for more than 20 years, he has been guided by an abiding faith in the rule of law and a firm commitment to make equal justice for all a reality. it's no surprise then that more than 60 former federal judges and more than 150 former justice department officials appointed by presidents of both parties have expressed their strong support for judge garland's nomination. they know that judge garland will carry his integrity and his independence with him in his new role, and the public will soon see the same integrity and independence in the new department of justice, a welcome change for the past four years. judge garland also has the experience needed to lead the

department from the first day on the job. before he served on the d.c. circuit, judge garland served with distinction in multiple justice department roles. as a special assistant to the attorney general, assistant u.s. attorney, deputy in the criminal division and top advisor to the deputy attorney general. we know, of course, it was judge merrick garland who ably and admirably led the investigation of prosecution of the oklahoma city bombing, the worst domestic terrorism attack to date in modern american history, and he will no doubt draw upon that experience as the department brings to justice those who perpetrated the hideous january 6 capitol insurrection and works to prevent further attacks. but justice garland highlighted in his hearing his prior tenure at the department of justice has also given him insight into what is final for -- what is vital for the department's success. the importance of career prosecutors and agents to the breadth of the department's

responsibilities. finally, judge garland has what i believe to be the characteristic that is often overlooked when we evaluate nominees -- humility. he is mindful of the department's history, a founding rooted in protecting the civil rights enshrined in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. he is mindful of just how much work remains in the fight for civil rights. he is mindful of the enormous power the prosecutors hold and the need to wield that power responsibly. in fact, he told us as much as that in the hearing when he quoted robert jackson, the attorney general and later supreme court justice in saying, quote, the citizens' safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes and who approaches the task with humility, and he's mindful of the opportunities this country has provided him yet remain elusive for far too

many. president biden nominated judge garland to serve with a team of senior justice department leaders. today we had a hearing with lisa monaco who is aspiring to be his deputy attorney general, venita gupta who is aspiring to be his associate attorney general, and later we will have a hearing on kristen clark who wishes to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. this is an exceptionally well qualified team of d.o.j. veterans eager to serve. when the committee reported judge garland's nomination, i am happy to report that four republicans joined all the democrats, making it a bipartisan roll call. i think it's worth quoting again. here's what judge garland said. quote, i come from a family where my grandparents fled anti-semitism and persecution. the country took us in and protected it. i feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest best use of my own set of skills to do it. judge garland's motivation for serving his nation as the next attorney general is powerful, it's honest, and it's humble.

i want to close by becoming full circle, so to speak. at judge garland's hearing, i noteed that if confirmed, he would be standing on the shoulders of predecessors like robert kennedy who called on congress to enact sweeping civil rights legislation. well after that hearing, the committee received a letter from over 30 members of the kennedy family, and they likened what faces judge garland to what faced the young robert kennedy as he took up his position as attorney general. they wrote, the kennedy he will family -- the kennedy family, and i quote, we are confronted by the same challenges today, particularly in voting rights, and the actions of some of our police officers, and the great disparities in housing, health, and jobs. merrick garland's record shows he's dedicated to the kind of justice that does not simply punish but lifts people up so their best selves can be fulfilled. that is precisely the kind of attorney general america needs and the kind of attorney general merrick garland will be. i look forward to voting for him. i urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

and i yield the floor. mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. today i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting another dedicated and talented public servant and a great ohioan, my congresswoman for the last 12 years, marcia fudge, to be our next secretary of housing and urban development. congresswoman fudge is a proud daughter of ohio, she was born in cleveland, grew up in ohio, graduated from the ohio state university and cleveland marshall college of law. congresswoman judge has a long and distinguished career serving our state in the cleveland and cuyahoga county courts, and the cuyahoga county prosecutor's office, is chief of staff to the trail blazing stephanie tubbs jones, is mayor of warrensville heights, ohio. at h.u.d., congressman fudge will work to help protect our kids from lead poisoning, to

restore the promise of fair housing, to give communities the help and the resources they need. it's a tall order. it's one she is poised to meet. she brings to the job the unique and critical experience of serving as mayor for the kind of community that is either overlooked or outright preyed upon by wall street and by big investors. she understands we cannot write off entire swaths of the country, whether it's a coal town in southeast ohio, an historic industrial city like the one i grew up in in mansfield, whether it's farm country around lexington, ohio, or whether it's an urban neighborhood on the east side of cleveland. this champion of cleveland understands that. she saw up close how lenders proid on -- preyed on families and the foreclosure crisis that followed. my colleagues have heard me talk about zip code 44105 where connie and i live which had more foreclosures in the first half of 2007 than any zip code in the united states.

at the time, congresswoman fudge was serving as mayor of a city fewer than 20 miles away. today she represents this zip code in the united states congress. those families are more than just a statistic to her. they are her constituents, they are her neighbors, they are her friends. she knows their story. she knows how for decades communities have watched its factories close, investment dried up, storefronts were boarded over. she knows how many neighborhoods and towns have never had the investment they should, from black codes to jim crow to redlining to the discrimination that president trump's regulators locked into place. she understands how decades of policy fund resources and jobs away from black and brown communities. a few years ago, i was talking with local health department officials in cleveland. i asked them what percentage of the older homes that make up the bulk of cleveland housing have dangerous levels of lead, those homes built right after world war ii or before that.

they said 99% of those homes have high levels of lead. dangerously high levels of lead. the families in those homes are congresswoman fudge's constituents. she knows what lead poisoning does to kids. she knows the local efforts that ohioans are leading in cleveland to take this on. she will lift up their voices that have been drowned out or silenced for too long. she will be a champion for families all over the country who want to be able to afford a home without crippling stress every single month and to be able to build wealth through homeownership to pass on to their children and grandchildren. congresswoman fudge has dedicated her career to fighting for ohioans. i'm excited she is now going to use all that talent and all that passion and all that empathy to fight for our whole country. i ask my colleagues to support her confirmation to be secretary of housing and urban development.

mr. president, i ask that the following be at a different place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: this weekend, on saturday, we passed the american rescue plan that will put shots in people's arms, kids back in school, money in people's pockets, workers in jobs. tens of millions of americans, including more than five million ohioans, are going to see money in their pockets from stimulus checks and a dramatic expansion of the earned income tax credit in the child tax credit. this comes back to -- as it always does in politics, as the presiding officer knows, as it does in government, it comes down to whose side are you on as this illustrates very well. the american rescue plan. we all remember -- most of us remember four years ago the trump tax plan, tax cut for the rich. the blue here is -- is the american rescue plan which we just passed on saturday which the house will probably -- will pass probably home and president

biden will probably sign this weekend. the lowest earners, the lowest 20% saw their income go up by 20%. under our plan, it's barely perceptible how much it went up under the trump tax plan. but if you go to the top 1%, you can see how much their income went up, and this is to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. and the lowest earners essentially got nothing from the trump tax plan. so you can see here the blue is how -- how our tax bill will put money in the tacts of middle income people, all the way up, middle income people, working class people, the lowest income people while the at the pump tax plan of course we're helping the richest people in the country. we see the middle class and working class and low-income families are all going to benefit from the rescue plan. this is a broad investment in the whole country, and the vast majority of people who get their income not from a stock

portfolio but from a paycheck. contrast that with those who benefited from the mcconnell-trump tax scam, the vast majority of benefits, as we all know, went to those at the top. again, look at the top 1%. they got more from the washington republican tax giveaway than anyone else. at the time, i remember -- the presiding officer i think remembers this as he opposed that bill vigorously, too. republicans claimed it just wasn't possible to do their tax bill, it wasn't possible to avoid giving tax cuts to the richest 1%. they just had to. we knew they were wrong then. this has proved they are wrong again. look at the blue, the purple. the benefits that go to the lowest -- to working families, to middle-class families, working families, and low-income families. our rescue plan gave literally zero to the top 1%. they're doing just fine. the value of their stock portfolio has soared during the pandemic. we invest in everyone else, and

the people who are promised more money in their paychecks from the republican tax scam but never got those raises. as i said, four million ohioans will get a stimulus check. that's out of 12 million people in the state. two million ohio families will get at least a $3,000 child tax credit. they will get a check and $250 every month year-round. more than half a million ohio workers will get an expanded earned income tax credit. those childless families -- single people, childless people, old -- a number of older ohioans, not yet quite 65, will get the enhanced earned income tax credit. over a million delivery drivers, over a million cashiers will get an income boost. over 800,000 home hold aides get money back in their pockets. these are the workers on the front lines of the pandemic. these are the people who go to work every day. they expose themselves to people whom they don't know in the course of their job. they go home at night anxious

that they might be infecting their families. that is what making hard work pays off looks like. this is what investing in the country looks like. this is what a government on the side of their workers -- of workers and their families look like. it's about the dignity of work. it's about rewarding people that work hard. it's what we did on saturday. it's i said walking out of the building on saturday because we helped millions of people in my state. we will make a difference in their lives. that's what we did on saturday. that's what we will continue to do. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. blush blush thank you, mr. president -- blush blush thank you, -- mrs. blackburn: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mrs. blackburn: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: last saturday democrats signed off on the most partisan and largest wealth in the history of the united states congress. in the weeks leading up to that vote they insisted that their

$1.9 trillion giveaway would bring the relief the american people were seeking. they quoted suspect polling and ant antidotes to claim that the bill was bipartisan even though they didn't even try to secure bipartisan support. in fact, i would argue that the democrats threw away the idea of bipartisanship the moment they chose to use the reconciliation process to force their hand. after almost 30 hours of debate, they did just that on a party-line vote and then the cracks in their claim of bipartisanship and necessity began to show. almost immediately after the final vote, the majority leader called it, and i'm quoting, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation, if not the most

progressive, in decades. end quote. but we all know that his definition of progressive isn't compatible with the kind of targeted relief every one here would probably agree this country needs. had my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not seen an opportunity to fulfill the radical campaign promises that had put them into power. they chose -- they chose that power over dealing with the needs that people have. they did what they set out to do. a fraction of the american rescue plan's $2 trillion price tag will go toward that, and i'm quoting again, big, bold, urgent relief that democrats spent all weekend long bragging about. i'm sure you heard them as you

turned on the tv. here's the truth. only 9% -- 9% will go toward vaccines, testing, health care jobs. 9% of a nearly $2 trillion bill goes for receive relief -- goes for covid relief. but if we want to talk about big, bold spending plans, let's talk about all those special earmarks and sweetheart deals that democrats used to take advantage of the situation and seize even more power. again, after the power, using people as pawns to get their liberal wish list. get the money in the pipeline. of course, you can forget that we had $1 trillion already in

the pipeline that had not been spent. also putting their desired power ahead of our children and grandchildren that are going to have to pay that debt. immoral. in my office we call this bill the blue state bailout. we do it for a reason. you can look at this chart. along with that laughable 9% of actual covid relief, the american people took on $350 billion in debt to cover a bailout for some of the highest-spending and most poorly managed state and local governments in the country. the number is astronomically higher than the most extreme estimate of need conjured up by left-wing think tanks. it's more than the $31 billion loss in expected tax revenue

that experts forecasted and it doesn't even take into consideration that many states -- that many states don't need a bailout. many states had success putting those five previous bipartisan covid relief packages to work. they caught up on their tax revenue with time to spare. but, still, that $350 billion, it served a purpose. you can see it right here. the blue states, they are getting more money. the red states, they are losing money. it created yet another expectation of dependency that mismanaged states and local governments can lean on when they are out of control spending policies come back to bite them. and we've learned today that the majority leader had a staff member who tweeted out that the

money from this bill, it would tend to new york state's deficit. pretty much of the same thing we're hearing from california and from some of the big blue cities. if you can't control your spending habits, crank up the printing presidents. -- presses. the pay day continued with a $35 billion no-strings-attached pension bailout that everyone from committee for a responsible federal budget to the editorial board of the wall street journal, to the editorial board of "the washington post" agrees had nothing to do with covid relief. nothing. it was a gift to an embattled constituency and another pernicious assertion that when the going gets tough and the

money in those mismanaged funds evaporates, just call on the federal government and crank up the printing presses one more time. why? oh, we need the money. we cannot manage our budgets. we're running low on fulfilling our obligation to the pension fund. oh, my goodness, we have so many needs. everybody has needs. our children and our grandchildren have needs. they need freedom. they need members of the senate, members of the house to act like adults and address the problems that are right in front of us. when president biden asked back in february what would they have me cut from the spending bill, i

would have told him, let's start with the money. let's start with the money going to the states to bail them out. because, yes, indeed, this is now the biden blue state bailout. democrats' desire for a lawless and open border shown through in their unanimous refusal to accept an amendment that would have kept billions of dollars in direct patriots out of the -- payments out of the hands of illegal immigrants. this was more than just a handout. it was a signal to every person who is trying to jump the line and break the rules that we will not only tolerate it but now we're encouraging it. think about that. think about that. the rule of law is out the window. we're willing to chip away at our own security, the democrats

are, and ignore the growing crisis at our southern border, the democrats are, and if it means we can slap a band-aid on what has become a gaping wound and call it a win in the war against poverty, democrats are okay with doing that. it's called spend but it does not address the underlying issues. it doesn't address the fact that they are doing this at the expense of schools, small businesses, and families. democrats certainly followed through on their campaign promise to empower teachers unions. in fact, they went so far as to approve a provision that would pay schools to stay closed. all 50 democrats voted against an amendment that would have sent new funding only to schools

that have followed the science and have reopened safely. you know, mr. president, you would have thought that the democrats would have at least done that for the children but, no. in addition to saddling them with debt, another $2 trillion worth of debt, they encouraged the teachers unions to not go back to school. that vote put the power right where the democrats wanted, in the hands of the unions and millions of students and teachers out there will continue to pay the mental and emotional price for this action. this bill took so much from people who have absolutely nothing left to give. think of all those billions of dollars wasted on unnecessary state bailouts, pension rescues,

and union appeasement. we had the opportunity to spend that money on vaccine distribution and small business relief and a light at the end of the tunnel for rural health care systems that are hanging on by a thread. so why did democrats throw so much money at their pet projects? do they really owe that many favors and paybacks? they certainly didn't pour their team and energy into those 600 pages to provide relief but to shamelessly advance their own agenda and throw aside struggling families and workers -- struggling families and workers were simply the price for getting the power that the democrats wanted. when i talk to tennesseans,

mr. president, about what happened in this chamber last week, i tell them, you're right. what you were seeing as you watched the proceedings, you're right. democrats took advantage of you, of your desperation and your exhaustion. they used slick messaging and wordy phrases to sell a bill of goods that treats every pet project they have and every liberal wish list agenda item as essential. they like changing the rules. they changed the meaning of words like essential because they knew that if they could make everything that they wanted essential, they could take all the power away from local

responsible governments. they could take it away from school districts and small businesses. and you know what they are doing with it? they are going to centralize it. see, here's the thing. you were essential to their greedy power grab. they had to have you. they had to give their bill a nice-sounding name. they had to say certain things were essential, but you -- small businesses, families, people that are playing by the rules -- you were not essential to them. see, that's what progressive means to senate democrats. and if we continue along this road, you're right ... it will be an absolute unmitigated disaster for every single person that my colleagues across the aisle have used as leverage

against responsible policy that will actually bring us out of this pandemic. no, it's not about getting out of the pandemic. it's about power. the power that they want. i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have spoken on the senate floor recently on the subject of free speech as it applies to the world of digital media. the principles of free speech are timeless and are applicable to new forms of communication. still, it is natural that new questions will arise and new mechanisms might be needed to apply those principles across new modes of communication.

what shouldn't be in question is the need for open dialogue and freedom of speech in academia. otherwise, what does the principle of academic freedom mean if it isn't involved with freedom of speech? all of the progress that has been made -- that has made modern life possible has been the result of individuals who have been able to think of things in new ways, even if that challenged an old orthodoxy. a healthy and vibrant academic environment is not afraid of those challenges. only stagnant, defensive, and unconfident regimes restrict speech.

think about the recent protests in russia, belarus, or burma. china's restrictions on the internet and its suppression of minorities show that it is threatened by contrary ways of thinking. which would you describe as an advanced, stable, and dynamic society? north korea or south korea? obviously, that describes south korea well. it does not at all describe that part of the korean peninsula north of the 38th parallel. so, what does it say about so many american academic institutions that the notion of free thought and free speech has now become controversial? what purpose do universities

serve if one of the purposes is not the -- to discuss controversial subjects? i often say my definition of a university is where controversy runs rampant. we hear lots of rationales about why the current generation of college students needs to be protected from hearing speech that could be offensive, hateful, or just plain wrong. of course, none of us support hateful speech. i don't support it. but i do support freedom. if you empower those in authority to limit hate speech, whether they be college administrators or government officials, that power will eventually be abused to limit dissenting points of view of all

kinds. and that's where some universities are right now. even in iowa's three public universities, we've seen recent efforts to shut down mainstream, center-right views. a dean from the university of iowa sent an e-mail across a university platform criticizing a trump administrator order. but at that same university, when a student challenged the position of the dean using the very same medium, the student was threatened with disciplinary action. well, the dean has since apologized for his initial handling of the subject, so i don't raise that to pick on him. in fact, that very dean has befriended me in very many ways and in thoughtful ways as well. but, it just makes you wonder if

it is part of a broader cultural trend in academia what went on in that instance at the university of iowa. then there was an english professor at iowa state university who had to be reprimanded for banning her students from writing papers expressing certain viewpoints, such as opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage. the president of my alma mater, the university of northern iowa, had to step in to reverse a decision by the student senate denying a group of pro-life students student organization status purely because of their political views. in each case, the university administrations of these three universities ultimately resolved

these instances well and properly so. but i mention them not to pick on my state of iowa universities and not to criticize any university for that matter but because they seem to be examples of a broader trend on campuses across the country of a knee-jerk reaction to shut down speech some find disagreeable. the best response to the expression of views that you find repugnant is speech that points out the errors of that particular way of thinking. now, i think that's best expressed by the university of chicago's policy, which has become kind of a gold standard for free speech advocacy on

university campuses. the university of chicago expressly prohibits, quote, obstructing or otherwise interfering with freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe, end of quote. if you're confident in the rightness of your views and you have an environment that allows free expression of those views, you need not fear speech you find wrong. of course, that assumes that human beings are all gifted with the power of reason and can discern what is right. now you if it happens that that is not the case, if people cannot be trusted to listen to different views and come to the right conclusion, then there is

no basis for democracy and our system of self-government then is fundamentally flawed. you can't -- you can shield students from hearing challenges and uncomfortable views while in college but not when they get out in the real world. and just think of these college students that are on campus, but if they had left high school for the world of work, they'd be faced with all these things every day. so what's special about a college campus? in fact, it's so competition that you ought to have a -- it's so special that you ought to have a discussion of all these subjects. academic institutions that do not allow for student views to be challenged, to be tested, and to be refined through rigorous debate are doing those very same students a very great

disservice. these students acknowledge -- these students' knowledge will be limited then and their views unsophisticated. their ability to deal with different ways of thinking, which they will inevitably encounter throughout their lifetime, will be greatly diminished. i feel sorry for students who graduate from colleges that cocoon them from controversy. let me repeat what i said at the beginning. i have always thought of a university as a place where controversy should run rampant. the notion that the voices students hear must be cure rated for -- cure ated for their own -- curated for their own good, not just because it has a

totalitarian ring, but because it is harming students in the long run, when they have to deal with the real world. if students are showing up on campus unable to cope emotionally with hearing conflicting viewpoints, that is a problem of their upbringing and education to that point before they go to that university. it is something colleges need to confront head-on for their students' well-being. further, shielding students from having their views challenged, then sending them out in the world thinking they are prepared is a recipe for failure. americans seem to be losing the ability to understand the point of view of those with whom they disagree. that is an unrealistic point of view for americans to have.

it's a failure to teach about freedom. questioning of motives has replaced principled argument. shouting insults has displaced logical debate. don't you see, this is a societal trend that increasingly is reflected in the halls of congress right here. those who have attended institutions of higher education should have to be exposed to the great thinkers of the past and the present, be able to argue points logically and, more importantly, understand the points of those that they're trying to persuade or refute. college graduates should be models of civil discourse.

instead, they're too often the vanguard of the closing of the american mind. for the sake of their students, for the benefit of society, i urge college administrators, trustees, alumni and all americans who value the free exchange of ideas to work towards reversing this trend, and open debate may seem contentious at times, but it's the only path towards mutual understanding, which is so needed right now in american society, our less-than-civil american society, which that less-than-civil american society tends to show up in a democracy that has representative

government, where if if you're really going to have representative government, wouldn't you expect some of what's happening at the grassroots to show up here in the halls of congress? and we do see it all the time, to our shame. on another subject, mr. president, today the senate will start consideration of judge merrick garland's nomination to be attorney general of the united states. i will be supporting his nomination, but, as i said at garland's hearing before the judiciary committee, i have concerns, and i'm here now to repeat those concerns so all of my colleagues can hear them. i hope he will take these concerns seriously, and i will work with members of the judiciary committee to conduct thorough oversight of the department of justice in order to make sure the department is

being run independently and free from political influence. on paper, i don't think anyone would doubt judge garland is a good pick to lead the department of justice. his credentials are excellent, and he has a distinguished career of public service, including all those long years he's been on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. of all the possibilities to be president biden's attorney general, it's hard to come up with a better pick. the top law enforcement office of the united states must be committed to enforcing the rule of law, and he made that very clear that that's what he was going to do. as our former colleague, john ashcroft, said -- and he was attorney general, you know, early in the bush, george w.

bush administration -- the department of justice is the only cabinet agency whose name is an ideal. it's not the department of law enforcement, but the department of justice. justice is equality under the law. there's one law for all americans, regardless of race, color, creed, or political affiliation. it's our founding principle that all people are created equal. my hope is that judge garland agrees with that principle. and he does, but he's got to be careful to make sure the justice department runs accordingly. that's not how it's always been, however. i don't want to say that's how it's always been under just democrat presidents. it's probably been that way under republican presidents too. but i don't think it's how it

was run more recently during the obama years. here's what i don't want to see judge garland do. and all of my colleagues at the time heard this. the attorney general then, eric holder, famously said that he was a wing man to the president. i don't want an attorney general who takes tarmac meetings with president clinton while she's investigating his wife. i don't want consent decrease that federalize law enforcement and cause murder rates to soar. i don't want a civil rights division trying to stop school choice in louisiana. i don't want a return to catch and release. i don't want operation choke

point where the department of justice decides that gun stores don't get access to banking services. i'm concerned that the justice department direction before judge garland is even confirmed confirmed, these are some of the directions. they change litigation decisions on a number of high-profile cases in court, including on immigration, affirmative action, obamacare, and other issues. this is what a very famous solicitor general, paul clement, said, quote, it's been the long-term position of the justice department to defend the constitutionality of statutes whenever reasonable argument can be made. so it appears that our new president and his administrator

is going to flout that tradition i just stated how paul clements felt about it. i hope that judge garland brings that point of view in line and preserves the credibility of the justice department. i hope he also preserves his credibility with the durham investigation. during the trump administration i support offed the mueller investigation. i even supported legislation to protect his investigation in 2018 when it looked like president trump might fire him. that bill got out of committee that i chaired at that time. in 2019, when bill barr was before the judiciary committee, he was required to commit to not interfere with the mueller investigation, and i thought that was appropriate. now we have another special

counsel investigation, this one run by john durham, a respected prosecutor, in which members of the obama administration spied on members of the trump campaign. as the republican who supported mueller, i think it is obvious that judge garland should have made that same commitment at the hearing about durham that bill barr made when he was before the same committee for confirmation made about mueller. judge garland was given multiple opportunities to do so during his hearing and written questions for the record. but every time he declined to do so unequivocally. he has implied that he won't interfere with the durham investigation, and i take him at his word. but it would have been better if

he had been very clear about it before a committee. so further clarification, it's judge garland's credibility that's on the line if durham is fired for anything other than cause. we'll know why judge garland refused to give us a commitment like barr gave us a commitment when we asked for it. lastly, i want to make a point about how judge garland's nomination went through the judiciary committee. republicans called two witnesses, two of whom supported judge garland's confirmation. republicans also decided not to do the usual holdover of one week of judge garland's nomination, allowing him to be reported to the floor a week early.

judge garland also received bipartisan support in the committee. it happens that none of these courtesies were extended to either of president trump's nominees to be attorney general, one of whom was a colleague of ours here in the senate, and one of whom had already held the job before. i say all this to make a point more to the media than to my colleagues, because the media seemingly refuses to cover these points of bipartisanship that we didn't get from the democrats in the previous administration. after the last four years of unprecedented obstruction of nominees, i think republicans would have been justified to make this confirmation a drawn-out process, but we did not do that. i don't plan on opposing

nominees just because of the person who nominated them, like many of my colleagues unfortunately did in the last four years. so even though i still have some concerns, i believe judge garland is a good person, particularly a good person for this job, to lead the department of justice. so i will vote for his confirmation. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you. mr. president, it doesn't seem like that long ago -- it was, and what is only on january 20 of this year that we heard president biden talk about healing the divisions in our country and promoting unity.

he promised to restore respectful bipartisan communication and cooperation. he spoke eloquently, saying without unity, there is no peace. only bitterness and fury. no progress, only exhausting outrage. no nation, only a state of chaos. it really was a fine speech. but here we are seven weeks into the biden administration with a lot of bitterness and fury and outrage over the president's first big broken promise. on saturday afternoon following an all-night voting marathon, our democratic colleagues passed by themselves their so-called covid-19 relief bill. sadly, the lack of bipartisan support was not a surprise. after all, our democratic

colleagues decided to abuse the reconciliation process for this very reason and wanted to pass a bill they knew would not generate any support among republicans because it really is a trojan horse for their liberal wish list. and the only way they could make that happen would be to exclude republicans, turn down offers of bipartisanship, as the president did when ten republicans visited him at the white house just a few weeks ago, and decided to go it alone, which is what our democratic colleagues did. since republicans had no say in the drafting of the bill and because our democratic friends chose to skip the normal committee consideration, our only opportunity to make any changes to the bill came through the amendment process on the floor. from roughly 11:00 a.m. friday until 12:30 p.m. on saturday, the senate voted on more than 30 amendments, largely from folks

on our side of the aisle, almost all of which were rejected in a party-line vote. outside of washington,d.c., not many people stay up for 24 hours straight to watch congress vote on budget amendments. so i think it's important that we recap what the american people missed while they were sleeping. the first amendment vote last friday was a good birmingham ter of what was happening on the other -- was a good barometer of what was happening on the other side of the aisle. the first voted teed up by senator sanders would have more than doubled the minimum wage to $15 an hour. the congressional budget office said this would kill 1.4 million jobs. and then the senate parliamentarian said this is an improper use of the budget

reconciliation process. but our democratic colleagues wanted to take their shot anyway, so they voted to waive a budget point of order, but it did not go well. eight democrats voted alongside all republicans to prevent this abuse of the budget reconciliation process, to prevent this job-killing minimum wage mandate from becoming part of this bill. as it turns out, there's bipartisan opposition to killing jobs at a time when our economy is already on a fragile footing. who would have thought otherwise. and once senators cast their votes, our democratic friends held the vote open for a record-breaking 12 hours as they tried to whip their caucus into shape on the most critical amendment which was next in line. now i'm not one to tell our friends across the aisle how do their job, but normally when

you have a vote, you know ahead of time how that vote's going to come out. that's just legislating, legislation 101. but when you're trying to rush at warp speed a nearly $2 trillion liberal wish list to the president's desk, i guess you don't have the time to do things the right way. and you certainly don't have an interest in getting things done in a bipartisan fashion. but on the rest of the votes we held, over and over again our democratic colleagues held together and blocked commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle. for example, there were amendments to stop blue states from receiving more than their fair share of the state and local funding. the democratic proposal includes a jaw-dropping $350 billion for state and local aid, more than double what was spent in the cares act last march when the

economic picture was far more dire. unlike the cares act funding that was distributed based on population, this proposal separated the funds into two pots of money. one to be distributed based on a population formula, while the second is based on the unemployment rate. senator graham from south carolina offered an amendment which would have required this funding to follow the same formula that we did in march in a bipartisan way rather than this new formula that favors blue states. since the primary argument for the bill was that states needed this funding because of lost tax revenue, it made sense that the largest population states should receive the most funding, a per capita formula. this would eliminate big windfalls for blue states that have largely kept their economies on ice and shuttered

even as covid-19 cases decrease. and there was an amendment from the senator from utah, senator romney, which would have ensured that state and local funding was only going to those states that actually need it. what a concept. this amendment would require states to apply for aid through the treasury department. they could then receive funds to help cover pandemic-related expenses, revenue losses, or other unexpected medicaid costs. but, of course, in a party-line vote, our democratic colleagues blocked that amendment as well. and it's not just state and local funding that folks on my side of the aisle wanted us to use more responsibly. i offered an amendment to improve the quality of care for unaccompanied migrant children who arrive along the u.s.-mexico border. we know that these children are especially vulnerable and their

health and safety should have been addressed in this covid package. well, president biden's border crisis is shaping up to be one of epic proportions. border agents purportedly detained 100,000 migrants along the southern border last month alone. that marks the highest total for the month of february since 2006. and the numbers have now climbed so high that the administration is allowing facilities to house children to operate at 100% capacity. when you're kids aren't even going back to school in many school districts around the country because of concerns for their safety. forget that. the biden administration is now allowing these facilities that house children to operate at 100% despite the covid risk. an amendment i offered would redirect unnecessary funding for

the national endowment for the humanities and instead send it to the office of refugee resettlement. this office is part of the department of health and human services, and this extra funding would help keep these children safe and healthy. unfortunately for these children, many of whom have endured long and dangerous journeys in the hands of human smugglers, our democratic colleagues chose the national endowment for the humanities instead of these children in distress. well, the list of rejected amendments goes on and on. senator scott of south carolina offered an amendment to ensure states weren't fudging on the nursing home death count totals like the disastrous situation developing in new york that we're now, just now learning about the magnitude of nursing

home deaths that were covered up by the cuomo administration. this amendment would have required states to certify the accuracy of covid-19 deaths in nursing homes in order to assess funding for nursing home facility strike teams. once again, party-line vote blocking that amendment. now, one of the highlights of this long and drawn-out process, which just left me scratching my head, an amendment from senator cassidy, the senator from louisiana would have prevented stimulus checks being sent to people in prison, and one from senator cruz, my colleague from texas, who would have stopped payments from going to people who are not legally present in the united states. both amendments blocked in a party-line vote by democrats. our colleague from florida, senator rubio, offered an

amendment to incentivize the safe return to in-person learning at our nation's schools. the crux of it was simple. if schools wanted federal funding, they should actually educate children in the classroom and do so safely, according to c.d.c. guidelines. otherwise, why did they need this huge amount of extra money if they're not actually going to use it to educate our children. well, our democratic colleagues blocked that amendment, too. while americans were sleeping, senate democrats stood in the way of numerous commonsense reforms to this behemoth of a partisan bill. they have proven once again that this so-called covid-19 relief bill has next to nothing to do with what's best for the country and everything to do with what's best for their liberal partisan agenda.

this bill includes a long list of liberal prierpts that are completely unrelated to the crisis at hand. i think roughly 90% of it unrelated to covid-19. blank checks from mismanaged union pension funds, funding for climate justice, whatever that is. backdoor money for planned parenthood and exclusive paid leave program for bureaucrats. those are just some of the greatest hits in the vote-a-rama. even the portions of the bill that are related to the pandemic are completely out of proportion. the legislation provides $130 billion for schools when tens of billions of dollars that we've already appropriated last december remain to be spent. according to the congressional budget office, only $6.4 billion will be distributed through september of this year. the remaining $122 billion would

trickle out the door through not just 2021, but through 2028. and, of course, there is the blue state bailout. despite the fact that tax revenues have largely rebounded and many states are still sitting on piles of cash from previous covid-19 relief bills, our democratic friends want to spend another $350 billion to state and local government. but not just on an equitable population-based formula. they rigged the formula to make sure that blue states reaped the biggest cash benefits. mr. president, we know this wasn't the only path forward. we've worked time and time again this last year on five different occasions to show we can unite

to provide covid-19 relief to the american people. we could have built on that record this year, which after listening to president biden's inaugural speech i had hoped we might do. the first legislation to pass during the biden administration could have been a bipartisan pandemic relief bill with overwhelming support. we wouldn't have needed to go through the vote-a-rama or the abuse of the budget reconciliation process. we could have had a bill that hit the hardest -- that supported the hardest hit families, got kids back in school, and helped expedite vaccination. but those types of policies obviously weren't the top of mind for our democratic friends. they wanted to have a payday for the most radical element of their party, at an absurdly high

price tag which our children and grandchildren are going to be saddled with. they assembled a laundry list of unrelated, wasteful, and downright partisan provisions and rejected even the most commonsense amendments offered by this side of the aisle. sadly, this legislation passed the house without a single republican vote. it passed the senate without a single republican vote. and now, our democratic friends are on track to write a $2 trillion check completely funded by deficit spending without even a trace of bipartisanship. they don't have a fig leaf to height behind. this was a partisan bill intentionally. either the president sold snake oil on inauguration day or he's already caved in to the most radical elements of his own

political party. either way, mr. president, it's bad news for the american people. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: thank you, mr. president. today i'm going to talk about the growing crisis on our southern border and how we need urgent action to address the degrading situation there. but before i begin, i want to say a quick word about the reconciliation bill we passed last week. the massive $1.9 trillion bill was not covid relief. it was liberal relief. everybody and everyone needs to understand what this was. it was not a rescue plan. it was a heist of taxpayers' money. we don't have $1.9 trillion to be spending. when we have to borrow this much money, we're digging our country deeper into debt, and with this

massive spinning bill and -- spending bill, we are borrowing our grandkids' funds and are going to owe more and more countries, like china. to keep up the money supply, we have to increase at such a rapid rate, it would potentially spark inflation. that means we could see the value of americans' hard-earned dollars plummet. to further underscore that point, that means your money doesn't go very far. for the items that you buy, it's very expensive. all of this bogs down our economy and hinders future growth. what's more, this entire sham of a process was partisan. it's not about helping americans, businesses, and communities recover from the pandemic. that much is clear, only because 90% of the bill is going to covid and health-related measures and less than 1% is going to vaccines. the remaining 90% went to wish

list items and bailouts for poorly run states. instead of ramming through non-covid-related spending, democrats should have worked together with republicans as a team to pass a bipartisan bill that actually makes lives better as we recover from this pandemic. we shared a goal of helping the american people, but the bill that was ultimately put forward failed to do just that. it's a shame. this is not how our country should be run. mr. president, we started to see headlines bubbling up about the building crisis at the southern border that is threatening to boil over. americans back home are paying attention. they are watching what's going on and seeing how it's getting worse by the day. the saddest thing is that this was predictable and preventable. protecting our border and cutting down illegal immigrants -- immigration matters to the people of alabama and the rest of the country, alabamians are law-abiding people.

we play by the rules, and we expect others to follow them, too. when people break the rules, they have to face the consequences, plain and simple. that's how our country should operate. by law and order. enforcing the laws on our books cannot be optional. sadly, this type of selected enforcement is exactly what president biden has done during his short time in office. president biden has put forward an immigration proposal that would completely up-end our existing immigration policy and give out american citizenship like it's candy. but before that, he made sure to lay the groundwork with executive orders. president biden quickly reversed many of president trump's most successful border control policies with a stroke of his pen, and his secretary of homeland security whose department oversees immigration policy and border security has made it clear he's not interested in enforcing existing

laws. we've seen the dangerous effects of president biden's policies already, and it's barely been two months, but we've also seen some mixed messaging. the same day president biden issued an order that said building a border wall is, quote, a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security, his department of homeland security released official data that tells otherwise. in january, 2021, u.s. customs and border patrol protection encountered approximately 78,000 illegal immigrants, a 6% increase from december, 2020. within that number, roughly 6,480 were single adults. a 157% increase compared to january of last year. for unaccompanied children, there has been a 91% increase in apprehensions compared to last

january. the data shows the number of illegal immigrants trying to cross the southern border is going up during a month when historically apprehensions are low. in fact, the staggering numbers of people arrested crossing the border illegally this january is the most any january has seen in more than a decade. in march, 2020, president obama invoked title 42 along the southern border. that means that only certain travelers can enter. president biden has maintained title 42 with the exception that unaccompanied children can still come in. news outlets reported that they told president biden, quote, they anticipate 117,000 children will arrive at the u.s.-mexico border without a parent or

guardian in 2021. why? because president biden has given them a free pass to enter the united states. this is on pace to exceed the all-time record that was set under the obama administration by 45%. the greater problem here is that the administration doesn't have enough space to put these children, president biden recently briefed on a plan to add 20,000 more beds to meet the needs. yet, yesterday news reports showed a record number of unaccompanied children, more than 3,200, are in border patrol custody. almost half of these children had been held beyond the three-day limit. the facilities are overwhelmed and bursting at the seams. folks in the southwest are already referring to this increase as the biden effect. now homeland security is blaming

the current border crisis on the trump administration. so why then does the secretary think that the new record is set during the offmonths of january and february? i'll tell you why it is a direct result of president biden's ditching order and sending come one, come all signal. president biden decided to message to the world, our border's open, we shouldn't be surprised that people are showing up. we all saw it coming. we all warned that president biden's policies would lead to a national security and humanitarian crisis. mr. president, on top of all of this, president biden's administration is subjecting american citizens to more stringent standards to enter our country than they are with illegal immigrants. on january 26, the c.d.c. began requiring anyone flying into the united states, including american citizens, to provide evidence of negative covid tests

taken within three days of their flight. makes sense. migrants are not required. i sent a letter to secretary my york yas -- myokas but have not received a response. as fox news reported, more than 100 illegal immigrants released by border patrol agents in brownsville, texas, have tested positive for the coronavirus. so if these folks can cross the border illegally and get tested by the city at the bus stop where the agents leave them off but the city has no authority to prevent them from traveling elsewhere even if they test positive for covid? how does that fit into president biden's plan to end this pandemic. american citizens have to prove

they have a negative test to enter the country but illegal immigrants do not. at a time when the virus is on retreat, thanks in part to vaccines developed by president biden and -- president trump and operation warp speed, we cannot now thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants into the country especially without screening for covid. it is not only a reckless security policy, it is a reckless health problem. we spent $1.9 trillion to help the country get past the pandemic and we're going to let people into the country unchecked to potentially spread the virus. president biden's policies at the border are reckless. the american people can see it for themselves and the data proves how bad the situation has become in such a quick time. we can and should take positive proactive concrete steps to secure our border and strengthen our national security. there are two big items to

address right away. number one, we should maintain the migrant protections protocol system. this system was put into place during the trump administration to process migrant asylum claims at the border without releasing people into the united states. it requires that migrants remain in mexico pending the completion of their case. it was successful, hugely successful. the number of apprehensions went down when they realized they could not come walking into the united states. it was exactly the kind of message we want to send, our borders are not wide open. you must follow the rules. you must stay in line. president biden dismarntled the program is -- manhattanled the program -- dismantled the program and bringing in 30,000 people waiting in mexico. we should continue to build the wall. we constituents expect me to hammer this every day. a strong wall will help prevent

illegal migrants crossing over our ports of entry and avoid law enforcement. just recently there were reports of a car crash in california that left 13 illegal migrants dead who were stuffed and stacked in the back of a truck. border patrol officers believe they entered through that dilapidated fence. human trafficking ef foforts like this has -- efforts continuing. without needed fixes, president biden offers false hope and a dangerous signal for desperate people. mr. president, today i'm mentioning two ways to address the border search. there are plenty more and i plan to advocate them for weeks to come, because unlike this president and the administration, i'm fighting for the safety and security of the american people. i understand our immigration system is not perfect. and i understand president biden

has a different view on what our immigration system should look like. he's made no secret about where he stands, but any immigration reform proposal must include policies that strengthen our lawful immigration system and protect our nation's borders. so far president biden's policies do neither. i can respect different visions for the future even though i may strongly disagree with them. but what i and the people of alabama will not stand for is a refusal to enforce the laws of today. it puts our country at risk and encourages migrants to seek dangerous paths to enter our country instead of the legal paths provided. allowing illegal immigration to go unchecked fundamentally undermines the rule of law in this country. without laws and without borders, where those laws apply, a sovereign nation ceases to exist. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. smith: i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from minnesota.

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 number 12, marcia louise fudge, of ohio, to be secretary of housing and urban development, signed by 16 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 on the nomination of marcia louise fudge, of ohio, to be secretary of housing and urban development, 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 presiding officer: the yeas are 69, the nays are 30. the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: 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 number 27, merrick brian garland, of maryland, to be attorney general, signed by 18 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 on the nomination of merrick brian garland, of maryland, to be attorney general, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: