for merrick garland to be the next u.s. attorney general and votes whether to limit debate and michael reagan to lead the epa. live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are our fortress. thank you for surrounding us with your walls of goodness, mercy, and love. even when overwhelmed, we remain confident.

great and marvelous are your works. today, inspire our lawmakers to again seek your wisdom. may they cry out to you for guidance and receive your light to illuminate the path ahead. lord, be merciful to them and answer their prayers, for you are the god of their salvation. remind them that you are alive and in control of all challenges that confront our nation and world. we pray in your powerful name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., march 10, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

s

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, today the senate has a packed schedule. by the end of the day, the senate will have confirmed another three members of president biden's cabinet.

first up is representative marcia louise fudge to serve as secretary of the housing and urban development. she represented congress and served as the first african american and first mayor of warrenville heights in ohio. three million homeowners are in forbearance at the same time we're on the verge of passing major assistance for renters and for homeowners. i know that marcia louise fudge will help and i will focus on public housing, which i know she cares about a great deal as well. later this afternoon, we'll move to the confirmation of merrick garland to become attorney general. after donald trump spent four years -- four long years subverting the powers of the

justice department for his own political benefit, treating the attorney general like his own personal defense lawyer, america can breathe a sigh of relief that we're going to have someone like merrick garland leading the justice department, someone with integrity, independence, respect for the rule of law and credibility on both sides of the aisle. he understands that the job of attorney general is one to protect rule of law, unlike the previous attorneys general under president trump who too often just bowed to his whim and his will when it was against rule of law. it's confounding, in light of all of that, that republicans have chosen, some of them anyway, to delay his nomination, particularly in the aftermath of the capitol attacks, but he will be confirmed today despite their attempts to stonewall the process. and, finally, mr. president, the senate will confirm michael

stanley regan to serve as e.p.a. administrator, once again, the change between the previous administration and the incoming administrator will be dra plattic. under -- dramatic. under donald trump, they completely ignored climate change to unfortunately -- to potentially disastrous effect unfortunately. it's high time the senate confirmed someone like michael regan who has made environmental protection the cause of his career, to lead the agency and set it back on its proper footing. once we finish with the confirmation of these three nominees, the senate will have confirmed 16 cabinet-level officials. that's in addition to passing a massive covid bill and conducting an impeachment trial of the former president, and despite getting a late start to our work, thanks to a delay in the organizing resolution. the senate is going to keep up the pace. president biden deserves to have his team in place, working for

the american people. now on the american rescue plan. later today, the house of representatives is set to approve the american rescue plan and send it straight to president biden's desk for his signature, capping a months-long effort by democrats to pass bold covid relief to defeat the pandemic and boost our economy. once president biden signs the bill into law, it will immediately become the most sweeping federal recovery package in recent history. even a cursory reading of the headlines gives you a sense for the historic nature of this bold and so-helpful legislation. here is one from yesterday from the "new york times." growth in the u.s. could surge on the stimulus plan and a rapid vaccine rollout. wouldn't that be great? and we think there is a very good chance of it happening. "forbes" -- u.s. economy will recover twice as fast things to

$1.9 trillion stimulus. that's "forbes," a conservative publication. and the associated press -- covid relief to deliver big health insurance savings for many, something so many americans desperately need and want. and another from the "new york times" -- in stimulus bill, a policy revolution for aid to children. a policy revolution. simply put, the american rescue plan is one of the most significant federal relief efforts that congress has seen in a very, very long time. i'm greatly looking forward to it becoming law. now, i have spent a lot of time talking about all the different provisions of the bill today and in previous remarks on the floor of the senate. that's because the american rescue plan is a truly comprehensive effort. covid-19 has impacted nearly every aspect of american life, so we had to craft legislation that spanned the gamut -- schools, businesses, families,

jobs, health care. because this bill is so wide raping, i haven't spent enough time on the significance of individual programs. i want to rectify that over the next several weeks. this morning, i want to focus on two initiatives. first, the child tax credit. second, agricultural assistance for disadvantaged farmers. according to the most recent data, more than 10 million children live below the poverty line in america. 10 million children. a child starting out in life, through no fault of his or her own, lives below poverty, and we know what that means in terms of food and health care and housing and education. compared with other nations around the world, the united states dedicates a relative pittance, a pittance to fixing that terrible injustice. listen to this. this is something that should make us both ashamed that the united states has been in this

position for so long and proud that the american rescue plan will help rectify that injustice. here it is. the united states ranks next to last among the world's 37 most developed economies in terms of family benefits, barely ahead of turkey. barely ahead of turkey. nothing that can make americans proud. of course, the pandemic has made the problem of child poverty even worse. it has forced parents to serve as child care providers and surrogate teachers while trying to keep up with their own jobs. for millions of americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, the pressure only increased. the difficulty of child care during the pandemic is likely one of the main reasons why there has been a disproportionate share of women who have fallen out of the workforce. the pandemic left mothers and fathers with impossible choices between keeping their jobs and

incomes or leaving work to care for their children stuck at home who they so dearly love. democrats decided to tackle this problem head on, head on in the american rescue plan. we expanded the child tax credit to provide up to $3,000 per child age 6 to 17 and $3,600 per child under the age of 6, for an overwhelming majority of families in this country. analysts predict that this policy will cut childhood poverty in half, in half. that's an astounding statistic. it will cut childhood poverty in half, a goal of so many who study the frailties in some of our policies for a decade, for a generation to remove people, young children from poverty. in half, -- and half, half will

be so removed. that's why -- that's just one reason why reviewers have called the american rescue plan one of the most far-reaching antipoverty efforts in an entire generation. another provision that's received too little attention is the support -- and one more thing i want to say on the child poverty. i salute share -- sherrod brown, michael bennet, cory booker who spearheaded this, along with congressman neal in the house, ron wyden and his committee who worked on drafting this and my staffers who spent so much time on making this work as well. salute to them. now, another provision that has received too little attention is the support this bill will provide to disadvantaged farmers. across nearly every statistic, farmers from socially disadvantaged communities fare worse than their white counterparts, suffering from generations of systematic discrimination, land loss, and what secretary vilsack calls a

cycle of debt. it's almost something that recalls the days of slavery and sharecropping and tenant farming. recently, these farmers have suffered again. disproportionately from covid-19. the american rescue plan provides more than $10 billion to support our nation's agriculture and sets aside roughly half of it, half of it to disadvantaged communities, particularly black farmers, for debt relief, education, training, and land acquisition. although it's only a small fraction of the overall bill, experts have called the american rescue plan, quote, the most significant legislation for black farmers since the civil rights act. it's amazing what we can do when we put our minds to it. the -- the hangover from the horrible treatment that rural african american farmers have gotten since the days of slavery

can in part, in decent part be undone by this legislation. and i want to thank some of my fellow senators who did such work on this bill. the provisions i have mentioned owe a great deal to the members of the agriculture committee and the finance committee. senator stabenow was relentless in pushing this issue. senator wyden and the finance committee helped out a great deal. and senators warnock and booker pushed very hard as well. the american rescue plan is going to have an immense impact on nearly every community in america in the weeks and months to come i will be highlighting how much good it will do. i have a few housekeeping things to do. mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent that the senior senator from new york be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions on march 10. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 320 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 320, a bill to amend the public health service act to provide that the authority of the director of the national institute of minority health and health disparities to make certain research endowments applies with respect to both current and former centers of excellence, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate. the presiding officer: is there

further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. schumer: i ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions be discharged from further consideration of s. 415 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 415, a bill to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act with respect to the scope of new chemical exclusivity. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 102, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 102, recognizing the 100th anniversary of the hoosier gem, and the 35th anniversary of the release of the film "hoos engineers." the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: and it was a very good film, i must add. i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: yesterday, i voted to advance the -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i request the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, i voted to advance the nominations of congresswoman marcia fudge to be secretary of housing and urban development. and judge merrick garland to be attorney general. these aren't the nominees that

any republican would have picked for these jobs, but the nation needs presidents to be able to stand up a team so long as their nominees are qualified and mainstream. i voted to confirm people like secretaries austin, blinken, yellen, vilsack, and buttigieg. we certainly disagree on plenty of issues, but i spent four years watching many of our democratic colleagues do everything possible to object struskt and delay president trump's nominees right from the start. now we hear many of the same democrats insisting that, as a matter of principle, a new president needs his team and any delay is an outrage. it's funny how some things change. my position has not. i'm voting to confirm judge garland because of his long reputation as a straight footer and a legal expert. his left-of-center perspective

has been within the legal mainstream. for the country's sake, let's hope our incoming attorney general applies that no-nonsense approach to the serious challenges facing the department of justice and our nation. let's hope that he controls the bureaucrats and leftist subordinates that the president proposes to place under him rather than the other way around. when i spoke to judge garland, we discussed his commitment to the ongoing investigation of the events of january 6. federal law enforcement needs to continue the work of identifying, arresting and prosecuting those who broke the law in order to disrupt the constitutional business of congress. he assured me that will remain a priority. at the same time, it's essential that d.o.j. treat political violence with equal seriousness, no matter which political fringe it may come from. last summer riots, vandalism,

and even so-called autonomous zone consumed parts of american cities. in some instance, thugs directly attacked federal property. but amazingly, some local leaders seem more willing to tolerate the chaos than tolerate the angry tweets that left-wing activists might have sent if they stepped in to actually do their jobs. we were fortunate to have attorney general barr who took seriously the federal government's role to protect federal property and to enforce federal law. judge garland must be prepared to do the same. of course the vie yots haven't been the only area where we've seen liberal governance give short shrift to the rule of law. the obama administration was famous for its willingness to let ideology dictate the enforcement of federal laws or lack thereof. take the daca program, for example. when the obama administration realized their preferred immigration policies couldn't get through congress the right

way, they stretched proos cue torl -- prosecutorial discretion and law enforcement distropical depression to breathtaking unconstitutional extremes. when confirmed, judge garland must not back other constitutionally corrosive efforts to effectively repeal laws by just ignoring them. that brings me to the issue of immigration more broadly. just a few weeks into the job, the biden administration and secretary may or kiss are failing -- mayorkas are failing and failing on our southern border. the number of unaccompanied migrant children and border patrol custody has tripled in just two weeks and now dwarfs anything seen during the last four years. like i mentioned last week, this is not an isolated question of border policy alone. the backdrop behind this entire crisis is the giant push toward amnesty and insecurity that the

administration advertised throughout the campaign and every time they stepped to the podium now. that's what has enticed people to flood in. even now administration staff keep parroting strange lines like now is not the time to c come. now is not the time to come? well, when is the right time to break federal law? there's going to be a good time to break into the country illegally and people need to just be patient and wait for their signal? what on earth are they talking about? a lot of blame for this growing mess rests on secretary mayorkas himself. he spent the first weeks of his tenure downplaying and denying the crisis instead of solving it. but again the biden administration's far-left approach to this issue is not

limited to d.h.s. or to the border. interior enforcement is a key component. on secretary mayorkas' watch we've seen what "the washington post" calls, quote, a sharp drop, end quote, in arrests by immigration and customs enforcement. a collapse of more than 60% if just the prior few months. a political choice in effect not to enforce the law. judge garland must ensure that the department of justice takes its duty to uphold the law more seriously. now, on a related matter, after we confirmed -- confirm congresswoman fudge -- they both report straight to the front lines of the new administration's left-wing war on american energy. they worked to unbalance the balancing act between conservation and the economic

comeback we badly need. to head the environmental protection agency, the president's nominated michael regan, a long time regulator and activist. mr. regan has plenty of experience. the problem is what he's poised to do with it. he and the administration are plainly prepared to put that experience behind the same far-left policies that crush jobs and prosperity in states like kentucky throughout the obama administration. the clean power plan back on the table. the absurd waters of the united states rule back on the table. kentuckians know when bad policies like those are on the table, it means their jobs, their livelihoods and their communities are on the menu. congresswoman highland, the president's pick to lead the department of interior was literally an original cosponsor

of the green new deal. she's vowed to, quote, keep fossil fuels in the ground. end quote. and once pledged, quote, to vote against all new fossil fuel infrastructure. end quote. her record and her views ignore the fact that american energy independence fueled prosperity for the working class adle middle -- and middle class over the last four years yet in multiple of those years, our carbon emissions actually went down. went down. the supposed choice between a clean environment and domestic energy independence is a false choice. it only exists as a zero sum trade-off in the minds of democrats. we have every reason to believe that voting for mr. regan and representative holland would -- halland would be voting to raise gas taxes for families who are already struggling, voting to raise fuel and heating bills for seniors on a fixed income,

voting to take the tough times we've been going through and making them even tougher. i'll be voting for american families and against both of their nominations. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of housing and urban development, marcia louise fudge of ohio to be secretary.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, for 20 years now, i have come to this floor hundreds of times to speak on behalf of the dream act which i introduced long ago. during that period of time, i've had an occasional vote. i have not been successful in making it the law of the land. the closest i came was about eight years ago when we had a comprehensive immigration reform bill. four democratic senators, four republican senators -- and i was among them -- worked for months to try to address our immigration system. we came up with an agreement. it was no mean feat. it is a complex area of law.

it is a controversial area of law. it is an area of law that changes almost by the day, and we were trying to find a solution to all of the challenges it presents. to think that we are a nation of immigrants and then to reflect on our history on immigration is to leave one puzzled. most of the time we have been against immigration despite the arrival of new people on our borders. occasionally when we're building a transcontinental railroad, we would invite people from china in to take the back-breaking jobs only to categorically exclude them from immigration in the meantime. it is hard to explain, understand, or appreciate where we stand on immigration. when i hear the republican leader come to the floor and

criticize president obama for daca, i have to say that it's personal to me. i was writing letters to president obama, my former senate colleague from illinois, begging him to do just that. and he did. in creating daca, he gave the dreamers a fighting chance. 780,000 of them came forward. these were young people who were brought to the united states as toddlers and infants and children, not because of a personal decision but a family decision. they grew up here, went to school here, believed they were part of this country only to learn in a quiet moment of honesty from their parents that they didn't have the necessary paperwork and they had to be extra careful or face deportation. i thought that was a

heartbreaking conclusion for their time in america and introduced the dream act and when we could not pass it, i asked president obama to do what he could to help, and he did. i thank him for it still to this day. but daca if it was stretching executive power was certainly reflective of where the american people are on this issue. no apologies. the american people don't hold these young children now grown responsible for that family decision. they want to give them a chance. they want to give them a chance to earn their legal status, to earn a path to citizenship. no apologies here. these are wonderful young people who make america a better country and we need them to be part of our future. so for those who come to the floor and are critical of daca, i just tell you take a couple of minutes and meet these young

people. i've come to the floor over a hundred times telling their personal stories. they are a source -- great source of pride not just for me but for this nation. now we face some problems on our border, and we have for some time. and there are challenges that are very real. mr. president mayorkas who has taken over as the head of the department of homeland security is a person i willingly and anxiously supported for that job. he has a personal family story on immigration but more importantly he has a depth of experience that is almost impossible to find in other places. he is trying to come together with the leaders in central america to fashion a plan for order on the border, and it's difficult. it's true that larger numbers are coming to the border this time. the senator from kentucky said earlier that they have --

believe they have a right to break federal law. i couldn't disagree with him more. they are presenting themselves at the border under the law of asylum in the united states so that they can be judged as to whether or not they are eligible to come into this country. that is the process. but it is broken down because the numbers presenting themselves at the border and the backlog of cases, a million and a half cases pending. we don't have enough judges. we don't have a procedure that is sensible and humane. we need all of that and it's not going to happen the day after tomorrow. part of it depends on us. it is one thing to come to the floor and lament the situation with immigration in our country. it's another to roll up your sleeves and say let's do it. let's solve it on a bipartisan basis. and there's -- it's certainly an imperative in a 50-50 senate that any immigration done on a bipartisan basis. i stand ready to do that in the senate judiciary committee, and i think colleagues even on the

republican side agree with me. it's -- as tough as it may be, we need to tackle these issues and not ignore them as they have been ignored during the last four years. that's going to call for some cooperation, some compromise on both sides. but we owe it to our country to do the right thing to make our immigration system sensible, logical, and fair. i don't want to go back to those moments under the truch administration of zero -- trump administration of zero tolerance when over 2,000 children were forcibly removed from their parents, sent into a bureaucratic never-never land and then were only reunited -- and not all of them have been. those who were reunited were because of a federal court order calling on the trump administration to do it. they cast those children adrift in the bureaucracy, and it wasn't until the federal court demanded that they be reinstated with their families that it happened in most instances, not

in all of them. so we have a lot of work to do and i hope we can do it on a bipartisan basis. we need to do it as quickly as we can on a bipartisan basis. i ask consent that the statement i'm about to be making be placed in a separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i was a college student in town here at georgetown university and i can remember it well. you have a lot of time to talk with your roommates about things that you might just do with your life and things that you should do, even as a student. and i remember that week before the march on selma, there was a serious conversation among my roommates as to whether or not we ought to pack up and head to selma, alabama, to join in the march. we were serious about it. we thought about it and in the end it fell through, too many classes would be cut and jobs we

wouldn't be attending to and decided at the last minute it just wasn't practical at all for us to do it. i regret that decision to this day. i wish i had been there, even if i were in the back of the line to say i was part of that day in history. it was 56 years ago last sunday some 600 civil rights act visits 56 years ago were neiling in brown outside the church in selma, leading them was our dearly departed friend and i know he was your friend as well, john lewis. there became a silent orderly march toward montgomery, alabama. we all remember that photo of john lewis coming over that bridge and his tan raincoat and his backpack. as the civil rights moved to the

bridge, they were met by state troopers and armed vij antes, they wielded shot guns and other make-shift weapons and we all know what happened next. today that violence is remembered as bloody sunday. what some may not know is and what the night before that march. the county sheriff in selma, jim clark, had issued a call to arms. he ordered white men in the area to join troopers in selma and he deputized those people to help stop the march. they answered the call lining up by the hundreds alongside the state troopers. john lewis and his fellow patriots were not going to be intimidated. they stood tall. they bore the brunt of racist violence and they did so with a solemn purpose. they wanted to build a more perfect union in this country,

to make sure every voice is heard in our democracy. days later, with the brutal scenes from selma fresh in the minds of america, president lyndon johnson urged congress to pass the voting rights act. that august he signed the bill into law. it's hard to imagine, isn't it? in the same year he proposed it, we actually saw congress pass a law. that's what happened in the good, old days. his law fundamentally changed our republic for the better, but our work remains far from over. last weekend also marked the anniversary of another tragic moment in our nation's history, far more recent than bloody sunday. it was two months ago -- two months ago on january 6, that a violent mob stormed through the halls of this capitol building. like the vigilantes in selma, they too were answering the call

to arms, except this one wasn't issued by a county sheriff, it was issued by a former president of the united states, donald trump. the failed insurrection of january 6 not only left five people dead, but like bloody sunday, it left a permanent stain on our nation's history. make no mistake, though more than half a century stands between these two dark days for democracy, they are part of the same thread that sadly has run through american history, racism. racism weaponized to deny full citizenship to black and brown americans. the mob violence that we personally witnessed on january 6 in this building was not an aberration. it was the continuation of a sad chapter in our history. for months former president trump sowed did about the

legitimacy of the 2020 election, he claimed that it was stolen from him. stop the steal, they chanted. we know that president trump's claims have no basis in reality. just two days ago, the supreme court finally dismissed the last remaining case brought by trump supporters to push the big lie. the supreme court didn't buy it. in fact, no court bought it. the former president has never let facts stand in his way. has he? in fact, he claims to know exactly where this supposed voter fraud transpired. cities like philadelphia, atlanta, milwaukee, and detroit, coincidentally cities with large populations of black and brown voters, this is no coincidence. president trump and his enablers believed they were entitled to

victory because they don't think that every american should have an equal vote in our democracy. president trump's efforts to overturn the election are just the most recent example of a decades-long movement to suppress voters of color. i've spoken on this floor before about investigations i conducted as chairman of the subcommittee on civil rights and human rights in senate judiciary. i took the show on the road. i traveled to ohio and florida where lawmakers at that time were considering making it more difficult to vote, requiring i.d.'s. and this was before the supreme court's disastrous decision in shelby county. that ruling opened the floodgates. it allowed a number of state legislatures to enact discriminatory restrictions on voting that would no longer require approval from the department of justice. that decision was a repudiation of the sacrifice john lewis an

his fellow patriots made on bloody sunday. we must learn from our history whether it was 56 years ago or just two months ago and we must recognize the fundamental right to vote is still under attack. just last week the supreme court heard arguments in a case that could further fracture the voting rights act by limiting the effectiveness of a provision that allows voters to challenge discriminatory restrictions. and lawmakers in 43 states have already introduced more than 250 bills this year to restrict voting excess. mr. president, this book, "one person, no vote" was written by carol anderson, a professor at emri university in atlanta -- emri university in atlanta. i read her first book, "white rage," contacted her and we're

friends. i think her analysis of reconstruction, jim crow is the most lucid presentation i read about that chapter in history. in this book she goes directly to the issue of voter suppression. one of her objects observations -- one of her observations is worth repeating on the floor of the senate. she refers to what is known in history as the mississippi plan. i'll read a few sentences from this book. that bill most apparent -- that became apparent in 1890 when the magnolia state passed the mississippi plan, a dizzying array of literacy tests, newfangled rules and good character clauses all intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in the genteel garb of bringing

integrity to the voting booth. this was evil genius. virginia representative carter glass, like so many others, swooned at the thought of bringing the mississippi plan to his own state. especially after he saw how well it worked. he rushed to champion a bill in the legislature that would eliminate, quote, eliminate the darky as a political factor in less than five years, close quote. glass, whom president franklin roosevelt would describe as an unreconstructed rebel planned, quote, not to deprive a single white man of the ballot, but to inevitably cut from the existing electorate four-fifths of the neg neg roe votes in virginia. glass responded, by fraud, no, by discrimination, yes. discrimination that is precisely

what we propose, to discriminate to the strement, per miss -- ex trementy, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter we can get rid of. in those days they were very direct and honest about their ambitions and voter suppression. what is the explanation these days? if we don't believe that there was massive fraud and there was not by any objective measure in the 2020 election, why are so many legislatures in the business now of reducing the opportunity for americans to vote in their states? why? if they can't sell an idea, they just want to change the electorate and perhaps that will lead to victory. but at what cost? the most enduring legacy of bloody sunday is the legislation that helped inspire the voting rights act. we must now draw from this

moment in our history, a lesson to be realized, that the promise of what that legislation full and vibrant democracy made up of all americans of every color and creed is still an aspiration in this country. we have an obligation not just to restore the voting rights act but to build on it, to make it stronger and more comprehensive. fortunately, president joe biden's administration indicated it is ready to do just that. last sunday honor of the 56th anniversary of bloody sunday, president biden signed an executive order to make it easier for americans to register to vote and access the ballot box. while this was a welcomed announcement, we need to act as well in congress. as chair of the senate judiciary committee, and a cosponsor of the john lewis voting rights act in the last congress, i look forward to working to restore and strengthen the voting votins

act in the months ahead. throw our friend and colleague is no longer with us today, his legacy towers over us. we stand on his shoulders and those of all the american heros who bled on the streets of selma in 1965 and long after. we must carry on their fight for equality and we can begin by enacting a bill the house of representatives passed last week, the for the people act. this bill would prohibit voter role purges as we've seen in states like ohio and georgia, modernize and strengthen voter registration system and ballot access. i would say to the other party, don't be afraid of the voters. in this democracy they have the last word and denying them the right to vote is no strategy for a great political party. it would also help end the dominance of dark money in our political system, including through establishing small donor

financing system for congressional elections based on my fair elections now act. this is a vital step toward improving our democratic process. passing it and the voting rights advancement act will provide critical rules to ensure that all americans can exercise their right to vote. these bills represent the bold action americans have been calling for. we must not ignore that call. in 2020, the american people turned out in historic numbers in the election, but they also turned out in historic numbers in protest and support of racial justice across america. john lewis has marched in montgomery never ended. it has taken on a new life. a new generation of marchers and more americans than ever before are putting their feet to the pavement. it's time to finish the work of john lewis and the heros of the civil rights movement. as we commemorate the 56th anniversary of bloody sunday, we can do no less.

with his eyes wide open, john lewis marched across the edmond pettis privilege in selma -- bridge in selma knowing he was facing a deadly, hateful crowd. they broke down his body but they could not defeat his spirit. the question we face today is whether john lewis' spirit still lives in us. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: mr. president, before i begin i want to express my sadness about senator blunt's announcement, he will not seek reelection in 2022. he has been a leader in our conference and will be sorely missed. i will especially miss having him as a member of the whip team here in the senate. i came into the house of representatives with senator blunt back in the election of 1996, began our service in january of 1997, and he quickly rose up through the ranks in the house and became the whip, republican whip in the house of representatives. he has always been involved in leadership wherever he has been, and his list of achievements is long. all americans have benefited over the past year from his tremendous efforts to accelerate coronavirus testing and vaccine development. less than two months ago, in his role as chairman of the rules committee, he oversaw a very

successful inauguration at a particularly challenging time. mr. president, the one thing -- good thing is that roy is not leaving us immediately. he will be here for two more years, and i look forward to continuing to work with him. and to seeing everything that he will accomplish. mr. president, it's been quoted that the senate works best when we work together. the challenges we face are great, the divisions in the country are real. we have no choice but to try to work together every day to reward the faith the american people have placed in us, end quote. mr. president, those are not my words. those are the words of the democrat leader on inauguration day. but i agree with him. the senate does indeed work best when we work together, and for proof, look no further than last week's debacle. a good example of what happens when instead of working together, one party tries to strong-arm its legislation through the senate. last friday was perhaps the most

notable -- was most notable for its 11-hour-plus vote on an amendment. democrats held a 15-minute vote open for almost 12 hours, making it the longest vote in modern senate history. because it had become clear that they were in danger of losing the support of one of their own members. it turns out that when you force a massive liberal piece of legislation through the senate without committee review and without any attempt at soliciting input from the senate as a whole, you start to lose support even from members of your own party. it was an embarrassing moment for the democrat leadership and a sad moment for the rest of the senate. mr. president, in that same speech on inauguration day, the democrat leader pledged, and i quote again, the senate will legislate. and to my republican colleagues, when and where we can, the democratic majority will strive to make this important work bipartisan, end quote. well, mr. president, there was no evidence of that here.

democrats didn't try to make this bill bipartisan. in fact, they actively tried to make sure republicans didn't have a voice in this legislation. remember that almost 12-hour amendment vote? democrats held that vote open for nearly 12 hours solely because they were afraid that a republican amendment might pass. republicans were more than willing to work with democrats on covid relief, as we did last year on five separate covid bills. the democrats didn't want republicans interfering with their legislation. now, mr. president, i want to talk about those previous covid bills for just a minute. prior to democrats taking control of the senate, covid relief was a bipartisan process. under republican control, the senate passed five covid relief bills with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. because both democrats and republicans had a voice in the legislation. there was no need to keep any of

those votes open to engage in partisan arm twisting. the senate works best when it works together. mr. president, the bipartisan process on those other covid bills didn't just guarantee a bipartisan vote in the senate. it also guaranteed that those other covid bills were actually about covid, because both parties had to work together to get a result. neither party was able to hijack the bill for partisan purposes. contrast that with the bill the senate passed on saturday. while democrats have tried to sell their legislation as a covid relief bill, the truth is it isn't one. just 1%, 1% of this bill actually goes to our top -- vaccinations. and less than 10% of this bill is directly related to combating the virus. mr. president, there has been a lot of thawk about how this bill is a liberal wish list, -- talk about how this bill is a liberal wish list, which it is, but

that's almost being too generous. a liberal wish list at least suggests some grand policy schemes. this bill is mostly just a collection of payoffs to democrat interest groups and democrat states. for the extreme abortion wing of the democrat party, this bill omits long-standing federal restrictions on using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. it makes labor unions eligible for loans designed to rescue main street small businesses. it bails out failing union pensions, a bailout even "the new york times" describes as having, quote, nothing to do with the pandemic, and almost -- and as an almost unheard of use of taxpayer dollars. that's from the "new york times." it provides nearly $129 billion for k-12 schools, despite the fact that these schools have spent just $5 billion of the $68 billion already given to

them, while teepg teachers' unions happy by making sure funding isn't tied to any requirement to actually get back to in-person instruction. and then of course there is the money for the states. the bill appropriates a staggering $350 billion for states, despite the fact that a majority of states already have the resources they need to weather the rest of the pandemic. on top of that, the distribution formula for that $350 billion is heavily weighted in favor of blue states like california, which stand to see $27 billion under this legislation, despite the fact, mr. president, that california's revenues are up by $15 billion. now, imagine the outcry if republicans were directing funding to states that voted republican in the last election.

and lest anyone think any of this was unintentional, democrats doubled down on the partisanship when it came to amendments. they rejected an amendment that would have protected americans from having their tax dollars used to pay for abortions, even though multiple democrats broke ranks with their party to support this amendment. they rejected an amendment to tie funding for schools to schools that actually are reopening. they rejected an amendment to ensure seamless support to nonpublic schools serving low-income students. they rejected an amendment to stop labor unions from taking loan money intended for small businesses. they rejected an amendment to provide greater transparency on nursing home covid deaths, presumably in an attempt to protect the democratic governor of new york who is under fire for especially seemingly

deliberate attempts to obscure reporting of these deaths. in a nod to the far left of the matter, they rejected an amendment for the keystone x.l. pipeline which will cost thousands, thousands of american jobs. i could go on for a while on amendments because there are a lot more. democrats passed an amendment that provides an incentive for some americans to stay on unemployment by making more than 10,000 of their unemployment benefits nontaxable. think about that. more than $10,000 of their unemployment benefits nontaxable without regard to income. working americans still have to pay their taxes even if they are making less money than they would on unemployment. if you are a hardworking taxpayer in this country and you're not getting a tax break, the people who are on unemployment are getting a

$10,000 tax break, nontaxable income that's costing the federal government somewhere on the order of $30 billion, you can imagine the average taxpayer in this country, mr. president, might find that to be highly objectionable when they find out about it. a substantial amount of unemployment benefits will be tax free. that doesn't seem too fair. not to mention the last thing we should be doing right now is discouraging people from going back to work. mr. president, in that speech that i referenced earlier, the democrat leader gave on inauguration day, he said, and i quote again, as the majority changes in the senate, the senate will do business differently. the senate will do business differently. well, now we have got a glimpse of what that looks like. and apparently, it looks like ruthless partisanship and an attempt to completely silence the minority and the americans that they represent. it is deeply disappointing, mr. president, the democrats

have turned a bipartisan process into a totally partisan exercise. as i mentioned, pandemic relief ought to be bipartisan, and it was last year five times. five times here in the united states senate, we passed pandemic relief, coronavirus relief legislation with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, under regular order where 60 votes is required instead of under the procedure that was used by the democrats last week to shut republicans out of that process. we could have passed a bill last week again with overwhelming bipartisan support, but that would have required democrats to be willing to genuinely collaborate with republicans. and unfortunately it is becoming clear that collaboration is not part of the new way of doing business in the democrat-led senate. mr. president, i hope that my democrat colleagues will change course in the days ahead and

work with republicans to unite our country. as the democrat leader suggested on inauguration day, they owe the american people nothing less. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to oppose president biden's executive orders on immigration. now, there were more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the country today. this is a group equivalent to the population of the entire state of georgia. and this number has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. in fact, some experts say the number is a lot higher than that. folks at yale and m.i.t. and the researchers there say it could actually be ties as high. there could be 22 million people in the country illegally. well, that's more than the population of the entire state of new york. so it appears to me, mr. president, that illegal immigration is making a mockery of our borders. yet president biden and this administration refuse to admit,

even as of this morning, refuse to admit that there is a crisis at the southern border. now, if you talk to law enforcement all across the country, they will tell you that many of the problems that they face every day are problems related to our open southern border. the drug enforcement administration has said for nearly a decade now that the vast majority of illegal drugs in america come here across the southern border. now, these drugs -- i'm a doctor. i will tell you these drugs have killed thousands of americans. they kill thousands of americans every year. they tear families apart. they lead to heartbreaking stories. they rob people of their god-given possession. -- god-given potential. mr. president, our law enforcement, our coast guard, our border agents, they do heroic work every day to intercept drugs to stop human trafficking. they can't do it alone.

they need the support of the united states senate. well, during the debate last week over the spending bill, we had a chance to give them support. senator cruz introduced an amendment to prevent checks from going to illegal immigrants. democrats blocked it. senator cotton introduced an amendment to cut the bailout funding to sanctuary cities. well, these are cities that actively try to prevent federal agents, actively try to prevent federal agents from enforcing our immigration laws. democrats blocked the amendment. no wonder we somewhere a crisis at the border. democrats seem to be advertising to the entire world come here now. come here illegally. you can get a check possibly. if you're an immigration enforcement officer, democrats seem to block them from doing their own job. president biden has already issued at least seven, seven

executive actions, executive orders on immigration. just over a month in office, president biden has already proven to be the most open border president in the united states history. now we face an entirely predictable crisis at the border. that crisis rests squarely at president biden's feet. on his first day in office, president biden shut down construction of the southern border wall. by the time the day was over, president biden ■stopped al deportations for a munn days. -- for a hundred days. it didn't matter to president biden what you were going to be deported for. no. maybe you are a serious criminal. president biden says you can stay longer. a court has already stepped in and said this is illegal, this executive order. president biden has asto astonishingly brought back the idea of catch and release, catch and release.

he's ordered our immigration arguments to release illegal immigrants into the united states, and he's doing it in the middle of a pandemic. senator cotton and i sent a letter to the president raising this concern. it's now harder to go to church in some parts of america than it is to cross the border into america. under president trump, if you wanted to apply for asylum in this country, you had to remain in mexico. that was the policy. the policy of remain in mexico was based on the standards of international law. to get asylum, you have to show that you can't live safely in your home country because of persecution. understandable. yet the fact is that most illegal immigrants don't come here because of persecution. they come here for economic reasons. they want a better job. they want better schools for their kids. they are -- there are understandable motives. nonetheless, they're not standards for asylum.

now, another requirement for asylum is that you have to go to the nearest safe country and seek asylum. you don't get to pick anywhere you want to go in the world. you have to go to the nearest safe country. yet people around the world know that our asylum system here in the united states has become a sham. no secret. it's easy to game the system, and it's being gamed regularly in the biden administration. so they often stop in at least one other safe country. and they apply for asay lum here -- asylum here. president biden now says you don't have to wait in mexico. cross the border. we'll give you a court date years from now, years from now. and after they give you the court date, they release you into the united states. even those who know they don't qualify and will not qualify for asylum, they come anyway because they know they get released into the united states. mr. president, it happens all the time.

just before the new administration took over, the department of homeland security published a report about this. according to the department, our border agents apprehended 3.5 million illegal immigrants along the southern border between 2014 and 2019. only 8% of them, only 8%, one out of 12 ended up receiving legal protection from being deported. but the department says half of them are still here in the united states. how does that happen? didn't show up. president biden has already started an unprecedented expansion of a refugee program. the most refugees that this country has ever resettled in a single year was 85,000 in president obama's final year in office. president biden wants to break the record. he wants to increase it to

125,000. it will be the most by far. president biden has told his administration to bring back the deferred action for childhood arrivals, also known as daca. now this is a program for people who were brought here illegally while they were children. not the children's fault. yet daca is illegal, plain and simple. president obama has admitted it. liberal activists have asked him to do it at least ten different times president obama said no, i can't do it. it's illegal. then an election year came. he decided to do it anyway. mr. president, as you and i know, we are a nation of compassionate people. we're giving. we're generous. and we have the most generous immigration system in the world. the issue before us is one that should be handled by congress, not by executive order. not through an illegal executive order, and daca is still illegal. i expect a court will ultimately

strike it down. so this is some of what biden -- president biden has done by executive orderer. at the same time, he's trying to cram an even more radical agenda through congress. last month president biden's immigration bill was introduced in the senate. it already has the support of 26 cosponsors on the democrat side of the aisle. it includes the majority leader, senator schumer. well, this bill will give illegal immigrants not just amnesty. citizenship. citizenship. democrats in washington tried that in 2007, the year i arrived in the senate. the american people picked up the phone. they actually shut down the phone lines, shut down the switchboards here in the united states senate. they were all calling in to say no. democrats in washington tried it again in 2013. the american people picked up the phone again. the american people said no. and we said no in the senate. we said no in 2007, no in 2013.

the american people are going to say no again in 2021. now, president biden has issued, signed a lot of executive orders. many of them the ones i talked to people at home this past weekend in wyoming, very unpopular. the immigration order is the most unpopular of them all. president biden should keep in mind it was a very close election in november. we have a 50-50 senate. very narrow margins in the house. the american people for the first time are finding out just how liberal joe biden is. many of them are already having buyer's remorse. they didn't believe he would be this radical and his actions would be this scary. president biden needs to listen to the american people. the american people don't want a radical, extreme, dangerous, scary agenda. we want safe communities. we want laws obeyed. we want a secure border.

and it's time to stand up to this radical agenda. our immigration system is broken. instead of breaking it further, we should work together to fix it. let's protect our communities, protect our american workers, and secure our southern border. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask consent to end the quorum call. ifer officer without objection. mr. cotton: today the senate will vote on judge merrick garland's nomination to be attorney general of the united states. i will oppose this nomination. i was open-minded at first about judge garland's nomination. he has long had a reputation as a fair-minded judge. but since being nominated, my confidence in judge garland has been undermind. first by his evasive, haughty refusal to answer some of the most basic questions we would

expect from an attorney general, the kind of evasion that he would never allow in his own courtroom. so why should we allow thank you in the united states senate? and, second, when he did answer questions, he sounded more like a liberal ideologue who had embraced the radical agenda of the democrat party's far-left base. if confirmed, i'm afraid that he'll enable extremists in the department of justice to undermine our police, our constitution is and our rule of law. this weak-on-crime nominee will fan the flames of our nation's drug crisis, border crisis, and violent crime crisis, and he's made clear that on the greatest challenges facing the department, he'll cede the reins to the radical far manufacture left culture war whyers that president biden has nominated to be some of his top deputies. our nation simply cannot afford judge garland as our attorney general. in the last 12 months on record,

over 83,000 americans died from drug overdoses, more than any year in history. drug overdoses killed more americans in a single year than the vietnam war and the war on terror combined. yet judge garland plans to reduce prison sentences for drug dealers and gang members. he appears to believe that these merchants of misery engage in a victims trade but virtually every community in our nation bears the scars that prove otherwise. whether it's a disabled child, an addicted parent, suffering sibling, recovering neighbor or deceased friend, the victims of drug crime are everywhere we look. drug traffickers are hardly engaged in a nonviolent offense. their practice is intimidation. their product is poison. and their customer service is the barrel of a gun.

if judge garland is attorney general, these criminals will go free, their business will boom and the violence and death in our streets will continue. it's not just fentanyl and heroin driving this crisis anymore. in the wake of weakening our drug trafficking laws under ill-advised laws like the first step act, drug overdose deaths are linked to other drugs as well, like cocaine, which is sharply increasing. cocaine is now outpacing heroin as a leading cause of drug overdoses, and meth is outpacing both. judge garland will release these criminals back onto the streets in the middle of the worst drug epidemic in our nation's history. these pain profiteer's don't deserve leniency. many should frankly count themselves lucky that they aren't charged with murder.

while judge garland endorses president biden's call for racial equity -- not equality, but equity -- judge garland's agenda will hurt vulnerable minority communities most of all. drug overdose deaths disproportionately affect minority communities, as does violent crime. judge garland's confirmation, like the confirmation of some of his top deputies, would be a gift to the cartels, street gangs and drug trafficking networks that perpetuate violence and the destruction we see in our streets. and even those who want the government to go easier on drug dealers and drug traffickers should be concerned about judge garland's stated plan to dismantle mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers. in addition to deterrence, one important justification for creating mandatory sentence ranges was to reduce racial

disparities and how minority drug traffickers were sentenced. judge garland doesn't stop there. he also supports president biden's extreme open borders amnesty agenda. at judge garland's confirmation hearing, he was asked if entering the country illegally should be a crime. you would think that would be a very simple question. but judge garland responded that he hadn't thought about it, hadn't thought about it. it stretches the bounds of belief that a federal judge, who has been on beth for almost a quarter -- on the bench for almost a quarter century, hadn't thought about that question. or that any american with common sense who believes in our borders and believes in our sovereignty hadn't thought whether it should be a crime to cross our border illegally. but to give him the benefit of the doubt, i asked in a written question after the hearing, had nearly a week to think about it.

it seems like it is a pretty easy research question -- should illegally entering our country be a crime? and he said conveniently, even then, that he hadn't thought about it. judge garland also refused to say whether illegal alien gang members or illegal aliens who have assaulted u.s. citizens should be deport fundamental a judge orders it. judge garland's silence shows that he will, at best, meekly abide by the administration's irrational immigration agenda. he will help transform zero tolerance into total tolerance of crime and his inaction will only further advance the administration's recruit-and-release policies at our border, where we don't just allow illegal aliens into our country after catching them at the border, we go back and find them in mexico, invite them to return to the border, and then release them into the country. this will attract an

ever-growing surge of illegal migration and will result in more drugs and criminal aliens entering our condition, as we see with the biden border crisis growing worse every day. of course, the vast majority of meth, heroin, and cocaine and a large quantity of fentanyl is smuggled across the border each year. as our border security and personnel are overwhelmed by the summers, our security will falter and even more drugs into pour into our nation. hardeninged criminals will accompany the flood of drugs into the rio grande. thousands of confirmed and suspected gang members cross the southern border in our country and even more will exploit the open border policies that judge garland will have a hand in creating. this will fuel skyrocketing violence in our nation. last year we experienced the largest single increase in murder in american history, the largest single increase in

murders in our country's history preliminary data from the f.b.i. indicates that there was a 20% increase -- 20% increase -- in murder nationwide. in big cities it was even worse. murders rose in chicago by 50%, in new york city, by 45%, and in washington, d.c., by 40%. there were also, i would add, over 500 violent riots last year that injured over 2,000 law enforcement officers. our police need our support more than ever before, but they wouldn't get it from a garland department of justice. personnel is policy, and judge garland has allowed two left-wing radicals to be selected as his chief lieutenants in the department of justice, vanita gupta and kristen clarke, who both support disarming and defaming our police. they stand with the perpetrators of crime, not the victims of it.

there's little doubt that judge garland will empower these left-wing radicals embedded inside the department. in response to written questions from the judiciary committee, judge garland also responded with some variation of i don't know, i haven't studied the issue, i am not familiar, i haven't thought about it i am not aware of, or refused to comment altogether over 250 times. again, this is a sitting federal judge of almost a quarter century with a vast retinue of the country's best lawyers at his disposal for a week to answer questions, in over 250 times he couldn't answer the question. that was more than a third of the colleagues -- more than a third of the questions that i and my colleagues asked him. judge garland may have not thought about how to answer these questions or thought about how to run the justice department, but i best ms. gupta or ms. clarke have.

the garland justice department will make america less safe. but same judge garland would would, to weaken our second amendment. as his hearing he repeatedly refused to explain how he would deal with the second amendment. while he acknowledged accurately that it would be tough to overturn the supreme court's ruling in washington, d.c., v. heller, which affirmed americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, he said that he can't promise -- he can't promise -- that he won't try to overturn it. he also said he just doesn't know whether president biden has the authority to ban certain semiautomatic rife les, some of the most popular sporting firearms today. he doesn't know in president biden has the authority to ban them by executive order. he's also said he's just not familiar with whether the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives -- which would report to him if he was confirmed -- would have the

authority to indefinitely delay gun sales to americans who have not had any flags show up in their background checks. once again, judge garland demonstrated there through his n that he would bow to the radical left to the detriment of normal law-abiding american citizens. so i urge every senator who believes in the second amendment and the rule of law and who cares about stopping crime in our streets to reject judge merrick garland's nomination for attorney general. now is not the time for weakness, evasion, and obfuscation from our nation's foremost law enforcement officer. we need strength, resolve, and certainty. our nation needs and deserves a better nominee for attorney general. i will oppose his nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to oppose the nomination of marcia fudge as secretary of housing and urban development. the cabinet of secretaries is one of the most important constitutional functions we have here in the senate. i think most of my colleagues would agree that one of the important considerations is that cabinet officials can be relied upon to coordinate and work productively with congress as they implement the policies of the legislation that we pass. i'm concerned that representative fudge's past rhetoric makes clear that she lacks the temperament to collaborate with congress, particularly across the aisle with republican members, and it casts doubt -- her comments

cast doubt on whether she even wants to. congresswoman fudge has made multiple statements throughout the year attacking and disparaging the integrity of republicans with whom she hayes policy disagreements. policy disagreements are reasonable, they happen every day. they are expected especially in the legislative body. but consistently attacking the integrity and motives of people with whom you have disagreements, that's another thing altogether. in december of 2020, during a speech on the house floor, congresswoman fudge attacked efforts to fill justice ruth bader ginsburg's seat on the u.s. supreme court. in her speech, she said, among other insults, that senate republicans had, quote, no decency, no honor, no integrity. she went on to say, and i quote, that, referring to republican senators, that we are a disgrace to the nation. in june 2020, during a virtual

town hall, congresswoman fudge admitted believing the republicans did not care about minorities. she said that if republicans, quote, want to save face and let this country know that they care even a little bit about people of color -- which i don't believe they do -- but if they want to try, i want to listen, end quote. back in january of 2013, a pbs forum with tavis smiley, congresswoman fudge harshly questioned the motives and character of republicans again, this time republicans who supported cuts to the food stamp program. congresswoman fudge said, and i quote, if we continue to send people to congress who don't even understand what their job is, who don't understand that government's job is to take care of its people, then we're never going anywhere as a country, because we deal with nuts every single day. these people are evil and mean. they care nothing about anybody but themselves. and so if you think you're going to have something bipartisan, you need to think again. it's not happening, end quote.

overtly partisan attacks on integrity and motive simply have a toxic and detrimental impact on the working relationship that ought to be a constructive relationship between members of congress and members of the administration. the senate should really only confirm officers who are willing to cooperate with legislatures, especially now when we have rapid expansion of many government programs. we justified passed a $2 trillion bill that's probably going to pass the house and be signed by the president. and it's especially true for the administrator of h.u.d. in addition to her recent statements impugning the integrity and motives of republicans, congresswoman fudge has very little or no housing experience except for her service as a small-town mayor, congresswoman fudge never worked in a capacity where she would be familiar with any

of h.u.d.'s many programs. even traditionally liberal media outlets criticize congresswoman's fudge's nomination for h.u.d. secretary in that she lacks the experience in housing policy and did not show an interest in developing housing policy expertise as a member of congress, introducing or cosponsoring very few housing related bills and choosing instead to serve on unrelated committees. i acknowledge not all cabinet nominees are experts in the policy areas their agency covers. that's not unusual. but when they don't have that expertise, it's especially important that their temperament and their policy views and their willingness to listen to members of congress on both sides of the aisle, especially the other side of the aisle, is all the more important. congress woman fudge's views as reflected in her response to questions for the record are also a matter of concern. when she was asked whether

h.u.d. should better target its programs so that they're actually helping the low-income americans they're supposed to help, she responded by saying, quote, the challenge for h.u.d. programs isn't that they aren't targeted. it's that funding levels are inadequate to meet the needs, end quote. the fact is funding for h.u.d. spending has grown dramatically in recent years, and that's not even including the $15 billion for covid assistance that the senate appropriated and worked on. and it's not including the $56 billion for housing assistance passed in the december omnibus and the reconciliation bill. the congresswoman's answer ignores the fact that h.u.d. programs certainly can be better targeted to help those in need. for example, families with disqualifying high incomes nevertheless participate in a number of h.u.d.-assisted rental programs, and that makes housing unavailable for lower-income families for whom its meant.

f.h.a. insures mortgages for home buyers who could access credit through private capital, also thereby making less available for people who really need it. so i worry that congresswoman fudge's approach will simply be to ask congress forevermore money, without being willing to do the hard work of making the reforms that are necessary and working with republican senators to achieve those reforms. but those reforms are going to be necessary if we're going to ensure that h.u.d. programs are improved so that they actually better serve the low-income americans they're meant for. for these reasons, mr. president, i cannot support congresswoman fudge's nomination. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the candor of my colleague from pennsylvania and the work that we do jointly on the committee on banking,

housing, and urban affairs. i ask unanimous consent that if i go a bit over -- that my remarks continue into the next section on potentially the vote. have i said that right, mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a dedicated and talented public servant and a great ohioan, my congresswoman, my congresswoman for the last 12 years, marcia fudge, to be our next secretary of housing and urban development. i know the presiding officer served with her in the house of representatives and appreciate her. i can think of no one better to lead us out of this pandemic and create strong communities for the future than marcia fudge. when she came before banking and housing committee, congresswoman fudge's knowledge, her passion for service, her commitment to the people who make this country work were obvious to all of us. republicans and democrats alike. after a year when black americans endured so many painful reminders of the yawning gap between the promise of our

founding ideals and our failure to make that promise real for everyone, it's meaningful that our committee's first nomination hearing feature two african american women who will take leading roles in our economic recovery. marcia fudge and dr. cecilia rouse who has been confirmed already to be chair of the economic council at the white house. the senate confirmed dr. rouse with broad bipartisan support earlier this l month. this matters on so many levels. it's important for our future that little girls, including black and brown girls, see themselves in our leaders, from the vice president to marcia fudge, to cecilia rouse, to so many people in this cabinet. it matters because of including the new secretary of the interior, from the presiding officer's area of the country. it matters because of the prospectives and the live experiences of these two women, these two black women bring to these jobs. congresswoman fudge will lead an agency that supports families and communities, provides

housing and safety to people experiencing homelessness and helps communities rebuild. h.u.d. today is grappling with a housing market where millions of families find it harder and harder to afford a decent home. new data out this week confirms that home prices are soaring around the country, even while millions are out of work. imagine that. the cost of housing is up, but wages are flat. so many workers have trouble making rent every month with the kind of stress that brings and too often having to turn to predatory loans. the dream of homeownership is increasingly out of reach for too many families in new mexico, too many families in ohio. none of this started with covid-19. the affordable housing crisis is the product of decades of conscious policy decisions by wall street, by corporations and too often by government. this pandemic has exposed what millions of families in this country already knew, that for far too many people, a hard day's work doesn't pay the bills. because the u.s. -- before the

u.s. ever had its first case of covid-19, a quarter of all renters -- listen to this. a quarter of all renters in this country spent more than half their income on housing, on rent. one thing happened in their life, their car broke down, their child got sick, they had a workplace injury that caused them to miss work for a week, any of those things and their life turns upside down. h.u.d. should play an essential role in fixing that. we know that black homeownership rate is nearly as low as it was in 1968, when senator romney's father became secretary of h.u.d., and the work he tried to do in open housing in 1969, we've made little or no progress in black homeownership rate. i'm confident, soon to be secretary fudge will change that. she understands the importance of expanding opportunity to every zip code, allowing more families to have the peace of mind that brings. here's what i know about zip codes. in congresswoman fudge's

district, my wife live in 44105 in cleveland. that zip code in 2007, the first half of that year had more foreclosures than any state in the united states of america. i still see the residue, the remains, what has happened because of all those foreclosures. congresswoman fudge will work to help protect our kids from the lead poisoning that is still all too coming in zip code 44105, to restore the promise of fair housing, give communities the help and resources they need to drive. she brings to the job critical experience, as senator toomey said, seambg as a mayor in the industrial heartland for the kind of community either overlooked or preyed upon by wall street and big investors. even though senator toomey said congresswoman fudge doesn't have the experience in housing, i know up close -- i was the senator during her entire time in the house, i represented her in the senate. we lived in the same community, we worked on many of the same

projects. she was helpful on a number of housing issues that i worked on in the banking, housing, and urban affairs committee. she understands our communities. she'll lift up the voices of all the people who have been left out of her housing policy, people who work hard to try to keep a roof over their families' heads, whose hard work never seems to pay off like it should. people who are just trying to make rent or pay the mortgage every month, that just don't feel like they can keep up, their wages are flat, their costs go up, the pressures build on them. congresswoman fudge has the expertise and the tenacity to fight back. that's why i ask my colleagues to confirm her for secretary of housing and urban development. mr. president, i ask that the, those remarks be placed in a different place in the record from my ensuing brief remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. government, in so many ways we know here that government is really about whose side are you on.

whom do you fight for? what do you fight against? and i will -- we know we passede and he came to the senate the same day i did. we served in the house together. we both recognize what a big deal it was to pass that bill last saturday. it's the biggest thing i've ever done in my career, and i've heard other senators say the same thing. we put shots in people's arms and money in people's pockets and kids back in school and workers and jobs. but i think it's also important just for a moment -- i'll be brief -- this is a chart of the difference, the biggest issue that senate republicans, president trump worked on in this congress was the g.o.p. tax bill, the tax bill in 2017. senator cardin and i are on the same committee that fought against some of the overreach from wall street greed in that bill. in the purple, the blue is what our bill does. just glance at this for a moment. the 20% lowest earners, we are

increasing their after-tax revenue by 20%. essentially a 20% raise making $20,000 for $30,000 a year. there was no help in the trump tax bill nor that. then you work up the second-lowest 20%, people that are modest working-class families, not quite middle class. they got a -- they get a big bump from our bill in their income. under the trump plan, they got pennies. then he work your way up here. the top one percent, essentially the top one percent, all the motion to proceed, all the money went to them. overwhelming. so i just think it's important to understand when you think about what we do with taxes, when you think about what this congress did on saturday when we put shots in people's arms and money in people's pockets and kids back in school, one of the most important things we did was to give working-class kids in denver and santa santa fe and

mansfield and cleveland, what we were able to do to give working-class people a, poor kids a shot at the american dream. this is the thing -- senator tester and i came to the senate on the same day. this is the biggest things we've done. something we need to carry out and make sure that it matters in our constituents' lives. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all post postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: all right. we have 66 yeas, 34 nays, the nomination is confirmed. a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: could we have order. please be quiet in the senate. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president.

i ask that i be permitted to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: with respect to the fudge nomination, motion to reconsider be considered made and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, i have nine requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in strong support of a nomination of judge america garland to be -- merrick garland to be united states attorney general and to face some of the greatest chal engs. -- challenges. the justice department is charged with protecting the civil rights of all americans. the past four years, to put it mildly, broke a long-standing

precedent that allowed the department of justice to operate above the political fray. the trump administration took away health care coverage for interns of millions of americans. the trump justice department oversaw cruel immigration policies that separated young children from their parents at our southern border and locked these children in cages. the trump justice department remained painfully silent as our nation cried out for racial justice in the wake of the murder george floyd, an unarmed black man. after the firing of attorney general sessions, the attorney general of the united states became the attorney general for donald trump. when our nation's top law enforcement official becomes little more than a political fixer for the president, it erodes the principle of equal justice under law and calls into question the mission of the department. in the waning days of the trump

administration, with nearly half a million americans dead from coronavirus, extremists stormed our capitol, including this very chamber and disrupted our peaceful transfer of power. tragically five people died during the insurrection including a capitol police officer. our nation must now bring the perpetrators to justice and address the root -- and root causes in our society that enabled white supremacists and other extremists to fuel hate and violence. mr. president, the next attorney general cannot shy away from these historic challenges. the next attorney general must meet these challenges head on to restore integrity and -- to the justice department and to work every day, every day to restore the trust of the american people. president biden has nominated judge garland, who is not just

one of the finest public servants i have ever met, but one of the finest people i have ever met to be attorney general of the united states. his name should be familiar to many of our colleagues because president obama nominated him to serve on the supreme court in 2016. at the time, he was the most qualified individual ever nominated to be on our nation's highest court and i still believe that to this day. judge garland graduated at the top of his class at both harvard undergrad and harvard law school. he clerked for justice brennan on the supreme court and he worked at the department of justice where he prosecuted the perpetrators of the oklahoma city bombing. judge garland called this and i quote him, the most important thing i've ever done in my life. close quote. in 1997, republicans and democrats joined together to confirm judge garland to the d.c. circuit court of appeals which is often called the

second-highest court in this land. judge garland has served honorably and dutifully for the past 24 years on the -- years on the d.c. circuit including several years as the chief judge. he has gained the respect of all of his colleagues left, right, and center and someone who knows the law and never allows politics into the courtroom. judge garland builds consensus and find principled compromises. judge garland will bring a wealth of legal law enforcement and judicial experience to the department of justice to make him uniquely qualified to lead the department at this critical moment. judge garland will be an attorney general for all americans -- all americans. he will not shy away from the challenges facing the justice department. he will meet them head on. at the top of judge garland's to-do list is bringing the perpetrators of the january 6

insurrection to justice. judge garland will make sure that the department stays out of the political fray and remains independent from the white house. and judge garland will answer the calls for racial justice and refocus the department on one of its core missions, to protect the civil rights an voting rights of all americans. mr. president, while i will never truly forget the shameful treatment of judge garland during his previous nomination to serve on the supreme court and in my heart you'll always believe he should be serving on the supreme court today, i'm grateful that judge garland has answered the call to serve. i'm also grateful to his wife of many years. i'm grateful to his family for supporting him and allowing him to serve us as he has. he's more than just a judge or an attorney or a servant, he's a mentor. he's somebody who every week for

years, 20 years, has made time -- found time in his life to mentor a kid who needs somebody in his life or her life. someone who mentored many more years myself, i just want to say god bless you. god bless you judge garland, my hope today is he will get a resounding vote out of this body. he has earned it. he deserves it. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, merrick brian garland of maryland to be attorney general. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2. stands in recess until 2. >> and so the senate taking a break to allow lawmakers to attend the weekly party caucus

lunches this as senators just voted to confirm marcia fudge to be hud secretary. the vote was 66-34. when they return the senate is expected to vote to confirm merrick garland to be u.s. attorney general, also to limit debate on the nomination of michael regan for epa administrator. in the house members debating the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill which the senate just approved last week. vote on final passage is expected later today. as a senate breaks or lunch we will take you now to the white house for today's briefing with press secretary jen psaki, expected to start shortly. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> "wall street journal" providing a chart taking a look at some of the spending that santa's $1.9 trillion package, $123 billion dedicated directly to covid-19 related policy which includes or a 7 billion disaster relief funds and funeral expenses, 50 billion for testing contract tracing her using the defense production act of buy and distribute medical supplies, 10 billion and vaccine

distribution and covenants as supply chains with 16 billion. if you go over taking a look at the state and local money that would be distributed from the bill would provide 195 billion the state government, provide money for local governments, territories and tribes, 155 billion. 10 billion for infrastructure and create paid covertly for federal workers and other policies that price tag $400 million to give you go above, look at the paper version of this chart at highlight some of the understanding as well. $246 billion for extended unemployment programs come 143 billion for expanding tax credits and the billion for expanding tax credit and the stimulus check, working hundred dollars direct payment, that at 410 billion. individuals earning less than 75,000 75,000 per year and couples earning less than 150,000 per year are eligible for the full

1400 1400 payment for individuals and 2800 for couples the check for the phase of individuals earning more than 80,000 80,000 d couples earning more than 160,000 per year. that's a chain from the original house-passed bill which had the full phaseout for individuals and couples starting at 100,000, 200,000 an annual income respectively. remember that can change when it went over to the senate to be amended and then going back to the house again that vote today expected to start at 9:00 and you can see what will happen. it's expected to pass but if you want to watch will happen at 9:00 do so by staying on this channel. if it would watch it online you can do that at c-span.org and if you want to listen along if you're out and about today and you want to download our free c-span radio app you can do that. chelsea facebook when it comes to this package and the spending saying did on president biden's desktop lets get going. kevin from facebook say how much goes to the needy?

90% or 13%? the? the remainder is port. eric also on facebook calling you to quantify risk a bill is absolutely misleading him five physical and that's in all caps by the way adding that competent leadership is vitally important. those are some of the facebook postings on this. you can add your thoughts to this as well. sugarland texas starts us off, sam who opposes the bill. sam, good morning. tell us why. >> caller: good morning. my main reason for opposing this is -- the rest of me for bail out has to be done on a bipartisan basis but that's not the issue. getting the money spent correctly in the right avenues and making sure it is going to the end receiver. but this way it's a very partisan vote and this will be

wasted and we will be pushed back freshman get this money back by way of tax. >> host: from norman in monroe township new jersey, supports this every bit good morning. >> caller: good morning. i definitely support it. the only question is, is it going to the right people? i will get it. i have my income is approximately 16,000 and year, but i had, my net worth is in the high six figures. i don't think it's going to the right people. what also i object to is how partisan it is. the republicans are against it 100%, although they supported the tax deduction for the

wealthy, but for people that need it, and this argument that it's not going to the covid relief, that's nonsense. it's going for people that need it. >> host: back to who should directly get it, and who are the right people should get it if people like yourself you are saying you shouldn't get it, who are the right people should get it and what should determine that? >> caller: it should be determined by people that can't afford to pay the rinse, people that can't afford to pay their electric bill. people that are desperate that have children. we have no children. we are in our '90s. we have no children. we, below the amount that we are eligible for but that shouldn't be a factor. somehow they should determine the people that are desperate

for the money i'm okay. that's norman in new jersey. we'll hear from franklin west virginia of you are who opposes this effort, david, go ahead you are on track to oppose this bill because i know this is just a bunch, it's going to be port. >> host: what makes you determined that it's going to be mostly pork, in your estimation? >> caller: i just happen to get up this morning and turned on tv and was on newsmax and had a professor on there and he said that what's going to happen is with this bill there's so much money in there that's going to be, the government is going to be competing against the small businesses for workers because they are giving out so much free money in this care bill that they are going -- this here bill and that they're going, these people get this free money so they will not go back to work. >> host: that david and franklin west virginia. james up next and by the way.

if you would let start off early and turn down your television to make sure there's no feedback when you get a chance to talk with us. james in washington state a supporter of this effort go ahead try to this, pedro. this is a bipartisan bill. republicans will get their stimulus checks. it will get that welfare checks. they will get the unemployment checks. they would get benefits in the statement for the democrats put in there in this bill was a stipulation that you did not get to tell your governor -- they don't want the money, , they shouldn't have to get it, pedro, it's that simple. >> host: is not bipartisan in the sense of support in congress, so just to clarify. >> caller: congress has nothing to do with bipartisan. it's bipartisan plan to actually get to and receives it and benefits from it. that's republicans, democrats, independents competitively gets it. the democrats don't want to, the republicans the while, they should put a stipulation for the governors in their state would

have to opt in an order to get this money, if they didn't want me. they say it's wasteful. that way you can talk about and they receive it. that's what i'm saying, pedro. >> host: that james in washington state. you were before asked about the contents of the bill, to directly going to call the related matters. kind of a surrogate for a look at that question and while the answers provided by wma see in a post called verify, while a small part of the bill is look for things like cover testing, vaccines and distributions, a large portion of the bill goes to stimulus programs addressing the economic impact of the pandemic. the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget which has been highly critical of the bill estimates more than 50% of the package quote is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis which would mean about 85% of bills funding towards project related to covid

relate, far cry from the 9% that is made in some claims. you find it online if you wish. one of the people talking about the partisan nature of the vote leading up to today and you can follow along starting at 9:00 at c-span, you can follow along with the vote, was the health budget chair john yarmuth talking about the deal at the end product and then some of the politics behind it. >> we have come together as a party in the congress to do something monumental, something that also clearly reflects our values as a party. a commitment to using government to improve the lives of as many people as possible. i just got out of the rules committee testified before rules and it was almost comical to listen to the republicans try d to come up with the appropriate attack on this legislation. they are having a hard time

doing it because i didn't they voted for most of this a number of times but what of the attacks was, bernie sanders just said this was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation ever passed. they are trying to tie bernie sanders to it. of course it is, and the reason it is progressive is because there isn't a dollar in this bill that goes to the richest americans, not a dollar. 70% of it goes to low and moderate income americans to help them deal with the economic tragedy of this pandemic. >> host: the "washington post" takes a look at some of the agencies that will be responsible for distributing this covid relate and highlighting the irs think some of the most ambitious new programs hinge on the iris and agency tasked under the stimulus with vast responsibilities to disburse payments to millions and processing to thicken changes to code. the irs must craft rules for new

advance payments by the expanded child tax credits, standup assistant to pay them out and perhaps on a monthly basis, and process other change under the rescue plan including a fresh help to unemployed americans. the sheer volume of work that must be done all while managing tax filing this spring has laid even some staunch supporters of the stimulus to raise early red flags about its implementation in close gerald connolly, democrat from her the geniui think the struggle is inevitable he said, and he chairs the key house committee. if you want read more is in the "washington post." to your thoughts on the covid bill which is expected to be released today or passed today, $1.9 trillion price tag. san diego, california, who opposes it. hello. you are on, go ahead. >> caller: yes.

listen, i'm okay with the idea of giving families some money, right? the problem becomes when you have a bunch of people like -- [inaudible] >> host: you are breaking up. can you get closer to your phone, please. >> caller: the problem becomes when you're talking about wealthy people, people who don't exactly the money getting the money. [inaudible] why do we need that now? why can't we just get money to people desperately needed and gradually reopened? they can physically distance. the healthy should be able to work. >> host: okay. you are breaking up a little bit. thank you for the call.

the caller did mention about people's habits when it comes to covid these days. it cites in "usa today" a recent poll taken by axios and it succinctly certain% of americans say they are self quarantine these days adding more americans report going to visit friends and visiting nonkosher retail store in the past week. 44% to 70 to 70 visiting friends or relatives in the past week was up 7% from a month ago. ..

the only reason the majority of people are poor because they want the money. the other is about to bowl and as far as with biden, he's only doing the democrat is . he's nothing but a public class so vision is only because of the total price tag is the money on covid, what is ? see for its money given her, okay i can understand that the stuff in between stuff, for the states for this for that got nothing to do with >> host: the station willmake the case and impacted by the states, watching the system of ? >> caller: approved, not before that. they're probably going to get money before the covid and that's not right.

>> host: go ahead joe, finish with. >> host: >> caller: last year when it started to this year, okay but not before that but that's what they're asking for also. >> host: the new york times and the national section highlighted to story taking a look at new york city and what they expect, some of that money that's expected to be passed, really is $65 billion by the mayor bill palacios a plan to spend 65 million of the money the city expects to receive from the federal stimulus package to help restructure the loans drivers obtained to buy medallions, city permits to so the plan is not the whole bailout taxi drivers wanted, with large low monthly payments but a successful program could eliminate hundreds of millions of. dollars by drivers so victim to abusive lending practices

and were devastated by the emergence of the ride handling companies such as uber, a big dick and passengers during the outbreak. you find that in the new york times. richard, a supporter of the president, hello. >> caller: in reference to four, first donald trump was in the white house, he was paying whatever to them. and he didn't care about the middle class were below so that is what, what are we supposed to do.>> host: why do you supportthis legislation then and this money that's going to be spent . >> caller: i support it because it's a boost to the economy . >> host: grace in richmond virginia giving us our thoughts. another aspect of the bill, saying that this latest

release bill would not only result in $1400 stimulus checks for individuals, it will provide additional aid to families if past. also known as the american rescue plan and the hill is set to increase the child tax credit up to 3600 per child from the federal government. according to a report from the center on budget and policy priorities this would increase some cut the number of children in poverty by more than 40 percent. the rescue plan would allow family joint income of less than 150,000 for single income of less than 75,000 to receive up to 3500 per child under the age of six and up to 3000 for a child over the age of six. children ages 17 and under fall under the eligible age bracket to receive this credit. if signed into law families will receive monthly payments starting after july 1 and that would last until the end of the year.

that's just part of the many aspects of this $1.9 trillion package that will be voted on today and house of representatives, the house expect to come in at 9:00, take that vote yesterday which you can still find on c-span but if you want to follow the process follow us on this channel 9:00, c-span.org before yougo online and download the radio app . one of those people commenting yesterday about the package was the republican chair liz cheney. she spoke to reporters tuesday saying that the release bill will be a financial burden for those folks are already struggling. >> it's a real tragedy when you look at that package. we know that the result of that package is going to be middle class tax increases. we know for sure that it includes provisions that are not targeted. they're not temporary, not related to covid and it didn't have to be this way. we could have had a bill that was a fraction of the cost of this one that could have gotten bipartisan approval

and support but the speaker decided to go in another direction. so we are going to be saddled with a burden, spending burden and tax burden that is really indefensible from the perspective of what it actually accomplishes. >> host: wall street journal says when it comes to small businesses as part of the overall package $59 billion aside for them including grants to restaurants and bars that lost revenue due to the pandemic, the 5 billionof that . kevin is up next in columbia missouri. >> hello. joining us today is ambassador roberta jacobson, coordinator for the southern border. ambassador jacobson was the us ambassador to mexico from 2016 to 2018 and previously served as us assistant secretary of state for the western hemisphere and i had the pleasure of working with her at that time and i spoke